I was wondering as well how this works when I got the email, and find this "solution" likewise puzzling and inconvenient. It should not be too hard to write a little script that checks how long the current plan is still valid and determines the expiration date of the new plan based on that. In case VSL does not want people to purchase coverage for the next 20 years in advance, that script could likewise ensure this  ...

Originally Posted by: Paul

Hi David, 

"Synchron Strings Pro" because it really is more than just a second part for Synchron Strings I. 

Synchron Strings Pro is a fresh approach and also contains some articulations from Synchron Strings I, which makes it an independent product AND and upgrade/crossgrade from Synchron Strings I at the same time. 

You are correct about CC2, but that should be done with a click. Hope that's OK for you, we're trying to keep the preset list as lean as possible!

Best,
Paul

Hi Paul, 

congratulations on this release. This looks and sounds very promising!

I can understand that you packaged it this way to give new users a self-contained library without the problems of SYS I.

However, for owners of SYS I who already have a 300GB block on their disk (iwithout using it so far) it would be great if you could release an improved installer for SYS I, that would only install that content (e.g. additional velocity layers) that is not in SYS pro - or even better let the user choose which content of SYS I should be installed. This is particularly important since some of the best content of SYS I (9 velocity layer shorts or the lyrical vibrato that was previously released to improve it) is apparently not part of the "pro" package.. 

Is this planned?

Cheers

Kai

Oh I see, thanks so much for clarifying this, Bill! Now I get your previous remark - I had no idea that this is such a minefield.

Sounds like Steinberg re-invented the wheel, but for some reason people still prefer the old-fashioned, round version  ...

Hello Dewdman, 

thanks for this comprehensive explanation, really appreciated.

I had no idea that this is such a tricky issue and even controllers are no alternative.

I have a few more questions: 

I was searching the forum, and if I understand a previous thread correctly so far both VI pro and the Synchron Player are VST2 only. Is this still correct (somehow VI pro lists VST3 support on the VSL homepage)? So if Steinberg's statement is correct, once these are ported to VST3 there might be a way for VSL to implement "program change messages" Steinberg's new way, so that one can still e.g. send these Midi messages to Cubase and they will then somehow be transferred to VI pro or the Synchron Player as VST3 proprietary non-Midi events?

Oops, Dietz you are right as always . It just somehow feels like it has been there forever.

I vaguely remembered this: "The specification originates in a paper published by Dave Smith and Chet Wood then of Sequential Circuits at the October 1981 Audio Engineering Society conference", but surely it took time for it to reach the market.

Dewdman, thanks for the info! This sounds like they want to establish an improved program change standard within VST3. Yet, it would surely be handy if it would be downward compatible.

Thanks so much for the info, Dietz! I wasn't aware fo this. Funny decision by Steinberg, taking into account that any cheap keyboard/software managed to implement standard Midi functions for 40 years and there is lot of hardware (master keyboards, ...) out there that sends program change messages.

Sam, thanks for pointing me to this. This looks awesome! But my main DAW is Logic.

Hi Bill,

I am on Mac OS, so I don't know much about VST. But why would a newer audio plug-in standard not provide a full Midi implementation anymore?

Hi Macker,

thanks for the comprehensive explanation. That's a pity that there is indeed no workaround, yet.

In principle the dimensions of the Synchron Player seem quite powerful for realtime control, but I likewise don't see the advantage of this "solution" to send two events instead of a single (program change) event to select articulations. In particular since the number of articulations in present Synchron libraries is smaller than in the old VI libraries, so that 128 program change messages would be more than enough.

I did not even realize the problem with unassigned program change messages you mention. This sounds like a bug that they should be able to fix without too much effort. However, the fancy auto-rescaling they implemented in the Synchron Player seems to be intentionally designed for not more than 20 vertical slots, and therefore I don't expect them to introduce a scrollable list as in VI pro.

This would leave the second potential solution. I am not sure if I made myself clear, but the idea is that the same Midi message switches several dimensions simultaneously. E.g. in case of program change events the first ("bank") dimension would switch depending on whether the program change message is in a certain range of values (e.g. 0-9 -> slot 1, 10-19 -> slot 2, ...) and the second dimension depending on the exact program change number. 

