Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

..And the solution is: Lower the center mic of the decca tree.

I don't know what setup VSL used for recording the Synchron libraries. It's not a typical decca tree, isn't it? Would be nice to have some more details on this from VSL (e.g. cardioids vs omnis). Of course, there are many variations for this setup....

Of course, the mixes are all subjective. But with lowering the center I get closer to the sound I love and also to get the sound I have in all of my other libraries. I can only repeat myself: It's very curious and surprising that you can achieve nearly the exact sound in MIR Pro if you use the exact microphone levels / balances (and even the delay settings) used in the Synchron libraries.

Basically, what sounds good is OK.
You say: I don't know what setup VSL used for recording the sync libraries....
There is actually a picture with the microphone setup for each library.

For the Synchron Strings Pro you can read out for the standard version that the single sections (e.g. Violins 1) have A Close-Mic. It was obviously in front of the first violins. If you listen to the sound, the violins sound in mono (it's not the first violin solo, but the whole register). If you set the preset to "Default" this microphon can be heard unpanned in the middle of the stereo field in mono. In the offered VSL-presets the close microphone signal is often "panned" to the left.

Violins 1 have then a second microphone. This time a stereo variant. Probably a small AB arrangement with the name "Mid". With the preset "Default" you hear the violins in stereo and that the microphones must be relatively close to the 1st violins. If you choose presets from VSL, this pair of microphones is also panned more to the left. With this setup "Mid-Microphone" you can well adjust the width of the sound the register.

On the plan there is also the "Decca Tree" (Main). This is actually an AB stereo method, i.e. 2 microphones with relatively large distance (2m), in order to be able to capture the width well also with larger orchestras. The disadvantage of this "large AB method" is that later there would be a "hole" in the stereo center between the speakers. There simply sounds nothing, even if actually instruments play there. That's why Decca used a "center microphone" in the middle between thos AB-Mics - just to fill this stereo hole. The special thing is that this center microphone (Main-C) projects forward (about 1.5m) into the orchestra. Of course, this does not mean that this Main-C must be as loud as the two outside microphones. But if it is missing completely, there is a risk of the mentioned "center hole" and if only the two large AB microphones are in use, larger correlation errors usually occur because the large time differences between the microphones inevitably lead to cancellations. In the headphones such "errors" (unfortunately) always sound great, because space effects are always great there.

Finally, there are room microphones (Room). You have to read the individual libraries more closely. It is usually a mix of the main mics and the surround mics.

So we know very well how VSL recorded the Synchron Libraries. You can hear all the microphone signals (best with the preset "Default") and see on the respective plan of each library.

How far with MIR the different microphone arrangements are actually real recorded or whether they are "only" simulations, would have to say Dietz. It is the father of this baby.
As said, if settings fit, then everything is OK - however, such "good sounding" settings should always be checked via loudspeakers as well and also quickly with a correlation meter.

Beat

Thanks for the kind words, cyril

Beat

Hi all

During the last years I have accumulated some videos that I produced. They all deal with producing music with (VSL) samples in the broadest sense.

I have recently collected the most important videos on my website.

I invite everyone to take a look for themselves. I am convinced that there is something for everyone. This is especially true for those who are new to VSL libraries. The old hands, know me from earlier, when I was still more on this forum...

Have Fun

Beat Kaufmann

Originally Posted by: Rubens Tubenchlak

Great answer, thank you Paolo!

Hello Rubens
Here are the individual tracks as they were mixed.

https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/Legato-Improvement.zip (ca. 7MB)

Synchron Pro Instruments:
positioned using the various microphone options and Pan (preset: default).

Synchronized Solo Instruments:
MIR Unprocessed - dry (and yes, used like First Chair Instruments - so to say).
-------------------------------------
You can drag all tracks into an audio mixer and you will get the raw version of my mix in the video. The rest is fine tuning and some EQ on the quiet parts.
The individual track files (even as mp3) should now answer your last questions.
Regarding MIR - I basically never use MIR! We have never become friends :-)

Beat

Originally Posted by: Rubens Tubenchlak

Hi Beat,
just to be double sure, in your video, the violins1 and 2,  and viola solo unprocessed use MIR though right? 
Best, Rubens

Hi Rubens

No, the Solo Strings are completely unprocessed, as are the String Ensembles. Neither the Synchron String Ensembles nor the Solo Strings use MIR. Everything is truly "unprocessed". The very dry solo strings are only "panned" to the right place (L, R, M).  Finally there is just some "reverb tail over all" in the output channel of the daw... (see the mixer in the attachment)

All the best

Beat

I produced a video...

