If a legato volume control can tone this - what some people call a - 'sucking' effect a bit down, that would be great and makes this library even more useful.
Can Vivid Strings sound like Tundra?
- Thread starter Soundbed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pulse audio vivid
jbuhler
Senior Member
Yes, I also hear more of a surging effect than a sucking effect. In any event it would be very helpful to have control over the volume of the legato transition.
Or you could use the microphone that sounds more like tundra? This whole thread is confusing. The premises can vivid sound like tundra. Then you go on to say that you didn’t use the microphone that sounds most like tundra. After reading the first post, I wasn’t even sure what wasthe point of looking at the video TBH.
OP
OP
Soundbed
Music for TV
Well, it was, and is, an exploration.
And while the question is “can this sound like that?” the answers are inevitably not only comparisons, but also contrasts.
Initially I was most interested in the quality of the sustains.
Then the topic of section size and reverb (space) was brought up.
Then, legato was brought up.
I would have done more of this in the main thread where people are bringing up bugs and feature requests, but it’s a commercial thread, and this compare/contrast introduces a different company’s product.
Plus, I wanted the time to play for a couple minutes, which tends to make videos too large (file size) to embed, so I uploaded to the ‘Tube
Hope that clarifies the context, intentions, and reasons behind the thread.
OP
OP
Soundbed
Music for TV
Oh, and in addition to the above, I don’t think I noticed that the distant mics sounded closer to Tundra until after I’d uploaded the video, and posted this thread and started reading kept playing around, and then I think I edited the original post to clarify that the closer semblance wasn’t in the video. Apologies if this made things more confusing rather than less confusing.
This is an interesting thread, particular in floating the idea of Vivid + LCO.
But I'm going to suggest here that answer the thread title is simply "No".
I just don't hear anything here with Vivd that has the same musicality to Tundra. Except possible as a form of middle ground layering.
That is, if you really lean in the the *sound*, and the space, of Tundra, they're' just nothing, imo, that remotely compares.
I've simply never been convinced that any simulated reverb exists yet that can fake the kind of sound and spatiality you can get from a fabulous hall and a supremely well engineered tree mic.
Of course, it's easy to mix and/or orchestrate Tundra in such a way as to muddy or blur or stylize the distinctive musicality of the AIR spatiality (all the way up to an ambient I-can't-believe-its-not-Omnisphere mush), and I can see layering Vivid being useful at all kinds of points in the middle of the "distinctive and embodied AIR spatiality" to "ambient mush" spectrum of mixes and orchestrations.
But there's nothing like Tundra being Tundra.
jbuhler
Senior Member
Agreed, Vivid Strings does not have the sound of Air. It also doesn't have the ensemble size of Tundra, which is an important component of its sound, much as the large size and very soft sound is important to much of what is so distinctive about HZS. Yet Vivid String's low dynamic layer is another color choice in a proximate space of sul tasto/flautando, that I'm coming to call the land of "green."
It might in fact be a fun and useful exercise to attempt to map this land of "green," that is, the enchanted world of flautandos and sul tastos....
Obi-Wan Spaghetti
Senior Member
The Syncroniz-ed version offer 4 desks of 2 players as an option. Probably to make easier to managed. Of course you can play all of them as an ensemble with i player/midi track. But then you can do divisi. Best to do a research to find out all the possibilities of the player. .
One cool thing about volume 1 i think is that if you apply muted impulse responses you probably don't have to buy Volume 2 for mutes and possibly Volume 3 as well. Sordina from Librerwave offers these impulses: Muted, Sul pont, Sul tasto. I'm skeptical it will work well for sul pont and Sul Tasto but who knows? I'm confident it will do fine for muted with Dim. Strings.
Speaking of muted Strings. Maybe mixing some muted strings in there will help get closer to the sound of Tundra? Don't know any of these fancy SP libraries so I'm just throwing this out there. Maybe even use mic IRs before the reverb to manipulate the sound could help. IK has a plugin with ribbon mic IRs for example. Got to try this at some point...
Revisiting this (while pondering picking up VS), the answer is still, resounding: "no" - the emotions of the space I would turn to Tundra for are completely different that what I would turn to (conjecturally, should I decide to purchase it) Vivid Strings.
But the contrast, the sheer difference, that this video helps to pinpoint is really quite fascinating.
And it points to something quite decisive in the respective musicalities of this library. (Or at least the respective musicality that I would actually care about in writing with each of these libraries).
I hear that "vivid" quality of Vivid Strings as something that just breaks the musicality that I would turn to Tundra for.
I still wish to register my strenuous objection to any intimation that "VS" is a "good enough" dry "fake Tundra". It is not. I mean seriously: no, just no.
But the more I listen to it, the more I really feel how the video really throws the contrast into sharp relief. It really hilights what I love about Tundra - with the caveat that neither any of the con sord, nor the legato patches (and especially the legato con sord) rate among my my very favourite bits of Tundra.
But it also show that there is something, potentially I think, quite special, in the very specifically dry "vividness" (or something).
It not the same thing is what I love about Tundra, beyond a lowest common denominator of a rather bland "I love sul tasto" sentiment. But it's something.
In fact, there's something about this "vivid-ness" of VS that violates the musicality of Tundra. Tundra is about the space, and these swells of "vivid-ness" coloured intensity in VS just break the sense of spatiality.
I'm deeply curious about just how much this arises from the dryness and the crunchy quality that it retains with fake reverb (ie. in the absence of real spatial information), vs how much of this arises from the musician's playing technique. It's almost certainly both. Plus ensemble size as well, and who knows what else.
Either way, I think that through this video + thread (though repeating the caveats of my above, very strenuous, objections), I've been convinced that I probably really do need VS.
Thanks @Soundbed (*)!
(*) by which I also, at least partly, mean #CurseYou@Soundbed!
OP
OP
Soundbed
Music for TV
As per forum rules, I make certain to not reply with simple “thank you” … so, in this case, I guess…Revisiting this (while pondering picking up VS), the answer is still, resounding: "no" - the emotions of the space I would turn to Tundra for are completely different that what I would turn to (conjecturally, should I decide to purchase it) Vivid Strings.
But the contrast, the sheer difference, that this video helps to pinpoint is really quite fascinating.
And it points to something quite decisive in the respective musicalities of this library. (Or at least the respective musicality that I would actually care about in writing with each of these libraries).
I hear that "vivid" quality of Vivid Strings as something that just breaks the musicality that I would turn to Tundra for.
I still wish to register my strenuous objection to any intimation that "VS" is a "good enough" dry "fake Tundra". It is not. I mean seriously: no, just no.
But the more I listen to it, the more I really feel how the video really throws the contrast into sharp relief. It really hilights what I love about Tundra - with the caveat that neither any of the con sord, nor the legato patches (and especially the legato con sord) rate among my my very favourite bits of Tundra.
But it also show that there is something, potentially I think, quite special, in the very specifically dry "vividness" (or something).
It not the same thing is what I love about Tundra, beyond a lowest common denominator of a rather bland "I love sul tasto" sentiment. But it's something.
In fact, there's something about this "vivid-ness" of VS that violates the musicality of Tundra. Tundra is about the space, and these swells of "vivid-ness" coloured intensity in VS just break the sense of spatiality.
I'm deeply curious about just how much this arises from the dryness and the crunchy quality that it retains with fake reverb (ie. in the absence of real spatial information), vs how much of this arises from the musician's playing technique. It's almost certainly both. Plus ensemble size as well, and who knows what else.
Either way, I think that through this video + thread (though repeating the caveats of my above, very strenuous, objections), I've been convinced that I probably really do need VS.
Thanks @Soundbed (*)!
(*) by which I also, at least partly, mean #CurseYou@Soundbed!
… You’re welcome?
