Mono vs stereo? [Archive] - Northern Sound Source

geronimo001

02-09-2006, 08:06 PM

I've notice that some people here prefer mono when it comes to samples, and i'm wondering why?

This may sound like a stupid question but my tech. skills are very limited it's not obvious at all to me:confused: .

thanks :|:

Theodor

02-09-2006, 09:05 PM

This is what i know:

Mono:

- Easier to pan. Easier to put instruments in a space you design with stereo reverb.
- Better panning consistency and pinpointing where an instrument is: your samples will not move around left and right that much...but that is a problem caused by developers who don't tell the performers to stand still.

Stereo:
- The instruments have more space and are easier to hear in a large mix.
- It attempts to capture the "Real thing" that you would hear with your ears in many occasions, thus giving the impression that an instrument is there, somewhere in front of you. Nothing beats the real thing.
- They are hard to pan around without stereo modellers and stereo modellers can cause strange phasing/cancellation effects. When you pan them they just decrease the opposite channel, so in a preseated strings for example you would simply get all the ambience on the right side when panning right.

Multiple mono:

- Like Alan Lastufka's (Bela D media) Studio B drums for example: It has multiple mono recordings with various mics so you can make your own stereo field. But if you are not a very good engineer it can be hard.

- The best bet for panning things exactly as you like them and still keeping a very persistent stereo field.

Will Roget

02-09-2006, 09:17 PM

Heh it's funny you'd ask that question at right this moment - right now I'm in the middle of mixing/sequencing a piece that, following Hermitage and Bruce's advice, uses greatly narrowed samples (some nearly mono) instead of the usual stereo spread. The sound really is completely different, and in retrospect it really makes a lot of sense most of the time to narrow the stereo field with orchestral samples.

Take VSL for example - we all know about the close mic'ing, the "harshness" of the samples sometimes, but what really needs to be adjusted in order for it to blend well is the stereo spread. A single VSL oboe solo will pop up all over the place, and if you just keep layering more instruments on top, you really end up with something more like a stack of cards than a 3D stage with depth. Even if you pan things around, you're still moving around a sample that once took up the entire stereo field anyway, and so you'll get a lot of sound from the opposite side that isn't coming from an echo (and thus shouldn't really be there).

Put it in mono though, or at least use a stereo modeller to narrow the spread considerably, and you'll have a more obedient and realistic position that can then be inserted onto a virtual stage via reverb. You'll hear much more realistic reflections, which again will give you that sense of depth that's missing when every sample gobbles up the entire stereo field.

Without reverb and when played on their own, wide stereo samples admittedly might sound more attractive. I had troubles believing in the mono thing too until I tried playing my own sampled CD through my tv speakers (blech), right after playing some live music (Gladiator, Matrix Reloaded). The realism of individual instruments and level of expression were comparable, but what really made the difference was that the live soundtracks sounded like they were played on an actual stage; my music just sounded like a bunch of unconnected, stacked samples.

If you have Kontakt, you can use its stereo imager on each patch to determine the width of the source; a solo woodwind might be close to mono, whereas a string section would take up a good amount of space (but still not the full spread). Otherwise, you might wanna bounce each track seperately and mix it as audio, with a stereo imaging plugin on each track.

Nick Batzdorf

02-09-2006, 09:40 PM

VSL isn't actually close-miked.

geronimo001

02-10-2006, 12:10 AM

Thank you Theo and Will, great info:) .

Hermitage59

02-10-2006, 12:58 AM

On top of the useful info already provided, mono has the advantage of not being too wide. Even with a narrow stereo field, there is (for me) still a discernable difference in sound. And contrary to popular belief, strings do not suffer from being in mono. A little work is needed, yes, but not nearly as much as panning a stereo instrument, which is really just a reduction in one channel, and having to readjust the dynamic. The engineers among us will be able to give a more definitive answer to this from a technical viewpoint.
Mono.
No panning or phasing issues. (under normal circumstances)

Placement 'stays where you put it'.

What you hear is what you get, from start to finish. No tonal 'flex' as
you manipulate the sample.

I've heard from a lot of people, including pros, how much more width there is in stereo. I suspect there are some people using stereo to cover for inadequacies in the music, which is the same reason on many occasions that reverb gets overused for.
My answer is always the same.
Good orchestration. Good placement. Great recorded TONE.
And a piece written for mono instrument samples will sound as wide as anything else.

Regards,

Alex.

Hermitage59

02-10-2006, 02:03 AM

The instruments have more space and are easier to hear in a large mix.
Theo,
you've written a lot of practical sense here, but i differ in this line.
It's been my experience that correct placement of mono more accurately reflects the space in the score, according to how it's orchestrated, and in fact stereo can 'muddy' the sound.
I'll be the first to admit i'm no sound engineer, and it may be a lack of engineering expertise on my part, but i've always had a better result with 'smart' mono, than stereo. You've heard the piece i'm working on. Using stereo, i believe the close harmony, where written, would suffer at the hands of multiple stereo instruments, and lose the distinctive tones as they appear. It's a musical fact that the more instruments you add, the less discernible is tone. Like mixing a lot of colours at once, and producing a consistent shade of grey. I think in a full and close harmonic stack, mono is essential to maintain the texture and tonal combination.

I also think in a large mix mono would serve the writer better, as it would more accurately reflect the actual intent of the orchestration.

Still, the differences in opinion means we get to discuss this!

Regards,

Alex.

p.s. Thanks again for helping out with my piece. Very generous of you.

ohernie

02-10-2006, 02:14 AM

I just got back from seeing my favorite band in my unfavorite local bar so I'll limit my comments. :p Suffice it to say that from the audience position the instrument is mono, the orchestra is stereo. Another reason I'm glad I'm not a developer.

Ernie

Daryl

02-10-2006, 02:58 AM

I also think in a large mix mono would serve the writer better, as it would more accurately reflect the actual intent of the orchestration.

Alex.

I would say that putting solo instruments in mono works pretty well, however to my ears there is something missing in the sound when you do the same to a violin section. I certainly narrow the stereo field and pan appropriately for the ensemble, but wouldn't want to go down the mono route for all instruments.

D

ed hamilton

02-10-2006, 03:12 AM

Its one of the secrets of great mixing engineers.
For pop/rock, R&B,dance/electronica records - there are simply TOO many stereo tracks to make a coherant mix out of.

Mixers have been stripping stereo tracks to mono for years. Probably since the first synth to have chorus on it and thus stereo outputs. (just don't tell the keyboardist!)

The stereo field is only so wide and with only so much room in it.
Mixing still to this day comes down to elements that have existed since the first stereo recording
1) Level
2) pan
3) echo (old term - now known as reverb)

4) filter (eq) came later.

Too many stereo elements inflict an unnatural exaggeration of the stereo field upon the mix.
Just try panning a stereo track to mono (make sure you don't have phase problems - if you do you can just make one side louder than the other - this usually works).
The mono track will have more punch and clarity in the mix.

Which leads to the great orchestral lib debate.
The sampled in place vs closer mic'd pan it yourself debate.

Since many NS member are still pulling shrapnel out there beeehinds from a few past threads on this topic I am loath to step into it .... but .....

My 20 years as an engineer tell me that EW is wrong. that when you finally mix a complete track in gold you are not getting one perfect picture of the orchestra sampled in the hall.
You are really getting 12-20 TIMES the hall reverb because the full hall is in each section sampled!!
But while I know this is true - I own gold. It sounds great. It works fine.
So who cares. end of issue for me.

VSL - its not close mic'd. Its in its own space and yes kids a single instrument does indeed "bounce around" the stereo spectrum a bit. enough to piss me off.

Mixing lots of individual stereo tracks by its very nature insists that you narrow the spread on them. to get them to sit "in the orchestra" you have to narrow them down alot. Maybe even to mono.
Your reverb (digital or convolution) is creating the ambient hall. You simply need to feed it a coherant stereo spread and it will literally do the rest.

So how much can/should you "monoize" samples that are not recorded "in place". My personal answer is more than you think.
If you don't you end up with the worlds most stereo oboe. Maybe the oboeist has a rack and some stereo chorus and really is projecting a stereo image 10 feet wide.
I doubt it. Its a nasaly narrow little sound. So make him narrow in your mix.

The one thing I can promise anyone who is struggeling with their mixes -
If you import a few similair mixes into your daw from top level releases - and endlessly A/B your mix against them - you too can learn to mix.
Its just a puzzle.
Level, Pan, EQ and verb.

If you are a decent composer - you have all the talent and the ears to mix.

If your mix is a mess - strip down some tracks to mono - or pretty darn close. Lighten up on the verb.
Level, Pan, level pan, level pan.

I went through this stupidly long post to get to my final point
Stereo imagers .......
Many here keep recommending using them to narrow stereo tracks.

Unless you are using a GREAT stereo imager (ie not free with your daw) you may want to think again.
I won't go into a long digital comb filtering diatribe about what they are doing to your audio.....

Just do a quick test.
take your stereo imager reduced tracks and compare them to the same track just panned closer together. 9 times out of 10 the imager has more phase artifacts. For the 1 time your panned tracks sound phasey just kill one side or make one side louder than the other.

You are mixing multiple stereo tracks - recorded in the same space = phase issues unless they had the mic at exactly the same distance for every single instrument! You are probably mixing in some different libs.
Don't add to the phase.
Mono is a beautiful thing. And it was long before stereo imagers were around.

My apologies for the rant - I retired from mixing/mastering 2 years ago. (no I am not old - I just went back to playing for a living)
The last year of that past life was spent recovering records from finalizers, multiband limiters and stereo imagers.

Almost all better now.
I spent a year listening to old mono blues records on one single Adam S3A. I am finally able to walk in a straight line again without getting dizzy.