How to enhance (improve) the legatos of newer string libraries?

https://youtu.be/ZhQh2BY8kKg

Have fun

Beat

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Beat, thanks for all your lengthy and detailed answers. Very appreciated!

I also pre-ordered Synchron Strings and ... I'm still waiting for Bernd to answer some of my previous questions ... ;)...

I have no real answers to your questions. These must actually give VSL. But I have a few more thoughts and facts on the subjects if you're interested.

VSL sound development over the last 20 years
When VSL started, the credo was to produce samples that sound as natural (neutral) as possible. Furthermore, the samples should be as universal as possible. So they offered them as dry as possible. The difficulty at that time was to produce samples as neutral as possible, but still in a way that they didn't sound too dead. VSL achieved super high quality, whereas other libraries sometimes had individual sounds that contained errors. This was very annoying when the error was always heard at the G#...

Despite all the super sound of the VSL libraries, it was obvious that the neutrality was "interpreted" by some users as somewhat expressionless and that many of the users had trouble creating a concert atmosphere with the dry samples. I always used as much as possible different articulations and had never problems with "an expressionless sound". But it is understandable that a composer would actually want to simply combine his piece with samples and then it should sound like a real orchestra.

So VSL came up with the brilliant idea of MIR - a processor that takes care of the mix with the right acoustics, just by placing the instruments on a virtual stage. VSL wanted to do it quite well (as always) and even integrated the possibility to have instruments play backwards - away from the listener but also integrated many microphon systems and and and. So at the same time, VSL wanted to continue to offer the great flexibility of the past. The result is/was a product where you can adjust so much that the beginner is overwhelmed and where you can adjust so much that the sound is certainly not 100% the best. Since MIR, in my opinion, all demos are (partly far) away from the former neutrality in sound. This is especially true when a lot of instruments play in MIR. The people at VSL never agreed with me on this point. This was also the reason why I hardly ever commented in the forum during the last years. I respect, that they can sell a product that the find super, without a customer who has not the same meaning.

When VSL then recorded their libraries in the Synchronstage, the library sounds were strangely all still somehow "processed". In any case, there was no perceptible gain in the sound, even if "real space" could now be added with other microphones. But then suddenly the samples could also be used unprocessed. Now the former neutrality in sound is/was available again. For this I am very grateful to VSL.
Which customers VSL wants to satisfy with their presets I don't know exactly. It is probably the sample beginners. I can see it in myself. The experienced user accesses the unprocessed samples. But I agree with you that there is still room for improvement in the sound of the presets. Many just sound totally discolored, "boomy", "cheesy" or...

To the Legato sounds
VSL was one of the first companies to offer Legatos. But soon there were musicians who demanded a more "warm legato", a sad legato and so on. The discussions about legatos are actually as old as the first legato samples.
From earlier times I know that VSL recorded the intermediate notes for an octave up and for an octave down (from each note). In painstaking work, one (Herb) then somehow cross-linked these transition tones so that they were used correctly when playing. An incredibly huge and fine job, considering that this was also done for different layers.
I can imagine that a simplification had to be made, because today the instruments not only have different layers (dynamics) but also different microphones. The work of producing legatos in the past (e.g. solo strings) would get out of hand with the new libraries. Especially when you consider that everything would also have to be done for surround. So I believe that the legatos are done simulated in "another way"

This is how I solve "a more natural legato"
In large ensembles you don't really hear the legato thing and in smaller formations I "layer" the ensemble libraries with solo libraries anyway. So the whole legato thing doesn't bother me much. 

My attitude towards the limited possibilities when using samples
When I bought my first synth in 1975, there were no computers to record music, only sequencers. Ping-pong recording on a Revox tape produced polyphonic music because the first synthesizers only played monophonic. In the 80s, midi gradually appeared, along with midi sounds. When I bought the first library in 2002, it was another huge step towards real orchestral sound. Knowing all the music prodaction matters before I'm still thrilled when I have a whole symphony orchestra by my side at 3 a.m. No divisi, some artificial legato sounds and things like that don't really bother me. I've learned over the years that working with samples also means making a lot of compromises (missing articulations, wrong vibratos, legatos, timing problems due to fixed articulations, etc.). I'm just trying to do the best I can and I'm happy with the results so far. Nevertheless, I also notice that the music with samples sounded just as good about 20 years ago as it does today. If you can't make this willingness to compromise, it's probably best to leave the music with samples. Anyone who is halfway willing to accept the restrictions should try to enjoy what is already possible. He can also hope that manufacturers like VSL are trying to get better and better. The fact that none of the competitors is really that much better shows that the task is not easy.