For this it would merely be necessary to implement the selection of slots depending on ranges of Midi events (notes, controllers, program change messages, ... ) of a specifiable length. This would be very flexible, and, as an extreme example, with 128 values one could switch up to 7 dimensions (with 2 slots each) simultaneously - or anything in between. In case of key switch notes, choosing the ranges to have length 12, one dimension could then likewise be switched by the octave of the note and the second one by the particular key (in case someone wants to dedicate an entire keyboard to key-switching).

This does not sound too hard to implement and I hope this will be done in the future.

To not get unwanted key-switch notes in the score, ... I am trying to use Program Change messages to switch articulations in the Synchron Player. I can in principle see two ways to achieve this, but none of them really works:

- In VI pro one can have 128 matrices and can control each with a dedicated program change message. In principle this seems to work as well in Synchron, but the vertical list of slots is not scrollable and so the individual slots just shrink and this simply does not work at all as soon as there are 20+ vertical slots, since they become too thin, look horrible and one cannot properly access them anymore.

- The Synchron Player also offers the option to select slots with program change messages starting from a certain number. So in principle one could arrange the articulations in two dimensions, where the first dimension divides them up into "banks" of 10 articulations each that are stored in the slots of the second dimension. These can indeed be accessed by program change messages (e.g. articulations 10-19 by the corresponding program change messages), but this only works within a given "bank". I.e. if the first bank (1. slot in 1.dimension) is selected and I send PC15 it does not switch to the second bank and I would first have to select the second bank by hand. (For this to work automatically there would need to be a way to select the "bank" slots in the first dimension based on whether a program change message is within a range of values.)

Am I missing something, or how are program change messages supposed to work in the Synchron Player?

Hi Abk,

this is a problem I am having as well. The transitions from the piano to the forte layer in many legato patches are not great resulting in dramatic volume steps when increasing the velocity a tiny bit (the same holds for the full VSL libraries). There are surely also inherent changes in the sound character, but the main problem is the volume differences resulting in the pulsation you mention. This could easily be fixed and I am still hoping for library updates some day. An imperfect workaround is to use the velocity crossfade controller instead of velocity in which case these steps are smoothed out. It would be nice if VI pro could crossfade the different velocity layers when controlled by velocity as well, instead of merely switching them, which would likewise reduce these steps.

I shouldn't have written "it cannot be done in Logic", but rather "it cannot easily be done in Logic". As Macker writes you would have to set up a dedicated reverb, or a send to a bus with a reverb for each instrument, and adjust all the reverb parameters, send levels, panning yourself - and even this way you probably could not fully simulate that different instruments have a different distance to the listener. So unless you are an audio engineer (or want to become one), it should be much harder to get the coherent sound you get out of MIR.

If you are on a budget, MIRx is by far the cheapest entry into the MIR world. You can start with a single venue which does not significantly increase the price of the dimension libraries. MIRx is directly integrated in VI pro, automatically positions the different players on stage and it can even automatically adjust the relative volumes of the different instruments, so that everything is automatically normalized and balanced and you do not have to care about any of these (technical) aspects.

Also the standard Vienna Instruments Player does support SSDs. However, the pro version allows you to dial how much of the samples are loaded into RAM and this way you will only need a small fraction when using a fast SSD. With around 300GB of sample data dimension strings are very demanding when it comes to RAM usage, so this makes a big difference. But this is only one of many advantages VI pro offers. The dimension libraries do not contain any recorded phrases, like trills, runs or arpeggios. With the sequencer in VI pro you get all of these in various versions and in contrast to sampled phrases they can even sync to Logic's tempo. Yet, the biggest advantage is that VI pro offers more slots per cell, so you can have section presets that include all players of a section, instead of having to record each player individually. Via the humanize feature VI pro can automatically add randomness to each player (delay & tuning). These small imperfections, in combination with each player being properly positioned on stage, yield very realistic results even when recording a whole section at once.

For the dimension libraries the proper placement in a room is crucial (which cannot be done in Logic). But, unless you want to add non-VSL instruments into the venue or want to tweak things, MIR pro is not required. Just get one of the great MIRx venues and everything will work automatically. Being able to change venues (conveniently for the entire orchestra by simply selecting them from a menu) is probably the biggest advantage of VI(pro) compared to the Synchron player, since the venue has a dramatic impact on the sound.

In particular for the dimension strings you should also consider VI pro since this way you can access all players in one preset and it offers countless other advantages (SSD support, sequencer, ...).

that's great news . thanks so much for this update - really appreciated!

Martin, are there new samples included compared to the VI packages to realize the legato vibrato variations, or are these just the different sustains with the same transitions?

