BUMP!

As I recently bought several new Synchron libraries I really miss the "Interval Map" controller as said already several times.

If it's tricky to implement I can understand, but I don't need the entire function, only the starting note. You already have this feature available with the marcato starts. I only want to have more attack options and play shorts and longs with one-and-only "performance" patch.

I have a new idea:

Why not give parallel mode another option? We currently have "Mix" and "XF". What about "Mix, only starting note"? Okay, it's not the same as Interval Map, because I can't change the attack of the sustain on the first note, but it comes close.

I'm really looking forward to some feedback. You have so many great features and ideas with your software. Please make it finally happen!

Hi Paul,

thanks for the clarification, because the sentence can be understood in several ways (at least I did).

Actually I don't need TLC and the replacement licenses when the iLok is broken. Should I get Zero Downtime? I mean, it's not expensive, but it sounds to me that all of my licenses are safe nevertheless.

I don't have problems with my iLok, but I'm considering to buy Zero Downtime. As I'm not working professionally with the samples I actually don't need it.

Reading the FAQs on the iLok website (https://ilok.com/#!zdt-details) there is a statement I don't fully understand:

„For a broken iLok USB, PACE is authorized by software publishers to replace only those licenses we can recover from the broken device.“

I thought that with Zero Downtime I would be 100% safe. But in the case that PACE is NOT able to recover all licenses, do I have to purchase them again? That would be a huge investment.

Thanks!

But could you please introduce a feature to lock the microphones? That would be very helpful. Maybe with a little padlock icon...?

And I also would welcome a feature to customize the visibility of the grid. On the Synchron Stage it's barely visible. Maybe with a slider...?

Concerning the design:
Maybe it's because I'm a media designer. ;) In my opinion, the old 2D ones remind me of (hi-res) illustrations in books, while the 3D ones look a bit "cheap", because of the flat and simple textures. The old ones looked more organic to me. For comparison: It's the same with Apple and it's skeuomorphism. Don't understand me wrong, I'm totally fine with the other venues, but the Synrchon Stage is really a bit "boring".

Thanks, didn't know that. That's an important information. Maybe the volume should be locked so that one don't (deliberately) change it.

Thanks! I have the latest version installed, but the values still differ from the overview. Or is the overview not correct?

I also have another question off-topic:
Is the natural volume pre or post MIR?

I'm asking, because I think it's "better" to have the volume reduced before MIR... I can't remember if the previous version of MIR handled this differently. For example: When comparing to the SYNCHRON-ized instruments, the volume should be reduced rather in VI Pro, say, before MIR. Maybe I'm only imagining and it's irrelevant at which point you reduce the volume. ;)

While I really enjoy the new MIR Pro, I find it very difficult to work with sometimes.

Here are some new thoughts and ideas:

• Especially positioning instruments near the microphones is difficult. I always select the microphone and move it unintentionally. Is there a way to lock the position? I think in the old MIR Pro the instrument icons appeared above the microphones, but can't remember.
• I also don't know where the center of the venue is ... is it clear what I mean? It's always moving. Maybe you could implement a feature to bring back a quasi 2D view, or a button to bring the viewpoint back to the center? Maybe I'm overlooking something.
• The last one I already wrote to the support team some time ago. I mainly use the Synchron Stage venue and it's a bit “boring”, especially in 3D view it doesn't offer much. The older 2D textures/illustrations looked nicer to me. Maybe you could integrate back and side walls with lamps and wainscoting. ;)

Bump!

Would be nice to have some clarification here. The volumes in MIR Pro are not the same as in the overview, e.g. Flute (18.5 vs 15.5), Horn (11 vs 10) or Dimension Violins (15 vs 12). Which numbers are correct?

All instruments of the Synchron Series are volume balanced. The presets in the Synchron Player have different volumes (CC7) set by default. Are these values important for the balancing? Or can one set them back to 127 and the instruments are still balanced?

Couldn't find any information on this, but it certainly has been answered before. Would be nice to have some clarification.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Honestly - I don't think VSL wants to disclose too many details about their recording process. ;-) As a rule of thumb I would assume that the average distance of the mics used in VSL's Silent Stage for the sampling of Vienna Instruments was about 1.5 meters in case of solo instruments, and 3 to 4 meters in case of ensembles (depending on their size).

