Dynamics ==> matter of opinion?

[Surfwhammy]

I spent much time for reading the guide N3 and I did several tests.

What I think of N3 appears on all my posts in my signature.

«I love Notion 3. I love to compose.»

I come to the forum to discuss problems and it's about these difficulties I want to discuss. Nothing more.

Regarding the dynamics matter, I think that you really need to get Miroslav Philharmonik, since it provides more control over minutiae and is more advanced than the London Symphony Orchestra (LSO) VSTi instruments that come with Notion 3, although there are some very nice and useful aspects of the Notion 3 LSO VSTI instruments . . .

As noted in nearly all my posts to this FORUM, Notion 3 like all computer software has a few quirks and odd behaviors, so the practical approach to using Notion 3 productively is to discover what works best for what you need to do . . .

I did some experiments on the Mac, which is the platform I use, and both the N2 and N3 flavors of LSO have the problem you correctly identified . . .

I did experiments with removing the crescendo; removing the repeated and unnecessary "mp"; changing the width of the crescendo; moving the crescendo above the staff; and so forth and so on; and it changed nothing when the Timpani is from the N2 and N3 LSO VSTi libraries . . .

However, everything is much better when I use the Timpani from Miroslav Philharmonik, where for reference I set it via the Notion 3 "high-level" interface rather than with the Miroslav Philharmonik standalone user interface (which allows much more precise control of the individual instruments, playing styles, dynamics, articulations, special effects, and so forth and so on) . . .



Although I am not an expert on Timpani, my general understanding is that they are used typically in one of two ways:

(1) drum rolls with crescendo . . .

(2) single very loud hits (like the start of "Also sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30" [Richard Strauss], which was used in "2001: A Space Odyssey" and at the start of Elvis Presley concerts in the 1970s) . . .

I had the opportunity every once in a while to experiment with a Timpani when I was in junior school and played string bass in the orchestra, and as I recall there is a way to use the foot pedal to make an ascending note, which I think sounds very nice, but being someone who has no difficulties doing the same thing over and over and over, playing with the Timpani foot pedals soon was added to the list of things that I was not supposed to do, which included taking the opportunity during times when the orchestra was playing what I considered to be quite boring Classical pianissimo movements to do a bit of string bass Jazz improvising based on the idea that such movements mostly were a matter of the composer not having anything useful to do which perhaps would be less obvious to listeners if the volume was lowered, hence was a stellar time for me to showcase a few of my anarchistic soloing skills . . .

[NOTE: In retrospect, I think that the conductor was very tolerant of my behaviors, but my playing the melody for "The Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" forte on string bass during one of the pianissimo movements of a Bach piece was a bit much for any conductor to handle, as was playing everything entirely "by ear", which I think was exacerbated by the conductor actually being a Bassoonist, which soon led to my being banished from the orchestra, which was fine with me, because by that time I had discovered girls and the fact that girls really like Rock and Roll bass players, for sure . . . ]

So, once I switched to Miroslav Philharmonik for the Timpani, the first thing I noticed is that it does a crescendo automatically, hence I removed the crescendo . . .

And I also removed the second "mp", since it was redundant . . .

Additionally, I removed the Notion 3 Reverb, since the Miroslav Philharmonik VSTi instruments are played and recorded in a concert hall, hence already have natural reverberation . . .

This is the resulting WAVE file (approximately 3.5MB), where the Timpani is from Miroslav Philharmonik and there is no Notion 3 Reverb. Also I raised the volume to 0db, which works better for keeping everything at a standard reference level for purposes of making comparisons in FORUM discussions . . .

[NOTE: I used the default panning (full panning), and the TImpani mostly is heard in the right channel, since the Miroslav Philharmonik instruments are played and recorded in their standard locations within an orchestra, which for Timpani is stage-left or audience-right . . . ]

http://www.surfwhammys.com/tim-14fev-Miroslav-Philharmonik-Surfwhammy.wav

Summarizing:

(1) You have exceptional skills for identifying problems with VSTi instruments and Notion 3 . . .

(2) My junior high school orchestra conductor was a Bassoonist and a twit . . .

(3) The lovely ladies continue like Rock and Roll bass players . . .

(4) You need to get Miroslav Philharmonik . . .

(5) Using Miroslav Philharmonik will increase the things about which you can complain nearly geometrically . . .

Lots of FUN!

P. S. I have an odd sense of humor, and it is early in the morning for me, which just makes it odder, so no harm intended . . .

[Francois2010]

Here is an analysis of audacity. The difference between mf and f in Notion3 is not enough in my opinion. Listen as the N3 file.

