[FIXED!] How do you play Opus woodwinds? (Volume controls?)

[Soundbed]

I have been exploring the Opus woodwinds.

The mod wheel controls vibrato on / off.
Expression moves through dynamic layers.

Ok.

But.

The dynamic layer crossfades are super abrupt, almost unusable.

The expression control has very little volume adjustments within each dynamic layer.

Here is only moving the expression control:

(It's like... niente into piano, mf, forte. But the transitions are much quicker and more abrupt than I'd expect.)

View attachment Oboe Opus.mp3

Click to read more...

 

[Soundbed]

Answering my own question:

I guess the only logical answer is you need a separate Opus for every "instrument" you want to control. Makes sense, but I was thinking I could put several instruments into one Opus and control them individually.

Put one in each Opus and use Volume CC7 to control its volume.

 

[Soundbed]

Well, now I'm talking to myself but this simply doesn't make much sense to me.

If I'm playing with volume CC7 to control volume (whereas many other sampled instruments e.g., Spitfire use Expression CC11) and expression is choosing dynamic layers, why in Opus is expression ALSO changing volume so radically between dynamic layers, but not within the dynamic layers very much? (The Hollywood manual suggests using CC7 Volume, by the way.)

In other to make it sound even and natural, if I want to change dynamic layers mid-phrase, I need to suddenly compensate for the volume change with CC7 (volume) at the exact time the dynamic layer transitions from the CC11 (expression) change.

How is this playable?

 

[Lazer42]

A few thoughts.

First, it is possible to have a bunch of different instruments loaded into a single instance of OPUS and control them all independently. By default, OPUS loads each instrument as "omni," meaning it will receive data from all MIDI channels, but you can change this to a single channel. When I do so, CC 7 (and all other CCs) affect only those instruments on the channels I am sending to. For instance, if I had the setup like you pictured above with 10 different patches loaded, as long as each patch was set to receive on one channel only, CC 7 would affect each individually.

Second, you're right that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of volume change within each dynamic layer. - or at least there isn't enough. Here is a quick recording I did of the Flute Sus MAX patch while moving CC 11 from 0 to 127 as evenly as I could:
It doesn't appear to be quite as minimal as it sounds, but there are clearly three distinct ranges here.

Third, I think the problem here is much more a matter of the woodwinds patches not being great with dynamics than there being a problem with how CC 7 and CC 11 can be used together. As you know, in the world of VSTs CC 7 is not normally supposed to be used for controlling dynamics within a patch so much as for overall balancing, but you're trying to do a workaround here. FWIW, Hollywood Woodwinds had long been considered the weak link in the Hollywood Orchestra chain. There were apparently production problems which resulted in less than optimal scripting. People had hoped that with OPUS they may have gone back and fixed this, but it doesn't appear to be so.

Fourth, the improvements to the engine that OPUS gives us do provide a workaround which on initial experimentation seems to be usable to me.
In the automation tab, add a new macro. Then drag the expression over onto this new macro from the right hand column. Put 7 in the spot for CC on the macro, and now CC 7 will control both expression and volume at the same time. For most patches this would probably sound very jumpy dynamically, but because the volume within each dynamic layer seems to be fairly flat, the result is a relatively even transition between both dynamic layers and volume levels.
I only tried this briefly, but it sounded fine to my ears.

There may also be other ways to do this. OPUS does seem to provide a lot of options for setting up different control interactions, and so maybe there's an even better way to do it. The biggest problem I have had in trying to find a different way to do it is that one thing OPUS doesn't seem to do is provide any way to target or reassign a patch's internal CC 7 response. On the main screen there are a bunch of volume sliders which can be assigned MIDI controllers, but these are some kind of amp or pre-amp gain controls, not the actual CC 7 volume. I'd like to find a way to reassign which CC controls the CC 7 volume, but I haven't found it yet, if it's there.

