Jeremy Soule on hall/far-micing....

[Thomas_J]

Did you see that guys? In the interview, Jeremy is telling you the same thing I\'ve been trying to knock into your skulls since the beginning of my days at this forum:

You can\'t emulate the distance of a recorded instrument with reverb! You need original hall samples! Not timpanis that sound like they are being \"struck using the microphone as the mallet\" (Hehe funny guy), or microphones shoved right up the bell of the horn.

It\'s like the developers carry some sort of a \"scientific interest\" in samples. \"oh we gotta get real close on this one.. capture all the details! I wonder what it sounds like inside the tubes!\"

Sorry for the harsh use of words. Maybe some developers will finally realize the need of this hall/far micing approach now that a true professional has spoken out in public with his experience.

On a sidenote; among all the orchestral libraries I own, few of them (except my custom samples) boast far recordings with hall ambience. The few that does include Roland orchestral Family and Miroslav. I think it is a pitty that with all this new gigastudio technology, I\'m forced to use 10 year old libraries.

Thomas

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas_J:
Did you see that guys? In the interview, Jeremy is telling you the same thing I\'ve been trying to knock into your skulls since the beginning of my days at this forum:

You can\'t emulate the distance of a recorded instrument with reverb! You need original hall samples! Not timpanis that sound like they are being \"struck using the microphone as the mallet\" (Hehe funny guy), or microphones shoved right up the bell of the horn.

It\'s like the developers carry some sort of a \"scientific interest\" in samples. \"oh we gotta get real close on this one.. capture all the details! I wonder what it sounds like inside the tubes!\"

Sorry for the harsh use of words. Maybe some developers will finally realize the need of this hall/far micing approach now that a true professional has spoken out in public with his experience.

On a sidenote; among all the orchestral libraries I own, few of them (except my custom samples) boast far recordings with hall ambience. The few that does include Roland orchestral Family and Miroslav. I think it is a pitty that with all this new gigastudio technology, I\'m forced to use 10 year old libraries.

Thomas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice try. It\'s all a matter of degree. Miroslav\'s samples are a lot closer mic\'ed than you think.

[Chadwick]

I find the same thing.
Maybe it\'s because I\'m no good with verb settings, but the samples I like to use are usually the ones with a nice room sound already on them. Even if all my instruments aren\'t in the \'same\' room, it sounds better than unrealistically close mic\'d stuff through a digital hall.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chadwick:
I find the same thing.
Maybe it\'s because I\'m no good with verb settings, but the samples I like to use are usually the ones with a nice room sound already on them. Even if all my instruments aren\'t in the \'same\' room, it sounds better than unrealistically close mic\'d stuff through a digital hall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What reverb do you own? They come in two flavors only--cheap or good.

I guarantee you, there are not many mainstream sample libraries out there which are mic\'ed too much closer than an average orchestral recording session. I\'m not talking about a college \"two mics in the air\" session, I\'m talking about a real-live, genuine, major label recording. They have mics EVERYWHERE.

Thomas made a nice try to manipulate what was said in Jeremy\'s interview, while conveniently leaving out some critical facts. Jeremy has apparently produced his own sample library for the most part, which is great. He said he recorded\" room ambience samples\" which are great. Nowhere did he say that he used \"far\" mic\'ing techniques. Jeremy also stated that he uses very expensive reverbs. People tend to blame the samples for the fact that they\'re not getting good results, when the real problem is that they have not developed their engineering skills, or invested in the proper equipment for the job.

It takes a while to learn to mix music--very smart people devote a lifetime of study to it. It\'s a real mistake to think that the engineering aspect of music mixing can be taken for granted.

Some questions:

Do you EQ the input and output of your reverb sends? This makes a huge difference--don\'t just take it \"straight out of the box.\" Design settings which work for particular instruments and sections...listen to the way a favorite recording sounds, then go to your work, listen, and go back and forth, altering EQ and Reverb settings on each instrument until you\'ve made them match. Later you can start trusting your ears more and wean yourself away from the constant A/B listening, but for learning to mix orchestras, you need to seriously apply yourself to the discipline.

