Nabeel Ansari

Functionality and UI programmed by yours truly.

Overview Shou Drum is a handcrafted, steel-tempered drum with a set of tuned tongues. Each tongue / note was recorded deeply with a variety of different mallets/tools and 5x RR variations. The pure tone is beautiful and inspiring, great for ambient + atmospheric music, subtle underscore, walls of arpeggios, textural and evolving sounds, etc. Each articulation (fingers, timpani mallets, rubber mallets, brushes + more) offers a unique attack, timbre, and character. The instrument also includes 10 ambient 'designed' sounds, which composers will definitely enjoy. The Shou Drum script engine has even more creative possibilities including a poly arpeggiator, sequencer and gate, mic mixer, FX rack, and microtuning engine! The poly arp in particular is great for instant gratification... just add some reverb/delay, hold a nice wide chord, and get lost in a sea of emotional tones. Features * Two intimate mic positions * Five round robin (RR) variations per note * Three types of mallets * Brushed & finger articulations included * Percussive strikes and noises * Suite of designed textures * Beautiful UI with polyphonic arp * Custom microtuning engine & presets * WAVs available for tweaking & design Pricing & Availability Shou Drum is available now for only $49 - full version of Kontakt 5.1+ is required. We also have some great bundles available! Walkthrough Video Audio Demos https://soundcloud.com/isworks/sets/shou-drum-demos

I will be there, and you can bet there will be some serious Third Strike going on as well.

Please stop talking like this. It's obnoxious. :/

What you have to do is listen to how it sounds. Listen to how E sounds in relation to A, and then notice that C in relation to F sounds the same way. Music is about relationships and context. It doesn't matter so much that it changed to a specific key (F) so much that it *did* change (regardless of what specifically it changed to) and that your ear is able to register said change. The thought process should go like so: "I hear E (major) in relation to A (minor) as a dominant to tonic relationship (because E is a fourth down from A). I now hear the same kind of relationship with two different notes that are not E and A. I also notice that the new tonic chord sounds major. Therefore, it has changed to a major key, the key is what that new tonic is." Being able to correctly identify that he changed to F major is something you did through both hearing (it *sounded* like the new tonic) and analysis (reading the score, or in your case, the piano notes he was fingering). You can't study music or do ear training without the latter part. It's an important step, so if you're wondering how to get out of that, stop wondering and embrace it. "Reading" music (whether notation, tabs, or watching the notes people play) is just as important to developing the ear. You have to internalize how the notes are functioning in order to recognize constructs as "oh this has a specific sound or color, it must be that [insert music theory explanation] trick I learned from that one song". So in the case then of identifying keys and seeing dominant tonic relationships, you just have to do it a lot, and listen (and read) examples of melodies/songs in order to internalize it the same way. To give an example, I know exactly how to identify when a song changes key to its relative minor just by hearing it. It wasn't hard to learn how to do that, I just noticed it had a particular sound, and so when a certain song did it, I worked it out on my keyboard (the "reading"), said "oh, it's changing to relative minor by doing V/vi -> vi (so in C major, that's E major to A minor, which is, yes, a chord that doesn't belong, called a secondary dominant, used for the purpose of moving to a new key). And now, whenever I hear it in a song, I can say out loud "that song just went from V/vi to vi." Similarly, you are developing the same mental framework, just doing it for "that song just went from V to i (or I)".

It's not really even possible to get a performance like that with super realistic samples. That's a real saxophone player you're hearing, doing that style of all things. Technology isn't there yet. You don't need that level of expression to get a "realistic" sax. As in, you can be realistic with a saxophone sample, just not THAT realistic.

When you're looking for the key of the song, you're looking for the note that sounds like it could resolve everything. As if you could end there. There are more concrete ways of finding it, but they can't be used without practice on the proper materials. In plain english, you have to learn by listening to really boring classical melodies that sound lame and for old people etc. There isn't much cool prog stuff that is easy enough to be as easy to study from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_(music) For starters, period structured melodies present these concepts of resolution, dominant, tonic, etc. really well. (ignore beyond :52) This is a 16 bar tune that repeats. (Total 32 bars, up to :52). The 8th measure (starting :14) is the half point of the melody, what we call a half cadence. A half cadence ends on the dominant chord, which is like the big "what's next?" chord of any key. The melody then starts again, but this time ends differently in the next two measure (:24). This the final point of the melody, which is the actual cadence (here it's a "perfect cadence" or "perfect authentic cadence"). An actual cadence goes from the dominant chord to the tonic chord. So try this on your guitar, in the 7th and 8th measure (at :12), play a low D. You should feel that it agrees with the song's harmony (because it does, he's playing a D major chord if you watch his hands). In the 15th measure, play D, then a G for the 16th. You'll notice it sounds very much like an "ending", even though you're just playing two notes. That's because those two notes are the dominant and tonic respectively. (G is 1, D is 5, if you count in G A B C D E F#). Also notice how his left hand literally plays "D4, D3, G3" going from the 15th to 16th measures. Now I want you to do a similar thing that I told you to do for this song: It's in A minor, so to start off right away I'll give you the notes "E" and "A" to try them out. It's the same measure division (it's in 6/8, so "1 and a 2 and a", each one of those words is an eighth note). You can try figuring out for yourself using the same approach what key it changes to at :26 (watch his hands, it'll help a lot). Find the dominant and tonic notes, and use the measure numbers to help you, because it's all "standard form".