And on a different note - before I walked away from my part time life of studio owner / mixing engineer - we had a client who hung with us for a couple years.
He was the nicest, most organized cat. Great tunes - great voice.
We cut him an early daytime rate (10am-4pm) which was our lightest booked hours.
He was always on time. Always paid his bill on time. Was maticulously perpared.
I only met him a couple times since I worked nights when I was in town and was on tour most of that 2 years but each time I met him/heard the tracks it was a pleasure.

Well last night he took home the grammy for best new artist.
Congrats to John (Stephens) Legend.

Yes folks - every now and then - the really talented guy is the really good guy and he gets to win. :)

Robert Kooijman

02-10-2006, 04:47 AM

janila

02-10-2006, 05:08 AM

My 20 years as an engineer tell me that EW is wrong. that when you finally mix a complete track in gold you are not getting one perfect picture of the orchestra sampled in the hall.
You are really getting 12-20 TIMES the hall reverb because the full hall is in each section sampled!!
But while I know this is true - I own gold. It sounds great. It works fine.
So who cares. end of issue for me.An acoustic isn't a sound. It's a thing that shapes an existing sound. You don't get 20 times the reverb when using several instruments with release sample reverb. In theory you get exactly the same sound you would get when playing the instruments simultaneously in the real space as each instrument has only it's own reverb tail, not some magical "hall sound" which would multiply when using multiple instruments.

There are problems with release sample reverb and I don't use them but in theory EW is right. That's why your Gold works in many cases.

Hermitage59

02-10-2006, 05:08 AM

Good posts here to digest!

I used to spend days extracting either L or R from stereo samples: whatever sounded 'best' or consistent. This yielded often better results then just adding L+R due to the aforementioned phase allignment issues.

With the excellent reverb options available these days, it certainly can be a good idea to use mainly mono samples.

Regarding the sensitive wet vs dry debate: I appreciate having both options available, each obviously having their pros and cons.
I applaude East West in particular for going the extra miles to give us a natural sound stage that was missing for so long in the sampling world. It's just great to have that wonderful tone straight out of the box rather then artificially create it using reverbs!

And this is certainly a discussion of personal working practices.

So i'll be objective when i say, i'm the opposite in this. Reverb or resonance is mine to apply, because that's my preference. As for the wet vs Dry debate, I am someone who is not gifted in the finer arts of engineering to the level we hear today (and that's another discussion worth having). I would prefer the choice of wet or not, and not be compelled to accept only one aural soundscape. If the music doesn't sound exactly like the engineering products of today's digital recordings, to be honest, i'm not so concerned.
Orchestration, ability, and Tone are my criteria. And i have plenty of old recordings that have a warmth and 'listenability' that many of today's recordings lack, regardless of output, be it stereo, mono, or 5.1.
A good, reasonably dry, mono sample has far more appeal for me, because i can sculpt the tone to my personal choice, and place it where i choose, without the added problems that go with width compression of stereo.

Ultimately, if you're happy with the tools you are using, and produce the sound you want, then any brand discussion is meaningless.

And although i may sound masochistic, the process of separating left from right, and working on a mono sample to get the sound i want is imminently more satisfying for me, and gives me a great understanding of the tone of that sample, which is then filed away in the database in my head.
As small as my collection of samples is, i know them all, and can blend them in my brain without thinking. This knowledge has increased my working efficiency to a vastly improved level.
A good mono sample library is a powerful tool, and constant practise and awareness can bring those samples to life, removed from the intricate mechanism of today's sound engineering, something that is a complex science on its own.

And my 'simplistic' approach means i can get on with writing the music, which is my first priority. Effects are secondary, and merely a means to an end.

regards,

Alex.

JacquesMathias

02-10-2006, 05:31 AM

VSL isn't actually close-miked.

Hello Nick.

Please, could you explain how it was miked. Sometimes i actually can hear some ambience in the samples, something like a "mid-side" stereo configuration, or maybe a stereo pair of big condensers far from the source sound plus the "close" mic. Please forgive me if you already has explained it before.:)

Cheers!

FrozeN

02-10-2006, 07:05 AM

Sometimes i actually can hear some ambience in the samples, something like a "mid-side" stereo configuration
I believe they are actually the reverb/ambience from the instruments themselves. A violin is merely a wooden box, there gotta be some sound ringing inside, even for just a fraction of a second. ;)

Or, if an instrument just doesn't have any device to "amplify" it's volume to reach the audience, then the whole orchestra should have been equipped with pre-amp'sssssssssssssss since Monteverdi! :D

Cheers,
Frankie

Len

02-10-2006, 07:21 AM

This is all very interesting but could someone please explain the "best" (i.e. few phase problems) way of making a stereo sample mono? How do you extract just one side?

Also, I use Cubase SX2 which has a fancy stero panner which allows you to pan the L/R however you please i.e. not just a standard mixer where you would simple reduce the sound of the right channel when you pan left. I'm sure the other DAWs have this. Is this the best way to do it?

Many thanks for this informative discussion.

Bruce A. Richardson

02-10-2006, 09:23 AM

Please, could you explain how it was miked. Sometimes i actually can hear some ambience in the samples, something like a "mid-side" stereo configuration, or maybe a stereo pair of big condensers far from the source sound plus the "close" mic. Please forgive me if you already has explained it before.:)

Cheers!

Go to their website. There is exhaustive photographic session documentation, and you can see the mic array in several of the photos. Nothing is "close" mic'ed, from my observation. It appears to be a/b in most cases. I'm sure that if someone were to ask, a VSL rep would gladly clarify it, but this is what I have observed in the photos.

As far as distance, it appears to me that they were going for an approximate conductor's perspective.

PaulR

02-10-2006, 09:30 AM

This is all very interesting but could someone please explain the "best" (i.e. few phase problems) way of making a stereo sample mono? How do you extract just one side?

Also, what panning does one use? If someone is prepared to say which panning numbers they use in a typical template that would useful. For example, what midi panning number does one use for say, 1st Violins or Double Basses?

Bruce A. Richardson

02-10-2006, 09:54 AM

I believe they are actually the reverb/ambience from the instruments themselves.

See above. VSL's studio is actually a fairly close analog to a stage...hence the name "Silent Stage." You can look at photos of it, and easily see the acoustic design. There are large amounts of reflectivity built into the space in the form of planar diffusers set at different angles. These mostly exist on the ceiling above the hardwood floor. There are banks of breakup diffusers on the wall, which allow one bounce but diffuse it greatly. The rest of the environment is absorptive.

So, you are getting approximately the same amount of life in the recorded ambience that you would get if you were able to magically make a "stage" silent, and then to cut off the tail you would get if the sound progressed into a performance space.

This is arguably much closer to a situation like classic orchestral soundstages than recording in a hall, but definitely does not represent a close-mic'ing situation.

The methodologies that are well discussed above are the ways you go about mixing these signals. If you are seeking a more intimate chamber sound, you can pick your instrumentation and leave the spread fairly intact. If you are creating a symphonic sound, you need to use your ears a judiciously pan the signals where they need to be, and judge what width adjustments need to be made after you've achieved your panning.

That is the traditional route to getting a good mix, and it works extremely well. What frustrates a lot of people is that they're looking for an out of the box way to achieve what has traditionally been a master artisan's skillset--mixing music. The fact is, owning more technology does not create the skillset, because that skillset depends upon training the ear in not only music but acoustics. One must have some knowledge of at least the rudimentary physics of acoustics, otherwise, the path to mastering music production becomes arduous--akin to finding needles in haystacks. It was a part of my degree plan, in fact, I believe that every music major had to take acoustics, if I'm remembering correctly. It was a physics department class, in the case of my particular school, which had been designed especially for music majors.

Of course, books exist. A particularly good professor certainly makes the information more digestible.

You don't get 20 times the reverb when using several instruments with release sample reverb. In theory you get exactly the same sound you would get when playing the instruments simultaneously in the real space as each instrument has only it's own reverb tail, not some magical "hall sound" which would multiply when using multiple instruments.

This is fundamentally similar to truth, enough so that the illusion is perceived and certainly good enough that it passes the "sounds good is good" muster.

Release trails are a brilliant contrivance. However, it is a contrivance, and not a true acoustic phenomenon. This is true whether we're talking about orchestral libraries, pipe organ libraries, or piano libraries. You are triggering multiple simultaneous snapshots of the same "air," rather than a single snapshot of the same air being exited by multiple instruments or notes. Since the air has a character and sound unto itself, you are constantly adding and subtracting ***discrete*** recordings of this "air" from the recording--in a granular fashion, per played note. Therefore the interactions are not at all the same as if you were taking 44,100 snapshots of a single realtime mass of air, being excited by multiple instruments.

This is why legitimate discussion still exists as to whether the contrivance of release samples and granular note tails, or the contrivance of (high quality) reverbs and convolvers actually represents the closer analog to the acoustic phenomenon in question...and why each methodology has perfectly capable and qualified proponents.

As I said (and I have to confess some consternation at continually needing to qualify statements, almost as if I'm drawing cartoons of Mohammed), our business is not brain surgery, and "sounds good" is absolutely enough, no matter what. But let's not make the mistake of calling any of these sampling techniques theoretically pure, because they are not. They are all fairly coarse contrivances...which is exactly why we have the various compromises constantly facing us in bringing music to life via samples.

Bruce A. Richardson

02-10-2006, 10:00 AM

This is all very interesting but could someone please explain the "best" (i.e. few phase problems) way of making a stereo sample mono? How do you extract just one side?

In GigaStudio, you can rebuild the GIG file from the editor, and choose whether to keep one side or the other, or combine them.

