Do we need no longer Stereosamples?

[germancomponist]

A Stereosample, for example a solotrumpet, has an included roominformation..., yes, no?

If it is recorded as dry as dry as dryer, also there is an early reflection information included..., hm?

But now at this days, when we are mixing our instruments by using the great new reverbs like Altiverb....., do we need stereosamples?

What do you think?

[Von Richter]

Yes.

________

[germancomponist]

Yes.

________

Why?

We can use so many great VR`s in this reverb effects... ;)

[Von Richter]

The real thing sounds better than the fake thing, at least for now, and for my purposes.

[germancomponist]

The real thing sounds better than the fake thing, at least for now, and for my purposes.

Hm,

isn`t a trumpet solo instrument mono?

Let me ask otherwise... : So, when we use stereosamples, add then virtual early reflections and reverb..., this result would never sound real..., yes, no?

[TechEverlasting]

I still do a lot of work with older systems like the Kurzweil K2600s where polyphony and RAM memory is at a premium, so I've given this issue a lot of thought. A good stereo recording, even of a solo instrument, contains all sorts of information that our ears have evolved to interpret, and thus is far more realistic. I actually prefer stereo samples that don't have lots of room sound.

For my purposes if I'm creating a brass or woodwind section or emulating a dense orchestration I'm not going to use stereo samples of each instrument. On the other hand if I'm emulating one or two exposed solo instruments I'll use a good stereo sample if available, even if I have to jump through a lot of hoops to make the memory and polyphony available.

When I saw your subject line I thought you might be posting about the need for samples in surround or other multi-channel formats.

[germancomponist]

When I saw your subject line I thought you might be posting about the need for samples in surround or other multi-channel formats.

Smile,

but do you agree? Is my question a good question?

[germancomponist]

The real thing sounds better than the fake thing, at least for now, and for my purposes.

Ah...,

so what`s about vivi, synful and other virtual instruments? :D

And, a recorded solotrumpet in a room without any reflections isn`t a fake...., ves, no? ;)

[Von Richter]

Hm,
isn`t a trumpet solo instrument mono?


Perhaps in some contexts.

In an orchestral context, the room is part of the instrument, and not at all "mono" by the time it hits our ears.

Room placement and reverb simulation is getting better all the time.

However, it's my prediction that before stereo samples are obsolete, synthesis technology will have rendered plain old raw samples obsolete altogether, thus rendering the question somewhat irrelevant.

[germancomponist]

Perhaps in some contexts. In an orchestral context, the room is part of the instrument, and not at all "mono".

VR,

I agree 100%, but, excuse me if I said it not clearly, I am talking about sample libraries recording.

So, what do you think? Better to record all instruments in "dry" mono or better record them in a room where you can catch a little roominformation, for a great stereorecording?

[Von Richter]

I'm not a fan of totally dry and close-miced samples. This is quite another subject from stereo vs. mono.

[Daryl]

I'm not a fan of totally dry and close-miced samples. This is quite another subject from stereo vs. mono.
Theoretically I don't think that I am either, but I don't know of any libraries that do this, other than ones that offer multiple mike positions.

D

[JohnG]

I have tried both ways, with Vienna on the one hand along with a great reverb and, on the other hand, EWQLSO and Project Sam and a few others, in which the room and even hall sound are there.

I think that, for an individual instrument, it's a toss-up. However, to my ears, if you want the sound of a full orchestra, it sounds more natural and less "processed" when you use samples that are recorded with the real reverb in the hall, just the way it sounds when you are sitting in the audience. The dry-sample-plus-added-reverb always sounds more artificial to me, and almost like an accordion if not done well!

And I agree with the poster who said a trumpet is not mono -- I realize that I usually use just one microphone when I'm recording a solo trumpet with a group, but that's an artificial environment of course. There is no such thing as "mono" to a two-eared human. The best trumpet sound I ever heard was at Chartres Cathedral in la belle France and it sounded unbelievable with all the reverberations around it.

That cathedral environment, or at least a concert hall, is the environment that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, and all the others we admire were writing for, and there's nothing like the real thing.