Also, don\'t underestimate the importance of EQ on your individual instrument tracks. Use high frequency shelving and cuts to take away detail from instruments you want to play farther back in the soundscape. Multi-band compression (which is like amplitude-invoked EQ, really) is also an excellent tool to use for pushing instruments up or back. The use of imaging tools like the Waves S1 can really be valuable--BUT avoid going \"wider\" than normal, because that will really get you into trouble with surround decoders.

[Thomas_J]

... and I quote Jeremy:

\"My percussion is often sampled as far back as 40 feet from the source.\"


Thomas

[Thomas_J]

I\'m not manipulating anything about the Jeremy Soule interview.

Thank you for your reply though. I still think it\'s funny how you keep repeating yourself on this topic.

Now my question to you: Why is it that there is so much evidence in favor of relatively distant micing and hall/room ambience in samples and so little in favor of dry?

I have yet to hear ANYONE recreate a realistic ambience feel with a set of dry samples.

(And don\'t call mr. Simon Ravn or KingIdiot et al. inadequate engineers without proper reverb boxes.)

Should it really be required from the composer that he has a sound engineering master and 10 hours of free time and patience to carry out this dirtywork of tweaking his reverb and eq settings before he can proceed to compose? I think not.

Room ambient samples have two major advantages over dry ones in an orchestral setting:

You get realistic hall that takes fine to a second reverb feed.

You loose some of the detail from the instrument, thus masking flaws in the midi sequence.

This is particularily true with percussion and brass. I still like my woodwinds and strings pretty close.

No matter how much work you do with EQ and a $10000 reverb box, dry samples will sound like they were dry in the first place, and then manipulated.

Please don\'t get started on a new flaming thread here. I\'m just so tired of hearing the same arguments pro close micing, and still not hearing any proof that all of this \"techtalk\" of yours actually pays off.
Why don\'t you just post a clip utilizing your seemingly huge knowledge within the field of sound engineering, and shut my mouth once and for all?

As the case stands, there is NO proof backing up your opinions. Remember this is SAMPLES we\'re talking about.


Peace,
Thomas

[Chadwick]

You\'re right Bruce. I should have thought back to a session we did last year before I commented - about 80 pieces in a reasonable size studio. When the engineer muted the 480L, what I heard was definitely not something I\'d want to play people, but with the reverb in, they sounded great.

On the other hand, we don\'t have a 480L at work http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

[Thomas_J]

Chadwick: and so will the early star wars recordings (which are way too dry to begin with) do if you apply a cheapass reverb, or even a $10k one. Real orchestras and samples are two COMPLETELY different matters.

I\'ve used considerable amounts of various reverb units (including lexicons and TC\'s) with the help of skilled engineers. I\'m sorry to say but it didn\'t do anything for me. With a real orchestra, almost any reverb unit will do, because of all the detail that is in the recording to begin with.

Thomas

[tob]

I guess nobody on this forum likes the sound of dry samples. And I really hope you all can here the difference between a lexicon 480 and a real hall. Ive got a 480 in my studio and it cant fake a real hall. It sounds just like a very good digital reverb.

[Lancelink]

I was just discussing peoples need for more room ambience on the LOP Timpani thread. With Gigastudio\'s capabilities why couldn\'t developers add some distance recorded samples along with the closer ones? Then people could blend the samples to taste via mod wheel, etc. Why not have the best of both worlds!

Lance

[Z6]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tob:
I guess nobody on this forum likes the sound of dry samples. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like \'dry\' samples. \'Dry\' samples are more general; not everyone wants to record symphonies.

When the market reaches saturation all of these \'desires\' will be filled. Until then - \'far miking\' will remain too small a niche.

Thomas, you have access to orchestral musicians at cut-rate prices. What\'s stopping you from making this niche your own?

