What's new

Just HOW Important are Extra Microphones?

You’ve made it clear you don’t like these libraries and you keep hyperbolically running them down, along with anyone who notes you are being hyperbolic. I’ve heard good work with them. And at this point I don’t trust your opinion on them in the least. If your point is only that SF is not true to their marketing that’s fine and worthwhile. And it is useful to hear the flaws you uncover. But that’s a long way from these instruments are useless when there are user examples and testimonials that say just the opposite.

A friend of mine played me the Clarinet staccato solo from EWH and SStWW and the latter actually sounded superior (at least to my ears). I'll try to ask him later if he'll upload a file. I wish he could have added the Hein in the test.

The EWH sounded blurry and unnatural, while the SStWW was tight, sharp, and glassy-clean.

In fact, this is leaning me toward SStWW...well, of course I'll have to hear more. Sounds to me like both the Alto Flute and Clarinets are winners (but again, this is from a person going by another's experiments, so not much of a weighty opinion there).
 
I don't think he's saying they are useless - he's saying they aren't useful for what they were trying to be useful for.

Either way - he hates them, who cares. If you want to use them - use them.

If you want to use them as orchestral woodwinds - then fine, but they don't seem to be convincing studio instruments and cannot handle exposed passages. The fact that they are most useful being something they aren't is probably a red flag.
 
I don't think he's saying they are useless - he's saying they aren't useful for what they were trying to be useful for.

Either way - he hates them, who cares. If you want to use them - use them.

If you want to use them as orchestral woodwinds - then fine, but they don't seem to be convincing studio instruments and cannot handle exposed passages. The fact that they are most useful being something they aren't is probably a red flag.

This is a good point. I should also mention that I do find some big faults with the bassoon in SStWW...kind of murky and indistinct in general and blurry on the shorter notes. And I too am not entirely crazy about the oboe(s).
 
It's a good example of managing expectations. I don't have the Studio series, but my impression is that it's designed with an emphasis on articulations and sound design, rather than a virtuoso library for exposed solos.

Perhaps the clue is in the price. It's a lot cheaper than the older SF libraries..
 
I'm respectfully curious...do you have problems with the rest of the SStWW besides the oboes?

Pars,

Beyond using them as evidence to illustrate what a near-complete fiasco I believe the library is, I don't think I will ever have much use, in a lead capacity anyway, for the flute, the clarinet, the bass clarinet, the oboe, the English horn and the bassoon staccatos (Donnie Christian's bassoon library of nearly 20 years ago has better staccatos than the SStWW instrument.). All the primary woodwinds, in other words.

But it's not all bad.

The wisest words thus far on this library, wiser than some of mine, are Apostate's. And like Jbuhler already noticed: I am indeed extra annoyed by the 'professional' bit in the name of the library I purchased. It used to be that when you bought something that carried the tag 'professional', you indeed got something that was wholly deserving of being described thus. These days, 'professional' simply seems to mean: even more bloated than the regular version (like those deluxe editions of albums that have tedious alternative takes, demos and rehearsal tracks you only listen to once) and ... more profit for the seller. I still need to adjust to that shift in meaning, I guess.

But yeah, there are some good and useful sounds in the ensembles (although, on the whole, I much prefer the VSL Woodwind Ensembles for both clarinets and bassoons), the secondary woodwinds have some appealing colours too, and some of the lower double reeds are capable of phenomenal snorts which I hope to one day find a place for as well.

By the way, do you have an uncontrollable twitch in your finger that makes you like *every* post in a thread no matter whether you agree with its contents or not? I'm puzzled.

_
 
But yeah, there are some good and useful sounds in the ensembles (although, on the whole, I much prefer the VSL Woodwind Ensembles for both clarinets and bassoons), the secondary woodwinds have some appealing colours too, and some of the lower double reeds are capable of phenomenal snorts which I hope to one day find a place for as well.
re-peat--
I'm curious what your woodwind go-tos are.
 
By the way, do you have an uncontrollable twitch in your finger that makes you like *every* post in a thread no matter whether you agree with its contents or not? I'm puzzled.

_

I just rarely read a post that I either don't like or don't get something from, at least here.
 
I worked with mostly stereo templates until recently. Going to quad meant a rethink about multi mics and how to go about re-imagining the libraries I use. I decided on the Close-Room-Far approach with stereo feeds from Vienna Ensemble Pro into my Daw. My thinking is to automate the three feeds in Vepro but leave the three feeds up full to start. In the past I blended mostly close and room (or stage) and rarely used the far sounds at all.

In needing to feed the rears, I loaded the fars up in the instruments and of course it opened a can of worms. Differering rooms with different blooms, not to mention how each instrument and indeed each instrument class responds. So it seems to me that when you open up to using the far mics, you need to do it to all the channels because you’ve defined your rear wall, assuming you pan the fars to the rear. And then it brings up the issue of what to do with those libs that use one mic or one option. Adding reverb also causes issues because now you have reverb on reverb, and things can get washy real fast.