Future
A next level will probably be reached when more artificial intelligence supports us in choosing articulations, connecting two notes (legatos), etc. Reaching this new level will probably take a while.

All the best

Beat

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Beat, thanks for your input, as I don't have any recording experience. Very appreciated!

Actually, I don't know if I'm still ok with what I wrote. :) I would prefer a time-aligned version, I think, but not the Synchron one. I think there is a sonic difference between an alignment where the main microphones were set to 0 ms instead of delaying the close ones to the main mics. I find the sound very "instant" and "flat" (in lack of a better term), and I can hear this especially in the legatos. There is something missing which I can't fully name and describe...

Hello Pixelpoet1985
I'm going to assume that VSL solved the timing synchronization of all microphones well, so we users don't have to take on the task of doing it ourselves between microphones. By the way, I use the tool "https://www.soundradix.com/products/auto-align/" for this matter in my recordings

But as I read from your post, you somehow don't quite like the sound of the sync libraries. Although you attach this circumstance to the Legatos, I sense from your text that this applies more or less generally. At the same time, it seems that this was not yet the case with the VI libraries...

The thing with the sound went me also so. Just because I myself record orchestras, I hoped that the synchron recordings now correspond to how I record strings, for example: A super natural sound, now new with spatial synchron stage component - and everything as we are used to from VSL: in the best quality.
So I ordered in advance the Synchrons Strings ... and was mighty disappointed. I put them aside and used them no more. I didn't like all the presets. Especially the presets that make the orchestra sound distant were the most unnatural sounding to me.
I had the same bad feeling with the synchronized libraries, some of which I bought but never used...
------------------------------
Then one day came the message from VSL - that we can now use the libraries in "default mode". So unprocessed - the sound shuld be as the instruments were recorded. That was the turning point for me. Suddenly I had the sound available that I actually wanted... The libraries suddenly sounded fresh, natural, I could have the second violins play on the right, layering string libraries resulted in more fresh combinations, etc. free from any setting by VSL. Since then, I am an enthusiastic "unprocessed user" who is thrilled with the new synchronous line. Meanwhile I also do all the mixing (positions on stage of the instruments) in the individual Synchron players and put only one Reverb with a little Tail in the output channel. And because sound is a matter of taste - I found my personal sound with the presets "unprocessed". Listen to some "unprocessed" demos... or also here with the Prime Edition.

In short: Maybe you will find your solution also by using the "unprocessed version" or also called "default". I think with different milliseconds between the microphones you gain little. With all my demos, I just make music. I'm never bothered by legatos that don't sound exactly the same as in reality, because everything together sounds quite real (e.g. a little night music) and fresh... In any case, an independent person would not point out the legatos as a serious problem.

In this sense, perhaps a new approach to also regain more joy in the great VSL samples.
Beat

Hello all
Here are my 2 cents on the subject of microphone signal delay:

My job is "Recording Live Concerts". For this I usually base my recordings on a main mic (ORTF, Decca, EBS etc.). When the formations get bigger, I have to use mic spots especially to bring the rear instruments into the mix a bit to give them back some presence (but also soloists). If you didn't do that, then all the percussion instruments, for example, would sound rather washed out and reflections from walls, ceilings, etc. would then be so dominant, which wouldn't do the overall sound any good at all. In order for the "presence-return" to work well, it is important that the distance "main microphones - spot microphones" is balanced in time (0ms). The trick is to balance the volume of the spot microphones (close) in such a way that the distant instruments sound more present, but are still perceived at their natural distance - in other words, they don't really move closer.

• Example 1 of such a recording with spot microphones.
• Example 2 (really big orchestra also with organ).

