This library is fantastic, a continuation (and expansion upon) the quality found in SSP.  How you got all those perf. interval patches to sound convincing with a multi-mic library at blazingly fast tempos is beyond me, but it's the best I've heard thus far.  Whatever you're doing, VSL, keep doing it!

Looking forward to Synchron Brass and Woodwinds!

These banks will work with the default presets included in Synchron Elite Strings.  Enjoy!

If you don't know what Reaticulate is, check it out here

Originally Posted by: belkina

I'm a long time user of the Chamber strings. What do the Elite Strings add that the Chamber Strings don't have?

Alan,

From the short time I've been fiddling with and exploring Elite Strings, I would say that while the libraries are similar in section size, the core concept between them is quite different (and I don't just mean dry VS mic'ed).

Elite Strings has less overall articulations than Chamber Strings (especially if you include the sordino verisons), but the core articulations are comprehensively fleshed out, to the point where they become less like patches and more like playing styles.

To be more specific, you have legato, fast legato, expressive (baked in swell) legato, perf. detache, fast perf. detache, long, expressive long, portamento, and expressive portamento.  All of those have three types of vibrato (regular, without, and strong) that can be crossfaded or individually chosen.  All the perf. intervals sound convincing, so it's safe to say the core of the library is about shaping expressive lines with more control over dynamics, bow style, and vibrato amount than one usually gets.

The other thing that really sticks out to me is that tremolos, fast reps, and trills (!) have legato transitions and they actually sound quite good - something I haven't seen in a lot of other libraries.  There are divisi presets as well, but I haven't gotten around to messing with those yet.  Of course, it's got nice short articulations, pre-recorded dynamics, and whatnot, but to be frank, Chamber Strings contains a more comprehensive set of those.  All in all, I would say these two libraries are apples and oranges - one is not a replacement for the other, in my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

In Vienna Instruments I've added the crossfading slot in the main cells. But I don't know if this can eat memory even when the crossfading slot is not used.

I do the same thing!  I tested it out, and - thankfully - it does not eat memory.  If you have two or more of the same patch the RAM eaten up will only be equivalent to the first patch.  To be clear, that means you can have Sus_Vib added to No_Vib, Prog_Vib, Tremelo, Tremelo f.attack, etc. etc. and it will only count the first Sus_Vib patch in RAM.

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

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.

Only limitation of this is that the patch change will only occur when a new note is triggered, so you can't switch from n.v to molto v. during the same held note, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

By the way, my dudettes and fellas: when blending between n.v. and molto vib., do you put a regular vib. in the middle? Or, do you prefer to go straight from n.v. to molto vib. to minimize any side effect of crossfading?

Paolo

I go straight from n.v to molto.  More than two vib. types in the dimension adds too much phasing for it to be worth it, imo.

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!

Alan,

My apologies for briefly hi-jacking this thread.  I saw your name and did a double-take!  I am at this very moment working my way through your Applied Counterpoint course on YouTube.  

Small world, I guess!  Thank you so much for the clear/concise educational material. 

- Sam

Originally Posted by: mschmitt

What is the advantage of having the extra sylables of the extended libraries? 

Since 90% or more of the music I will be writing with them will have lyrics, and be for choir with either no accompianment, or chamber music with a few individual singers, will these llibraries let me at least make decent mock ups? Is this what they were designed for ? And how do other composers use them?

I'm not looking to add Ahhs, Ohhs, AH, U sylabals to a Hollywood style orchestra mix. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not the style that I write.

For what you are looking to do with the libraries, the extra vowel won't do anything for you.  These libraries don't do lyrics; they're wonderful at creating ambience, capturing fast melismatic runs, and realizing wordless choir beds (ala Daphnis et Chloe).  The dynamic control, legato, and fact that it's not just "men and women" allow you to mock up traditional choral music in great detail, but as far as lyrics are concerned, the libraries will serve as an intermediate placeholder for your purposes.  In short, I'd go with the standard library: your placeholders will just say "Aah" instead of "Aah or Ooh" :-)

- Sam

Originally Posted by: Jos Wylin

In my opinion, it is very unjust that (without insurance) you have to pay again in case of a broken, stolen or lost iLicenser for the libraries and software you once owned (at least the use of it). It can be coupled to the computer's Mac-address. From what I've read here, I understood that it would be possible to store the licenses in a cloud. That is already a far better solution, but here again there is the immanent danger of being at the mercy of an external instance (the firm's cloud) and the availability of the internet connection. Without these, no working with your purchased beloved libraries...