[pcartwright]

It's still your opinion and just that. Did you ever try using plugins and/or mixing tools to increase the dynamic range?

Notion should not change its samples or its playback process based on one person's opinion. Don't get this confused with program features. It's one thing to ask for a feature, quite another to complain about the breadth of a process. In your example above, it's clear that there is a crescendo taking place; it's just not to your liking. Tough. Get a plugin that will help expand the dynamic range to your liking.

[Surfwhammy]

Here is an analysis of audacity. The difference between mf and f in Notion3 is not enough in my opinion. Listen as the N3 file.

It is obvious from the audacity screen capture that there is a distinct difference in mezzo-forte and forte, so from the perspective of what Notion 3 is doing, I think that everything is fine . . .

Instead of focusing on the idea that Notion 3 is problematic, I think it makes more sense to focus on the listening environment (loudspeakers vs. headphones, for example), listening room acoustics if you are listening to loudspeakers, and general techniques for mixing and mastering . . .

One of the most important things to understand about sound is that for a sound to be perceived as being twice as loud, the volume needs to increase 10 times, which is the reason that decibels are logarithmic rather than linear, as is the case with volume and tone controls on electric guitars . . .

In some respects, studio quality headphones like the SONY MDR-7506 (a personal favorite) are an inexpensive way to avoid all the work required to adjust and tailor the acoustic behaviors of a listening room and loudspeaker system, but headphones are not ideally suited for mixing and mastering, and in fact a loudspeaker mix will sound better on headphones than a headphone mix, which is strange but so what . . .

So what!

From my perspective, the important thing is to devise a complete system, and it takes a lot of stuff for a complete system, which is the simple way to explain the concept . . .

I found a fascinating book that provides a detailed overview of the way the Beatles were recorded at Abbey Road Studios, and everything was done to a mind-boggling level of detail with respect to equipment, recording techniques, and so forth and so on . . .

http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/

As an example, there was a clearly defined procedure for setting up a microphone for use in recording vocals, and there was a clearly defined set of rules for the person doing the singing . . .

I was aware of some of the details, but my initial reaction to reading the book is that Abbey Road Studios was run like a military organization, where everything was done according to an approved procedure and set of guidelines, which is entirely the opposite of the way I think that most people imagined a Beatles recording session to have been . . .

As the Beatles gained popularity and learned more about recording, they were able to do more experimenting, but even then there were rules . . .

Yet, all the rules make sense when you consider that a hit song at the time mapped to millions of dollars, so from a business perspective the general idea was to ensure the highest level of quality control throughout the "manufacturing" process, the product was a "recorded song" . . .

In particular, it is very important to understand that mixing and mastering is an entirely separate activity from composing, performing, and recording, and it is something that few composers and musicians understand in great detail, if only because it typically is not something that composers and musicians (including singers, of course) naturally do as part of their work . . .

Mixing and mastering your own compositions and performances is all the more difficult, because it requires you to be extraordinarily objective rather than subjective, which is something that many people simply cannot do . . .

There is an excellent video series on mixing and mastering using T-RackS 3 Deluxe (IK Multimedia) available from the folks at Groove 3, and it helped me understand that the perspective is very different, which in turn mapped to improvements in my ability to mix and master . . .

http://www.groove3.com/str/mastering-with-tracks.html

Part of the reason that I do not focus so much on basic dynamics (pianissimo, mezzo-piano, piano, mezzo-forte, forte, fortissimo, and whatever) is that for DISCO and Pop, as well as virtually every genre except Classical, the best strategy is to use dynamics in Notion 3 only when there is no possible way to avoid using them, since in the grand scheme of everything it is much easier and more practical to fine-tune dynamics in the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) application, which for me is Digital Performer 7 . . .

Basically, on the Notion 3 side of the universe the goal is to get what I call "good levels", since the key to doing mixing and mastering of recorded material is to record it in such a way that everything has a "good level", which is all the more important in the digital universe, because background noise, hiss, and so forth accumulate and accumulation easily becomes a significant problem . . .

Another quite curious phenomenon is that changing the volume level of a typically higher frequency instrument can affect the perceived loudness of a typically lower frequency instrument and vice-versa, which at times can be a bit mind-boggling . . .

For example, you might have what you imagine to be a stellar TONE for an electric guitar when you solo the track, but when you play the track at the same time you are playing an electric bass track, all of a sudden the electric guitar TONE changes and does not sound very good, which initially makes absolutely no sense . . .

