Dietz, excellent solution, thank you!

Paolo

Hi Dietz,

I was not clear about my intent. I don't want to use MIR for the Synchronized libraries. On the contrary, I want to load the Synchronized libraries in VEPRO, without MIR.

However, for the settings I had in VEPRO, the included MIR plugin was activated on all VEPRO channels. Synchronized instruments were loaded without their original IR, and routed to the MIR plugin.

I could however fix this, by unchecking the MIR Pro preferences I described above. The MIR plugin remains activated by default, but it is easy to bypass it en masse.

No MIR PRO soundpack is recalled. It's just the internal one in VEPRO.

I think things are working fine, now. Only, maybe the default setting can confuse a newcomer like me.

Have a good night!

Paolo

Hi,

I had the bad idea of clicking on the green button on the top corner of the Synchron Player, in my Mac (High Sierra), and now I can't return it to normal view. The green button has disappeared. There is no menu command to exit from full screen.

How can I do?

Paolo

EDIT: Ok, it solved itself. I opened Logic, and then the standalone Synchron Player again. This time, not only it was in normal view, but the dreaded green button was no longer there.

Maybe I've found the solution.

In VEPRO, under Preferences > Vienna MIR Pro you can disable three parameters: Disable Built-in Reverb, Disable Equalizers, Disable Panning.

With them disabled, the original IRs of the Synchronized instruments is not disabled. You can have the original settings.

I don't know why these options were checked. Are they to be activated for particular cases?

Paolo

A better solution would be to bypass the integrated MIR, and reload the original impulse in the Synchron Player. This recovers the original programming.

However, I wonder if this shouldn't be the default behavior. So, I also wonder if there is something that is not working with my setup.

Paolo

With the problem I'm experiencing (all the MIR icons in the center of the stage), positioning of individual instruments of the Synchronized SE library is destroyed. Everything goes to the center. You have to manually rebuild the stage.

Is this intentional? In any case, the available space on stage is minimal, and would not allow for the same wide and detailed placement as programmed in the original presets.

Paolo

It's a long time that drives are not usually partitioned on the Mac. With SSDs being so small, it would also probably not be even worth doing it.

My suggestion is just to create a folder where to place your sound libraries. You will not even be limited by the fixed partition.

Paolo

REWRITTEN, TO MAKE THINGS EASIER TO FOLLOW.

Hi,

While creating orchestral sets with the Synchronized SE1/+ library in VEPRO 7, I discovered that VEPRO channels over the tenth one do not sound. You can see it yourself in the attached VEPRO project.

MIDI data is received, the virtual keyboard in Synchron Player is animated, but there is no sound.

If you go to the MIR page, you can see that only ten icons are in the center of the stage. The others are crowded in a corner, probably out of the hot spot. Moving them to the center makes them start to sound.

When loaded into VEPRO, it seems that the internal IR of Synchronized libraries is deactivated from the Synchron Player, and transferred to the internal MIR plugin in VEPRO.

Is there a solution or a workaround? Or the only one is to manually move the icon to the center of the stage? Positioning, in that small space, doesn't seem optimal.

I also have MIR PRO installed. I wonder if there is a conflict between the internal IR or the Synchronized libraries, and MIR PRO.

Paolo

In the Dorico forum, I was suggested by the product manager that keeping everything in a single preset would be better, because I will then be able to manage beater changes inside the same instrument.

So, I think I will end up, as I did with pitched instruments, with a schema that will fit all percussive instruments. In the rows, there will be a first matrix including all hits (the most common technique), then one with rolls, then one with prerecorded dynamic arcs, and then all the more exoteric ones.

Columns will be reserved to beaters (including brush and fingers). I have 12-column matrices, so I can reserve a couple columns to each beater. Something like in the attached table.

Paolo

Still thinking: maybe I don't need to build standard presets. The available instruments, and the possible combinations, are too huge. What I would need, is just to work with single patches/kits.

1. Create a new VI preset based on the default one.
2. Drag the needed patch in the only cell.
3. Use a separate track to drive that patch/kit.

When a particular size of cymbal or drum, a particul beater, or a particular technique (stick, brush, bowed, scraped…) is called, just create a new single-patch preset, and assign it to a new track of the DAW. In Dorico, assign it to a VST Instrument, and add the corresponding instrument to a percussion kit.

Paolo

Hi,

I've this unresolved question while building my percussion presets for VI instruments. How to solve it is strictly tied to how I will use them in notation programs. Are beaters techniques or entirely different instruments?

- First of all: how I build presets of pitched instruments.

With my custom VI pitched instruments (including timpani), I create presets made of "matrices", that are groups of similar techniques. For example, I can have a matrix for sustains, one for legatos, one for repetitions, one for dynamic arcs. With timpani, I can have single hits, rolls, glissando, repetition, dynamic arcs.

Each matrix include the individual techniques, with all their nuances. An expression map selects a matrix, then a technique in the matrix.

- Then: non-pitched instruments.

With non-pitched percussions it is different: mostly you have a drum kit including all the techniques. Single hits, rolls. Everything is under a percussion map, with no need for further subdivisions.

However, there are also things that I don't know if are to be considered additional techniques, or totally different instruments. Bowed cymbals, brush vs. stick, different brands of timpani or cymbals, snare on vs. snare off, different mallets.

