First, I agree with everything said.

Originally Posted by: William

Another thing that struck me is how VSL innovated the analysis of musical phrases and performance - now it's normal for sample libraries but VSL was the first using performance of legato, repetitions, round robins etc. that make the performance so close to real. 

It should be normal, but it isn't. It's very far away, in my opinion.

The only thing much talked about is this exaggerated, portamento-y legato. Every developer wants to have a better legato as the competition, but they totally neglect the very important performances and elements (like connected repetitions etc.). All the libraries I own don't have these performances – all the time it's only legato, legato and legato, and even this isn't made right. Some libraries have only bow change legato as their standard legato patch, it's ridiculous. VSL did everything right in the first place and no other library really comes close.

The only other library I have which has something in this direction is Hollywood Orchestra. They have a legato repetition patch, but it is far away from VSL's excellent scripting. Other libraries have repetitions where you have to press a key-switch or hold the sustain pedal; with VSL you just play the legato patch and you have repetitions built in (or switch to the performance repetitions in the VI libraries).

And this is really what I'm ALWAYS talking about, either here in this forum or at vi-control. VSL and other libraries, it's really like apples and oranges. And this is because you don't know anything about VSL's patches as a new user or buyer. You see lower prices at the competition and expect that the less expensive library has everything VSL has. VSL's prices actually has to be higher (sorry, wallet!), because they both have higher quality control, better scripting and these different performances. And, most of all, different (high-quality) legato recording/scripting. Many libraries just use simple legato crossfades or only bow-change legato instead of dedicated legato landing notes, and have the same prices as VSL. VSL's legato feels like playing the actual instruments, and because of this legato approach, you can play even trills. Other libraries have severe problems playing trills with the legato patch.

Yes, this is true that a velocity based vibrato isn't suitable for all applications. I just wanted to share an alternative I tried and liked.

I don't use slot crossfades in VI Pro that much (especially for vibrato), because it not only makes the sound bigger, there is also an immensely huge voice count with Dimension Strings.

I don't crossfade in general, but I would also use the regular vibrato. A crossfaded molto vibrato is still a molto vibrato at lower controller values, in my opinion.

What you could do in the Synchron Player is a new dimension with regular and molto vibrato, but not played together (stacking disabled). Let molto vibrato kick in when you play forte (that would be a simple patch change instead of a crossfade) – either by your modwheel or e.g. by velocity. This also avoids this doubled, washy, bigger sound while crossfading.

Originally Posted by: Paul

Hi, 

I showed a few of those in the introduction video - and there will be more videos soon. 

They are designed to give you quick alternative sounds, and they should also be an inspiration to actually use all mic channels and FX plug-ins!

Best, 
Paul

Thanks! Just noticed their detailed descriptions in the manual.

Other question: What's the difference between "molto vibrato" and "espressivo"? The latter isn't mentioned on the product page, but in the manual.

Hello Paul,

could you go more into detail what these "signature" mixes are? Are these alternative mixes or more sound-designy?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by: Kai

Pixelpoet, what do you mean by "real auto divisi"? Selecting how many players shall play a note and VI pro automatically distributing all voices among the different players, works already perfectly in VI pro with the Dimension libraries. Yet, I second all your other suggestions.

Yes, but it's not "auto". I want it to change automatically (= no key-switching) between tutti and divisi – like in Audiobro's LA Scoring Strings, or Divisimate. I know this introduces latency (and this has been the reason against it back then), but it would really be a great feature.

Example of what I mean with four Dimension Horns:

• If I play one note, all horns play together.
• If I play four notes, each horn plays one note.
• If I play two or three notes, the notes are distributed across the horns. (Okay, this has to be either automatically assigned or user-definable.)

Originally Posted by: Dewdman42

I think its probably a mistake to label VI instruments as "Legacy".  Have VSL done so?  If they did, don't take the word to mean the wrong thing.  "Legacy" could mean "discontinued" to one person and "classic" to another.  

They are still actively sold.  They still represent today the best full orchestral package on the market today with the most instruments, articulations, quality of programming and software support.  I don't see that ending any time soon.  Even somewhat recently VSL updated VI player for HiDPI, so its not like they are cutting it off from support.

