Which libraries feature 'ambient hall' approach to recording?

[Phattlippz]

I\'m liking close-miked, dry orchestral libraries less and less--can we come up with a master list of sample libraries that were recorded with ambience?

We could break it up into sections (woodwinds, brass, perc, strings, etc.)

...or has this already been done here? It would be great to find a web page devoted to this. Maybe I\'ll work on a page like this when I get some free time.

[KingIdiot]

Depends on what you consider \"ambient hall\"
images/icons/smile.gif

even AO has some all in it images/icons/smile.gif heheehee

anyway. Miroslav and Roland are the older libraries with more ambient hall in the samples.

Newer libs are GOS (but not as much as some peopel would like)

SI Strings, a ton more abmience and a great sound because it mixes some close mics in.

Dan Dean Ensemble Brass. It has both closer mic\'d samples (which still have some ambience) and Ambient samples

SAM Horns when it comes out. Possibly the one with the most Ambience in the samples, hehee. But they sound great!

LOP, but its still not enough Hall IMO. Its till good tho.

Of course theirs Nick\'s upcoming lib which will be the \"ultimate\" in terms of ambience control. If anyone\'s ever used Real Giga Drums they know how having 3 mic positions helps for sound.

I\'m only working on a few hours of sleep so I may be missing some....back to work yay

[Bardstown Audio]

The \"Bosendorfer Imperial\" from Bardstown Audio captures the ambience of the performance hall in which it was sample recorded with the release trigger samples.

Kip
Bardstown Audio
www.bardstownaudio.com (\"http://www.bardstownaudio.com\")

[Sovereign]

There\'s Peter Ewer\'s Symphonic Organ too, which sounds great (for a church organ images/icons/smile.gif ).

[Rob Elliott]

How about VoTA? I am very pleased with the \'catherdral\' sound they have. The pitched and non-pitched consonants do not, however.

[dwdonehoo]

So far with what I have and am using (beta), the Kirk Hunter Brass lib will have a selection of ambience. For example, french horns gigs (among other things) have a near mike, a medium hall, and a concert hall ambience in different gigs. The near mike stuff takes verb very well indeed.

[MrArkadine]

A quick question:

When you say ambience you just refer to slightly different coloration to the sample depending on the distance from the mic to the source? I don\'t think you\'re talking about actually reverb, do you?

I\'m asking because I don\'t see how it\'s posible to record in the same room with a close mic and a far mic, and just get reverb on the far mic. Reverb is a quality of the room, right? So basically, you can\'t suppress reverb on a close mic, although it will have a stronger direct signal from the source?

So, the far mic has a higher reverb-to-direct-signal ratio, and different timbre to the noise due to trapping (longer distance). Am I right?

Please, help me understand this, I find this topic really fascinating, and seemingly a cornerstone of the up and coming orchestral libraries recording paradigm.

Thanks!

Ruben

[MrArkadine]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that Donnie did a nice programming trick for the Prosonus Orchestral Collection. Reverb was added to the samples (I think with that Sony hardware convolver, because it sounds really nice), and you control the amount of reverb with the MOD Wheel.

Perhaps Nick\'s library will use a similar approach...

Ruben

[KingIdiot]

If its anything like LOP, then Prosonous isn\'t really revedrb control, its just release control over the \"tail\". Its really only usefull on percussive/short samples. I dont know tho, I dont have Prosonous. it could be layers or something in which case it is actual ambience control. I\'m still a bit diheartened at LOP\'s ambience control It was a major selling point for me, and I was so bummed when it was jsut release control.

Nick\'s lib (and it seems Kirks too, YAY!!! Can\'t wait to hear the seperate mics) will give seperate actual samples for each mic placement. DDBE also offers two mic positions, tho I personally prefer three.

anyhow, the ambience control is an important aspect IMO. IT gives control over the mix of the instruments in ways that you just cant get with reverbs and EQs, and convolving. Its more \"cohesive\".

people complain about sample gloat, I think thats a minimal issue in most cases. Tho what developers might want to consider is selling a \"lighter\" version with already mixed samples. Could cut the price down a little.