To cut a long story short: In a good and transparent recording, the times between the microphones are more likely to be balanced (in time) than not. If there are time differences between the microphones, the main danger of acoustic cancellations is great.
What am I trying to say? Experimentation is always good. If it sounds better, unconventional things are great of course. But with all experimentation, you should always try a variation where all delays are set to 0ms. Then you have the situation that all signals generate the least amount of such (mentioned above) cancellations. It simulates the situation as if all microphones were 0m away from each other in time. So adding delay times by you as the user means restoring the "real recording world", but at the same time " re-worsening" the situation, which the recording engineer tried to correct by all means.

A lot of success

Beat

One more demo

I take the liberty to attach another (unofficial) demo here.
Here you can download a midi file (John Williams, Jurassic Park Highlights) which contains all commands for selecting the different articulations per instrument. So all you have to do is to link the corresponding Prime Edition instrument with the provided midi track and the music will be played.

To make all the music still sound perfect... you could create various midi controller tracks - or make an audio mix.
This demo relies on "audio mix". Render each instrument as an audio file (by the way, a good idea for storing a piece of music "into the future") and create the controller curves on the audio side. Use several Presets and compare them. If you don't want to create audio files yourself - I've already done that for you, too. You can also download all audio files right now if you want and try your own Audiomix... go also >>>here.

And this music, played with Prime Edition, is what it's all about...

Have fun! Beat

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Some questions:

• The close mic is a mono signal, but why it is narrowed in the mixer? In my opinion this "destroys" the sound. Why not pan it instead of narrowing and powerpanning? I compared with some other developers, and their close microphones sound different, more like a combination of close and mids, they are never that narrow.
• The same question for the mid microphones. But I think here it makes sense to narrow the stereo width. 
• The decca C is a mono signal, too. Why isn't this narrowed then? In some of the percussion presets it is narrowed, though.

I know: “If it sounds good, it is good.” But I simply want to understand the microphones in the Synchron libraries. What would be a "normal" recording situation?

I often tend to use the "default" preset without any panning etc., even though I like the room mix most of the time. Except for the strings: They don't have these wide positioned outriggers (like brass and woodwinds), isn't it? On the microphone screenshots you can see that the surround microphones of strings and percussion are in the center instead on the sides. Is this true? So why do you pan the room mix by 20% and force them to be that wide? In my opinion, again, it "destroys" the sound and makes it dead.

The answers to your questions regarding miking depend on practice.

Example Decca Tree. This has 3 microphones, which are arranged in a triangle. Two to the side (L and R) and one microphone at the top of the triangle. This "tip" looks into the orchestra.
Because usually in the DECCA Tree arrangement the microphones are all about 2m away from each other, using only Right and Left would create an acoustic "hole" in the stereo center. Therefore, there is a third microphone in the center (Decca Center) that you mix in so that the (hole) is naturally filled. If you use only the Decca microphones L and R and add Decca C slowly you will notice what is meant.
---------------

Why mono and not stereo?
Basically, in orchestral recordings, the main (stereo) mikrophones are responsible in the front to record the main action. In order to be able to emphasize individual instruments (e.g. quieter or more distant instruments) better in the mix, you give the individual instruments spot (support-) microphones. If a sound source (of an instrument) sounds more or less punctual - e.g. an oboe - it makes little sense to support it in stereo. If it is a wider arrangement - e.g. a trumpet ensemble - then stereo support is quite appropriate. Moreover, something that is far away is more likely to sound mono than something that is in close proximity to the listener. I haven't checked, but presumably instruments farther away are probably more likely to be present only with a mono spot microphone.

Bad luck, of course, if you want to bring such a mono-supported instrument acoustically right up to the front. But even then you can add some of the room mics (DECCA L&R) so that again some stereo effect is present or use some extra reverb.

So the engineers at VSL didn't want to make it hard for you, but did it as they always do when they record orchestras. In a real orchestra recording, where everyone is playing at the same time, it adds that each microphone has a little bit of everything on it. Those are real problems.

----------------------------------------------

So if you want to place an instrument with the microphone settings at a certain place on stage, you can do that with the panner. If there is only a mono signal for "Close" or "Mid" the panner is no problem. With Decca (not Decca-C) or/and "Room" (proportion) you can move the instrument arbitrarily back and forth in depth. Even if it may not always sound perfect, you can hardly hear it later in the overall mix.

All the best

Beat

Originally Posted by: Acclarion

I've used VSL Synchron Strings Pro, VI winds and brass. The solo violin is outside the VSL universe. This is a rough mix...still lots of work to do. This is the third in a series of concerti, the other two being "The Soul Awakens" clarinet concerto and "From the Ashes" cello concerto. preview on youtube Cheers! Dave

You put a lot of effort into making full use of the violin and its possibilities (articulations) Bravo. Yes am also curious about the final result.

