The following is a 13-part tutorial created by Gerald Berliner of More Human Than Human pictured above with his writing partner in London (Gerald is in New York), Nick Gaiger.

Part 1 of 13

Part 2 of 13

Part 3 of 13

Part 4 of 13

Part 5 of 13

Part 6 of 13

Part 7 of 13

Part 8 of 13

Part 9 of 13

Part 10 of 13

Part 11 of 13

Part 12 of 13

Part 13 of 13

If you have questions for Mr. Berliner, please post them below.

OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN
I really like the graphic layout of the processors. They’re very straightforward and easy to use. The metering system is very accurate, and the placement of the meters allows you to reference them very quickly, without interrupting your workflow.

The style of Phase Meter lends itself greatly to a “give it a glance and continue working” type of monitoring. Being able to see your effects chain gives you a realistic studio kind of visualization, which makes it more practical for those who are used to working with analog equipment.

I’m not a fan of having dozens of knobs on a virtual plugin because it makes the interface hard to manage, and the bigger picture of the processing hard to see. So I think IK Multimedia did a really good job in keeping the interface uncluttered, and really smooth (especially with the combination of dark and radiant colors). As such, the T-RackS plugins are very attractive with a to-the-point look and feel.

THE LINEAR PHASE EQ
A Linear Phase EQ is an equalizer that lets you make changes to frequencies without affecting the other bands around an adjusted band. It’s known for its clean sound, precision and transparency. The T-RackS Linear Phase is very user friendly and straightforward with four parametric bands, plus two others that can be used for pass or parametric filters. Your entire frequency range is more than covered. Their use of large circled numbers lets you see your band points very clearly. This EQ has a very transparent and crisp sound which for me makes it a favorite when mastering with T-RackS. Click the graphic to see a full picture.

THE OPTO COMPRESSOR
The Opto Compressor is a standard dynamic controlling compressor plugin that’s modeled after a hardware compressor. The thing that really suprised me about this plugin, is that even when pushed hard, and set to a very agressive setting, the audio quality wasn’t totally destroyed. Even after experimenting with a level 10 compression and a 9:1 ratio, you still couldn’t hear an annoying pumping sound!!

The Opto Compressor is transparent.

At first, I had to get used to having a compression knob which is different from most compressors. I really just had to figure out what effect it had in the chain of knobs. One of the best ways to use the Opto Compressor is to use it in succession with another instance of the plugin afterward to divide the compression duties between the two. Since the Opto Compressor is so transparent, having two compressors to compress lightly has a really natural effect on the audio. I really think that the Opto Compressor is a very accurate plugin. Click the graphic to see a full picture.

THE MULTI BAND LIMITER
A Limiter is a device which allows an audio signal to go up to a certain amount of decibels before being forced to stay below a manually set volume called a threshold.

T-RackS Multi Band Limiter works well with fine tuning certain frequency ranges as far as compression. I’d prefer an interface similar to the Linear Phase EQ to really see the bands that you are working with though. With this plugin you’re really imagining the range in your mind while tweaking it. It’s good at narrowing down ranges to compress, and has a nice overload knob which lets you both drive the plugin more and add color to the output of the sound. Click the graphic to see a full picture.

THE BRICK WALL LIMITER
This limiter is called a Brick Wall Limiter, because it deals really well with catching peaks in audio before crossing the manually set threshold. It lets you boost the perceived level of your recordings without squashing the dynamics out of your audio. I really liked the effect of this limiter. On the test recording, it really boosted the sound well while still remaining transparent. Click the graphic to see a full picture.

STYLE PRESETS
Another added feature is the style presets which give you some different colors to experiment with. And you just might come up with something that you weren’t expecting which you really like. It adds a twist to the standard limit-and-move-on approach.

MY OPINION FOR WORKING WITH T-TrackS INSIDE THE RECORDING STUDIO:
Overall, I think that these processors and the T-RackS Suite as a whole are a valuable asset and an excellent next step for those mostly working with the plugins that come with their sequencing program, especially for the colors each plugin offers. If T-RackS is the first out-of-the-box collection an engineer buys, I think they’ll be quite happy with the results they’ll achieve, especially when you consider what you get for the price. I know I would.

TEST PIECE
This is a before and after piece done in light Gospel/Jazz format.

Before T-RackS
Gospel Jazz - Light MP3, Copyright 2009 Aaron Hill All Rights Reserved
holy-w-out-tracks

With T-RackS
Gospel Jazz - Light MP3, Copyright 2009 Aaron Hill All Rights Reserved
holy-with-t-racks

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
Post below!

Aaron Hill produces and engineers for his company, Fruition Music. Hear more of Aaron’s work at MySpace.com/FruitionMusic.

Aaron brings to Sonic Control his experience in teaching recording and other musical skills through his work at the Glenelg Country School. Rather than doing highly technical reviews, Aaron will be doing reviews which demonstrate the programs with a combination of video with before and after examples based around a consistent set of benchmark tests. This enables Sonic Control readers to hear comparisons of the same audio files with different programs. “Rather than focusing on knobs, my focus is on what the ears hear so the reader knows aurally whether or not they should buy the software or the hardware being reviewed,” explained Mr. Hill.

Hill said that one problem with many audio software reviews is that they go over the heads of the biggest base of buyers - amateurs and institutions like churches and colleges who need to know why they should buy a particular program, especially if the current sequencing/digital audio program contains a similar feature. Hill also noted that while comparative reviews are available, the evaluation approach changes from program and one writer to another, making it difficult for the reader to know whether or not they really need the item in review. “Peter Alexander’s directions to me were very clear - develop a Consumer Report’s like approach with benchmarks that readers can compare to aurally,” said Hill. Alexander is CEO of Alexander University, Inc., Sonic Control’s parent company.