Yet, if you pan the electric bass far-left and far-right but pan the electric guitar to top-center, then it starts sounding better, and if you add some electric piano in the middle, then the electric bass and electric guitar sound better . . .

And all the while, none of the recorded dynamics have changed . . .

In a very real sense, it is like assembling an elaborate puzzle, where something so apparently simple as positioning an instrument in a different location has dramatic changes on the way other instruments are perceived, and once you switch to fine-tuning everything, adjusting a single instrument by 1dB becomes a huge change . . .

At present, my strategy during the fine-tuning phase is that I focus on a specific instrument toward the goal of determining the lowest possible level at which it is heard the way I want it to be heard, so for example if it sounds good at 0dB, then I try it at -3dB and determine if I actually can distinguish among the way it sounds at 0dB and at -3dB, and so forth and so on . . .

If there is no discernible difference until the level is -7dB, then I set it to -6dB or whatever, and then shift focus to another instrument or vocal track, except that after a while, I revisit everything and make a few more adjustments, which continues for quite a while . . .

I am getting better at it, and the overall goal is to devise a very detailed system or "formula", since constantly doing experiments takes a lot of time . . .

Summarizing, the logarithmic aspects of sound are very important, and the way one listens to sound is very important, which is one of the reasons that it is so important to do a loudspeaker mix, because when you only listen with headphones, each ear hears something different, which is not the what happens when you listen to music played through loudspeakers, where each ear hears some of what the other ear hears . . .

Discovering the way dynamics work in Notion 3 is an excellent activity, but it is one of many aspects of an entire system, since everything is highly interdependent to nearly mind-boggling levels of complexity, for sure . . .

For sure!

[pcartwright]

Here is an analysis of audacity. The difference between mf and f in Notion3 is not enough in my opinion. Listen as the N3 file.

If, in your opinion, the dynamic range is not enough, what range should Notion use?

Give us dB ranges that, in your opinion, are appropriate for every dynamic between ppppp and fffff.

Also, Surfwhammy makes some good points regarding your listening environment. Check your sound levels and tweak the volume knob to find that dynamic sweet spot.

[Zblogny]

Here is an analysis of audacity. The difference between mf and f in Notion3 is not enough in my opinion. Listen as the N3 file.

Salut François !
I listened to your file, I feel the dynamic between mf and f is quite normal.
If you need more dynamics, why not use more letters ?
Maybe you should put hairpins to make an audible crescendo, especially over the last three bars, Forte on the last one is a bit sudden (but maybe you want it so ?).

[Surfwhammy]

Another quite curious phenomenon is that changing the volume level of a typically higher frequency instrument can affect the perceived loudness of a typically lower frequency instrument and vice-versa, which at times can be a bit mind-boggling . . .

For example, you might have what you imagine to be a stellar TONE for an electric guitar when you solo the track, but when you play the track at the same time you are playing an electric bass track, all of a sudden the electric guitar TONE changes and does not sound very good, which initially makes absolutely no sense . . .

Yet, if you pan the electric bass far-left and far-right but pan the electric guitar to top-center, then it starts sounding better, and if you add some electric piano in the middle, then the electric bass and electric guitar sound better . . .

As a bit of follow-up on this curious phenomenon, it is something that happens when one uses certain types of VST mastering components, and I first noticed it after doing some experiments with T-RackS 3 Deluxe (IK Multimedia) and a few of its more advanced mastering suites, such as the "Master 1" suite, which has a Linear Phase Equalizer, Opto-Compressor, Pultec EQP-1A Program Equalizer, and Brick Wall Limiter arranged in series so that the first one in the series has the original input from the Master stereo output and then each sequential processor gets the output of the processor preceding it, which has the consequence of making the processors in the chain dependent, where the last processor in the chain (Brick Wall Limiter) is affected by everything that is done in the original mix as well as everything done by the preceding processors . . .


Linear Phase Equalizer (T-RackS 3 Deluxe)


Opto-Compressor (T-RackS 3 Deluxe)


Pultec EQP-1A Program Equalizer (T-RackS 3 Deluxe)


Brick Wall Limiter (T-RackS 3 Deluxe)

And my best guess on this is that some of the processors are not so precise or selective with respect to the way they respond to the levels of frequency bands . . .

In other words, if you increase the volume level for a high frequency in one processor, then the higher volume for the specific band of higher frequency becomes a significant factor in the compressing or limiting algorithm of a subsequent processor, with the result that the subsequent processor is guided more by the increased volume level of the higher frequency, hence compresses or limits the volume levels of everything based more on the volume level of the higher frequency, or in the case of boosting a lower frequency range, the boosted lower frequency volume level, which results in some nearly paradoxical behaviors at times . . .