[MrArkadine]

I don\'t know King, you might be right. I think as a matter of fact, you probably are (I don\'t think I can hear any early reflections, just tail)

All this new libraries coming out with different mic positions for maximum flexibility sound like a good idea. HOWEVER, how would one work with more than one library recorded this way, each one having its own \"sound space\"?

I understand Nick proclaiming his new library as a one stop solution, and perhaps it is. But, what if working with other libraries becomes necessary?
Doesn\'t then the wet over dry debate become a double edged sword? Trying to match the different sound spaces of each library... images/icons/frown.gif

Shouldn\'t there be some kind of white paper on this issue to ensure standarization (at least to some point?). Just think of HTML for example. You could fill a room on papers, standards, and revisions on HTML and similar technologies. Why not do the same with sampling techniques? I remember an old post (I think Maarten and ThomasJ were behind it, but I might be wrong), some sort of manifest. Maybe we should step back and think about what\'s coming up.

Also, does this mean that the dry sampling school is dead, and that reverb software and hardware is obsolete by lack of necesity?

Man, there\'s too much going on right now. I need to take a nap... images/icons/grin.gif

Ruben

[KingIdiot]

this IS one of the reasons to have multiple mics.

If you\'re forced with one particular ambience then its more difficult to get the sounds to sound like they\'re in the same place, being that different reverb settings are needed for each, and its still a little wierd at times (its actually not THAT difficult, and doesn\'t sound THAT bad)

Anyhow, with multiple mics, you can choose one of the closer mics, or turn down the \"ambience\" versions of the samples (if you\'re using them at all) and add reverb to the clsoe ones to get more control of \"your space\"

[MrArkadine]

King,

I understand the flexibility afforded by the multiple mic approach. It just seems that it might be more time consuming to get different libraries to work together this way than i.e. getting a bunch of dry samples from different samples, and applying a uniform placement and reverb system.

However, most experienced users such as you favor built-in ambience. Ok, anybody up to creating the first Universal Soundstage Standard? images/icons/tongue.gif

[KingIdiot]

Well this is the thing, with the close mics there is a fairly \"dry\" sound. The ambience is fairly hidden in sustains because the mic is focused on picking up more of the instruments direct sound.

While there is an ambience trail to be heard in releases its easy to do the \"LOP\" trick and hide it with a fade out. Its especially easy if you\'re going to add reverb.

I do prefer ambient recordings but I also prefer having close recordings as well. I\'m the kind of guy who might want to pump up a particular instrument, or brighten up some staccattos in a particular instance. Just turning up the instrument havinig too much ambience can result in mud, EQ\'ing can soudn too harsh, and may not give the effect I want, but pumping just a little of the close mics can \"Bring it out\".

I\'ve had a few arguments with people about this, some say that some recordings jsut set up the mics and mix and leave it as is, but they still dont think about how those mics and mix are generally set up for a particular session or even song.

On something as huge, and as varied in \"final sound\" as an orchestral mix, I want this type of control. Not to say I want more work to do, bu tI think this type of control would give me LESS work to do and a better sound.

[MrArkadine]

Originally posted by KingIdiot:
Well this is the thing, with the close mics there is a fairly \"dry\" sound. The ambience is fairly hidden in sustains because the mic is focused on picking up more of the instruments direct sound.

While there is an ambience trail to be heard in releases its easy to do the \"LOP\" trick and hide it with a fade out. Its especially easy if you\'re going to add reverb.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">King,

Thanks for the clarification. That means that working with relatively dry samples (with or without the fade out), would still be possible. Very nice. And, with the multiple mics, you\'re right. It seems a lot of control is possible without as much external processing as current libraries.

I also want to clarify that I don\'t mean disrespect by asking and making comments about these things, specially to the more experienced and talented people such as you. I\'m just a hobbyist who is starting to experiment and discover, and I find all this very interesting, even if it doesn\'t sink in right away.

And I want to thank you and the other generous people in the board. If a musical moron like me can get anything from these discussions, just imagine what intelligent people must derive from it! images/icons/tongue.gif

Take Care,

Ruben

[Michiel Post]

uhm GRNADIOSO Steinway D has reverb samples of the recorded ambience.
The new GRANDIOSO Bosendorfer will have them (both for a small room, a very large room and no room).

