bitflipper

Bingo. The main purpose for calibrating your speakers is to achieve consistency. Personally, the levels proposed in the K standard are a little too loud for my tired ears. Doesn't matter. However, I can clearly hear a difference between projects I made before reading Bob Katz's Mastering Audio and after. It was a paradigm-shifting read.

Too rich for me.

Knowing Fleer, I'm sure he bought them all lunch.

Great observation. I watched Guy Michelmore's video comparing BBCSO and SSO, in which he demonstrates that the latter is drier. That would be my preference, especially for low strings. However, that alone isn't a big enough deal to warrant an extra $200. But the extra mic positions, articulations and instruments might. I don't know why I'm so reluctant to spend $629 on a sample library, when I have no reservations about blowing much more on hardware. Heck, that's about what I paid for a single 4-fixture light bar for the band. That rarely gets used. Indeed, I have probably spent much more on cables alone!

I've been thinking about upgrading my symphonic toolkit lately, triggered by Albion One going on sale. Thanks, btw, to everyone who offered thoughts in my other thread about Albion One. That conversation got me going on an exploratory safari to see what's out there, and who's offering the biggest bang:buck ratio. While poking about and making a list of candidates worthy of my hard-earned dollars, I kept coming back to Spitfire's BBC Symphonic Orchestra Core. It sounds great and seems to include every feature I'd need. Except maybe the lack of mic options that other libraries have, but I'm not overly concerned about that, as I am a certified reverb ninja. So two questions. First, for those who have BBSCO Core (or Professional), do you use it as your go-to orchestral library (vs. just another flavor to layer with other libs). Second, did you buy it on sale and for how much? It's currently $449.

I ordered those wheels - thanks for the idea. They arrived yesterday and I immediately flipped my chair over to begin the replacement procedure. And quickly destroyed my back attempting to pry out the old ones. It took an extra large screwdriver and a rubber mallet to extricate just one of them. And then couldn't manage to insert the new one, even though the pin diameter and length appear to be identical. As I subsequently laid in bed contemplating a narcotic for the pain, I realized that this chair is at least 40 years old. No doubt the accumulation of four decades' worth of dust and spilt salsa have accreted into something a geologist might approach with a small pickaxe. But dagnabbit, I'm now invested to the tune of $23 and determined to complete the repair. Not today, perhaps, but soon.

When two meters disagree, it always comes down to settings within the meters being different. Sometimes, it's because they are using different reference values. For example, some let you specify a reference other than 0dBFS. This is really just a convenience, allowing you to easily set a target below full scale, e.g. when mastering for streaming services versus writing to a CD. It just means that "0dB" is something other than the actual maximum value that digital audio supports (0dBFS). But it can lead to confusion when you see two meters giving different readings. It can also be because of averaging, length of the RMS window, and FFT bucket size (called "Block Size" in SPAN). For example, a 50ms RMS window will yield different values than a 500ms window. These things can affect apparent accuracy, but they serve a purpose. That's why you can't worry too much about which one is "right". You can achieve your goals with any meter, as long as you know what it's telling you. Then there are "weighted" meters, which try to measure sound the way human ears perceive it. Weighting can radically effect the values you see. Then there are meters that offer "True Peak" readings. That just means they are oversampled internally, allowing greater accuracy between individual samples. That will very often result in different peak values. True peak can be as much as 6dB higher than what Cakewalk's meters show, especially after conversion to MP3. SPAN shows true peak values at the bottom of the UI. Just make sure the TP values don't go too much over your chosen target; if they do, you'll want to lower your limiter threshold a little. Sonar/CbB built-in meters are accurate and as un-colored as a meter can be. You can specify the RMS window, but that's about it. No weighting, no "true peak" option and full scale is always the reference. For the most part, what you see is what's really happening. You can generally trust the -3dB peak values, but RMS comparisons are only valid between tracks within the project. Cakewalk's default 50ms RMS window is a widely-used standard, but you should be wary of using RMS readings as an indicator of suitability to streaming applications, especially as an indicator of loudness. Streaming services rely on LUFS values to decide whether your song needs to be turned up or down on playback. Even if two of them use the same LUFS threshold, LUFS, like RMS, is averaged over a period of time. Fortunately, LUFS has been standardized to "short" (comparable to RMS), "momentary" and "integrated" windows. "Integrated Loudness" has been standardized to 400ms with no weighting, so it's the most consistent when used alongside transparent meters such as Cakewalk's (in a well-balanced mix, anyway). If the target is YouTube or Spotify, for example, you'll want to shoot for around -14 on the LUFS scale. This correlates reasonably well with -14dBRMS/FS as shown in the Cakewalk meters. It's usually OK to have a slightly lower value (e.g. -16 or -18), because the streaming player will turn up your volume automatically. But beware going too far over the desired levels (e.g. -6), as that can be damaging to your sound. There's a whole lot you can say about metering, and these are just thoughts off the top of my head. SPAN has a bunch of options, each of which will yield different results. The closest to Cakewalk is the "DBFS" option, but I'd suggest trying out the "LUFS-SL" option for comparison. I'm not going to tell you to go out and buy an expensive metering suite like iZotope Insight because you can manage quite well with what you've already got. At the end of the day, if you upload it to a streaming service and play it back, and it doesn't sound radically different than it did in your DAW, then you can claim success.

Related joke: An A, a C and an E walk into a bar. Bartender says "we don't service minors here". So the C left and the A and E split a fifth between them.