Without any sort of editing, you just turn one side off, and pan the other where you'd like. In Giga, you could do this in the DSP station, since you can either choose a width/pan panning model, or have individual panners per stereo channel. Every mix contingency is well covered there.

If you're in the audio domain, just open up the file in any audio editor and ditch one side (or combine). Some DAWs will convert a stereo track to two mono tracks, so you don't have to go offline.

There are about a zillion ways to approach it, depending upon the control set available in your particular sampler/DAW. I'm not in the studio right now, and I can't open Kontakt to see if there is an equivalent way to affect panning right out of the sampler. Perhaps someone who is sitting in front of Kontakt could explain it, if that's the platform you're using.

lulu

02-10-2006, 10:20 AM

There are about a zillion ways to approach it...

...Perhaps someone who is sitting in front of Kontakt could explain it, if that's the platform you're using.

the ideal would be knowing a way in which you can load only the mono samples, therefore gaining available ram.

anybody???

Bruce A. Richardson

02-10-2006, 10:56 AM

the ideal would be knowing a way in which you can load only the mono samples, therefore gaining available ram.

anybody???

Just go into the wavepool, do a batch-convert to mono, and point the output to a different folder (but keep your folder name the same). Then copy the Kontakt instrument files over to that directory. It should find the new mono waveforms, and you'll be good to go.

If the library is copy protected, you won't be able to do that, but on open content, it will work perfectly.

howardv

02-10-2006, 12:08 PM

Don't know if these are the right VSL picts or not...

http://www.vsl.co.at/en-us/65/72/20.vsl

... but they show a pair of Schoeps cardioid cml6's in an mstc64 ortf mounting spaced around 6-1/2 inches. The qt also shows what looks like a couple of boundary layer Shoeps BLM3g's on the floor separated by about 3 feet. And on a stand up in the air what I'm guessing is a sphere housing a surround sound array. All very good stuff.

If this is how they do all their sampling, I'd use caution just mixing L and R to get mono. These setups are not known for mono compatibility. What you might try is putting an offset delay onto one of the channels and adjusting the delay-time to determine where the summation maximizes. I would expect about 5ms would do it for something sampled with that ortf bar and about 30ms if they used the BLM's. If that's too much of a hassle, you might be best off with the setting to just throw away one channel.

Howard

Bruce A. Richardson

02-10-2006, 01:27 PM

If you follow the links around the "team" area of the site, you will see photographs of almost every section in session.

The boundary mics on the floor are in use in almost every one. It's interesting to see the various placement of the four gobos, and which side is flipped towards the mics for the various instruments. They're absorbers-in on the trumpets, for instance (expected, since you'd want to eat up any ping-ponging off the control room before it came back to the mics the second time around). They're reflectors-in for the horns (also expected, so you're getting more presence).

There appears to be a shotgun pointed at the conductor in one photo--probably just picking up his slates.

There are occasionally more mics visible in the air, but most of the photos face the sections rather tightly, so you don't see a lot of the extraneous.

What you do see is the size, relative spacing (although this is wildly distorted in the QuicktimeVR, and hard to judge), and overall makeup of the acoustic space.

This is invaluable information for anyone who is mixing VSL tracks!!!!!!!!!!

By seeing where the mics are, and how the sections lay out, it is very easy to extrapolate how you'd want to pan and employ width. In general, the downstage strings and woodwinds are going to be pretty close to the right width with stereo panning. As you move to the upstage instruments, you might want to narrow up the image and take off a bit of top and bottom to slightly exaggerate the effect of intervening air and distance, and to create a deeper soundstage.

janila

02-10-2006, 01:39 PM

But let's not make the mistake of calling any of these sampling techniques theoretically pure, because they are not. They are all fairly coarse contrivances...which is exactly why we have the various compromises constantly facing us in bringing music to life via samples.That certainly wasn't my intention. I was just commenting the "20 instruments means 20 times the reverb" misconception. In that perspective the release sample reverb is a virtually perfect concept. ;) I completely agree that these tools are far from being perfect.

ed hamilton

02-10-2006, 01:47 PM

That certainly wasn't my intention. I was just commenting the "20 instruments means 20 times the reverb" misconception. In that perspective the release sample reverb is a virtually perfect concept. ;) I completely agree that these tools are far from being perfect.

Janilla,
You are completely wrong.
its not a misconception at all.

It is absolutely the reverb on each intrument plus the reverb on the next instrument plus the reverb on the next instrument.

EW has all along promoted misconceptions about this issue. It seems the sample lib community accepted these but I can assure you the the audio community never did.

That said - I like ewqlso and it sounds good enough to me.

But the myth that each instrument is recorded in the hall with all that reverb and that each instrument has a reverb tail BUT ALL those reverb tails don't ADD together ... they just blend ...... hogwash.

But hey - gold sounds great. I could care less about the issue.
Just please don't try and change the laws of physics based on the promotional material provided by ew.

janila

02-10-2006, 02:09 PM

It is absolutely the reverb on each intrument plus the reverb on the next instrument plus the reverb on the next instrument.You don't seem to comprehend that there's no reverb per se. There is only reverb caused by a sound source. When you mix two different dry signals with your analog or digital mixer the signals don't add up and form a mother-of-all-signals that has twice the amount of any quality the two separate signals had. The same goes with the reverb. Only two identical signals in the same phase add up in the 20-signals-means-20-times fashion you described.

Just please don't try and change the laws of physics based on the promotional material provided by ew.I'm no EW fanboy and EW didn't invent recording reverb. If the laws of physics worked like you suggest we wouldn't be able to record and process audio the way we do on daily basis.

ed hamilton

02-10-2006, 02:32 PM

You don't seem to comprehend that there's no reverb per se. There is only reverb caused by a sound source. When you mix two different dry signals with your analog or digital mixer the signals don't add up and form a mother-of-all-signals that has twice the amount of any quality the two separate signals had. The same goes with the reverb. Only two identical signals in the same phase add up in the 20-signals-means-20-times fashion you described.

I'm no EW fanboy and EW didn't invent recording reverb. If the laws of physics worked like you suggest we wouldn't be able to record and process audio the way we do on daily basis.

Wow -

If I mix a guitar that has reverb on it and A vocal that was printed with reverb on it and a synth with reverb on it - i am not only mixing the instruments together I am also blending the reverbs they were recorded with.
Same goes for ewqlso.
Each instrument has reverb. when mixing two or more you are also blending the reverb.

Perhaps you are missing my point. I am not suggesting that the reverb is amplified by mixing two or more instruments - I am acknowledging the phase artifacts of doing so. the phase issues being more apparent due to the long decay.

I am sure that Mr Oquinns recording of ewqlso would have been excellent had it been a recording of the orchestra playing at the same time.
But they did it section by section. soloist by soloist.
Everytime you change the number of bodies on the stage you change the absorption ratio of the hall.
The hall sounded different when a single flautest was playing than it did when the were 18 violinists.

There is no getting around the fact that you are indeed mixing the reverb from each instrument together along with the instrument itself.

Humidity changes on each day of recording and the number of people on the stage each day changes the sound of the hall.
This adds up and I submit is evident on demo's that use a full orchestra template.

All sample libs have to deal with the same phase issues in the ambience of the recordings. Its just that shorter reverb tails make it less noticable.

But I don't really want to debate the weanie technical recording side of this.
There are times when a falsehood - repeated enough - becomes suedo truth.
The idea that you can take 20 tracks - all recorded with reverb of any type - and mix them together and pretend that its really just one reverb - well its just false. Its 20 reverbs mixed.
Maybe they blend well to your ears. maybe they don't. It is still 20 tracks with reverb.

Tom Crowning

02-10-2006, 02:46 PM

[...]
I can't open Kontakt to see if there is an equivalent way to affect panning right out of the sampler. Perhaps someone who is sitting in front of Kontakt could explain it, if that's the platform you're using.

In the output section of Kontakt there's the so called 'Stereo Modeller' which
you can use to expand or collapse the stereo field.
Fully collapsed means mono. The good thing is that after finding the
correct place for an instrument you can easly expand again to see how it
sound in stereo.

Tom

janila

02-10-2006, 02:59 PM

Everytime you change the number of bodies on the stage you change the absorption ratio of the hall. The hall sounded different when a single flautest was playing than it did when the were 18 violinists.This is certainly true though I'm not too worried about it. Even if the concert hall won't be the same every time it will still be a concert hall. Not that I care that much, I like convolution. :p

I've also wondered whether sample library developers use any kind of absorbtion material to act as the audience while they are recording. Concert halls aren't designed to be used without the audience so recording in an empty hall will result in an acoustic environment which isn't what the acoustic designer had in mind. Of course most halls will sound tolerable without any additional absorbtion but the audience will make a difference.

howardv

02-10-2006, 03:41 PM

When you consider all the inhales, exhales, sighs, grunts, squeaks, gurgles, chortles, and coughs that come with a live audience, an empty chair starts looking like a pretty good compromise.

Howard

Daryl

02-10-2006, 05:45 PM

I've also wondered whether sample library developers use any kind of absorbtion material to act as the audience while they are recording. Concert halls aren't designed to be used without the audience so recording in an empty hall will result in an acoustic environment which isn't what the acoustic designer had in mind. Of course most halls will sound tolerable without any additional absorbtion but the audience will make a difference.
This is something that a conductor has to bear in mind when rehearsing, as not only does the acoustic have a bearing on the length of notes it also (to an extent) governs the tempo. If one knows the hall well, then the performance, with the dryer acoustic, is not a shock to the system.

D

Dietz

02-10-2006, 07:14 PM

This is an interesting thread. I hope you don't mind that I add some kind of semi-official opinion here.

First of all: Personally, I'm in the business long enough to adhere to the old "If it sounds right it _is_ right"-dogma - much like Bruce, if I understand him correctly.