Besides his writing chores for Sonic Control, Aaron Hill runs Fruition Music, his own music production company which both produces and licenses music in the gospel and jazz arenas. “Aaron is a valuable resource for Sonic Control readers because he’s practically experienced in the whole process of both producing and licensing,” said Alexander.

Aaron Hill is a graduate of Catonsville Community College, The Sheffield Institute for the Recording Arts where he earned a Certificate in Audio Engineering, and the Berklee College of Music online Masters in Production Program. He’s also gone through Alexander University’s Professional Orchestration online Writing for Strings program with Stephen Hill. His column begins mid-June 2009.

Reaction. Casey blew it out the ball park with a grand slam home run. User smiles are teething out on both Mac and PC platforms and on both sides of the Atlantic. In a bad global economy, posts are appearing saying, “I always wanted to buy ____ (insert your favorite PLAY library), now I think I will.” There is joy in Mudville.

What’s so hot about a software update that would cause such a panoply of praise?

Answer: seeing is believing.

In the brief 8-minute video posted below, you’ll see developer Nick Phoenix running a hearty string ensemble from QLSO Platinum with 400 stereo voices streaming off a single 7200 RPM drive in a system with only 6GB of RAM. That’s “just” QLSO. Then there’s the new Symphonic Choirs demo with Word Builder, and finally, a sharp little demo with the QL Piano demonstrating how Mr. Phoenix’s 8-Core Mac Pro running Logic 8.02 responds when the piano pedal is in the down position.

It’s heady stuff.

And after watching these demos, I have four words to say: spring is here. Early.

And none too soon.

With the economy teetering and tech faltering, the industry needs, that’s right, needs EastWest to succeed, probably more than any other sample library developer. That’s because the PLAY libraries, from the beginning as Mr. Phoenix pointed out in a forum, were designed for 8-core systems and beyond. In other words, the future present.

The PLAY libraries demonstrate in a time of soft tech sales, the why of a new machine, specifically, a powerhouse quad-core or eight-core system. The immediate beneficiary of such demonstrations is Intel, because their CPUs power both Mac and PC platforms. The second beneficiary is Apple, who already has an eight-core system ready-to-go with its Mac Pro.

Because of design, EastWest’s Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra PLAY Edition can stir the imagination of the public, not to mention the hearts of hundreds of thousands composers in the U.S. alone, by demonstrating how one machine harnesses the sound of a symphony orchestra - literally, on a desktop.

This is the main event. And it’s legitimate news perfect for late night and CNN’s AC360.

Then there’s the price. Just a few years ago, the full edition of QLSO was just under $6000 and ideally you needed a studio with 4-5 computers to run it.

No more.

Now, for under a $1000 street price most anyone can now buy QLSO Platinum, a price that’s comparable to half a month’s rent on a two-bedroom apartment in parts of Los Angeles. Which means the dream is achievable. On a “bare bones” Mac Pro system, a customer can get away with a headphone mix and for a while, ignore the need for a combo audio card/MIDI interface.

On U.S. colleges campuses alone, that can begin spurring a steady demand for thousands of unit sales from faculty and students alike since Mac’s can be bought at special academic pricing, as can Logic, as can now EastWest libraries.

EastWest has one other major benefit they can exploit over any other competitor - they’re in Hollywood. West L.A. more precisely, but close enough for jazz, as musicians are fond of saying. And many, if not most, of their leading customers who are heavyweights in film/TV production are just half-a-commute away, giving EastWest star power to produce formidable MacWorld-like public demonstrations.

There are other libraries that fit on one machine, but none have the price and the Hollywood oomph to drive power system sales like EastWest.

This is a PR fest waiting to happen.

For Apple sales prospects, EastWest needs a few Apple-like training tutorials demonstrating PLAY with Logic and GarageBand.

And with Finale and Sibelius having heavily focused academic distribution both here and abroad, EastWest video tutorials teaching instructors how to implement PLAY products within these programs are definitely needed.

Such promotional efforts could drive EastWest PLAY products into new sales avenues, provided the sales vision matches the development vision.

It’s also good for California. In a state with over 10% unemployment, here is yet another demonstration from the musical technology sector that the spark of innovation and entrepreneurship is alive and well. That has to be an encouragement.

Is the 1.20 update as good as being said on the forums?

It is. Before press, I had just enough time to test 1.20 on a G5 dual 2.7Ghz system with 4GB of RAM running Logic 8.02. I tried it with QLSO Platinum, Gypsy, SD2, and Ministry of Rock. It is far more efficient and system friendly. And yes, on the PC, too, judging by confirming reports coming in from owners of Cubase and Nuendo.

One thing is for sure, a new corner has been turned. Now it really is time to PLAY.

ABOUT ADK PRO AUDIO
ADK (Advanced Design Kentucky) is a privately held company located just outside of Cincinnati, OH. Founded in 1998, the company has established itself as a leading developer of computer workstations for both digital audio and video. The company is also an authorized Macintosh reseller and so is able to offer professionals complete production studios on either or both platforms.

Read about ADK Pro Audio’s system building and warranty plans.

The ADK Client List

THE VIENNA INSTRUMENTS
The Vienna Instruments are high quality 24-bit orchestral samples for each orchestral instrument housed in the proprietary Vienna Player. With the Vienna Instrument, there is only one learning curve because once you’ve learned it, it works the same for all the other instruments in the family. Click the picture once for a larger view of the Vienna Player.

The Vienna Instruments cover all the instruments of the orchestra along with additional libraries like the Appassionata Strings 1 and 2, Special Brass, Special Woodwinds, Soprano voices, Saxophones and others.

You can read about them here.

The Vienna Ensemble
The Vienna Ensemble is a proprietary virtual mixing board designed today for the Vienna Instruments. On the ADK Vienna System, the Vienna Ensemble 3 has been installed. With the VE3, you can stream both audio and MIDI from the Vienna System into your main digital audio workstation, whether Mac or PC. Sometime in 2009, Vienna has announced that the Vienna Ensemble 3 will also work with virtual instruments from other companies. Click on the picture once to bring it to full size. Click a second time for an expanded detailed view.