I don't know, but it's just a feeling I have that the VI libraries are not sold enough anymore, just because there isn't much talk and "love" in forums. And again: the reduced prices. Maybe I'm totally wrong.

Originally Posted by: Dewdman42

I'm not even sure what if anything they could change in VIPro, if they had unlimited resources to do that, which they don't.  But what exactly?  Yea I'd like to see something like the Synchron mixer in VIPro maybe, but honestly....I don't really need it.  

I think it's already the best sample player, but there is always room for more. I have ideas and wishes, some are rather special, but would bring VI Pro even more forward.

• More Retina options (e.g. 150%)
• Real auto-divisi (I don't mind some latency)
• Controller: Ability to reverse A/B patches (change the order)
• Controller: Note duration (in addition to speed)
• Controller: Improved interval map (which differentiates between first note and repetition)
• Ability to define threshold, i.e. start and end point, of controllers (as in the Synchron Player)

And some more I don't remember at the moment. :P

Originally Posted by: William

The thing that VI needs to have added is Dimension Strings IV, which is extended techniques, sampled trills to larger intervals,  unusual experimental sounds done with the same Dimension approach.   

But it's true that VSL has done a huge amount with VI already and is an amazingly complete library for orchestra.  Especially if you get all the string libraries which when taken together, create a hugely varying ensemble.  

No one knows for sure, but I really wish there will be more Silent Stage recordings. Dimension Strings VI all the way, I also miss trills and FX sounds.

But also other instruments which haven't been recorded yet, beyond the term "orchestral". These are available from other developers, but to have them with VSL's quality and playability would be awesome:

• Asian instruments
• World percussion
• World winds (e.g. pan flutes, uilleann pipes, bag pipes, duduk)
• Medieval instruments (e.g. lute)
• ...

Originally Posted by: belkina

I have to say: this is one of the main reasons I am now using Synchron Strings Pro: the strong vibrato!

Interesting how different expectations are! :) I don't like crossfades, because you hear that the section sounds bigger and washy; I prefer the "natural" vibrato I mentioned in my earlier post. For me, the vibrato in Synchron Strings (Pro) is either too light or too strong. I miss a nice middle, maybe a progressive vibrato.

Dimension Strings has exactly the "taste" I want my vibrato, and it is more comparable to other string libraries. 

There is an older thread of mine in which I tried the stretch feature in VI Pro to alter the envelope of the progressive vibrato in a way that it would kick in earlier, at least I was trying. Can't remember the thread; but anyway it didn't work. :D

What I meant in my previous post: At first I really wished that the vibrato would kick in earlier, but actually I like it the way it is. You have to wait until it kicks in, this is true, but the louder you get with Velocity XF the more it kicks in earlier, isn't it? I don't know if this is only my imagination. If I really want molto vibrato, then I also play forte or fortissimo. Of course, you can't have this "espressivo pianissimo" as in Synchron Strings Pro.

I always associate molto vibrato with louder volumes, and I think this is the reason why the VI libraries sound very natural because of the "baked-in" vibrato: The louder you get, the more vibrato you have. I'm not a big fan of vibrato crossfades and this is one of the reasons why I don't like Synchron Strings (Pro). Would be nice to have a progressive vibrato, too.

I know what you mean. I played and mixed different players, and I think it's not an issue anymore, at least for me. But it took a very (!) long time to figure out which player combination sounds best. I only use 4 players per section in a combination: half of the section play regular, the other half progressive/espressivo.

Progressive/espressivo is very "molto", but it kicks in a bit late. This is how the players were recorded. In my opinion, these patches are the best vibrato patches VSL has to offer.

For me, it's not the player, it's about the samples.

It's curious: I don't like the sound of any of the Synchron libraries, but I do like the VI instruments put into the Synchron MIR venue. This combination really shows the quality and the strength of the VI series (together with some of Dietz' wizardry).

It's their legacy, this is true, and it's still way superior to all libraries I own and never use. VSL did everything right in the first place: the recording, the quality control, the scripting. If you want to play/perform a virtual instrument like a real instrument, you have to buy VSL or the real thing. Even though there are good "modeled" libraries out there, they don't sound good. VSL is so well scripted, it's nearly like a modeled one.