It's also funny because the bass drum assumes it's the snare drum doing the kicking. Reminds me of the joke about a lady accusing her man of having s*x behind her back, to which he replied "duh, who did you think it was?"

It's funny because bass drums are notorious for not having a sense of humor.

That works. Now at least one other person has listened to your stuff.

Don't feel bad. I just recently noticed that my own soundclick link has been missing from my sig since the new forum started up.

That's just the nature of a business in which products have a short shelf life. Unfortunately, the result is more often redundancy than revolution. OTS guitars are a good example. Every one of them is excellent, but my favorite is still the original Strawberry. Well, that and the Jumbo. And the Rick bass. Then there's the acoustic slide guitar. OK, so maybe OTS isn't the best example.

Same here. I don't care. My stuff is expressly tailored to my own preferences, and anything I don't like I can change. It therefore stands to reason that at least some of it will be among my favorite things to listen to. btw, it might help if the soundclick link in your signature went somewhere besides 404.

I am only familiar with the original library, which I like. But I am confused about the product line - how on earth do they have four volumes without repeating themselves? I've listened to the demos, and they all sound lovely, especially Lumina. I can't justify buying all four. And wouldn't Orchestra Essentials be a closer analog to Albion One?

In my initial post, I had typed "no VSL suggestions, I can't justify that kind of money". But then deleted that line before posting. I didn't want to influence anyone's suggestions by eliminating anything up front. The first time I heard VSL was at NAMM in 2008. I walked into their booth and was almost lifted off my feet by what I heard. My first question was why the VSL patches that came with the Kontakt factory library didn't sound anywhere near that good. My second question, "why is this so expensive?" didn't need to be asked. Two downsides to BBO: First, although the basic library is free the add-ons that truly make it pro-sounding are not. Buying the entire collection would be over $1,500. Second negative: dongles.

That "slap a glob of strings on" aspect is actually part of the appeal. I normally don't work that way, preferring separate tracks for violin1, violin2, viola, cello and bass. Over the course of the mix, I like to bring up different sections at different times and apply different amounts of reverb/room to each. I like the basses dry, the violins wet. Maybe not realistic, but I'm not a purist for realism. I like to play bass parts in their upper register and cellos in their lowest notes, and have the violins and violas weave about each other. I like to have different articulations for each section or instrument. But I already have libraries for that. There are times when I just want to underlay some strings in a piece that's not primarily orchestral, using them as pads. I would like a nice-sounding library for that kind of stuff.

And here you thought you'd never have a use for that 1000 LPM band printer you picked up in 1986.

I'm generally a Spitfire fanboy, and have always liked the Hollywood-esque tone of Albion One, but have never owned it. It's currently on sale for $269, and has recently added some new brass samples. So I am considering the purchase. I hesitate because I already have a bunch of orchestral libraries and don't actually need another one. (But when has "need" ever been a factor in G.A.S. mitigation?) Also, it seems more geared toward epic trailer music, which I love but just ain't my thing. Furthermore, a friend who does have it has said he rarely uses it. That could just come down to our respective genre preferences. So my question is: for those who do have Albion One, do you find it useful? If not, can you suggest an alternative (preferably < $400) worthy of consideration? I don't have a problem spending money if it means never buying another all-in-one orchestral library.

Wookie has, in his characteristically diplomatic way, answered your question.

Always fall asleep with headphones on. But sleep is a temporary luxury us elder folk only get to enjoy during those too-brief intervals between pee breaks. The cans come off before my first nocturnal trip to the other can. It's weird being the same age as old people.

Late at night I slip into bed, put on my best headphones and pick something at random. Often, it is my own stuff, sometimes going back more than 20 years. And quite often, I am pleasantly surprised that it's better than I'd remembered. Sometimes I hear a little detail and think "ooh, I should do that more often", or "I gotta find out what library that effect came from and use it again". Sure, occasionally my reaction will be "what the hell was I thinking?". But reviewing your past work is a great way to get better at it. At the end of the day, the path to music-making satisfaction is tailoring it to an audience of one: yourself. If you like it, it's good.

Yes. The one I so carefully baby and transport in a custom case that cost more than my previous mixer. That one.

Wish I'd taken a photo of last week's stage. It was outdoors, in the Cascade foothills. When I looked up their website there was a photo of what appeared to be a nice, covered stage. But when we got there it wasn't nearly big enough for the five of us, so I set up in front of the stage, on uneven grass. Now, here's my stand: It's called a spider stand and looks like it might not be stable on an uneven surface. Surprisingly, it is. German engineering. But every time I set those heavy keyboards on it I wish it was 4x4s rather than spider legs holding it all up. Because the stage was so small, we had to place monitors off to the sides, on sticks raised up to about 7'. A gust of wind rocked a canopy next to them, which pushed a monitor over. Luckily, its momentum was somewhat slowed by crashing into my mixer on the way down, before settling atop both keyboards. Even with my heart temporarily stopped , I couldn't help mentally totaling up the replacement costs while watching it all in slow motion. Incredibly, there was no serious damage. I still don't quite know how. That's a 35lb speaker falling 7 feet onto my little Yamaha DM3, then on to the Kronos and finally the Montage. The mixer wasn't even dented. I remain a fan of Yamaha mixers! Both keyboards were askew but didn't fall. So good job K&M. I will stop saying your products are overpriced. Apologies to Notes for straying off-topic. In my defense, I am still traumatized by this near-tragedy and who better to commiserate with than all of you guys?

I snapped that photo between sound check and going onstage, so it was more likely our soundcheck that forced that lady to retreat into her phone. At least she didn't get up and leave, so there's that.