Can someone clarify:

What is in the Elite Strings Update?

Mat,

Thank you very much for explaining how to regain access to the keyboard keyswitching in Studio One.

(It's quite unintuitive for Presonus that the default setting of "enable key switches" actually disables the ability for us to manually use the keyswitches!. And to enable active manual keyswitching requires changing the default to "Use Activation Sequence" -- which doesn't refer to keyswitching. A bit bizarre.

Also quite sad that we cannot record live via manual keyswitching. Also seems like an oversight. Maybe they will add this as a feature to come. 

Post-recording of the notes, it is a great system!

Craig

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

If I’m not wrong, the recent trend in orchestral music is to stay low even in the final mix. The recommended suggestion is to stay between -18 and -14 LUFS, that are very low, if accustomed to a long time of loudness wars.

My preference is to keep each channel low, to avoid overloading the final mix in a crowded orchestration. And temporarily use a gain plugin in the master channel to increase the final level. Or simply increase the master volume, to let the amplifier work at full capacity.

If you want a stronger final mix, you should be able to increase its volume in the very end, either on the master channel, or on the bounced file.

Paolo

Hmmm... I'm not sure how to interpret your meaning about your recommendation.

When you say "stay between" and show a LUFS range of 4dB, are you referring to a MAX volume for the master channel? (i.e. full mix peak should aim for between -14 to -18 LUFs?) What are your individual channel targets?

I am thinking that the question here is not related so much to final mixdown, however, but to recording levels and/or channel output levels. Most users are looking at Peak Meters for their intended volume targets per channel, which has little relationship to LUFS for final mastered streaming. 

So, for recording and initial channel levels of individual sounds (as opposed to a mix) are LUFS even relevant? I'm thinking that it makes more sense to use standard recording levels (RMS around -18dB, with peaks -6 to -12dBFS). Then you have enough channel headroom to mix.

What's surprising to many of us is simply how low the Synchron Strings are coming out of the box. I'm working on a template, and have spent time optimizing my Kontakt libraries for Albion and CSS. In general, I'm adjusting them from the -6dB Kontakt default to 0 to -4, depending on the instrument. I have the louds topping at -12dBFS via peak meters. Meanwhile, Synchron String 1 comes out about 12dB below this, around -24dB at defaults, per channel. And Synchron Pro Strings and Elite Strings are coming out in the -30 to -34dB range (another 6-10dB lower)! This is the issue being addressed. Brings up lots of questions, namely:

1. Why are Synchron sounds in general SO MUCH LOWER? And 2. Why are the libraries not volume matched? 

Regarding the Loudness Wars, Bob Katz is famous for his K12, K14, K20 monitor reference system where orchestral music has more dynamic range and is recommended for MONITORS to be set to -20dB (K20) to allow for larger dynamic contrasts than for commercial or broadcast music. But, these are monitoring calibration standards. This is similar to recognizing that digital systems (DAWs) set the former analog 0dB at -18dBFS (with no digital headroom above 0; whereas analog systems tended to have still 18-24dB headroom above). "Loudness wars" has to do with super low dynamic range (i.e. 4-6) -- everything FF all the time); rather than classical music which ranges from pp to FF and requires much larger dynamic range (i.e. 20dB). 

The LUFS system has largely replaced Katz' system (even for Katz to my understanding) as it has broader usage. This is partly based on sending out to streaming services (i.e. AppleMusic, Spotify, YouTube) which tend to center at or near -14LUFS. Again the commonality is one's intended DYNAMIC RANGE. So, this means setting metering to -14LUFS and then peaking at just below 0dBFS. (Or via -14LUFS metering, which is more akin to RMS than to peak metering). Additionally, I'm reading that LUFS corresponds better to how we hear musical frequencies than does simple peak metering. 

Originally Posted by: The Minstrel

I'm not sure whether by design or not, but for me only the room mics are activated by default. I'm using the standard library. If you haven't tried it already, load the default mixer preset (or any other of your choice). This gives quite a boost to the volume. I've always found it odd that the defaullt mixer preset is not, well, loaded by default. :)

But make sure you recognize what you are doing here.

You are activating all mics' samples, so you've raised your CPU overhead substantially. 

You could also simply raise the Room Mics (or in my presets it seems it is typically Room mics plus one other set, i.e. close or mids, etc.)

But mainly, volume should be adjusted at other locations, right? i.e. Volume (CC7), channel volume (Expression, CC11). Played Dynamics (or XFade, CC#1/2). DAW Mix channel fader.

Is this now called "Unload samples with mixer channels"? And ticked by default?

No user engagement necessary?

Vinny,

By any chance would you be willing to share your S1/VEP template?

I understand that within S1 there in an Exchange feature for users. I could see this being such a helpful thing to build community among new users. 

Meanwhile, I'll check out Dern's videos. Can I presume that even though she's working with Cubase, what she shows for VEP applies just as well to S1?

Craig

Originally Posted by: Vinny Colletti

Hi Craig,

Sorry just saw this. Lots of youtube videos on templates for VSL . Anne Kathrin Dern has some.