Michiel Post

[franz]

vrsound uses binaural recording which allows for great sounding ambience with just 2 mikes. Thus the phase of these samples is perfect (unlike several other multi miked samples).
Our dummy head mikes are finely tuned scientific measuring devices which allow for accurate localisation of reflections and sound events and simply put conventional mikes to shame, especially for ambient recording.
Afterall these miking techniques using monoral mikes go back to Edison and it\'s time to use our ears. Not one single acoustic musical instrument was built to be miked. They were all built to be heard by humans within an acoustic space (pianos, violins..) or outside (drums, brass..).

Evolution can\'t be wrong.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I would like to add another consideration that is not being discussed.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it\'s really not possible to \"remove\" ambient content by executing a tighter fade on a reverb tail.

As an example, I\'d point to the Peter Ewers Symphonic Organ. This particular sample library is literally awash in ambience, with the cathedral tails being triggered as you release a note. A big deal was made of the ability to balance these with the Mod Wheel, that is, to be able to decrease the amount of ambience to suit the needs of any recording.

But in fact, it doesn\'t work at all.

The moment you even reduce the amplitude of the tails, your brain instantly knows that something is wrong. Why? Because you are not simultaneously reducing the amplitude of the \"wetness\" that is hard-recorded into the primary sample. You are stuck with it. The primary tone itself is wet--whether the tail is being played at full amplitude or not.

Matter of fact, if you eliminate the tail altogether, it just sounds downright weird...as if you processed a file and cut the reverb tail off on the last note. It is an immediate psychoacoustic \"slap in the ears.\" And even if you don\'t take it to this extreme, you cannot make the instrument sound closer or \"dry-er\" by reducing the tail because you cannot achieve a similar reduction in the primary sample. It will always be \"full wet.\"

This is why I continue to caution people about this. It\'s one thing to want a big sound. It is another thing entirely to translate that into a design for a virtual instrument.

I gave an example in a piano design thread. Consider adding hall ambience to a piano via the release triggers. Pedal up, staccato...fine, it works. Pedal-up legato, fine, it works. Pedal-down...OOPS. It works until you release the pedal on a note that has not faded...but then it doesn\'t work in a HUGE way. Just like the Ewers example above, the ambience inherent in the sample must have an equal ambience represented in a release trigger to \"resolve\" itself. As soon as that resolution goes away, the sound immediately rings false and artificially produced.

What we do to work around that, in general, is to add artificial reverb to somewhat mitigate this effect...to somewhat blur the difference between the situations where ambience can and cannot be effectively triggered per an instrument\'s behavior model.

I\'m not saying the goals are not worthy. But I think that people have gotten so loud about wanting ambience in sample libraries, they\'re about to get a rude awakening and find they should have been a bit more careful what they wished for. And that doesn\'t hold true for every class of instrument or every design. Clearly Nick has thought his design through, and has covered the bases through a multi-mic design. The fact that no instruments in his collection require sustain pedaling causes this to work. Also, the fact that he has (properly) spot-mic\'ed the instruments should yeild a set of samples within the library sufficiently dry to avoid the \"oops, where did the space go\" phenomenon.

But, it will not work on a piano, at least not with the current editor/playback design. As much as I like Kip\'s Bosendorfer, the first thing I did was gate down the hall ambience, so that only the natural GENERATED resonance of the piano was represented. Because it is a close perspective recording, this was possible with very good results. I can play a forissimo staccato, or a fortissimo pedal down with release, and the piano remains in the same plausible space. Before I gated down the release triggers, a fortissimo staccato sounded as if it were being played in a hall, whereas a fortissimo pedal down with quick release sounded completely dry.

But had Kip recorded that piano DISTANTLY in the same space with the same design, there would have been no way to resolve that difference.

Michiel, who recorded his Steinway D quite distantly in comparison, got away with that because he used a very unique soundstage which was both silent and extremely reflection-diffused. Therefore, he got \"air\" ambience, which doesn\'t imply \"room,\" and which therefore can stand beside the necessarily gated pedal-release scenarios.

