Originally Posted by: Eloy Sherlock

I want to share this deep dive video with all of you. It was a joy making the demo and video. Eloy 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Kxsmi-aZg

Hello Eloy, hello all

Thanks for this great tip. Calling up quite a few different articulations for slow sustaining notes, works quite great for blowing up the orchestra sound.The soundcolor which is probably added by the MIR-Preset I don't like

I also mention again here that you can basically layer different libraries. Ideally, you then use, as Eloy also does, so-called basic presets, so that no matter which library you use, the same articulations are selected.

So as a supplement to Eloy's video, here are two more that introduces the layering of libraries and the idea of basic presets (articulation collections).

• https://youtu.be/calvNECxUys (Combining String Libraries)
• and
• https://youtu.be/dsw6FIdDeY0 (an idea for Basic Presets)

Have fun

All the best

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

PS

I don't particularly like the orchestral timbre, which was probably added by the MIR preset used. Your orchestra sounds pretty much like a "cheese box" on my speakers.
I myself would look for a real, huge orchestra where you like the sound and then look for a MIR preset that is close to the sound you like in the original.

I've attached an example for you. Of course you have to search longer until you find a more similar piece.
To solve this sound story, you can also play in a piece that you have a great original of.

Originally Posted by: Res

Please some Tips for generating a smooth legato over the same four notes (e.g. 4 "F" notes) with the same bow (e.g. down)

I hear always a gap between the notes.

Thanks!

Try "Multi Shorts/Bow Changes/...." - there are several possibilities.

Beat

Originally Posted by: DaddyO

I only own Elite Strings Standard Version. I know that the Full Version has Divisi Presets. These show up in the dropdown list for Standard and can be applied, but as expected they don't seem to produce decent results so far as I can tell.

If I were to use only factory presets from the Standard Version for divisi, is there a combination of distinct presets might be suggested? 

A) You can of course use the 2nd violin instead of divisi of the 1st violin. But as soon as either the 2nd violin has to play the same notes (or also the first violin), it's over with "Divisi".

B) Then there is the possibility to play only the notes which are really "divisi" - different.
As soon as an orchestra is larger, you can hardly hear that two voices are both the same samples.

C) Then there is the trick with "Transpose". You select violin 1 for both voices, transpose one violin midi one semitone lower and equalize this on the audio side with +1 semitone. Now other samples play the same notes. Usually there are no problems. I assume that the Elite strings were sampled in semitone intervals. If not, you'll have to transpose 2 semitones so that other samples come into play.

Beat

Since Corona, I've been making more music with samples again and have learned to use the SYNCHRON-Player better and also to adjust the positions of instruments alone with different microphone combinations and the panner in the SYNCHRON player. So producing music with samples has not lost any of its fascination, as it was when I started playing orchestral music with VSL samples around 2004 - on the contrary...
Here is a small December-example of what your samples got to do with me in December:

• Sleigh Ride...

How great also your earlier samples still sound, here in the second example (second part):

•  Cherubim Hymn, Tchaikovsky

----------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that working with your samples is still fun after almost 20 years is due to you and the high quality of your work and for us users. Many, many thanks !!!!!!!!!!!! ... and of course keep up the good work.

At the same time I wish the whole staff all the best in the new year.

Yours, Beat

To add to Andreas8420:

- Choose the articulation which you basically find too loud or too soft, then
- click on Edit and then in the Mix slot.
To keep it that way forever, you have to save the whole thing as a preset.!

Beat

OK. Sorry that I did not understand you correctly. Everybody has his own preferences to control all the things with the samples. Especially when you use different products, of course you want a unified system - I understand now.
Good luck and enjoy making music with samples.

Beat

I am not quite sure if I have understood correctly. You are obviously interested in being able to shape the first note of a whole legato group of notes differently?

If so: Choose any articulation - e.g. "sfz". - and set the keyswitch for legato while the first note is still playing. The legato sound is also already set between the first note - in our case sfz - and the second note.
So you can start legato note groups with sfz, sffz, sus, détaché, dim, or whatever. Of course, it means a bit more diligence in setting keyswitches, but that's what makes the music.  
Here you can hear this technique... or of coarse here.

All the best

Beat

Originally Posted by: plurye

...Is there something I'm missing? Is there no way to move the entire sound around the stereo field? (Changing the power pan setting moves the placement, but at some cost to the stereo-izing of the sound.)

PL

Hello Plurye
I just published a small tutorial on "how to position SYNCHRON-ized instruments yourself". Study this one. If you do not succeed, please contact me directly. We will surely find out what the problem is.

If you say that the position is "baked in", then it probably has to do with the selected room impulse that you choose together with a VSL-preset. There are indeed room impulses that pull instruments into a corner in such a way that even the pan pot can't do anything. Therefore, if you want to set up a position yourself, I would always start with the preset "DEFAULT" = neutral starting position. ... but you can read all about that in my illustrated instructions. See at:

https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/how-to-position-synchron-ized-instruments/index.html

Have fun

Beat

Andreas is right, of course, if in a larger ensemble the instruments should be matched to each other in terms of volume.