 

[Soundbed]

By default, OPUS loads each instrument as "omni," meaning it will receive data from all MIDI channels, but you can change this to a single channel.

d'oh! I was so distracted by the volume stuff, that obvious solution didn't even occur to me. man, thrown a fancy graphic in my face and I lose all cognition!

add a new macro. Then drag the expression over onto this new macro from the right hand column. Put 7 in the spot for CC on the macro, and now CC 7 will control both expression and volume at the same time

You did it! You found a way!

I think the curve can be adjusted further to "stretch out" those sensitive areas as well!

 

[ZWaves]

I think the curve can be adjusted further to "stretch out" those sensitive areas as well!

Thanks for this thread! I was able to apply the Macro (and the custom curve) and saved it as a Preset!

 

[José Herring]

Just to add a note to this very good discussion.

The key to good woodwind programming and sampling is in understanding how the instruments work. Woodwinds aren't generally known for doing long dramatic dynanmic sweeps like strings and brass can do. You have to play woodwinds in the pocket and use a lot of expression.

Tying cc11 up with a dynamic crossfade is the kiss of death. Using cc7 for volume control may work but is usually too obvious.

I have HOPUS Woodwinds but I generally can't get them to work well. I usually end up using BBCSO woodwinds because you can work cc1 and cc11 independently and you can work with their legato patch that has a stacc overlay fairly well.

Best to avoid too much crossfading of dynamic layers in woodwinds. For most libraries they tend to be rather bad. Try and avoid too much use of legato and find a clever way to blend legato with sustain longs for change in timber.

Lastly use all your articulations even if they don't make sense. They key to expressive woodwind programming is changing articulations, dynamic expression or shading rather than dynamic crossfades, ect.....

The error that sample developers generally make is to not understand the vast differences in woodwinds between dynamic layers and things like tone quality as you go from say p to mp, mf, to ff, to fff. They all sound really different and if the ear wasn't use to say hearing a clarinet in context one would hardly recognize it as the same instrument if each dynamic layer was isolated and out of context. Just think of how different clarinet sounds in a loud Klezmer style vs. a soft mozart clarinet quintet. That's dramatic but you get the point.

So find the pocket, get expressive within that pocket before you start using the crossfader to change to a different layer. Use a variety of articulations in your phrase.

 

[mybadmemory]

Just to add a note to this very good discussion.

The key to good woodwind programming and sampling is in understanding how the instruments work. Woodwinds aren't generally known for doing long dramatic dynanmic sweeps like strings and brass can do. You have to play woodwinds in the pocket and use a lot of expression.

Tying cc11 up with a dynamic crossfade is the kiss of death. Using cc7 for volume control may work but is usually too obvious.

I have HOPUS Woodwinds but I generally can't get them to work well. I usually end up using BBCSO woodwinds because you can work cc1 and cc11 independently and you can work with their legato patch that has a stacc overlay fairly well.

Best to avoid too much crossfading of dynamic layers in woodwinds. For most libraries they tend to be rather bad. Try and avoid too much use of legato and find a clever way to blend legato with sustain longs for change in timber.

Lastly use all your articulations even if they don't make sense. They key to expressive woodwind programming is changing articulations, dynamic expression or shading rather than dynamic crossfades, ect.....

The error that sample developers generally make is to not understand the vast differences in woodwinds between dynamic layers and things like tone quality as you go from say p to mp, mf, to ff, to fff. They all sound really different and if the ear wasn't use to say hearing a clarinet in context one would hardly recognize it as the same instrument if each dynamic layer was isolated and out of context. Just think of how different clarinet sounds in a loud Klezmer style vs. a soft mozart clarinet quintet. That's dramatic but you get the point.

So find the pocket, get expressive within that pocket before you start using the crossfader to change to a different layer. Use a variety of articulations in your phrase.

Fantastic advice José! I also love the BBCSO woodwinds. I’ll definitely start working that expression slider more after reading this though. I usually only use modulation.

 

[Soundbed]

Just to add a note to this very good discussion.

The key to good woodwind programming and sampling is in understanding how the instruments work. Woodwinds aren't generally known for doing long dramatic dynanmic sweeps like strings and brass can do. You have to play woodwinds in the pocket and use a lot of expression.

Tying cc11 up with a dynamic crossfade is the kiss of death. Using cc7 for volume control may work but is usually too obvious.