This is not to vote for a particular library, of course, but based on my experience, I like the three-mic-positions approach best.

[germancomponist]

John,

I agree 100%!

But, if one uses Altiverb, isn`t Altiverb a plug that will add the missing roominformation into a mono-sampled-library?

For example, you can first use Altiverb to add earlyreflections...., that would make a mono-recording to stereo. And then add reverb for the hall-reverb... ?

Gunther

[JohnG]

But, if one uses Altiverb, isn`t Altiverb a plug that will add the missing roominformation into a mono-sampled-library?

Gunther
To me, the main advantage of a library like Vienna is control -- if you were diligent enough you could place each instrument in an Altiverb-like reverb and do a good job.

However, I personally find the pre-recorded hall more successful for a "big Hollywood" or cathedral or large hall sound of a big orchestra, which is generally what I am going for with movies and film trailers. That may say more about my ability with reverb than anything else, but I don't usually want to take the time on all that when I have to write 15-20 minutes' worth of music in a single week.

For different kinds of music, I often will add in a solo cello or violin to get a more rosin-y sound or to make it feel more vivid or intimate. For a string quartet, I'd much rather just hire the quartet and be done!

So partly it's the kind of sound that I want and partly it's time spent, but I really like the sound I am getting and have some evidence from clients that it's exceptionally good. So who knows! But that's my prejudice.

[germancomponist]

So you agree with me, John, when I say that it is very good to have more than one library?

What I always said in many threads: There is no "best" library, all have their own sound and the most are very great, if one knows how to use them right for this and that..... . It`s always first the composer/arranger, not the library! :)

About Altiverb and monoinstruments, I think it will be exciting to see what will happen there in the future.... .

[JohnG]

I agree that it is useful to have different libraries if you are doing different kinds of projects, but almost all my projects are for "big sounding" music with a lot of action and for that I have one library that I always use, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

For more intimate or intellectual-sounding projects, I use some different samples, but still, I prefer the live-room-recorded samples ALMOST all the time. I just feel that I then have to douse less reverb on them.

Some guys use three or four different libraries for their "first violins" (for example), which I don't do. I think that sounds more synthetic. However, sweetening with live strings or brass, even if it's mono, still improves the feeling, so maybe that says something new too.

[JohnG]

well, clearly the three-mic-position sampling is not the same as a full orchestral recording, but it's a lot closer, in my view, than close-up mics, which I don't use even when I am recording a large, live orchestra. Sure, you put mics next to each section but you use them as little as possible, maybe for bringing out a cello line or something if it's not coming through the way it was anticipated, but those channels, if on at all, are mixed low-low-low in my mixes.

I think the argument that a typical orchestral recording session is "dry" misses the room size effect, if it's one of the 100-piece orchestras used in major pictures. The huge room itself that is needed to accommodate an orchestra that size creates all kinds of reflections. Some engineers use the "tree" approach but some use mics that are much higher / farther from the players than the conductor himself.

I just don't agree that a mic that is placed in an anechoic chamber with a very dead sound is the most natural-sounding starting point. At least, once you get the full orchestra together in a synth mock-up it just sounds fake to me -- way too much rosin on the strings, so to speak (too "vivid" and sharp a sound).

For me, the sound of the instruments is more natural when recorded from farther away, where I usually sit during a concert, so I think that's why I prefer the three-mic-position approach. Theoretical arguments aside -- and I grant that it's not the same as a blended orchestra; how could it be? -- I just think it sounds more realistic than the convolution approach.

[Daryl]

Sounds convincing except for one point. I don't know of any library this is recorded with just close mikes or in an anechoic chamber.

D

[Daryl]

Yeah, but I said libraries recorded with just close mikes. If other positions are recorded then it can't be just close mikes. Regarding libraries you record yourself, as I haven't, I don't know of any of these.

D

[jeremy.saenz]

I think the best possible approach would be creating the dry instrument in mixed mono, but then convert that mono sample to stereo so that the data could be manipulated to create an incredibly realistic sound using a good stereo covolution reverb.