[Thomas_J]

Z6, nothing. In fact I\'m gonna do extensive percussion sampling next week and I can tell you one thing. Mics wont be closer than 7-12 meters (25-40 feet) away from the instruments.

Still I would appreciate it if I could spend less time customizing samples and more time composing. That\'s why I opt for more wet samples. I do have a feeling that some library developers finally saw the need for this, and are developing more useful brass and percussion as we speak. I don\'t have time to be my own library developer AND compose music. Life is too short for that http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif


Thomas

[donnie]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas_J:
Z6, nothing. In fact I\'m gonna do extensive percussion sampling next week and I can tell you one thing. Mics wont be closer than 7-12 meters (25-40 feet) away from the instruments.

Still I would appreciate it if I could spend less time customizing samples and more time composing. That\'s why I opt for more wet samples. I do have a feeling that some library developers finally saw the need for this, and are developing more useful brass and percussion as we speak. I don\'t have time to be my own library developer AND compose music. Life is too short for that http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif


Thomas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

Yes, far mic\'ing IS the way to go so don\'t let anyone talk you out of it. It\'s kind\'ve funny but this is the ONE thing that we have always agreed on! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

The only thing you need to be careful of at that distance is SNR. However since these are just for you then it really doesn\'t matter as long as you like them.

Donnie



[This message has been edited by donnie (edited 04-11-2002).]

[Thomas_J]

Hehe Donnie. Thanks for the info. Any last helpful \"tricks\" on sampling percussion before I head off on thursday next week? Without revealing any of your secret trades of course! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif


Thomas

[donnie]

Thomas,

Email me and I\'d be happy to help you out....

donnie@dssoundware.com

Donnie

[thesoundsmith]

One thing that can make a significant distinction, IMHO. Get a great brass set with the perfect room acoustic from, say Lincoln Center. Add to the the perfect string sections recorded in the Concertgebouw. You\'ve just blown your cover, because it will SOUND like two different (and not necessarily compatible) rooms.

The only \'real\' solution, all samples must come from the same room, with the same \'room mike\' selection and placement. Preferably with the same production team and appropriate musician placement. And then, in order to properly emulate the masking and absorption effects of the other \'warm bodies\' in the orchestra, you\'ll need the entire symphony to sit in their chairs (silently) while each section is separately recorded!

OR, use a reasonably close-miked sample set (not miked down the throat, but capturing sufficient room to allow the natural sound to develop without adding specific hall character, thus mostly early reflections) and then put up your 480 to add a nice, sweet homogenizing hall.

I don\'t believe you\'re going to actually reproduce the exact experience of a live, recorded orchestra any time soon, because of all the subtle variations in live musicians from note to note, plus the hall reflections etc.

But we certainly can get close enough right now with existing technology that the only people who won\'t be fooled are those in the biz,

Example:

I created a CD from a number of downloads from the Giga users. Included are such works as Maarten\'s \'Faith\', \'Music for Cartoons\', the Rachmaninoff tribute, etc. - 21 tracks in all. They have been converted from MP3 to WAV and placed on the CD in purely alpha title order, and several of those titles were just generic download responses. I have played the CD, or excerpts, for a pretty good cross-section of people, including my wife, who knows my synth work, a number of fairly good musicians, a few really good ones, and a number of \'just plain folks.\'

I usually preface this with the explanation, \"Here are some film cues and orchestrations by the new crop of film composers. Some of these are live orchestras, some are 100% electronic and some are electronic with a live soloist. Your job (should you agree to take it) is to determine which are which.\" I alos explain these are MP3 files converted to WAV, so there are some timbral issues on some tracks.

By coincidence, the first track is the most obviously electronic, and almost everybody gets it within the first 30 seconds. But even the classical musicians believe that at least one-third of the tracks are \'real.\' And the truth is, the ONLY track with any live instruments is the concerto for guitar and orchestra (my apologies, I do not have the CD with me, and the names of the tracks have gone on vacation.)

I leave you to draw your own conclusions, mine have also gone to Chicago (sorry, but they didn\'t take me...)

