Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
MORE VI ! MORE VI !
Last post Mon, Oct 22 2018 by michi, 78 replies.
Options
Go to last post
4 Pages<1234>
Posted on Sun, Sep 23 2018 14:52
by fatis12_24918
Joined on Sat, Dec 16 2006, Posts 334

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

So I dont think that we differ that much. neither is here any "polemic" or need of any reminder against polemic. I can only see great apreciation and interest in the Work of VSL aswell that was already done as in what they are currently doing.

Yes with this vision, now, I totally agree. Well stated Fahl.

Posted on Sun, Sep 23 2018 20:55
by PaoloT
Joined on Tue, Dec 27 2016, Posts 1316

Originally Posted by: William Go to Quoted Post
Historic winds - SACKBUTTS!  Absolutely essential for so many historic era performances.

Speaking of the Renaissance trombone, I don't think I have anything useful to say to a company based in the town of the Concentus Musicus Wien, but I'll anyway suggest a reading (or re-reading) to this interesting book on the various sackbuts available today:

https://books.google.it/books?id=9IMVxu1y9O0C&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=sackbut+small+bore&source=bl&ots=12XAGRd080&sig=il-qvxrXsbxZbWXlLix2jRkWRLw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrn9Dbnc3dAhWJjCwKHatED3wQ6AEwEXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In the meantime, while waiting for a true Renaissance trombone library, after having heard what can be done with the Solo Violin 2, Solo Cello 2 and Chamber Strings for Baroque music, I'll see what can be done with the modern trombone family already included in the VI collection.

Paolo

Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2018 09:51
by jasensmith
Joined on Tue, Jan 15 2008, Arizona, Posts 1582

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but weren't bowed string instruments a little different during the Baroque Period?  Weren't the bows shorter for example? 

I'm not sure if that would have any affect on the sound but I was just curious what the differences were between historic strings and contemporary.


"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it."
- W.C. Fields
Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2018 16:17
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5704

There are many different instruments altogether that no longer exist, but also differences in construction, size, materials, timbre, playing techniques.  The modern instruments are just the tail end of instrument-making.  Even in the Classical era - let alone Baroque or earlier eras - one would find instruments considerably different from those in a modern orchestra, which of course accounts for  all the interest in "period" recordings one sometimes finds for example Beethoven symphonies played on all "authentic" instruments of the time, etc.    

Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2018 17:44
by PaoloT
Joined on Tue, Dec 27 2016, Posts 1316

Originally Posted by: jasensmith Go to Quoted Post
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but weren't bowed string instruments a little different during the Baroque Period?  Weren't the bows shorter for example?

Instruments at the beginning of the Baroque era (let's say, the age of Monteverdi) where very different. The violin had a shorter neck, a flatter table, a lower bridge, a very different bow and bowing technique, and different strings. Monteverdi himself, however, ignited several innovations to instrument's making.

Some instruments no longer exist. We no longer use viols. The cornetto, included in the VSL collection, was a common instruments at the beginning of the Seventeenth century, and progressively disappeared while the century progressed. The trombone was different, with a smaller bore and less flared bell, and a technique that asked for a mellower sound conceived to accompany human voices.

The time of Bach was nearer to us. Still different, but with more modern ideas of instrment making and use. There are still noticeable differences, but a VSL user (Philippe Baylac) showed how well you can imitate that style and sound with the instruments contained in the VSL collection of modern instruments. You can listen yourself in his Soundcloud channel:

https://soundcloud.com/search?q=Philippe%20BAYLAC

Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. Some experimentation can however result in interesting hybrid results (like, for example, the kind of interpretation we were accustomed to with orchestras like the St. Martin-in-the-Fields, or the ones by Pinchas Zukerman).

