Nabeel Ansari

The way it works is that FL has to send MIDI data to the VST in order for the VST to understand what FL wants it to do. This, of course, means that ad hoc stuff like FL's pitch bend notes can't ever be sent to VST's no matter how many fits you throw. It's not supported in the MIDI standard. You'll sooner see us migrate off the MIDI standard than seeing Gol come up with a way to develop an AI to sit inside FL that will decompile a VST, destruct its pitch system, and integrate FL's into it. In the meantime, though, you can use the pitch wheel, which is already in the MIDI standard. Click on that icon to change the browser to plug-in browsing. If you've done your list refresh (in Options -> File Settings), click on Installed. Keep in mind that if you didn't do a deep scan, you will identically see the same plug-ins in "effects" and "generators" (it doesn't know which is which). You can drag and drop plug-ins from this list to the step sequencer and mixer. When you have a plug in open, click on the upper left menu (the arrow which sits right next to the gear icon at the top of the window) and hit "add to plugin database". It'll prompt you to pick a category, and if you look back at the browser, it now shows you those categories. Click on the folder of the category you want, and hit the "add to plugin database" thing again. (You only have to do it once if you go choose a category first, but it's an easy way to bring up the list via it prompting you) Now, *this is important*. When adding effects you must do it *from the effects folder*. When adding generators, you must do it *from the generator folder*. If you don't FL will throw a fit, and if not crash, just say "fuck you" and make you unload the broken plug-in. Finally, if this made no sense to you, I urge you to hit the F1 key, as that's always very helpful. Or watch:

Yes, the program has largely improved. The drawbacks of some changes are only detrimental to people who don't adapt (like pattern blocks). The drawbacks of others are actually just really freaking annoying (like hiding the Layer channel in menus, seriously?) The plug-in database is also a source of complaint, since you can't just add VST's by going in and clicking a checkbox, but I think the mental approach to it by users is a little flawed. It's more of a set-up thing now, just like making templates. You spend an hour or two adding VST's to the database and then you're set from then on; it doesn't need to be quick and on-the-fly if you treat it as an installation procedure.

It hasn't changed in FL12. :/ Brad, to answer your question (which hasn't really happened in the thread yet), here: -All GUI elements are vectorial and can scale. This is just visual and helpful for multi-monitors or whatever. You can also set animation complexity. -New mixer, this is big. You can now select more than one mixer track at the same time, and naturally they built some features around it, like highlighting a group of tracks and sending them to a bus, or just riding multiple faders at once. They've also made stereo separation, left/right swap, and polarity reversal built in controls to the strip instead of on the side. -they got rid of the archaic pattern blocks -The plug-in architecture has now completely switched over to their new database system. This is good and bad. Good because you can categorize your VST's and whatnot and better organize the plugin lists in the "add" menus for effects or channels. It's bad because you have to now manually add all of your plug-ins to the database (or open the list of installed plugins in the FL side browser and drag from there). -All the GUI art has been updated and modernized and this includes all of the stock FL Plugins like Peak Controller and 3xOsc. Everything just looks nicer and less 2002. I especially like the new knobs. -There's a new FL Studio ASIO driver now. I don't think either of us are interested, but for those who are, it may be a good alternative to ASIO4ALL. -VST Plugins deep scan is actually legitimate now, and it works, albeit it'll exhaustively scan the plug-ins for manufacturer information, plug-in type, etc. I don't use it, but it's neat. -They've made some small mistakes, like the annoying default zoom in the piano roll and hiding the layer tool in the bowels of the software.

Hey guys, I might be buying a PlayStation 4 in the next couple months, and so I want to make sure the software line-up is enough to warrant it. I'm looking for 3, maybe 4 solid games to plan on getting. I'm already planning on getting Journey, perhaps a couple Assassin's Creed games, possibly Knack if it's any good, and definitely Bloodborne. But what else? I vastly prefer games with good aesthetic, but also good depth of gameplay (like Bloodborne). So I don't want sports games, or like standard shooters/GTA stuff.

I wrote about this recently:

It's been so long since I've done a heavy day. Feels good! Decline Bench (gym was too busy to do more than just decline): 1x10 with 65lbs and 2x10 with 75lbs (well, 9 for the second one, finished with 3 reps of 65) Squats: 3x10 of 75lbs Shoulder press: 3x10 of 40lbs I have actually basically dropped my diet altogether (as far as macros) out of lazy/too hard to buy the right groceries, but I am passively making sure I maintain just calorie counts, so at least my weight isn't going places I don't like. Also bagels and lox for breakfast. Yum!