There are other libraries/plugins that I own that require the use of an iLok and - as you mentioned above - allow those licenses to be stored into a cloud.  As far as I'm aware, those companies don't require insurance policies like the Vienna Protection Plan. 

This begs the question (which I am addressing to the team at VSL): once the migration to iLok is complete, will the Vienna Protection Plan still be something we are required to purchase to protect us from having to re-purchase licenses that are rendered unusable by stolen/broken/damaged dongles?

- Sam

Yeah, that squares with my impressions (as it were) as well.  Teldex, as a whole, seems more blended and awash in reverb, while Synchron seems very separated (not unduly so) and light.

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

Low frequencies in Teldex are less defined, and while the highs seem to be more extended and brighter (hence the impression of air), this subtracts from the overall clarity.

My guess is that this has to do with the room dimensions.  Teldex is a rectangle, but Synchron is angled outwards.  This means Teldex will have peaks and nulls in the LF areas and the high frequencies will bounce around at more regular angles than in an irregularly angled room like Synchron.  Please note: this is my *limited* understanding of acoustics at play here...

All in all, I think they both have distinct and useful room impressions, and the differences you outlined make sense to me.

Originally Posted by: Paul

I can't make any promises at this point, but we will discuss how we can "bring those articulations back" and integrate them with the SYNCHRON-ized versions. 

Best,
Paul

+1 for this!

This is a fantastic update!  All three of these additions are very much needed, useful, and appreciated.  Along with the per-key EQ and release sample tweaking (which I admittedly am too timid to mess with), I'm hard pressed to think of how much more powerful and flexible the SYN pianos player can get. 

Thank you so much!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: Dietz

A shout-out to Dewdman42! Thanks for your suggestions. DP is one of the few DAWs I have little first-hand experience with myself. 8-)

I second this shout-out. 

One question, for clarification:

Once the licensing system has been moved to iLok, will a Vienna Protection Plan still be required to be able to get free replacement licenses for products we've purchased licenses for in the case of theft/damage/etc. to our iLok dongle? 

Paul and Team,

This update for SYN-zed dim. strings and brass couldn't have come at a better time.  THANK YOU!

- Sam

Originally Posted by: Hicks

For example, if I want only the synchron natural reverb and the correct positioning, what should I choose (I guess Mir unprocessed but not sure as the double bass is centered for example).

Do this

- 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?

Originally Posted by: 154284

FWIW, I did purchase another vendor's woodwinds library after getting frustrated by VSL's site.  Sad because I would much prefer to have just 1 go-to library and love the sounds of VSL (It's probably the only company that I think I might actually be able to use for all of my orchestral instruments ).  Lack of a development plan, especially given the large investment required, makes me a little skittish.  But given the current sale on VI instruments, I may reconsider if I can figure all of this stuff out and be confident in my purchase.  With the standard pricing model, why would anyone purchase VI instruments?

For three reasons:

1. There are a lot of things available in the VI line that aren't available in the Synchron or SYN-zed line.  And I mean a lot.  Solo Strings con sordino is just the tip of the iceberg. This will probably change in the future, but given the vast selection of deeply sampled orchestral instruments VSL offers, it won't happen soon.  Compare the articulations on offer between some of the SYN-zed libraries and some of the VI libraries (the Woodwinds or Chamber strings, for example) and you'll see what I mean.
2. They are forwards-compatible with SYN-zed and Synchron products if you use MirX Synchron or MIR Pro with the Synchron Stage roompack.  Plop them in the same room, tweak the settings to your liking, and boom: it might as well be as if all the libraries were released at the same time.
3. Synchron products are in-situ and thus can't have the ambience removed.  VI products, on the other hand, can be applied to any spatial situation you want.  Note: you can actually remove the ambience in SYN-zed (not Synchron, but Synchron-ized) products and use them just like VI libraries. 

VSL recently released MirX Synchron specifically because they haven't abandoned support for the line.  They may not develop any new sample libraries via the Silent Stage (I don't actually know if this is true, I'm just assuming based on the trajectory of the last year or so), but it's clear they are tending to their legacy and making sure VI products are as forward compatible as possible with their new direction.

Oh, a fourth reason:

Layering.  Judicious mixture of diff. kinds of string libraries (as one example) can yield very flexible and pleasing results.