I have HOPUS Woodwinds but I generally can't get them to work well. I usually end up using BBCSO woodwinds because you can work cc1 and cc11 independently and you can work with their legato patch that has a stacc overlay fairly well.

Best to avoid too much crossfading of dynamic layers in woodwinds. For most libraries they tend to be rather bad. Try and avoid too much use of legato and find a clever way to blend legato with sustain longs for change in timber.

Lastly use all your articulations even if they don't make sense. They key to expressive woodwind programming is changing articulations, dynamic expression or shading rather than dynamic crossfades, ect.....

The error that sample developers generally make is to not understand the vast differences in woodwinds between dynamic layers and things like tone quality as you go from say p to mp, mf, to ff, to fff. They all sound really different and if the ear wasn't use to say hearing a clarinet in context one would hardly recognize it as the same instrument if each dynamic layer was isolated and out of context. Just think of how different clarinet sounds in a loud Klezmer style vs. a soft mozart clarinet quintet. That's dramatic but you get the point.

So find the pocket, get expressive within that pocket before you start using the crossfader to change to a different layer. Use a variety of articulations in your phrase.

Thanks @José Herring ! Your expertise in this area is much appreciated!

I totally appreciate what you're saying.

And, I wanted to find a way to make HOOPUS "more usable" even within the context of what you're talking about.

And fwiw, I now find the Opus Woodwinds much, much, much (!) more usable and enjoyable to play after applying @Lazer42 's workaround. The curve I've applied to all instruments is a little different from the picture I posted above.

My new curve looks like this:



This way I've "stretched" most of the 3 dynamics layers across 80% of the range of my fader, and left the extreme bottom 5% to go to niente if needed, and the top 15% for maximum overdrive. The crossfades are (for better or worse, I guess, based on what you're saying) at the very least ... let's say more "transparent" using this workaround. They are actually more even than Synchron Woodwinds, in some ways, and much more transparent than CSW. After playing for an hour or so, it makes the programming seem quite sophisticated imho.

Now, what you're saying implies that this "smoothness" might not be "realistic" or "naturalistic" in many ways, BUT, for me at the very least it makes the instruments feel more "usable" and "playable" which at least allows me to try to take advantage of the value of the things I bought.

Also, I quite like the tone of several of the instruments over Synchron Woodwinds (for instance) especially the oboe. It has a nice nasal quality the feels rather oboe-ish in some parts of the range and I'd reach for it in several occasions, I think.

As for BBCSO, I have listened over and over to several demos and it's not the sound I am aiming for right now. Maybe if I move toward concert music, but at the moment it does not convey that "cinematic" vibe for me. I might be able to make it sound the way I want if I bought it. But I haven't wanted to take the financial risk (that what I don't want is "baked in" to the recordings), yet.

(Last night I also purchased Spitfire's BHCT and it has some lovely ensemble flutes and high woodwinds patches that really make me happy.)

I admit I have a long way to go to learn to perform woodwinds passages with VI's with any level of "expertise" or proficiency. I wrote a clarinet solo piece once in college and I can play simple tunes on saxophones etc. ... I feel I have a basic understanding of how they should sound, but there's definitely some gaps between that sonic imagination and what comes out of the speakers when I try to perform them with my midi keyboard and sliders ... I am debating on one of those $300 wind controllers for Infinite Woodwinds, because the "sudden" shifts in tone / timbre that are so natural when actually playing are so difficult to execute with a smooth 60mm fader or a mod wheel. (Those rings also might worth investigating.)

Here's Opus after the "fix" ...

 

[labyrinths]

I am debating on one of those $300 wind controllers for Infinite Woodwinds, because the "sudden" shifts in tone / timbre that are so natural when actually playing are so difficult to execute with a smooth 60mm fader or a mod wheel.

You might also want to consider a TEC breath controller as another option, too. I’m really glad I bought one. It’s a lot of fun to use, and it really does help breathe more life (no pun intended) into VI performance, especially with modeled woodwinds like SWAM.

