Hi,

With VI libraries I like to add MIRacle after MIR PRO, to glue things together (in combination with a little compression). I mix it in conservatively, because I like to have most of the tail from MIR.

Conservatively seems sometimes still too much. What about using the "Abbey Road trick" on the master? That is, sending the MIR-processed stereo signal to two busses: one with hard low-pass, and the other with hard high-pass. Each of the resulting bands will be applied a different degree of MIRacle to apply a different algorithmic reverb to the highs and the lows. Three band would be even better than two, to give the middle frequencies their dignity.

The signals coming from the MIRacle instances would then be mixed back o the master.

Would this make sense?

Paolo

It's an incredibly beautiful piece. I like how sweet the melody line is, something not so common in vocal writing nowadays. There are Mahlerian echoes making it both melancholic and solidly built, with a narrative arc magically capturing the listener.

Mrs. Trustman has a beautiful, powerful and nuanced voice. And the composer conducts and plays the orchestra in the finest way.

I agree, it's a hidden jewel that should deserve much more attention and knowledge.

Paolo

Really impressive music! And excellent players, too!

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

I do the same thing!  I tested it out, and - thankfully - it does not eat memory.

Ah, beautiful!

Paolo

As Sam says, velocity controlled vibrato wouldn't work in all situations.

As for me, I keep the individual vibrato patches selectable alone, and via crossfade. Crossfades are only called into play when needed.

In Synchron presets I've separated XFades, as in the examples given by VSL. In Vienna Instruments I've added the crossfading slot in the main cells. But I don't know if this can eat memory even when the crossfading slot is not used.

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

I go straight from n.v to molto.  More than two vib. types in the dimension adds too much phasing for it to be worth it, imo.

I was fearing this. So, straight between the two extremes. All considered, it seems to be effective.

Paolo

By the way, my dudettes and fellas: when blending between n.v. and molto vib., do you put a regular vib. in the middle? Or, do you prefer to go straight from n.v. to molto vib. to minimize any side effect of crossfading?

Paolo

Hi,

I wonder if Synchronized Dimension Strings (SDS) can become auxiliaries to the new Synchron Elite Strings (SES). Where these latter can work as the ensemble, the others can be the finer divisi, or the soloists adding dimension to the ensemble.

The two ensembles seem to sound somewhat similar. If you only leave six violins turned on in SDS, you get the same thickness as in SES Vni I – as I hear them in the demos.

Attacks are probably different, but can be made very similar. For example, SDS Vibrato attacks are faster and harsher than the one of Synchron Strings Pro (SSP). Using the Marcato version of these latter, with the MIDI Attack slowed down a bit, results in a very similar behavior. At the same time, a slowed down SDS Vibrato attack becomes very similar to the normal attack of SSP, and when slowed down even more it matches the Soft attack of SSP.

Compared to what I hear in the demos, the room sound of SES seems to be very different than the presets in SDS. SDS seem to be constantly mixed to be drier, closer and harsher. SES sounds lusher. Maybe that, now that SES are out, we can get a set of new mixer presets for SDS, more closely matching SES?

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Macker

(Lol, now I'm having wicked silly ideas about making some protest placards, saying, for example, "PLEASE VSL, give us Molto Vibrato in Dimension Strings", then a gang of us march up and down Engelshofengasse, waving the placards and chanting "What do we want?" etc. Lololol.)

YES, LET'S MAKE A VIBRANT PROTEST! MOLTO VIBRATO FOR THE MASSES!

Pixelpoet, smart workaround. All considered, most of the time you enter molto vibrato fading in from regular vibrato. But the transition in progressive vibrato is still a bit too long.

Paolo

Hi,

I don't know if this has been requested, but in case I'll request it once more: is there a way to have a "molto vibrato", or "espressivo" articulation in Dimension Strings?

Currently, we have Regular vibrato, Non vibrato, and Progressive vibrato. This latter could contain the Molto vibrato I'm looking for, but can't be used without the long initial transition. The player has no way to cut into the vibrato part of the sample.