Let's dissect the question while answering it, because I feel it's important to change your mindset before mulling over the answer. These answers are also according to personal philosophy and not professional advice, so they apply to questions of values in music, but not necessarily as a process for how to go about professionally doing music (those questions are answered by considerations of budget and time, and not always artistic ideals). I answer the question like this specifically because you're posing the question in response to your audience having issues with your realism (as opposed to your "client" having issues with your realism). "Are super realistic samples really necessary for video game music?" We can substitute "video game music" here for "music", because video game music is completely and totally equivalent to (a subset of) music and should be held to the same standard (because they are the same thing). Because we're not doing professional considerations, differences in medium between film, tv, games, etc. don't apply here. "Are super realistic samples really necessary for music?" This depends. Are we trying to use instruments in our music that are performed acoustically? If so, then yes. The purpose of super realistic virtual instruments is to emulate human performances with ease. The goal of making music is in general to sound organic and human, to sound like it was something expressed by real people at a real time and place. This doesn't apply to many electronic elements, but it does to some, and it certainly applies to all acoustic instruments. If it's a real instrument, and it is sequenced poorly, it sounds awful, and because we're culturally still accustomed to hearing what real performances are like, we do have lackluster reactions to fake performances. That being said, are "super realistic samples really necessary"? No, but they make the job, your goal, easier. So let's try this one, then. "Are realistic samples necessary for music?" I'd say realistic samples are necessary for intuitive music composition even if super realistic ones are not. The distinction here is that super realistic samples are very expensive and have lots of features. However, skilled composer-producers can work with not so super realistic samples to still make them sound like organic performances. The requisite here is that the samples at least resemble the sound of their real-world counterpart ("realistic"). Even with less realistic samples, composers still manage to get great results, but that begins to cut into your composition flow, because you're spending more time MIDI programming than you are focusing on the music. I consider intuitive workflow and minimal tinkering a necessity for music composition, so I hold that samples need at least a decent level of realism in order for me to put them in my music. Though, in actuality I always go for the biggest and best super realistic ones. To clarify, my response is assuming you're writing music without the intention to explicitly sound fake in the realm of sound chips or dated production eras, so Timaeus's answer also holds.

You can still hang out in our room Shaggy!

I like all of this.

You can not mix without compression. Even relatively acoustic music uses compression on the elements to make them stand out more. Compression does not "cut sound quality". It's not signal representation compression (bit/sample reduction), it's peak compression (modifying amplitude per threshold cross). Amplitude modulation doesn't degrade information. You can uncompress a signal if you painstakingly do the math (there aren't many tools that do this because the math is obnoxious). If information is not lost, you are not cutting sound quality. Btw, Timaeus, you asked this earlier; gain reduction corresponds to ratio, they are different representations of the same thing. Ratio is what you set as the ratio you want to drop, gain reduction tells you the actual dB dropped as a result of the application of that ratio (basically just converting that ratio over to a dB value per a specific loudness over the threshold). That's what those meters are (like the big center one in TLs). GR is not a parameter you can adjust directly, it's a description of the end effect, but you can check how much GR your ratio is applying and appropriately adjust your ratio to change the GR. I suppose crudely speaking, if you lowered the threshold, it also increases your GR because the ratio applies to more signal. So in that case, it's actually both; a general descriptor of the "total effect" your compressor is doing.

If you want something good for casual listening, the M50x beats the k240s. Same goes for critical listening (because of clarity). The M50x are close-backed, so even though the bass dB response is technically lower than the k240s according to the graph, the bass is very big and clear because it's contained. They're not "flat" headphones because of this, no, but they are clear as well as enjoyable.