The Vienna Suite
The Vienna Suite is more aptly named the Vienna Effects Suite because it comes with eight high quality plug-ins that can be used on either the Mac or PC. In 2009, a ninth plug-in will be added, Reverb. Once the ADK Vienna System is setup and running, we’ll add the Vienna Effects Suite to both the Vienna System and our Mac System using Logic 8 since the Vienna Suite will work with any sequencing or digital audio program on the Mac and PC. Click on the picture once to bring it to full size. Click a second time for an expanded detailed view.

Vienna Suite currently includes eight plug-ins:

Equalizer - for silky smooth highs and deep and powerful lows – includes an integrated 120 band spectrum analyzer. Extremely low CPU usage.

Master Equalizer - provides 3 filter types on 5 bands and additional high and low shelf filters with 2 filter types. The use of 4x oversampling makes internal calculations extremely precise. The weapon of choice for delicate sonic mastering tasks.

Limiter - with real-time input/output waveform display and auto-mode for transparent maximization.

Compressor – featuring modern and vintage algorithms and a real-time input/output waveform display.

Multiband Limiter – offering 4 bands with transparent crossover filters and an additional full-range brickwall limiter at the final output stage.

PowerPan - for powerful stage positioning of instruments, featuring real-time audio angular analysis.

Exciter – offering 4x oversampling, tone-color sliders for mixing odd and even harmonics, and a high frequency FFT spectrum analyzer.

Analyzer – featuring a 120 band analog modeled spectrum analyzer, a fast and accurate display of bass frequencies, an auto mode for automatic range management, and a loudest frequency note display.

Source: www.vsl.co.at -> Forums –>Vienna Instruments->First Vienna Stress Tests Results on PC
First Vienna Instruments Stress Test Results on PC

We have tested the Vienna Instruments on various computers and doublechecked on similar machines. All computers are fully equipped DAW´s that are used in everyday studio work, no additional tuning.

More tests are in the works, with different processors and hosts. Our tests with Sonar, FX Teleport, Chainer, Plogue Bidule, Forte showed the same results, the Vienna Instruments behave the same way as in Steinberg Cubase SX or Vstack.

The test results for Audio Units on Apple will follow as soon as possible.

Please bear in mind, that the RAM available is also used by the hosts (around 300 MB) and Windows (another 300 MB), which is why the limit of RAM usage is 1.3-1.5 GB for the Vienna Instruments in a computer equipped with 2 GB RAM.

The testing routine: Play a (really stressy!) stress test song with different loading options (more instruments, less RAM, and the other way around). All instruments are playing all the time, using all kinds of matrices and patches, and of course including additional MIDI data like ModWheel and different assigned sliders.

You always see the maximum Vienna Instruments possible in the given setup without any sonic trouble.

TEST COMPUTER 1
Processor: Pentium 4, 3.2 GHz, Ram: 2 GB Data storage: internal SATA Host application: Cubase SX3 Soundcard: RME HDSP Multiface Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 1.2 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 24 (CPU 75%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 75%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1.3 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 20 (CPU 70%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 75%)

TEST COMPUTER 2
Processor: Pentium 4, 3 GHz, Ram: 2 GB Data storage: Firewire 400 Host application: Cubase SX2 Soundcard: RME DIGI 9652 Latency at 1024 Samples (24 ms) / 1.3 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 24 (CPU 50%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 60%) Latency at 512 Samples (12 ms) / 1 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 18 (CPU 50%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 60%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1.2 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 14 (CPU 60%) Maximum polyphony: 180 stereo voices / (CPU 65%)

TEST COMPUTER 3
Processor: AMD 2.6 GHz, Ram: 2 GB Data storage: Firewire 400 Host application: Cubase SX3 Soundcard: Creamware Pulsar & Luna Latency at 13ms / 1.3 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 20 (CPU 70%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 70%) Latency at 7 ms / 1.2 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 16 (CPU 65%) Maximum polyphony: 174 stereo voices / (CPU 60%)

TEST COMPUTER 4
Processor: Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz, Ram: 2 GB Data storage: internal SATA Host application: VSTack Soundcard: RME DIGI9632 Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 1.4 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 16 (CPU 70%) Maximum polyphony: 180 stereo voices / (CPU 70%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1.4 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 8 (CPU 55%) Maximum polyphony: 160 stereo voices / (CPU 70%)

TEST COMPUTER 5
Processor: Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz, Ram: 1.5 GB Data storage: Firewire 400 Host application: VSTack Soundcard: Steinberg VSL 2020 Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 1 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 16 (CPU 60%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 80%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 14 (CPU 60%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 80%)

TEST COMPUTER 6
Processor: Laptop Pentium M, 2 GHz, Ram: 2 GB Data storage: Firewire 400 Host application: Cubase SX3 Soundcard: RME HDSP Multiface Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 1.2 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 14 (CPU 65%) Maximum polyphony: 160 stereo voices / (CPU 65%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1.1 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 10 (CPU 55%) Maximum polyphony: 150 stereo voices / (CPU 65%)

TEST COMPUTER 7
Processor: Pentium 3, 1 GHz, Ram: 2 GB Data storage: Firewire 400 Host application: VStack Soundcard: RME DIGI 9632 Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 0.6 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 5 (CPU 70%) Maximum polyphony: 90 stereo voices / (CPU 65%)

First Vienna Instruments Stress Test results on Mac OS X
So here they are, the first official test results with the new Vienna Instruments as Audio Units on Mac.

As on the PC platform, we have tested the Vienna Instruments on various computers and doublechecked on similar machines. All computers are fully equipped DAW´s that are used in everyday studio work, no additional tuning.