Paolo

Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2018 19:17
by Casiquire
Joined on Sat, May 01 2010, Posts 325

I think that the following statements:

 

The Silent Stage is dry

The Silent Stage has a lot of early reflections

The Silent Stage was built to color the sound as little as possible

The Silent Stage does have its own color

 

are all true statements.  You're all correct, the Silent Stage was built to be dry but even a dry environment still has a bit of color, and early reflections are not the same as reverberance.  I have also previously read that Silent Stage recordings get edited to further reduce the amount of tail that gets recorded, maybe I'm remembering wrong but I thought I had read that before.  All of this just means that the VI recordings were *designed* for a particular type of use, and sure you can use Synchron the same way, but that's not its design, and that does make a difference.

Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2018 19:28
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5704

"Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. " - paolo

That is true and why expanding the Historic Instruments is so desirable. It would be great to have a complete "authentic" Historic collection featuring strings and percussion as well as winds.  

Posted on Mon, Sep 24 2018 19:49
by Casiquire
Joined on Sat, May 01 2010, Posts 325

Originally Posted by: William Go to Quoted Post

"Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. " - paolo

That is true and why expanding the Historic Instruments is so desirable. It would be great to have a complete "authentic" Historic collection featuring strings and percussion as well as winds.  

 

I agree, and VSL is the most trustworthy company to get that right!

Posted on Thu, Sep 27 2018 22:40
by johnstaf
Joined on Thu, Apr 21 2011, EI, Posts 216

Quite apart from the excellence of the VI libraries, VI Pro is such an elegant solution to problems inherent in libriaries with a large number of articulations. With VI Pro everything is so easy, yet hugely flexible and powerful. 

Cubase (OS agnostic). Various VSL bits and pieces.

Posted on Fri, Sep 28 2018 00:18
by fahl5
Joined on Fri, Feb 04 2005, Göttingen, Posts 956

Originally Posted by: johnstaf Go to Quoted Post

Quite apart from the excellence of the VI libraries, VI Pro is such an elegant solution to problems inherent in libriaries with a large number of articulations. With VI Pro everything is so easy, yet hugely flexible and powerful. 

And in my humble opinion the Synchron Player compared to the VI-Player simply the next quantum leap ahead: in literally every aspect easiet, yet more flexible and more powerful.

http://libraries.resampled.de/index.php
four parallel interpretations of ambitious classical scores with up to twelve different Libraries

http://beethoven.resampled.de
currently the first four Symphonies of L.v.Beethoven completly recorded with the finest available orchestra samplelibraries (BBCSO, SSO, STO)

http://klassik-resampled.de
Currently 4330 mp3 with more than a whole Week (=more than 8 Days /=nearly 200 hours) of sample based interpretations of complete Scores from 7 Centuries
Posted on Fri, Sep 28 2018 15:03
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5704

It is NOT more flexible or more powerful.  It is just a different interface that is all.  It is  personal preference whether one uses it or not.  Don't elevate mere preference into a fact. 

With VI one can control EVERY PARAMETER OF MIDI in an elegant setup with all needed controls upfront.  You have stated VI is "laborious" - it is not "laborious" at all with the proper templates, but rather is very easy and quick to use.   And MIR, the companion to VI,  is the easiest of all to use of any professional software I have ever encountered.  

And please don't start lecturing me on Synchron like I am a beginner - your normal mode of dealing with everyone.  I already have Synchron and think it is very good.  As I stated this was simply a supportive statement about VI, not about putting down Synchron.  

Posted on Fri, Sep 28 2018 15:56
by fahl5
Joined on Fri, Feb 04 2005, Göttingen, Posts 956

Originally Posted by: William Go to Quoted Post

It is NOT more flexible or more powerful.  It is just a different interface that is all.  It is  personal preference whether one uses it or not.  Don't elevate mere preference into a fact. 

With VI one can control EVERY PARAMETER OF MIDI in an elegant setup with all needed controls upfront.  You have stated VI is "laborious" - it is not "laborious" at all with the proper templates, but rather is very easy and quick to use.   And MIR, the companion to VI,  is the easiest of all to use of any professional software I have ever encountered.  

And please don't start lecturing me on Synchron like I am a beginner - your normal mode of dealing with everyone.  I already have Synchron and think it is very good.  As I stated this was simply a supportive statement about VI, not about putting down Synchron.  

