My preferred solution would be that Steinberg increased the space available for Endpoint Configuration names. It's not only for VSL sets: the space is very tight for any type of sound library.

Now, try to write "Orchestral Tools Berlin Symphonic Strings"…

Paolo

Hi,

I've prototyped the first movement (the big fugue) of Bartók's masterwork. I did it to study the score, but also to do some experiments with spatialization. The piece is written for two strings orchestras in antiphonal disposition. It seems that with MIR the two identical orchestras don't get phasing artifacts.

The sounds are all classic VI. Now, try this with multimic libraries! :grin

Bartók, Music for strings, percussion and celesta

Paolo

Contemporary music is per se niche. Even pop-star contemporary composers like Einaudi or Richter don't do very well in charts dominated by slightly different kinds of music. Even the most popular contemporary composers, John Williams and Arvo Pärt, are not in the Billboard charts (Williams was, briefly, when Star Wars hit the theatres – but that was classical music meeting popular culture).

In any case, composers using microtones might be more popular with orchestras and conductors than one could expect. Bartók is still quite popular, and Ives is well respected. Ligeti and Penderecki are still two of the most beloved ones, and they are also popular thanks to some movie soundtracks. Scelsi is still transversely popular among listeners and performers. Partch and Branca have a transversal mytical status. Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis and Takemitsu have still their place in concerts. Ferneyhough is still loved and respected by notable performers.

One generation later, Saarihao and Haas are among the most revered and performed ones. Saarihao is one of the composers earning more commissions from concert and opera institutions, including the MET, Opéra Paris, Aix-en-Provence, Opéra Lyon, Lincoln Center, Spoleto. And les spectralistes are still at the center of the music activity in France, probably among the ones with more power in the music institutions.

I cited Olga Neuwirth, whose stage works have been staged at Frankfurt Opera, Wiener Staatsoper, Hamburg Elbphilharmonie, Wien Modern, Philharmonie de Paris, Opera Scotland, Young Vic London, King's Theatre Edinburgh, and so on. Niche, maybe, but a quite mainstream niche.

But there is a more recent generation making use of microtones, that is still hard to count, but any familiarity with concert programs should make easy to find. Just a quick look at programs in the main European capitals let me discover an abundance of young composers using microtones.

So, I don't know what can be considered popular in the world of contemporary music, in particular for the scope of composition tools like VSL's and Dorico's. What gravitates around the major opera theatre and concert institutions is popular enough for me, and looks like the most interesting target for the manufacturers of the necessary writing tools.

Paolo

Just my very humble opinion, after trying so many choirs that are never able to really sing: I would love a choir singing "gibberish". A limited number of syllables, that you can select or let the player randomly select itself.

It would give the impression of a choir singing, without having to desperately trying to make it realistic. It would be easy to use. It will give a good assortment of phonemes. And, maybe the player will be clever enough to choose between a prevalence of Latin, English, German, French, Russian phonemes, or the like.

Paolo

I admit I'm not particularly inclined to discussions on the value of aesthetic choices, in particular if they are already historicized. I'm much more interested in the status of the contemporary instrumentarium, that I always hope to become more and more flexible and ready for the widest use in these incredibly multifaceted times. Since we are hosts of an Austrian forum, I'll have to cite Olga Neuwirth as an example of how this complex world can become a form of art. Including – yay! – spectralism.

Contemporary composers, unless they have limited requirements consisting in some neo-schlakian well-quantized lines, are still far from having the necessary tools for their everyday job. That's still true for composers of hymns, as well as for those avant-garde composers winning all the competitions announced by the major public institutions.

The appearance of Dorico has been a true revolution. Its main architect decided to base the work of his team on the guidelines of the main editor of a major contemporary music publisher (Faber Music). It was no longer something born from the personal ideas of some informed techie or classical music lovers. It was a tool designed for the professional classical/contemporary music world.

VSL has a similar history, having been formed by classical musicians, and still based on the work of professional classical musicians. The musical competence you can hear in their demos is stunning. And it's no wonder that many of those piece leave many users 'cold', since this type of competence require an everyday attendance to this type of listening to be fully appreciated.

Their catalogue includes many supports for avant-garde composers, from the then unique inclusion of frullati in each woodwind library and harmonics and glissandos in each strings library, to the recent incursions in the most experimental field with things like FX Strings I and Black Eye.

It's therefore a shame that there is not yet a complete integration between Dorico and VSL. The tools we have are not yet complete, and we have still to patiently craft our own scalpels and ruling pens.