But then, there is a company I work for quite a bit of my time, known as the Vienna Symphonic Library on these pages. :-) For our products, we had to find some more founded basics than just personal taste.

After long research and testing, we came up with the concept you hear in all our products now: Every instrument is recorded in full stereo insofar that you would be able to produce a "full solo work" with each of them. IOW: You are a listener right in front of a stage with a single performer or ensemble, listening to him/her/them with (hopefully) both ears.

As soon as you place _several_ of them on your virtual stage, you will _of course_ have to collapse this maximum stereo-width (if you are longing for realism). This can go to the extreme: A solo-flute will have almost no intrinsic stereo-information when you listen to it from 20 metres away.

Think of it as an isosceles triangle: The basic angle between "left" and "right" gets smaller and smaller as you move away from the base-line. - This is beautifully visualized in Waves' S1-plugin, BTW.

A final word on the often referred-to "jumping stereo"-image of solo-instruments: This is a completely natural phenomenon you will run into with "real" recordings, too. Due to the laws of acoustics, there are always certain frequency-modes in a room and an instrument itself that will get amplified or lowered in volume, dependent on the relation of the source and the listener. This also happens in a raw mono-recording; it just wouldn't be as obvious, because the result would be just a small change in volume.

Keeping all this in mind, our recording team puts a lot of effort into the search of a well balanced, centered recording position. But there is simply no way to avoid the phenomenon described above completely without sacrificing the main idea: absolutely free placement of any instrument, be it close or far away.

... I hope I could shed some light on this, without sounding like an advertisment ... :-)

All the best,

geronimo001

02-10-2006, 07:31 PM

... I hope I could shed some light on this, without sounding like an advertisment ... :-)

I think we all agrea that VSL has more class than this.;) ...very interesting. thank you Dietz.

Hermitage59

02-11-2006, 05:59 AM

Also, what panning does one use? If someone is prepared to say which panning numbers they use in a typical template that would useful. For example, what midi panning number does one use for say, 1st Violins or Double Basses?

Paul, As i'm far from being an expert engineer, and because i'm a real man and use mono, The orchestral pan slice for me is a 100 degree arc. I arrive at this by imagining myself sitting about 14 or 15 rows back from the stage at a concert in a rectangular hall. So when i want to position an instrument with 'mighty mono', I take the total numbered spec from right to left in the daw, calculate that 100 degree chunk, and work out the maximum left/right in that chunk's number set.

e.g. If Left 64 is extreme left, and Right 64 is extreme right, then, in a 180 degree arc, approx 35 to 40 is the new extreme in ONE channel arc. I then assign my 'mighty mono' instruments within this spec.
This is the start point. Then the ears take over, based on practical experience playing and conducting, not to mention listening to a lot of live concerts, and i adjust those parameters until i 'hear it correctly' according to my own perceptions of what is correct. This does sound long winded, but for my orchestral setup, the numbes were done once, and now form part of my instinctive working practise. I know, for example, that in my orchestral seating plan the Contrabasses are not extreme left from the conductor's perspective, as one would imagine with a fairly regular orchestral setup, rather they are seated in the rear 'behind' the cellos at '10.30 pm' if the conductor were standing in the middle of a large clock facing 12.
I use this based on a combination of experience and my ears. The extreme '9 o'clock' position sounds more unnatural in recording than live. I 'shifted' the basses in increments until the best compromise was reached that enabled me aurally to accept the sound.
Likewise the horns.
I have two seating positions to choose from for horns, the first in an arc from centre '12 o'clock' to about '11 0'clock', and behind the leading desks of cellos and violas. The second position is behind the violas at '1 o'clock' .
Curiously, i prefer the first for work based on slavic influences, and the second for austro-bavarian work. Go figure.
Importantly, i don't apply reverb or effects (usually) until the final two channel output.
Call me old fashioned.
But it means i can place my dry mono samples precisely, and then when the resonance starts as I balance the sound, i know i've hit the 'sweet spot.' without the confusion or 'escape' of echo.
I know some reading this simply can't listen to dry samples without being compelled to add reverb, like the compulsion to pick up the phone when it rings, but i can, and find it a lot easier to place everything. It's also the reason why I wouldn't buy a library with reverb built in, or overladen with 'hall resonance'.
It would clash with my working practise.
The only time i address instruments more closely is the strings before final processing. I add a fraction more 'richness' to the strings. It doesn't mean widening the sound, just emboldening the tone. Now, some will say the strings cover the full arc of pan, and stereo is the only way to reflect this.
Not true. The 'resonant core' of a string section tends to stay where it is in a live situation, when discounting the overall interaction of sound in an orchestra. And when a mono string section has a warm tone, the 'resonant core' occupies the space in the aural soundscape as it should, and not over everything else. So many seem to hit the extreme width button when using stereo string samples, and i don't understand this at all. The 'resonant core' will do far more to fill the soundscape, and balance the overall sound than some 180% mega wide stereo sample.
That actually (IMO) muddies the sound. If this is the desire then that's ok. But for me, that sounds artificial, and is more likely to be used to mask poor orchestration and dynamic imbalance.
(Along with the other escape routes, reverb, and excessive hall resonance)

My only exception to this is solo instruments. I have stereo samples for some SI, and even then i keep the stereo width only wide enough to give the sound sufficent body to be heard against normal orchestration. Often the tone is good enough to carry the sound, but on occasions, that little bit of width is a help, without having to rebalance the dynamics. And i make the important distinction between solo lines in an orchestral setting, and an arrangement for solo and orchestra. The former gets a mono sample setup, and the latter may or may not get the narrow stereo treatment, according to TONE.

Now I know this seems rough and crude method of working, but it's extremely quick, and takes very little, through simplicity and experience, to get that all important aural 'sweet spot.'
Even now I can imagine the engineers amongst us, coughing into their cornflakes with disgust, or Bruce throwing up in his geraniums, or developers rolling their eyes as i confirm i'm from the middle ages when it comes to modern aural imaging technology. (I really enjoy writing on parchment.)
But my system works for me reliably, and produces a sound that has my stamp on it.
I don't have that technical expertise in engineering, so i use my ears instead.
(Just kidding.......;) )

As my piece in another thread takes shape, and i will post updates, you'll hear what i do, and decide for yourself.

The clock system works for me, provided it's remembered that the arc i describe is from 15 rows back, and not from the conductor's perspective. He hears the orchestra at near 180 degrees.
We don't generally listen to music through monitors this way though, more the approx. 100 degree arc i described, and that's what i plan to.

regards,

Alex.

Bela D Media

02-11-2006, 06:58 AM

Hermitage59

02-11-2006, 07:00 AM

I haven't read through this entire thread yet but, has Mid Side Stereo been mentioned? DIVA was captured in MS. There are some very cool advantages to this recording technique.

Best,
FB

Morning Frank!
I have no idea what mid side stereo is. Please explain.

Regards,

Alex.

Bela D Media

02-11-2006, 07:03 AM

Hi Alex,

This link says it better then I can. Still on my first cup of coffee ;)

http://www.paia.com/msmicwrk.htm

Hermitage59

02-11-2006, 07:14 AM

Hi Alex,

This link says it better then I can. Still on my first cup of coffee ;)

http://www.paia.com/msmicwrk.htm

Thanks Frank. Good read and I just learnt something......

:cool:

JacquesMathias

02-11-2006, 08:18 AM

Good morning,

I haven't read through this entire thread yet but, has Mid Side Stereo been mentioned? DIVA was captured in MS. There are some very cool advantages to this recording technique.

Best,
FB

I have mentioned it, looking for some advanced explanations about how VSL stereo sample were captured. Bruce has guide me towards VSL site. By the way, thanks Bruce! I really love to record my acoustic guitars with a Mid Side Stereo configuration! I did two demos to BFD (posted here at Northernsounds) where i've used it in eletric and steel/nylon guitars. I love using far plus close mics, even in situations where i'm completely sure i won't use this mic in the mix.:D It's a kind of obsession. If you are in a recording process doesn't hurt add some "ambient" mics configuration. I got tired of the "so close sound" using one or two condensers in my guitar sound because i realized that for my personal taste, i enjoy listening some instrument inside a room. But not to get that "reverb long decay" you get recording in a Big Room...just to add another "point of view"...or would be "ear of view" :D ; other sound caracteristic, other color. Although convolutions reverbs sounds good to me, i like some mics in the room.
I'm not an expertise engineer but there is one experience i did some days ago where i was recording a jazz solo guitar through the amp. So i've positioned a Mid Side config plus the "close mics" one in the front and another in the back with the inverted phase, just to try it...Then after recorded i tried add some convolutions, sounds good! But when i've "opened" the "ambience tracks" (Mid Side) it went to the next level...less transparent...less clean...less "beatiful" than the artificial room from Impulses but it was the real guitar sound recorded in a room...natural...emotional...
Then backing to the "mono-stereo" discussion, i would like to point that a stereo recorded sound is more rich of natural elements wich our ears are able to capture...If you want make it mono after, that's ok, but please : Dear developers keep recording stereo samples :)

Maybe we can send a signal to a "best of the best" monitor of the world, put it inside a biiiiiiiig room and after re-record it with the natural ambience...:p

Bruce A. Richardson

02-11-2006, 10:06 AM

Good morning,

I haven't read through this entire thread yet but, has Mid Side Stereo been mentioned? DIVA was captured in MS. There are some very cool advantages to this recording technique.

Best,
FB

I'm suspecting that you did not leave the m/s signal "wild," but that you made a width decision and printed it to the finalized samples.