VEP does a great job of resource management and all your samples are loaded up and ready to go. I find I can reference a lot of instruments in VEP from S1 and still record audio without a lot of latency or S1 crashing. If S1 does crash everything is still loaded in VEP so you're up and running again fast. VEP also loads up MIR if you have it and once you get the routing figured out, wow.

There's no way of getting around the fact that building templates is time consuming though. Reminds me I have to add in my Synchronized Special Edition samples,

After spending most of 2 days getting familiar with Synchron Strings 1 and Strings Pro (just wow!), I'm spending some time this evening with Elite Strings. Features are awesome, but...

I noticed it first and most pronounced on Violas, their bottom 8 notes, C2-A2 -- there is lot of breathy airiness captured in the recordings. Seems to be in the 2-4k range as the filter fader (default setting of 2k) can get rid of much of it eventually by the mid-20s. 

I notice it also on seemingly the entire 1st violin range. Most prominent areas are down low: G2 - A3 and up high: F5 and beyond. Yet, it's noticeably almost absent on the 2nd violins. It's there if you really listen, but maybe mixed in 6+dB lower, so it doesn't draw attention to itself.

By contrast, I don't notice it at all being imposed on the cellos, and only barely on the Double Basses, and only at the bottom octave.

Is this an acknowledged "problem" for this library?

Is this considered an extablished "feature" for this library? To me, it doesn't add to "realness", it just adds noise. To my ears, it is very similar to turning on the "analog" button on many Waves plugins that are known simply for adding "noise". 

Either way, is there a known way to get rid of it, or reduce it (other than the filter fader)? (like a simple "noise" button that can be deactivated?)

To my ears, it's a significant distraction, in those noted places, and somewhat undermines otherwise simply gorgeous tone! At the moment, I would assign soft exposed 1st Violin parts to the 2nd Violins. But this can't be intended as a workaround...

I've spent most of the day pursuing this, as I got both in the Strings Bundle sale.

The BEST way to learn the differences are to compare their spec pages, and then check these 2 links:

Comparing both libraries: https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Fancyboxes/Strings_Comparison

Seeing what's been moved if you choose to go the Optimized Content route on String I to save disk space: 

In general:

Strings Pro utilizes an improved process. Think Synchron 2.0. So, things are reorganized, expanded, simplified, more efficient, and in many cases sound better.

Strings Pro adds features such as: Agile legatos, Spiccatos, Detaches, Portamento, and Ponticello. The Sustains and Legatos benefit from the Cantabile improvement offered as an update to Strings I. 

What's missing from Pro (still included in the Optimized version of Strings I) are Marcatos (!) Slurred Legatos (which seem to be a nice option when portamento is too much), and additional long and legato variants.

The Full version of Strings I includes shorts with more velocity layers (8-9, vs. 5), NKS compatibility, and 30 second crescendo and decrescendos.

If only buying one, it's an easy pick: Go Pro. But, the Strings bundle is so compelling, I expect I'll be glad to have Strings I if only for marcatos and slurred legatos. And NKS. 

Beat's suggestions are good... However, as the mixer is PER INSTRUMENT, this means making those adjustments over and over!

I discovered today that the defaults on Strings Pro are running about 6 dB below the defaults on Strings I. I thought the "fixed gain" feature was to standardize volumes across the line. 

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

 

But how to do with Synchron libraries? Microphone gives a clear placement in the L-R axis, and in the High-Low one. But what about the Front-Rear axis? How to control it? Is it just a matter of making the distance information contained in the room mics (in particular the Tree) more evident? Could the Close and Distant etc. Mix Presets help, and be mixed at the same time for different sections?

Paolo

And as a more thorough approach, note this video that was created to show how to solve this -- posted from another recent forum discussion: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_NpttZMAsA 

Yes, thank you, Andi for all the clarifications. 

I think I had myself every question that was asked on this thread. 

Back to the OP regarding F-R depth...

4 internal options come to my mind as I've been playing around with the Mixer today.

1. The Delay Runtime. Notice the Decca mics (and therefore the Room Mix) are set to 21ms. I'm presuming this is the mathematically correct amount due to measurements in the Synchron Stage, determined by VSL. However, the manual encourages free experimentation. Sure enough moving anywhere from 60-200 (the max) makes for markedly increased sense of depth or distance. Since the mixer can be adjusted PER INSTRUMENT, you could technically move an instrument's mics further away.

2. Reverb. Simply increasing the amount or specifically length of reverb time can give the sense of more depth. And/Or using different Reverbs (built in plate vs. room on different channels or instruments). 

3. EQ Roll-off.  As highs roll-off disproportionately quickly to lower frequencies, EQ'ing the mics with a high-end roll-off might make sources sound farther away.

4. The Close Mics. Bringing up the Close Mic fader seems to bring the instrument closer. 

Paul,

I have just today watched your 3 Tutorial videos on the Synchron player. They are SO helpful!

Am I interpreting you to say that as I only purchased the STANDARD version of the Strings Bundle (so 4 libraries), when I use the ROOM MIX it is including the Back, Surround, High, and High Surround mics from the the FULL version as well?