More tests are in the works, with different processors and hosts. Test results for the Quad will be released as well, we expect more Vienna Instruments to be loaded with maximum amount of RAM.
The limit of RAM usage is about 2.8 GB for the Vienna Instruments in a computer equipped with 4 GB RAM, that translates to 47000 samples.

The testing routine: Play a (really stressy!) stress test song with different loading options (more instruments, less RAM, and the other way around). All instruments are playing all the time, using all kinds of matrices and patches, and of course including additional MIDI data like ModWheel and different assigned sliders.

You always see the maximum Vienna Instruments possible in the given setup without any sonic trouble.

TEST COMPUTER 1
Processor: G5, 2 x 2.5 GHz, Ram: 4 GB OS 10.4.2 Data storage: Firewire 800 Host application: Logic 7.1.1 Soundcard: RME HDSP MADI with 648 MADI Interface Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 2.5 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 24 (CPU 90%) Maximum Samples loaded: 45000 Maximum polyphony: 300 stereo voices / (CPU 70%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1.74 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 23 (CPU 70%) Maximum polyphony: 200 stereo voices / (CPU 75%)

TEST COMPUTER 2
Processor: iMac G5 single, 1.8 GHz, Ram: 2 GB OS 10.4.5 Data storage: Firewire 400 Host application: Logic 7.1 Soundcard: Built in Audio Latency at 512 Samples (12ms) / 1.08 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 11 (CPU 85%) Maximum Samples loaded: 17400 Maximum polyphony: 250 stereo voices / (CPU 80%) Latency at 256 Samples (6 ms) / 1 GB Ram usage Maximum Vienna Instrument instances: 9 (CPU 85%) Maximum polyphony: 160 stereo voices / (CPU 80%)

The two big things you need to know right away are:

1) Budget for players/studio/(other)
2) Deadline.

There may be other things to determine before actually writing music, but these are the two big ones.

Budget - The String Section 
I like to know what budget I have for strings so I know what I can write for. Sometimes the ensemble size and make up is pre-determined. Some producers I work for will tell me what section they want. Some will want me to determine it. They just say, “we have this much money, what can we do?” These days with MIDI and samples there are many options.

Given a choice and good budget, I prefer everything “live” (at least in the string section). It’s just easier that way, and sounds better (assuming you have great session players, and for now, I will assume you have great players).

I’ve worked on many “custom” albums (non record label) where I have had to be very creative with the budget. I have done songs with just cellos, a single cello sound is weightier, fuller than a single violin. Don Sebesky, an arranger of many jazz albums has done this effectively on some albums. It’s a bit darker than a section including violins and violas, but only takes 3-4 cellist, or even 1 with 3-4 tracks to overdub. I have also used the string quartet a lot (two violins, one viola, one cello) on a number of projects, and have even suggested it when I could have had a larger section because the intimacy from a string quartet fit the song better, but this tends to work very well in folk based styles, especially alongside acoustic guitars. There has been a new interest in the string quartet the past several years.

Another thing I have done many times, and is quite common these days is blending real strings with MIDI or sampled strings, and I have done the MIDI/sampled strings only. There have been many projects I have been called into to “make up the arrangement” to tape (or digital).

I’m not a great keyboardist, but I am good enough at the arranging to know how to make it sound real enough. I prefer not making it up on the spot, but, much like my story in Part 2, sometimes when a client has had me make it up on the spot, I go for a certain simplicity not achieved if I have time to “write it”, and therefore being “trick”.

The bottom line is to know what you have available before you start writing.
 
Know which strings you will have and how many of them.

A general rule of thumb is this: You need at least three violins to get a decent ensemble unison (one note at a time) sound. Two violas for a decent ensemble unison. A single cello can produce a good unison.

Here are a few ensembles I’ve used a lot from least expensive on up:

1) Cello, or cello‘s only. Economical, but a darker, lower, even heavier
sound. A solo cello is nice also!

2) String Quartet. A very standard string ensemble that works for very intimate songs, folk music and many others. Classical music is rich in literature for the string quartet. Haydn string quartets are a great place to begin your education because the writing is simpler than Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy or Ravel.

3) Violins and Cellos only. No violas. I’ve done this for many albums, particularly pop albums. You can cover a lot of range with violins and cellos.

4) Violins, Violas, Cellos (usually eight-ten violins, 2-3 violas, 2-3 cellos). This is my standard record date section. I like to have one more violin doing the violin 1 part than in the violin 2 section. I also like the warmth the violas add.

5) #4 but with 1-2 double basses. Depending on the song, I like a double bass (acoustic bass).

There are so many combinations that can work, and also many books offering suggestions about combinations. A good standard book for a recording arranger (sweetener emphasis) is Don Sebesky’s The Contemporary Arranger and Peter Alexander’s Professional Orchestration 2A: Orchestrating the Melody Within the String Section. Three other good books for string writing are by Sammy Nestico (The Complete Arranger), Nelson Riddle (Arranged by Nelson Riddle) and Henry Mancini (Sound and Scores).

The Recording Studio
Usually that’s determined by the producer who has hired me.

If it’s my choice, I certainly have my favorites. If it’s your choice, be very careful to hire a studio that’s had real string section recording experience.

The most important thing is having an engineer who knows how strings (real strings) are supposed to sound! Sorry to say this, but many people who sell themselves as engineers do not, and have added to a very bad experience for arrangers. There are many considerations for hiring a studio that can handle a live string date, even such basics as having enough headphones (though many recording string players these days bring their own), but also, things like music stands and many others.

But, the “sound” is what’s most important. Some studios are just plain great at string and orchestral recording.

Another thing: There are a couple engineers I like doing my string dates with because not only do they meet the requirements already mentioned, but also they can “speak string language” to a degree. Professional string players can be very “business”, and not easy to “hang with”. These folks do, and have done much music in their life, and can usually spot an amateur arrangement, arranger, conductor, engineer pretty quick. All considered, that’s good! So, if I have an engineer who not only gets a great sound, but also knows how to work with the players, it adds for a more enjoyable session.