Hi William, since there have been times we were able to discuss reasonable, I still think we both will be able to comunicate as respectful as this forum deserves it.

So let me start exactly with that: I respect totally your personal preference for the workflow you have developed over ther years with VI I think we both consent, that there is still by far no other sampleplayer from any other competitor ready to compete VI in any way. It is tremendouspowerful, and versatile.

There are three aspects which I personally esteem in Synchron as even more powerful:

  • While VI is basedf on a more or less two dimensional Matrix systemthe Treestructure of Synchron opens up x8 as much possible ways top combine patches in certain 8 different "dimensions" of the same preset. In my humble opinion that is just "more".
  • VI provides for each "cell" one option to X-fade selected Patches in a special slot for that function. In Synchron you can chose up to xfade through each "Dimensioon" what gives at least the option to X-Fade with the same patch in multiple directions that is just "more" than one.
  • The mixer in Synchron is full featured and as such in nearly every detail accessible for seperate midi-conmtrole (as most other functions to) this is just "more" than the Pan and volume options of the VI-.Mixer

I will stop here to avoid what you might judge as lecturing and hope I havend took more text than you just to indicate my point of view. While Of course the fact, that the Symchron-Player is still un vivid develpoment makes it very resonable if we the users discuss exactly what we like and what we expect the Player should do. So if there is anything Synchron currently is not able to and anyone of us might regard as necessary feature. I think now is the best time to discuss that.

So please dont think I would have any interest to dispute your standpoint. It is just the exchangfe of oipnions and diffderent personal views which can be of iumportants for the further development of the VSL-Products and thats in my humble opinion a good reason to discuss detailed and concrete.

http://libraries.resampled.de/index.php
four parallel interpretations of ambitious classical scores with up to twelve different Libraries

http://beethoven.resampled.de
currently the first four Symphonies of L.v.Beethoven completly recorded with the finest available orchestra samplelibraries (BBCSO, SSO, STO)

http://klassik-resampled.de
Currently 4330 mp3 with more than a whole Week (=more than 8 Days /=nearly 200 hours) of sample based interpretations of complete Scores from 7 Centuries
Posted on Fri, Sep 28 2018 22:41
by fatis12_24918
Joined on Sat, Dec 16 2006, Posts 334

Dear Fahl, I agree 100% that Synchron player is an elegant and powerful system, but I don't think it's "more" than VI for the reason you listed, and your description was not very accuarate, sometime incorrect:

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

There are three aspects which I personally esteem in Synchron as even more powerful:

  • While VI is basedf on a more or less two dimensional Matrix systemthe Treestructure of Synchron opens up x8 as much possible ways top combine patches in certain 8 different "dimensions" of the same preset. In my humble opinion that is just "more"

Actually VI is not 2 dimensional, but 3 dimensional (matrix / x / y).

The tree structure is an elegant and visually helpful way to organize the sound set on the screen, but it doesn't add any disruptive functional feature: the way you get to a patch is irrelevant in programming, and some systems (e.g. Finale, Logic or Cubase articulation managers) struggle to manage combinations of too much controllers to select a single articulation.

Synchron is missing precise control of the "boundaries and treshold" for the dimension control, so using speed and velocity to switch between slots is more difficult to implement in Synchron (with the little curve) than VI Pro (X and Y advanced split)!

In my opinion Synchron Player gives a bit more to people working with MIDI control keyboards, while VI Pro gives more to people programming with DAWs, even if both players can do both services.

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

  • VI provides for each "cell" one option to X-fade selected Patches in a special slot for that function. In Synchron you can chose up to xfade through each "Dimensioon" what gives at least the option to X-Fade with the same patch in multiple directions that is just "more" than one.

Not exactly like that: actually Synchron player doesn't cross fade horizontal directions, but just a vertical column of slots.

In theory it's more than VI Pro, because VI cross fades only 2 slots, but in practice it's not very effective due to the big number of voices you play consuming resources, and due to the missing control of boundaries explained above.

