Hey Pixelpoet and Dietz

So the global offset is a multiplier of every instrument's individual dry/wet ratio with a factor between 0 and 2. That makes sense to me. Understanding the exact mechanics gives me more confidence in fiddling around with the two controls. :) Thanks a lot for your explanations!

Sandrew

Hey Dietz

thanks for your answer and the diagram. So if I understand correctly, the "dry/wet offset" acts as a modifier of all the instruments "dry/wet" parameters. That makes sense to me.

What does not make sense to me is, that I seem to be able to offset all instruments in the direction of "dry" (event when an instrument is on 100% wet, I get a dry signal if I push the global offset to -100% (all dry). The other way round this does not work at all: I totally dry instrument stays fully dry, even with the global offset set to +100% (all wet). So somehow your answer makes sense to me for the left half of the global dry/wet offset fader (-100%-0%), but not really for it's right half. Can you elaborate on this behaviour?

Thanks a lot

Sandrew

Hi all

I'm looking for someone who can educate my about the signal flow of dry and wet signals through MIR Pro, especially in regards to the instrument's "dry/wet" and the output's "dry/wet offset" faders. I understand that the insrument's "dry/wet" fader is basically a simple crossfade between the dry and the wet signal as long as the output's "dry/wet offset" is at 0% (cneter position). But I just can't wrap my head around the behaviour of the two faders in conjunction - espcially because I get a completely dry signal when the "dry/wet offset" is at -100%, even if the instrument's "dry/wet" is at 100% wet. If this was just a series of two crossfades, then that should give me silence, right?

I'd be very grateful for a thurrow explanatino or even a scematic ofthe sigal flow.

All the best and thanks in advance

Sandrew

I know what you mean, but it's within the acceptable tollerance for me. Some extra dramam in the low register there ':D

But while we are bug reporting: The low velocity levels of 2nd Violins "Long notes" > "Regular vib." are very loud compared to the molto and senza vibrato. They are about equaly loud to the high velocity levels. Can someone confirm?

I wonder if there will be Cubase/Nuendo expression maps for the Synchron Strings Pro anytime soon. Or was I looking in the wrong place and they're already there?

Oh, ok well I know all i wanted to know now :) Thanks for the quick reply.

I find the demos sound really fantanstic and very expressive btw :)

Just out of curiosity: Is it known how many velocity layers the Synchron String Pro articulations will have? I couldn't find that information in the description of the product or the sample content list. I find 9 layers a bit of an overkill, but two (like most of the SYNCHRON-ized Instruments I own) can be a bit scarce at times.

To anyone with the same problem:

Ben adviced me to disable ASIOGuard for all VEP plugins in the Nuendo Plugin Manager. This solved the issue for me.

Thanks a lot for the quick and competent support.

Hey Ben

Thanks a lot for your quick Answer. I sent the last three dmp's to the email address. :)

Hey Guys

I recently updated from Cubase 8 to Nuendo 10. Everything works so far except for the vst3 version of the "Vienna Ensemple Pro Audio Input" plugin, which crashes Nuendo to desktop reliably a few seconds after connecting to any VEP Server instance. I have no trouble with the vst2 version of the input plugin.

Nuendo Version is 10.3.0.184 (64bit), VEP Version is 7.0.1056. I'm on Windows 10.

Does anyone have similar issues? Let me know if you have a solution. Thanks in advance.

Sandrew

Oh, I see. Thanks for the quick answer.

Hmm, I wonder if the feature could have the option one day to load both sample sets (the original one and the one processed for the time strech algorithm) and so "buy" the option to save CPU while "paying" with a higher RAM consumption. The feature makes the whole orchestra much more versatile, but I don't see how I can employ it for more than a few instruments whith the current CPU demands, but I could imagin loading 1,5x (or so) more data into my RAM.

That's just me thinking out loud.

Hey all

I absolutely love the new "stretch" feature of the Synchron Player - it sounds amazing. However, it is obviously very taxing on the CPU. So I was wondering if there is a method to switch the algorithm on/off for individual instruments using automation or something similar. That way one could switch the algorithm on only when it's needed for an instrument and save a lot of CPU capacity when it's not needed. However, the only strech-parameter that is controlable with automation seems to be "Strech Factor".

Thx in advnace for any help.

I know this post is four years old, but in case anybody comes here looking for an answer to question Number 5 (the problem with the sustain pedal not working on the Bösendorfer of the SE-Bundle):

I had the same problem today, and I solved it by not using the expression map in Cubase that VSL provides. It seems to block the CC64 from getting to the plugin. After dactivating the expression map, the sustain pedal worked as expected.

Great, this is a major improvement for me! Thanks for all the good work you guys are doing.

I guess these are things than come along major software changes like the new(ish) SYNCHRON player and this will probably not be the last case as more and more people start to use the new platform and discover stuff. After all it must be utterly impossible for the developers to test and verify every little thing thoroughly in a project of the scope of the VSL.

Hi Paul,

I sent some audio files and a Cubase project file with some explanations to the email address.

Thank you for looking into that.

Hey dear folks at VSL

I was wandering if I could get a statement regarding the status of the issue described in this thread. Is this something you are looking into (or plan to do so some time soon) or do you not consider it to be a bug? I am only asking because I work on a project and would consider changing the libraries I use depending on your stance towards the issue (which would be a major effort already at this point).

I don't know if this is any help, but this morning I found the same phenomenon occuring in the Chamber "Cellos 3 PLUS", but after checking with the Chamber "Cellos 3", where everything was fine, and reloading the PLUS version, the problem was gone. I did not have the same luck with the Orchestral Strings, where the problem remained after multiple attempts to reload both the normal and the PLUS versions. I can however not eliminate the possibility that i might have accidentally loaded a wrong patch in the first place.

Also it suspect that not all velocity levels of the patches are affected, because the sound color difference seems most noticable in the midle range (around velocity 50) not so much below 30 (but still) and less and less towards 127.

Hey Paul,

Thanks for your answer and a happy new year!

While what you suggested is exactly what I thought at first, too, for me the difference in color seems to be far too enormeous to be related to the played string. Especially with very small intervalls upwards, for example, where I would expect little to no difference to a "normal" legato note. Also, the "Orchestral Strings" are the only one where the difference in color is audible at all to me. I find no such effect whatsoever with the "Apassionata Strings", "Chamber Strings", "Solo Strings" or "Dimension Strings".

Now that I've listened to it again more closely it seams to be not a muted string sound, but rather some kind of low pass filter effect, maybe a sample-rate related or compression related issue to me. Would be great if you guys could check those samples again, for it would be a shame to not be able to work with those beautiful Orchestral Strings to their full potential.

I came here for the exact same reason. The sound of the SYNCHRON-ized portamento string patches is so much darker than the legato ones (or any other) that it's almost impossible to use them side by side.