Paolo, thanks for the reply! 

Yes, that's exactly what I would like to do.

Unfortunately, the velocity curve seems to have only two parameters: one that determines by how much the volume is reduced at minimal velocity, and another one that controls the slope of the curve from minimal to maximal velocity. Yet, minimal and maximal velocity always seem to be fixed to 0 and 127 for every slot in a matrix.

Hi Paul,

thanks for your quick reply !

I understand that velocity xfade can be problematic for single instruments. I would have hoped that using several dimension players reduces the problem, but if you observed the opposite I surely trust you on this. 

Yet, cutting the instrument into two patches (aside from removing the transition from mp to mf) alone does not solve this problem and, as you write, merely increases the midi controller range. This might make it a bit easier to access the sampled dynamic levels, but if xfading does not sound well, it makes in my opinion not much sense to turn on velocity xfade anyway.   

In this case it would nevertheless be great to have a combined sound that switches all layers via velocity (velocity xfade turned off). There have been wind patches with 6 velocity layers already in the first edition and they still work great. The more layers there are, the smoother the individual steps become. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to create such a true 6-velocity-layer matrix in VI pro, since the way the layers are "packaged" into two different patches seems to inherently prevent this. In the old Cube libraries different velocity layers were individually accessible (in a "resource folder"), which provided complete flexibility to shape the transitions. Maybe adding these layers in the future would be a simple way to overcome the present restrictions?

Thanks again and best regards

Kai

I like the unlooped sustains in the extended VI Dimension Brass content, which as far as I understand offer 6 distinct velocity layers in total (please correct me if I am wrong). Unfortunately these are separated into two different patches (p & f) and I don't really understand why this is done. With Velocity xFade it would be very easy to access all of them with a single continuous controller and realize more realistic dynamic transitions. 

Such patches, restricted to a particular dynamic range, had been introduced previously for the Synchron Strings, but in this case the user can also choose to use a single patch that includes all 8 available velocity layers.

Is there any way within VI pro to program the two patches so that one gets access to all velocity layers via velocity or the single velocity xFade controller? (I know that I could additionally blend them with a second controller, but this is much harder to do.) If not, are there plans to release combined patches with 6 velocity layers in the future via a Library update?

William, the sul legato is a really good example. When I upgraded the Orchestral and Chamber Strings to full, I did not expect much and was blown away by the sul legato patches. They are still my favorite legato version since they are so "warm". Another strong point of their libraries, that VSL keeps really low-key, is the slurred legato. Whereas in Synchron Strings they point it out now, slurred legato is also included in most of the VI libraries, yet not even listed in the manuals. They are as far as I can tell completely separately recorded (normal and fast versions for standard and muted instruments and already contained in the standard libraries), include even more samples than the ordinary legato and are very useful to have.

Out of the String Libraries I have (including Synchron), Orchestral Strings are still my favorite. If you like the sound of Orchestral included in the Special Edition you cannot go wrong with the Standard version. They include more velocity layers (in particular p/pp versions) , alternations and chromatic sampling, which to me make a big difference. Moreover, there are a few more articulation, like fast legato. If you already have the Standard versions of the other sections this would give you a consistent orchestra, whereas Synchron Strings sound rather different, are less complete and use far more resources.

By the way: if you purchased Standard Single Intrument libraries, you might have gotten the same Special Edition content, you already had, once more. Whereas the Single Instrument Full Libraries contain the same Symphonic Cube content as the corresponding Collection libraries (with up to 6 instead of 3 velocity layers, ...), many Single Intrument Standard Libraries merely contain the Special Edition versions. I made this mistake before, so better make sure that this is not a problem for you as well ....

I can only agree with everything said before. The music is beautiful and the performance is just marvelous.

I am not sure if this is partly the youtube stream, but the mix and the reduction of certain frequency bands, makes it sound like an old recording and in my opinion significantly adds to the realism.

Thanks for sharing!

Hi Cyril,

ok I see, thanks a lot nonetheless.

Best regads

Kai

I couldn't follow the French part of the discussion, but I am having problems with Articulation Sets in Logic as well. 

I haven't tried Articulations Sets for some time and they have improved these quite a bit since the original release - they can now send several Midi message per articulation ID, which works great ! 