I guess this is something that can be done by editing the original samples. It would really be a great bonus content, if it can be another one.

Paolo

VI libraries are still irreplaceable. It is true that most of the music composed will be made for a standard orchestra, set as in the standard configuration dictated by Stokowski one century ago; but this doesn't end the game.

Particular setups are still required. It may be niche, but this is part of how the music works: sometimes help people relax, some other (the more interesting of the times) surprise the listener. Unseen orchestra density and placement of instruments are two of the most powerful devices.

Dry instruments and a powerful and easy-to-use spatializer like MIR are great for the composer always trying to try things in a different way. Yes, most of the music will probably sound in that particular way, tasting as it is expected to taste. But then, there will be someone curious enough to want to explore a wider (or narrower!) horizon and make the music resound in a huge sacred place, or in the most intimate of the rooms; or extend the time span, experimenting with the same setups of the time of Mozart, or imagine an unseen futuristic configuration.

I'm reading Berio's Formazioni, and doing a mockup at the same time. It is a piece for a large orchestra set in a very unusual way (sort of a mix between a spiral and a kaleidoscope). Berio was trying to make the sound bounce all around the listener, with instrumental sections broken in sort of a sophisticate responsory. Try this with a multimic library. With MIR, you can!

Paolo

I don't know if I’m doing the right thing, but since I don't want to deal with Dorico's mixer, I prefer to set the Master Volume in the Synchron Player. Each track has a CC7 event at the very beginning, with a value corresponding to the one saved by VSL in their standard preset.

Paolo

(Incidentally, it's probably my preferred piece by Carla Bley — End of VIenna. I think it would work great with Synchron instruments!)

I recently read an answer from Paul, who stated that VI will be supported for the foreseeable future, due to the widespread use from professional customers. I'm happy to be reassured, since I use it the most, despite also using Synchron Player.

Are these rumors from reliable sources?

Paolo

Hi,

Another embarrassing question from me: the Density parameter in algorithmic reverbs (like MIRacle) should always be increased as much as possible, or there are cases when a lower density can be desirable? My first impression is that more density equals a smoother tail, therefore a better reverb. But is it really so?

I remember some experiments with the older Lexicons (PCM80 and LPX15, plus a short run on a 480). They could be grainy, and this was a deliberate choice for particular effects. But what about orchestral sounds? And then: denser Lexi reverb where always a delight!

Paolo

With SSP I've done, up to now, a few more or less extended tries. I wanted to compare them with the other VSL strings libraries I'm using.

First, I tested their more "sentimental", "fragile", "transparent" character with Elgar's Enigma Thema (this one). Transparent they are. The sound is clean, and can be very delicate without being thin. They can respond well to dynamics, but I found that adding Expression to Dynamics may be needed more than with the old VI series, due to a bit more limited overall range. Extreme dynamic layers have been separated, so the Dynamics control has to run larger steps (or be helped by Expression). In the Elgar example I remained too shy, and the dynamic is a bit flatter than it should be.

Something great in the Synchron Player is that you can control microphones separately. Again in the Elgar above: there are passages where I find advisable to make the Close mic come out more, to highlight the more expressive passages (in particular in the Cellos). I've done it sparingly, and it's something very easy to do. I guess this is similar to what can be done in VI when layering solo strings, and controlling them separately from the ensemble. In this case, however you have sort of a remote control of all the mics in the ensemble.

At the same time, I've tried the "fatter" character of the strings in Nimrod (this one). This is however still just a first reading of the score, with nearly no refinements. Despite the rough corners, I think I could see that SSP can sound full and warm, if asked to do it in the right piece.

What I already knew is that these strings can be "harsh", "nervous", "fast", almost "violent". Again, a first reading, but this Mahler torso (here) proves it in full. These can easily be disruptive strings.