It's good to have options, and I totally understand that new users would probably go the Synchron way, because it's "mixed" out of the box. But maybe it's due to a lack of marketing, I don't know, and I don't want to blame anyone. VSL is so humble, in my opinion, they have achieved a lot with the VI series, and there isn't much talk about it. New users really don't know the real benefits of the VI (and also Synchron) libraries, why they are different to others and what the performance patches stand for.

I also don't like that VI prices have been reduced to, say, more competitive ones. Yes, you heard correctly. For example: Two years ago I paid nearly twice the price for Dimension Strings. You get a crazy amount of articulations and samples, you don't have legato crossfades; VSL's legato recording is the king of legato sampling and, of course, it should be more expensive than others... It's really a shame. A competitive library doesn't have the famous performance repetitions, trills and legato, it's a totally different "experience". And you have absolutely no bugs, latency or crappy programming. I don't need 20 microphone positions. :D

My advice: redo the website, clearly show the USPs and what the libraries can do (better than others). Don't be so humble, do some bragging like the others, because you are the only one who definitely earn it.

Originally Posted by: Paul

[...]
- Not sure Interval Map will happen in the SY Player, but I know that won't keep you from reminding us. If you have a good idea on how to make this work, let us know!
[...]

I think it could be implemented rather easily, but I'm not a programmer. I attached two screenshots: 1) with the original layout as in VI Pro, and 2) with first note and repetitions split.

My VI Pro templates are based on Interval Map, so I can have a marcato attack only on the first note of a phrase. Always wished that it could differentiate between first note and repetition, too (as in my screenshot #2).

That's great, because I wasn't happy with the legatos in the SYNCHRON-ized version and returned it. You definitely hear the difference between the "pure" legatos and the "XF" legatos.

I always wondered why you couldn't have both approaches combined. First, you hear the dedicated interval, and at the end of the landing note there is a crossfade into a sustain. Would this make any sense?

Crap! Now I really consider to buy it again. :D

But, please, VSL, integrate "Interval Map" into the Synchron Player; all my VI templates are based on it. I will insist over and over again until it's done. Would make me very happy, but I can understand that it might be tricky to integrate in the dimension structure.

Thanks! And as I said earlier, you can do many things "wrong" if you don't know what you're doing. :D But I love testing out things, and MIR Pro is very good tool for this. I correct: We not only need a tutorial, we need a Dietz masterclass.

MIRx is great as it is, only a little wet. I think I now found a good setting by only reducing the secondary microphone volume and a bit of the reverb length. That's it!

One last question (I promise!):
So delay means "pushing back". Understood. The main microphone in your MIRx settings has on Y-offset of -1.50. Could this alternatively be done with the delay? Would this be the same result? I mean, if you set the offset back to 0 and delay the microphone by 4.5ms.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Like mentioned before, you can't fully mimic a Decca-tree by means of an Ambisonics microphone array, which is a coincident mic setup by definition.

Right, but nontheless I learnt a lot more. Thanks for taking your time! Always a pleasure to diving into your realm of knowledge.

Maybe you should make a tutorial or something to show MIR Pro in an understandable way "once and for all". I can imagine that you're tired of answering the same question over and over again. :D

Originally Posted by: Dietz

What happens in MIR now is that you push the Main Microphone more than 7 meters backwards, further away from the source and acoustically "behind" the Secondary Microphone. If you like the sound you achieve with these settings, everything is fine - but you should be aware of the fact that this is far from everything you would hear in an actual recording. :-) 

Kind regards,

Good to know, thanks for clarifying. 

So, actually you can't compare the Synchron settings to MIR Pro? Because the decca/main is delayed there. I only wanted to understand. :) 

Hm... actually I like it both.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

And yes, delaying them can definitely make sense. If you look through the factory settings you will see several setups which make use of delay for specific capsules. I doubt that I would find lots of use for a global delay for all capsules, though (except for special FX).

Thanks, again.

