15.2 Player music

[Emere]

No, please no, I'm down on my knees begging you not to tone down flute and lute. The balance shouldn't match what is on live right now, because the sound balance has been broken on live since day 1. We have had to do huge workarounds to get volume balance right, often doubling or even tripling up on instruments. My fervent desire is for this madness to end. Yes, if the volume balances aren't the same with the new system as they are on live, then people will have to adjust some of their files, but that's part of the price of fixing a long-standing, major issue with the music system. The payoff will be that we will no longer need multiple players in order to get a full sound. That will mean smaller band sizes, fewer clients running, and better performance overall (literally and figuratively ).

I said this yesterday during the test, but I think the system that is on BR right now is miles and miles better than the one that is on live. I think it should be released once any major bugs are fixed, and then the note tweaks implemented gradually over time. If we wait until everyone feels that every note is perfect, the system will never be released.

First off I have to say ~bunnyhugs~
Secondly ....I respectfully disagree. This whole thing has been about trying to get the volumes to match live so the many thousands of old files we already made don't all have to be redone. I would rather pay the price now in testing and delay than the many more hours it would take me just to redo my last two years of transcribes. My reason is this...over the last two years, I have done around 600 songs. To have to redo those song or adjust them would take a ton of time, then...there is the fight to try and get the entire band together to test those adjustments in game, so with an average of 3 minutes a song for example, that means another 30 hours of testing, and with the band available to test about an hour or two a week, then we would be looking at 15-30 weeks just to catch those songs back up. Lest we forget, there are going to be a large number of songs that will have to be redone anyway since the sound samples that work now on certain songs, wont work well with new samples. Many of us would really prefer to avoid that if at all possible. That was what the huge discussion was about that got the rollback. So why quit now when we are this close to having something so many of us worked hard to get? Its like pulling a pie out of the oven early just because our stomachs growled a bit. I would rather wait until the meal is cooked properly than to eat early.
As for the never be released comment, that was discussed as well. Some don't want the new system, others do. I like to think I took the middle ground and was good either way, but if we are going to improve it, lets do it right. The Dev's have worked really hard for us and with us on this so far. I say see it through to the end. Good things come to those who wait.

Which reminds me....
I've been waiting for a grey bunny cosmetic pet for a very long time.

[Thurallor]

To have to redo those song or adjust them would take a ton of time, then...there is the fight to try and get the entire band together to test those adjustments in game, so with an average of 3 minutes a song for example, that means another 30 hours of testing, and with the band available to test about an hour or two a week, then we would be looking at 15-30 weeks just to catch those songs back up.

It would be a simple matter to write a program to automatically adjust the volumes of various instruments in .abc files, once we know how much louder or softer each instrument is going to get. Of course in cases where the volume change is smaller than the difference between f and ff, for example, it will still require a judgement call from you. Should save you a lot of effort overall, though.

[Lolorndinfey]

I didn't realize the pibgorn had an extended range. I was replacing flute parts with pibgorn and was gettting very good results. The new sample quality is definitely a keeper for the pibgorn.

On the lute losing bass tonal properties, this might be asking too much, but coulnd't they mix in more bass in the lower octaves? Both guitar and lute hardly has any bass qualities to it in the upper octaves. This would be a cherry on top request I believe.

[frickinmuck]

There's one big problem with this: A lot of bands, at this point in time, are beginning to prepare for events for the year, such as weatherstock. Writing out sheet music, making midis, transcribing, and so on.

I get that, I really do. And having played Weatherstock myself in the past, I know full well how stressful it already is trying to coordinate bands and playlists in the run up to the big event. But won't this always be a problem? Honestly? I mean, there are always 'big' events coming up on the server. If it's not Weatherstock it will be Winterstock or Spring Racing Carnival or something else. At some point the system needs to come out.

Having said that, I would be fine with waiting until after Weatherstock for this to be released. Although, disappointed. I would love nothing more than to have an epic Weatherstock this year with the new system sounding amazing. But my main concern isn't with a specific release date, rather it's more about wanting it to come out and fearing that perfectionism will sideline the release of something I view as vastly superior to what we have on live.