Both of these designs work well to produce a properly behaviorally modeled piano, because they were both well and successfully thought out and executed. But with the given tools, there are not too many other designs which will be possible to execute while retaining the BEHAVIORAL modeling of the instrument. For instance, unless Michiel is doing some very under-the-table tricks with pedal release times (which he may be for all I know) the combination of extreme reflection and a fortissimo pedal down, suddenly released, will fail from a behavioral perspective. There is not a pedal down \"release\" trigger dimension present to supply the last needed resolution of ambience.

I\'m not criticizing design decisions, I\'m just trying to put issues on the table, so that our collective brains can devise solutions.

Bottom line--we must acknowledge the following logical truth, at least with the current design tools:

If a release trigger can trigger only one simultaneous, controllable sample...AND

If releasing the sustain pedal cannot trigger a \"release trigger\"...AND

if the behavioral modeling of a given instrument requires that the release trigger and pedal down dimensions must both represent an acoustic phenomenon WITHIN that instrument\'s behavior....THEN

The release trigger cannot be given the simultaneous job of producing ambient content.

It\'s a compound syllogism, granted, but still it\'s logic which cannot be refuted. Unless the 3.0 spec somehow resolves this, it will be a design consideration that can only be ignored at the peril of producing flawed instruments.

[MrArkadine]

Originally posted by franz:
Evolution can\'t be wrong.<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Have you ever caught a glimpse of the Jerry Springer Show? Really... images/icons/smile.gif

[Michiel Post]

HI Bruce
(as ever) Your contributions to this forum are extremely valuable for me as a developer and for all of us who are struggling with samples. You succesfully write down and explain what processes and phenomena are related to important topics in Giga-world. Thank you for your efforts. You have also contributed a great deal to the development of GRANDIOSO Steinway D, both as a beta-tester AND as editor for our booklet.
Your explanation of the behavioral modeling of the (release triggered) ambience in sampled instruments leads me to explain a little. We DID play some under-the-table tricks to resove the suddenly released pedal down samples in our piano. I cannot go into details here how we did it but the fact is that there are ways to overcome the results of the sudden stop in experienced ambience when using release triggered samples. My team at Post Musical Instruments has spent lenghty discussion about this topic the last few days and we don\'t see this point as a problem but rather as an interesting challange.
This whole issue has only become an issue since other apects of the sampled piano sound are under control (resonance, consistency in the velocity layers, \"air\" sound so that the overtones mingle and vibrating wood in the recording). Now we suddenly notice a detail that we never payed much attention to as there were many other factors that were too much disturbing the picture. I always see that as the inverse progression of technology breaktroughs. My guess is that Nemesys programmers will face this issue as they have proven to come with amazing software tricks before.
One way to achieve the ideal solution would be gigastudio vs 3 to have a new set of triggers;
- one generated by the activation of the sustain pedal
- and one generated by the release of the keys while sustain pedal was hold at the moment of key depression
for additional samples to finish the sound.
Who knows what TASCAM will come up with, I for one wouldn\'t be surprised if it\'s there.

The other solution (that is already possible under GigaStudio 2.5) would be to split the piano instrument into two seperate instruments; one for pedal up only and one for pedal down only. Each could play on the same midi chanel (and port) in the same fashion MAESTRO tools or VIRTUOSO tools is working. The activation of the sustain pedal would then be used to fire up the \"release from sustained-note\" sample and voila...realisme is achieved once more.
When you listen to the old Chopin \'sneak-preview\' demo of our new GRANDIOSO BOSENDORFER that I posted
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~mpost/demos/Prototypes/chopin%20prototype%2016%20bit.mp3 ) you can clearly hear the effect of the suddenly released pedal down samples. We have now re-recorded all 2.000+ samples for this libary with different mic placements (multi-mic design) and the result is clearly proof that the problem is solved. I\'ll post the new demos as soon as I have recorded them on my new system and I get more webspace to upload them. You need to run double instruments (that will require the fastest machine you can get) to achieve good results but the good news is that you get complete control over the ambience (in terms of both room size and surround panning) and the exact timbre of the samples.
PMI is trying to raise the bar a little higher every time.