Regarding the mix: it would be nice if the orchestra and the violin would play in the "same room" at the end. At the moment that is not the case at all.

Tip as an idea...
Use the preset "Default (unprocessed)" for the violin. This makes it sound dry and very close. Install an (algo) reverb in the output channel where orchestra and violin come together. Add tail with it until you like the violin sound. The violin will always sound more soloistic (closer) than the orchestra. Nevertheless, orchestra and violin play in the same space.... just like the Fujara Flute here.

All the best

Beat

Originally Posted by: RyderP

Thanks for the tip.

So what I'm understanding, is there' no way to directly change the type of instrument in the player itself.

What if I remove a brass sound channel and later decide I want it back? If I add another channel to the mixer I hear nothing out of it and can find no where to set it to a brass sound.

Also In a patch there's a string sound and a woodwind sound. What if I want to remove the woodwind sound and have a full piano roll of the string sound!

Thanks for your help!

I'm not answering your question exactly, but rather I'd like to give you an understanding of the basic principle again. The knowledge should then answer all your questions.
-----------------------------------------------
Midi / Midi-Sound-Module
While with midi sound modules all instruments may be in one track, this is possible because the instruments are distributed to different midi channels. So if there are notes with midi channel 7 for example, the sound module knows that it has to play notes with midi channel 7 e.g. with the oboe sound. The Synchron-Player does not recognize midi-channel information.
----------------------------------------------
Synchron Sample Player
You have to assume that the synchron player can only play one sound at a time, but of course in multiple voices. In the case of the Smart Orchestra, several sounds can be played simultaneously, but all the selected sounds will play the same music.

So how to play different melodies with different Instruments? For a better understanding, imagine a score for a conductor. Each line of notes represents one instrument. Each note line therefore needs a separate synchron player. In the case of the Smartorchestra, you then set up each instance to play exactly the one instrument for the corresponding note line.

This means, of course, that you also have to set up a midi track for each instrument. If, for example, an oboe plays on the violin 1 midi track, these notes should be moved to a new track for the oboe only. Unlike the midi track, with samples you have to select different articulations for the instrument in question, which is usually not the case with midi.
--------------------------------------------------
Once you have internalized the principle, you will quickly get used to it.

Originally Posted by: josemariano

Dear Beat:

Thank you for your prompt response and suggestions.  I forgot to mention that I also have the Synchron Strings Bundle.  That's why my main interest is in finding out what library will bring more to the table in a "regular" orchestral setting, meaning not "epic".

Best regards,

José Morales

Dear José

Then, if I were you, I would save the money for a next bigger purchase.
Or a good piano? a choir? an organ?  
Sometimes it also makes sense to improve the hardware. Better headphones, speakers, room improvements, etc. After all, sometimes you make decisions about sound. For that, you should use hardware that lets you make the right ones.
 
So much for my recommendations.

Beat

It depends a bit on what kind of classical music you want to play or compose, but a string library with as many articulations as possible is essential as well. Maybe that would make more sense than more woodwinds and brass. The two libraries you want don't really add much to what you already have.

In larger orchestral works, you can no longer hear so well whether the wind instruments are divided according to divisi or whether the voices are simply played with the same samples twice (Dimension Brass).

The Synchronized Woodwinds have also been recorded very carefully. You are well served with them.

Strategically, I would work towards having all "Synchron-Libraries" later on. So why not Synchron Strings Pro or Elite Strings?

That's not what you wanted to hear, but maybe the string library thing is worth thinking about anyway.

Beat

Hello RyderP
No problem to let only the strings play in the Smartplayer.
Select "D"  Strings  in the first column (C0) within the Synchron Player. At the very top of the highest note range there are still some percussion instruments playing. These can be made inaudible in the mixer. Theoretically, you can also mute all other instruments in the mixer, but this is not necessary.

This Synchron Player can be labelled "Strings" in the instrument rack within Cubase. Now you can assign this "Strings-Synchron-Player" to each midi track that is to play strings.

