Panning?
How is panning generally implemented in MU4 (or MU3 - for that matter)?
There are several ways to pan - using volume adjustments Left to Right channel, but also using small delays between channels, or maybe both together. Also changing the ambience on one or both channel might add or detract from the effect.
I'm not sure that MU4 gets this done in the best possible way, but without knowing what methods are used it's difficult to make more comments.
Comments
Not really difficult. Normally you would pan an orchestra the way they would be set up on stage. For other groups, it can be easier to hear things if they are panned, somehow. You get to decide. You are the recording engineer.
In reply to Not really difficult… by bobjp
Yes - but it is difficult if one doesn't know what the spatial effects in the rendering engine are going to be. There is quite a difference between amplitude panning and time delay panning - or some combination of those. OK - it also depends on how the listener is going to be listening - via speakers or headphones. Also sometimes there might be a need or desire to have full 360 degree surround sound - something which as yet I don't think MuseScore has attempted.
I have been surprised recently by some of the Waves plugins which actually do give an impression of 360 degrees surround even on headphones. For an examples see https://youtu.be/sy4S8kfILAs - go straight to 8 mins 45 seconds in, and press play [there's little point in going through the preamble up to that point ... watch about 30 seconds...]
The presenter in that video by the way - thinks that's a gimmick - but my view is that he's very, very wrong. It demonstrates that it is possible to place sound sources in a full 360 degree sound field.
In reply to Yes - but it is difficult if… by dave2020X
In that case, it is far more complicated than just speakers or headphones. Are we talking computer speakers or car stereo? 20 watt home sound system or 300 watt PA? 2 way or 8 way speakers? 10 inch woofer or 18 inch? Ported sub woofer? Earbuds or over-ear?
Regardless of whatever "spatial effects" MuseScore uses, audio will sound vastly different through each different system. I can't count the times when having mixed something perfect in headphones, I find that (for example) those dang trumpets are hardly sounding in my car stereo.
You will note that in MuseSounds there is a sound for Violin 1 and Violin 2. These are not necessarily sections. But Violin 2 is recorded to sound further away from the listener. Often the 2nd violins are seated behind the 1st violins in the orchestra. I usually have them on the opposite side. I might use the 2nd sound for both sections. Or reverse the sounds, depending on what I'm writing.
I think the Mixer is a quandary to many users not familiar with mixing live sound. In many cases stereo is not wanted. So everything is panned to the center. But in mix-down for creating a mp3 or wav, Panning adds to the listening experience. I think the old adage of "Mix-down for your target device" still holds true. If your target audience is most people who listen through earbuds on their phones, that's what what you mix for. You can set up 360 or mono, or whatever but there is no way to know who is going to listen on what.
In reply to In that case, it is far more… by bobjp
I don't just think it's about speakers or headphones. Many people don't seem really to care about sound quality. In the now relatively early days of available stereo or multichannel sound, there were some very good recordings made using only a few microphones. Partly that's because the microphones were relatively expensive, so studios and broadcasting companies could only afford a few. Nowadays many bands and orchestras are recorded using a vast number of microphones - often at least twenty or more. Spatial effects depend on a combination of output level from directional sources, and also timing, though these are frequency dependent. I suspect that the best results are obtained by matching timing and also sound levels. Of course some studios use specialist microphones, such as soundfield mics - and I heard from someone I worked with that they found it was generally easier to record using soundfield mics, and then mix down from there.
What a recording will sound like to a listener? Who knows!?! I have several sets of speakers - though these days for domestic reasons few are used. Once we listened to an LP of music by Rodrigo, and on one set there was a clear trumpet entry which we'd never heard on the other set. All the other equipment was the same. Another "interesting" recording is Keilberth's recording of Flying Dutchman. If you listen on speakers with a very good bass response in the Sailors' Chorus you can clearly hear the singers moving/jumping around on the stage. Many speakers will not enable this effect - as they don't have a good enough low frequency capability. That's not talking about modern kit either - as that recording was made over 50 years ago.
In reply to I don't just think it's… by dave2020X
All of which seems to have little to do with MuseScore. You ask how the sounds where recorded and how they are implemented. If we did know, how would that effect how you pan things? Who would our target listener be? The person with the 7.1 system? Or ear buds? And what would you do differently for those systems?
Because MuseScore is notation software, I think those questions are less important. The new sounds are intended to let the user better know how their music would sound if performed by real musicians. Not necessarily produce a high fidelity recording.
That said, I use notation software to do just that. I am after the best playback I can get. Within my pretty much zero budget.
In reply to All of which seems to have… by bobjp
The best playback is subjective, though I have a hunch what it means - and particularly for me. Many people don't have a clue, and listen to music with hardly any dynamic range. People who listen to different types of music may prefer some music to have limited dynamic range. So much of what is made available via radio, or other sources is so heavily compressed as to wipe out any excitement, and nuances. People who listen to such music regularly get a distorted sense of what is good quality, and may be very surprised when they hear a live band or orchestra playing at full tilt.