You heard the man. Go get it! It's good!

Yes, but I think the advice that listening to music you want to take inspiration from with a discriminating ear (including distinguishing how it harmonically works, whether you describe it formally or play with it on the piano) is always good advice.

OCR judges also rarely get into things like counterpoint. There was a Final Fantasy mix a few months back that people were gushing over; I check it out, because orchestra and Final Fantasy! I get some ways into the intro and hear a sloppy harmony voicing that spelled a wrong chord (could've been fixed easily, too). I have to admit bias, though, because it was in proximity to that that I was enjoying the FF6 Symphonic Poem, which is a true work of art in all facets; orchestration, part-writing, and source treatment. *No one* save for a few people on OCR recognize those kinds of things without looking for them, because it's something so detailed that there's no reason to even care (unless your ear is used to appreciating that aspect of composition). A handful of judges are not classically trained, and as a result, they naturally don't delve into esoteric discussions about composition.

I am completely sure about it. OCR standards are not nearly as high as production in the real world. Just because OCR greats have good production doesn't mean the bar is set for their level. This kind of thing is all about perspective. Either being an artist or someone who studies music, something will always seem "high" or "the best" until you find something better. And trust me, there's a long road in music beyond OCR. The people who go down that road come back and submit stuff and just completely shatter the standards (Jake Kaufman, bLiNd, zircon, etc.), not because they work towards OCR standards, but because they work towards their own standards (which are *way* beyond the minimum for OCR). When I was younger, I aimed to get a posted remix. I did. I even got consistent remix posts (five now, I think). But that stuff? Ultra low quality. Bad balancing, frequency balance, mechanical sequencing, frequency clutter, voicing issues. My debut remix? Just listening to it makes me shudder. It was 2011, the standards weren't that much lower. Seriously, there's stuff that gets posted on this site with glaring dissonances, bad counterpoint, murky production, etc. It's high quality compared to hobbyists, but professionals out there work on their craft for decades and employ a level of artistic nuance you won't find on OCR except in those greats (who, by the way, are usually professionals or people who spent decades crafting to their own standards as well). As you improve your ear, though, you'll come to realize this as well. You just need more exposure to music, and more importantly, the ability to better distinguish quality. Good and bad is about contrast in perspective. Yes and no. You need to have it be ballpark (dynamics and frequency space), as well as clearly demonstrating articulation (is it supposed to sound SLURRED or is it just connected?). The sad reality is that many clients don't have a command of music in their head, and it's difficult for them to "imagine what it would sound like!" That's why pros are good at mock-ups, because clients don't like spending money on leaps of faith.

Look at this. This is Bach's Prelude in C major (the underscore for "Ave Maria". Ave Maria is just a melody imposed over it.) It will teach you everything you need to know about basic functional harmony. Pay attention to the chord root movement (So C major has root C even if E is maybe voiced on the bottom, so C major to F major is root motion of up^ a fourth *regardless* of how the chord is stacked and ordered). It will also teach basic voice leading across broken chords. An exercise you can do is to take all the notes in each broken chord pattern and write it as a stack of whole notes. For example, the first pattern goes "C E G C E" in order (and repeats), but instead write it as five simultaneous whole notes across the bar. Do that for every chord here, and then look at how each note moves linearly. You should up with something like this: For example, how the top note of one chord moves to the top note of the next chord. The middle of one to the middle of the other. Basically, treat them like 5 different people and examine how they move from note to note. To get you started, yes, the upper voices will move very smoothly, by either steps or small skips, while the lowest voice has no problem jumping around from time to time.

I may or may not be redoing some older isw stuff right now for said purposes

But... you can sort of say that, though, because sample libraries are starting to be just a tad more foolproof in their usage, favoring tailored single-patch default behavior instead of completely granular, meticulous multi-patch behavior. For example, I have to do almost nothing except mod wheel for my CineWinds stuff. The legato scripting is just that good.

Along with practice, like Timaeus said, listening is just as if not more important. Your ear is the foundation of your art. It tells you how to make your decisions. Your art suffers if your ear is immature or inconclusive. In order to develop your ear, you need to listen to music *deliberately*. Don't just enjoy it, but break it down in your head. What are the instruments? What's the harmony? Is it energetic? Fast? Slow? Is it inconclusive? Does it meander? Is it compelling? Or is it boring? You come to be able to answer these questions only after developing your ear. Whether you learn formal theory or not is irrelevant (though formal theory allows for communication and discussion with others. Trying to talk about musical concepts with people who don't know theory can be a bit of a mess). You need to listen with the goal of understanding. That is how you develop taste. Then, once you have built your taste, practice according to your taste. Does your music reach your level of taste? Then keep doing it. Without taste, you become a slave to others for feedback to tell you if something is any good or not. You should be the one deciding. Once you are, practicing becomes something you can do in isolation. And when you reach your taste? Boy, you haven't been listening to enough music. Listen to more, listen to new. Raise your taste, and then raise your skill. It's the endless cycle where there's only one direction to go, and it's up.