Some personal experience; I used k240s before I got the M50x. It's no comparison; M50x quality wins by a landslide. Remember Fletcher Munson curves; having a flat frequency graph yields mid-high frequencies that are way higher in perceived loudness than the lower end. Having a slight dip in the mid highs makes for a better listening experience and a more "humanized equality" rather than "technical equality". Either one is okay depending on your mixing philosophy, it doesn't really actually matter. If you mix with references, you can mix on anything. The ATH-M50x has extreme clarity even if it is a little imbalanced; the clarity to me is the most important thing, and references of my favorite tracks tell me how to get an overall balance. The graph runs counter to my opinion here, but I hold firmly that I get a much more A) informative and B ) enjoyable listening experience out of the M50x. Also, frequency response curves don't really tell you everything; it's just dB response. It doesn't really tell you about clarity, especially in the bass region. The shape of the headphones matters, semi-open or closed back, the quality of the sound reproduction itself, etc. That graph says AKG-k240s have better bass than the M50x, but in my opinion, the k240s bass is nothing impressive, and the M50x destroys it in that sector.

The ATH-M50x is considered by many to be the standard in headphone mixing. I just got them recently, they're very nice. Very clear bass detail. There's lots of other nice pairs, like the ones Timaeus said. The DT-880 has been used by EDM composer and legendary OC ReMixer zircon for many, many years.

Tell me, what key is this song in? It's not a trick question; in fact if you can't answer this question, you've got a lot of ear training and basic theory (101) work to do before trying to start understanding how to work with modes and other things like that. This stuff builds on foundations; if you skip the basics, the advanced stuff just seems like voodoo. Here's my response to your (correct) response, in white text. It is in D minor, yes. You should have gathered that much just by listening to it. Now for the advanced part. It uses the D dorian mode (the chord progression goes D minor -> E minor (which has a B, not in D natural minor/aeolian, which has a Bb) -> F major -> E minor. [i -> ii -> III -> ii] In other words, we took the D aeolian scale and raised the 6th degree (Bb) a half step (to B ) in order to have ii (E minor) instead of ii^o (E diminished). You'll also notice then, in the second 4 bars (remember to count "1 2 3, 1 2 3, 1 2 3, etc." it's a fast 3/4), it starts with a Bb major chord. Why use a Bb now when we used B before? It's like we switched to Aeolian to get that nice major chord that's a third down. Is that a thing? Yeah, it is actually. That's the main strength of Aeolian, is that minor 6th degree, that Bb, which builds a major chord. So Kondo switched to Aeolian here to make the chord progression move more harmonically. It "feels good" to go to that chord, it's also conveniently a half step from the dominant, lots of nice stuff. People even borrow from it in a major key (like using Ab major in the key of C major.) Whether using Aeolian or Dorian, it's really obvious that the song is in D minor. Like I said, your choice of scale/mode doesn't affect the key. At all. It's irrelevant. If you want a concrete way to prove it's in D minor, there is the presence of A major, its dominant, which leads to D minor. The whole song is built around that relationship, and so the whole song is in D minor. Notice how in that proof, we didn't mention anything about the notes of any scales. The scales don't matter. The dominant to tonic relationship defines the key of the song and nothing else (well there are others, but not in the Song of Storms). I'm going to correct you because you don't know how to quote someone clearly

You're misunderstanding what a key is. A key has nothing to do with your scale. Absolutely *nothing*. You can have a key center with *any* scale or mode (some need modifications when a dominant is needed). A key is defined by your tonal center. This is the "home" note, the tonic. It's what your song can end on to sound complete, and any time you need a tension-resolution in your key, you have a dominant chord lead to it (it's the major chord a perfect fourth down/perfect fifth up from the tonic. C is dominant to F, F is dominant to Bb, etc. in F# minor, the dominant is C# major). When you are in a major or minor key, it usually implies that the tonality is colored with major or minor inflections (for major, ionian, lydian, mixolydian, for minor, aeolian, dorian, phrygian). These inflections, I believe (someone correct me), are distinguished by the 3rd degree of the scale and whether it is a major or minor third above the tonic. If your song is in F# minor, you can use Aeolian, you can use Dorian, you can use Phrygian. Whatever works, however you compose the song. But just because you're using the Dorian mode doesn't make your song magically in E major. You need to tonicize E major (with a dominant a B major) if you want to be in E major. If you're using F# as your home note, you're in F#. (That being said, without ever using C# major or minor, your tonality is ambiguous and fuzzy at best). If you don't know what song your key is in, I suggest you make a decision. Decide what key you're in. Say "I want this song to be in F# minor." Then work towards that. All of this theory stuff is useless unless you think critically about your composition (the only reason theory exists is to think critically) and make conscious decisions about it. If you don't know you're in a key at any given point, you're never going to know what to do without picking random scales, and you're not going to able to change keys or switch modes reliably at all. Most importantly, you're not going to be able to grasp advice on your composition if you don't understand what you're doing. To your defense, this isn't stuff you can really learn in a forum post anyway; it takes analysis and practice. I'd suggest posting the score or MIDI, that way someone can identify what it is you're doing and help you understand it.