Now for each instrument genre (woodwinds, brass, etc.) you have to open a new Synchron Player and load it with the smart orchestra again - but you select an other needed instrument genre. In the instrument rack of Cubase, you give the new Synchron Player the corresponding name (e.g. Woodwinds).
So each instrument genre receives its own Synchron Player with the preselected instrument type.
Although you always select the "Smart Orchestra" again and again, the samples are only loaded once. This is why the following Synchron Players with the Smart Orchestra are loaded much faster and, above all, are ready to play.

Finally you can connect the corresponding Synchron Player with the midi tracks.

I hope that you can be successful with the words alone - without video.

All the best

Beat

Wow
I read your article with interest. And of course I know all the important facts of physics in connection with hearing and especially with our brain, which not only hears physics, but also mixes it violently with made experiences.
While reading I thought more and more, hopefully this man with the hobby samples has not charged himself something that gives him especially additional problems in life. Fortunately, you wrote "Happy Mixing" at the end.Reading "Happy" relaxed my built up worries ;-).

It's especially interesting how different people approach mixing differently. As we know there is not THE way and most importantly it's the result that counts in the end. Beginners don't have it easy because they are at the beginning of their way, which ist first to find. At the same time, one says do it this way and another says the opposite. As another option besides the more technical approach above, I'll allow myself to show my workflow here.

How I do it
I think my approach is quite different from yours, dear Maker. I usually draw a stage plan - that is, where the instruments should be placed.  Then - speaking of the Synchron Player - I try to set the desired stage location for each instrument (acoustically) with the various microphone signals, the panners (even without extra reverb) and with the monitors. To do this, I actually always start with the default (Preset) setting.
The volume of the individual instruments does not interest me at this point!
If all instruments are provided with the articulations (midi-wise) and correctly distributed on the stage, I render all instruments to audio files. Now I'm free of midi problems, I'm not tempted to change anything here and there - you have to finish work once.

In Wavelab I bring all instruments (audio-Files) to the same RMS average volume.
Now all instruments have the right position (L,R, front, back) and are equal in volume.

In the following audio mix, the main thing is to bring the different instruments of all levels into the "right" volume ratio. Due to the treatment in Wave-Lab, the strings, for example, are largely in tune with each other, but you have to find the right setting between the instruments in front and in the back. Again, I do this alone through my taste, my hearing, my feeling. Since I myself record(ed) many live concerts and am now 62 years, my brain knows approximately how the volume ratios present themselves in orchestras. So I never think about dBs. I turn the knobs until it's right for me. I darken rear instruments or lighten front ones until it's right for my hearing and tast, because I had an idea bevor mixing what I want to reach. Nevertheless, my approach to self-control: I always compare with similar recordings that I think are good. I therefore accumulated many references over all the years.
Of course, if you work the way I do, it's important to have good monitoring and, above all, to know it well. Because with it you make decisions and these should of course be the right ones.

By the way, you can find my latest result at VSL: it's only a few days old (Laudate Exultate..;-) and the Video

Now I wish you much success with your way and above all, that you are satisfied with your results or in other words happy mixing as well.

With kind regards
Beat

Proposed solution to hide the problem:

As a solution, you could double the chamber celli with the solo cello if you have that library, you certainly won't notice the mistake, especially if the cellos are playing in an orchestra.
Doubling all the string libraries with the solo strings is a great thing anyway. It makes the overall sound even more lively and real. 

I used this technique back in 2012 and earlier ;-) https://youtu.be/uMAkPT9ggtg. I actually doubled the chamber strings from the beginning with the solo strings.

Beat

I've been using the Chamberstrings samples since they came out (2006?) ... and I never really noticed it. Maybe because I practically always doubled the cellos with the double basses - an octave lower, of course. Also, I never produced a piece where the cellos are totally alone with staccati.

Then, as far as I remember, in the VI version there was only staccato, détaché short and détaché long. The spiccati I think were only found in the repetitions.

As I said, I produced many pieces (mainly baroque music) and I never felt that the cellos were lacking in the short articulations....

I myself rarely used Détaché short anyway, because for me the articulation usually sounds a bit too weak. For short, slightly longer sounding notes I mostly used sfz. Example (Nr.39)

With kind regards
Beat

The topic of realism in the context of samples is an interesting one. What the library manufacturers offer today is enormous. So when it comes to realism, most of the time it fails because of the users' skills. On the other hand, users demand more and more detail samples: Up and down beat samples, divisi strings, normal legato, lyrical legato, warm/cold legato, soft/hard - , sad/joyful - legato and so on.