I would say slightly too loud. Honestly though, its the bad notes on the lute (banjo sounding notes), the bad Theorbo notes (sounds thumpy on one of the notes for lack of better description) and the breathy flute sounds that are the biggest deal breakers for me right now.
If the the lute and flute get toned down to better match live, I would be happy but I think it would only be a slight adjustment needed. I would also love to see the 30+m range of the pibgorn be addressed and think its in need of a small volume decrease.
With the range like it is, its difficult to attempt to adjust the volume decently to blend with the rest of the instruments. I think the range of most instruments is at about 13m so anyone standing close to that range will hear a little of those instruments and a lot of the pibgorn. Anyone standing 15m away, will only hear the pibgorn and by itself, its horrible...this of course being my opinion as I'm not a fan of the instrument. My other observation for the instruments is the bagpipe seems a touch to quiet compared to live. Judging by ear as I don't have any fancy programs or equipment to check the volume live vs test server.
All said and done, I think getting the bad notes fixed first would be priority, then tweak the volumes later down the line if its something that cannot be done right away. I'm still in the mind set to ask that we keep the old lute and get a new lute with a different colored icon to identify it from the old as the new one sounds terrible for much of my heavy metal songs that depend on it. Loosing the bass from it kills a bunch of my songs.

Fincin, as someone who is a huge fan of your musical work I am inclined to say, "do whatever Fincin asks!!" but at the same time, my #1 - by FAR #1 problem with the system is that bands seriously need 4 or 5 players more than necessary in order to get the proper full sound. I get it that people don't want to have to tweak their files, but man... is it really that painful to make adjustments, if it means fuller sound with fewer musicians? I have some pretty epic sounding setlists that I would love to get into performance, but I just don't always have access to all the bodies to make it happen. It bugs me to no end. There is a balance that needs to be struck between making something new and more efficient, and accommodating the very broken past. Are we to carry on doubling and tripling up unnecessarily on musicians?

I would be in favour of having two lutes if possible, to address the concerns that you have about the bass. I totally agree that the bass is greatly diminished with the new lute. But if I had to choose just one, I'd pick the new one hands down.

I agree wholeheartedly about the pibgorn range, but I'd actually like to see the range of all instruments upped to match it, rather than have it scaled down to match the rest. Just a personal preference.

It would be a simple matter to write a program to automatically adjust the volumes of various instruments in .abc files, once we know how much louder or softer each instrument is going to get. Of course in cases where the volume change is smaller than the difference between f and ff, for example, it will still require a judgement call from you. Should save you a lot of effort overall, though.

That would be something you'd be a hero for making happen. As you already are for the work you've done in other areas.

On the lute losing bass tonal properties, this might be asking too much, but coulnd't they mix in more bass in the lower octaves? Both guitar and lute hardly has any bass qualities to it in the upper octaves. This would be a cherry on top request I believe.

That's a really good idea, if it can be done.

[Silmelin]

I have tons of files but I'm not going to start changing all of them right away, just the ones I'm about to play, and then when the instruments tweaks are completely done I'll start changing all the files that need changing. That'll give me less work

And I love how the Pibgorn sounds on Bullroarer!

No, please no, I'm down on my knees begging you not to tone down flute and lute. The balance shouldn't match what is on live right now, because the sound balance has been broken on live since day 1. We have had to do huge workarounds to get volume balance right, often doubling or even tripling up on instruments. My fervent desire is for this madness to end. Yes, if the volume balances aren't the same with the new system as they are on live, then people will have to adjust some of their files, but that's part of the price of fixing a long-standing, major issue with the music system. The payoff will be that we will no longer need multiple players in order to get a full sound. That will mean smaller band sizes, fewer clients running, and better performance overall (literally and figuratively ).

I said this yesterday during the test, but I think the system that is on BR right now is miles and miles better than the one that is on live. I think it should be released once any major bugs are fixed, and then the note tweaks implemented gradually over time. If we wait until everyone feels that every note is perfect, the system will never be released.

I very much agree!

[Emere]

But my main concern isn't with a specific release date, rather it's more about wanting it to come out and fearing that perfectionism will sideline the release of something I view as vastly superior to what we have on live.

