+- Scoring Central (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net)
+-- Forum: Music (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Composition (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Round-robin writing (/showthread.php?tid=107)
RE: Round-robin writing - Michael Willis - 10-11-2016
(10-11-2016, 07:11 PM)Otto Halmén Wrote: If it does, the only requirement is that the DAW can host a sfz player and import and export MIDI tracks, which I believe most virtual instrument capable DAWs can.
It would also be beneficial if we were all capable of running the audio through the same plugin(s) with the same settings... even if it's just writing down the number for every slider in Hibiki and having other people enter them manually, then communicating about adjustments that we try along the way.
RE: Round-robin writing - Mattias Westlund - 10-11-2016
What about LinuxSampler... has it matured in recent years or is it dead?
RE: Round-robin writing - Otto Halmén - 10-11-2016
(10-11-2016, 07:26 PM)Michael Willis Wrote: It would also be beneficial if we were all capable of running the audio through the same plugin(s) with the same settings... even if it's just writing down the number for every slider in Hibiki and having other people enter them manually, then communicating about adjustments that we try along the way.
Definitely. Luckily, I'm fairly sure we don't need a whole lot of plugins to begin with. Hibiki would be my choice of reverb as well, since it's pretty much fully featured and sounds quite nice. The only downside would be that Logic users would have to fiddle with a VST to AU wrapper. Stereo width and EQ for proximity and air absorption would be next on the list, although I'm not even sure they're 100% necessary. Eventual mixbus/mastering plugins could be left to the person doing the mastering of the finished track.
RE: Round-robin writing - Michael Willis - 10-11-2016
(10-11-2016, 07:46 PM)Mattias Westlund Wrote: What about LinuxSampler... has it matured in recent years or is it dead?
I'm using a plugin host called Carla that supports a variety of plugin and soundfont formats (VST, GIG, SF2, SFZ, among others). It uses LinuxSampler under the hood to handle SFZ (and probably some of the other soundfont formats?). Similar to what I've mentioned before, I can't compare to any other SFZ sampler, because I haven't used any, but I'm happy with this setup.
Find out more about Carla here: http://kxstudio.linuxaudio.org/Applications:Carla There are downloads for Win, Mac, and Linux at the bottom. The screenshots are outdated, they're from a much older version, but you get the idea.
EDIT: Here is evidence that LinuxSampler is still under active development: https://github.com/svn2github/linuxsampler/commits/master
RE: Round-robin writing - Mattias Westlund - 10-12-2016
(10-11-2016, 03:43 PM)Samulis Wrote: I think there are some things in SSO that are better or at least tighter than their CE counterparts. Maybe one thing to investigate might be blending the two libraries.
The problem with that IMO is that they're two distinctively different animals. VSCO 2 is a smaller-scale, natural-sounding library whereas SSO belongs more to the EWQLSO camp. That's why I suggested it might be better to reinforce VSCO2CE with other natural-sounding solo freebies for some added size where necessary.
OTOH, this all depends on what kind of music we're aiming for.
(10-11-2016, 08:21 PM)Michael Willis Wrote: I'm using a plugin host called Carla that supports a variety of plugin and soundfont formats (VST, GIG, SF2, SFZ, among others). It uses LinuxSampler under the hood to handle SFZ (and probably some of the other soundfont formats?). Similar to what I've mentioned before, I can't compare to any other SFZ sampler, because I haven't used any, but I'm happy with this setup.
Find out more about Carla here: http://kxstudio.linuxaudio.org/Applications:Carla There are downloads for Win, Mac, and Linux at the bottom. The screenshots are outdated, they're from a much older version, but you get the idea.
EDIT: Here is evidence that LinuxSampler is still under active development: https://github.com/svn2github/linuxsampler/commits/master
Thanks Michael. I took LS out for a spin and from what I can tell it's far more stable and effecient than it was a number of years ago, when using it (on Windows at least) was a complete nightmare. It still has that annoying behavior where the sampler UI opens up in a separate window that can't be docked into the host no matter what you do, but overall I think I would prefer using LS over Sforzando due to it being multitimbral. Unless we manage to set up keyswitching sfz patches for all instruments we're going to use, using Sforzando is going to be a total clutterfest.
RE: Round-robin writing - Michael Willis - 10-12-2016
(10-11-2016, 03:43 PM)Samulis Wrote: It would not be very hard to refine the VSCO 2 CE sfz set- keyswitch up the separate patches into single instruments, add some filters to improve dynamics; I even have a working theory on crossfading and much of it is phaselocked for that purpose.
Samulis, have you made modifications to the SFZ files for VSCO? I downloaded the SFZs from https://s3.amazonaws.com/VersilianStudios/VSCO2_CE_SFZ.rar, and I was about to make some customized SFZ files based on those, but if you are already working on this, it would be better if I worked with you on it rather than doing things on my own.
Mostly I wanted to wrap up the articulations into a single SFZ per section, which would make it much more convenient given my current setup.