I know about the distances, was mainly interested in the rotation. Thanks. I fully understand that VSL doesn't want to disclose too many things. It was just a try to understand a bit more. ;) It's always astounding what MIR Pro is really capable of in terms of the Vienna instruments or, in other words, what's done under the hood.

I've noticed that there are differences between the instrument profiles in MIR Pro and the overview which is listed in the manual (https://www.vsl.info/en/manuals/mir-pro-3d/natural-volume).

What are the correct numbers? From my experience I would say that the list is correct. Would be nice to have some clarification here. Thanks.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Assuming the Vienna Instrument's trumpet had been recorded from the side, the MIR Icon will take care that the sound emanated into the virtual hall of the MIR Venue is rotated in a way that the player's nose is aligned with the Icon's volume fader. The direct signal is not affected by this rotation - the "spot mic" stays in its ideal position on the side of the instrument all the time (at least as long as you don't activate the option to use the "Directivity Profile for Dry Signal.)

Thanks for clarifying! So this means if I rotate the icon, as I said, so that the dry / spot mic were recorded from the front... then the sound emanation also gets rotated again, isn't it? :D

Concerning the original recording at the silent stage: Is there any information on the instrument distances / rotations available? I think I already asked VSL support and they said there isn't something like a spread sheet. But this information is saved within the instrument profiles. Can't this be made available? I'm mainly interested in the rotation and it's very tedious to try and guess with the MIR Pro icons. I would be happy with a cryptical XML or anything else you could export from the profiles. :)

Thanks, Dietz! 

Just to make clear I understood correctly: If the spoken trumpet is recorded from the side and I place the instrument in MIR Pro without rotation (i.e. the standard icon). Does it still sound from the side or is automatically turned unter the hood? Didn't know that. I always though the Directivity Profile would only influence the processing.

Concerning the rotation let me give you an example:
I really like the stereo width of the silent stage recordings. And especially the instruments with some recording distance, like the flute or the horn, sound more like having a main / room microphone to me. I don't want to lose this stereo width in MIR Pro.

I know the MIR Pro concept is about having spot microphones, but the silent stage recordings aren't that close. If we say that the horn in the silent stage has actually a main microphone, I never understood why the stereo width gets narrowed so drastically with the instrument profiles. Unfortunately we can't make them bigger. 

The instrument profiles narrow the stereo width to match the original recording. But in my opinion it would make sense to keep the width intact and scale it to make it the same width in the MIR Pro venue. For example: The horn gets narrowed to 1m. But this is the width in the silent stage. In the Synchron Stage, for example, it would be maybe 5m to be the same (5m because the room is five times bigger).

Of course, I could take a general purpose profile, but I don't want to lose all the processing of the Vienna instrument profiles. I only wished that we can define our own width.

Beat, thanks again! But I've done my homework, I read all manuals and am very acquainted with the setup pictures. This is basically the same all other developers record their libraries. I wanted to know more technical details, maybe I was not clear enough. In another thread VSL mentioned the microphones they used (AKGs, DPAs vs Neumanns). Maybe they made changes to their patterns (cardioid, omni) or other things? Bernd mentioned that they used various distances for the tree which I don't understand. In a "normal" recording situation you won't have different settings, for example. Maybe it's all too technical or unimportant for some users, I'm interested in these things. Firstly, I simply want to understand why certain decisions were made. And secondly, with my experiments, I want to help finding a "good" sound (i.e. the sound I and most users are after).

Concerning the tree:
Thanks again for your input! I don't turn the center off, just lower it. And VSL does the same in their presets, that's why I was wondering. The majority of presets have the center lowered and even turned them completely off (e.g. "Wide Surround to Stereo). In my opinion, it has to be lowered in order to sound "good". So I don't know what they made with the tree.

Concerning the room:
The room mix is indeed a combination, I know, but we don't know the balances – and it's not changebale in the standard libraries. So I'm limited with the sound, if I don't like it.