Dasher

[dwdonehoo]

I agree with Thomas (and I don\'t think Bruce is far away from Thomas with his opinion). As many of you may remember, I specifically brought up room ambience in samples at a GDC discussion with virtually every major game (and some movie) composer in the room, and they agreed that room ambience was more important than post production verb, and natural room ambience was the primary \'verb\' of choice. I also discussed this with other composers as well one on one. You may also remember I mentioned that the most well off and successful composers amass their own custom libs. Why? I believe it is because 1) control over the quality and articulations, naturally, and 2) they wanted to get the proper amount of room ambience into the sample. Jeremy Soule said as much to me in person and in the interview. I did not hear any of the other composers disagree with need for room ambience in samples when it was brought up. On a personal note, in my own recent work, the samples with natural room ambience that I use make all the difference. Sams trumpets and timp are a good example. You can really tell where natural room ambience samples are being used, at least in my ears. I think The Manifesto is on the right track. What seems to work best in samples (and this needs study and discussion) is a moderate room ambience: good verbs can always make the room bigger or add more reflections. Just my opinion.
And Z6 is right: dry is also needed, but right now there seems to be an ample supply of that. The mod wheel idea seems interesting too. Anyway it comes down to this for me: given a choice between a sample with room ambience and one with none when working with virtual orchestras, room ambience wins every time. Too bad there is so little to chose from.

Just as a side note. When talking to various composers and producers (I seem to be talking to many lately for some reason...) I hear the term \'sample orchestra\' and \'synth orchestra\' and other terms to define the difference between them and a real orchestra. We live in the computer age for one thing, and to boot some terms (like synth) project an incorrect/negative image in the minds of producers and content buyers who are not familiar with our work and what we do. May I suggest we all use the term \"Virtual Orchestra\" when referring to our sample-synth-mockup-orchestras? Just a suggestion.

OK, back to installing Sonar 2.0…

--------------
Doyle W. Donehoo
Radar Music
http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html (\"http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html\")
http://www.mp3.com/Doyle_W_Donehoo (\"http://www.mp3.com/Doyle_W_Donehoo\")

[RobertKooijman]

Bruce, while I\'m mostly with you on general recording topics, it\'s funny to see your repeated defence of close miking.

This forum has shown that many of us do NOT like the effects of close-miking, in particular in an orchestral context. Why don\'t you and others simply accept this reality rather then coming up with excuses all the time?

The suggestion of classical recordings having mike\'s used all over the place is certainly not uiversally true, at least not in Europe.
Classical recording engineers quite often use the M/S technique that you are well aware off. Plenty of recordings are done using a Bruel & Kjaer 4000 series or Sennheiser MKH20 omni coupled with a MKH30 figure-of-eight whenever the location\'s accoustic properties permit so. There might be a mike or two added for the solo artist, but the orchestra itself is then certainly NOT close miked.

I must say I agree with Thomas, Donnie and others that adding reverb is not a replacement for decent miking. In this context, it was refreshing to read Jeremy\'s remarks about most tympani\'s sounding as if the mikes were used to play them.

Bruce, you yourself talked some time back about the importance of capturing the whole body of the instrument. This is not exactly what you do with your mike 10 inches away or?

You often see the excuse of noise being used in favour of close-miking. Of course, this will give you a cleaner sample. But I pesonally can live with a slight amount of noise in the sample\'s tail or ocassional airco hum at -60 dB when that\'s the only price to pay for a natural beauty!

Cheers, Robert

[jubal]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertKooijman:
This forum has shown that many of us do NOT like the effects of close-miking, in particular in an orchestral context.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don\'t agree with you http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif Bruce\'s point is not that the mic should be 10-inches away, just that you don\'t have to have mic(s) FAR away to have good samples. The goal is to pick up the charater of that instrument. It\'s relative isn\'t it? I don\'t want my oboe samples recorded from 40 feet away because I can\'t get rid of that 40 feet again.