In the end, however, most users let some note program play the samples or some utility mix the samples.
Then in the worst case this result comes out:
If the users would basically use the whole offer better, such a result would come out (more music).

I therefore believe that a next real bigger step would be to take "artificial intelligence" to help users more to better transform their compositions into real music, making better use of the technology offered today.

All the best

Beat

Originally Posted by: AntonH

...
My question: How can I assign an effect like pizz, golpe, flageolet or something else to a note in Logic?

Anton

Hi Anton

I do not own the Synchronized guitar. But I assume that the articulations are switched with basically also with "keyswitches", as with other libraries.

In Logic there must be a window called Piano-Roll-Board or similar (on the left there is a piano keyboard and the notes are drawn as bars. The longer a note, the longer the bar (horizontally). In this window, you can easily set the note that selects the desired articulation with the mouse just before the corresponding note is played. If you want to change the articulation often, this is a bit of work. But for musical results one always had to invest a lot of time to activate all the right controls over the samples.  Here is a video on the subject:

https://youtu.be/dsw6FIdDeY0

Beat

Originally Posted by: wwzeitler

Do my ears deceive me?

:-)

Hello wwzeitler
This is also the case with me. At least with the SYNCHRON ized chamber strings.
In the original VI collection I think there was still a difference between Stac and Détaché 0,3 s to hear.But I haven't checked that now as well.
Maybe you should report this matter to the support.

Greetings
Beat

Originally Posted by: Arsenal

 

... Im trying to avoid using keyswitches all together in the future

 Thanks for your help

Even though you seem to want to say goodbye to keyswitches, here is a link to a video about the choice of articulation. Maybe it can change your mind.

https://youtu.be/dsw6FIdDeY0

All the best

Beat

Originally Posted by: Rubens Tubenchlak

Hi there,
I would like to receive advice about to how to create the illusion of changing bow direction on long notes, including normal long notes and flautando situations.

Some possibilities I am exploring are:

1 breaking the long notes Yes, if it's musically OK.
2 breaking the long notes and choosing a different patch (which patch to exchange with flautando?) Using fixed articulations always requires making compromises - probably not an option.
2 using CC1 to create that effect
3 all techniques above Any technique, if you met the goal.
....

Hello Rubens
One may think it is good or bad that VSL did not distinguish between upstrokes and downstrokes when VSL recording the strings.  Personally, I am glad that they did not also integrate this "reality". If the later users of the string libraries always use only one articulation over long passages, it doesn't matter if there are upstroke and downstroke articulations. It then sounds "inauthentic" anyway. We already have so many options that this little "reality" would not completely change the final result. Besides, repetition of the same note triggers a new sample variation anyway - at least with the newer libraries.

Nevertheless, if you want to take the "stroke thing" into account, there are a few tricks. Basically, the downstroke is a bit louder than the upstroke, especially with fast bow changes. In slow legato passages (melodies), the string player naturally tries to balance the bow weight with his little (bow-) finger, so that you can't (should not) hear whether it's an up- or a downstroke. From a purely technical point of view, there is no difference in tone when the bow is moved either way.

Here are a few links that will help you to integrate the topic for more short notes:

• https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/vi-tips--tricks-3/index.php (Nr. 26.)
• https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/vi-tips--tricks-3/index.php (Nr. 21.)
• https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/vi-tips--tricks-4/index.php (Nr. 33.)
• https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/vi-tips--tricks-4/index.php (Nr. 37.)

Example 1: e-partita.mp3 (Bach-Mangiagalli) If you listen to this example, you will hardly miss up or down samples, won't you?

Example 2: eine_kleine_nachtmusik.mp3 (Mozart)

Have fun trying it out!
Beat

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

Hi,

Something that I can't make clear to myself, so I hope to get some hints from the makers and my user fellows. Synchron libraries come already mixed and processed.... When playing them, they are ready. They sound processed and finished....

But I'm one of those nerds who like to do their own mixes. So, I want to add my own effects to each instrument, and add mastering effects to the final mix. So, here are my questions: ....

Paolo

Hello Paolo

I published the following video here in the forum and also in others. Since I'm a bit busy at work at the moment, I don't know if you've already seen it or even replied to me. Please excuse me if I serve you "cold coffee" here.

About Mixing in Synchron Player

https://youtu.be/2_NpttZMAsA other videos

All the best

Beat