You might have a stellar deep and rich bass guitar TONE but then you decide to brighten the high-frequencies of the electric guitar and the stellar deep and rich bass TONE suddenly disappears . . .

This took me quite a while to understand, since there are so many interactions among the various processors, but it started making sense after a while, although it often requires making adjustments to the volume levels in the mix after adjustments are made in the mastering components, where the current strategy that is working nicely involves adjusting the frequency response in the mastering suite but then revisiting the volume levels in the mix to get everything back in balance, which typically is not the way traditional mixing and mastering is done, since the traditional strategy is to do mixing as a separate activity and then when the mix is completed to switch to working solely with the Master stereo output for doing mastering, with mixing typically being done by the producer and recording engineer but with mastering being done by a mastering engineer . . .

However, since I do everything myself, I tend to adjust everything until it sounds right, which in some respects is like playing multidimensional chess or whatever . . .

Whatever!

The important aspect is to make tiny changes that are as subtle as possible, since what one might call the "zone" for getting stellar TONE is very small once all the instruments and vocals are done, and when you start getting everything into the "zone", all it takes to lose it is to make a big change somewhere, which at present maps to the strategy being based primarily on what one might call a "just enough" technique, where the overall goal is that instruments and vocals need to be adjusted "just enough" to be heard clearly and distinctly but no more than what is required, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous! :)

P. S. In a very real sense, composing a song, doing all the instruments using a combination of music notation and VSTi instruments in Notion 3 and real instruments and vocals in a DAW, as well as mixing and mastering the song, is at least as complex as piloting a commercial airplane or a NASA space shuttle or directing a Fortune 500 corporation, but so what . . .

So what!

The more times you do it, the easier and better it becomes over the long run, really . . .

Really!

[marcato]

I've have been following this lively discussion from the ringside and it seems to me the ultimate control over dynamics can only be achieved at the post-production level, in an exacting sound engineering environment where the decibel is king. In the MIDI world, this means mastering the simulaneous use of TWO volume controls, a feat so obviously beyond the capability of any notation editor.
From here I will be quoting Paul Gilreath, the author of The Guide to MIDI Orchestration(4th Edition Focal Press 2010) .
"Most MIDI modules and samplers respond to two volume controls. CC#7 is the continuous controller for Channel Volume and is used to set the channel's main volume. CC#11 is the continuous controller for Expression, and is typically used to incorporate crescendo and decrescendo swells into the phrase. While both of these controllers operate within a range of 128 steps (due to the 7-bit MIDI format), each controller is directly dependent on the other's level. For instance, if CC#7 is set to 127, then CC#11 will work just like CC#7, operating in the range from 0 to 127 with 128 increments. However, if CC#7 is set to another level, say 64 (half of 127), then the result is that you now have access to more increments with CC#11 because it operates over a narrower range (in this case providing 128 increments between 0 and 64). Both these controllers are used together to add realism to a line by altering the line's volume level, thereby allowing you to shape the phrase dynamically by adding crescendos and decrescendos. When using CC#11 and CC#7, I think the easiest approach is to find the loudest section of the music and set the CC#7 level so that it balances with the remaining orchestration. I find it most helpful to start with CC#11 at a level of 100 instead of 127. (...) "
This idea of using both controllers like the gears of a transmission, to refine phrasing, would be next to impossible to implement in the realm of notation editors. With standard symbols triggering specialized rules. The clever idea belongs to the world of DAWs and sequencers that respond to crude MIDI commands, well outside the scope of sheet music.
As for the dynamic markings on a score, they are both absolute and relative, I am afraid. Imagine the chaos if any second fiddle could play it HIS way in a symphony orchestra! And here, I borrow again from Gilreath's treatise: for musicians playing in an orchestra, the dynamics are certainly to be played as scored or as ORDERED by the conductor for each and every single soul sitting in front of him, but can become a matter of highly personal choice for a solo artist. For sure!
My two cents worth.

[wcreed51]

Actually, notation programs are completely up to the task of controlling multiple CCs, but not all through notation symbols. In the case of Notion, you’d add additional sequencer staffs to go with each notation staff with which to exactly control CC 1, 7 & 11.

See the sequencer staff tutorial here: http://www.notionmusic.com/support/tutorials.html

[Francois2010]

I'm glad to see all those answers. Now I will read ... and translate ... in my case. And I will respond.