To understand orchestral writing, there are several topics you need to learn first in order to write good, functional instrument parts (and then how to make it less "blocky" by considering forms). Instrumentation is the biggest one. Instrumentation is literally how you communicate in music. Every timbre, instrument doubling, range, articulation choice, etc. creates a different result in orchestral writing. and pick it apart; even better if you can read scores for them. This book will teach you everything about instrumentation. http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Orchestration-Dover-Books-Music/dp/0486212661 Harmony is important. What *is* an inversion, and why is it important? What chords "go to" each other? What is the harmonic structure of a melody? If you understand harmony, you can then think more macroscopically about your music like a timeline. In classical music, the half point of a melody would use a V chord (so, G major in the key or C major or Minor). This can allow you to write dynamics properly, such as dramatic tensions on tension chords or soft releases on resolution chords (or dramatic fanfares on resolution chords). The list goes on, but you can't learn all of them from books; you gotta analyze the music you like and see how it works, harmonically. Texture is the most important thing in any music in the history of ever. Texture describes the density and movement of music. In orchestral writing, you have every opportunity to go big and super dense (you have like 20 instrument families). But how do you go from big to small? How do you go from small to big? What *is* small texture, or big texture? How do I make it so the orchestra isn't just a jumbled mess of indistinct notes? This leads to counterpoint, probably the greatest invention in music history alongside our current tuning system. Counterpoint, in essence, describes how two different musical ideas can sound apart when they are played at the same time. Dense texture has many contrapuntal lines (lines obeying counterpoint), and thus, many different musical ideas happening simultaneously, which gives us the impression of a full, big sound. To put it crudely, you can have every instrument in the world playing a single note, but it won't sound big. It'll just sound loud. You can find books on all of these topics, but the most important thing is that you'll never get anywhere if you don't go and break down orchestral music that you like. Nothing can teach you how to write music. It can only teach you how to look at it; you have to teach yourself how to write. Finally, to get rid of your block forms, this will happen when you understand how harmony can define a form, and create non-even forms and such. Listen to a dynamic composition and mark where the melody starts, and ends, and then how many measures of "rest"/space before the next one. If you find instrument lines that come in at uneven measure times, then sit back and think "why is he writing this line at this specific point in time?". Consider the answer maybe that it's a specific part of the melody he wants to emphasize, or it's coming in when a strange chord occurs, or something like that. Other times, it's just for variety. Don't start everything at the beginning of the measure! Arrangement is about taking musical ideas, dressing them up, exposing them, exploiting them, reinforcing them, etc. Think about your music in those terms. Do *not* think about your music in terms of measure counts, minutes long, etc. A musical idea arranged a certain way will take as long as it needs, whether short or long, even or uneven form.

I forgot to mention this, because it was more intrinsic common sense to me, but I realized it's not to everyone. If you're writing a cello part, WRITE FOR A CELLO. Don't exceed the range of the cello. Don't use a lot of notes that cello players would be uncomfortable playing (like don't write double or triple stops, which are bows across multiple strings, for chords that a cello performer literally can't finger). An aspect of humanization is human limitation. If you're not limiting your computer cello the way a real cellist is hindered by physics, anatomy, etc. it's going to sound fake. Humanization starts in the notes and durations. This is an orchestration book that will explain to you the role, tone, dynamic range, articulation set, etc. of most classical instruments. When I say it starts with the musical mind, I actually mean it literally does. You need to have a solid understanding of instrumentation if you want to humanize.