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

  • The mixer in Synchron is full featured and as such in nearly every detail accessible for seperate midi-conmtrole (as most other functions to) this is just "more" than the Pan and volume options of the VI-.Mixer

No, the slot mixer of Synchron is exactly the same of VI Pro, it has just volume and pan. What you mention is the channels Mixer, because Synchron player is multichannel to manage multiple mics: the multichannel manager of VI Pro is VE, and VE Mixer has of course the same functions of Synchron, and more more more other functions of course!

Finally still lot of precise and professional features of VI Pro (e.g. scales and intervals, sample stretch, sequencing, divisi, humanizing etc.) are missing in Synchron of course, because they have slightly different targets and application, so I can't really understand why we should try to compare so different tools, but at the end, it's impossible to state that the actual version of Synchron is better than VI Pro today, in my very humble opinion of course, but also checking facts.

Posted on Fri, Sep 28 2018 23:28
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5704
That’s a great analysis - also I think you clarified exactly what I hadn’t fully realized —— “In my opinion Synchron Player gives a bit more to people working with MIDI control keyboards, while VI Pro gives more to people programming with DAWs, even if both players can do both services.”. I think that is a very good observation and probably what I have been feeling as what I always do is detailed programming much like writing notated scores instead of performing.
Posted on Sat, Sep 29 2018 00:50
by fahl5
Joined on Fri, Feb 04 2005, Göttingen, Posts 956

Dear Fatis, dont take me wrong I see we consent in many aspects. Let me just try to indicate a few aspects I slightly differ in my personal understanding of the concept.

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

There are three aspects which I personally esteem in Synchron as even more powerful:

  • While VI is basedf on a more or less two dimensional Matrix systemthe Treestructure of Synchron opens up x8 as much possible ways top combine patches in certain 8 different "dimensions" of the same preset. In my humble opinion that is just "more"

Actually VI is not 2 dimensional, but 3 dimensional (matrix / x / y).

You are right, that the matrix selection gives kind of another Dimension, even if its controle is in VI a bit more limited  only (Keyswitch or Programchange) than the free controlable X and Y axis of the cell selection inside each Matrix. But  even 3 Dimensions are in my humble opinion still not more than the up to 8 Dimensionsof the Synchjron-Player-Tree structure.

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

The tree structure is an elegant and visually helpful way to organize the sound set on the screen, but it doesn't add any disruptive functional feature: the way you get to a patch is irrelevant in programming,

The Articulation Dimensions as I suggested them 5 Years ago was meant to build the articulation selection on the possible fundamental variying Qualities of the sampled playing techniques (articulations), to make the articulation selection focused much more on musical decisions than of more abstract geometric combinations of Programchange, Y+X Axis-values. You can see this in the fact, that VSL name each Dimension with this kind of musical quality. In my yhumble opinion this reduces the complexity of navigating and selecting articulations and their variants focused on a couple of pure musical decisions. I personally like that Idea it makes for me things very compfortable and reasonable to use.

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

and some systems (e.g. Finale, Logic or Cubase articulation managers) struggle to manage combinations of too much controllers to select a single articulation.

Oh for me this works pretty well with Cubase expression maps, since the Expressionmap only selects the Dimension of the Articulation type (currently the second of the existing VSL-Presets) the others controle details, which I already when working with VI havent ever controled with Expression maps since that would have blown up the Expression-Map Articulation list to much to be reasonable useable. Since I always had the imprssion that the Midi-CC-Controle of notation-Programs is not that well developed yet I never used them for programming with VSL. So I can not say how good this realy aplies to FInale or SIbelius. My first Idea was at least, that you would asign in Notationprograms only what Notation is able to define and that is as it seems to me not that much more thatn the fundamental Articulation types again.

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

Synchron is missing precise control of the "boundaries and treshold" for the dimension control, so using speed and velocity to switch between slots is more difficult to implement in Synchron (with the little curve) than VI Pro (X and Y advanced split)!