They are very different from the older collections. William and I have already quarreled about them, and I think we will have to continue beat us until I've not convinced they don't work as well as the older ones. At the moment, I'm very fascinated by this new animal!

Paolo

Originally Posted by: belkina

Synchron Pro has it all in ONE library, and the cross fading between no vibrato, normal vibrato and strong vibrato is all in one place.

I always think in relation to my own presets. I don't remember if VSL gave something like this, but I have cells in the matrix containing slots xfading between vib./molto vib., n.v./vib., and molto vib./n.v.

With Synchron Player one can xfade between more than two patches, and this allows for continuous xfading between all the available degrees of vibrato in a single sweep.

In the case of Appassionata, the original VI library lacked non vibrato, but this has been added in the Synchronized version.

Paolo

I still find the Orchestral Strings a bit more to my taste, and the Appassionata Strings much more expressive than either of them. In the Synchronized version, Appassionata got n.v. parches, that can help controlling vibrato better.

Paolo

Dietz, it absolutely helps, thank you!

Paolo

Thank you for your explanation, Dietz.

I'm comparing the VI+MIR and the SYNCHRON-ized instruments, to see what mixing the former can get from the latter. As far as I can see (and as made clear by Paul), SYzd instruments follow this signal flow:

(1) Samples -> (2) HP filter > (3) EQ > (4) CMP (if any) > (5) Convolution IR > (6) Artificial REV

When working with VI+MIR, I can be reasonably sure that (5) is done in MIR.

In case it is needed, (4) should come before entering MIR.

I don't know about (2); should it be done with a separate EQ, before sending the instrument to MIR? Or is it already included somewhere in MIR?

As for (3), I wonder if it is equivalent to the Character EQ in MIR's instrument channel (acting on the dry signal). The placement in the signal path seems to be the same.

Artificial reverb (6) should be added to the VEP channel individually. I guess an instance of MIRacle would work great (and, as I could see, it sounds the same as the artificial reverb in Synchron Player).

Any additional corrective/creative EQ should, I guess, be added to the VEP channel, after MIR.

Does it make sense?

Paolo

Being able to smoothly transition between different vibrato degrees (including the full range n.v. -> vib. -> molto vib.) is indeed great. This is quite unique.

Paolo

Alan, I'm still in my courtship stage, with SSP. I understand how good they are, but still trying to understand how to use them in the best way. Care to tell what you like the most, from the point of view of a modern classical composer?

Paolo

A very beautiful piece!

Paolo

Thank you Andi. Yes, this interconnection between Volume (absolute value) and Expression (relative to volume) is what troubles me. VSL presets volume is modeled (if I'm not wrong) on 'natural volume' tables, so until they are in the same relation the one the other, they should be fine. By increasing the Volume value, maybe I'm just giving Expression a shorter run toward the lower values, and some space over the nominal level.

Paolo

Dietz, please let me reopen this old thread. You described the use of the MIR icon's Character EQ, and the one of the Room EQ in MIR. When using Vienna Ensemble Pro there is another EQ one can apply – Equalizer Pro – coming after any MIR processing. What role would you assign it?

My first impression is that the Character EQ of a MIR's icon is trying to remain as natural as possible. Being applied to the "dry" signal wouldn't affect the reverb directly. On the contrary, I would say that Equalizer Pro is made (when not used for correction in Resonance Menu mode) for a mixing situation, after the instrument has been captured by the microphones.

The EQ in MIR's icon seems to give me back the way in which the player wants to play his/her instrument. Warmer, lighter, more aggressive, with more or less sound – this is how the player plays it.

The Equalizer Pro in a VEP channel is what I would do in post-processing, taking all the creative choices to make the instrument fit with the other instruments.

I don't know if the two steps are really separate, but I find the second one to allow more radical results. If I want to change the character of the natural sound, I go for the MIR icon's EQ. If I want a trumpet to stand out from the ensemble, or a cello ensemble sound fuller and fatter in the mix, I go for Equalizer Pro.

Paolo