I propose to you this version of one of the pieces from Respighi's famous Roman cycle: I produced the audio without changing anything; my intention was to see if a virtual orchestra can somehow be "credible" by testing itself against an orchestration that certainly works (unlike mine....).
I played everything myself; it wasn't made in Finale but in Cubase, as I wanted to see if it is possible to give more "humanity" to the piece compared to a Finale playback which, no matter how humanized, always has that certain something computerized about it.
Personally, I am not unhappy with the result and it seems like a good compromise considering that I stayed well within the 4GB limit of a 32-bit software like Cubase 5.
All samples are from East West (F mic position) with the exception of the strings, which are the LA Scoring Strings divisi (this is very important for creating the divided string parts that this piece is full of....).
There are some very minor licenses due to the ranges; the virtual instruments did not reach certain extremes and I had to use a few tricks (lowering some violin notes by an octave, giving notes to the piccolo instead of the flute, or to the clarinet instead of the bass clarinet, but all in all, just a few things....).
The audio was produced in Cubase using only a few plugins: some general reverb (in addition to the individual reverb on the strings, which are dry by themselves, and on the trumpet, which needs to sound further away than the rest), a stereo enhancer, and a maximizer to avoid clipping in the central ff section.)
I was not familiar with Respighi's work; if I understood correctly, you had your virtual orchestra play it as the original. I am looking online for a version played by acoustic instruments to make a comparison, but I can tell you in advance that your mp3 is certainly appreciable.
V
Videoclip
Member
Reply 3 by Videoclip
Posts
140
We are already at a good level, much improved compared to the previous Chopin I had listened to. If you really want to raise the level further, in my opinion (though we are now entering the realm of matters of taste), one should "standardize" the acoustics of the room. I mean that in some passages it feels like being in a theater, in other points in another place; it is barely perceptible but it's there, and it is obviously due to the integration of different software package libraries.
Anyway, this is really about being extremely refined. Did you start from a recording trying to portray its sonorities, or did you start directly from the score and let your ear guide you?
Thank you for the excellent comment; I initially started from the score, then I used the recording of the Pittsburgh Orchestra conducted by Lorin Maazel as a reference, of which I have the CD but it can also be heard on YouTube. I am still far from the quality and the immersive sound heard in the demos; I really think I'm missing some important step in using the plugins, because those libraries are.... I also sent it to a friend who does exactly this for a living, a very well-known Italian professional in the field, and I am waiting for his comment.
I am glad that compared to the Chopin piece an improvement is noticeable, certainly also due to Respighi's better orchestration compared to mine.....
The initial reasoning was that if I had used libraries all from the same brand, the problem of making them all work together would have been overcome, so I chose all EW samples for woodwinds, brass, and percussion, but I really didn't like the strings and they didn't give me the possibility to realize the divisi, so I was forced to choose the Lass. Anyway, strings are always the most difficult to render....
Hi, I know this masterpiece very well, an example of great orchestration and not insignificant ideas, but let's get to the mp3; I liked the sounds, especially the strings, a bit less the trumpet solo which seems to be a bit too "edited."
The organ is missing, or I can't hear it, it seems you have inserted some double basses in its place or am I wrong? I listened with headphones.
I believe that in this piece the use of the organ pedal is of decisive importance, it undoubtedly conveys a significant sense of power; I attach a Spotify link... https://open.spotify.com/track/1cN362PEgtLOfpsxqgXYMq this, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful interpretations I have ever heard.
Sorry, I don't want to sound argumentative, but I am a convinced admirer of both Pines of Rome and Fontane; I have listened to various conducting of these symphonic poems with different orchestras. In my opinion, it is very important that that organ pedal is heard; the link I put in my previous post is one of the best interpretations in my view, also excellent in terms of recording quality, I believe it's the Telarc label; the organ truly provides the backbone. Of course, I realize that certain frequencies perhaps emitted by 16" cones might not be heard, but I recommend listening with headphones, perhaps good ones, and you will realize how exceptional that pedal is in that interpretation.
The same large pedal is heard in the fourth movement of Pines of Rome and in the third of Fontane, in which it truly reaches frequencies that put any Hi-Fi speaker and/or headphone to the test.
After 3 years, with countless acquisitions in terms of libraries and programming (hopefully...), I tried again: same piece, same production method, I re-recorded everything.
Libraries used: all those from Berlin, except for the organ pedal, which is from Spitfire.
Ps.: I don't have muted horns, so I used the normal ones.
Compared to the version from 3 years ago, the RAM requirements are enormously higher, at least 4 times as much (Cubase 7.5, 64 bit, 32 Gb of ram, SSD).
Great result Geppino, only around the 4' ... perhaps the weakest part. In general, the cinematic vein prevails, which then also influences the spatialization (extremely detailed) that on one hand makes listening very enjoyable but on the other, at a certain point, it really makes you feel like you are at the cinema (from an acoustic rendering standpoint). For me, however, it is a plus... a bit as if the sound engineer did an excellent job, and that doesn't always happen.
I have also listened to this pair of recordings that I imagine you will know; perhaps it is worth a step-by-step comparative listen to identify the features where it differs most from a real orchestra... not so much from a timbral point of view, of the blends, of the reverb or the humanization of the performance (you did very well to play everything) but from the point of view of the atmosphere received when listening to the recording - more or less carefully curated - of a real orchestra.
I know those two versions; I don't like the one conducted by Toscanini, and I used the other as a reference in my mockup—basically, I loaded it into Cubase and tried to make my version as similar as possible to that one, working mainly with EQ and reverb. The libraries used are wetter than recordings with real orchestras, so I cut the release samples of the library samples a bit and shortened the attacks so that they would be immediate.
