Thanks for the link Tom. I don\'t like the expression \"not possible\" what signals a certain lethargy and would like to replace that attitude with \"not easy\" instead of...... [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Nevertheless I don\'t think that the velocity controled attack does contribute so much. The main bite is delivered by the layered staccato what is more accentuated by higher velocities.
That was an interesting response. I think I need to remove a little bit of unexpected “straw man” from my face. Unless I missed something in my own post I never used the expression “not possible.” The word “preclude” does make clear that the acceptance of certain design choices restricts the use of others – a given. In another place in that post I used the word “difficult” but I think that is essentially equivalent to your preferred “not easy.” Now, I may indeed have moments of lethargy, both mental and physical, but the fact that I have made design choices with which you may not agree has nothing to do with that, although you may still want to roll your cartoon eyes at me just because we have a difference of opinion.
“The main bite is delivered by the layered staccato what is more accentuated by higher velocities.”
Only in the case of the section strings – nowhere else in the library. The “bite” (which I’ve tried to keep relatively subtle and musical) is supplied entirely by the flex envelopes in all other cases. I find them significant. But then I find extremely dark bitter sweet chocolate significant too – there’s no accounting for taste.
wonderful! Now we are in a dialogue (just took a look at my booklet and realized that you are the Director of Programming...I must have been sleeping [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img] )
After the exchange of polite animosities I think we now have a good basis to proceed: bitter sweet chocolate [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
OK...we can talk long about theory, taste and sound design....but what about the practise?
Take a look at this example :
The problem why it does not sound convincing is that the tones have these artificial fade-ins....
I see that this should simulate a smooth swelling bow stroke....but it is not the same just to let swell-in the volume. These fade-ins might work perhaps at slower passages but in these legato phrases they disturb the tone flow. Even worse it sounds if you integrate the single voice into the whole arrangement... then the low volume parts get swallowed.
Could you give me a hint how to make such passages better? Perhaps you post your own version and show me how to let it sound more convincing? My ears are wide open!
first of all it sounds to me like you are using the sus and short patch. It becomes a bit harder to get a smooth legato with that patch alone as the \"short\" part has a bit of a bite. Plus I just ran it and it doesn\'t sound like the legato is kicking in for you anyway. I seem to have gotten it a BIT smoother. You do have the midi message coming through on #64 right?
Regardless, you should try using the lush patch. Much smoother transition. Also overlap your notes a bit. I think that is what that melody is looking for but what the hell do I know.
good ears you have! Indeed I\'ve used the sus+short bows for the first pass...but in the repeat you hear a 3-track-mix of sus+short/lush/lush mute with slight shifted notes in order to try to get smoother transitions.
Also I\'ve passed on the pedal cause in the cellos this does not make a big differnce.
So here is the same file as you recommended with only lush cellos and legato pedal: