What's new

Audiobro Modern Scoring Brass (MSB)

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
apologies, that one still has a faint amount of ensemble blended in - forgot to mute before I exported.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/dynamics2-mp3.19541/][/AUDIOPLUS]

and like I said, you can hear the significant difference between the warmth and bottom end, and how much thinner even(basically mf?) that the BB horn goes to.

if you have lip blistering ff, the pattern doesn't stop - and it gets thinner and thinner and thinner.
 

Attachments

HelixK

Active Member
With this format, there are real recordings to compare these pieces to which can highlight glaring failures in the libraries or shining victories
That's subjective to the skills and knowledge of the user. When Cinematic Studio Brass was released there were countless variations of the same Williams' motifs posted by a multitude of bedroom composers and most of them were very bad (no offense, just being real here). If I were to judge the quality of the library based on those examples, I would have never bought CSB. Therefore a bad mockup by someone who does not know what he/she's doing will only highlight his/her own limitations, not the library's. And there is nothing wrong with that, you should hear my stuff! My only gripe with your format -- there are real recordings to compare these pieces to which can highlight glaring failures in the libraries or shining victories -- is that you are excluding yourself from the equation.

I appreciate what you are trying to do and I hope you succeed, as I will certainly be interested in hearing any user demos but keep in mind that you may be doing a disservice to AudioBro when you say things like that and put the blame solely on MSB. Unless you are Andy Blaney in disguise, then if the mockups suck, it's 100% a glaring failure in the library :rofl:
 

Dave Connor

Senior Member
I believe since this is similar to genesis, they remedy this with the humanization options in the ensemble menu. for genesis it was able to separate the various male and female vocals by ms divisions or randomization.
I think I understand (don’t know Genesis) but randomization isn’t anything like the deliberate finesse often necessary on individual parts (what happens real world.) It may alleviate things a bit but not a satisfactory solution by any means.
 

Dave Connor

Senior Member
I know I personally don't plan on using the auto divisi for anything except writing - and will use separate tracks per regardless. Considering these instruments were all recorded centered, I'll much prefer using my own spatialization in the end, as well as control my own dynamics per instrument(even if this involves just re-recording cc's instead of the whole passage).
I agree that’s the best use of auto divisi: Writing then mocking up later. I didn’t know MSB is a center recorded library. What will you use for spatialization? I’ve always used Waves S1 but wondering if there’s something better these days.
 

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
I agree that’s the best use of auto divisi: Writing then mocking up later. I didn’t know MSB is a center recorded library. What will you use for spatialization? I’ve always used Waves S1 but wondering if there’s something better these days.

s1 is pretty good. Dialing in haas + left right levels can get pretty far. Could also use a really tiny amount of MIR - but that entirely depends on how well mir likes the source. Also putting a tilt eq on the channel if it needs it.
 

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
I haven't used sample modeling in a verrryyyy long time - but just winging it(and no real game plan either) I recorded each step using the same trumpet 1.

1.) delayed left channel by 6 milliseconds. Just used my ear until I "heard it" between 2-3 o'clock.
2.) I lowered the left channel by 1.7 decibels - again, just trying to feel it at 2-3 o'clock, but push it back a foot or two.
3.) I used an instance of pro-Q3 to add a slight tilt filter "brightening" the right channel, and a much wider tilt on the left channel, darkening, and "fattening" it. This was to add some warmth/distance on the left side while adding extra brightness/presence on the right side.
4.) Seventh heaven. Went into interiors and picked the first one that seemed workable(happened to be adjacent floor) and dialed in a quicker decay of .3 seconds and set a predelay of 10ms - then used a plugin wetness of only 26% to make this simply feel like it's a "spot mic" rather than a contact mic.
5.) I added mir pro trumpet ensemble with a wetness of 22%(plugin wetness again) I also added a pro-Q 3 after, simply rounding off the top, going far beyond what I normally would cut and then dialing back the plugin wetness to 18% - which basically creates the feel of a spot mic blended with a tree, rather than the mistake of pushing the entire thing back into an orchestral hall. I also put a reasonably wide band around 700hz on the right channel only - and boosted it a few DB(this is only at 18% wetness mind you)

so after this last step of essentially parallel reverb + parallel EQ - I went back into the original instrument and dialed the virtual stage into the current chain, by adding slightly more ER and a little distance within the trumpet instrument.

