Distinguishing between mockups and live performances

[HardyP]

Originally Posted by Doug Rogers

I can tell you from years of experience, the average person (who is the one that really matters here) cannot tell the difference between a real orchestra and a sampled orchestra if the composer knows what they are doing.
Also, it's a fact that most composers that actually have a budget to use real orchestras also use sample collections such as ours to add power to the final mix.

11 years ago I did exactly this with a recording of a childrens choir. The accompaniment was on some pieces a small, mediocre chamber "orchestra" (2x Vl.1, 1x Vl.2, Vc, Cb, Fl). Naturally, that was really thin, esp. compared to the power of 50 kids... so I added virtual strings (from very old Peter Siedlaczek AKAI Sample-ROM and Alesis QSR...) - and the audience (Dougs "average person") did not notice, that this was virtual, but was wondering, where we had found that good sounding orchestra !

--> With the progress in sample technology, especially in cases where the orchestra is the accompaniment, it is even more possible to get that "realistic sound". It´s just a matter of mixing and tweaking the ressources you have.

[SJK]

Originally Posted by TGV

Let me look at it from another angle: is is that important to make it sound real? We have a certain sound ideal in our heads, and large part of it is formed by sound tracks, recordings, and live performances by real orchestras. It's natural we'd like to emulate that. Plus: what's more thrilling than having your music played by a large symphony orchestra in a great sounding hall?

However, we have to accept we're never going to sound like a real orchestra, not even if we have all the samples you can imagine for 30 different solo violins, 10 solo violas, 10 solo celli, 8 solo basses, 6 solo french horns, etc. We can't play the required 80 or so tracks as real ensemble players. That would require huge amounts of study to master each instrument, plus huge amounts of time to get each track right.

So what about sounding good enough? We should keep some standards, but we don't have to fool anyone into believing they're listening to real performers. We just have to make them like our music.

99% agreed

I would replace the bolded part with 'So what about sounding good instead of real'. Many people try to imitate the sound of Hans Zimmer, because it has undoubtedly a lot of impact. But, even though live orchestras are involved, it does not sound like a real live recording. It is sonically enhanced with synths and samples and to my ears it sounds better than most classical recordings, albeit less 'real'.

[Plasuma!!!]

Originally Posted by SJK

[...] sonically enhanced with synths and samples and to my ears it sounds better than most classical recordings, albeit less 'real'.

Definitely.

So you're saying that what really matters is whether or not the results sound good, and authenticity might take a backseat to that? I agree. While a live recording of the real thing is always better if you want the real thing, sampled sounds and well-designed patches open many other doors for creativity.

[SJK]

Originally Posted by Plasuma!!!

Definitely.

So you're saying that what really matters is whether or not the results sound good, and authenticity might take a backseat to that?

Yep

I agree. While a live recording of the real thing is always better if you want the real thing, sampled sounds and well-designed patches open many other doors for creativity.

Absolutely!

[Johhny Rico Suave]

Originally Posted by Doug Rogers

So, while it's not possible to mimic exactly the organic nature and nuances of a real orchestra, it doesn't matter for the intended audience.

This!

While it is good for us to strive for perfection and realism, I think we forget sometimes about how many details we pay attention to that are really outside of the scope of what the audience perceives.