As a simple example.

Most professional string players and sections do not need to run through a piece of music many times, once is often enough if the music is written right. An inexperienced engineer can frustrate the players really fast (and make you look bad in the process) if they’re asked to do so. They may even think you’re doubling, tripling tracks more than they agreed, and get a bit miffed! There are many examples we can address later about these things.

Deadline
You also must know when you are expected to deliver the arrangement.

I’ve had both extremes in my life including full orchestra overnight (one time even being responsible for the “parts” by hand, - pre Finale!).

I like to know my deadline. I like working with a deadline, but preferably, a comfortable, or at least reasonable deadline. I usually like to “plan” 1-2 days per song, but can certainly do it faster if needed, and of course this depends on the style, length and others variables. These days, I do the parts myself, extracted from Finale, so, I allow time for that as well.

In fact, in the years from about 1961 to 1963, the SG was actually called the SG / Les Paul Custom, but Mr. Paul himself was not particularly fond of the twin cutaway design (in a 1978 interview with Tom Wheeler, he said, “…I didn’t like the shape - a guy could kill himself on those sharp horns”). What’s more, Les was in the middle of a divorce from Mary Ford, and so he chose not to endorse any particular guitar, as it might tend to muddy the financial waters. And so, in 1963, the guitar was designated simply as the Gibson SG. Essentially, there were no Gibson Les Paul’s built from 1963 until its reintroduction in 1968, but that’s a tale for another column.

Though I clearly longed for that top-of-the-line Gibson SG Custom, with its nickel-covered humbuckers and that unusual Gibson Vibrola (which, for some reason, was chosen over the time-tested Bigsby vibrato tailpiece), all I could afford was the SG Special. Instead of humbuckers, the SG Special came standard with a pair of what Gibson called P-90s (and sadly, no vibrato tailpiece at all, just a combination bridge / tailpiece).

AND THE P-90 IS WHAT EXACTLY?

The original P-90 was actually a single coil design, so its tone was somewhat brighter than a genuine humbucker, though not quite as crisp as Fender’s single coil pickups. However, because of its relatively rectangular shape, and the fact that the first P-90s on the original Les Paul Model of 1952 were white, it came to be popularly called the “soapbar” pickup.

Other similar pickups were mounted on Gibson’s semi-hollowbody guitars (like the ES-330) via two triangular flanges, one on the top of the pickup and the other on the bottom, and these came to be called “dog-eared” P-90s. The same pickups were available on Epiphone models (since Gibson was building Epiphone guitars at the time) and the design is best remembered for its appearance on the Epiphone Casino of the mid to late 1960s. All three Beatles bought one and recently, Paul McCartney stated, “If I had to choose one electric guitar, it would be this.” High praise for a man who could own any guitar he might happen to desire.

In any case, I played that Gibson SG for several years before eventually trading up to a Gretsch Tennessean in about 1970. And though the P-90 continued to be in production for many years, it eventually fell out of favor with most guitarists who wanted either that bright, edgy Fender single coil sound or the darker, smoky tones of a real humbucker.

Still, several “guitar heroes” liked the sound of the original P-90s. Leslie West of Mountain used a Les Paul Junior with but a single P-90 in the treble position for many years, and its signature sound can be heard on classics such as Mountain’s “Mississippi Queen” and “Theme from an Imaginary Western.”

PARADIGM SHIFT
Despite the synth-dominated decade of the 1980s and the crass commercialism of much of what we listened to in the 1990s (that’s just my personal opinion, folks), the P-90 pickup proves the axiom that everything that’s old will one day be in fashion again. While Gibson had offered a few vintage reissues with P-90s, it wasn’t until the folks at Paul Reed Smith decided to match up a set of specially-designed “soapbars” and mount them on their popular McCarty model that guitarists began to grasp the sonic potential inherent in this combination.

Today, the McCarty Soapbar is one of the better sellers in the PRS line. Since the pickups are single coil, they can often cut through a mix better than a humbucker equipped instrument, but with some additional midrange growl and tight bass response not normally associated with traditional single coils.

Rolling back the tone control, particularly in the bridge position, produces a raunchy honk that I just have not been able to duplicate using any other guitar. So while it’s true that these are not the quietest pickups around, it’s still a classic tone that will be around for a long time!

The company even went so far as to match their popular Custom 22 model with a trio of soapbar-style pickups. Some dubbed this potent combination “a Strat on steroids,” but that was never the aim of the instrument, though it’s true that the five-position blade-style pickup selector could offer up a reasonable facsimile of the classic “in-between” positions the Strat is so justly famous for.

However, the Custom 22 Soapbar was produced in fairly small numbers and never sold well enough to continue production. Such are the peculiarities of the marketplace, though guitarists who purchased a Custom 22 Soapbar have shown no inclination to let these instruments slip through their fingers.

Fortunately, the McCarty Soapbar fared much better. Perhaps its simpler switching made it more attractive, or possibly its success is based solely on its good looks. In any case, as of this writing, the McCarty Soapbar remains in the PRS catalog along with a few other “soapbar-equipped” models that your Sales Engineer will be happy to tell you about.

What’s that you say? Not looking for a soapbar? Well, that’s okay, as there are hundreds of wonderful guitars currently waiting to be placed into the homes of dedicated, caring guitarists. So give generously - to yourself!

Usually fees for the arrangement are discussed before the hiring. Price may often be the reason why you were chosen, but hopefully you were chosen because of the quality of your work. Fees can vary greatly for a single string arrangement from $500 - $3,000+. Most of this depends on your name value. You can consult many resources for rates.

IMPORTANT: You work for them! - Period!