I was listening to 3 soundtracks tonight (Sixth Sense, Green Mile, and Saving Private Ryan) and the perceived distance of the instruments varied. On one of the Green Mile tracks the woodwind is playing softly and yet you can hear the definition. This seems to reflect Bruce\'s assertion that there are ambient mics and mics that are closer for each section, in this case the closer mic\'s level was brought up.

Just my two cents.

[Parker]

Altiverb is a great reverb for puting acoustic instruments in very real sounding spaces. Though I have not used it on classical mixes I have used it on drums, acoustic guitar and cello. This is by far the best reverb plugin I have heard. In fact, it is so good that many pop/rock engineers are finding it useless. Go figure http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/grin.gif It uses impulse responses generated from real spaces. Here is a link to some of the spaces that have been captured.
http://www.audioease.com/IR/audioeaseirs.html (\"http://www.audioease.com/IR/audioeaseirs.html\")

The wooden church with sand on the floor is amazing on acoustic guitar. Many of the IRs let you choose between omni and cardoid mics as well as near/far micing setups. For fun I played the Dan Dean cello in the Concertgebouw in a stereo to quadraphonic preset. My G4 was crippled but my head was in heaven. Highly recommended if you are serious about controlling your acoustic space.

I would be more than happy to altiverb some percussion hits that someone sends me (short 24/44 uncompressed clips). If interested pls email me lucidturtle@hotmail.com.

Parker

[Z6]

Parker, thanks for the link. I\'ll explore it later.

Dumb question time: Is it available on the Windows platform? Can I use it in real time, or is there a piece of hardware (dsp?) that I can use with it to work in real time? (It\'s early in the morning on my dial-up so I can\'t go see right now.)

Wet/dry wet/dry wet/dry/wet/dry.

I don\'t believe that two people on this planet think of the same thing when they think of far/close/far/close.

Bruce already covered this beautifully on another thread. I don\'t think he ever \'banned\' anyone from producing \'far\' miked samples (whatever they are).

Dasher and others also pointed out the problem of accumulating different \'spaces\'.

It is hard for me to imagine though how a \'far\' miked sample could be used in a general way, while close (not ten inches - at least 11!) offers at least the possibility of manipulation. There is no doubt that various algorithms can \'place\' real and sampled sounds alike.

But there is obviously a growing demand for Thomas\' specialized \'libraries\'. Hopefully, Thomas can get these to market at some point (I know you\'re busy Thomas - but it might be a nice little earner) then we all have more choices.

Until then, I WANT ALTIVERB!

[Damon]

Altiverb is not available for PC unfortunately http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/frown.gif.

[Mel Tron]

WHy not get a new Imac to run Alti?

After running Altiverb on a TIbook for a few months I haven\'t even turned on my Lex PCM 91.

There is a new sense of sound space using the Alti stereo to stereo Halls. Not that washed out LEx or TC sound but a real acoustic\'environment\' IT changes the way you think and mix. Still I think Alti needs more high frequency detail.

[Parker]

I think Altiverb is exclusively for Digital Performer on Mac. I hear Protools is next. Knowing Audioease\'s dedication to Mac, I dont think PC versions will ever be available.

One of the beautiful things about Altiverb is that there are not many tweaking options. You get decay time, wet/dry mix and pre/post delay. It\'s all about the space. When you find an acoustic space that works for you, you will *know* right away. Your mind wont be thinking, \'gee I wish I could sweep an LFO to help smooth out the ambience generator.\'

Also, near and far micing options are usually determined by two factors: the size of the actual room, be it a concert hall or a piano practice room, and the location of the stage or \'sweet spot\'. I have heard of ppl using 2 stereo altiverbs on the same source in the same room just differing the near and far presets with incredible results for stereo imaging. This way you can avoid going quadraphonic (surround) and still take advantage of a four mic capture. I look forward to trying this when time permits.

Parker

[Mel Tron]

FYI, I wouldn\'t attempt to load 2 Alti stereo to stereo Halls without a Dual 1 Gig G4. The 1 Vredenberg Front Hall Cardiods basically eat up a G4 450 or 550 CPU. Of course, you could load 2 mono to stereo Halls quite easily.