You need to figure out what tonality your song is. Is F# the "home" chord, or is it A? Or B? Your choice of G major is probably the worst one; F# powerchord would be a powerchord on the leading tone of the scale. Not only does that powerchord not exist in G Major (because of C#), having your song alternate between the leading tone and the supertonic chords (F# and A in G major) of the key is a very awkward compositional choice (unless you're doing some kind of tension coda, but I doubt it's your intention). C major doesn't work because again, F# powerchord has a C# in it. C Lydian would be closer, but again, you need a C# not a C. Ditto for A minor. The relative mode doesn't matter; the scale choice itself is wrong, so none of the relative modes (A minor, B locrian, D dorian, E phrygian, etc.) will work either. F# minor works both as a scale and tonally in your song. You alternate between F# and A (i and III chords) and occasionally hit B (iv). Having a i chord in there is a dead giveaway for what scale you should use for easiest harmony. F# minor (and minor pentatonic, which is the same without certain degrees) works well. For solos and color, Dorian works better. For jazzier soloing methods a la modal jazz, treat every chord as an opportunity for a new scale instead of one scale for the whole shebang. Minor 7 chords work with Dorian, major 7 chords are nice with lydian. Those are two basic starters, if you do some reading on improvisation you'll find more things people have found to work according to their tastes. Color is a common word used in describing harmony. It isn't reserved for know-it-alls.

Welcome to Bravura Scoring Brass, our new flagship orchestral instrument for KONTAKT PLAYER! This complete collection features brass ensembles, soloists, and aleatoric FX with over 55,000+ samples in total, all recorded in a scoring studio for an ideal flexible sound. Available now at the stunning price of $349 for the complete bundle AND starting at just $39 for our extensive a la carte options! For this library, we captured not only key articulations - sustains, true legato, staccatos, marcato, tenuto, trills, rips, falls, double & triple-tongues, and flutters - but also an impressive array of aleatoric FX, figures, phrases, and textures perfect for film/TV/game scoring! Check out our full instrument & patch list below: INSTRUMENTS Trumpet Ensemble Horn Ensemble Trombone Ensemble Low Brass Ensemble Full Brass Ensemble Ensemble Orchestrator Ensemble Chordmaker Horn Solo Flugelhorn Solo Tuba Solo Trombone Solo Trumpet Solo Piccolo Trumpet Solo Solo Orchestrator Solo Chordmaker Horns FX Trombones FX Trumpets FX Low Brass FX Full Brass FX KEY FEATURES * 55,000+ recordings in 16 & 24-bit * Recorded in a dry scoring studio with three mic positions * Mix controls for all mics * Convolution reverb and 11 custom IR's with wet, tone, pre-delay and size controls * Ability to unload articulations to preserve RAM as well as adjust their volumes * Access deep articulation controls to add accents, tighten staccatos, adjust legato speed, etc. * Customizable keyswitches * MIDI CC assignable dynamics and vibrato sliders * Velocity curve, transpose and coarse/fine tuning controls * Apply simulated muting to all articulations * Ability to switch between 3 types of short notes via keyswitching or velocity * Control short note dynamics via velocity or modwheel * Round robin modes and release samples * Stack mode script doubles or triples ensemble size ORCHESTRATOR & CHORDMAKER With Bravura Scoring Brass, we're introducing two brilliant new tools to help you create great-sounding orchestral mockups and FAST. The Orchestrator allows you to play chords with up to five notes, and automatically voices them among brass ensembles OR solo instruments. Rather than having every instrument play every note, the script intelligently assigns voices to appropriate instruments - for example, solo tuba in the low range, followed by trombone, french horns, and trumpets. This behavior can be completely customized as well! The Chordmaker is a true instant-gratification patch, producing fully-voiced chords with just a single keypress! By default, it generates major & minor chords with multiple variations for different chord inversions. Like the Orchestrator, it can not only be customized with different instruments and voicings, but with completely different chords and shapes as well, such as octaves, unisons, suspensions, and much more. Both these patches function with the sustain articulation and our three shorts - marcato, tenuto, and staccato. Check out the video walkthrough to see them in action! VIDEO OVERVIEW & FULL PATCH WALKTHROUGH AUDIO DEMOS https://soundcloud.com/isworks/sets/bravura-scoring-brass-demos PRICING & AVAILABILITY Bravura Scoring Brass is available now as a COMPLETE bundle for only $349 for Kontakt Player. http://impactsoundworks.com/products/orchestral/bravura-scoring-brass/ We've also created an incredible array of a la carte options and bundles, allowing you to purchase sections and soloists for no-brainer prices. These options require full Kontakt. Full Bundles * Ensembles bundle - $229 * Soloists bundle - $149 * Chords & FX bundle - $79 Sectional Bundles * Trumpet Ensemble, FX + Solo - $89 * Horn Ensemble, FX + Solo - $89 * Trombone Ensemble, FX + Solo - $89 * Low Brass Ensemble, FX + Tuba Solo - $89 Individual Ensembles * FX included - $69 Individual Soloists * $39 with all articulations included (most have over 5000+ samples!) BONUS FOR EARLY ADOPTERS! The first 50 customers to purchase the complete Bravura Scoring Brass bundle will also receive a 15% discount good for recording services with The Remote Orchestra - a superb way to bring your mockups and scores to life!