Concerning the close and mids:
Here I would like to hear your opinion about the panning VSL made. If the close microphones are mono, why do you narrow the width instead of only panning it to the left or right? In my opinion there is a huge difference in sound if you let the width intact as it is or if you narrow it. Wouldn't this make mono out of a mono microphone? Or is it because the original mono microphone was panned very wide so that you always have to narrow the width?

Concerning the microphones and mixes, here are some new thoughts:

Even though these are two different recordings concepts, the Synchron stage libraries match curiously and surprisingly very well with the Blumlein setup in MIR Pro. After having experimented a lot of time (again) I think I found a good sound. 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.

The Blumlein variant "Triple-8 Coincident" (and also the other Blumlein variants) in MIR Pro has the center lowered by 10 to 15 db by default. And the same value sound very good with the Synchron libraries. And this is also (in some way) used in the "Wide Surround to Stereo" presets. Sorry, but if this preset is loved by everyone and considered the best, then why not make a mix out of it? Yes, we have the room mix, but it sounds different. Of course, it can't have the same depth, but I think it also has a different microphone balance. I only have the standard microphones and all the presets have the center NOT lowered to this extreme degree. (And I always thought with the "standard" decca tree you shouldn't go lower than 6 db with the center).

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.

When can we expect the iLok conversion for Vienna Suite? Are there some information? Thanks.

As far as I understand some of the instruments in the silent stage were recorded not from the front, but also from the side or the back. Therefore, I usually turn e.g. the flute or the solo horn to degrees of 45 to 90°. Maybe it's coincidence, but I prefer the sound when the instrument is rotated.

The instrument profiles consider the recording distance and rotation, if I remember correctly. Is this true? For example, if the flute was recorded from the right and I place the instrument in MIR Pro. What does the profile do? Does the instrument gets automatically rotated or do we hear the original sound (i.e. from the right)?

I would like to have a feature (maybe a button in MIR Pro 3D) you can activate so that the instruments not only will be placed to the original distance to the main microphone, but also compensates for the rotation. The same example: If the flute was recorded from the right, then I would like to have the instrument automatically rotated to the left. If the flute was recorded from a distance of, let's say, 2 meters, I would like to have the instrument placed at that distance to the main microphone. 

Does this makes sense? Maybe the distance doesn't make sense, but I think this might (or not) be a good feature in general.

Originally Posted by: Beat Kaufmann

I produced a video...

How to enhance (improve) the legatos of newer string libraries?

https://youtu.be/ZhQh2BY8kKg

 

Have fun

Beat

Laying first chairs has always been a good addition, but doesn't solve the problem.

I've spent a long time with the legatos (maybe too much :D) and come to a new conclusion:
The playability is indeed different as in the VI libraries, more instant, more direct, and – neglecting the delay I mentioned earlier – the only thing I miss is a fast legato (and not a slower one). As said, the agile legato is useless for me and can only be used for very fast movements or runs. The normal legato (I'm talking about Elite Strings here) is indeed quite "long", but it should only be used at a specific (i.e. slower) tempo. If you play faster we need a faster legato with different attacks and shorter transitions, like in Synchron Strings I and all of the VI libraries. This is missing across the whole Synchron range. Yes, we have the agile legatos, but I miss a fast legato without these out-of-tune, portamento-ish transitions which is described as a new approach by VSL. Please, VSL give us the normal fast legatos back and, at least, I will be happy. 

As I also said earlier, the fast legatos and performance trills have always been VSL's killer feature and I can't understand that they took a new route. The old ones were perfect. Without "proper" fast legatos it very easily does sound synthetic and midi-ish like in the majority of other libraries on the market, because these also doesn't have fast legatos. But at least, they have some kind of mechanism that alters the transitions via your playing speed. 

Beat, thanks for all your lengthy and detailed answers. Very appreciated!

I also pre-ordered Synchron Strings and was also disappointed with the sound. But only with the sound – not the legatos, for examples. At least we had patches VSL had been known for and no other developer had: fast legatos, performance trills. This is a missed chance and totally not understandable why VSL took a new route. The old libraries were and are still miles ahead of the competition and better than the Synchron ones. The new libraries only have this agile legato which is awful and only works in some very special cases – useless for me and extremely out of tune (which might be good for strings, but for the other instruments?). VSL should really think about the current legatos, because these aren't good. You can definitely hear that they use crossfaded legatos instead of dedicated landing notes (a clarification by VSL would be nice, by the way). It's very emotionless. And not only is the natural delay missing, also the slight timbre and tuning change when the legato transition happens.