 

[Soundbed]

You might also want to consider a TEC breath controller as another option, too. I’m really glad I bought one. It’s a lot of fun to use, and it really does help breathe more life (no pun intended) into VI performance, especially with modeled woodwinds like SWAM.

I'm totally taking that pin as intended.

Yes that's the one I was thinking of, I think. Well ... I guess they have a less expensive version.

(This is probably a topic for a different thread, maybe?)

USB MIDI Breath Controller

Configurable MIDI Breath Controller with USB interface for use with computer based soft-synthesizers, VST sample libraries and DAW software and keyboards with USB-host.

www.tecontrol.se

vs

USB MIDI Breath and Bite Controller 2

Configurable Breath and Bite Controller with USB-MIDI class compliant interface, flexible headset, bite force sensitive mouthpiece and inclination sensor, for use with computer based soft-synthesizers, VST sample libraries and DAW software and keyboards with USB-host

www.tecontrol.se

I guess today it comes to $272.85 USD with shipping but oddly they don't take PayPal Credit. Well, someday I'll likely shell out for it!

 

[José Herring]

Thanks @José Herring ! Your expertise in this area is much appreciated!

I totally appreciate what you're saying.

And, I wanted to find a way to make HOOPUS "more usable" even within the context of what you're talking about.

And fwiw, I now find the Opus Woodwinds much, much, much (!) more usable and enjoyable to play after applying @Lazer42 's workaround. The curve I've applied to all instruments is a little different from the picture I posted above.

My new curve looks like this:



This way I've "stretched" most of the 3 dynamics layers across 80% of the range of my fader, and left the extreme bottom 5% to go to niente if needed, and the top 15% for maximum overdrive. The crossfades are (for better or worse, I guess, based on what you're saying) at the very least ... let's say more "transparent" using this workaround. They are actually more even than Synchron Woodwinds, in some ways, and much more transparent than CSW. After playing for an hour or so, it makes the programming seem quite sophisticated imho.

Now, what you're saying implies that this "smoothness" might not be "realistic" or "naturalistic" in many ways, BUT, for me at the very least it makes the instruments feel more "usable" and "playable" which at least allows me to try to take advantage of the value of the things I bought.

Also, I quite like the tone of several of the instruments over Synchron Woodwinds (for instance) especially the oboe. It has a nice nasal quality the feels rather oboe-ish in some parts of the range and I'd reach for it in several occasions, I think.

As for BBCSO, I have listened over and over to several demos and it's not the sound I am aiming for right now. Maybe if I move toward concert music, but at the moment it does not convey that "cinematic" vibe for me. I might be able to make it sound the way I want if I bought it. But I haven't wanted to take the financial risk (that what I don't want is "baked in" to the recordings), yet.

(Last night I also purchased Spitfire's BHCT and it has some lovely ensemble flutes and high woodwinds patches that really make me happy.)

I admit I have a long way to go to learn to perform woodwinds passages with VI's with any level of "expertise" or proficiency. I wrote a clarinet solo piece once in college and I can play simple tunes on saxophones etc. ... I feel I have a basic understanding of how they should sound, but there's definitely some gaps between that sonic imagination and what comes out of the speakers when I try to perform them with my midi keyboard and sliders ... I am debating on one of those $300 wind controllers for Infinite Woodwinds, because the "sudden" shifts in tone / timbre that are so natural when actually playing are so difficult to execute with a smooth 60mm fader or a mod wheel. (Those rings also might worth investigating.)

Here's Opus after the "fix" ...

Going to give it a shot. Sounds good to me so far.

 

[Quantum Leap]

A couple comments so everyone knows exactly what’s going on here. All solo woodwinds in all libraries that use crossfading have an issue where slight phasing can be heard during crossfading at times when there is any tiny variance in pitch between dynamics. In order to avoid this, the crossfades are faster than in the rest of the library. I think we found an ok balance but it’s not always ideal if you are writing slow exposed lines. But for me it’s really only the clarinet and oboe. Maybe flute 1, but I always use flute 2. Part of the problem is also multiple mic positions in a big room and time delays prohibit any tuning magic to eliminate phasing between layers. This is why I opted to record wind ensembles in the update. Lol. None of that to deal with. But maybe we will do a new clarinet and oboe in the next phase of HOOPUS?