Those are my scattered thoughts.  Hope that helps!

- Sam

Attached to this post is a ZIP file containing:

1. MIDI Note Name files (drum maps) for use in REAPER's MIDI editor that correspond with the drum maps of Synchron Percussion I and II
2. Reaticulate banks for the default keyswitch presets that come with Synchron Percussion I and II

I hope these can be of use to someone!

Cheers,

- Sam

(P.S. If you're unsure of what Reaticulate is, check it out here: https://reaticulate.com/ )

Originally Posted by: plowman

Mr. Kersten is correct. But I'm glad you asked, because I want to clarify that I absolutely want all MIR-related elements to match as much as possible, notably the ones you mention: MIR's tail length and relative dry/wetness. 

Two points: I am prone to falling into rabbit holes, the infinite tweak, the "I'm here to compose... but I want everything to match perfectly before I begin." That's a fool's errand. One may argue (perhaps ad absurdum) that even the same orchestra in the same room sounds different from hour to hour. Certainly intonation, humidity, general human energy, and other terrestrial factors constantly change. 

But more specifically, I was fresh from the experimenting with "identical" instruments -- say, VI chamber cellos and Synchron-ized chamber cellos (where ostensibly they are the same original samples). One had a sheen, a more biting sound, and the other was smoother. Here we broach matters of EQ, the changes the developers may have made to the original material, plug-ins, etc., all compounding upon themselves. (Such things were not obvious, though, based on the mixing settings.)

Those differences, I decided, were to be celebrated as options. Many here have the chops to further homogenize them. It's not my skill set. 

But yes, regarding the length of the tail, the general room sound, and certainly the average loudness of the instrument, I very much want VI and Synchron to be as identical as possible for a convincing, unified sound. 

Ah, thank you for clarifying!  So, basically, don't fall into "paralysis by analysis".  A healthy reminder, as the rabbit hole you mentioned is one I often fall into.  I can dig it.

...uhh...no pun intended...

Originally Posted by: plowman

It's ironic: just this week I have matched and compared VSL's Synchronized sounds (with their built-in Synchron IR's) to my dry VI library going through MIR -- and then I compared those to Synchron native per-mike mixes. It's quite an education. One must be careful not to press too hard for identical sounds (which is tempting when you want the liberty of using both VI and Synchron / Synchronized in the same song -- such is the source of your hope and frustration). 

If I may ask, why wouldn't you want to match the sounds?  To clarify, why wouldn't you want the MIR'ed up VI instruments to sound as similar as possible (in terms of the MIR's tail length, relative dry/wet-ness, etc.) to native Synchron samples?  Wouldn't that engender more cohesion in the mix from the get-go?

To be clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight or start an argument.  On the contrary, I'm eager to learn and would love to hear your advice!

- Sam

I'm not familiar with the tutorial in question, but I'm almost positive those pitches are triggering multiple keyswitches in order to select an articulation.  Both VIPro and Synchron Player use different "layers" of keyswitches (VI uses an X-Y grid system, while Synchron Player uses a nested folder system).

What I mean layers is that a certain set of notes (let's say C1-C2) will select something like "Short", "Long", "Legato", "Repetition", etc. which will correspond with a row or folder, and then perhaps something like C0-C1 will select the exact articulation within the "row" or "folder" selected by the previous keyswitch.  In any case, both are required to be triggered for the right articulation to be selected.

I hope that helps and isn't too obtuse...

All I meant is that this thread got me thinking about how to do things more efficiently.  I'm glad it it did!

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

Wow, I just realized that I'm making this way harder than it has to be.  Rather than having separate instances for all the different sections, I can just assign each section to a group in one instance.  Then, when I want to render stems of the sections (or even instruments), I just mute the other sections in VEP7, render in the DAW, rinse and repeat for the other sections.  

Thank you, William, for inadvertently triggering this epiphany.

Many DAWs offer simultaneous channel bouncing. If you use several outputs from VEP and route your stems through them, you can actually drop the "rinse and repeat"-part, too. ;-)

Time to break out the manual!

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

[...] one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would!  [...]

:-D ... you know what? I've been told this several times already. For me it's on of the nicest compliments you can pay MIR. Thanks a lot!

Of course!  Thank you for developing it and saving me approx. five billion-gajillion hours of reverb bussing.