Now, let’s be straight here. In any collaborative effort there are differences in opinion. That’s just life, and part of the human experience. You as the arranger, are certainly entitled to your own opinion, and I never recommend compromising your work, or yourself, beyond what you can, and still retain your integrity.

But in the final analysis, they (the producer, the artist, whoever is paying you) is the boss!

My preference is to work with an experienced producer rather than the artist. That’s because working directly with the artist can be, well….difficult. Not because they’re difficult people per se, but because if they don’t know what’s involved with strings they tend to complicate the situation.

Result - nothing gets done.

Most of the producers I work with have experience working with string sections and arrangers. The result is that the experienced producer generally understands my needs as an arranger, and once the creative work begins, leaves me alone to do it.

By comparison, the artist (usually being a singer, songwriter) does not have as much experience in this aspect of production. As a result, there can be a tendency to interfere prematurely in your work.

Where it gets tough is when the artist is also the executive producer (the money person). In this situation, and even when working directly with the producer you still have to be a bit of a diplomat!

A little story

Like a lot of arrangers, in my early days, I liked to always have a new idea, or some cool technique, that I could use when I wrote for strings. It could be a clever counterline, a re-harmonization, string effect, whatever.

Many years ago there was an Asian producer for whom I arranged literally hundreds of albums. This producer loved strings. So every album usually had 5-6 songs with a string section.

One evening he called and said he had everything set up for the string date the next morning at 10:00 AM! I freaked! He’d neglected to tell me prior to his call which songs he wanted strings with (as he should have days earlier), and then went ahead and booked the session, players and all!

The first thing I did was to call the contractor (who was also the concertmaster/lead violinist) and try to move the date. She said there was no way it could be moved because she’d already set it up.

So, at about 7:00 PM for a 10:00 AM call - I began arranging all six songs.

Oh, by the way, besides writing the arrangements, I was also responsible for the score and all the parts. I had no time to try out something new. I had to go with my (primarily) first (gut) ideas. Luckily, this string section was violins and cellos only. This let me do a two-stave score (like a piano part - treble and bass clef), then reproduce the score and have the players read directly from it.

NOTE: Please keep in mind, I had no choice here, no copyist was available, etc. I don’t recommend you make a habit of this, strings players can be very brutal. When you can, have separate parts.

I didn’t even use the piano, I sat down and wrote the arrangements while sitting on the sofa! Believe me, I wrote a lot of “pads” (whole notes) and single high lines - keeping it all as simple as possible because (again), there was no time to be innovative!

The next morning, we recorded the songs with me conducting.

After the players left, the producer said, “Ric, let’s go to lunch.” At lunch he said, “Those were the best arrangements you’ve ever done for me.”

I was stunned (and of course, relieved). I had done about 50 songs for him before this. Most were very cool arrangements, and he did like them. BUT…(here’s the moral of the story): this producer loved simplicity. Even though he told me he loved simplicity, I was too young and stubborn to really get it. In this crunch deadline situation I had finally written simple enough for his desire. So…he was right, I was wrong (if you will).

I’ll never forget this experience because it taught me to not be afraid to take a simpler, (more communicative?) approach. Sometimes being innovative or “cool” is, well…not being cool. I like to look at this as God stepping in and forcing a piece of wisdom for me!

After that, he and I did many other projects together.

I don’t mean to belabor this point, but when writing for others, you have to realize that it’s a collaborative effort. We as arrangers aren’t always right and usually don’t have the final say, much like an actor whose best scene ends up on the cutting room floor.

I have, over the years, learned to actually enjoy the collaborative exchange, and I’ve also learned to handle it better.

I close with these final thoughts.

Most of my life I’ve been a work-for-hire arranger. However, since about 1989, I’ve kept my own artist career active to do my music my way. This helps me keep a balance. I encourage you to do the same. Do the work that pays the bills, but also do writing of your own, whether album projects, concert works, whatever, to keep that balance which also leads to a more objective view when doing projects for others.

Also, beware of always writing for other instruments with an instrument.

I’ve written at the piano, the guitar, the computer, MIDI keyboards, and with just pencil and paper - whatever works! However, I do believe that if you write at an instrument for other instruments, your skills (or lack of skills) on the instrument on which you’re writing may get in the way.

Fortunately I studied with “old school” teachers that, as part of my training, had me write away from an instrument in case I needed to. Many great composers worked at a piano, many didn’t. Much depends on the styles you are working with. Obviously, the more advanced the harmonies, the more the tendency to write on the piano (Ravel did).

If you’re tied to writing at an instrument, as an exercise, try writing just at a desk. Then check your work. A quick way to develop this skill is through learning solfege which teaches you to sing lines with comprehension away from the piano.

I usually orchestrate away from an instrument without sample libraries as I like to be clear in my head what I’m doing. I do hope this makes sense. If you’re doing all, or a majority of your orchestration, with sample libraries, again, I encourage you to step away from the technology and develop your inner ear by orchestrating directly to pad.

Ric Flauding

www.ricflauding.com

A Degree in Logic?

I’m not overexerggerating when I say that Logic is so complete, that if the coursework were available, that Logic could easily be the centerpiece of an associate arts degree program for music production and film scoring. That’s because with Logic as the centerpiece of the curriculum, the following can be taught:

• MIDI sequencing/editing/recording
• Audio Recording
• Audio Editing
• Effects/Effects Programming
• Mixdown
• Mastering
• Synth Programming
• Notation
• OS 10/Leopard instruction
• Remix
• Film/TV/media scoring
• Rap/HipHop Production

To this, Logic can easily be used in Piano lab, harmony and composition classes on which to produce and record homework.

When looked at from this perspective, it’s easy to understand why Logic has such a deep learning curve. The Street Smart Guide to Logic 8 came in at 330 pages with a focus on sequencing and recording. But, any other aspect of the program could easily be a 250-500 page book especially if you start from the beginning assuming no prior sequencing or recording experience.