Yet another technique which has not been mentioned (but which uses mid/side) is that GigaStudio has a realtime built-in mid/side decoder on the instrument level. So, for instance, you could do your sample library in mid/side, actually leave the two signals "wild," and program each signal on a different dimension. Then, you can map a controller to determine the mid/side balance.

So, in the final output, you have a continuously variable mid/side width control that you can control from your sequencer.

The reason it has not been used much, I suspect, is twofold. First, it would severely complicate sampler-to-sampler conversions (as in, why does this library go out of phase when I convert it to XYZ format? You damned incompetent boobs!! Your library sucks!!).

Second, even in Giga 3, you have to split your signal into two mono files, and program them into different dimensions in order to use the built-in conversion. That's no big deal at all in G3, just a little labor in the initial stages of naming the files and preparing the import. It was a far bigger deal in G2, when there were only 32 dimensions available for programming. Many libraries ate up all the dimensions just getting the notes mapped.

At any rate, this is certainly an option for anyone who is considering samping their own things, and who wishes to experiment with mid/side for the purpose. It's one of the great classic stereo mic'ing techniques, and it works extremely well. It's particuarly good for pianos!! The classic Yamaha plot is a pair of 414's in mid/side.

hywyn

02-11-2006, 01:29 PM

Bela D Media

02-11-2006, 01:49 PM

I'm suspecting that you did not leave the m/s signal "wild," but that you made a width decision and printed it to the finalized samples.

You can use the MS plug and in real time to talk to the soloist or the church.

gungnir

02-11-2006, 02:10 PM

In regards to the issue of additive hall ambience when using reverb samples on top of each other, it seems the net conclusion so far is that the process theoretically actually occurs, but appears to not do much actual damage functionally in terms of its sonic consequences.

Therefore, in light of this, could we still consider that recording interval transition samples in a hall is still a potentially doable approach? Would there be in fact actual negative sonic consequences that out-way the benefits of the ambience?

I believe this topic has been touched on in the past, but I don't think it was conclusive in regards to just what would happen and what we would end up hearing.

Can anybody enlighten on this aspect at all?

Many thanks.

Tom Crowning

02-11-2006, 02:36 PM

Hi Alex,

This link says it better then I can. Still on my first cup of coffee ;)

http://www.paia.com/msmicwrk.htm

Wow, thanks for the link.
This principle is just ingenious in its simplicity.

Tom

FrozeN

02-11-2006, 03:35 PM

Actually I have a question.... could be a dumb one :p coz I really don't have any technical knowledge on sound acoustics.

If I convert a stereo track to mono, and the resulting track has a significant drop in volume (not judging by ears, but by how the WAV looks) Does that imply there might be phasing problem occurred during the conversion?

What I am curious about is, I have tried several stereo/image panner plugin, quite some of them suffer from this "drop in volume" during the conversion. I only encounter one that doesn't have any significant volume drop after the conversion. (Sorry not gonna name what those plugin's are :D ) Does that mean actually the original stereo file doesn't have a big problem, only the latter plugin I use has a better conversion method/algorithm to avoid any phasing issue? I am sure there is no compression or dB boost during the process.

Sorry if this is a stupid question hehe. ;)

Cheers,
Frankie

Theodor

02-11-2006, 07:04 PM

Theo,
you've written a lot of practical sense here, but i differ in this line.
It's been my experience that correct placement of mono more accurately reflects the space in the score, according to how it's orchestrated, and in fact stereo can 'muddy' the sound.
I'll be the first to admit i'm no sound engineer, and it may be a lack of engineering expertise on my part, but i've always had a better result with 'smart' mono, than stereo. You've heard the piece i'm working on. Using stereo, i believe the close harmony, where written, would suffer at the hands of multiple stereo instruments, and lose the distinctive tones as they appear. It's a musical fact that the more instruments you add, the less discernible is tone. Like mixing a lot of colours at once, and producing a consistent shade of grey. I think in a full and close harmonic stack, mono is essential to maintain the texture and tonal combination.

I also think in a large mix mono would serve the writer better, as it would more accurately reflect the actual intent of the orchestration.

Still, the differences in opinion means we get to discuss this!

Regards,

Alex.

p.s. Thanks again for helping out with my piece. Very generous of you.

Hi Alex,

It's funny you mention that, i also work mostly with stereo because i'm no sound engineer either and find it harder getting a good result with mono. You're right that a lot of stereo tracks can muddy up a mix in so many ways and create the grey you mentioned in some occasions.

I used to work with soundfonts, an Sblive and a Roland jv a while ago and i personally had trouble with mono in large orchestrations.. i felt that i couldn't hear things properly. But whenever there was one rare stereo soundfont in the mix it was so intelligable and easily heard, even when i put the volume lower on that track. So that eventually lead me to the mistaken conclusion that "stereo is better".

But i agree that when mono is engineered correctly it can sound wonderful! Just lately i've seen some nice mono techniques like sending a wet delay only to the right speaker etc. I think that mono is easier to sculpture and get a cleaner/solid mix when everything is correctly done.

What do you think about sections Alex? Lets say strings or choir, do you prefer them in mono?

Regards,
Theo

PS: About the song; Anytime Alex! It's just excess bandwidth and i'll be glad to host your future tracks as well. Just send them to "theodorkrueger at gmail dot com" and i'll send you a link back. Same with any other stuff you need hosting.

howardv

02-11-2006, 07:33 PM

... GigaStudio has a realtime built-in mid/side decoder on the instrument level. ... in Giga 3, you have to split your signal into two mono files, and program them into different dimensions in order to use the built-in conversion. You know when the ms option showed up in GS2 something, I got all excited but never was able to figure out how to make it work. So I stuck the the gs1 way of doing it with layers in 3 dimensions: throw the mid sample in dim1 and the side sample into both 2 and 3 with 2 panned left and 3 panned right with inversion. Then assign a controler to attenuate 2 and 3. I'm getting the idea from your explanation I could have saved a dim, set ms to yes on 2 (no on 1), not bother setting pan, and assign the controller to dim 2's attenuation. I just assumed the ms thing applied to a traditional mid-left/side-right stereo sample but the lack of a controller assignment threw me.

Larry Seyer seems to have found another way in GigaPiano 2. He's managed to do it with the B mic perspective some how. Still waiting for his spaces product whose docs are suposed to tell all.

Howard

Bela D Media

02-11-2006, 08:25 PM

I don't think mono for a choir would be the way to go. You would never be able to capture all the performers. Even with the smaller chamber sizes like that of Giovani. It's almost like taking a photograph - you would have to place the singers in such a tight group to first get the right blend and I just don't think one mic will do it. MS perhaps.

OT PS. Theo - I just have to say "WOW!!" again about your LD2 demo. You are a monster man!

Bela D Media

02-11-2006, 08:39 PM

Howard,

The samples have to be recorded in MS or there will be nothing to decode. Correct me if I am wrong Bruce.

Bruce A. Richardson

02-11-2006, 11:48 PM

you are correct sir.

howardv

02-12-2006, 01:12 AM

I second that. Just record the side with a figure 8 mic and the mid with almost anything. Beauty of leaving the samples that way (encoded) and letting the sampler decode to stereo on the fly is that you can assign a controller to either widen or narrow the width all the way down to mono at sampler playback time. And since summing the decoded channels reduces back to the mid, its as mono compatable as you can get.

Only tricky part of printing mid and side raw as it comes out of the mics is monitoring. Pays to have some kind of decoder going to get an idea of what the stereo will sound like later. Especially if performers get a live mix. The mid and side sound pretty funky raw. Pays to keep an analog mixer handy and patch up 3 channels just to feed monitoring headphones.

Howard

Hermitage59

02-12-2006, 05:18 AM

Hi Alex,

It's funny you mention that, i also work mostly with stereo because i'm no sound engineer either and find it harder getting a good result with mono. You're right that a lot of stereo tracks can muddy up a mix in so many ways and create the grey you mentioned in some occasions.

I used to work with soundfonts, an Sblive and a Roland jv a while ago and i personally had trouble with mono in large orchestrations.. i felt that i couldn't hear things properly. But whenever there was one rare stereo soundfont in the mix it was so intelligable and easily heard, even when i put the volume lower on that track. So that eventually lead me to the mistaken conclusion that "stereo is better".

But i agree that when mono is engineered correctly it can sound wonderful! Just lately i've seen some nice mono techniques like sending a wet delay only to the right speaker etc. I think that mono is easier to sculpture and get a cleaner/solid mix when everything is correctly done.

What do you think about sections Alex? Lets say strings or choir, do you prefer them in mono?

Regards,
Theo

PS: About the song; Anytime Alex! It's just excess bandwidth and i'll be glad to host your future tracks as well. Just send them to "theodorkrueger at gmail dot com" and i'll send you a link back. Same with any other stuff you need hosting.

Theo, many thanks for your kind offer, and i'll let you know when 'begin' is ready for the next stage. I appreciate it.

Now, to the question at hand, and a thoroughly interesting one!

I wrote of what i call the 'resonant core' of sections in another post.

That is, the aural and TONAL centre of violins for example would be where they lie the 'thickest' on stage.

In my orchestral setup, the 1st violins are to the left of the conductor. So pretty standard stuff. And if we think of Violins as a wedge shaped piece of the overall, the 'resonant core' resides approx two thirds of the distance from the conductor (as pan centre) to the edge or outer limit of the section.

In my mono setup, pan is a 100 (approx) degree arc in the full 180 degree potential of width. so in the 90 degrees avaiable to left channel, i would consider 50-60 degrees to be close to the edge. (I measure from a listeners perspective some rows back from the stage.)