However, I have problems with the input side ("Switches" pane). I control articulations by program change messages in VIpro and have set it up accordingly. When I turn the Midi Remote button in the Switches pane off everything works and I can switch articulations from my keyboard (yet, Articulation IDs are surely not changed). However, when I turn the Midi Remote on, no program change messages from my keyboard are transmitted to VIpro at all anymore and I always hear the same articulation while playing/recording. Therefore, it is surely impossible to realistically play/record a sequence this way, due to the wrong articulations that are monitored. Nevertheless, when doing so, all the articulation changes I sent from my keyboard are encoded into the appropriate articulation IDs once the recording is finished, and work correctly when I play that sequence back again! I.e. it works in principle, but is nevertheless completely unusable as it is, which is really odd . Is this a bug or am I missing some setting somewhere?

Thanks so much for any help!

Hi Gil,

The Synchron Line represents a different approach where the natural reverb in the fixed Synchron Stage venue is directly recorded with multiple microphones. This could improve the realism but you loose a lot of flexibility compared to dry recordings (and need far more resources). Therefore, I don’t think that the Synchron Line is meant as a replacement for the Cube or that there will be an upgrade at some point. (This is surely a matter of taste, but I own Synchron Strings and still prefer the sound of the VI libraries)

I understand that you are mainly interested in the score. Yet, a potential upgrade to the Cube obviously concerns the playback. I fully agree that controller or velocity numbers are not very musical . However, the notes alone don’t fully determine the music. For basically every famous orchestral work you will find dozens of recordings that sound very different, even though they are based on the same score … and additional controllers allow you to specify how the notes are played. For instance for sustained notes the use of velocity crossfade makes a note “breathe” via subtle dynamic transitions that can significantly add to the realism. 

That said, there are several cases where the Cube should also increase the realism when you use it in Sibelius:

- the additional velocity layers will give you more appropriate dynamic levels, e.g. a realistic piano/pianissimo (many of the SE versions lack the softer end)

- the different variations are automatically chosen whenever you repeat notes

- speed control in VI pro can automatically choose the right legato version depending on the playing speed

- for many winds there are different vibrato versions and I would guess that you can select them somehow in Sibelius

Hope this helps 

Kai

Hi Gil, 

1) I don’t use Sibelius, but the Cube is great and definitely the way to go if you are happy with the sound of the SE and want to improve the realism

2) yes, you get many more articulations this way (e.g. fast legato) that will definitely improve the realism of your music (I guess you are talking about the Standard Version of the Cube? The full version has even much more to offer ...)

3) yes, this is for me the most important difference. The SE only has 3 velocity layers - the Cube has mostly from 4 (Strings, some Winds) to 5-6 for key Woodwinds and Brass. Moreover, you get more variations (from 1-2 to typically 4) and chromatic instead of whole tone sampling.

4) don’t know

5) as far as I understand, MIR allows you to place instruments anywhere on stage and to include non-VSL instruments. If you have a pure VSL orchestra and are fine with the standard positions, MIRx is just great.

6) yes

7) not sure what exactly you mean with “Synchron”. The VSL team had promised that there will by a Synchron MIRx extension with which you could use all VI instruments in the Synchron hall (just as any other venue in the MIRx bundle) - I would guess you can just upgrade your bundle once this is released. If you talk about the new Synchron Series instruments, there are no winds, yet, and the strings are still missing many key articulations compared to what the Cube has to offer.

By the way, I don’t fully understand your current approach: it would be far more natural to move the project from Sibelius back to Logic and finish it there. This allows you to shape the playback by additional continuous controllers, like velocity crossfade, since this brings the music to life - and even the Cube might not improve too much if you skip this crucial step. In this context you might also be interested in this:

www.articulate-preset.com

Best regards

Kai

Paolo,

Articulate Presets follow the standard VSL-convention, where velocity Xfade is controlled by CC2. If you want to control it with your modwheel, simply have your modwheel send CC2 (I did it for the modwheel on my second keyboard, and this can easily be done somewhere in the settings).

Articulation selection is in Articulate Presets actually done via program change messages. CC1 generally acts as one of three continuous controllers that let you e.g. simultaneously shape the attack behavior, vibrato intensity, section size, … . 

Yes, Articulate Presets don’t cover the entire super package, yet (the list is growing, though). Anyway, if you want to create fancy presets for the entire super package from scratch you should allow a lot of extra time :-).

ddunn,

The advantage of Articulate Presets is not merely that they use program change messages: the different matrices do not consist of single patches, but offer far more realtime control by continuously blending many individual patches.