so there are 5 stages and 1 improvisation with "final settings". I know plenty here know these little bits and tricks, but I figured for those who aren't familiar with them - each step was left in for you to hear what each tweak does.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/spatializing-mp3.19543/][/AUDIOPLUS]

[AUDIOPLUS=https://www.vi-control.net/community/attachments/spatializing-mp3.19543/][/AUDIOPLUS]
 

Attachments

Dave Connor

Senior Member
Wow, very interesting. I’ll check out your results. I can’t imagine doing an extstensive process after dealing with that for so many years with VSL: S1; ER and Tail (along with eq to solve close miking issues) but I am curious what you did for SM. Obviously the in situ popularity is precisely to do away with all that. I wonder if people will balk at MSB for that reason but it seems to me that Brass placement should not be too torturous a process.
 

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
Wow, very interesting. I’ll check out your results. I can’t imagine doing an extstensive process after dealing with that for so many years with VSL: S1; ER and Tail (along with eq to solve close miking issues) but I am curious what you did for SM. Obviously the in situ popularity is precisely to do away with all that. I wonder if people will balk at MSB for that reason but it seems to me that Brass placement should not be too torturous a process.
It usually doesn't take a whole lot - most of those steps are tiny, and in reality - it's mainly just to show how many ways you can change the stereo image without having to drown something in reverb.

Could be boring and use v.s.s. or panagement as well. Honestly I downloaded the reaper demo again to poke around on it - so I was mostly just playing with the built in little plugins with no gui that come with it. Totally different topic, but I wish we lived in a world were other daws could risk having a downloadable demo that didn't make you jump through hoops. Unfortunately people don't always do the right thing(and sometimes all you can do is make it harder for them to do the wrong thing)
 

muk

Senior Member
The concept and functionality are simply amazing. For the way I work having recorded every player individually is a huge advantage over just a soloist and a2 samples. With the latter you are in all sorts of trouble if you want to score a choral with four independent horn parts, for example. For me Modern Scoring Brass has the concept got right.
Unfortunately I am not too happy with the sound personally.

For example, compare these shorts articulation sounds:



The Modern Scoring Brass example does not sound good to my ears. It simply doesn't. True, you could use eq and reverb to mask it (and for that example you would definitely add some reverb in a real usage situation. It's actually great that Andrew didn't to show the sound of the library). But if you don't happen to like the source sound (which is the case for me here), there is only so much you can do. You can't transform it into something else entirely. It's interesting how different these two sound, given that both used a scoring studio as recording location. Cinematic Studio Brass sounds much more refined and full here out of the box.

Another thing I didn't like too much from the walkthrough video: in my opinion the timbre changes very little throughout the dynamic layers. The crossfade is very good, there is no phasing I could hear. But the tone of the instruments changes too little for my taste. Brass instruments are capable of a great variety of timbres. And I didn't hear that captured in the walkthrough. For example here:


cc1 moves through the entire dynamic range of the horns. I actually do like the sound of the horns here. But the timbre sounds quite unfiorm to me until it reaches fortissimo. Also from the video it seems that the library has only three dynamic layers (p, mf, ff), which is not much for brass, especially since the top layer has the distinct brassy timbre.

While I do like the concept very much, I am not digging the sound from what I have heard so far. Let's see if that changes when a more in-depth look at the various articulations of each instrument is available.
 

Mihkel Zilmer

Senior Member
I wish there was more demo material available already! Really need to hear those close mics to better understand how flexible the sound will be. And the sound really is the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger - everything else about this offering is deeply impressive.