I also miss the natural dynamic behaviour of the VI series, i.e. the vibrato naturally increases with your dynamics. We now have crossfade-able vibrato, but it's not the same, especially with VSL's clean approach. And to get the same feeling as in the old libraries, you have to use crossfade all the time. These espressivo patches are also useless for me, the vibrato kicks in way too late. I don't understand this. But hey, it's only me! :)

Back to the sound:

To be honest, I also tried the unprocessed preset. But where to start? And why has it always be so difficult with VSL? In any (!) other library I have I take the tree and the sound is good. With Synchron I have to experiment and use many microphones (and delays!) to get the same result. Phew! ... We have thousands of presets and they aren't good and not to my taste. Why not drastically reduce them to, let's say, three mixes. I want a classical (scoring stage) sound like in other libraries, with some reverb, EQ, saturation, limiter. For example, the lush presets are ridiculous with all the delay and processing. In which normal situation should these be taken?

Some presets are good, but not unified across the instruments. For the strings I like the ambience mix, for brass the close or classic mix. Why not make, as I just said, one or three mixes with a good classical sound in which the instruments share the same base microphones? I mean, in which normal recording situation you have various settings for the tree? Never. It's always the same.

I hope it didn't sound harsh again. Because I start to think if you get too harsh you won't get any answers. I'm still waiting for Bernd to answer some of my previous questions ... ;)

Originally Posted by: andi

problems can occur when an instrument gets double-triggered (for example by getting MIDI signals from two MIDI inputs).

I control both dynamics and vibrato with CC1. Is this the reason? I hope not. You mean something different, don't you?

EDIT: I use a foot pedal (CC 66/67). Is the Synchron Player responding to these CCs? In general, I reroute the pedal to CC1.

This is exactly the sound I have, and it is only hearable in the sustain/legato patches using the vibrato crossfade – no matter if senza, regular or molto.

It occurs when:

• Using the sustain/legato crossfades. Curious is that it isn't automatically hearable if I use these patches, it occurs after some time of playing and using the crossfade controller.
• Switching from other articulations to sustain/legato crossfade patch (like in the posted audio demo).

I tested with the microphones and it also happens using just one microphone position and also the room mix. But: I figured out that if I use two microphones and add a delay to one of them, the phasing is gone. Maybe it is coincidence or imagination, I don't know. But this phasing/flanger issue is really severe (as you can hear) and annoying. For me this means: I can't make use of the vibrato crossfade.

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. 

With my posts I tried to give ideas to think about. I don't know if this is the solution at all, but I (and many other users) simply don't get warm to the sound. I mean, this has to tell us something? Why does the Synchron libraries does sound so different to other libraries?

Especially the legatos. It is because of the microphones being used or the time-alignment? I don't think that these are the famous VSL legatos. Unfortunately VSL doesn't talk much about these things. Do we still have dedicated legato landing notes or just crossfades like in the older leg-sus patches? For me it sounds more like the latter one, and this would really be a pity. I don't want an overly expressive legato, I wan't the same legato we have in the VI libraries. But again: I didn't want to bring the legato topic back, but for me this is still a huge turn-off from the Synchron series (everything else is top-notch as always with VSL).

Do you use vibrato crossfade? I also have this problem. I call it phasing issue, but "flanger" is a better word to describe it. It only happens while crossfading the vibrato (no matter if senza, regular or molto).

I think it has something to do with the delays VSL has set up with the microphones. This is something they definitely should have a look at, even though this is an issue which has been mentioned some time ago and still isn't fixed.

Originally Posted by: Jason T. Shannon

There are stage plots of the Synchron recording session published on the website, which show where the sections and microphones are placed. Knowing that the Synchron stage is 30m wide and 17-19m deep, it is pretty easy to derive the original distances and spacing between the microphones and the sections. 

