NOTION Music Forum

I enclose a N3 file. The increase is dynamic piano ===> Forte. I think the contrast is not sufficient between piano and forte. The piano is too loud. The forte is almost OK. On the next post I have attached the wav file to be sure you hear what I hear. Your opinon? Is there an objective way to determine what is dynamic?
Thank you

Here is the wav file to the same extract

Try this out sometime, listen to a piece of music (preferably a piece you haven't performed or studied in the past) and write down the dynamics you hear (without looking at the music), then go back to the actual score or sheet music and see how close you were. I'd be willing to wager that you miss more dynamics than you get correct. I'm not saying you have a bad ear, but I think that dynamics are almost entirely relative and very difficult to pinpoint with any sort of precision.

First, different instruments will have different dynamic ranges in themselves. For example, piano on a trumpet may be closer in aural velocity to a fortissimo on a violin. The velocity reached by playing a snare at fortississimo may not be possible in any form on a bassoon.

Second, there's no real objective rule that dictates the decibel range of dynamics; I've never seen a rule that says mezzo-piano must be 10 dB higher than piano or anything like it. Any such rule would almost certainly be unmusical by definition.

Third, individual pieces require interpretation (this is where musical performance becomes an art and not pure mechanics); a performer may play a mezzo-forte in once piece and mezzo-piano in another at the same physical velocity based on the setting, interpretation, and context of the music.

Fourth, technical issues in recording technology also force the dynamic range of sound to be reduced (it's just the nature of the beast). There are tricks to make audio sound louder or softer, but these are only tricks and take time to learn; furthermore, many of these tricks sound out of place when used in chamber and classical music.

So, finally, in your example there is definitely a crescendo between a softer dynamic and a louder dynamic, and, though you may feel that it's too small a change or perhaps too much of a change, the actual physical velocity of these dynamics falls under the interpretation and implementation of the developers.

There is an option to tweak dynamics by half a dynamic in either direction under the tools menu. Just select the dynamic(s) you want to adjust, click "Tweak Dynamics..." and follow the prompt. You can also make changes in Notion's mixing environment if you think one instrument on the whole is too loud or too soft, or you can may be able to find some audio effects that will help expand the dynamic range. If you've tried these tricks and it still doesn't have the dynamic range that you want, then I suggest changing the dynamics to a pianissimo crescendoing to a fortissimo.

Hi Pcartwright , and thank you for your interest in the issue.

pcartwright wrote:Try this out sometime, listen to a piece of music (preferably a piece you haven't performed or studied in the past) and write down the dynamics you hear (without looking at the music), then go back to the actual score or sheet music and see how close you were. I'd be willing to wager that you miss more dynamics than you get correct. I'm not saying you have a bad ear, but I think that dynamics are almost entirely relative and very difficult to pinpoint with any sort of precision.

I agree.

First, different instruments will have different dynamic ranges in themselves. For example, piano on a trumpet may be closer in aural velocity to a fortissimo on a violin. The velocity reached by playing a snare at fortississimo may not be possible in any form on a bassoon.

If a conductor asks for a piano, each musician will do what it takes to perform a piano (p )

Second, there's no real objective rule that dictates the decibel range of dynamics; I've never seen a rule that says mezzo-piano must be 10 dB higher than piano or anything like it. Any such rule would almost certainly be unmusical by definition.

Do you think I do not know that?

Third, individual pieces require interpretation (this is where musical performance becomes an art and not pure mechanics); a performer may play a mezzo-forte in once piece and mezzo-piano in another at the same physical velocity based on the setting, interpretation, and context of the music.

Again, do you think I do not know that?

Fourth, technical issues in recording technology also force the dynamic range of sound to be reduced (it's just the nature of the beast). There are tricks to make audio sound louder or softer, but these are only tricks and take time to learn; furthermore, many of these tricks sound out of place when used in chamber and classical music.

Yes I totally agree.

So, finally, in your example there is definitely a crescendo between a softer dynamic and a louder dynamic, and, though you may feel that it's too small a change or perhaps too much of a change, the actual physical velocity of these dynamics falls under the interpretation and implementation of the developers.

these dynamics falls under the interpretation and implementation of the developers Yes! Here is the whole issue!

