stubbsonic wrote:I wonder if using velocity scaling along with faders might help some of the background parts to blend more nicely (i.e., lower velocities triggering the softer/warmer samples).
GREAT WORK. INSPIRING!
Depending on the patch and its number of velocity layers the timbre can change drastically. That is easier to accomplish with patches that have quite a lot of layers, so there are more "in-between" choices. The trick is to try to keep the relative volume of each layer at a realistic loudness.
Thank you for your kind words
HCMarkus wrote:
FM, you are one of the regular contributors here at the Nation from whom I have learned much over the years. Thank you for sharing your piece with us all.
Thank you for your comments, HCM.
I've learnt so much from this place throughout the years too! And it never seems to stop.
mhschmieder wrote: I'll be coming to that when I eventually return to working on my opera, but most of what I am working on at the moment does not need that sort of playing, so I eagerly await your resolution of this challenge in the horns!
The other day I opened the project again and immediately realized what seemed to be the problem with the horns.
I used lots of different patches and articulations, but the exaggerated crescendos definitely come from using the crescendo patches with added expression (lots of it). So I corrected it by leaving the crescendo patches alone without the unneeded expression swells. I simply flattened this CC in those sections.
I tried to make the horns sing, but I definitely got carried away with them. The solution was quite easy, and I think they sit better in the mix and especially within the orchestral context (I'll need to upload the revised version of this. It's very subtle, but sounds better).
Thinking back, to be completely honest, I would not change a thing about the orchestration of this piece. I'd do the same thing if I had to start from scratch again. The reason is that the piece was conceived with that orchestration and counterpoint in mind from the beginning. Especially the very busy counterpoint lines in the climax... that's how I heard them in my inner ear.
But I definitely need to keep in mind not to overstate (or overshadow) things in future pieces. I LOVE interesting counterpoint lines, but they need to remain that... accompanying lines secondary to the melody. And, of course, there are melody lines that are better left "more naked" and less ornamented. Context, context, context.
mhschmieder wrote:Well, a combination of guilt and also my usual problem of getting going in the early afternoon when it's quiet around me and I don't want to disturb the peace, had me going back for another couple of listens before starting my production factory for the day.
Thank you for listening again
mhschmieder wrote:I think the tonal balance is spot-on -- no mud to speak of, and only some occasional harshness in the mids that are specific to certain instruments (mostly the piano).
I'm glad to hear that, because the frequency balance was one of my main concerns. My room is less than ideal in terms of shape, size and speaker placement, so I always need to check and recheck against commercial recordings to make sure I'm not mudding things up.
mhschmieder wrote:Getting back to the piano, let me know the sound source and other details, and maybe I have an EQ preset or two that I could send your way. Even in cases where I now use Vienna Suite, I often first create the EQ in MOTU MasterWorks EQ and then port it over to Vienna Suite. I'm also finding PSP's MixTreble plug-in (part of a small mixing suite) to be a life-saver for piano.
I used VSL's Vienna Imperial.
I used the dry (close mic) setting with no ambiance. I sent this dry signal to the same reverb the strings used (Waves' IR with the Sidney Opera House Concert Hall). The reverb sent level was 2 or 3 dB more than the strings, so it resonated a bit more. That's why I'm not sure why it sounds as if it were in a different room... perhaps due to the EQ?
I EQ'd the reverb return taking into account both, the strings and piano.
I did have to heavily EQ the dry piano signal before sending it to the reverb. I cut a lot of bass frequencies using a 6 dB pole high pass filter, and also removed a lot of 250-350 freqs, otherwise it sounded too close and muddy. I also reduced the highest frequencies to put it a little further away.
My original intent was to make it sit as if it were a piano concerto relative to a listener who sits around the middle of the concert hall.
The piano placement is one of the things I'm definitely least happy about this particular piece, so I'll be more than happy to check out your EQ preset you mentioned.
I had never used a convolution reverb before this piece in an orchestral context. I found myself cutting lots of room resonances in the returns. And everytime I changed a room I found I needed to readjust whatever EQ I had quite heavily (for each section), of course. So these kind of reverbs are much more delicate in terms of room resonances and EQ settings than normal reverbs!
So, whenever you have time, please send me the piano EQ preset you mentioned. I'd love to compare it to the different ones I came up with.
Thanks for listening, MHSchmieder. And good luck with your new piece