This is where we differ. Until the bad notes are fixed, I don't see it as vastly superior. Having a banjo sounding lute string that sounds greatly different than the rest of the new samples is in no way better sounding. It makes any part that hits those notes sound like garbage. If they all sounded like they came from the same instrument, I wouldn't have such a problem with it though I still think keeping the original lute and having the new sample lute would be a better option. The new lute has potential but it needs fixed first. That said, its no improvement save for those that want that kind of sound for their songs, which I understand, as for many classical songs, jazz, folk, it will sound better, but then you lose the powerful grind you can get from it for rock songs and heavy metal so its just a trade off, not an improvement.

Fincin, as someone who is a huge fan of your musical work I am inclined to say, "do whatever Fincin asks!!" but at the same time, my #1 - by FAR #1 problem with the system is that bands seriously need 4 or 5 players more than necessary in order to get the proper full sound. I get it that people don't want to have to tweak their files, but man... is it really that painful to make adjustments, if it means fuller sound with fewer musicians? I have some pretty epic sounding setlists that I would love to get into performance, but I just don't always have access to all the bodies to make it happen. It bugs me to no end. There is a balance that needs to be struck between making something new and more efficient, and accommodating the very broken past. Are we to carry on doubling and tripling up unnecessarily on musicians?

First of all, thank you very much for saying something so nice about me
I would tend to think that a fuller richer sound isn't the issue here. Anyone who has heard Abby do jazz will know it doesn't take her 8 parts to do it with as she had many 5 and 6 part songs that sounded awesome to say the least. I've heard rich sounding bands that use 3-6 parts with the current live system. Often how good a song sounds, comes down to what instruments did you use, which parts you double up onto one instrument, and how good the midi file was that was used to transcribe the song, and if it is balanced volume wise. Granted, you can do more with a larger band but still, I think much can be done with less and that is actually an argument I bring up often with one of LBC's transcribers. Keeping in mind you are generally limited to the 64 max sounds by default (or six at a time per instrument), so shooting for more is only going to sound good to those that reset the option in the .ini file each time they boot up and I am not sure I know of anyone who runs alts that does that every time as its a major pain in the hiney.
To be honest, I don't see the new system taking less parts to achieve the richness and fullness often sought after in songs. I still think a good average for most of my music will still be the 7-9 parts that I normally end up with. I may be mistaken, but I still see us having to double up instruments on certain parts to get a rich full sound. An example is trying to mimic an electric guitar. I often use a horn and bagpipe together to achieve a sound similar to what the real life counter part would be. Same to mimic a harmonica or fiddle sound, and none of the new instruments will do that on their own.
As for the question, is it really that painful to make adjustments? Yes, when you have huge libraries that you already spent hours upon hours to get as close to perfect as you can, then yes...its that painful. Granted, you can use a batch program to make the changes, but to what end? Its each transcribers preference that makes so many of the songs unique so no standard program is going to take into account the little nuances that most of us address in each of our songs. There is always going to be the trouble of blending them with the other instruments until its what each transcriber feels is right in their song.
I foresee we will always have to double up certain instruments with some songs, to get the feel we want from it but that is just me. Its not the system that makes the music great in this game. Its the artistry of the transcribers that do that.
We have always worked with what we have, but I do not want to see us have to do more work to get back what we already put time into.

The broken past isn't as broken as many would say. I've heard many complaints about the clarinet being out of tune and I agree, but at the same time, I've been able to mimic several singers voices fairly well using the clarinet with a flute set an octave lower and the new instruments won't give that same sound. So I am already going to have to redo a rather large bunch of songs just to fix what I have lost when the new system comes out. Those are some of the sacrifices we will have to make though I'm very sad I will lose those unique sounds and songs as they where, I feel, great achievements for myself to be able to do them.

I would be in favour of having two lutes if possible, to address the concerns that you have about the bass. I totally agree that the bass is greatly diminished with the new lute. But if I had to choose just one, I'd pick the new one hands down.

I agree wholeheartedly about the pibgorn range, but I'd actually like to see the range of all instruments upped to match it, rather than have it scaled down to match the rest. Just a personal preference.

That would be something you'd be a hero for making happen. As you already are for the work you've done in other areas.

That's a really good idea, if it can be done.

I would love two lutes, it would end much of my complaint with the new system. I could easily say the same for keeping the old clarinet along with the new as well for some of my songs.
I fear that may be asking too much but one can dream. As for the range of the instruments, I agree they could stand to go a bit further, but not by much as it would be intrusive to those that don't want to walk a block away to get away from the music or for others that may be playing nearby. I've seen as many as four groups playing in the square around the prancing pony at a time and the longer range would ruin that.

[Silmelin]

I noticed on Bullroarer that my solo Lute/Harp abc's sound good with a Horn. Yay!

Is lute and flute being too loud something that everyone (or almost everyone) agrees with after yesterday's Bullroarer session?

I feel they're not too loud, for the same reasons frickinmuck mentions


Oh and a great big THANK YOU to the music team for not giving up on the music update!

[Summer_Beor]

I would love nothing more than to have an epic Weatherstock this year with the new system sounding amazing. But my main concern isn't with a specific release date, rather it's more about wanting it to come out and fearing that perfectionism will sideline the release of something I view as vastly superior to what we have on live.

Hear, hear! I also echo the sentiments about being able to reduce the needed number of players due to balancing volumes. Let the pieces be changed! As someone who also has 600+ transcriptions, I would gladly change them all for these improvements. Tweaking volumes is a simple fix with a text editor. Very much looking forward to these, preferably before WS.

[Emere]

Hear, hear! I also echo the sentiments about being able to reduce the needed number of players due to balancing volumes. Let the pieces be changed! As someone who also has 600+ transcriptions, I would gladly change them all for these improvements. Tweaking volumes is a simple fix with a text editor. Very much looking forward to these, preferably before WS.

I guess I don't understand, but I've never had to double the lute or the flute to make it loud enough in game. My only real concern is will they be quiet enough for some of the piano pieces or for fades that hit the +ppp+ volume range or when I used the flute for a soft string back ground effect or such. I regret not testing that aspect of them on Bullroarer this week.

[Lolorndinfey]

Soft lute settings were about 40-50% louder than live levels. I have a few quiet lute ballad pieces that sounded loud. It kinda defeats the point of trying to achieve an emotional segment.

What's the current argument? +ffff+ on lute not giving you the loudness you need? I think there's a bigger picture here we're missing.

Pibgorn

The decibel factor is approaching shrill harassment levels on live. If it is for the purposes of songs, I would be hard pressed to find a song that needs that kind of volume levels. So the question is, at what point does Turbine deem volume levels sufficient for our needs, and not go into the realm of troll harassment levels?

When Harlequins were playing those test songs on BR, lute levels were +mf+ to +f+. To achieve the same levels on live, I would probably need to set them to +fff+.

[Emere]

Soft lute settings were about 40-50% louder than live levels. I have a few quiet lute ballad pieces that sounded loud. It kinda defeats the point of trying to achieve an emotional segment.

What's the current argument? +ffff+ on lute not giving you the loudness you need? I think there's a bigger picture here we're missing.

Pibgorn

The decibel factor is approaching shrill harassment levels on live. If it is for the purposes of songs, I would be hard pressed to find a song that needs that kind of volume levels. So the question is, at what point does Turbine deem volume levels sufficient for our needs, and not go into the realm of troll harassment levels?

When Harlequins were playing those test songs on BR, lute levels were +mf+ to +f+. To achieve the same levels on live, I would probably need to set them to +fff+.

That is a good thought. I was thinking about it and I can not think of a single song I ever needed to double the lute on. I did however find a few songs I doubled the flute on when I was using it as a melody but that was rare and only when I was doubling up other instruments such as I often do for the electric guitar by using the bagpipe and horn. My songs more often than not require I double the horn when used as a melody. I still think the pibgorn is much too loud and has way too much distance on it. Bagpipes seemed a bit soft to me on Bullroarer as well.

[Lolorndinfey]

Just wanted to chime as an after thought to my last post. Covering our bases, so to speak.

A single +ffff+ lute note is not loud enough for you, yes?

2 notes played an octave separated is louder, yes? Say, B flat? higher or lower octave is up to you.

A chord on the first note and an octave shifted single note above or below is louder, yes?

The same octave shifted 2 notes played as chords are even louder, yes?