Whether adult or student, before any beginner approaches a sequencing program, it’s clear to me that we’re at the point where the prospective customer needs to have spent some time learning both MIDI and recording basics to fully grasp and appreciate what’s included in the program. At one time, you could cover a lot of MIDI basics in a sequencing book, but now, thanks to miniaturization and the integration of audio recording, that’s not really possible. In fact, it bogs down the learning flow when you try inserting MIDI basics into the Logic instruction set.

Thus, a primer is needed to lay the MIDI/recording foundation so that before the student/end user has bought and installed Logic, or any sequencing/digital audio program for that matter, their expectations are set for the learning curve.

Simply put, the more the end user brings to the table knowledge-wise with even the most rudimentary level of MIDI/recording basics, the faster Logic (and yes, the other programs, too) can be learned and mastered.

One example that illustrates my point are the effects. Starting with SilverVerb and ending with PlatinumVerb, you work your way up in complexity for each reverb. This doesn’t factor in AVerb or Space Designer, Logic’s convolution reverb, which is, as they say among New England fishermen, a whole nuther kettle o’fish. With Logic’s depth of completeness (I haven’t even talked about EQ and all the other effects), there’s a genuine need for an engineer who can teach to write a beginning audio curriculum.

Teaching Approaches

As I see it, there are three different approaches for teaching Logic:

• MIDI/Sequencing recording
• Audio Recording
• Dance/Remix

Of these three, a film/TV composer needs to take all three, based on the industry’s current climate.

Before writing, I did read other Logic books based on 7 and 8 to see how my colleagues approached it.

Some tried to shortcut the learning curve by blending audio and MIDI instruction at the same time. For me, I find it takes longer to learn a program with that kind of approach since audio and MIDI, while similar, are still very different from each other. Trying to do/learn two things at once is a trend in some circles, even with some employers! But I think the ability to focus and learn one thing serves the student better then trying to get everything at once. One significant end result of this kind of focused training is that it builds student confidence. Having conquered one discipline, how difficult can the next one be?

At the same time, the learning path also depends on how you want to use the program.

Others put things in an advanced manual that I felt were important to learn early.

Some began teaching Logic from the perspective of loops.

So many teaching approaches demonstrate the number of different uses and potential customer bases for Logic!

My approach was distinctly different.

Because I have some training in quality control, especially in an area called Lean Six Sigma, I focused my instruction around this question: How do I use Logic today to run my music production business? So by the end of the book, the reader knows how to sequence, use loops, apply effects, record audio, and do sufficient work in the Score editor to produce lead sheets for copyright and homework assignments. I wrote in a strictly procedural manner with each chapter dedicated to a specific operational task. I also dealt with two important studio uses: setting up audio MIDI and Multi Instruments in the Environment, and setting up External MIDI hardware. I also looked at specific issues involving K2 players, PLAY and the Vienna Instruments.

Easy to Learn

My opinion after writing/producing three works on Logic (including this one) is that Logic, contrary to what’s said about it on the street, is very easy to learn if you teach it procedurally and with the Key Commands. This not how the manual teaches Logic, and frankly, I found that getting to simple was a real chore because of how the program is presented.

Speaking as an end user who paid cash for two copies of the program, one for myself and one for Caroline (my wife who is also an excellent media composer), I honestly feel that Apple’s teaching approach is so dysfunctional, that if Logic 8 were a person it would find itself at home in a Twelve Step group.

This poor program!

(I don’t mean to be caustic. But there are marketing reasons for my comments which I’ll cover at the end of the column.)

Logic comes with two manuals, one for the program and other for the plug-ins. Combined, they’re just under 2000 pages. The learning problem with the manuals is that they give you a definition of the feature, but often, not enough of an explanation to understand how to use it and apply it. In other words, like a typical manual, it doesn’t connect the dots. If the end user is new to all this, connecting the dots doesn’t come easily, unless you want to pay $1200 for Logic training, which I didn’t.

The Lean Six Sigma approach I wrote about earlier was also the basis for how I taught Logic 4 as an online class in 2003.

Egotistical me, I thought I’d be able to update the instruction from that class in a couple of weeks. Three weeks tops.

Ho ho ho!

No way. Even with having produced a class on this material, some days it took 4-6 hours to write a single lesson, and in some cases 2-3 days.

Talk about being humbled!

I’ve done so many of these books, usually I can do them in one draft, sometimes one and a half. This was not the case with Logic 8. Each chapter averaged three drafts. Some four.

Separate from the Logic manuals, one issue that drove me wild was not having a screen capture program on the Mac that was the equal of the one I use on the PC, Snag-It from Techsmith. The problem with the Mac screen capture programs (I ultimately settled on Snapz thanks to a reference from the NY Times’ David Pogue and the folks at VSL), is that they only do 72DPI which is a lower DPI than what you need for physical printing (our printer wants a minimum of 300 DPI).

Snapz has two advantages. First it does screen capture, and second, you can do video capture to which you can add audio commentary.

With Snapz, unlike Grab which comes with the Mac, I was able to shoot more meaningful screenshots so that each action was clearly stepped out visually. With Logic, showing a picture vs. trying to describe it in prose makes for a much effective learning curve. So, thanks to Snapz, we’ll be releasing a second work on Logic 8 cued to the book which will be a supplemental video manual.

Here’s the teaching advantage of applied video.

Logic is so feature rich that trying to explain something that’s really very simple to do can take several paragraphs and a number of screen shots. For example, setting up a new project in Logic is extremely simple and fast. But to explain it, especially for those who are more visually driven, is to be longwinded. However when the same move is done with video capture, you see that the setup task takes under 25 seconds to do.

Just sitting and watching the video capture teaches an important lesson to both the sales prospect and the end user - Logic is really easy to use. In fact, in most things, I found Logic 8 to be blazingly fast to use once the various procedures were stepped out.