But if you have only a few instruments, where it is no effort to tune them yourself, you can always change the volume yourself (I suppose make it louder).

Hello Tony
I'm sure it might be interesting for you to browse my website a bit. There are many tips, videos and more on the subject, samples, music with VSL and other products.

Have fun
Beat

With the SYNCHRON-ized libraries, you don't have the different microphone signals. On the contrary, the samples were recorded in the Silent Stage - as dry as possible and without room content.

So the question is how to position SYNCHRON-ized Instruments without using presets?
The SYNCHRON-ized VI samples wouldn't be called that if they hadn't been adapted to the Synchron Stage...

I just published an article about...

Positioning "SYNCHRON-ized" Instruments yourself on the SYNCHRON Stage (E and D)

Have fun

Beat

Hello YWT

I don't know what libraries you are working with. But as part of your experiments, maybe you can try a mix without MIR again. If you work with the new SYNCHRON libraries, you might find a preset you like. If you want to be completely free, you can use the "Default" preset with the SYNCHRON-Player to position your violins at any depth in space, for example, using various microphone signal ratios. If you want them to play in the front on the virtual stage, I recommend panning them to the left or right with the pan pot. The further you move them to the left, for example, the more you lose the channel information of the Right channel but, unlike the PowerPanner, the stereo information is not monoized, which - as we know and you observe - leads or can certainly lead to phase cancellations. When instruments play further away, the Power Panner is of course a good choice to narrow the stereo field a bit, which corresponds to real physics.

Such mixes sound different than those with MIR, but certainly no less appealing.
Here is an example showing the TIN WHISTLE from the new World library. All instruments were positioned in the corresponding SYNCHRON player of the instruments, for panning the front instruments (strings) I used the pan-pot - for gluing all things together I used some reverb tail over all in the output channel.
More info here and other VSL demos,

As always, there is often not only one solution to a problem. My approach to solving the problem is completely different from the way you have worked so far. Even if you don't want to try my way of mixing, maybe it will lead to new ideas on your side.


Good luck and a lot of success
Beat

Originally Posted by: Jason Archibald

... Are there any in-depth tutorials for developing a mastery of using these libraries beyond the several great but short ones put out by VSL?

Thanks

Hello Jason
You may have already found my site, but there is so much there.
One of the important things when dealing with samples is dialing in the articulations. If you can't develop a routine here ^ it's not fun in the long run.

A) One possibility is to use notation software that selects the articulations depending on the notation. If you write a sfz over the note, a sfz is played, if you write 16th notes or a dot over a 4th note, a staccato is played (or as you define it yourself). Here are two facts that speak against the method (via notation):

1. the notation does not always correspond to the way the written note is actually played (see 39).

2. with the exception of Dorico, the other notation software products are not able to include enough controller curves and other functions besides the notes to simultaneously also control the VI player (SYNCHRON player) so that the result sounds musical. People who own notation programs and want to improve their sound result create a midi file, import it into a DAW and operate the VIs there.

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

B) Another possibility is to use the expression maps that VSL has provided. Simply put, you assign notes in the DAW the desired articulation with which they should be played, without having to worry about how many individual notes (keyswitches) it would take to trigger a corresponding articulation. It is important to know that these keyswitches are not standardized. The note C0, for example, is not generally available for all libraries in order to select a staccato.

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

C) While A) and B) are official offers to solve the problem of articulation selection, there are still individual ones. For me, the following has proven itself:
Fact is that you can usually define 10-15 articulations, which you need most often:
E.g.

• C0 1 Spiccato
• C#0 2 Staccato
• D0 3 Détaché
• D#0 4 Sustain w Vib
• E0 5 Sustain wo Vib
• F0 6 Legato
• G0 7 Portamento
• G#0 8 sfz
• A...    9 dim short
• ...

If you create a matrix for each instrument so that the same note always triggers the staccato in all libraries, for example, you will soon be able to set these articulations very quickly. I call this creating your own "basic presets". Here is an example (Basic Presets) for the new SYNCHRON-Player...

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

Once the music has been played, you have to decide whether you want to make the orchestra mix by processing the individual audio signals from the VIs or SYNCHRON players, or whether you want to create an audio file of all instruments (without effects) first and then use it to make an audio mix.

I prefer the second method here because I could still do a new mix in 20 years. This is not possible with the first method, because in 20 years the computer will no longer be set up the same way, licenses and effects will be missing, so a project may no longer open at all... (my experience during the last 20 years).

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

Unfortunately, one thing has to be said despite everything: Professional and great music examples with samples always require (still) a lot of time, in addition to a lot of routine and experience. It's hard to produce something quickly if you want it to sound good. "Still" because perhaps one day artificial intelligence will be able to take over a few processes. e.g. setting keyswitches depending on the style of music or an entire audio mix...

Beat

Originally Posted by: Pyre

... Would I be better off using the exotic wind Synchron instrument as it is, with its natural ambience, and having the rest of the orchestra in the Teldex? Or would I be better using only the closest mic position on the Synchron instrument and running it through MIR, so it's sitting in the Teldex alongside the others?