Hey Steve Jobs-where is the G5?

[gabriels]

I think, at least theoretically, there might be a reason that hall ambience in samples shouldn\'t sound quite right. There is a difference in the sound of a string section playing any particular note, say A3 in isolation from any other notes, and, the same string section playing the same A3, but immediately after it plays some other note (say G3). In the latter case, the G3 is still hanging in the air and this is a very different sound from the \"pure\" A3.

Of course you could get the same effect by having multiple samples of every note... you\'d play C-1, and then A3, recording the event and windowing the sample so that it starts with the onset of the A3.... then next would come C#-1 followed by A3, etc for every set of possible note combinations. Even this would be a paltry set of ambiences since you could have a single note preceded by a chord instead of a single note, or by a single note played on a different instrument or section. etc etc ad infinitum.

A more natural solution seems to be the use of a digital reverb, which functions in the same way as a hall would, by \"remembering\" recent events.

So that\'s my theory. In practice this may not yet be achievable (though I actually like the sound of close mic\'d samples played through a good reverb... then again, I love the sound of a heavy metal guitar too). I\'d venture that it won\'t be too long before reverbs are good enough to be indistinguishable from a real hall.

I guess the question in this thread is how one can achieve the most accurate illusion that there\'s really an orchestra there. I\'m wondering if you can really do it with no outboard processing.... totally with \"hall ambience\" samples.
Gabriel

[composer22]

But its not just the hall that affects the tone and sound quality. Its the other group of players next to your section...and dont forget the audience - whether you are playing to a half empty hall or whether they have their cloaks on...tempature and humidity. Countless things. How do you possibly recreate these non-linear elements which also make up a room ambiance?

[Lancelink]

Altiverb will be available as a VST Plugin for Mac only. It was engineered to take advantage of Apple’s Altivec Velocity Engine...so unfortunately for all us PC guys, no Altiverb for us!

[David Abraham]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by composer22:
But its not just the hall that affects the tone and sound quality. Its the other group of players next to your section...and dont forget the audience - whether you are playing to a half empty hall or whether they have their cloaks on...tempature and humidity. Countless things. How do you possibly recreate these non-linear elements which also make up a room ambiance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


yep that\'s been the question on my mind for a long time. A hall with no audience sounds different than a hall -with- an audience, at least in my experience.

-david abraham

[Z6]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by composer22:
whether you are playing to a half empty hall or whether they have their cloaks on...tempature and humidity. Countless things. How do you possibly recreate these non-linear elements which also make up a room ambiance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn\'t you scan the hall you want with most of those things in place using Altiverb or some similar modeler? (You might have some fun manufacturing the humidity element also?)

I don\'t think it\'s a matter of whether a modeler will ever be as good as the real thing, but more a matter of using imprints of some of the greatest halls on earth (or your bedroom if you like) compared to...

Damn, Altiverb looks so fine but if I went and bought a mac just for that I\'d have to kill myself (or someone very close to me would oblige).

Anyone know of the PC alternatives? (And how far from Altiverb are they?)

Altiverb would \'fool\' all but the most experienced engineers (and I\'m not sure they wouldn\'t be convinced; and convinced of what? That the reverb sounds fanatastic?

I\'m fooled (I\'m easy to fool of course - but so is almost everyone else). How many people here could tell on first hearing that an Altiverb imprint wasn\'t the \'Assembly Rooms\' in Edinburgh, for example?

[composer22]

Well, I think some alternatives have already been discussed. The ones I am aware worth looking at for orchestral stuff are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>TC - M3000, Native Bundle, or the illusive powercore
<LI>Waves Renessaince
<LI>Quantec
<LI>Cakewalk FX3 SoundStage low tec option
[/list]

Prolly nothing in the category of physical modelling close here...

and of course the Sony but I dont have $8k

[Z6]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by composer22:
Well, I think some alternatives have already been discussed. The ones I am aware worth looking at for orchestral stuff are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>TC - M3000, Native Bundle, or the illusive powercore
<LI>Waves Renessaince
<LI>Quantec
<LI>Cakewalk FX3 SoundStage low tec option
[/list]

Prolly nothing in the category of physical modelling close here...

and of course the Sony but I dont have $8k

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FX3 sounds more up my street. But, forgive my ignorance, are any of these real time?