Paolo

Just a little experiment, to show how Dorico + NotePerformer can deal with microtones. Some Grisey:

Grisey, Partiels (beginning)

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Macker

One thing that really disappointed me on first exploring my new Dorico Pro was finding that the only intonation alternative to ET on offer is 24 EDO

Actually, with Dorico you can divide the octave for any number of equal intervals you want. 24 EDOs divides an octave by 24 quarter tones, therefore allowing for the use of quarter tone accidentals.

You could as well divide it by 36 sixths of tone, and then program the distance between the seven available degrees of the scale. Since the distance between each degree is free, you can program a scale with the desired distance of equal subdivisions (semitones, quarter tones, sixths of tone, and so on). 

Custom scales can be saved and imported, therefore making for a library of custom tonality systems.

Division lower than a semitone have up to now been transmitted as VST Expression data. With the most recent MIDI protocol update, Steinberg's ideas have been included (at least in part) in the new protocol. A receiving sound generator has to understand either VST Expression, or the new MIDI protocol.

MIDI Pitch Bend has not be used, because it doesn't allow detuning of individual notes in a chord. I would personally be more than happy of the Pitch Bend solution, since I mostly write for monophonic instruments, but that's how they went for. Maybe something will change with Dorico 4?

Keep in mind Dorico (as far as I know) will not deal with intonation, but with scales. Intonation will still be left to the sound generator. So, it will deal with the harmony system, but not with the exact tuning of the individual pitches (either recurring for all the occurrences of the same pitch class, or varying as in the piano stretch tuning).

Originally Posted by: Macker

However, even if Dorico added these things, it still wouldn't help composers hear what they're playing live in their chosen intonationation schema.

If I understand what you mean, Dorico can already do it when playing back a score with NotePerformer. It should be able to do it with Halion and Pianoteq. I can't, however, do it with the VSL players, as it can't with Kontakt, Sine, and the Spitfire Player.

Paolo

I’m reopening this thread, because I still hope the VSL players can soon get microtones information from Dorico.

Today I was reading one of the germinal scores by Grisey — it was from 1975. Nearly fifty years ago. It is now to be considered classical music. Yet, even the most advanced computer music technologies are not able to deal with it.

Nor with the many musical cultures of the world, that use different scales, and are more and more often trying to find a space into the Occidental classical music.

Paolo

Partial workaround: duplicate the Flautando, then go to the Edit page, and make the Attack value faster. Now, the Sustain Harmonics are back there, more or less like the original.

Shorter notes are not there. However, the release engine of Synchron Player seems to make this omission negligible.

Paolo

Dear VSL,

As you know, the harmonics in VI Chamber Strings are one of the most moving sounds in the whole history of sampling. With SYzd Chamber Strings you simply removed them from the library. Too afraid of all that beauty?

The SYzd Flautando patch, that is derived from the VI artificial harmonics, can't be reused to simulate the missing sound, since they lack the original strength of the original.

It would enormously appreciated if they can be reintegrated in SYzd Chamber Strings in some way. They are really an essential articulation. Since they are also intended as divisi for the full orchestral strings, their omission is unfortunately very apparent.

Paolo

Hi,

Since VSL is having fun with filters, I wonder if they can try something with a vocal formant filter.

One of the main missing features in choirs is multiplicity of phonemes. Sampling many of them is expensive and hard to manage. And you will never have enough phonemes to satisfy everybody. Take Fluffy's Dominus: there is an incredible amount of sounds, but English speakers are missing several of the most common sounds.

What about trying a different approach? Vocal formant filters can be so extreme to sound like a vocoder. But subtler things can be done, to make a vowel or a consonant sound a bit like the nearby one.

This would never result in a synthetic language, but for a singing choir it could approximate well enough the perception of words.

It could be just a slider: select the "Aaaah", and move the formant filter. It will smoothly move between a -> ɑ -> æ -> ɐ, maybe even reaching ə -> ɵ -> œ, and so on.

The same with consonants. A formant filter will let you transform a "p" in a "b", and a "t" in a "d", or a "k" in a "q" or a "g".

Paolo

Thank you very much, Andi!

Paolo

Hi,

Happy New Year! Already my first feature request of this year!

I would like Synchron Player included a tracking feature for filters. Being able to track the played note would allow for more realistic filtering, special effects, and simulation of strings mute. In case of chords, maybe just he lowest or the highest note could be considered.

Paolo

Paul, I see. Thank you for clarifying!

Paolo

Hi,

I there a deadline for the offer of vouchers? End of this year, end of the holidays?

Paolo

Paul, thank you very much for your answer.

There is something that I'm not sure to have understood, and I would like to ask something more about it.