Michiel Post

www.postmusicalinstruments.com (\"http://www.postmusicalinstruments.com\")

[Azeteg]

Franz,

I don\'t really like going through the whole HRTF process more than once. If I take your HRTF recording and listens to it in speakers I go through my very own HRTF, my head and ears. Your technique with dummy head might be excellent for capturing ambience, but only for those listening in headphones, and only the ones with ears and head shaped exactly like yours.

/Martin

[franz]

Azeteg,
You are talking about 50 year old technology that presented these problems. Our heads have sophisticated comb filter phase lock electronics which are specifically designed to work incredibly well for speaker playback. the notion with double HRTF is long gone. These recordings offer beautiful richness and placement in the stereo field completely independent from the listeners position, shape of head or other parameters.
These recordings are superior and more natural than any other miking technique currently in use.
I have used and developed techniques for over 10 years now.
please consider more research into HRTF issues. your arguments are completely uneducated.

[Duncan Brinsmead]

Franz.. I\'m curious if you have tried out any techniques to counteract stereo crosstalk, particularily in the context of a piano sample. There is a 3D sound system ( I think it was incorporated into the Xbox, but created by a fellow in England) that adds a signal to the designed to cancel out the opposite channel at the ear locations. This signal must itself be cancelled, and so it is a somewhat recursive and imperfect method. However I\'ve heard that when one is at the sweet spot, it can present a convincing illusion of sound from any direction using only two speakers. This fellow also found that for good recordings using a head he had to construct his own one with materials that were closer to the densities in a human.

It seems to me that if one has perfect speakers, perfect mics and a close model of a head, then the major remaining problem is stereo crosstalk(providing one doesn\'t use headphones, which have the different problem of not tracking headmotion).

I wonder how far we are from mics and speakers that can reproduce sound as accurately as the human ear can hear? I think that crosstalk is perhaps a bigger problem than people realize. I know another fellow who sells sound walls that you put between your speakers to block crosstalk: pretty impractical, as one needs to sit with a wall coming practically to one\'s nose. I\'m told the effect is quite dramatic, however.

Duncan

[franz]

Crosstalk.
Indeed it is a factor in the precise perception of HRTF recordings. One easy thing to minimize crosstalk on speakers is to simply think away from the 60s stereo set up. Strangely we have decided to put our speakers to the left and right in FRONT of us. If you think about where your ears are this actually does not make sense and i guess is supposed to give the \"I am watching the band illusion\". If you simply move the speakers to the left and right of your head crosstalk is almost completely eliminated and HRTF signals are processed as if heard on headphones.
If you mix for 5.1 you can use VRSound samples to create the illusion of instruments appearing in midair around the listener and control the position in real time (how freaking cool that is you\'d have to hear). Here you can apply a 180 deg opposition of L and R.
Since we use HRTF recordings, gadgets like the mentioned midrange phase shifting and crosstalk for 3D sound are not necessary and we can save a lot of processing power. all moves and effects can simply be accomplished by volume changes.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I\'d like to pipe in a quick comment...

I would not worry about Franz\'s HRTF recordings being problematic in a mix. I have used some of his recordings to wonderful effect, and the imaging is quite good in traditional stereo playback.

I\'m not an HRTF freak like Franz is, haha, but the world needs people who are passionate about what they do. And Franz has definitely pursued the art of binaural/HRTF recording to its fullest expression. You won\'t find problems relating to its use in a production setting...in fact, I find his early VR Giga Module collection an excellent and affordable all around rhythm-section library to have on hand. The instruments are quite compact, definitely not the \"super library\" treatment in terms of thousands of samples (lots of instruments on a single CD), but some excellent sounding stuff with some \"hair\" on it...for instance, the Rhodes on it is a favorite of mine which really captures that Suitcase sound...unlike a lot of others that are too clean and really miss the whole vibe.

[KingIdiot]

I ahve VR sounds Tenor sax, and Bass, as well as VR percussion.

All sound pretty groovy. So I wouldn\'t worry too much about th HRTF. In fact I still think thetenor has some of the best tone. Now go back and record more of it Franz images/icons/tongue.gif

[DS SOUNDWARE]

While some older libraries (Miroslav and Roland for example) weren\'t necessarily \"close\" mic\'d Ultimate Orchestral Percussion was the first to actively market an orchestral library featuring the true ambience of the acutal hall. Since that library it has become the norm for all orchestral libraries to record in the hall.