And then applying my resonant core principle, the core would be two thirds of that.
In midi pan terms, i would possibly build the following:

If L64 is full pan at a line equivalent to a 180 degree aural width, then my outer limit for pan is going to be around L40 or a little less. (My ears will tell me what's ok.) Then, about two thirds of that represents the resonant core of the 1st violins, so we're looking at 26 to 28 as the 'initial pan point'
for a mono 1st violins patch.
Interesting to note here that, depending on your choice of orchestral setup, the cellos could be 'outside' the violins in the pan (greater than 26 to 28) or inside! I've experimented with both and find music i write that is more reflective of the 18th century works better with cellos outside, and 19th century fare, where i write far more comfortably, works better with the cellos inside, at about 20 to 22.

Stereo does one thing well. It expands the listening experience from a perceived 'stage width distance' of 80 feet to 120 feet (to use a method of scale). However, there is a point of unreality, based on the familiarity of listening, through repetition, visual cues from live concert performances, and the common speaker setup at home, when stereo goes beyond what we perceive aurally/intellectually/ emotionally as 'normal'. Things are often recorded too wide, and sound false. and even 'inside' an orchestration, horns that are twenty feet wide sound artifical. It's the TONE that gives instruments grace and power, and 'width'.

Using Mono,( and i will say again, i am NO sound engineer), the stage width distance by reasonably neccesity should remain as a 'real' stage width, be it 60 feet or 80 feet. (and i generalise here).
From a listener perspective of about 15 rows back, (my starting point for evaluation of pan width) if we assume a line running through our ears, as extreme left and right, then the aural visual connection is actually made in a much narrower field, hence my stage width explanation.
Now, there are those waiting to fulminate and roar at me "but what about resonance and overtones and sound bouncing back from other surfaces from behind our ears? How could you say this Alex?"

The answer is because we are setting the orchestra for sound production, or pre-production.
At the point the sound is made, the 'panscape' reflects seating and player position to a reasonable facsimile of the real thing.
The sound, now made, enters the world of post production, with overtones and resonances the realm of effects in our modern sample setup.
I have a bonus with thinking in Mono with pan positions, although the 'stereoites' may disagree. My orchestrations are without effects (as my piece will illustrate). When i finish the first draft, and enter the next, that will be the most important, as i set each section in their rightful place. And in the other post i talked of a sweet spot, where everything feels and sounds correct. (I have played in and conducted large orchestras, as well as attended countless performances, so i use this experience). That sweet spot is not governed by resonance or reverb or anything but my reality of instrument placement in orchestration. I want the flute to play this line here, in a relatively narrow field. I want the answer to come from the bassoon over here, SEPARATED from the flute. That's part of my orchestration, and placement is as much part of the variety of orchestration as anything else. It's a LOT harder to exploit that placement variety if everythings stereo, and overlap is rife.
IMO, it is essential for a composer to understand the importance of placement, and recognise a sometimes uncomfortable reality. If the orchestration sucks, it sucks. No manner of contrivances, be they stereo, reverb, built in resonances or the like will disguise poor orchestration, and i'm harder on myself in this than anyone else could be. If my music works well in mono, with no effects then i'm off to a good start. Besides, i'm a proud fellow, and would consider it shameful to hide mediocre music behind effects or 'mile wide illusion.';) Better to write well in the first place!

Theo,
Hope this explains my mono philosophy, and my system of working a little more clearly. I have a good set of ears, and limited enginnering expertise, so i rely on the ears to tell me what works and doesn't. I keep separate, (rightly or wrongly) sound production versus effects, and i consider any artifical resonances, effects.
My initial sound is very dry, and precise. Some can listen to this, others can't and have to add lashings of reverb. I fail to see the sense in this when orchestrating to produce variety and placement of sound colour in a piece. If the music's good, and the orchestration interesting, then a little effect at the end process stage will only enhance the 'precise, complete, aural picture'. If, however, stereo is intended as a 'cover up' to blend harmonies, or hide inadeqaute orchestration, then that will be obvious to a discerning ear, and the aural soundscape will overlap to the point of distraction.

TONE AND GOOD ORCHESTRATION are the real aural goals for me, and replace stereo as a potential winner.

Choirs are a special case. (IMO)
Frank (BelaD) has already said he uses a MS method to record choirs. I agree with this for two reasons, and this is usually the only time i will depart from my 'mighty mono' preference.

The first reason is the complexity and wonder of the human voice. It is the world's finest instrument, capable of an infinite variety of sounds, not just melodic, but percussive, etc. And the human voice does something no other instrument can. It can, particularly in a choral group, produce 'over, overtones', for want of a better description. The 'aural width' of a cello section is reasonably fixed, allowing for resonance. In the same space, a choir will produce multiple overtones above that of a cello and effect a 'wider perceptive/emotional response' from the listener.

I use, and in the case of Frank's Giovani choirs (to use an example) plan to use, a slightly wider than normal resonant footprint. I write for choir in the 18th and 19 century style (call me old fashioned), so they have to sing properly, be orchestrated correctly, have a good dynamic range, and most importantly of all (if i have done MY job properly), evoke powerful emotions in the listener. I mentioned in that other post, the difference between live and recorded, and choir is the best example of all to highlight that difference. (in the style in which i choose to write.) A great choir live is compelling to listen too. Often with bigger choirs, they stand in the rear of the orchestra spread across the entire 'panscape'. But that's 4 sections! And if i apply my resonant core principle to a narrow stereo sample, I do so for the TONE capture, not the pan placement. After all, you don't buy a superb choir library to limit the voices, or their emotive potential, do you!;)
It's that 'live emotion' that i work hard to attain.

Now, another question arises. How do i get that panned orchestra to have depth? That is, how do I place the clarinet back where it belongs?
I know from study and experience that W/W usually conform to the following rule:

At a medium or soft dynamic, ONE W/W instrument scored to a similar dynamic, will be equal in tone and presence to a section of strings.

To use a wide stereo W/W, be it clarinet or oboe (for example) is to destroy the inherent balance and resonance in the dynamic relationship between these sections. And further, one stereo width for a W/W instrument is equal to one stereo width for 14 or 16 strings. That's a problem, not a balance.

The resonant capabilites of strings at a softer tempo are considerably less in a sliding scale of ratio, than a Clarinet or Oboe.

It's one of the reasons (imo) that 'stereo'd' orchestral recordings sound so messy, and suffer so much imbalance, hence a lot more work for the aspiring sample performer, readujsting the dynamic and tonal profile.
And unfair to the most expressive and creatively variable of all instruments in the modern orchestra, the strings.

And that's where after effects come in.
I ONLY apply reverb individually to instruments that sit to the rear in the orchestra. W/W get about 5%, Brass the same, Horns get 3%, etc. These might seem small increments, but with trial and error, they work for me in creating depth (I'm still to learn the vagaries or otherwise of 3D imagery, a digital technology that has me thoroughly interested as a new method of placement) WITHOUT losing the TONE of the instrument. I use NO reverb on strings, or close instruments until the final stage, in the two channel output, and only enough to take the 'dryness' out of the mix.

I've rambled on some here, so apologies if this a hard read.

Theo, string sections get the mono 'resonant core' treatment, with slight enhancement of the TONE not the width, and choirs get a narrow stereo field to MAINTAIN the recorded tone.

Does that answer the questions?......... :D

Regards,

Alex.

Hermitage59

02-12-2006, 07:01 AM

As an addition to the above, and on a more practical level, when i've presented my work to sound experts for final processing, they seem a lot happier with my minimal effect approach. There have two occasions in my thirty years when engineers have specifically asked me to keep everything completely dry.
And having a few sound experts as friends and colleagues, i have heard many stories of woe and gnashing of teeth as they describe some presented work from others so redolent with pre effects, as to render their job almost impossible, and worse, once the offending effects have been removed or minimised, the inadequacies in the music itself have become painfully obvious.

Alex.

Bela D Media

02-12-2006, 10:25 AM

Great read Alex and a very cool thread. Its so nice to see everyone getting along and sharing ideas/concepts.

Theodor

02-12-2006, 09:28 PM

Hello Alex! Sorry for the late reply, as a relatively slow english reader i had to make sure i had time, coffee and ciggarettes to enjoy the read and digest it slowly :)

And...yes! That answers the question and many more :D

The points you presented are very strong and extremely interesting, so much as to make me reconsider the mistaken approach that i've had for some time now with wide stereo.

It's also very interesting reading this because yesterday, i was listening to a game soundtrack recorded with a real orchestra (Shadow of the Colossus) and all the principles you mentioned seem to be present: the strings section sounds like a very solid and "wide" sound, but still mono, it's presence is very strong but with minimal ambience only around the prominent panning position of the sound, or "resonant core/Tonal Centre" like you named it. There were no reflections scattering everywhere on the stereo field and it sounded damn wonderful! Perhaps, unfortunately, too wonderful to be reproducable by sound libraries today, but only time will tell that. (Synful in Leodardini's recent Tchaikowsky demos sounded a bit like that btw!).

I understand how you see choirs now as well and why they are a single entity with a wide tonal centre, i also understand the M/S philosophy a bit more.

Mono for solo instruments helping call and: Covered.

Huge Reverberant Mixes hiding compositional inadequacies? Most of the times. Agreed and guilty :)

Well, thank you so much for the great read, i've saved it for future reference. Also thanks for teaching me how to listen to music with one more "ear" that didn't exist until now.

Regards,
Theo

geronimo001

02-12-2006, 09:56 PM

Well i'm glad i started a thread where there's no fighting:) , unfortunatly i didn't have the time to reed it all, but i will sure come back later caus this is to good to miss, even if i can not fully anderstand it all i'm defanetly learning a lot, hell, i'm learning more than my brain can take:eek: , and i've also learn that you have to be carefull about what you're saying;)...

Well next thread could be about surround? maby?

Theo, you got me curious about that game whit a reel orchestra:cool: , i'm a little shock to hear this. Must be a good game.

