It is currently Sun Oct 25, 2020 2:45 pm


sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

Existing and forthcoming Hauptwerk instruments, recommendations, ...
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 6:54 pm

CHRIS 037 wrote:This thread has brought up the question as to whether adding reverb to a wet sample set might be effective. So, I have given it a try. Recently I uploaded the Jan Zwart piece, “Alle Roem Is Uitgesloten,” to contrebombarde. That upload used only the natural reverb that comes with the Caen CC samples. Today I uploaded the same piece, but with 40% Lexicon reverb added. For what it’s worth, one can listen to each and judge the value of the added (Lexicon-type) reverb, in this case. It definitely makes the space seem larger.

Leo Chris.


Chris,

Wow someone finally uploaded the piece I've been waiting for. Very nice playing, I have alot of work to do on it to get to that point. It does sound very nice on the Caen CC set too.

The added reverb does seem to add something to it. Once my organ is playing again I'm going to try my Alesis Microverb IV on the rear mixdown. I'm really curios now, I had thought of it before but wrote it off as a stupid idea that it would just muddy the sound and sound fake. Of course convolution or a high quality reverb would be much better. But if it works, then when HW 4.1 comes we can have it all.

Eric
Offline
User avatar

telemanr

Member

  • Posts: 1576
  • Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:18 pm
  • Location: Brampton, ON, Canada

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 7:19 pm

I have the surround version of the Caen. I don't think I'm going to add reverb to that. It sounds expansive enough now.
Rob Enns
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 7:38 pm

Yeah I wish the Bovenkerk had surround. That's what I've tried to simulate with the rear mixdown. Of course it's not the same, but still works quite well though, probably a little more like the front and rear speakers in a car do.
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 7:51 pm

Eric Sagmuller wrote:Chris,

Wow someone finally uploaded the piece I've been waiting for. Very nice playing, I have alot of work to do on it to get to that point. It does sound very nice on the Caen CC set too.

Eric


Opps, I just realized this was a MIDI sequenced recording.

How did you get/ make the MIDI file, Chris?
Offline
User avatar

CHRIS 037

Member

  • Posts: 1006
  • Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:01 pm
  • Location: Spokane, WA, USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 8:13 pm

My live HW multiple speaker set-up can easily add reverb to the live sound of the Caen organ. I've tried doing that with the surround version, and I only play with it for a short while since using only the "built in" reverb just sounds more real. That is, when used through speakers. I feel the effect is workable when using headphones (and when recording, where desired).

Eric: Yes, I was just about to point out that I'm not that great an organist, and for recording purposes I have been dealing with MIDI files recently. Yet, getting such a file ready was a two-three day, mostly full time, job. I had sent for the score, so I edited the score into Cakewalk note by note (software which plays back MIDI files, it is a fore-runner of the current Sonar, but without the wave file editing). I do have scanner-to-MIDI software, but it is not accurate enough for most anything but hymns. One can spend as much time correcting scanned scores as it takes to just edit them in.

Once the notes are in the file, I start to set up the Generals of the organ by playing MIDI passages over and over until I get what sounds good to me. Then I have to go back and add some "phrasing" to make the music flow better and feel more humanized. Often it's necessary to either extend or contract the durations of notes in order to get the correct flow. This essentially means going through the whole tune as it is played in MIDI, listening to how every note interacts with the next. In this case I planned to use the YouTube piece as an example, but parts of it are played so fast, I must confess that I couldn't even determine what was going on. But the final result is satisfying to me.

Leo Chris.
Offline
User avatar

B. Milan

Site Admin

  • Posts: 4380
  • Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:15 am
  • Location: Sarasota, FL. USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 8:15 pm

mdyde wrote:Hello Harm,

The Hinsz volumes II and III organ definitions do load exactly the same samples for the volume I ranks that the volume I organ definition loads. I.e. there is literally no difference at all in the samples for those ranks.