We don't have the luxury of stacking a distored guitar on top of a melody track, but we can simulate echo effects.

Repeat what is playing on lute1 with lute2, but,

offset them with a 32nd or 16th rest, with a volume fade

What happens now is that it's even louder, because we're simulating echo effects.

MIDI files will usually have a main track, with a distorted track. I hardly see more than two guitar tracks for such purposes. The principles for such technique hold valid in LotRO's music system.

Gallifrey? the test Doctor Who song? It was pretty loud yes? Imagine you strip out the chords, and not stack with octave shifted chords. Remember how quiet it got during the flute transition? No chords. No stacking. This sort of illustrates the effect that real recording engineers go thru, as seen in the dual guitar tracks in MIDI files.

Just making sure we're talking about the same thing. Anvil studio allows merging of tracks, and a lot of tools allows you to copy and transpose entire tracks or selection notes.

[Emere]

Just wanted to chime as an after thought to my last post. Covering our bases, so to speak.

A single +ffff+ lute note is not loud enough for you, yes?

2 notes played an octave separated is louder, yes? Say, B flat? higher or lower octave is up to you.

A chord on the first note and an octave shifted single note above or below is louder, yes?

The same octave shifted 2 notes played as chords are even louder, yes?


We don't have the luxury of stacking a distored guitar on top of a melody track, but we can simulate echo effects.

Repeat what is playing on lute1 with lute2, but,

offset them with a 32nd or 16th rest, with a volume fade

What happens now is that it's even louder, because we're simulating echo effects.

MIDI files will usually have a main track, with a distorted track. I hardly see more than two guitar tracks for such purposes. The principles for such technique hold valid in LotRO's music system.

Gallifrey? the test Doctor Who song? It was pretty loud yes? Imagine you strip out the chords, and not stack with octave shifted chords. Remember how quiet it got during the flute transition? No chords. No stacking. This sort of illustrates the effect that real recording engineers go thru, as seen in the dual guitar tracks in MIDI files.

Just making sure we're talking about the same thing. Anvil studio allows merging of tracks, and a lot of tools allows you to copy and transpose entire tracks or selection notes.

I couldn't agree more. As I said before, its the artistry of the transcriber that makes a good song!

[DarthCeltics]

Just a heads up that we're pushing a new build to Bullroarer that should be available sometime later today. A few of the "bad" notes have been addressed, including Eb3, B3, and B4 (lute) as well as the "E2 thud" and C4 (theorbo). We're still working on fixes for other notes. Let us know what you think.

[Emere]

Just a heads up that we're pushing a new build to Bullroarer that should be available sometime later today. A few of the "bad" notes have been addressed, including Eb3, B3, and B4 (lute) as well as the "E2 thud" and C4 (theorbo). We're still working on fixes for other notes. Let us know what you think.

Awesome! Thank you!

[Orlor]

Just finished my test. There is still a problem with B4 on both Lute and theorbo. On the lute, it is better then it was but it is still noticable. On the theorbo, it is just plain ugly.

[Swagman]

Just finished my test. There is still a problem with B4 on both Lute and theorbo. On the lute, it is better then it was but it is still noticable. On the theorbo, it is just plain ugly.

I was there listening to Orly while he tested. I agree B4 on lute and theorbo are off. Seems to be a problem only related to strings as there was no problem with other instruments.

[SpiritusLOTRO]

Just a heads up that we're pushing a new build to Bullroarer that should be available sometime later today. A few of the "bad" notes have been addressed, including Eb3, B3, and B4 (lute) as well as the "E2 thud" and C4 (theorbo). We're still working on fixes for other notes. Let us know what you think.

Awesome. I'll be looking into this promptly after its release and update the list I've been working on regarding off-timbre notes.

Is lute and flute being too loud something that everyone (or almost everyone) agrees with after yesterday's Bullroarer session?

I wasn't at the testing session. But I would much prefer the instruments to be properly balanced rather than rely on the poor balance of the past. I've had to triple flutes and lutes to carry a melody in a large ensemble in the past, and I've been happy with the balance from the most recent beta builds in that regard. So, if lute and flute seemed to be "too loud" at a testing session of songs that were made for the live version of the music system, that means to me they are actually now properly balanced. I'm more than willing to adjust my old work if the inter-dynamics are roughly balanced 1:1.