My preference would be to consider each of them a separate instrument/preset. An Instrument Change in Dorico would switch to that instrument/technique.

But is it correct? When invoking a different type of mallet, switch the snare wires off, taking a bow to play a cymbal, am I invoking an instrument change, or just a different technique?

I'm really confused on the boundary between the two methods. And this makes very hard to find a general method in building my presets. How would you do it?

Paolo

Paul, may you add a 7th user asking for it? While I only have the light version of the Steinway and the full version of the Blüthner, in general I would say that silent key is needed for maximum realism. It is also needed for playing harmonics.

Paolo

Having the separate mics - something that the Synchron Player would manage with ease - would really mean a totally new instrument. I would love to play with the hammer mics to see how the sound can become more or less bright and aggressive!

Paolo

While I'm sure they will make a Synchron Imperial, I also would like the old Vienna Imperial to be preserved. During these years, it seems VSL changed their idea of sound. The new Bösendorfer will be different from the old one. Not better or worse, just different.

Making the old one transition to the new era, as they are doing with the other VI instruments, would still make sense.

Paolo

Hi,

My preferred piano, in the VSL catalogue, is still the Vienna Imperial. It has that particular singing sound that I don't hear in the other pianos. Each one of the instruments has its own peculiarities, and the Vienna Imperial is probably the one that has to be at the same time powerful, full and singing in the middle range, bright and smooth in the higher.

It is also light on resources, for today's standards. And can be very dry, sharing the same flexiblity of the whole VI collection.

So, I would find great if it could receive the same modern features of the new Synchron Piano Player. As for other VI libraries, it would be great if it could receive a new user interface, new editing controls, and maybe a simulated half pedal. With some re-editing of the original samples in the middle.

The current version is great, and the player excellent. A modernized version would be even better.

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Oh - I was about to answer your question, but now I see you have deleted it. What went wrong?

Hi Dietz, very sorry to have alerted you. Basically, I thought I could already have had an answer to my question by re-reading your previous answers, and doing some more tests and comparative listening. The resulting impression was that chaging the level in the Instrument panel of MIR PRO does the same thing as moving the faders in the DAW. One is sending the processed signal, the other receives it.

Since I still have the draft of my question, if you want I can repost it to give a sense to this exchange! :)

Paolo

(Deleted)

Since there isn't one in VSL's catalogue, I hope it is not a problem to say that there is one in Xsample's catalogue.

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Paul

One question that keeps haunting me: Will "more" ever be enough?

No, never!

Paolo

Paul, thank you for this new release. I'm particulary excited by the creative possibilites of the FX section (the prepared piano and the harmonium are particularly promising sources). Considering the ability of you guys, maybe we can expect some more presets from you?

Paolo

Apart for how bad I may have used it, I'm not sure I dislike the Großer Saal pack. I think it is true to the few recordings I can find clearly referring to it. More than "boxy", I would say that this type of hall is "warm". That is, it has not that sparkle that is in more modern halls, like Teldex or Synchron.

As for any boxyness in my mockup, I could refer it to the use of compression. Yes, I admit I use compression! Without it, I feel the result is too uneven. I use parallel compression, to be sure the sound remains as natural as possible – but compressed sound will remain dominant.

In the new version I uploaded, I replaced the compressor with a different one, with the most transparent settings I could achieve. And parallel compression, here too. I don't know if it sounds more open. It's different, probably smoother and more pleasing, but I don't know if also more natural.

I also shortened the MIR reverb a bit (from 2.2 to 1.8 ms). All considered, I prefer, as you, shorter reverbs for this type of music.

Paolo

Paul, sorry, yes, the correct word is "enabled". I load all my VI instruments with cells disabled, and they are re-enabled only when needed.

Paolo

Hi,

This happens most of the times (I don't know if always, but I would believe it sometimes work).

A matrix has subsequent rows that are selected with the Speed control.

When the sequence selects a cell in the second row (average speed), the cell is not automaticaly activated.

Playing the sequence a second time activates the cell.

Paolo

Icecubeman, thank you very much for listening!

I've used the full library, but with a limited number of articulations. This particular pieces seems to call for a very homogeneous sound, with the exception of the short melodic fragments.

I mostly alternated (with the solo trumpet and all the other instruments) between sustain vib, portato long, marcato. Sometimes I used portato short, staccato, and legato. At times I used prerecorded crescendos. Some notes that were portato/tenuto/détaché in the score sounded better with sustain played tenuto, instead that full lenght. And some legato notes was also better made with sustain.

Your remarks, however, make me investigate for alternative solutions. Obviously, you find that what I was hoping to be homogeneity to be bare flatness.

The MIR room I used was the Großer Saal of the Wiener Konzerthaus. And I added a compatible hint of MIRacle (with the wet signal very low) on the master. It is very reverberated, but the room is actually very reverberant. Maybe I can lower a little more the MIR web/dry mix, to see if it becomes clearer.

Thank you again!

Paolo

Hi,

With VEPRO7 Mac (High Sierra) I have creates some new channels based on external AU plugins.

When I double-click on 'Cardiod' to change the name of the channel in the list on the left, I only get a 'bump', and can't edit the text.

I have to click out of the text field, and then enter text editing again. Only at that point I can edit the channel name.

This happens always. I don't remember it was happening in the past.

Paolo