Anyway, thanks to all for the great info, and the amazing input in this forum.

Geronimo.

Daryl

02-13-2006, 01:50 AM

This idea about where the audience is sitting is an interesting one. A few year back I scored an IMAX and the brief that I was given was "This is not a film, it is a ride, so you should score it as such". At first I didn't really understand what the Director was saying, but as the project progressed I started to get the picture and re-wrote some of the cues. Basically what he was saying was that because of the nature of this production he wanted the audience dramatically to be in the middle; not observing from the sidelines. Now in traditional scoring the music (even when in surround) is more or less two dimensional, however for this production I worked closely with the sound designers to give a more 3D effect. I have to say that having the use of all 6 speakers was liberating and was a very new experience for me as far as film music was concerned. The Director jumped out of his skin when a few Monks started to whisper behind his back. Mind you, being a Director you'd have thought that he'd be used to people talking behind his back...!

D

Hermitage59

02-13-2006, 05:34 AM

Hello Alex! Sorry for the late reply, as a relatively slow english reader i had to make sure i had time, coffee and ciggarettes to enjoy the read and digest it slowly :)

Perhaps, unfortunately, too wonderful to be reproducable by sound libraries today, but only time will tell that.
Regards,
Theo

Theo, you are most welcome. There are many who have a different philosophy to me, so it's worth remembering this is just one sample performing principle.

As to your next point, hmmmm. I agree with the aspect of time, but i'm not sure this is impossible to achieve with sample libraries.
The sounds are there, the means to articulate them are too.
Ultimately, it's down to us to 'perform' our sample library to the best of our ability. More knowledge in the reality of instrument construction, playing techniques, phrasing issues (a big one i hear in many demos), etc., will help us 'play' these instruments better. I'm not saying one composer could ever emulate superb technique for EVERY instrument, but some competence in the sample interpretation would certainly bring us a better result.

The standard we attain is up to us and our abilities, and a large chunk of commitment and determination. I think there's been a lot of discussion over some years about the pros and cons of samples and useability, but in reality much of that can be attributed to lesser skills, and lack of knowledge, on the part of the user. I gave the example in another thread of my motley collection of soundfonts, and samples. I know everyone of them, and their capabilities.
With a new sound collection, I would spend a lot of time listening to the tone, experimenting, trying the samples out in a varieties of styles, and using them for many hours day after day, before i approached the developer with major questions. Samples that are out of tune are just that, out of tune. Samples with too much effect added will sound the same, always. (remembering my preference for dryer, concert orientated tone).
But a well tuned, elegantly toned, multi articulation library, as so many are these days, offer little excuse for mediocre orchestration, or a lack of instrument knowledge and unique tonal production in all registers and dynamics, or simply a lack of knowledge developing ideas to a larger ensemble performance.

finally, something to add to this. As i've said previously, i'm no sound engineer. I've worked in bands and orchestras and owned many mixers, PA's, and effects boxes to manipulate, which i've done so competently, rather than brilliantly.
But modern sound production has become a science in itself. and i think we take on too much as sample composers, when we attempt to do EVERYTHING in one box. (to paraphrase that which has spawned so many battles!)

I would not attempt to produce a symphonic recording with samples for potential sale to the public, without the help of an experienced, enlightened, musical, sound expert. Objectively, i'm less than competent. Subjectively, i would want the best possible chance of my work being heard clearly, without the artifacts of incompetence detracting from the end result.

There are experienced musicians who have superb engineering skills, and i admire them for this. However, as one writing for concert orchestra (and i make no claim to genuis or considerable expertise), i've yet to hear a created work (not a mockup) that reflects the brilliance of great symphonic orchestration, a superb performance of that work with samples, and produced to the nth degree of excellence by one person. They may be out there, and i haven't heard them yet, but until i hear this work of genuis, i will suscribe to the view that final production is a separate task that needs an expert hand at the aural tiller.

On a lighter note, when i was gigging in small bands, and singing, i had two mikes for years, Both Shure 58's. One helped me sound like crap, the other, well, less crap. I worked hard to try and enhance whatever tone i had in my voice to make the listening experience more bearable for the crowd!:p

The interesting part was, when i played sax, the crap mike was superb for this. I didn't understand the technical reasons for this, simply one was good for voice, the other for instrument. (The piano and organ went through a fender 120, with everything going through the PA, so nobody escaped my enthusiasm!)

The thing i always searched and adjusted for, was Tone, and this bears relevance for me in today's products in the sample library world.
With multiple articulations pretty well across the board, similarities in construction and recording technique, the differences are getting smaller. But my deciding factor in any appraisal of the merits of one library over another continues to be TONE.
Even then, the quality of tone capture continues to rise, and asessments are getting harder. I made the point on another thread about my change of opinion regarding Gary's GPO. It's a great tonal collection, full stop. And BelaD's Giovani is something i can recommend to others, for the beautiful tone, captured by the sample production team.
And from my concert perspective, the TONAL excellence of VSL is wonderful in it's brilliance, and potentially wonderful and desirable end result.
These are developments that help us considerably, particularly when we try to bring our creative concept to fruition, but further reinforce the responsibility of end result as ours, and not deficiency in the tools.

Some more to discuss, yes?

Regards,

Alex.

howardv

02-13-2006, 08:50 AM

... Now in traditional scoring the music (even when in surround) is more or less two dimensional, however for this production I worked closely with the sound designers to give a more 3D effect. I have to say that having the use of all 6 speakers was liberating and was a very new experience for me as far as film music was concerned. The Director jumped out of his skin when a few Monks started to whisper behind his back. ...There happens to be a trick way to do this with more traditional stereo samples and mixes. It's usually referred to as phase juggling. But it's really just an adaption of the mid-side techniques discussed earlier.

It so happens that you can take any mono compatible stereo signal and encode it into a mid-side pair. If you started with a mid-side array, got your stereo with an MS decoder like the PAiA one, the encoder will just give you the mid and side mic signals you started out with. The encoder is almost trivial, btw. It merely creates the mid signal by summing the L and R channels and creates the side signal by subtracting them. If you look at the PAiA diagram and do some simple math, the reason this works becomes obvious.

What may not be so obvious is that you can derive mid and side signals from any mono compatible stereo signal. The acid test being the ability to add the L and R together and get a useable mono signal. Works for stereo decoded from MS arrays as well as the raw stereo output of any other array that's point-source. Like cardioid X-Y and the similar Blumlein figure-8 setups.

So why would you want to turn a stereo signal back to MS? So you can re-decode with adjustments. Which is what stereo-width plugins do. Or to create 3-D sound. The trick here is to re-encode without actually doing the mix in the box. You could send the +S and -S side signals to your rear speakers and maybe pan your M signal between perhaps your L, C, and R front speakers. Then let the mix take place in the air... and literally step right out into the room.

Unfortunately, these things don't work very well with spaced AB or ORTF or any other non point-source recording or sampling technique. But, as mentioned earlier, using a delay line on one of the channels to try and time-align the signals can help.

Howard

Theodor

02-14-2006, 05:00 AM

Hello Alex,

As to your next point, hmmmm. I agree with the aspect of time, but i'm not sure this is impossible to achieve with sample libraries.
The sounds are there, the means to articulate them are too.
Ultimately, it's down to us to 'perform' our sample library to the best of our ability. More knowledge in the reality of instrument construction, playing techniques, phrasing issues (a big one i hear in many demos), etc., will help us 'play' these instruments better.

Yeap! I think we are living in great times for home-made (computer) music. Things are looking so good, that in a while it might be nearly effortless to imitate instruments as so much automation is beeing introduced slowly. You could say that the concept of Midi is like Robots; some years ago we had toasters with timers but they still burnt the toast, now we have robot dogs that go bleep bleep and move their tails with a -Clogged- brain of their own.

I would not attempt to produce a symphonic recording with samples for potential sale to the public, without the help of an experienced, enlightened, musical, sound expert. Objectively, i'm less than competent. Subjectively, i would want the best possible chance of my work being heard clearly, without the artifacts of incompetence detracting from the end result.

I agree that for an orchestral mock-up, to have your piece mastered by a pro engineer would be ideal. But generally (in other genres), I don't think it's bad to release something which you have produced and mastered on your own, even if you are not an experienced professional on it. Sometimes, it's the lack of knowledge in what you are doing that can create something unique and "imperfect", in regards to the public's idea of what is considered perfect. Sometimes you want a piece to sound very distant and drowned in reverb to create a soundscape, sometimes you want the production to be colder for a darker feeling etc. A mastering engineer will listen to your song as if it was just sound, and then apply general knowledge of what is proven to work. (a cold feeling would not be in the engineering book)

i've yet to hear a created work (not a mockup) that reflects the brilliance of great symphonic orchestration, a superb performance of that work with samples, and produced to the nth degree of excellence by one person. They may be out there, and i haven't heard them yet, but until i hear this work of genuis, i will suscribe to the view that final production is a separate task that needs an expert hand at the aural tiller.

I fear we are in different times and the original feelings and inspirations which created the classical masterpieces do not exist anymore... or no one has the will and support to seach for them. How many write after listening to the birds sing today? I hear major chords in the distant highway trucks at night, that's inspiration today. To take feelings from existing classical pieces and learn to recreate them with your own signature is one thing, to actually live the experiences that created the feelings is another.

Tchaikowsky wrote the swan lake and the nutrcracker suite -both masterpieces in my oppinion-, if you wrote about a swan lake today and it's accompanying ballet you would be considered gay (He was, but its not the point). Though initially it may sound silly as an assumption, if you think of the world today; advertising, business oriented lifes, showoff, money, corruption, consuming mania, brainwashing etc etc. Where can one find the beauty to write such music nowadays? I feel that half of humanity has become disoriented and the other half is trying to make money out of the victims. I think the above factors can deeply influence a person, even subconsiously and take beautiful inspiration away.

What do you think Alex of this 'lost beauty'? I hear Moscow is different from your posts, it sounds like they still see things from the melodic side :)

But my deciding factor in any appraisal of the merits of one library over another continues to be TONE.

So... if melody is King, Tone must be his cloths and how cool he looks eh? :) (hehehe, this Melody is King thing has gotten beaten to death lately)

But, agreed Alex, Tone or lack of it can make a huge difference, both psychoacoustically and clearly a listening experience.

Conversation? Man, these are books for the future generations :D

Regards,
Theo

Daryl

02-14-2006, 06:34 AM

Tchaikowsky wrote the swan lake and the nutrcracker suite -both masterpieces in my oppinion.........
Theo
I agree with you about Nutcracker, but Swan Lake is severely flawed; not just in terms of construction but also of composition and even orchestration(!).

Tchaikovsky's ballet masterpiece is generally considered to be Sleeping Beauty for various reasons, and I agree with this sentiment. What is even more extraordinary about this work is that even though he was following orders from Petipa on a bar by bar basis, he still managed to come up with a cohesive musical masterpiece.

D

Hermitage59

02-14-2006, 06:39 AM

I fear we are in different times and the original feelings and inspirations which created the classical masterpieces do not exist anymore... or no one has the will and support to seach for them. How many write after listening to the birds sing today? I hear major chords in the distant highway trucks at night, that's inspiration today. To take feelings from existing classical pieces and learn to recreate them with your own signature is one thing, to actually live the experiences that created the feelings is another.

Tchaikowsky wrote the swan lake and the nutrcracker suite -both masterpieces in my oppinion-, if you wrote about a swan lake today and it's accompanying ballet you would be considered gay (He was, but its not the point). Though initially it may sound silly as an assumption, if you think of the world today; advertising, business oriented lifes, showoff, money, corruption, consuming mania, brainwashing etc etc. Where can one find the beauty to write such music nowadays? I feel that half of humanity has become disoriented and the other half is trying to make money out of the victims. I think the above factors can deeply influence a person, even subconsiously and take beautiful inspiration away.

What do you think Alex of this 'lost beauty'? I hear Moscow is different from your posts, it sounds like they still see things from the melodic side :)

So... if melody is King, Tone must be his cloths and how cool he looks eh? :) (hehehe, this Melody is King thing has gotten beaten to death lately)

But, agreed Alex, Tone or lack of it can make a huge difference, both psychoacoustically and clearly a listening experience.

Conversation? Man, these are books for the future generations :D

Regards,
Theo

Theo, great read, and a cue for me into a comment or two about another aspect of music.
We are living in different times. as our planet gets more industrialized, ever more populated, and ever more concerned with luxuries, lifestyle, appearance, with more worry and concern by many about acceptance, more sohisticated savagery in crime inflicted upon others. In this mechanical construct it's easy to lose sight of the planet itself, with all its beauty and danger, life and death, satiation and hunger, etc.
And we are conditioned by performance and repetition to hear the voice of our world in particular ways. You gave the example of swan lake. How do we express the feelings and thoughts we have when watching a swan gliding on a lake, without a reference to that which has gone before? Could i use a soft clarinet to describe the swan's journey and purpose, and convey what i hear in my ears and heart to a degree that would have another listener accept that interpretation without considering it 'wrong' because a swan is a violin, and that's the way it's meant to be? Or a duck an oboe, or a tuba an elephant? and what of landscapes? how do we give a new aural vision of mountainous seas, or arid deserts, or lush green meadows without reflection on a historical precedent? We would hear it as new, but the average listener would think of music he'd been conditioned to accept as creative portraits of the real thing thorugh repetition, and gradual acceptance.
I DO write as i listen to birds. (I have a park near me called Sokolniki, that is rich with birdsong.) And i've traveled much through 12 countries, with minimal city dwelling , and lot of time wandering countrysides. And with (I confess) the soul of a writer and poet, i hear and see and feel on a profound level, the orchestra of chorus in a forest rich with wildlife, or the powerful silence of a mountain top, with only the wind humming an ethereal whisper of chorus. They are powerful moments in my life, among many, and provide a rich source of ideas and impressions as i relive those experiences in my mind and heart. I've done a bit of sailing in my lifetime, and more than once i've come back from a trip and written until my hands were cramped with fatigue, desperate to capture every 'frame' i'd heard and felt.
If i wrote a 'swan lake' today, i would not fear any aspertions towards my sexuality. The aspiration to capture beauty and tragedy in music is not confined to those soft in spirit. Many strong men of history have produced works of beauty to inspire men and foster the tenderness in women.
I have, more than once, considered men to be the soul of humanity, as they strive to describe the world as they feel and see it. Woman are more practical (which is good for us) and better grounded in that practicality. I speak not of how to change a wheel, or cook toast, but in a fundamental sense. Family strength, care of food, shelter, and offspring are the domain of women. It's instinct. As it is for men to strive with a sense of purpose, and aspirations of achievement, and to dream of greater things. There are those who will argue with this citing the equality of modern society, but ignoring the petulance and anger of defensiveness, the fundamentals remain the same. And contrary to the impression you may now have of me as a misogynistic old dinosaur, men and women have always been equal, in their own way. (IMHO)
It is men who listen to birdsong and hear it even after the song has died, and women who think of the time of day, or food, or travel, etc. (Which is a good thing, as many men would starve, lost in the aural nirvana of an experience!)

Where can one find the beauty in the world today? I admit it's a little harder these days, but that depends on your intent, and the strength of your connection to the planet beyond the immediate luxuries and neccessities of a 'civilised' lifestyle. I fail to see the beauty in a McDonalds Concerto, or a Starbucks symphony. But i can relive experiences, and walk in the park or further afield, and re-engage with that part of me that aspires to writing music based on my feelings or thoughts.
Some have more immediate cues. Bruce writes of his passion and pride in gardening. Others live in outer cities or countryside, and if they are willing to look and hear, will have a ready source of inspiration. The biggest challenge to writing 'natural' music is the lifestyle that is mechanical in construct, and repetitive in its intent. And i don't speak of the difference between orchestral instruments and synths. But the disconnect of a natural musical transition versus the harsh, mechanical, repetive,'forced' image and sound that we hear so much of today. (Orchestral instruments are mechanical constructs too.)
One of the great adventures of my life was sailing from Australia to South Africa. It was a challenging trip through the unforgiving vagaries, and often violence of the southern ocean. With giant seas, and a noon on many days as black as night, accompanied by the constant banshee of violent sound, i was tested as I perceived myself as a man of strong character. There's nothing like climbing wave after wave, not knowing if you're going to make it to the top, that determines just what sort of strength you may or may not have. I survived, happy that i'd made it, and pleased i was still able to operate competently under such conditions. Anyway, my apologies, I digress.
When i arrived in Capetown, i was determined to stand on Table Mountain, and look across the face of the planet as far as i could. I did this on more than one occasion, and on a particular morning, arrived at my now familiar lookout point at around 5 in the morning. As the sun rose, i heard thousands of voices from the valley below singing 'morning' songs.
It remains burned indelibly in myself as a powerful moment in life. And i felt inadequate in my ability to try and capture that moment in music.
I didn't.
Nothing i could write, no matter the resources available, could go close to capturing that purity of connection with the discovery of one's own humility and place in life. And even as i sit here in a flat in Moscow, i can still hear with complete clarity the tones and counter tones of that most excellent of choirs. That experience has fostered many ideas, but the original has been left untouched, safe in my memories, so as to keep it 'pure' and untainted by any musical effort of mine.
I use this an example to answer the point you made about the difficulty of finding beauty. There ARE places to feel and see that inspire, but first the mind and heart must want to aspire, ignoring, at least for a little while, the mechanics of lifestyle, and having the experience at a more fundamental level.
Yes Theo, as a writer of words as well as music, i tend to wax lyrical!
But beauty, along with many other reflections in the emotion of experience and dreams, can be found for those who look. It's a passion of mine to write with this in mind, and although some may be amused and even exasperated at my preference for more strongly melodic music, a 'style' more indicative of late 18th, to early 20th century, I'd be frustrated with myself if i didn't.

And yes, here in Moscow, wider Russia, and surrounding countries, melody is still a strong element. Even in prokofiev and shostakovich we find time and again melodic strength and seduction, and interesting to note, those works that have a melodic structure seem to fit more fundamentally with us for longer, than music of a more assymetric nature, with a lesser or minimal melodic intent.

Daryl's point about Sleeping beauty is one with which i agree. A well constructed masterpiece, and far in it's excellence over the looser and poorer Swan Lake, however memorable the melody(s) may be.

Once again I've rambled on, so my apologies.............:)

Regards,

Alex.

Theodor

02-15-2006, 06:13 AM

Thank you for such an enjoyable read Alex,

If this is what you mean by digressing, please do it more often! I'm glad you take the time to share your experiences which are remarkable. Even if the mental journey lasts only for a while, the outcome and knowledge remain at the end.

Also, i feel there is still hope now :)

Regards,
Theo

Theodor

02-15-2006, 06:18 AM

I agree with you about Nutcracker, but Swan Lake is severely flawed; not just in terms of construction but also of composition and even orchestration(!).
D

I have to admit learning of Tchaikowsky and the Swan Lake from an old Amiga game called Loom.

The game was pure magic and the music elevated the whole feeling to a higher level, that made me attached to Swan Lake in a different way than i would be just by hearing it. When you see such a combination of great fantasy and wonderful music as a child, it just gets carved on you.

Maybe it is flawed by general terms, but for me it's still perfect