You mentioned that you're using the Basic Edition. Could it just be that you've had to use lower audio quality/resolution settings for some or all of the ranks for the volume II/III organ definitions on the 'Organ | Load organ, adjusting ...' screen in order to fit the (much larger) volume II/III organs within the limit of your computers memory (or the 3 GB memory limit of the v3.30 Basic Edition)?

That could make a noticeable difference in quality/realism for the ranks.


Thanks Martin,

That's correct, the settings for the volume 1 samples within vol. 2 and 3 remain completely unchanged from volume 1. As I mentioned previously, the only difference is the wind model for volume 2 and 3 compared to volume 1. If you load volume 3 and only activate the stops available from volume 1 they would be identical, especially with the wind model disabled.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but we believe the sonic results for the complete set are quite accurate and very usable for the performer.

Thank you!
Brett Milan
Owner
MILAN DIGITAL AUDIO

Image
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 9:17 pm

Thanks for the explanation Leo. Wow that's alot of work. In my mind I had pictured it might take some of what you explained, but I don't think I would have the patience to do all that.

I'll have to say I was surprised at how clear, natural and dynamic the recording sounds, much like the YouTube performance with Wim. I don't know why but many of the demos I have listened to of various sets, sound somewhat lifeless and just lacking dynamic range. Then I hear others now and then of the same instrument that sound much more lifelike. I'm still convinced there must be something during the translation process that some of the details get lost to varying degrees, even if it's just an EQ or compression, decompression issue.

Eric
Offline
User avatar

CHRIS 037

Member

  • Posts: 1006
  • Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:01 pm
  • Location: Spokane, WA, USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 10:27 pm

Wow that's alot of work. In my mind I had pictured it might take some of what you explained, but I don't think I would have the patience to do all that


Well, actually, if I were still much younger, and had the time and skills, I would much prefer to be able to play a piece like this live. I have tried. And, after three or more recording takes with mikes live (on a different and simpler piece), I just couldn't seem to ever get a flaw-free recording. Those days are past (if they ever existed). :(

So, when you compare the time it takes to prepare a MIDI file to the time it would take for me to actually play one of these pieces live. . . well, how large is infinity, again? Thus, I have mostly switched to using MIDI for recording. I still play live for my own pleasure, of course. I now use mostly the Anloo set loaded in all three computers, or the Milan TO in the Mac and the Jensen TO in the PC. With those sets, I don't need much reverb and they sound great in my room. Sadly, after hearing the beauty of the Caen organ through headphones with MIDI, I seem less satisfied with the Caen in surround mode played live through speakers. The sound is good, but not as good (IMO). I continue to feel great about HW and what I can do with it. :D

Leo Chris.
Offline

RoyKnight

Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:46 pm
  • Location: Grafton, WV

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 11:12 pm

Chris,
In the past I did a lot of work with midi sequencing. At one time I attempted to do all the Brandenburg concerti, which I never finished, but I did many transcriptions from score for organ and instrumental ensembles. I am aware of how time consuming the task is, as well as the art required to make natural sounding midi performances. Hats off to you, buddy! Seriously, I assumed that was a near perfect performance on the Caen. I didn't see the midi indication till later.

Appreciatively,
Roy
"Practice makes permanent"
Offline

hsiegers

Member

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:38 am
  • Location: Netherlands

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostSat Feb 27, 2010 6:04 am

Hi Brett,
I am glad you don't pick my comment up as a sort of critisism to your work as sample set producer.
We (amateur) organists are very thankfull for playing church organs at home. You guys are making this possible!
It is though a interesting thing to notice the difference (see the U tube file) adding reverb, but I will say strongly that the quality of the Bovenkerk Hinz is outstanding. That is not the issue for me!

By the way: I watched the video from Gert van Hoef playing on the Hinz sample set (Mixtuur) and noticed a remarkable natural sound and ambiance. That makes me realise it is possible to get real close to overall realism playing the full loaded sampleset.

However: I just like the (more) extreem windmodel used in Volume 1, that is my conclusion now for this subject.