Scott

[PeterRoos]

I think we are again heading for a non-discussion about WHO started WHAT tradition...

Btw, isn\'t Vitous\' library also marketed with being recorded in a true hall?

[Simon Ravn]

Scott, it seems Donnie brainwashed you a little too much before sending you here....

[DS SOUNDWARE]

Originally posted by PeterRoos:
I think we are again heading for a non-discussion about WHO started WHAT tradition...<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Peter,

I wasn\'t trying to stir up anything by my comments. I am just trying to answer a bunch of \"DS\" related topics that went unanswered recently.

There are MANY great libraries availible today that take advantage of true hall ambience and I wasn\'t trying to say \"DS\" was the best for starting it but I think it is fair to say that they were the first to market the idea of doing it. As a matter of fact Sean told me that when they first announced the recording methods for the library most people balked at the idea of it and said that it would not work because everything up until that point had been close miked.

I was hired to act as a fair sounding board for DS as well as to market and promote their products. Please, the last thing I want to do is stir something up so please take my comments in the appropriate manner.

Sincerely,

Scott

[Simon Ravn]

Originally posted by DS SOUNDWARE:
</font><blockquote><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><hr /><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Originally posted by PeterRoos:
I think we are again heading for a non-discussion about WHO started WHAT tradition...<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Peter,

I wasn\'t trying to stir up anything by my comments. I am just trying to answer a bunch of \"DS\" related topics that went unanswered recently.

There are MANY great libraries availible today that take advantage of true hall ambience and I wasn\'t trying to say \"DS\" was the best for starting it but I think it is fair to say that they were the first to market the idea of doing it. As a matter of fact Sean told me that when they first announced the recording methods for the library most people balked at the idea of it and said that it would not work because everything up until that point had been close miked.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Maybe the first to market the IDEA - it didn\'t come across completely succesfull in your recordings though.... You mentioned Miroslav - Miroslav has way more hall ambience than DSS libs.

[DS SOUNDWARE]

Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
Scott, it seems Donnie brainwashed you a little too much before sending you here....<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Simon,

Judging from your contributions to this forum you are probably one of the most valued people here. Again, please don\'t misread my posts. Initially I want to answer some of the unanswered posts. After that, I have just been asked to answer any new questions and post audio demos.

Truce Simon? images/icons/smile.gif

Scott

[DS SOUNDWARE]

Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
</font><blockquote><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><hr /><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Originally posted by DS SOUNDWARE:
</font><blockquote><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><hr /><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Originally posted by PeterRoos:
I think we are again heading for a non-discussion about WHO started WHAT tradition...<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Peter,

I wasn\'t trying to stir up anything by my comments. I am just trying to answer a bunch of \"DS\" related topics that went unanswered recently.

There are MANY great libraries availible today that take advantage of true hall ambience and I wasn\'t trying to say \"DS\" was the best for starting it but I think it is fair to say that they were the first to market the idea of doing it. As a matter of fact Sean told me that when they first announced the recording methods for the library most people balked at the idea of it and said that it would not work because everything up until that point had been close miked.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Maybe the first to market the IDEA - it didn\'t come across completely succesfull in your recordings though.... You mentioned Miroslav - Miroslav has way more hall ambience than DSS libs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Simon,

According to DS records you were one of the first people to buy UOP. I can also quote numerous posts and emails to \"DS\" from a couple of years ago where you stated that the ambience was great! As a valued user of our products we of course value your opinions and your feedback. Having surfed this forum the past few days and taking note of some things I can\'t help but notice that you make extensive use of just about all of the \"DS\" libraries. I am very greatful to see/hear you using these libraries because you are obvioulsy a very gifted composer and you make the sounds \"sound\" great! I just wish that you wouldn\'t hold personal issues to make you post negative comments sometimes. Fair enough?

Thanks,

Scott

[Simon Ravn]

Scott, it was not a personal attack. But claiming that your libraries were the first to market/sport \'real hall ambience\' is nonsense. Miroslav was about 10 years ahead.