I think that the sonically less pleasing parts of what I am hearing now are probably a result of centered recordings and spatialisation IRs - for the record, that is also what my earlier comment was referring to - I think the basic sound of the instruments is pretty nice, but the "room" has a metallic ring or sheen to it that I find a bit unpleasant.

But then again - maybe it's just me and my personal preferences. I really don't like the sound of most spatial placement plugins. VSS, MIR, Precedence - they just don't sound good to my ears.. In a few cases SPAT has sounded pretty good - but less so at other times.. But many other people seem to enjoy the sound they get from these plugins.

Hopefully upcoming demos & videos will change my mind about the sound - loving the instrumentation choices here and would very much like to have this library as one of my go-to's for brass.

(Listening on HEDD Type 20 in an acoustically treated studio)
 

AlexanderSchiborr

Senior Member
The concept and functionality are simply amazing. For the way I work having recorded every player individually is a huge advantage over just a soloist and a2 samples. With the latter you are in all sorts of trouble if you want to score a choral with four independent horn parts, for example. For me Modern Scoring Brass has the concept got right.
Unfortunately I am not too happy with the sound personally.

For example, compare these shorts articulation sounds:



The Modern Scoring Brass example does not sound good to my ears. It simply doesn't. True, you could use eq and reverb to mask it (and for that example you would definitely add some reverb in a real usage situation. It's actually great that Andrew didn't to show the sound of the library). But if you don't happen to like the source sound (which is the case for me here), there is only so much you can do. You can't transform it into something else entirely. It's interesting how different these two sound, given that both used a scoring studio as recording location. Cinematic Studio Brass sounds much more refined and full here out of the box.

Another thing I didn't like too much from the walkthrough video: in my opinion the timbre changes very little throughout the dynamic layers. The crossfade is very good, there is no phasing I could hear. But the tone of the instruments changes too little for my taste. Brass instruments are capable of a great variety of timbres. And I didn't hear that captured in the walkthrough. For example here:


cc1 moves through the entire dynamic range of the horns. I actually do like the sound of the horns here. But the timbre sounds quite unfiorm to me until it reaches fortissimo. Also from the video it seems that the library has only three dynamic layers (p, mf, ff), which is not much for brass, especially since the top layer has the distinct brassy timbre.

While I do like the concept very much, I am not digging the sound from what I have heard so far. Let's see if that changes when a more in-depth look at the various articulations of each instrument is available.
Yes, the short articulations on the trumpets quite doesn´t have that crispy punch which I find in CSB a way better solved and that is imo impossible to manage with post processing in the way that it does sound like in CSB because imo it is simply a matter of the performance of the players. Its that bite and attack which is missing and which is imo important when it comes to short fanfarish forte repetition figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muk

jamwerks

Senior Member
The shorts on the above example of MSB just seem a bit too long for that tempo. Maybe there will be some Time Machine patches for mini tweaks?

Too bad imo that these are center recorded. For 99% of mixes people will use standard seating (also the case for WW's). Strings on the other hand have of course several different seating options that center-recorded isn't bad.

And this low price point (Junkie will probably have to follow suit) should allow most to purchase both!
 

Eptesicus

Senior Member
The concept and functionality are simply amazing. For the way I work having recorded every player individually is a huge advantage over just a soloist and a2 samples. With the latter you are in all sorts of trouble if you want to score a choral with four independent horn parts, for example. For me Modern Scoring Brass has the concept got right.
Unfortunately I am not too happy with the sound personally.

For example, compare these shorts articulation sounds:



The Modern Scoring Brass example does not sound good to my ears. It simply doesn't. True, you could use eq and reverb to mask it (and for that example you would definitely add some reverb in a real usage situation. It's actually great that Andrew didn't to show the sound of the library). But if you don't happen to like the source sound (which is the case for me here), there is only so much you can do. You can't transform it into something else entirely. It's interesting how different these two sound, given that both used a scoring studio as recording location. Cinematic Studio Brass sounds much more refined and full here out of the box.