Here I consent this is a feature a I have already asked for some month ago. It would be very helpful to be able to see and even define thos bounderies. However the Synchrion-Player is still in development...., (But as far as I can see, we also cant realy define the boundaries in VI more than with chosing the amount of Cells in use what results in an automatic definition of the boundaries depending on the amount of cells open.)

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

In my opinion Synchron Player gives a bit more to people working with MIDI control keyboards, while VI Pro gives more to people programming with DAWs, even if both players can do both services.

I consent, that the Articulation Dimensions are obviously reasonable for cointroling the articulation selection with Midicontrolers. However I exclusivly programm VSL in my DAW and am glad about the new structure. For me it makes things tremendously easier. But we already have seen that the workflow established is a very personal question, for everyone

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

  • VI provides for each "cell" one option to X-fade selected Patches in a special slot for that function. In Synchron you can chose up to xfade through each "Dimensioon" what gives at least the option to X-Fade with the same patch in multiple directions that is just "more" than one.

Not exactly like that: actually Synchron player doesn't cross fade horizontal directions, but just a vertical column of slots.

In theory it's more than VI Pro, because VI cross fades only 2 slots, but in practice it's not very effective due to the big number of voices you play consuming resources, and due to the missing control of boundaries explained above.

OK the Synchron-Player is obviously already intended to make use of an ongoing hardware development expecting that in the years to come the hardware which will be more and more affordable, will be at trhe same time more and more powerful, as the development has been in the years before. Let us call it this way to X-Fade is able to do much more than blending two patches per cell ( but of course depending on the available hardware resources and their use which indeed might be today still a limit on some systems for some way to make use of it)

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

  • The mixer in Synchron is full featured and as such in nearly every detail accessible for seperate midi-conmtrole (as most other functions to) this is just "more" than the Pan and volume options of the VI-.Mixer

No, the slot mixer of Synchron is exactly the same of VI Pro, it has just volume and pan. What you mention is the channels Mixer, because Synchron player is multichannel to manage multiple mics: the multichannel manager of VI Pro is VE, and VE Mixer has of course the same functions of Synchron, and more more more other functions of course!

Yes it is true the Synchronplayer is multichannel and I would still think that makes the use of synchron libraries of course much easier than in VI.

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

Finally still lot of precise and professional features of VI Pro (e.g. scales and intervals, sample stretch, sequencing, divisi, humanizing etc.) are missing in Synchron of course, because they have slightly different targets and application, so I can't really understand why we should try to compare so different tools, but at the end, it's impossible to state that the actual version of Synchron is better than VI Pro today, in my very humble opinion of course, but also checking facts.

It is right that some of the features you mention are still not implremented. We will see what the further Development might bring. I do have the impression, that they ad as much features you might need to use the Libraries offered, and will ad new features as soon a new library will make that reasonable to have.

However no one is currently kept from using VI. It is already a great Player. Nevertheless to discuss what we would like to see in Synchron might contribute to focus the development of it and that is in my humble opinion of course a good reason for exchange our different understandings in a detailed discussion here.

I hope I was able to keep everything fine for you, even if I pointed on some different understandings in details.

http://libraries.resampled.de/index.php
four parallel interpretations of ambitious classical scores with up to twelve different Libraries

http://beethoven.resampled.de
currently the first four Symphonies of L.v.Beethoven completly recorded with the finest available orchestra samplelibraries (BBCSO, SSO, STO)

http://klassik-resampled.de
Currently 4330 mp3 with more than a whole Week (=more than 8 Days /=nearly 200 hours) of sample based interpretations of complete Scores from 7 Centuries
Posted on Sat, Sep 29 2018 10:55
by TFIS
Joined on Tue, Dec 14 2010, Posts 106

They should have just built the mixing section to vipro.