Not sure why the Kit Bag 2 is of interest to you, since it doesn't have orchestral woodwinds. If you want to build an orchestra, you should cover your bases first. Also a quick google brings up the iLok just fine. There's no reason it shouldn't work, because iLok is only made by one company. If that doesn't make you feel better, I bought this particular Amazon item listing for iLok and used it with EWQLSO.

You're not going to even get close to that kind of stuff for cheap; that stuff has a lot of small/chamber ensemble writing in it. Very intimate, and thus, very hard to sample. Most cheap stuff is recorded big, the sound can be blurry, so the timbre of stuff like vibrato and legato isn't as noticeable. So to clarify, the sound you will get from cheap offerings isn't necessarily bad, but it will be very very very different from what you're trying to accomplish. That being said, there are cheap offerings for starting orchestrators. If you're versed in actual orchestration theory, something that gives you individual instruments is probably better for you. For that, I can recommend: -Complete Orchestral Collection -Da Capo -Miroslav Philharmonik -EastWest Symphonic Orchestra If you want pre-made ensembles for faster writing and easier "well-mixed" orchestral sounds you can do: -ProjectSAM Orchestral Essentials -Spitfire Albion If you want more intimate, small ensemble recorded stuff, you're gonna have to shell out, quite a bit, but to get an idea of the difference in sound, look at Spitfire Sable.

It's all great to talk dynamics in classical music and whatnot, but standards aren't devised with musical ideals in mind; they're devised with technical efficiency in mind. The simple fact of the matter is that with TV and radio, you're rarely going to have circumstances where the quiet parts of widely dynamic music is going to heard in detail. This is especially true with TV, where stuff happens over the music. Doubly true when listening to stuff in cars; road noise renders piano and pianissimo pretty inaudible. This is why I can't play, like, the Lord of the Rings score or something in the car. My dad complains he can't really hear anything. Life isn't a concert hall where everyone sits down and admires in silence, and recordings with dynamics need to be listened to in proper environments like silent rooms with speakers (lazy sunday afternoon in your living room, maybe) or headphones in order for the quieter parts to be appreciated. For the world at large, dynamic music doesn't really cut it for the way people listen to music/audio. Technical standards are designed with those kinds of considerations. That's probably also a small factor in what affects mainstream popularity. The popular stuff is the loud, bassy and in your face stuff. Rap, pop, rock, etc. It can be listened to anywhere, while jogging, driving, in a gym, etc.

Well, no, we don't need limiters in general, we need them when we need to raise the volume of our signal and have the peaks taken care of. Limiters are a loudness tool, not a necessity. They're the norm nowadays, but don't confuse that for some kind of technical system design truth. Limiters aren't the only way to avoid clipping, and they're a fairly recent development in recording engineering history that a lot (not I) would argue is fueled by mastering inexperience. To clarify, they have insane benefits and I agree with using them; I'm just pointing out that your reasoning here is a little weak for a statement that limiters were invented for the purpose of stopping clipping, and that until we had limiters, everyone clipped, which is kind of insulting to the industry. This is the implication when you say the whole reason we DON'T clip is that we DO have limiters; ergo, you are saying not having limiters means we always have/had clipping, which is... incredibly false.

I was saying that more because of the amount of scripting zircon put into it. It exceeded 10,000 lines of code. SD can do *quite* a lot if you dig into it.

argh that's what I get for not working out for a month and a half ARRGGH IT HURTS