I find anything more then the three mic options is too much, 8dio, I’m looking at you. Too much choice with the 8 options. Those libs with less tail in the back work better for me. I’m after space but not outer space, I can add verb, can’t we all?

Drums are another matter for me because some of those big epic sounds really need the room to bloom and the close mics can sound anemic on their own.

But yeah, no amount of extra mics are going to make an unplayable instrument any better. My best thinking at the moment is to think about size as well as dynamics. Some patches are there for size, some for soli playing. The idea is definition and space.

In my new approach, which is not battle tested, I am happy with the results so far in a Cubase template. What I am doing is panning the close up front, many times reducing the stereo field to narrow it to a place in front. The stage mics are panned not quite halfway back and the rears panned not quite at the back. I send the three to an aux and use a quad verb, a stock Cubase med size with a short tail. It’s there to smooth out the rooms, seems to work well in differing amounts per lib. I think the setting sounds a bit like the cello studios at EW, so more of a score stage verb.

For those single mic things, like Lass, I pan to the front, but pan the verb send to the middle of the room and this seems to bring about the same effect as if the lib had multi mics, to a certain point. Same with Sample modelling, which along with Audio modelling is my solist choice. Again not battle tested, but so far it seems as though the multi mic options are giving me more dimension in the room and I’m intrigued as to what this will bring when I actually work with it for real. I’m imagining I will now have to deal with the way the room gets excited as well as how to perform the dynamics, so it makes it more complicated.

I guess I’ll have to see if all this even adds any value musically.
 
On the subject of mic options--

I like the simplicity of the close/far dial in Saga Percussion.
Saga Mic Fader.gif

And Orchestral Tools Capsule has an auto gain feature that maintains the overall volume while you slide the different mic perspectives up and down.
Capsule Auto Gain.gif

I like features like these that keep it quick. Otherwise it slows me down enough to pull me out of the writing.
 
This is a good discussion theme. I am a bit ambivalent. On the one hand I enjoy it to hear through the several mic and room options…on the other hand I think the amount of mic positions is nowadays totally exaggerated. Sure the true room sound is a part of the instrument/ensemble body…but with modern reverbs one can achieve a lot, too.

Some of the differences between different mics are so subtle, that they simple get finally lost in the mix.

Critique: I hate these inflated big libraries with 5 or more mics. It wastes my HD space, I have to download for days and the size of the library is misleading in order to justify an insane price .

So my conclusion: I would be totally happy with not more than 3 mic positions. And the option to buy the library with only one mic.
 
I worked with mostly stereo templates until recently. Going to quad meant a rethink about multi mics and how to go about re-imagining the libraries I use. I decided on the Close-Room-Far approach with stereo feeds from Vienna Ensemble Pro into my Daw. My thinking is to automate the three feeds in Vepro but leave the three feeds up full to start. In the past I blended mostly close and room (or stage) and rarely used the far sounds at all.

In needing to feed the rears, I loaded the fars up in the instruments and of course it opened a can of worms. Differering rooms with different blooms, not to mention how each instrument and indeed each instrument class responds. So it seems to me that when you open up to using the far mics, you need to do it to all the channels because you’ve defined your rear wall, assuming you pan the fars to the rear. And then it brings up the issue of what to do with those libs that use one mic or one option. Adding reverb also causes issues because now you have reverb on reverb, and things can get washy real fast.

I find anything more then the three mic options is too much, 8dio, I’m looking at you. Too much choice with the 8 options. Those libs with less tail in the back work better for me. I’m after space but not outer space, I can add verb, can’t we all?

Drums are another matter for me because some of those big epic sounds really need the room to bloom and the close mics can sound anemic on their own.

But yeah, no amount of extra mics are going to make an unplayable instrument any better. My best thinking at the moment is to think about size as well as dynamics. Some patches are there for size, some for soli playing. The idea is definition and space.

In my new approach, which is not battle tested, I am happy with the results so far in a Cubase template. What I am doing is panning the close up front, many times reducing the stereo field to narrow it to a place in front. The stage mics are panned not quite halfway back and the rears panned not quite at the back. I send the three to an aux and use a quad verb, a stock Cubase med size with a short tail. It’s there to smooth out the rooms, seems to work well in differing amounts per lib. I think the setting sounds a bit like the cello studios at EW, so more of a score stage verb.

For those single mic things, like Lass, I pan to the front, but pan the verb send to the middle of the room and this seems to bring about the same effect as if the lib had multi mics, to a certain point. Same with Sample modelling, which along with Audio modelling is my solist choice. Again not battle tested, but so far it seems as though the multi mic options are giving me more dimension in the room and I’m intrigued as to what this will bring when I actually work with it for real. I’m imagining I will now have to deal with the way the room gets excited as well as how to perform the dynamics, so it makes it more complicated.

I guess I’ll have to see if all this even adds any value musically.

+1 Excellent post.
 
I felt this might be a super helpful thread for composers because way back I hesitated buying the full Hollywood Strings Diamond for lack of understanding.

I have Hollywood Orchestra Gold. You mentioned the Strings, would you recommend Diamond on all of them or just strings?
 