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

Posted on Sat, Sep 29 2018 11:00
by fahl5
Joined on Fri, Feb 04 2005, Göttingen, Posts 956

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

Which exactly?

http://libraries.resampled.de/index.php
four parallel interpretations of ambitious classical scores with up to twelve different Libraries

http://beethoven.resampled.de
currently the first four Symphonies of L.v.Beethoven completly recorded with the finest available orchestra samplelibraries (BBCSO, SSO, STO)

http://klassik-resampled.de
Currently 4330 mp3 with more than a whole Week (=more than 8 Days /=nearly 200 hours) of sample based interpretations of complete Scores from 7 Centuries
Posted on Sat, Oct 06 2018 11:10
by TFIS
Joined on Tue, Dec 14 2010, Posts 106

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

Which exactly?

Humanize gone

repetitions can't be edited

less control sources,

sequencer gone,

keyboard volume tracking gone,

mirx integration gone,

adjusting controller curves in sy-player is a pain in the ass,

scale editor gone,

remote app gone,

master release switch gone,

A/B switch gone,

"auto" voicing gone (which was never  "divisi"),

standalone mode gone...

 

just to name a few without looking too deep into the details.

Posted on Sat, Oct 06 2018 12:45
by fahl5
Joined on Fri, Feb 04 2005, Göttingen, Posts 956

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

Which exactly?

Humanize gone

How do you want to "humanize" section samples?

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

repetitions can't be edited

OK.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

less control sources,

VI: CC, Keyswitch, Pitch Wheel, Speed, Velocity,

Sy-Player: Keyswitch, CC, PitchWHeel,  Speed, Velocity, Aftertouch, Aftertouch-release

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

sequencer gone,

I personally do already have one in my DAW and never used the VI-Sequencer at all.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

keyboard volume tracking gone,

Seem to me available for the Synchron Pianos.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

mirx integration gone,

MIR Impuls responses seem to me available for Synchronized Libraries

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

adjusting controller curves in sy-player is a pain in the ass,

OK.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

scale editor gone,

OK, this would be indeed nice to get back in the SY-Player.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

remote app gone,

I havent used at all. but I am not sure that you will get it in future if there are enough User asking for.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

master release switch gone,

OK, But you could use the slider (cc23) if you dont want any

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

A/B switch gone,

You really dont need an "A/B"Switch if you can easily open up another subtree for much more than only two alternative variants and much more controle of them than just to switch between two options.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

"auto" voicing gone (which was never  "divisi"),

How do you want to use that with the section-Libraries which are currently only available in the Synchron-Player? As far as I can see no one can split a patch giving the sound of a whole section As the humanization this seem to me a feature which depends of a library like dimension strings, where you can seperate each player of the ensemble. I think it is not the problem of the player but more a question what kind of library is currently available for it. Currently I dont know how you will use those features with patches giving always only the complete section.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

standalone mode gone...

 

OK. But I have no problem with VE as a host for presumably every possible kind of use.

Originally Posted by: TFIS Go to Quoted Post

just to name a few without looking too deep into the details.

You might be right in some aspects. meanwhile the Synchron-Player is young and is presumably growing with each new library available for it.

To sum up: I understand and share your apreciation for VI which is in many aspects impressivly full of reasonable features, while I also like the large additional felxibilioty and power of the new concept, which nevertheless will need its time to unfold up to the same maturity the VI has already reached. Still I think the fundamental advantages available with the new concepts deserve to be patient to let the synchron Player develop likewise in the next years.

http://libraries.resampled.de/index.php
four parallel interpretations of ambitious classical scores with up to twelve different Libraries

http://beethoven.resampled.de
currently the first four Symphonies of L.v.Beethoven completly recorded with the finest available orchestra samplelibraries (BBCSO, SSO, STO)

http://klassik-resampled.de
Currently 4330 mp3 with more than a whole Week (=more than 8 Days /=nearly 200 hours) of sample based interpretations of complete Scores from 7 Centuries
Posted on Fri, Oct 19 2018 23:57
by littlewierdo
Joined on Sun, Apr 24 2016, Posts 243

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: fatis12_24918 Go to Quoted Post

Originally Posted by: fahl5 Go to Quoted Post

Where exactly should that end up?

"Oh please VSL do not improve anything you ever did, just always sell the same thing and release every year the same products again and again"

Is that what you are looking for?