 

[muziksculp]

But maybe we will do a new clarinet and oboe in the next phase of HOOPUS?

Hi @Quantum Leap

Yes ! That would be wonderful.

I'm also delighted to hear 'the next phase of HOOPUS' is on your drawing board for 2022, hopefully we will be delighted by more HOOPUS instruments as expansions to the original content

Thanks, and Happy New Year.

 

[Soundbed]

A couple comments so everyone knows exactly what’s going on here. All solo woodwinds in all libraries that use crossfading have an issue where slight phasing can be heard during crossfading at times when there is any tiny variance in pitch between dynamics. In order to avoid this, the crossfades are faster than in the rest of the library. I think we found an ok balance but it’s not always ideal if you are writing slow exposed lines. But for me it’s really only the clarinet and oboe. Maybe flute 1, but I always use flute 2. Part of the problem is also multiple mic positions in a big room and time delays prohibit any tuning magic to eliminate phasing between layers. This is why I opted to record wind ensembles in the update. Lol. None of that to deal with. But maybe we will do a new clarinet and oboe in the next phase of HOOPUS?

Thanks for commenting!

I’ll try Flute 2.

I like the oboe a lot, now that I’ve tried the macro with expression and volume.

Clarinet, too.

I think the inherent phasing in Opus is extremely minimal and smooth (for my tastes).

My original concern was the volume jumps I was hearing in a couple of those solo instruments — not the (relatively) minimal phasing. During the travel of the expression fader esp in the middle layer, the levels weren’t increasing / decreasing enough to meet the new level at the top layer (and in some cases the bottom layer). At least, that was my experience of it.

This volume concern of mine is completely (yes completely) eradicated after the macro gets added linking volume changes with expression.

The volume gets so much smoother across the full travel of the fader (which is what I wanted, personally, even though I understand other people may not prefer to crossfade mid-note, at all). Also seen in the image @Lazer42 posted after the “fix”.

With the macro, Opus is smoother than CSW for sure.

The phase issues in Opus are very minimal imho (which is easy for me to hear, when the volume is smoother).

Synchron’s top and bottom layers have more obvious changes near the top and bottom extremes that are also smooth, but I prefer the tone of the Opus oboe to Synchron’s oboe, so I’d rather use Opus.

I will reach for Opus first in many cases now, as it feels like a great balance between “smooth” crossfade transitions and smooth volume changes too — with the macro applied.

(And the ability to control the curve of the macro in so many ways is actually superior to the Synchron player’s implementation.)

Again thanks for commenting but this particular thread went from me feeling confused and frustrated to extremely pleased and happy!

 

[Roland-Music]

I followed this interesting Topic. It is nice to have this workaround, but have you report this to EW Support, so that they should know this problem, and perhaps they fix this anytime ...

 

[Karmand]

@Soundbed Thanks for the video, explanation and conversation. Perfect solution.
I have a question that maybe related to my gear.
I created the new macro.
Dragged CC11 expression to it
Changed the new macro to cc7
Edited the curve. All good.

---here's the question/observation
When I mouse the new macro little volume knob it moves the Express (11) knob and works.
When I move my controller, the 11 works, but the CC7 does not.
I see in your video that the knob is moving when you move your fader is that correct?

I have a Leap Motion with MIMU Glover
Glover sends the CC messages - seemingly correct - but not CC7 1 & 11 move accordingly.
I've tried just cc7, just cc11, just 1 but only 11 & 1 work. Baffling.

I'll be testing with it live and recorded to see what is responding, but so far I have had problems with Opus connecting or hearing the cc in general.

 

[darx]

For some reason, I can't seem to drag the Expression tab over to the Macro? Did I do something wrong or is there a bug?

 

[Roknix]

You can open the Parameter Tab and use this instead.

 

[darx]

You can open the Parameter Tab and use this instead.

Can you explain this a little more? Thanks. I can create macro and add target, but I can't link it to expression.