And more specifically relevant to my initial question: So, the room mix isn't an additional pair of stereo mics. Rather, it includes the Decca Mains -- so that's why a user wouldn't use the Room Mix and the Decca? I think I'm getting this now.

New to Synchron myself and having spent part of today experimenting with results from different combinations, I actually appreciated this discussion.

(But, it seems that there is a personal feud from some other forum that got brought here. Startling, unnecessary, and unprofessional. Let's please be more generous to one another and forego personal attacks.)

I have a more general question: All of the presets by VSL have EITHER the Room mics OR the TREE mics. Can someone explain the rationale for the either/or approach? Is this simply to save resources (as if the extra CPU isn't worthwhile for the limited gain due to the overlap)? Is there any problem (phasing or similar) that might be expected from combining them? I'm not hearing any problems and actually liking what I'm hearing by combining them. Just a little confused as to why the VSL room presets never do combine them. 

Also from a usage standpoint, some of the overall sound and impact from the choices made are so significant that I could see value in making the stage mic decision first, and then composing and mixing into it. 

Any update on NKS for Synchron Strings Pro and Elite Strings?

Vinny.

Thanks for speaking in. Fascinating to hear.

I still love Samplitude for Editing/Mixing, and because I know it so well I can immediately get work done.

However, I'm moving toward Studio One for composing, and am finding the new features in v.5 hugely compelling; and the cooperative effort with VSL to be so helpful!

Can you point me to any helpful resources you've benefitted from in combining VEPro with S1 for an orchestral template? I own VEP, but have not started using it yet.

What advantages have you found by loading instruments into VEP rather than directly into Studio One?

Originally Posted by: Kai

... it seems as far as score symbols are concerned, it is not possible to trigger Sound Variations based on several score symbols (e.g. staccato and con sordino symbols to obtain the con sordino staccato playing technique). Is this correct?

In Cubase Expression Maps there is no such restriction. Unfortunately, Cubase Expression Maps are otherwise pretty clumsy and limited compared to what e.g. Dorico offers by now.

Thanks and best regards

Kai

Are you saying that Steinberg's Expression Maps are somehow different (improved?) in Dorico as compared to Cubase?

DaddyO --

Thanks for speaking in.

And for the VI link. I will check it out. 

Thanks for the feedback!

Wondering if others have also made the switch to Studio One?

Since Studio One has added their Sound Variations feature this past year, and has partnered with VSL for outstanding integration for articulation management -- I am wondering:

Who among you VSL users has moved to using Studio One as your primary DAW for composing and orchestrating? 

Samplitude has long been my main recording/editing/mixing/mastering DAW, but I don't love its limitations with VIs.  I spent a year in Logic land (with mixed feelings) and have picked up a license for Cubase Pro. I also have Reaper. While I have a 2016 MBP, my main powerhouse computers are Windows custom builds, so I can use far more RAM and horsepower via Windows. I've started using Studio One in recent weeks and am mostly impressed. The integration with VSL has caused me to purchase more VSL libraries (rather than investing further in Spitfire, 8DIO, or EW at the moment). 

But, I'm still a Newb here in the territory (or shall I say, a Resumer, after nearly 30 years away. And the whole composing world has changed since then.) 

Is Studio One becoming a composition DAW of choice, for those invested in VSL? Or still lagging in some important way(s)?

Many thanks in advance. 

Craig

As a license owner of VEP7, is there any reason to continue to keep Vienna Ensemble 6 (not pro) installed?

A primary reason I am asking is because of the hassle that VE6 has become. For whatever reason, it often becomes an interrupter of other music software during their VST scans. Specifically, during a scan of another program (can be Samplitude, Studio One, today it was Finale), VE6 when scanned -- opens up and begins its own scan. It then must finish before the music program I'm scanning can resume its scan. Seriously annoying. (No such issue with VEP7).

This happens on both my Windows 10 machines. 

I'm presuming I can just uninstall it and move on. Can anyone speak into this?

Many thanks, Craig

Paul, 

Am I understanding you correctly to say, that for each VSL product we own there will be:

- 1 physical iLok license (for a primary computer)

- and also 1 Cloud license (which may be usable on a secondary computer)?

If so, this is really fantastic! As moving my i-Lok from 1 PC (at home) to my 2nd PC (at work) is just not very feasible on any regular basis. (Most of my other iLok-based software have 2 or 3 licenses, so this isn't a problem). 

Craig

"When you're ready for iLok: You can add as many iLok keys as you like to your account, and you can also add one iLok cloud activation, if you like"

Best, 
Paul

NVM.

From another thread I found the solution: Re-boot!

Thank you. This is it! Reboot!

Same issue.

I have installed VEPro7, Vienna Instruments, Synchron, Epic Orch, 3 Big Band Libraries, SE 1 Lib.

Launcher sees: VEP AU3. VEP Server. VES. plus VI Standalone and Synchron Player Standalone.

However, LOGIC only sees the VEP options. No VI, No Synchron, No libraries on their own. 

How can I fix this?

(Everything is latest/current. MBP running Catalina)