Originally Posted by: Paul

When it comes to reverbs, I'd always keep it to on reverberation tool, personally. Much easier for me. 

Does this mean that you would personally turn the Synchron Player reverb off, and only rely on the external reverb, when used? Or that you would keep the internal Synchron Player reverb on in any case, even if using an external reverb?

Thank you again, and Happy Holidays!

Paolo

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. Microphone volumes are set, each mic channel has its EQ and there is algorithmic reverb added.

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:

- EQ and fine-tuning for each mic channel should better be based on the internal effects of Synchron Player. They are very good, and there is no reason to use third-party effects of this type (corrective ones, for the most part). The settings premade by VSL are expertly crafted, and are a great starting point for one's own customization.

- I don't know if the reverb added to the final mix of each instrument should be considered part of the recording, or already an additional processing. I would say this latter, so would feel authorized to turn it off, it I prefer to only keep the room sound before my final mix.

- Instead of turning the included reverb off, I could want to replace it with my own reverb. For example, I might have a plate reverb simulator that I particularly like, and prefer to use that one. Not that it is really needed at this stage: the one included, derived from the Hybrid Reverb from the Vienna Suite, is already excellent and doing its job perfectly.

- Maybe I want to shape the sound of an instrument in a particular way. For example, instead of the ultra-clean mix offered by VSL, I might want my Violins to pass though some vintage mixer channel simulator, and make it sound as some movie soundtrack from the Fifties. Should the effects included in the instrument's preset be turned off? I already have the EQ, compressor and plate reverb from my vintage processor; shouldn't they integrally replace the effects VSL added to the microphone?

- I like to add MIRacle (or another reverb) to the final mix. Should I turn off the reverb added by VSL to the final mix of each instrument? Or, is the instrument's reverb (as I suspect) still needed to improve the sense of space and position that the microphone mix alone wouldn't emphasize enough? Sort of the old three-layer reverb, but as detailed as to be a different reverb for each instrument/section?

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Macker

you could swap Mids too if it's an ensemble and if you can hear distinct azimuth placement (other than by pan and/or balance settings in the  Synchron Player's mixer) as well as L-R stereo contrast in the Mid pair.

I'm not totally sure I can hear a contrast between the reversed Room mics and the non-reversed Mid mics, when moving the 2nd Violins to the right.

However, I've the feeling of doing it right by also swapping the Mid channels. My brain may be tricking my ears, but I feel they sound that bit more coherent.

Paolo

My brain is sending me contrasting ideas.

Reversing channels in Mid mics will make the ambience "straight".

But it will reverse the player's position, that I don't know if would be always desirable.

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Macker

But let your ears tell you what's what.

My ears say that not swapping the Mid channels is fine, but my mind says otherwise! :)

But it's probably so subtle that nor me, or my listeners, will be able to ear a difference.

Paolo

When swapping the L and R channels, it's obvious it has to be done for the Room microphones. But what about the Mid mics? They have a very narrow stereo configuration. Should they also have their L/R channels inverted?

Paolo

(wrong post)

Originally Posted by: Macker

But Silent Stage being "a bit like a heavily carpeted bedroom"? I'm not convinced about that analogy. I'm sure you'd agree that even the thickest and heaviest floor carpet can't stop slap-back echo between parallel walls.

Well, every bedroom is different. Mines don't have free wall, being covered with bookshelves everywhere.

I'm in my 70sqm studio right now, and the reverb is extremely short (under a second, with no echo). I built it with a slanted wooded roof, laminate floor, abundant carpeting, and all walls covered with books. Playing flute or sax in it is very pleasant, with a very focused sound.

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Macker

For one thing, as noted by VSL, musicians tend to enjoy the sound of their playing in Synchron Stage A. Having worked on a contract involving me in use of an anechoic chamber, I don't imagine that musicians found the experience of sample-recording in the Silent Stage to be particularly helpful, gratifying or even pleasant.

To avoid misunderstandings: it is to be noted that the Silent Stage is not an anechoic chamber. It has a short reverb, a bit like any treated recording studios pop and rock musicians are use to record in. So, it is still a natural environment, even if very "intimate", a bit like a heavily carpeted bedroom.

A large stage like Synchron Stage A is obviously much more gratifying, since it is as playing in a concert hall, a much more satisfying situation for a player.

Paolo

Originally Posted by: jjmus

I understand that Dimension has more control over the size of the ensemble, but wondering about the learning curve and the workflow

Synchronized Dimension Strings are very easy to use. Just choose the size of the ensemble in the main page of the Synchron Player, and use it as any other ensemble instrument.

Paolo