There is an option to tweak dynamics by half a dynamic in either direction under the tools menu. Just select the dynamic(s) you want to adjust, click "Tweak Dynamics..." and follow the prompt. You can also make changes in Notion's mixing environment if you think one instrument on the whole is too loud or too soft, or you can may be able to find some audio effects that will help expand the dynamic range. If you've tried these tricks and it still doesn't have the dynamic range that you want, then I suggest changing the dynamics to a pianissimo crescendoing to a fortissimo.

Note: There is a small mistake in the guide on this. The guide says: Go to the menu bar and select Edit> Tweak Dynamics. Rather Tools> Tweak Dynamics
I suggest changing the dynamics to a pianissimo crescendoing to a fortissimo.
Yes that's what I did. By the Wav file attached here you will hear what mean crescendo piano ========> forte, with a brass quintet. But for this I had to write ppp ===> ff (see picture)
I could never print a musical score with dynamics shown in this way. Here is the real problem.
Thank you!

Warning... small rant below...Your response is inconsistent and slightly insulting.

On one hand, you agree that there is relativity to dynamics, but then you say that musicians must conform so that every piano (p) sounds at the same velocity. This is impossible and impractical, and, in my experience, the conductor is likely to have the player write in a different dynamic to achieve the correct sound based on the hall, style of music, etc, than say "this piano a little louder than the last" or something like that. The art of orchestration is built around the concept that instruments respond to phrases and dynamics differently and need to be coordinated with each other accordingly.

Furthermore, you agree that dynamics are an interpretation, yet you seem to feel your interpretation is superior to others. Personally, I think the piano dynamic is a little on the soft side compared to how I would usually interpret it. Is my interpretation wrong? Are the Notion developers interpretation wrong? Are you correct, or are you wrong? The point is that it really doesn't matter. Notion implements dynamics and provides tools to make subtle changes to how dynamics sound. How else would a software company implement dynamics given that everyone would have a different opinion on the matter?

Finally, why could you never write a ppp crescendoing to a ff? Is there some rule that says you shouldn't do this? Do you think it looks sloppy? If you don't like it, have you tried making adjustments and tweaks in the mixer section to better approximate your opinion of piano and forte?

I do not see what is offensive in what I said. That may be a mistake to Google traductor? I do not hear pp ===> fff progression in the same way that the result given by N3, simply.

When it's time to play this piece with real musicians, all this will be solved.

pcartwright wrote:[...]
Finally, why could you never write a ppp crescendoing to a ff? Is there some rule that says you shouldn't do this? Do you think it looks sloppy? [...]

Not at all! This way of writing is very acceptable.

Having a dual-language conversation via the Google Translator can be a bit confusing at times, so the best strategy is to avoid presuming too much, for sure . . .

For sure!

One of the more fascinating aspects of perception is something I learned when I was working on the early flight simulation systems for the NASA Space Shuttle, where various techniques were used in motion simulators to make the astronauts perceive large and often dramatic motions, where for example a simulated motion might be dropping in altitude very rapidly by 1,000 feet or approximately 330 meters of a few seconds . . .

To the astronauts inside the motion simulator, it was very real, but if you watched the simulator module from outside, it was very different, since the actual physical motions were perhaps 24 inches to 36 inches, done by a combination of very power hydraulic systems for large motions and geared electric motors for very fine motions . . .

The motion stuff was not my specialty, but I talked with the motion folks and learned about how it was done, which is quite fascinating . . .

Basically, one of the primary ways that people perceive motion is based on tiny bones inside the fluid filled areas of the inner ear, and the "tiny bones" float freely inside fluid filled tubes ("vestibular labryinths") that are lined with tiny neural "hairs" . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibular ... #Structure

The "tiny bones" are called "otoliths" . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otoliths

The basic technique used to simulate motion involves first putting the otoliths into motion by a very rapid and intense but short-length "burst" followed by a slower and longer but gradual motion, which sometimes is in the opposite direction to the direction of the motion that is being simulated, and the secondary motion specifically is designed to allow the otoliths to continue in the direction of their initial rapid acceleration where the goal is use the resulting momentum to create the very realistic illusion of large motions . . .

There is more to it than this, but I think this is a good way to understand the basic concept . . .

[bQUESTION: ]How does this apply to dynamics in music? [/b]

Great question!

I did a few experiments, and it appears that when focus switches to a new instrument, if you begin the first few notes (from 1 to perhaps 3 notes, depending on the duration of the notes) with a higher loudness dynamic and then very quickly reduce the loudness dynamic, this works in a similar way to the flight simulator motion perception technique . . .