I now have all capsules of the the main microphone with a delay of 21 and the secondary without any delay. Although there are differences, this is typically the average setting in the Synchron presets. I attached screenshots and my settings for those interested.

If you say this can definitely make sense, I'm happy. Because it sounds different to your MIRx settings: less wet and less "boomy". Also, I like that the direct (close) signal is in some way "clearer" (i.e. not so much "colored"), if this makes sense. Honestly, I A/Bed the settings several times, and I'm not sure if I hear a difference anymore. XD

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. :)

Yes, a Secondary Mic behind the Main Mic is a good way to achieve a nice enveloping surround sound from most Venues. Just keep in mind that there's no dry signal from the Secondary Mic, so you will need surround capsules from the main mic for seamless positioning on the sides. - If you aim for a pure L/C/R stage in the front and room only from the rears, there's no actual need for them, but remember that ithis approach might create a "gap" between front speakers and rears.

HTH,

Thanks, Dietz! I'm not using a surround setup – if this is what you're talking about. I don't understand everthing, I have to admit. :) Only wanted to know if the secondary microphone in MIR Pro is more like the "standard" surround, the high surround or the high microphones in the Synchron libraries? But I think it's the "standard" surrounds, because they are behind the decca tree.

Also want to know your opinion on the delay on the main micophone, because I'm not really sure if this makes sense in MIR Pro. Wouldn't this be counterproductive?

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Example: https://www.vsl.co.at/de/BBO_Map/BBO_Tana#!Mixer_Presets

I gave it a try in MIR Pro and it instantly removes the "boominess" I didn't like. 

Did you put the delay on just the L/R capsules or the L/R and C capsules?

On both, as in the screenshot (main = L/R capsule, main-c = C capsule). I also tried with changing the volume of the C capsule. But honestly, there are so many options in MIR Pro you can either drastically change the MIRx settings with this or very easily "destroy" the sound. XD

Dietz, I have another question regarding the delay I mentioned earlier. I'm referring to Synchron Strings and the BBO libraries again.

In the Synchron Player the tree has actually a delay of 21, not the ambient microphones (which have 0, but not in every preset).

Example: https://www.vsl.co.at/de/BBO_Map/BBO_Tana#!Mixer_Presets

I gave it a try in MIR Pro and it instantly removes the "boominess" I didn't like. But I'm wondering if it makes really sense to give the main microphone a delay.

I know there are additional Highs and High Surround microphones in the Synchron libraries, which we don't have in MIR Pro. Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. :)

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Concept-wise the readily positioned "dry" input signal _is_ the close mic in the world of MIR Pro. It just depends on the dryness of the recording. That's why MIR Pro is the ideal environment for Vienna Instruments.

Yes, I know.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Which is an unambiguous sign that you basically prefer stereo spot mics, too. ;-) What do you expect from a mono mic that a stereo setup couldn't pick up?

Actually, I don't know. :D I'm happy that the Silent Stage instruments were recorded that way. A mono microphone as MIR Pro's spot microphone won't have the same sound and stereo width.

I was only wondering, because in these "Hollywood" libraries the spot is in most cases mono. Having a main microphone mixed with a mono spot does indeed sound different than having a stereo spot. Reducing the stereo width in MIR Pro won't give me this combination of wideness and closeness at the same time; MIR Pro is a good compromise between the two.

To make a long story short: Apparently I like both approaches.

Thanks! 

In the majority of libraries the close microphone is mono, but it's of course not standardized. The Silent Stage recordings for me are not really close enough to call them "close" microphones as in other libraries, it's more like a "mid" microphone (depending on the instrument). A dimension violin on it's own would be a contender.

Reducing the width doesn't work, because I don't want to have the sound changed. For me the sound impression from MIR Pro (as it is) is like a mixture of "mid" and "room" microphone sound, even though the close microphone is already mixed in. And I like this sound. But I would like to have a separate mono microphone which would resemble the "close" microphone in other libraries.

I think I would need two MIR Pro instances then:
1) Sound as it is, instrument width unchanged = "room" microphone like a decca tree
2) Only the main microphone, but the instrument width reduced to mono = "close" microphone

Maybe I'm thinking too complicated! :D