[B]

I emailed the guys who make altiverb about a pc version today.......

>hi,
> do you have any plans to make a PC version of altiverb?

>plans yes, dates no.

So don\'t hold your breath but maybe one day.

Also, those who use Altiverb, do you think it\'s the program or the impulses that make it better than PC convolving reverb solutions?

brian

[composer22]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Z6:
The FX3 sounds more up my street. But, forgive my ignorance, are any of these real time?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All, I believe...but I too am ignorant on choosing a reverb and the options available here?

Other comments and suggestions???

[Lancelink]

That\'s great news about a possible PC version of Altiverb. I emailed them about a month ago and they told me it was never going to happen since the core engineering was based on MAC only technology.

Hope it\'s the same and not a dumbed down version for PC!

[Parker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>
Also, those who use Altiverb, do you think it\'s the program or the impulses that make it better than PC convolving reverb solutions?
Brian[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you are talking about Acoustic Mirror which I have not heard. I do know that many pros are comparing the Sony DRE(?) hardware reverb that costs $7-10k to altiverb and because of this comparison folks are buying G4 Dual Gigs primarily with Altiverb in mind. I have a dual 800 G4 and I can run 2 fat altiverbs (in no latency mode) with a few BF compressors as well before my comp starts coughing up blood. Though things get pretty slowin DP3.

Sorry I cant resist any longer: The ONLY reason to have a PC within a 200 yard radius of your brain is GIGASTUDIO! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/tongue.gif

Be gentle,
Parker

[Z6]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Parker:

Sorry I cant resist any longer: The ONLY reason to have a PC within a 200 yard radius of your brain is GIGASTUDIO! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/tongue.gif

Be gentle,
Parker<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear, dear. You Mac guys are incorrigible - and you\'re absolutely right.

[Robert Kral]

Anyone compared Altiverb to the Lexicon 300 or 480L?

[thesoundsmith]

Also, just a quick reminder-far miked single-note samples with \'just a bit\' of noise played ensemble generate \'just a bit\' * number of notes/instruments of noise.

Just one more issue to deal with-or not...

The true solution again is seriously quiet (i.e., VERY expensive to build) recording spaces designed for digital dynamic levels.

Dasher

[Bruce A. Richardson]

It\'s very easy to argue all sorts of logical loopholes for so-called far mic\'ing, and that\'s not my point. My point is simply that the issue is complex, and isn\'t simplified to an arbitrary declaration of \"ideal\" feet and meters or any other sort of subjective reasoning.

I have never said that I was an advocate of close mic\'ing. I am an advocate of identifying problems at their true source, and of not oversimplifying complex issues.

[composer22]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Kral:
Anyone compared Altiverb to the Lexicon 300 or 480L? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


How about a compare w/ TC M3000 too

[Thomas_J]

You can forget about using a tc m3000 for orchestral. I\'ve tried several times without success. It always comes out sounding digital and cold. Too \"clean\" in a way. I\'ve tried various settings and experimented with it for hours. No luck. It\'s good for that professional hint of reverb on pop vocals and guitars etc, but orchestral? No way man.

Perhaps what we need now is a .wav file of a short dry orchestral snippet that people can download and apply their reverb to (at a fixed wet/dry ratio). This could make for a useful comparison of reverb units. (Kinda like that piano sample comparison)

Maybe someone could devote a little webspace to host the clips in mp3?

The snippet wouldn\'t have to be that long. 15-20 seconds or so perhaps?

My guess is that the differences in sound wouldn\'t be that noticable, and to an untrained ear maybe not even distinguishable.

I can apply the tc3000, (maybe lex 300) tc reverb software plugin, waves reverb, the trusty Zoom 1202 and a few others I think I can dig up.

We could make a complete comparison! It would be great in deciding which reverb to go with to best suit your \"style\". It would be a comparison for orchestral stuff of course.

How do you like this idea?

Thomas


Thomas

[Bruce A. Richardson]

First, let\'s be clear, I\'ve never advocated \"inside of bell\" or mic\'ing distances measured in inches.

Second, the analogy of recording live ensembles with a stereo pair at up to 40 feet distance does not apply to a multitrack sampled orchestra.

Think of it this way: Instead of two distant mics open covering fifty instruments, this technique adds the noise equivalent of ONE HUNDRED open distant mics covering fifty instruments. That is a lot more noise, and even more vexing, it isn\'t steady state, but accompanies the most vulnerable tonal ranges of a given sample.

Oversimplification of this issue is not productive, especially when a near mob-mentality has accompanied discussions.

[RobertKooijman]

Bruce,

you\'re of course right by stating that things should not be over-simplified. But ‘simple’ things should not be made ‘complicated’ either.

The point I was trying to make was that very few libraries exist that are NOT relatively close miked. Let\'s for now not get into the endless discussion of what defines the term \'close-miking\' or \'sweet spot\'.

The fact remains that instruments sampled from a (relatively distanced) listener perspective are more the exception then the rule.
The main reasons are typically:
- the desire to get rid of unwanted colouring due to early reflections and reverb
- acoustic properties of the recording venue are less critical
- it puts less demand on used equipment as the noise floor is inherently lower
- it\'s cheaper since you need less re-takes of the same sample due to (sudden) background noises
- plain tradition

Pizzas and Hamburgers are also arguably cheap and simple and have become a tradition in some countries ;-)

Perfectly OK of course, but every now and then you feel for something different. And instead of just going for more or different spices (read reverbs etc), you might want to try the natural taste of the real thing in its naked glory. Now where’s the gourmet stuff?

Cheers, Robert

[dwdonehoo]

Well-said RobertKooijman. I also think it is important not to over-analyze things.
Some points to ponder:
1) I already know that in many cases samples with room ambience, even sampled in different rooms, working together in a composition sound better in my ear than a bunch of dry samples verbed up and processed. Usually after I have performed some master effects processing I can compensate (smooth out) the differences in rooms. It would be great if all my samples also included room ambience. If they did, it may not fool audio experts (and I bet it will fool some), but that is OK because my audiences are not audio experts and they are not listening for the flaws in the audio space. If it is close enough, it will not occur to them to question the audio space, and the sound will still be better than exclusively dry processed samples.
2) I do need dry samples too without question. It adds to flexibility without a doubt.
3) I believe that most (if not all) instrument sounds need room to develop. No, I do not advocate mikeing 40 feet away, but I do advocate mikeing at whatever distance gains the optimal sound and ambience, and that decision has to be left up to the artist doing the sampling and those who will eventually pass judgment with their cash.
4) I do not think the room is all that critical. Yes, do find the best possible room and consistently sample there, but hey, they could be different rooms as long as they sounded good: let me smooth things out in post processing. And I do not think it matters all that much if the rooms were occupied, or if the occupants were dressed in furs or were all nekkid, as long as in the sampling artist ears the samples sounded good. The consumer with the cash will decide if they were successful. If they did a good job, even just a reasonably good job, I think the library would be useful and preferred over processed dry samples.
5) All this hair-splitting is well and good and brings up things to consider, but someone needs to jump in with both feet and go for it, and come up with a room ambient orchestral library, if only to gain flexibility with the current selection of libs. The recent libs with room ambience have really impressed me, and I think they are on the right track.

--------------
Doyle W. Donehoo
Radar Music
http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html (\"http://www.sierra-trails.com/radarmusic.html\")
http://www.mp3.com/Doyle_W_Donehoo (\"http://www.mp3.com/Doyle_W_Donehoo\")