Well, we must be carefull when we talk about rating "better" or "worse":
for instance your point is pretty clear: if you want to be free of placing the instruments around on stage, and get very different ambience, of course this task is easier and more effective with VI and MIR Pro.
Synchron is designed to always use Synchorn stage acoustic: but they are very flexible acoustics, in perfect line with the practice of orchestral recording for Media production scoring (e.g. movies, TV, videogames etc.). To make them flexible they use multi-mic approach and digital reverb instead of Convolution Impulse repsonses.
The result is a more realistic depth because the early refelctions are very wet and real, always better than simulated virtual reflections. Anyway it's a matter of taste, and I agree that the flexibility of VI + MIR Pro is an unmatched value.
The SYNCHRONIZED products can be used in the very same way of the VI series, from a MIR Pro compatibility point of view, by the way. The limitations are for SYNCHRON series only.
Other people here talk about different aspects (e.g. Synchron player advantage and limitations) and again is a matter of opinions and practice: Synchron Player is very powerful and does lot of interesting things, and SYNCHRONIZED version of Chamber Strings is providing several nice features (e.g. consistency of dynamics, and some performance of repetitions improved in a single patch) but of course the VI Pro has a lot more features non existing yet in Synchron player (e.g. humanization, sequencer matrix, multy patch playback, and lot more).