Another thing I didn't like too much from the walkthrough video: in my opinion the timbre changes very little throughout the dynamic layers. The crossfade is very good, there is no phasing I could hear. But the tone of the instruments changes too little for my taste. Brass instruments are capable of a great variety of timbres. And I didn't hear that captured in the walkthrough. For example here:


cc1 moves through the entire dynamic range of the horns. I actually do like the sound of the horns here. But the timbre sounds quite unfiorm to me until it reaches fortissimo. Also from the video it seems that the library has only three dynamic layers (p, mf, ff), which is not much for brass, especially since the top layer has the distinct brassy timbre.

While I do like the concept very much, I am not digging the sound from what I have heard so far. Let's see if that changes when a more in-depth look at the various articulations of each instrument is available.
On the flip side, from those two videos you posted, the horn shorts sound much better and tighter than the CSB ones.
 

ProfoundSilence

Senior Member
I wish there was more demo material available already! Really need to hear those close mics to better understand how flexible the sound will be. And the sound really is the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger - everything else about this offering is deeply impressive.

I think that the sonically less pleasing parts of what I am hearing now are probably a result of centered recordings and spatialisation IRs - for the record, that is also what my earlier comment was referring to - I think the basic sound of the instruments is pretty nice, but the "room" has a metallic ring or sheen to it that I find a bit unpleasant.

But then again - maybe it's just me and my personal preferences. I really don't like the sound of most spatial placement plugins. VSS, MIR, Precedence - they just don't sound good to my ears.. In a few cases SPAT has sounded pretty good - but less so at other times.. But many other people seem to enjoy the sound they get from these plugins.

Hopefully upcoming demos & videos will change my mind about the sound - loving the instrumentation choices here and would very much like to have this library as one of my go-to's for brass.

(Listening on HEDD Type 20 in an acoustically treated studio)
Honestly, I think better than stock-spatialization will make a huge difference, as well having each line tweaked. And considering these are real recordings - spatialization WITHOUT the need of artificial reverb is something we've not really had to play with much.
 

AlexanderSchiborr

Senior Member
The shorts on the above example of MSB just seem a bit too long for that tempo. Maybe there will be some Time Machine patches for mini tweaks?

Too bad imo that these are center recorded. For 99% of mixes people will use standard seating (also the case for WW's). Strings on the other hand have of course several different seating options that center-recorded isn't bad.

And this low price point (Junkie will probably have to follow suit) should allow most to purchase both!
Yes, they are too soft and too long too. Shortening the samples could help a bit But I don´t think they will still get that attack which is needed for that. But that was always pretty tricky and difficult for sampling devs to get that things spot on. Sometimes I think they should just record that kind of articulations and built an algorithm which lets you do then your own things and have control over the note lengths (best would be not like 2-3 note lengths but more like a slider which lets dial in all kinds of shorts in between). Imo SM trumpets can handle those things quite ok..though then you have a lot to do with getting the tone quite right because they are recorded so dry(https://www.dropbox.com/s/thugd7xf4ew61ag/SM_REPS_FANFARE.mp3?dl=0)
 

Saxer

Senior Member
Sometimes I think they should just record that kind of articulations and built an algorithm which lets you do then your own things and have control over the note lengths (best would be not like 2-3 note lengths but more like a slider which lets dial in all kinds of shorts in between).
That's exactly what 8dio Century Brass does. There's a dial for the length of one shots. They are not stretched but select from a bunch of different recorded samples.
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
I think it’s the curse of perfection. Everything sounds so perfect and inoffensive that it ends up being the best sounding synth brass ever..but doesn’t always succeed at sounding like a real brass performance. I’m sure it has its perfect fit for some projects but at the time being versatility doesn’t sound like it’s strong point. Early feedback only though
 
Top Bottom