I have Hollywood Orchestra Gold. You mentioned the Strings, would you recommend Diamond on all of them or just strings?

Sure! Just because of the different dimensions you're opening up. It's great having the options, plus you save yourself some 3rd party engineering. So, yeah I'd say the mics are important in the Hollywood series.

The problem is the disk space and RAM required. HWS is a mandatory SSD purchase for sure.
 
I'm still working with EWHO diamond but so far am finding a combination of mid and surround to sound the most realistic to my ear. So yes I think extra mics are important. The only time you hear significant reverb is when a soloist is in a big hall by themselves, fill it with an audience and the reverb goes away and all you hear is a sort of added warmth. So for this reason I like EWHO for having a relatively dry studio sound, when enhanced with the surround mics gives you that warmth. It's still dry enough that you could put further reverb on it if you wish, but the captured is good enough without having a signature.

For this reason I don't get Spitfires approach. Recording lots of Air 1's crazy reverb seems like a bad idea because then you've got a signature, but I haven't used the libraries myself. Anyhow if EW hadn't given us the surround mics I wouldn't be as happy (or if I hadn't bought diamond!)
 
Sure! Just because of the different dimensions you're opening up. It's great having the options, plus you save yourself some 3rd party engineering. So, yeah I'd say the mics are important in the Hollywood series.

The problem is the disk space and RAM required. HWS is a mandatory SSD purchase for sure.

I do often find myself going for the other mic sliders and get the "you're a cheap ass" message box! I've got an spare SSD, so I think I'll fill that up :)
 
i think they're important for shaping sounds.

For me, I really love the mic options for Auddict's Solo Woodwinds....I'm currently replacing Berlin WW's flute with Auddict's Solo Flute as i'm more fond with the sound of the flute.
 
I know we're going a bit off-topic here, but goddamn the Auddict solo flute sounds gorgeous when played with legato. It's kind of sad that the rest of their woodwinds package aren't really nothing to call home about.
 
I know we're going a bit off-topic here, but goddamn the Auddict solo flute sounds gorgeous when played with legato. It's kind of sad that the rest of their woodwinds package aren't really nothing to call home about.

that could be the reason why the woodwinds are sold as a bundle instead of separately initially. I think Oboe isn't the best. The rest still alright. Piccolo not too bad.
 
I worked with mostly stereo templates until recently. Going to quad meant a rethink about multi mics and how to go about re-imagining the libraries I use. I decided on the Close-Room-Far approach with stereo feeds from Vienna Ensemble Pro into my Daw. My thinking is to automate the three feeds in Vepro but leave the three feeds up full to start. In the past I blended mostly close and room (or stage) and rarely used the far sounds at all.

In needing to feed the rears, I loaded the fars up in the instruments and of course it opened a can of worms. Differering rooms with different blooms, not to mention how each instrument and indeed each instrument class responds. So it seems to me that when you open up to using the far mics, you need to do it to all the channels because you’ve defined your rear wall, assuming you pan the fars to the rear. And then it brings up the issue of what to do with those libs that use one mic or one option. Adding reverb also causes issues because now you have reverb on reverb, and things can get washy real fast.

I find anything more then the three mic options is too much, 8dio, I’m looking at you. Too much choice with the 8 options. Those libs with less tail in the back work better for me. I’m after space but not outer space, I can add verb, can’t we all?

Drums are another matter for me because some of those big epic sounds really need the room to bloom and the close mics can sound anemic on their own.

But yeah, no amount of extra mics are going to make an unplayable instrument any better. My best thinking at the moment is to think about size as well as dynamics. Some patches are there for size, some for soli playing. The idea is definition and space.

In my new approach, which is not battle tested, I am happy with the results so far in a Cubase template. What I am doing is panning the close up front, many times reducing the stereo field to narrow it to a place in front. The stage mics are panned not quite halfway back and the rears panned not quite at the back. I send the three to an aux and use a quad verb, a stock Cubase med size with a short tail. It’s there to smooth out the rooms, seems to work well in differing amounts per lib. I think the setting sounds a bit like the cello studios at EW, so more of a score stage verb.

For those single mic things, like Lass, I pan to the front, but pan the verb send to the middle of the room and this seems to bring about the same effect as if the lib had multi mics, to a certain point. Same with Sample modelling, which along with Audio modelling is my solist choice. Again not battle tested, but so far it seems as though the multi mic options are giving me more dimension in the room and I’m intrigued as to what this will bring when I actually work with it for real. I’m imagining I will now have to deal with the way the room gets excited as well as how to perform the dynamics, so it makes it more complicated.

I guess I’ll have to see if all this even adds any value musically.

Is there a quick way to automate changing mics?

I use VEP as well, running my samples. But occasionally I find I have to go over to my slave to change something within the mics etc.

How can I set up my system for efficiency? I use a FaderMaster Pro, maybe automate the Close, Room, Surround mics on there? I hate getting myself out of the writing to mess with mics. How should I approach it?
 
Top Bottom