Thanks!

Hello Pyre
I was a big fan of the VI series for many years. When VSL came out with the first Synchron String Libraries, I was a bit disappointed. In the meantime, however, that has changed. The SYNCHRON libraries come with different microphones. At the same time, VSL offers a ton of presets that give you different combinations of microphones, some with additional effects. But then there is also the preset "Default", with which you get the untreated microphone signals. I actually only use this setting because I love the natural sound and I also like more to mix myself, than to use presets.. With this preset "default" you get very neutral and real sounds. With close-recorded instruments, this gives you a similar sound from the combination of MID and CLOSE mic as you get with the VI instruments.  
You certainly won't go wrong if you buy the exotic Winds. Only: you might get addicted and want more libraries ;-)

Your desired wind instrument from the exotic library will be great to integrate, however you want it - just like Macker already said.

If you like: Here are various SYNCHRON audio demos - including one with the tin wistle from the Exotic Wind series (first demo "O Waly Waly")

.All the best and a lot of success

Beat

Originally Posted by: Rubens Tubenchlak

Dear Beat, that's exactly what I was looking for. Considering the available technology, a discussion about a few possible musical situations and the "adequate" treatment, if any, is needed. VSL offers many tools, but knowledge about the usage isn't always part of the education of composers. Nowadays we must learn all those areas in order to deliver the best material and it is nice to read that I can count on you. Thank you for your understanding.
I will send you something tomorrow morning. Email?
Thank you,
Rubens

Dear Rubens
why don't you send the example to

To be able to make music successfully with samples, one would actually have to have great experience in many areas. Especially if you have the ambition as a composer to produce pieces with samples as if they had been played by a real orchestra. VSL offers a lot - first the samples themselves, then many presets with all the instruments and effects. But you're right, if after successful mixing (which is an art in itself) you want to master all the results yourself in the end....
There is actually behind everything a sound engineer training - and even with specialty "mastering music style classical & film"... (https://www.berufsberatung.ch/dyn/show/1900?id=5475 ... a Swiss website)
But you should also be an acoustician, midi specialist, computer specialist, instrument expert, music expert,... music connoisseur. Last but not least you should be a bit of a friend of technology - already at this point musicians and artists sometimes have a first problem.

Of course, it is beyond the scope of VSL to offer training in all these areas. As you will see, the thing is not done with a few nice videos. Until you know all the audio effects and what they are capable of, where their weaknesses are and the mistakes you can make with them. This is just a sample of the audio editing area. I'm glad VSL is focusing on one main business and doing a great job there.

Now I look forward to your example
All the best
Beat

Originally Posted by: Rubens Tubenchlak

Dietz and experts, could you kindly share a few tips about what to insert first and last in the master chain for mastering purposes? Multiband pro or limiter last? Do I need a limiter when already using Multiband pro? Eq first right? And then? When or where to use imager pro? Anything else?
I am sure I could have better results with vienna suite than with ozone. The problem is the lack of knowledge. It would be great, and I have heard the same wishes from many, if VSL could provide tutorials about those tasks...

Hello Rubens
In addition to Dietz's comments, I have a few other thoughts which might be helpful for you.
First, maybe about the term "mastering". In the past, music was mastered so that the technical data of the music would remain compatible with the record - not too much bass, not too much treble, rather mono in the bass range and so on. So it was really about keeping the needle in the "groove" of the record. With the medium of the audio CD, the record restrictions were gone. A new trend emerged. Mastering meant making the music as loud as possible. To produce music that is as loud as possible, in simple terms, all frequency ranges must be optimized and compressed so that ultimately all levels can be turned up. And yes, "Automatic Mastering" with Ozone is actually designed to do that more or less. The new modules, such as the Stabilizer, look besides basic EQ settings that at any time the frequencies are "kept stable"....
Of course, in classical music it is questionable whether it makes sense to keep the frequencies stable at all costs in a rather quiet part where only the strings (e.g. without double basses) are used. The treble and bass would then be turned up and the volume would be increased so that the "pianissimo" is over.
So what does mastering mean for more classical tuned music?

Simply put, it's about getting the maximum quality out of the last step - mastering - in terms of frequencies, levels, stereo range, bass range, midrange and treble range, basic sound, possibly reverb, etc.
Unfortunately, ears get used to wrong sounds very quickly. Already after a few minutes one can follow completely wrong sound ideals. It therefore makes a lot of sense to put on good recordings as sound references.
When mastering, you can compare your own productions with these references.
The first thing to do is to analyze what is different in your own product compared to the reference.
Secondly, you should make decisions about what to change or what to leave as it is.
Thirdly, one works through the list. Here, of course, knowledge, experience and skills are required - namely, with which effect tools you can achieve what and how.

So therefore is no correct order, because not necessarily always a limiter, compressor, an EQ or any other effect must be in the effect chain.
If you want, you can send me a piece and I'll give you an analysis result, along with what all you could do as mastering steps.

All the best

Beat

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