To get acceptable quality in MU4, export the audio to .wav - do not set the master level output to 0, but maybe even lower -12 [I have one which didn't come good until the output setting was lower than -20], and do not have all the instruments in the mix set to high gain. It is possible to get at least 30dB of dynamic range from MU4 depending on the music. Sometimes it helps to use a compressor to avoid distortion on the output, - and MCompressor from Melda Production is very good [free] and MU4 compatible. However, don't rely on a compressor to produce your best output. Ideally get the mixer levels set up so that the compressor doesn't kick in at all, and then remove if from the output chain.
There are now many practising mucisians who, I believe, work with backing tracks, or even ensembles who expand their forces by having synthesised or sampled instrument tracks - even in a live situation. OK - having "fake" players who are really just computer generated leads to some other problems, but may be one way of allowing live musicians to play music which would otherwise not be possible. Many theatre music groups augment their live musicians with synthesised sounds.
There are some quick fix ways of "improving" the sounds of any audio tracks you generate, such as using BandLab mastering [free], but note that most such quick fix methods will very likely compress the dynamic range. For some styles of music, having a compressed dynamic range does make sense - and for some purposes - for example music backing in films with spoken dialogue - there is no point in having the music louder than the speech which makes it unintelligible. Quick fix methods - e.g. Bandlab mastering - are useful because they can speed up the production process, while trying out ideas. However using these for the final mix is probably not going to give the very best resuls. For pure music, maximum impact is not usually possible with compromised forms [e.g. mp3 and high audio compression]. Flitering noise and other problems can produce a smoother output, but often a lot of processing completely kills the impact - and sadly many people then come to accept that as "the norm".
In reply to The best playback is… by dave2020X
I guess I don't understand what is so sad about "the norm". 60 years ago I was a teen laying on the beach with a transistor radio next to my head. Almost no frequency and dynamic range. A friend of mine had a high end system that sounded fantastic. I knew the difference. But I listened to what I had. And enjoyed it. That's what everyone does.
Yes, it's all very much subjective. And it can change day to day. And playback system to system. What have I accomplished If I spend hours tweaking a 2 minute piece, only to have it sound terrible in my car. Of course there must be standards. We must mix things the best we can. But without a full featured DAW and a few thousands dollars worth of sound libraries, we are limited. We must not be afraid of those limitations. We must embrace them and create what we need to create anyway. That's what it's all about. A good musician can produce good music on a substandard instrument. It's what they do. Of course it will be better on a better instrument. The room makes a difference. Playing with other musicians, makes a difference. As does the style of music they are playing. And if there is an audience or not. The point it that they work with what they have.
In reply to I guess I don't understand… by bobjp
Indeed - and there were some pop hits - I think number ones - which were made using what would now be considered terrible equipment and media. One I think was done on cassette tape which fell in a river and had to be rescued! Somehow that was made acceptable.
For me the sad thing is that pop music dominates, and mass audiences have completely missed the subtleties of wide dynamic range, and also long pieces which require continuous attention for long periods. OK - if others want that - that's fine - but I don't want "the norm" significantly affecting the ways I want to listen, or the music I listen to etc. There's a lot of music which arguably isn't really meant to be listened to - and pushed out to a mass market via radio and streaming channels. Much of it is for commercial "beneft" [selling stuff] rather than really musical worth. There are some pop and jazz musicians who agree with me here - and they would like to have better quality sound, but for many the "norm" has just become something they push out so that the public will fund their efforts. Sorry if this is a bit of a rant. There are some good or very good band musicians playing in pop or other groups, but "music" has seemingly become an industry. Perhaps it always was - but the commercialism of the modern music scene has rather distorted artistic quality - though that's just my opinion of course.
In reply to Indeed - and there were some… by dave2020X
Ah, there it is. "Musical worth" and "artistic quality". Terms that have been the subject of disagreement for hundreds of years. Each new phase of musical style has always been frowned upon by the establishment. There have always been wandering minstrels and the concert hall. Musicians have always done what they had to in order to survive. This is true of any profession. I don't think many people care in the least about audio quality or content. I don't think Beethoven wrote for the masses. I suspect that until the recording industry came along, most people had never even heard of him. I'm not sure that the quality of the recording changes the quality of the music. I have two old recordings of the same trumpet concerto. One by the Boston symphony, and the other made in Europe. The Boston recording is slow and rather bombastic. Lots of fun. The other is light and faster. More authentic. To my knowledge, these are only available on LP's.
The arts are a cruel task master. History is full of artists of various modes who were poor and down and out in their lifetimes. Yet their work is worth millions today. Can you really blame musicians for doing what they need to do?
Mp3 has become the file of choice. Even so, I once considered a certain job. I heard that part of the application process was to be able to listen to and tell the difference between an mp3 recording and a wav recording. I practiced and was able to tell the difference. My hearing is no longer good enough to tell. But even when it was, I don't think that difference was enough to make me enjoy the music or not. I think part of it may be that I grew up listening to classical music on scratchy LP's and low quality cassette.
Is recording and audio quality important? Of course. We want the best possible. But it can't make bad music good. Good music can't be hidden by the quality of the mic used.
And yet, what is good music? There's the rub.