Regards, Harm
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostSun Feb 28, 2010 8:04 pm

I just listened to Wim's Alle Roem U Tube performance again, and I think realize now why I think it sounds better than using the sample set. Apparently it's recorded at a much greater distance from the pipes, so one hears much more reverberation building and decaying even through sustained chords. If the sample set were recorded that way it would be too far from the pipes. But I'm wondering if adding some reverb to the rear mixdown will give me more of that effect while still having the more intimate closeness to the pipework, something lacking on the performance. This is fine to listen to, but I can't imagine it would be very desirable to play if the samples were recorded at such a distance.

Hopefully I'll get to do some experimenting here soon.

Eric
Offline

RoyKnight

Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:46 pm
  • Location: Grafton, WV

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostSun Feb 28, 2010 8:20 pm

But I'm wondering if adding some reverb to the rear mixdown will give me more of that effect while still having the more intimate closeness to the pipework, something lacking on the performance. This is fine to listen to, but I can't imagine it would be very desirable to play if the samples were recorded at such a distance.


Eric,
It absolutely does! Great for performing, and you can take it off when you want the more direct from the console sound. I think I am falling in love with this sample set. Don't tell my wife -- she is already jealous of Hauptwerk. lol.

Roy
"Practice makes permanent"
Offline

hsiegers

Member

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:38 am
  • Location: Netherlands

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostMon Mar 01, 2010 6:05 pm

Hi Eric, Roy,

I am glad to see that there may be a gain to add reverb to wet sample sets.
It indeed have something to do with the position of the listener who is further away from the organ than the microphones.
When I go to a concert where is made a recording, I see the micriphones standing high in the church and rather close to the organ front. So the sound is something different then.

When adding reverb it must be done with high quality equipment, not the plugins hidden in for instance the EMU sound Patch Mix. That won't work!

(maybe) hearing from you all,

Harm
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostMon Mar 01, 2010 7:25 pm

hsiegers wrote:Hi Eric, Roy,

When adding reverb it must be done with high quality equipment, not the plugins hidden in for instance the EMU sound Patch Mix. That won't work!

Harm


I agree Harm. Right now all I have is an outboard reverb similar to the Lexicon. A convolution based or high quality software based unit is definitely a plus. HW4.1 I think is the best bet for a simple solution once it's released.

Eric
Offline

Eric Sagmuller

Member

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:18 pm
  • Location: Bellefonte, PA USA

Re: sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

PostMon Dec 27, 2010 11:30 am

hsiegers wrote:Hello Eric,

When your Audoifire is back, please load volume 1 first and play. Add pedal stops and couplers full and play.
Then load volume 2 (and 3) and play, then listen good to the sound. Add pedal stops and couplers again.
You will hear a clear difference, in my opinion the most in the pedal stops, not the true sound as it must be.

Hearing from you,
Harm


Sorry this reply is a bit late. But I'm embarrassed to say I only loaded volumes 2 and 3 last week for the first time after having purchased them over a year ago :oops:

I had to load the whole organ in 16 bits, but even so I find that that all of the stops sound of equal quality. I even find I prefer some of the volume 2 and 3 stops over the ones in volume one, only because of their character.

At this point I am using a pseudo surround adding about 3 seconds reverb to my rear channels. I find this does a very nice job, definitely making the sound more real, like one were sitting in the church. I also have compared this setup to using the surround of the Freiberg and Velesovo demo's and can say I almost prefer it over the surround as it extends the reverb time a bit which I prefer.

Probably my next set will be the Velesovo as it's a very articulate set for Bach, etc., a nice change from the Hinsz. Funny though, after playing going from the Hinsz I prefer the change for a little while, but then find myself coming back the the Hinsz, and it sounds even better for awhile with the added reverb. Then after awhile I find I like the more articulate Velesovo sound for a time again, and that's just the demo, can hardly wait to get the full set. That's what's so nice about HW, so much flexibility.

Eric
PreviousNext

Return to Hauptwerk instruments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests