Authentic Sounds

[sonata5920]

Hi,

I am producing arrangements and backing tracks for live performances. One requirement put to me is that the music must sound authentic. The music ranges from church music to lieder, operatic arias and pop.

It would help me a lot if I had a table of sound levels and possible ranges of sound levels of orchestral and other acoustic instruments. If somebody could point me to such a table, I would be grateful.

Herbert

[Reegs]

Like this (http://www.har-bal.com/index.php?/frequency-chart.php)?

[sonata5920]

Hi Reegs,

No, this is a frequency chart.

I am looking for a table of sound levels (sound pressures) of acoustic instruments.


Herbert

[Reegs]

Hi Reegs,

No, this is a frequency chart.

I am looking for a table of sound levels (sound pressures) of acoustic instruments.


Herbert

Herbert,

My mistake. I saw you asked for ranges of instruments so thought you wanted their pitch positions.

I don't know your background, so please pardon the long reply. I'm not sure if you'll be able to find much on sound pressure levels (please let me know if you do!). It's very dependent on your location relative to the sound source, the directionality of the source, and the frequency of the source. For instance, looking down the bell of a brass instrument a few inches from it you'll experience very high SPLs. Offhand I want to say it can approach 115-120dB at fortissimo dynamics. Similarly, violinists run the risk of damage to the ear closest to the strings. As you get farther away from the sources though, they drop off in volume very differently. This is why 30 violins can almost match the volume of two trumpets!

There may be tabulated data on acoustic instruments all measured at one meter. This won't do much good in the mix world, because the decibel range measured by a decibel meter, which describe pressure intensity relative to no pressure, are completely different than the decibels when you mix, which describe levels of volume relative to the maximum level representable on the recording medium (typically 0dB in digital, analog can vary). Decibel is a method of measurement which allows large changes to be described with smaller numbers. Because of the way humans perceive sound, this is convenient for audio (as well as electronic signal strength). If you take a signal to -6dB, you effectively cut its volume in half, but -60dB is cutting the volume to one one-thounsandth of its original amount!

A CD is designed to produce about 96dB of dynamic range, which was conveniently measured to be about what an orchestra does when you're seated nicely in the concert hall. In a lot of commercially produced music and even live performances, there's a lot more going on than a single stereo mic midway in the room. Often times the orchestra is spot-miced to ensure voices are heard. There's no standard for the amount of gain running through the microphones to ensure they all represent the exact sound pressure of the instrument. The amount of gain applied to a mic is enough to get you a clean signal with some headroom to prevent clipping and distortion. Getting the right mix and presence of all instruments involves raising and lowering faders, playing subtly with EQ and compression, and most importantly, listening.

Unfortunately, there's no magic table that says in a chamber group, put the viola at -6dB, violins at -10dB, and the cello at -4dB. Like I mentioned above for live instruments, sampled instruments have been recorded at comfortable volume levels, which may vary across samples or recordings. They rely on you and your ears to polish their levels to a good blend. If you're working with GPO or any other of the Garritan libraries, take a look at some of the multis included. These have common combinations of instruments, with volumes set at approximate positions to get a good mix. A great way to help your mixes along is to reference commercial recordings of live groups. With chamber and choir groups, you'll probably be listening to a stereo recording with very subtle amounts of spot mics. With pop, you'll be listening to the sound you want to emulate.

Hope this helps?
Reegs

[rbowser-]

Hello, Herbert

As usual, our own Reegs has done a superb job of answering you.

I want to add that what you're asking for is a Holy Grail, an impossible to grasp Nirvana of instant success at putting together musical projects.

Besides anything else you use to achieve your goals, THE most important instrument in guiding your finished project is YOUR EARS.

There are no formulae such as you're asking for - Audio levels for each instrument guaranteed to render "authentic" results? No such animal.

I repeat - You have a lot of hard but fun work ahead of you, and you simply must use your Ears. Sorry to inform you, but there is no instant gratification plugin to get the results you want.

Randy

[sonata5920]

Hi,

Reegs, thank you for your excellent response. It will be of interest to many forum participants.

You said:

“I don't know your background”

My background is in electronic engineering, including design and manufacture of audio equipment. I am quite proficient in using numbers and complex mathematical expressions. I prefer to predict anything that is predictable, rather than leaving things to chance. This gives me a better starting point when taking risks in unpredictable situations.

Randy, thank you, but what you say does not apply to what I am doing.

Barrie, you are missing the point.