[Emere]

I've had to triple flutes and lutes to carry a melody in a large ensemble in the past, and I've been happy with the balance from the most recent beta builds in that regard.

In all fairness though Mr Lifimun. You tend to crank the volume up on all your other parts striving for it to be as loud as possible. Not everyone does that.
You can hear it when we do our concerts. Your songs are exceptionally loud and mine quiet by comparison. Really the only instrument I've had to double up on regularly is the horn. On live its too soft. The balance for the rest are not too bad. I think if everyone shot for +mf+ as being the standard and adjusted in game volume to a suitable level. Then it would be easy to make adjustments in songs without doubling up much get a nice balance for most every song. It allows for moving up and down for almost every instrument. Lute can be made very soft and loud on live right now. On BR its just loud. Drums are sounding louder as well though they said nothing changed on them. I'm not convinced however as the shakers even at +ppp+ are still much to loud. Theo seems a bit overwhelming now as well. That I think is a good change as I've had to crank mine up to +fff+ more often than not, so that adjustment I am all for and willing to adjust my files for once it goes live as it will allow me to remove the second theorbo I've had to put into a few songs on live. Horn could probably use a bit more volume on the test server as well and it really is the shining star in all of this so far. The new samples for horn are quite good. With the current volume on lute however, everything will have to be brought up or lute down to get a balance and I don't like that I cannot build up from an almost inaudible sound to a nice volume with it on test server.
I think the flute is nice where it is currently on test server.
I'm still testing with Lolorn at the moment and will post later after we are done.

[SpiritusLOTRO]

In all fairness though Mr Lifimun. You tend to crank the volume up on all your other parts striving for it to be as loud as possible. Not everyone does that.

I'll not debate it here, but I feel I know the difference between pushing volume and dynamic balance. And I admit I do sometimes push volume, but that is in context of the balance. In the /live/ version of the music system, the flute and lute cannot be trusted to carry melody. If you are going to /exclusively/ create a song with only /one/ instrument holding the melody in a large ensemble /on live/ it better be a bagpipe or a clarinet. Otherwise it'll be mushed in the other sounds. From what I've tested with the dynamics on the most recent beta releases, the balance is quite good. Now, it's /bad/ if you use files you've created for live. No argument there.

The issue is do we want good balance between the instruments going forward, or have bad balance so we don't have to adjust past files? That's a hard thing to answer. Personally, if all the off-timbre notes are fixed and the balance is good, then I'm willing to adjust things to a new system so it can be awesome going forward and easier to insert new instruments to that new dynamic baseline.

I think if everyone shot for +mf+ as being the standard and adjusted in game volume to a suitable level. Then it would be easy to make adjustments in songs without doubling up much get a nice balance for most every song.

I don't want to create a new post, so I'm going to respond to your edit in what I already posted.

If all songs and all parts were played at a constant dynamic level (volume), then this would work perfectly. The issue is if you want a /melody/ that drops low, then climbs high, you must double or even triple /on live/, depending on the instrument, because the /live/ balance is not proper. And so by having everything at the /same/ dynamic level, you can better drop the supporting instruments down and boost the melody instruments without much worry.

And because of timbre, you may still have to double some instruments to carry melody. But that also goes back into the samples.

This is all very complicated. And I think largely due to the very slight dynamic range currently allowed in game in both live and beta. if +fff+ was /truly/ +fff+ and +ppp+ was /truly/ +ppp+, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

[Lolorndinfey]

Ok. Is this officially 15.2b6 for build 6?

First off let me just say. Wow! Talk about a fast turn around. Somebody call the academy of online gaming. 2 days? less? Dev's going for an award or something?

Now the test results;

blah blah blah.

Did I catch you by surprise? heh.

Daylak and Orladan was on to verify the bad/off key theorbo and tonal differences in lute. Fincin, Halimann(sp? I'm so sorry. 4 piece band) took turns playing songs for each to listen for errors.

It's a step in the right direction.

Lag in chords were mostly gone, but not eliminated.

Fast drums with a lute playing many notes still had choppy sections.