One way to conceptualize this is to consider that an initially louder dynamic for a very short time is like moving the "lead instrument" spotlight from one instrument to another, and what it provides aural cues for the listener that help the listener know where to focus their listening attention, which is a way of saying "listen to the flute now" when the flute starts playing the melody or whatever . . .

Whatever!

Another fact is that for a sound to be perceived as being twice as loud, its actual volume needs to increase 10 times, which is the reason that decibels are logarithmic rather than linear . . .

SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS REGARDING AUDITORY ILLUSIONS AND PERCEPTION

There is a lot more to aural dynamics that one might imagine, and another significant aspect involves reverberation and echoes, where one way to create an auditory illusion is with a very rapid single-repeat echo, typically in the range of 10 to 100 milliseconds, where two rapidly arriving identical sounds are perceived as being one sound that is louder than either of what actually were two separate but identical sounds, with one aspect of this phenomenon being called the "Haas Effect", although there are more aspects and rules . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect

But perhaps the most amazing bit of information is that in ideal listening conditions, the human ear is capable of detecting the fluctuations at standard atmospheric pressure caused by the motion of a single electron, which truly is mind-boggling, really . . .

[NOTE: For those folks who have not yet studied Chemistry and Physics, I did a bit of calculating and decided that an electron probably is somewhere in the range of "on the order of a tenth of an atomic diameter" or close enough to make the analogy, but another way simply is to swap "electron" for "atom", which also is mind-boggling although not quite so mind-boggling as detecting the sound of an electron vibrating, which in the grand scheme of everything makes mezzo pianissimo more like a jet engine at take-off. I think that hearing an electron vibrate is more FUN, but hearing an atom vibrate is pretty cool, too . . . ]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html#c1

Really!

To Francois, what changes should be made to accommodate your interpretation of dynamics? Remember, that you will be limited to certain MIDI and digital audio parameters.

pcartwright wrote:To Francois, what changes should be made to accommodate your interpretation of dynamics? Remember, that you will be limited to certain MIDI and digital audio parameters.

I'm curious. Are you a programmer for N3? I do not know how to express an answer in computer term. I'll ask for help from people who know the issue.

I'm not a programmer nor am I associated with Notion, but if you want change you have to do a little bit work and understand how some of the more basic technologies (MIDI, digital audio, etc) function instead of simply saying "this dynamic doesn't sound like piano" (which is very subjective, and yes, a matter of opinion).

Now, to expand on the issue of dynamics and how they are interpreted/sound in Notion... You can define dynamics for third party VSTs. This is the code I have in my rules for EWQL Symphonic Orchestra (I've tweaked my rules a bit, so I'm not sure if this is the default or my own making; regardless, it demonstrates the point nicely):

<dynamic-map id="ewql">
<dynamic dynamic="ppppp" value="0" />
<dynamic dynamic="pppp" value="10" />
<dynamic dynamic="ppp" value="30" />
<dynamic dynamic="pp" value="40" />
<dynamic dynamic="p" value="50" />
<dynamic dynamic="mp" value="75" />
<dynamic dynamic="mf" value="85" />
<dynamic dynamic="f" value="100" />
<dynamic dynamic="ff" value="104" />
<dynamic dynamic="fff" value="112" />
<dynamic dynamic="ffff" value="120" />
<dynamic dynamic="fffff" value="127" />
</dynamic-map>

MIDI parameters only have 128 values for a given expression (0-127). So, in this case, dynamics (MIDI CC 11 in this case) can only be adjusted from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 127. I think it's safe to assume that Notion's sounds are based on MIDI and thus require the same logic as the 3rd party VSTs (the example given above), so, if you wanted to make the piano dynamic softer, you would need to change the value associated with piano. Perhaps you bump it down to 45, but then the variation between piano and pianissimo is reduced. If you continue reducing one dynamic after another in an attempt to get more variation in the dynamics, you'll eventually run out of numerical values to assign to the dynamics (remember, you only have 128 values [0-127] to work with). Of course, this is hypothetical with Notion's sounds since users can't tweak the rules for the default sounds.

I think tweaking/reworking dynamics from the MIDI side is pointless considering that dynamics are relative and that different people have different opinions of what piano or forte should sound like. As mentioned earlier, your best bet to tweak the sound and the dynamics to your liking is to use plugins or the volume/send faders in the Notion mixer.