Then, concerning your libraries, yes I use them and really love them - but I am sure they would\'ve been even better if they hadn\'t been mic\'ed as close as they are. E.g. the toms on LOP sound very close - also in the glocks using plastic mallet, you can clearly hear the plastic CLICK hitting the instrument. That would not have been there had it been mic\'ed from a greater distance.

I hope you\'ll do another library with REAL hall ambience - lots of it - not necessarily as much as in Tobias\' G-Town Church recordings, but somewhere inbetween that and yours - that would probably be an awesome library.

[KingIdiot]

Cant we jsut agree that UOP was the first seperate Orchestral *percussion* library to be marketed with emphasis on it being recorded in a natural hall. Saying its the first orchestral library to be recorded in a natural hall, or even marketed that way is pretty ignorant of some great sample developers before.

Miroslav, Roland/Persing, even AO which was recorded in a hall for all I remember, and its mentioned anytime you look at the descriptions.

Also to be honest. I feel that UOP/LOP is still too close mic\'d. I hear way too much mallet in stuff like the glocks for it not to be. It may be that theres a combination close and far mic in the sample, but it just has a very close sound. It does help to set the attack a little slower or to offset the sample start.

Anyway, to infer that all other orchestral libraries changed their recording style because of DS Sounware, is a bit misleading and I\'d like to point out people like Miciel Post (organs), and Persing for Roland who did it yeears before.

It snot that I dont like UOP/LOP. I think they are great. Its jsut that if Franz were to run around saying he\'s the first one who\'s recorded natural ambience because of the HRTF, I think he\'d be wrong and would have to say something. If he were saying he was the first to use HRTF to record natural ambience he\'d prolly be right.

It seems like such a little thing, but I believe stuff like this takes away from the real pioneers and they deserve the credit.

Also I dont agree with Simon about *just* having farther mics. You guys should take a cue from Real Giga Drums and give us 3 mic positions. Just like QL is. its the only way to please all end users. Give them the choice, dont force them. I\'ve been saying this for years tho. Glad to see some developers take this route for orchestral samples.

BTW, Welcome Scott! Dont take this as being hard on yah or not liking you images/icons/smile.gif You\'re definitely not as hot headed as Donnie, who was banned. Please understand that arguments like this ahve been going on for some time, so we\'re not just harping on yah. We jsut have had this discusion before.

[tob]

Actually.. i think DS Soundware invented the hall.. images/icons/wink.gif

[Lewis]

Excuse me for my humble opponion. But sometimes you guyz take the debates a little too far. Does it matter who \"invented\" ambience in samples? When was the first time a digital reverb was ever used? Who invented the reverb - and can you invent something that already exists? I dont wanna start hell or fire with this comment.

Just point outthat its a bit boring to see such bright minds - being obsessed with - ambienced talk about nothing.

Long live Acoustic Mirrors.

Yours - Chris Lewis

[KingIdiot]

Nope, I\'ll stand up for people who might be \"forgotten\"

I dont think its a waste. If someone were to say they were the first people to ever sample A full orchestral library, I\'d point out UOP/LOP. I dont think its a waste of time to point people in the right direction.

[Robert Kooijman]

Good to see that many acknowledge the genuine purpose non close-miking serves.
The attention to the recording process in general seems to have developed considerably amongst library producers, and this forum certainly has contributed to that.

While in the old days some expensive mike combined with exotic pre-amp was \'all\' that was required, accoustic properties of the recording environment and mike placement are at least as important.

I personally don\'t always require \'hall\' or ambience as such, it\'s more the natural, full body of the instrument that so often is lacking in libraries. And you normally don\'t get that with traditional close miking.

Simultaneous miking from 3 positions is indeed a great strategy, and I would be happy to pay an added premium for the resulting added flexibility and realism. Even more understanding the additional editing work that goes with it.

One wish to library producers: please don\'t fall into the easy trap of noise reduction. The advantages offered by ambient recordings can easily be ruined by de-noising. I could give some examples here, but this might start another \'war\';-)

Michiel, Bruce: great story regarding sustained notes and pedal-down behavior. Agree, one of the main challenges for a sampled piano. These days, after endless tweaking and comparison sessions, I mostly use patches build on sustained notes only. This bypasses some of the problems and gives a richer sound in general. But you need a really good, consistent set of sustained samples for it to work...

All the best, Robert