I am looking for a table of relative sound pressure levels, or alternatively, for a table of sound pressure levels referenced to a standard distance from an imaginary point sound source, say a distance of 1 m. I would be surprised if such a table does not exist. Having the test gear, I could do those measurements myself, if I only had a full symphony orchestra at home.

Sound pressure levels drop linearly with distance from a point source. Sound pressure levels add up geometrically (rms) as in: total level = square root over (a squared + b squared + c squared ...). These simple relationships help to set up an authentic instrumentation profile for a specific orchestration. My aim is to produce recorded sound tracks that can be mixed with unamplified acoustic instruments in a life performance. None of those arrangements are meant to be played on a home sound system, a car sound system or a ghetto blaster.

Music production requires a lot of organisational tasks to be carried out, perhaps more so than in any other art form. Knowing what to do is always better than guessing.

Herbert

[Reegs]

Herbert,

Cool idea! Do you have access to journal databases? Perhaps there was a study published in an audiology or musicology journal that hasn't made its way to google yet.

Reegs

[rbowser-]

Hello again, Herbert - It's an interesting thread you have going here. You've set up quite an interesting challenge for yourself, and I wish you the best with it.

"...Randy, thank you, but what you say does not apply to what I am doing...."

I appreciate you responding, but with no animosity intended, I want to humbly submit that what I said in my earlier response does indeed apply to what you are doing.

"...I am quite proficient in using numbers and complex mathematical expressions. I prefer to predict anything that is predictable, rather than leaving things to chance..."

I appreciate that you have this kind of technical expertise, and that you want to go about your task in the way that makes the best sense to you. I do think what you're saying in your posts is rather like Spock or Data trying to reduce everything to logic, even things which cannot be reduced to numbers and formulae.

I have produced arrangements and backing tracks for live performance which have worked extremely well. And of course I produced those tracks in a way that makes sense to me. I made no reference to any "sound pressure level" charts because it wouldn't have occurred to me to do that. I believe that even if I had, the unknowns of how playback would be effected by the acoustics of the performance venue would have thrown such calculations off.

My primary concern during the mastering process was to use much less reverb than usual, to compensate for how the theatre's acoustics would be adding its own natural ambience to the tracks.

But, and again I humbly submit this in the spirit of offering friendly advice, - Regardless of how such a musical project is being approached, if our human Ears are not the ultimate monitor of our work - then I feel we have thrown out our most important tool.

"...Knowing what to do is always better than guessing...."

But believing that there is a thorough guide book of formulae to follow without variation which will guarantee success is to me a fantasy. Regardless of all the technical considerations for producing musical recordings, we are dealing with Music which is Art - and I believe it's a fatal error to not understand that in Art "guessing" is one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal. Good Art has to be discovered and is impossible to completely map out ahead of time.

I wish you the best on your project. I understand you probably disagree with everything in this new post, but I felt invited to respond and say it all anyway.

Randy

[sonata5920]

Hi Randy,

Art is creativity for the sake of creativity. Much more than any other form of art, music has a strong basis in physics. This thread is about physical aspects of music instruments and its use in music production.

You proclaim your humbleness about what you say. You obviously feel threatened by this discussion. I do not see how this thread is related to the success or otherwise of your music production, or how it can be interpreted among other things as:

“I do think what you're saying in your posts is rather like Spock or Data trying to reduce everything to logic, even things which cannot be reduced to numbers and formulae.”

On what do you base your wisdom when it comes to numbers and formulae?

You also said:

“I understand you probably disagree with everything in this new post, but I felt invited to respond and say it all anyway.”

Anybody is invited to respond in a rational way. This is the basis of a forum.

I disagree with your interpretation of what I said.

I recommend that you seriously inform yourself. You will be surprised about the new more complete world that will open up to you. There is a lot of literature out there.

As always, best wishes and hoping that we remain the very best of friends,

Herbert

[sonata5920]

Hi BarrieB,

I respect your experience. I still don’t think we understand each other properly.

You said:

“ideally you'd have the entire orchestra/band live, right?”

No, I would be out of a job.

Herbert

[robh]

It might help us help you to know what instruments will be live and what is planned to be pre-recorded - that's if no sound pressure charts are available.

Rob

[rbowser-]

Do please relax, Herbert - I was just attempting to be helpful. I wish you the best with your project. In the most un-"threatened" manner I can muster I summarize my input with what I know will remain the key to your success:

http://rbowser.tripod.com/sweet.jpg

Randy

[sonata5920]

Hi,

Randy said:

“ ... In the most un-"threatened" manner I can muster I summarize my input with what I know will remain the key to your success: “

This does not translate into Australian. I have asked a person well qualified in English literature to translate it to Australian. It did not make sense to him. I have decided not to ask Randy. This way we will just forget about it and remain the very best of friends.

Moving on, I must thank Reegs, BarrieB and robh for trying to help.

I am doing a study of acoustic properties of orchestral instruments and need a table of sound pressures of acoustic instruments. Among many other things, it hopefully will provide a simplified and direct way to set volume levels for musical arrangements. I am not looking for advice on arranging music or mixing midi. I have done this type of work for quite some years, though I always look forward to learn more.

Best wishes,

Herbert

[rbowser-]

Hi, Herbert - I didn't realize my last little side note would be obscure. I was just pictorially reiterating what I said earlier - In the cartoon the guy is using his ears!--That's all. The image is from a recently posted introductory tutorial on mixing, illustrating the importance of Listening to the results of whatever we do while working with audio.

Wishing you the best on your big project!

Randy

[ccarr]

This is from the following article:

Clark, M. and D. Luce. "Intensities of Orchestral Instrument Scales Played at Prescribed Dynamic Markings." Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 13, No. 2 (April, 1965):151-157

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/309/intensities.jpg
Hope that helps. The full article is available for $20 at:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1209

PS- These values are at a distance of 10 meters

[sonata5920]

Hi Collin,

Thank you, for pointing me to the link. I appreciate it.

This is an example of the cooperative spirit of members of this forum and also that differing views can coexist.

Herbert

[ccarr]

what you're asking for is a Holy Grail

I guess that makes me Parsifal, then. The fact is that any art is fundamentally human design imposed upon natural phenomena, the description of which is the purpose of physics. That being the case, there is no inherent conflict between science and art. On the contrary, science simply helps us better understand the materials with which we work. Music is the art of sound, which can be described mathematically with formulae. It therefore behooves us, as it would the designer of anything, to embrace the understanding made available to us by scientific description as at least a starting point for expression, if not necessarily the ultimate goal. Talent is really the last component that factors into the quality of art.

[NickMilner]

Talent is really the last component that factors into the quality of art.
Did you type that with a straight face?

[sonata5920]

Hi,

I said earlier on this thread:

“Art is creativity for the sake of creativity. Much more than any other form of art, music has a strong basis in physics.”

If you know all the rules and all the theory of music, you can produce pleasing music without having any talent. To create great music you need outstanding talent.

I recommend that some forum members seriously inform themselves. They will be surprised about the new more complete world that will open up to them.

On the other hand, there is also talent required to successfully deal with physics and mathematics in a creative way. Having an organised mind is essential in music as it is in physics and mathematics.

Herbert

[ccarr]

Did you type that with a straight face?

I absolutely did. What was the difference between Mozart and Salieri? They both received the musical education that was considered proper at the time, they both understood harmony, form, etc. These were all things that they shared, basically the building blocks of composition. What differentiated them, then? They both knew how to harmonize a melody, they both knew the capabilities of contemporary instruments, they both knew the ways in which a theme might be developed. The only thing separating them was the fact that Mozart had more talent than Salieri. That certainly doesn't mean Salieri's music was bad, it just means that Mozart's was better. I didn't say talent was the least factor, I said it was the last. Herbert is correct when he says that, "If you know all the rules and all the theory of music, you can produce pleasing music without having any talent. To create great music you need outstanding talent."

[P.T.]

A person who is truly talented does not need any education to make art.

The theoretical approach is based on an analysis of what talented people have created in the past in an attempt to understand what makes it work and to codify it.

Making art through theoretical means is doing it backwards and is usually how one ends up with uninteresting art.

Some people need to rely on an academic approach and science frequently oversteps itself.

I prefer when people choose not to be robots.

[ccarr]

A person who is truly talented does not need any education to make art.

Name one composer who justifies this statement (and it can't be you).


The theoretical approach is based on an analysis of what talented people have created in the past in an attempt to understand what makes it work and to codify it.

This is also known as not reinventing the wheel.


Making art through theoretical means is doing it backwards and is usually how one ends up with uninteresting art.

If you consider Bach, Wagner, and Schoenberg uninteresting, then I guess you have a point. If, however, what you mean by "uninteresting" is that you personally don't like listening to it, then I would dispute your choice of words.


Some people need to rely on an academic approach

If this means making informed decisions instead of guessing, then mea culpa.


science frequently oversteps itself.

I have parsed this several times, and must confess that I am not talented enough to decipher it.


I prefer when people choose not to be robots.

For instance, perhaps, by professing the truly original opinion that somehow "science is bad for art"?