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.

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Yes, of course there is a difference. And this is what I meant with 1) stereo image, 2) panning and 3) distance.

Ohhh, my bad.  I misunderstood what you were saying.

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Do you have an example for the issue mentioned in your the last sentence? What do you mean with "towards the wet end"?

I meant if the instrument's DRY/WET ratio is weighted towards wet, resulting in more room and less of the ambisonically positioned, character-eq'd dry sample.  

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

Same here! I learnt a lot, but I think that MIR Pro could be made a bit easier for those who don't have this ambition.

Hmmm...you just gave me an idea...

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.

Originally Posted by: William

Yeah that makes sense.  I've just been using one big instance but it would be helpful for lots of them.

I would prefer that, honestly, but I need to have the option to render stems (either on a section by section or instrument by instrument basis).  There's a workaround in the DAW I use, but it's annoying to set up and hogs CPU waaay more than having multiple instances...

You both raise a good point I wasn't thinking about: the main system will be handling synthesis and mix/mastering tasks while the sample tank won't (or at least not as a priority).  This would necessitate a faster processor on the main system.  I appreciate the words of advice!

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

 In reality, a close microphone has the same wetness as the main microphone, isn't it? The difference between the two is the distance, the panning and the stereo image. 

Well, not quite, from what I've seen/heard.  There's also a difference in the mic itself.  For instance, the Close mic position on Synchron Strings Pro, when solo-ed, has barely any room information in it.  I presume this is primarily because of the type of microphone used.  In MIR, even if I move the instrument icon right in the face of the main mic array, if the dry/wet ratio is towards the wet end there will be way more room information than there is in the ambient library's close mic. 

I'm probably over-thinking things, but 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! 

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

@Dietz:
Comparing the MIRx settings to the Synchron and BBO libraries I stumbled upon the microphone delays. In MIRx the secondary microphone has a wet delay of 12.2 ms. The room microphones in the Synchron Player are set to 21 ms. Wouldn't it make sense to set it to the same value in MIR Pro? I tried and also increased the volume of the secondary microphone from 3 to 4 dB. I don't know... Maybe the value in MIR Pro can't be compared to the real thing. I like this change, and this is the good thing about MIR Pro compared to MIRx.

I'm curious about this as well...

Originally Posted by: William

A VE instance can be saved with every MIR setting, and all the instruments can be removed or replaced but the MIR hall settings will be the same.  

I know.  However, it's helpful in certain cases to be able to save the MIR "room" settings independently.  In my case, I have a Strings Instance, Woodwinds Instance, etc. but I want them all to be in the same room with the same settings.  If I want to change any of the room settings and have them applied to all instances, all I have to do is save the new MIR Engine settings and load them in each of the instances.  If I saved it as a VE instance project, I'd have to reload each instance's instruments to their respective section (Strings, Winds, whatever) each time I wanted to change a parameter.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

MIR Pro's so-called "Engine Project" data is indeed meant to save all Venue-relevant settings like Venue selection, microphone selection and setup, RoomEQ banks and so on - in other words: the "empty room".

When you roll out the update, please keep this functionality in.  It's extraordinarily helpful when working with many instances that need diff. instrument placements and parameters but require the same room/space across all the instances.  I can't imagine why this would be taken out, but I just wanted to drop my 2c in just in case...

X-Post from "General/Hardware" to see if anyone on this sub-forum might have an answer or insight:

Hey all - I have a question for anyone who has an answer:

I currently run a single-computer set-up with adequate but aged (5-ish years old) hardware for running large sample-based projects at low latency.  At some point I'll want to upgrade, however, and at that point it would be extraordinarily useful to use my existing computer as a secondary "sample server" using VEP7 rather than let it go to waste.

My question is this: when the time for upgrading to a newer, more powerful computer comes, does it make more sense to use the newer and faster hardware (i9 cpu, m.2 ssd, etc.) on the secondary computer so that the big, chunky sample libraries (like Synchron Strings Pro and whatnot) can run blazingly fast, or does it make sense to have the main computer with the DAW be the faster one?  I'm unsure how network architecture and VEP7's inner workings are best optimized/utilized in this case...

For context, my current single computer set-up is Windows 10 on an i7 4820k 4.5ghz quadcore, 2.5TB SSD space, 64gb ddr3 RAM.  (My interface is an RME Babyface Pro, if that matters)  My prospective new computer would most likely be something like an i9 8 or 10 core something or other, 64-128gb RAM, and a 2TB m.2 drive (or whatever is within budget and/or current gen at the time of purchase)

I highly appreciate any advice on this.  I know that the secondary computer needs RAM and SSD space for the samples, but I'm not sure if it also needs the faster processor, or if that's more needed by the main computer and the DAW and OS...

Cheers,

- Sam

Thank you, Dietz.  I'll be digging into it pretty heavily in the coming months so this is a great help.

Most welcome!

It's worth noting that you can turn off the impulse responses in the SYN-zed products and use them completely dry if you need to.  

It does help.  Thanks for taking the time!

So, if I wanted to match MIR's settings closer to the "Classic Stereo to Surround Downmix" presets in the Synchron Instruments (which, in comparison to the wide, seem to accentuate the closer mics while toning the main, high, and high surround mics down), would the main way you go about it be:

1) moving the instrument icons closer
2) turning the global WET/DRY more to the dry side
3) changing the main and secondary mic settings/positioning

I realize as I type this the answer is probably "all of the above and use your ears"   Even so, I'm curious what your "go-to" method of emulating a mic set-up in MIR pro would be?

Thanks!

- Sam

David and William,

Thank you for the detailed and helpful explanation!  Your answers could not have come at a better time: I'm in the middle of going through my presets and updating various parameters.  I always wondered why the SYN libraries had legato on MONO by default (looks like they listened to your feedback, William), and now I know.  I also wondered why legato lines I played in with over-emphasized slurring sometimes had a strange "smearing" sound.  Now I know!

Awesome!  Thanks so much.

- Sam

This is extremely helpful information and insight, Dietz.  Thank you so much!