It looks to me that the 21ms delay in the string presets (as an example) are right on, as Bernd has already suggested, because the distance between the MAIN L/R and the string sections are between 5-7 meters (so a good delay variable to use as a starting point would be 15-21 milliseconds). 

I don't think that these schematic images are accurate. But what does I know? If you look at the session photos: 7m seems too far, maybe for the violas, but violins and cellos are nearer. But why use this number for every other instrument, or especially on the room mix?

It's not my job figuring out these numbers on my own. And they used numbers to negatively delay the main mics to the close ones. Or should I assume that they only used vague numbers for that? I can't believe this.

I also tested a long time with the delays and compared to a lot of other commercial libraries, and also to recordings, even from the Synchron stage. Actually, I have to say that I prefer the version which is NOT time-aligned. I only want to say that I know of a lot of people (from forums and elsewhere) who aren't happy with the sound either. If this is because of the time-alignment, than, at least we should have the possibility to reverse the original state which was recorded, and also to have more flexibility. And I think a lot of other users also prefer this sound. It's a huge impact on the sonic impression if you just add some tiny delays. I'm not criticizing, it's something for VSL to think about.

Are you sure with the decca tree? I don't understand what Bernd said. He wrote that L-R is around 3ms later than C DEPENDING ON WHERE THE SECTION WAS PLACED? What does this mean? Is the decca tree not fixed? The confusion level rises... If I remember correctly, they said that they used a different approach with BBO (and Synchron Strings Pro?). Is this the reason? I mean you can hear a difference between the recordings, at least my impression.

Originally Posted by: Jason T. Shannon

I was of a similar mind until I understood what was going on. Now I have to respectfully disagree with this. Time alignment is the right approach because I want minimal latency as a starting point, and it is easy enough to add the delays back in to achieve whatever room layout you'd prefer, including a preset that approximates the original recording layout/timing. I wouldn't want to be in the opposite situation where I was trying to compensate for baked in delays and I was trying to remove them. 

I understand, but, as I said, I don't know the "correct" numbers. In my opinion, I would have left the main mics intact and delayed the close ones. I also understand VSL's approach, but having no delay is wrong, especially for the legatos. I don't think that I'm mixing things up here, adding delay to the legato patches, makes them sound like the silent stage ones. If you listen to a string section playing in this big room, it has delay. The samples of the main mics are so tight and instant, this is nowhere "real". But again: What does I know? I prefer having some delay which adds to the realism.

Originally Posted by: Jason T. Shannon

And lastly, a note on phasing, because this is something that I've struggled with in the past. To avoid phasing, you have to play with the channel delays and the phase button in the mixer just like you would in a real recording session. These are real audio signals of real microphones and phasing is an avoidable physics problem. This is an absolute requirement unless you are only using a single microphone. Additionally, you have to be careful of how you are routing signals in your DAW. For example, if you are routing a dry signal then using a send for a reverb with a 50/50 wet/dry mix, this can cause phase issues. Make sure to use 100% wet reverbs on FX sends and be careful of any FX that might be splitting and recombining signals. Finally, make sure your MIDI setup isn't double triggering notes. I use a ROLI Seaboard and it double triggers MIDI if it isn't configured for the VSL Synchron player correctly. These things can also cause phase issues! 

Thanks for the input! Very appreciated! But I don't use any processing. The phasing just happens. And it's also not my job figuring this out. In no other library I have there is such a severe phasing issue. I think it's because of the delays.

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

On the contrary, that's very precise! Just convert the time to distance, and you get how much the delay moves the instrument to the back of the stage (or the mics toward the listener). As an added information, Bernd wrote above that 21ms (=7m) is also a safe amount, since it doesn't risk to become phasing.

Yes, but using this value for everything would mean that each instrument was recorded at the same position / distance. 7m for the strings? Come on. 

I mean if the original delay of the main mic was e.g. 7ms for the strings and it was negatively delayed by 7ms to match the close mics of the strings. Why do you add 21ms which is way more delay? I don't understand that. This is what I mean with "vague".

I'm asking for the exact numbers and only VSL can give us this information. I don't know at what position the close and mid microphones (and all the other relations) are. Maybe it would have been better if there was no delay built in and all the different delays were made in the Synchron player.