I will answer this in two parts: 1) Understand what "humanization" actually means. Humanization is not articulations, velocities, and CC data. Humanization is the process of *using* those tools for an end goal, which is to create a performance which ceases to be fake in the perception of the listener. It doesn't matter how "much" or how "little" you use articulations, velocities, and CC. It matters how "human" it is. I can create the most complex MIDI performance using keyswitches, velocity ranges, mod CC data, expression, vibrato control, etc... and still have it sound like shit. What matters is not VARIETY but QUALITY. If you have sample libraries at your disposal, and you're still not making human performances, it's because you don't know what it *should* sound like, not because you're not working hard enough. There are easy ways to fix this problem. The obvious one being, go listen to real cello performers playing music. Trying looking for solo, virtuostic stuff. For cello, finding a performance Bach's Prelude in G Major will pretty much tell you all the basics of what cello sounds like at its most expressive. Others being, go look on YouTube for composers who stream their orchestral production and stuff like that. You'll be able to get glimpses of their MIDI curves and keyswitch habits. 2) As for how do the pros do it, you are 100% off. It's the complete opposite of what you say! Professionals are professionals because they've mastered using their tools in order to create realistic mock-ups (a mock-up is basically what we all do on OCR, which is creating computer generated performances). You say professionals might have special shortcuts that do the work for them, and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's *BECAUSE* they work so hard, spending hours doing CC data and articulation selections that makes them very good and very successful at what they do. There are no professionals in the film/TV/game scene who don't know how to work to good mock-ups; they don't exist because they don't get jobs. So unfortunately, there are no shortcuts. But on the bright side, this should be encouraging to you; it means all your frustration and practice is not in vain. You are indeed learning the "correct" method of humanization, so to speak. As for your undesirable ratio of work to results, refer to my point number 1. You're working too hard on creating performances that are subpar, which means you need to realign how you think the performance should sound. It starts with your musical mind, and ends in the computer, not the other way around. Now that I've addressed the part of the humanization that occurs before you touch your computer, I'll address what actually happens in the DAW. Here are the basics: Articulations - Staccatos, pizzicato, legato, etc. These will be keyswitchable in modern libararies, so you can change them all on the fly in one MIDI track. CC Data - Mod is usually velocity x-fade in modern libraries. It means it doesn't just get louder with the mod wheel, but the instrument itself increases dynamic. On a french horn, for example it would get buzzier. Legato scripting - Believe it or not, this is actually more important than all the other stuff combined, in terms of humanization. Legato scripting is when the instrument will play actual note transitions as your MIDI notes cross into each other. Good legato scripting is the cornerstone of a realistic solo performance; and that Blakus cello Jorito mentioned does it very well. An alternative is "Tina Guo Cello Legato" from CineSamples. The reason for it is simply that when you have long notes, human performers will always connect them. Hammer-ons, pull-offs, glissandos, slurs, slides, bow changes, retongue-ing, etc. All of these things are legato types in sample libraries. Top-of-the-line legato scripts will have selectable types, either by keyswitch, velocity, CC, etc. For instance, EW QL Solo Violin's legato patch will change its legato type on the mod wheel. It starts normal, then changes to quick bow changes (for faster notes and scale runs) and then finally big slurs (which sound *gorgeous* on melodic leaps, like up a 6th). In essence, it's hard to explain, but good legato will usually mask other flaws of a mock-up (the exception is glaring issues, like repetitive brass stabs, but that's easy to tell as a flaw). This is why sometimes when people have fake choirs, they'll just get one soprano girl to sing over it and it suddenly sounds like a full real choir. Play a good solo violin over a fake ensemble, sounds amazing. Etc. With better solo sample libraries, we can even just layer a good solo sample library over a so-so ensemble one. The same trick works. If you don't have good (or any) legato scripting in your sample library, and you're trying to create an expressive performance, then you need to do it the old fashion horror way. Blend notes into each and use clever volume fades and keyswitches to make it sound decent. This way is super archaic, and though people got good at it, it's no match for actual true legato, which professionals are using nowadays except in rare cases where someone has a specific thing they need from an older library. *FINALLY*, the bar for humanization is a lot lower for OverClocked ReMix than it is in professional settings, so take all this stuff as very idealistic prattle for the best possible, state-of-the-art mock-up production. If you get a handle on it, you'll pass OCR's standards with flying colors. If you don't, you still have room to maneuver; for example, if you don't have legato scripting it's not the end of the world. But you still need to pretend you do using CC. Or find a live performer and never worry about a thing.

Is it freezing on launch? I had that problem when I didn't restart my computer after installing PACE and being asked to. I then restarted my computer, and it worked fine.

Using this as a trial to see what I like, then cancelling later on and buying full price (to save money). So far I'm absolutely in love with Solo Violin. Different legato types, easily accessible on the mod wheel, very easy to get some really melodic slurred leaps. QL Ra is the only other download that finished. It seems pretty solid, but I'm really looking forward to QL Silk, which adds the much needed true legato. Gypsy I also want to check out, but from what I've seen, the instruments are a bit lackluster. Also gonna grab Hollywood Brass, Strings, and Woodwinds. Not sure about if I'll end up buying Woodwinds, since I already have CineWinds CORE which may be hard to beat. No reason not to try it out though; it doesn't cost any extra! The Strings are really what I'm excited for, since the available articulations are much more diverse than CS2. Brass is always nice, and EastWest is really good at their staccatos. I really like the idea of using this subscription to cheaply try out these libraries and explore their potential before shelling out for Complete Composer's Collection (and because I'm trying them all, I get to pick exactly what I want/need in CCC). I don't think there's anything sadder than a composer buying a library he ends up displeased with. Good move, EW.