As an aside, I read that "the Program Change control cannot be used" here: http://drealm.info/sfz/plj-sfz.xhtml, so I've mostly given up trying to find a way use midi program change events. My preference would be to use midi CC #70, with different numeric values corresponding to each articulation. Using a midi channel per articulation seems kind of cumbersome, at least with my setup, and keyswitching seems inelegant, using notes on the track for events that are fundamentally not notes. However, in the end I just want to see some agreement about a means of controlling articulations; I mostly just have experience with the traditional midi sequencer world, so I'm wondering about preferences from people who have used a DAW for longer than I have.
RE: Round-robin writing - Michael Willis - 10-14-2016
Good news, I just did some experiments with Ardour and found that there is a way to import a multi-track midi file, replacing the midi data in each corresponding track of my project without obliterating non-midi track data (routing, plugins, and such). Export is a little more messy, but once I get a project template set up to facilitate it, I'll be able to tranform the project back into a single multi-track midi file.
What DAWs are other people using? Seems like Mattias and Otto use Reaper? Who else is interested in being directly involved?
In light of Paul's recent announcement about the impending release of his Virtual Playing Orchestra, I'm going to assert that it will be the best collection for us to use, which leads to my next concern: if we're agreeing to a 16-channel midi file as our transfer format, what instruments are we going to use? The number of sections already outnumbers 16, and that's not even considering extra channels for solo instruments, which seems like it would be needed if we want to give the solo instruments the flat stereo width, or otherwise adjusted stage presence.
RE: Round-robin writing - Michael Willis - 10-14-2016
I've had some ideas bouncing around in my head that I'd like to pitch for a round-robin project. Tonight I made some rough sketches to share. Mattias and Otto should be proud of me, mostly I just turned down the tempo, hit the record button, and pounded on the keys. I'm much more accustomed to step note entry, but I'm trying to get more practice playing my ideas by hand.
In interest of just getting something done, I only did enough work to put in the melody and one or two tracks of harmony. We could arrange any of these for different instruments if desired. Also don't read too much into the names, I just needed labels, you can interpret them differently if you want.
Let me know if any of these sound interesting as a starting point.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7gi50839tbronpq/AAB-W6NCyJHC1VJENlmyXTS4a?dl=0
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I didn't intend for everything to be quite so staccato, some of the notes in the melodies should be sustains, but you get the idea.
RE: Round-robin writing - Mattias Westlund - 10-14-2016
Michael, I think all these ideas are fine as starting points, though I must say I prefer Taking Flight over the other two.
Any chance of getting midi versions of these? It would be interesting to see how well REAPER handles midi import.
RE: Round-robin writing - Otto Halmén - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 02:14 AM)Michael Willis Wrote: What DAWs are other people using? Seems like Mattias and Otto use Reaper? Who else is interested in being directly involved?
I've got Gar
(10-14-2016, 02:14 AM)Michael Willis Wrote: In light of Paul's recent announcement about the impending release of his Virtual Playing Orchestra, I'm going to assert that it will be the best collection for us to use, which leads to my next concern: if we're agreeing to a 16-channel midi file as our transfer format, what instruments are we going to use? The number of sections already outnumbers 16, and that's not even considering extra channels for solo instruments, which seems like it would be needed if we want to give the solo instruments the flat stereo width, or otherwise adjusted stage presence.
I too think it could be the most suitable lib. Can't wait to take it on a test drive.
As to the instrumentation, I'd personally be up for a fairly simple, standard orchestra. A full post-romantic orchestra with all the variant wind and percussion instruments might be a bit overkill, but we might want to augment VPO with a harp, a cor anglais and possibly a piano. We'll see what people think about it.
Also, are you confusing MIDI channels with audio channels? Can't see how stereo samples would require more MIDI channels than mono samples.
(10-14-2016, 02:14 AM)Michael Willis Wrote: I've had some ideas bouncing around in my head that I'd like to pitch for a round-robin project. Tonight I made some rough sketches to share. Mattias and Otto should be proud of me, mostly I just turned down the tempo, hit the record button, and pounded on the keys. I'm much more accustomed to step note entry, but I'm trying to get more practice playing my ideas by hand.
Glad you're picking up the keyboard. You'll save a LOT of time otherwise spent typing or clicking once you grow accustomed to it.
I'm glad you're already inspired. Took a quick listen and it's sounding good. Guess I can count you in once we get the tech under control and get to the actual writing cycles.
I was thinking about organising it so that everyone gets to take turns starting a composition, as I suspect that's going to be a coveted task in a round-robin project. The way of splitting the work is still a bit up in the air. Splitting it time-wise (i.e. everyone gets to add something like 1-2 minutes to what's already there) would certainly provide for a cool way of presenting it in video form. Think a "This part by John Doe" -style subtitle and perhaps an author's avatar that changes throughout the video as the composition reaches the respective part of each participant.
By the way, you might want to encode any demos you share over Dropbox as MP3s. OGG is not a very good format for demoing purposes, as Dropbox doesn't embed OGGs and most native media players don't support them either.