Looking back, I’d have to say that the most difficult thing to explain was setting up external synths and computers. Here, you must first set up the external instrument in the Mac audio MIDI section. Then within Logic, you setup what’s called a Multi Instrument. This can go one of two ways depending on where you click the mouse. After that, you can then setup an external instrument with the same speed as setting up an internal Software Instrument. To explain that was about 28 pages. Making the video demonstrated that the entire procedure takes under 2 minutes to do.

With Logic, it’s not text or video, it’s text and video to best demonstrate the procedures.

Once you’ve setup the external MIDI instrument, working with players like K2 and PLAY are really easy. It’s really a very well thought out approach.

Logic 8 Score Editor

The notation program was a bit of a disappointment to me. Compared to Finale and Sibelius for notation, I think it’s fair to say that you can do 65% in Logic’s Score editor of what you can do with the other programs.

Before I go further, I need to give credit to Johannes Prischl who wrote the 200-page Logic Notation Guide way back in 1998, which you can still order online. Johannes is the only individual who’s put the time into such a worthy project and I salute him for his work. Thank you, Johannes!

For the teacher/composer wanting to compose in Logic for one instrument per line (as can be done in Finale and Sibelius), Logic’s Score editor can be reasonably comparable today with Finale and Sibelius if Vienna’s Special Edition, or any member of the Vienna Instrument library, are used with Logic. I would say that as well for Cubase, DP and Sonar since all three have notational ability.

But at day’s end, if you look at professionally marketing your music in different venues, then at some point your career will demand that you learn either Finale or Sibelius.

You can do a lot with the Score editor, and having access to Adobe’s Sonata font is a real bonus because the printed output looks very professional. But if you agree that time is money, then you have to determine for your career where your time is better spent - mastering the Score editor, or mastering a full fledged notation program.

I think, however, that four features need to be reviewed for Logic notation that are found in other comparable programs.

Add Guitar chord position symbols - you can do tablature and create chord symbols, but no guitar position chord symbols. At least, not that I could find. As a result, Logic users can’t create their own P/V/G (piano/vocal/guitar) lead sheets or songbooks.

Fix the bloody MIDI import - really! With MIDI import, similar to Sibelius, Logic now assigns sounds to each track. This is totally obnoxious especially if you’re bringing in a file from Sibelius or Finale that you want to assign to programs like QLSO or Vienna. Sometimes you can work around it with a drag and drop approach, but like the Borg, Logic seems to adapt! Please! Where’s the OFF switch!

Improve the MIDI Meanings - Many musical performance symbols are graphic only. I think it’s time to relook at this area compared to other programs and see what can be improved.

Simplify bars per line - This is much easier in other programs.

Other Issues

For recording your MIDI sequence to an audio track, I must confess, I found the procedure easier in Cubase SX 3. I thought that setting up a bus in Logic before you set up your audio track was a little clunky, especially when working with software instruments.

For the audio mixing board, I’d like to see Apple go back to 2003 so that you could setup a channel strip that also included a visible parametric EQ. Hardware mixing boards are still with us. I think whenever the virtual version looks comparable to the hardware version, instruction is both simplified and multiplied because you’re not creating a double learning curve of virtual vs. hardware.

For the mixing board, I’d like to see a discussion about effects chaining, especially when building an eletric guitar sound. Here I think is a real opportunity to offer some preset solutions not unlike the older Korg A3 which was a chain effects reverb heavily used by guitarists in its day. For the record, you can set up an effects chain, but it starts from the top of the Insert area and works its way down.

My Own Feelings

Overall, I’m still glad I made the transition from Cubase SX 3 to Logic. And frankly, I’d have a hard time going back to the PC for sequencing because I enjoy working with Logic so much. But I’m also glad I won’t be writing another book until Logic 9!

Why Sequencing Education Is Important to Music Technology Sales

Here I want to explain why I’m being so harsh on Logic (I’d be just as harsh if I were doing a book on Cubase 4).

Because our industry is built of artistisans not marketers (like myself from a previous life) it’s not really understood that as go sequencer sales, so goes much of the industry. Consider the types of products that follow sequencer sales (meaning until the sequencing program is sold, the end user has no need for the product):

• computers
• software instruments/VSTi’s
• audio cards
• MIDI interfaces
• software audio programs like Altiverb, Waves and others

What I’ve continued to find over the years is that the very people the industry needs, newbies, are the ones they least want to deal with because their knowledge level is at ground zero. Take a look at this chart I created showing the Rogers Curve of Technology Adoption. The Innovators represent 2.5% of the market. We call them peers. And they tend to learn without instruction. They’re the sales guys who say a Korg Triton is so easy to learn you don’t need a manual.

Now, here’s reality: the remaining 97.5% do need a manual, and one that’s easy to understand, too. This is critically important to the industry because when sequencing sales falter and slide, so do all the support products.

Once a newbie is brought in and trained for results, that newbie becomes a repeat customer.

For the industry to grow, it has to reach out and tap into this curve of newbies. And for some manufacturers of support programs like VSTI’s and virtual samplers, there exists the sincere need to package a sequencing/digital audio recording program with cogent instruction with their software to eliminate their need of being followers of sequencing sales.

Here’s what I find so interesting about Apple. In 1985, Apple’s marketing guru, Regis McKenna, wrote a book entitled The Regis Touch which outlined Apple’s word of mouth strategy which took into account the Rogers Curve of Technology Adoption. When I look at Logic, I wonder where that thinking has gone. Or has it been applied to GarageBand?

In Closing!
Just a reminder to those fellow authors who’ve also written books on Logic or other programs, chime in with your experiences. Not many of us are doing this kind of writing so I think it would be a great thing to hear from all of you.

Also, I want to thank Nick Batzdorf and Jay Asher who graciously brought me up to speed on some Logic issues I didn’t quite get.