You're better off not knowing.

I understand exactly what you're saying; however, I come from a community of people where subtlety is everything and "good enough" is not even close to good enough. These are the people who will buy 4 string libraries because each one of them has a specific tone that they want for different occasions, and when they have a sound they want they can't make, they'll pay Spitfire or 8Dio or whatever to make a new one. As you immerse yourself more in the world of mock-ups and sample realism, I think you'd be surprised how picky and discriminating your ears can get. It's just like anything else: mixing, mastering, recording quality, etc. There's satisfaction for the listeners, and then there's satisfaction for the artists themselves. To address sympathetic resonance, sure, I guess you can say it's subtle. But I play piano, and I notice subtle differences in every piano I play, real and fake. They're important to me, even if they're not important to *everyone*. Sure, it's very different from how you approach it, but to say there's no market for it (which I feel you implied in your questioning of the business aspect) and that the bar can not be raised (people have different bars, and developers' bars can go much higher) is, I think, a little inaccurate. Even if you completely ignore the market of mock-up producers (I'm blanketing any and all professional game/film/TV composers into this term) who care a lot about subtlety, it's still competitive simply because it's $99 on Kontakt Player. The alternatives at that level are things like the Grandeur from NI, which I can't speak on because I haven't tried it, but it's not a C7, so it sounds different. I also don't like your argument about interface being a reductio ad absurdem, because it seems absurd to you, but *not* absurd at all to me. Yamaha just created the NU1, which is a real piano that lacks strings, and sends MIDI data. The hammers are real and everything, they just hit a soft sheet. The sound is sample-based. And well, I think the NU1 is amazing, and there is clearly a market for it, which to me, isn't "silly" at all, it's pretty amazing. Also, keep in mind most technological innovations seemed "silly" or "extraneous" when they were created, so I think that applies here as well. But take my words with a grain of salt, since my life is dedicated to things like "advancing music technology". I'm intrinsically wired to disagree with everything you said. xP The bottom line is, I can reassure you that there is in fact a market for "total sampling". I talk to those kinds of people on all the time. They're always saying "I wish someone made a library that had this or this or this", people are always sending messages to companies like CineSamples and saying "can you record triple stops in the expansion?" People definitely do care about subtleties. I do too. You know what grates me about Cinematic Strings 2? The legato is true legato, but it doesn't give you any volume control over the legato transition sample. That gets on my nerves, a lot, because CineSamples has it in all of their libraries. CS2 also doesn't have divisi. Which I really want. Most people don't even know what divisi even sounds like. But since I know what it is, and understand what it can do for me, I want it. Same with con sordino, and other "esoteric" sampling projects. I guess I find it offensive that you call it "silly", because, well, perfectionism is not silly at all, and it's rampant in the scoring world. I'd rather be unsatisfied than satisfied, because "good enough" is for the audience, not for the artist. And a final disclaimer, I had no direct involvement in the development of Pearl, and have no personal motivation to defend it because it's something I made that someone said isn't amazing (because... well, I didn't make it xP). I am simply disagreeing with you on principle because I see value in something that you don't. Which is fine, you're allowed to like whatever you like. It's a free universe.

I think this is so far from the truth, as someone who uses newer pianos often. We've got a ways to go in terms of sampling the piano in a total fashion. Damper resonance is still a mystery. We kinda approximate it by having individual notes recorded with dampers off, but that's just not the same sound, and if you think about it from a physics standpoint, it makes sense why. The sound of sympathetic resonance of one note is not the same as the sound of sympathetic resonance of more than one note. Layering recordings and superposing wave propagation are two different things. Never mind the fact that a C7 is a unique tone, and the alternatives for a good C7 are: -Ivory II (which is good, but expensive, and not Kontakt) -8dio 1990 Concert Grand (This literally just came out a couple weeks before Pearl did and its feature list looks great, but it costs twice as much, and requires full Kontakt)

Buy it. It's good!

Water mitigates it kinda, but mostly after you start fasting for at least 3-4 days, you start to not even really notice it. (Take it from a guy who fasted for Ramadan w/o water for the past 18 years).

You should like stop using XP and start catching up on all the cool new tech that happened in the last 7 years.