More songs that were dropping or lagging in chords now play mostly properly.

Looks like Lute volume is staying. and it's about +1 to +2 .abc volume settings higher than live.

Snap-pop is still heard. This is even on non-heavy or fast songs with lute/theo in the multi-part.

Theorbo on a solo in a multi-part was offkey, and another piece had a really distinctive note like the odd lute note. I will send in the example songs to lotrobugs.

Bottom line it? It feels whatever they did in this build helped the chord lag issue, but fast beat/salt-shaker drum segments still has difficulty keeping up.
It either skips the beat, irregular beats instead of regular intervals, or drops out. I heard this in one of Fincin's pieces. He said he would send it in.
The snap-pop that's present is still something to worry about.

It's like whatever the fix was in this build, it helped the chord lag, but is still just a tad over the threshold, resulting in still some drum drops when fast beats are played, and the clincher; snap-pop is still there. Like it was just straining over the "threshold" to keep playing, dropping out (less than last build) when the line was crossed.

I was running with all audio except master and player music enabled, no quantize, low latency turned on.

For those of you that skipped all the blah blah blah, here it is in summary in bullet form (looking at you Vyvyanne *wink*)

- chord lag reduced. still happens.

- fast beat drums, such as salt-shaker segments straining to keep a regular beat when lute/theo in the song.

- lute volume +1 to +2 .abc settings vs live levels. Drums louder by +1 ?-ish.

- 'off' lute and theorbo notes still in this build. Theorbo off key.

- Snap-pop still heard.

Fincin suspected flute, bagpipe more quiet than live.

See you in 2 days! Joking!

[Emere]

Lolorndinfey pretty much sums it up.

I will add this...
Drums seemed too loud and lag on some songs.
Lute is too loud.
Bagpipe to low.
Overall there were a few notes that seemed offkey to me. Though I couldn't confirm which note, there was a clarinet part that seemed to have a sour note in it. I am guessing Lolorndinfey would know better as it was her file but it sounded off to me during part of the song.

I'm not sure which instrument was causing it, but I will /bug a song later this evening that plays very well live, but on test server, there is a sour note appearing. I think it was narrowed down to either lute, harp, or theorbo doing it. Lolorndinfey played a song where the theorbo was definately sour so my guess is it will be that.
The note fixes for lute are definitely going in the right direction but still way off. It still sounds like strings from other instruments were substituted and it kills many songs. It also now lacks the bass to be used in most heavy metal songs which I am really not happy with.
My suggestion at this point would be to have the Devs play some of our files on live server and record them for further examination, and also do the same on test server as I think that will help more than us saying this or that needs done.
As a final thought, I am more convinced now that the new lute will have a place, but the old lute should be left as well since it sounds much better for certain songs. You cannot get a nice heavy metal grind with the new lute and it is no substitute for a decent piano sound. I cringe at the thought of losing it from our arsenal of instruments. My rag time solos sound terrible on the new lute as does all of my heavy metal songs.

[Emere]

Ok. Is this officially 15.2b6 for build 6?

Fincin suspected flute, bagpipe more quiet than live.

Flute sounded pretty close to me now, bagpipe is definitely quieter on test server. I think where the flute is now volume wise is pretty close however if one has a loud song and wants flute for the melody, I foresee it will be doubled up on many songs to make it loud enough to carry over the rest of the instruments. I am not sure I would trade off the quiet back ground it can offer with another volume increase. I guess that would come down to personal opinion but I would rather have to double it on a melody than to lose the softness I can get from it for strings parts or for a wave synth or sweep pad.
Also...you are correct about the pops and snaps, clicks ect. I normally never hear them when I am on my main and today I got an earful of them.

[Lolorndinfey]

Back on BR. Verifying the Theorbo situation. Now for the life of me I can't find the one song where I thought I found a really good example of the bad note. Now I can't find it. ack. User error or just too much testing? Actually getting used to the theorbo sound.

Found it. I know I wasn't imagining things. sending to QA right now

[Gunslinger53]

Emere and her band, I played 4 part and another 3 part band. We played quite a bit of different music in turns so we could listen to each other and the clicks & pops were everywhere. Also the lute has a very tinny sound. We shall continue to test and hope for the best.