Not at all. It seems you didn't read or didn't understand what has been (by the way clearly and in details) written. Or maybe your post is just an off-topic provocative sarcasm?

It is a simple and plain question, which you did not answer at all with your wild speculations what I personally in your opinion alledgly have read or not. Just stay with the topic and already posted arguments of the thread and answer my question related to them (and not what ever you try to insinuate to my person).

OK to make it a bit easier for you:

To ask for more VI, is kind of rejecting the Synchron-Series VSL is just starting to launch for which they spend very much hard work to develop major steps ahaed in usability, versatility and quality is kind of rejecting all the work which they already spent to present their customurs major and fundamental improvements of the products provided by VSL. In short it is as if you just reject all the effort they have done to improve what they sell. So what should that end up. What improvement should that be, if you dont want the improvement they in reality are currently on the way to introduce.

Beside some Ideas of rare hiustoric instruments this thread at least has not answered this question.

So here is your chance to just put some light on the question what improvement you are exactly asking for.

First, holy smokes, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Damn, and I thought I was the cranky one...

There are a few things that Synchron is lacking that VI offers and is so much more flexible. Most notably, the humanization feature in Instruments pro. This small thing makes every performance different, and more importantly, adds a human element to compositions. In a teaching capacity, it is so useful to be able to set the humanization feature to something extreme and play back a composition for students so they can hear the difference between a professional orchestra and a high school performance. I have found it useful to demonstrate how important intonation is.

I will also say, since I am not that familar with synchron (I have the full orchestra thingy they just released), the UI does NOT work for me. Personally, to start with, the colour scheme and the bubbly buttons feels fisher price to me (as in, it feels like a toy).  Instruments Pro INSTANTLY connected with me. While I wish Instruments Pro had colour theming options, the layout is immediately understandable to me. I also like to have seperate synchron windows for each instrument, like I do with Instruments Pro.

I will tell you where synchron stands apart is the effects. A user can create pads that are just magnificent for the price of around $100. I am actually stunned that with using the existing libraries, these kind of sounds are possible.

I might be wrong here, Im not as familar with Synchron, but what I like about VI is the provided templates and matrices. I can load up a flute ensemble matrix and all my articulations are there. Sure Synchron has this, but what I cant seem to figure out how to do is remove articulations I rarely use. To put it bluntly, the matrix system in VI works for me, the linear setup in Synchron does not.

They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, to each their own.

Now, I have been RAILING about Vienna sampling ethnic instruments. Bagpipes, pan flutes, that weird Indian guitar thingy you hear in just about every middle east song (haha, sorry, cant remember what its called, no offense intended), even some ethnic percussion might be nice (if there is one area Vienna is lacking even in modern instruments is percussion).

This isnt a one camp against another. You dont need to defend one product verses another, nor do you need to defend Vienna verses another company. They all have unique benefits. Where Synchron is great for more fluid background instrumentation, VI is about being the center piece of a composition. While Vienna is mostly fantastic, their percussion lacks the punch sometimes needed for more dynamic compositions, requiring the use of *gasp* other percussion from other companies. While Vienna's choirs sound great, they lack many of the features found in other more modern choir libraries (I am SO in love with 8dio's silka and insolidus choir libraries). Vienna's guitar libraries are not my first go to for a guitar, there are others that far surpass Vienna.

That being said, in my opinion, Vienna, for core orchestra instruments, beats the competition, hands down. Sure, they dont have all the articulations other libraries have, but they have the 99% that are necessary, and they have the UI to match. For the love of God, I HATE KONTAKT. If that wasnt clear enough, I HATE KONTAKT! Its awful. I use it because I have to, but its terrible.

Where was I? Oh right, Synchron and VI. I think of VI and VE as the command centers of a composition and I think of Synchron orchestra as the thing sitting over to the side playing the background pads.

For reference, my purchased products include special edition core 1-4 and special edition 1 plus strings, synchron orchestra, mirx teldex & grassier hall (umm, the big hall, I dont know how to spell it), and instruments pro.

4 Pages<1234>
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.