Originally Posted by: EricNJ

Dave -

We're in the same boat here.   Dorico is not perfect, but it is so far ahead of Sibelius in usability and reliability that there is no competition.    I do not know how VSL orchestral libraries compare with NotePerformer, but NotePerformer sounds pretty darn good to my ears - and is reasonably priced. 

But I do miss the VSL solo strings which are superior to Halion.  As an ex software guy I know that software companies have to juggle priorities.  I could be mistaken (it happens on an all too regular basis) but from where I'm sitting it looks like VSL is making the wrong choice in not prioritizing Dorico development.

Eric

Actually NotePerformer and VSL I find to be chalk and cheese. The musical intelligence built into NP can make for a naturally expressive and exciting performance of symphonic music with very little user input. The more important actual tone quality becomes, the more likely VSL would be the tool of choice. Chamber music in general is still too crude with NP.  You may be right that VSL is prioritising Sibelius development which would be a shame as I've switched entirely to Dorico for new compositions. For the VSL Special Editions, it's really not too hard to make your own Expression Maps according to your needs --even I have managed it -- but for full string libraries (I use the solo strings) in particular, VSL would please many by producing EM's just as fast as they can manage.

Another voice for taking another look at the way dynamic range is programmed in the Synchron player based so far on my experiences withe SY-ized SE version. Fortunately, in Dorico there is a dynamics lane which allow local changes which in 99% of cases should give acceptable results and other software will often have similar features.

Also, the last thing I would want is for the much smoother programming of dynamics in the brass in particular with the Synchron player v VI Pro would get thrown out of the window. But there is a case to answer nonetheless!

Originally Posted by: bbelius

Hi Dewdman,

Just right-click on the volume meter in the mixer :)

Best, Ben

Nice! But that presumably only copies the volume settings and to get all the mixer settings, you'd need to do the same on Pan, reverb, EQ and Delay as well? Or does clicking on any one save all?

have managed to get the channel change to work in Dorico. Although the software does not yet allow you to add a new instrument to a player which is not already in the list, in Setup you can create a copy of something already existing  and just rename it, thus creating in the Play window the essential additional track for allocating to a different MIDI channel. The beauty is it doesn't appear in the score so you can don't need to do an instrument change at all -- simply create the articulation " mute" and the Expression Map directs you to the new channel you've selected. The Synchron mute instrument articulations largely map the non-mute ones so no additional programming is required. Just remember to include the reset to original channel command in the default "nat", otherwise you stay mute for ever!

PS I have not yet really checked to see if I can see any issues reported by one or two users that the dynamic level isn't inherited between the channels, resulting in volume jumps. If I can confirm this, I'll report back

Originally Posted by: andi

David, the SYNCHRON-ized Special Edition presets "02 Trumpet I (C)" and "03 "Trumpet I (C) muted" have different EQ settings and different impulses. Nevertheless, you can of course combine them in one preset, if it helps your workflow.

Best regards,
Andi

OK, I see what you mean -- the EQ settings are somewhat different and when listening closely, there is indeed a difference. Mute copied into the normal instrument lacks something of the raw distinctiveness of timbre which you hear when the original instrument is used. I'll perhaps try the channel change and see if I can get that to work.

ok -- I see what you were getting at with your methodology and thanks again for going to the trouble. As for the "what am I missing?", this was more directed at Andi who warned about the possible downside to this approach. Perhaps he will chip in later with further clarification.

Thanks for your detailed description, Dewdman42, and I endorse your suggestion to VSL. It may be that I've misunderstood something as my procedure seems simpler than yours. My task was initally simply the following -- to merge the Special Edition mute trumpets and trombones contents into the primary instruments. I just did the following following Andi's suggestions:

1. go to the mute instrument and right click in empty space and "copy root slot"

2. in the main instrument, click on the + to create a new articulation in the articulation column and call it "mute"

3. right click and "paste slot". The entire mute tree structure is then copied into this slot. In the Dorico Expression Map, you simply add F#1 (assuming default mapping) to access the mute articulations you want to use.

I can understand that mixer impulses are different between different instruments and that they wouldn't be carried across but I can't see any mixer settings which differ between mute and standard trumpets. In practical terms what, if anything, is it I'm actually losing with this approach?

David

could you possibly give an example, Andi. I don't see anything myself.

By the way, I've got my trumpet sorted out fine in Dorico, now as far as I can see. I take your point about Sibelius, incidentally, and indeed used your tips in the "Optimizing Sibelius Playback. I just don't use it for new compositions any more.

that's exactly what I was looking for! I didn't realise that you could copy the entire tree from one instrument to a new slot in the first dimension as I'm still thinking a bit in VI mode. I'll try this out and if losing the instrument-specific impulses does prove to be irritating then I still have the MIDI switching option. Many thanks!

Hi Andi,

Thanks very much for getting back to me. I understood that you can effectively copy the articulations of an entire instrument by means of the "copy root slot" but if you paste it into the other instrument, it simply erases the original articulations whereas I want to add them to the original. Of course it's possible to copy individual patch slots and add to the "type" list but that's more tedious.

I take your point that it's anyway not ideal to mix instruments from the point of view of the Synchron player. The fact remains that in notation software, a muted trumpet is not a different instrument from an unmuted one and cannot be set up as one -- at any rate in Dorico. It is possible to switch MIDI channels (assuming using VE) to a different instrument in the Expression Maps but some have advised against that, due to a volume reset when switching.

Perhaps there is no obvious or ideal solution but I'm interested in what you would do im my position? Of course simply staying with the VI Pro instruments remains an option!

best wishes, David

Apologies if this has come up before but I can't find an answer to what should be a simple question as I continue to try out the Synchron player. I sometimes have a situation in VI Pro where I want to add a matrix to an existing instrument -- for instance the situation where mute trumpets in the SE are a completely different instrument but I want to integrate the mute patches into the normal instrument. Dead easy-- you just copy the matrix from the mute instrument to the standard one.

But I simply can't find the equivalent in the Synchron player. What should I be doing? Many thanks!

that's very helpful, Mike. I realised that using velocity as the main volume controller isn't ideal but hadn't fully realised the potential consequences. It is interesting that the Synchron libraries default to CC7 for main volume whereas the VI versions default to velocity. That perhaps tells you something! I suspect that indeed it's the keyswitches sending new channel volume info which is causing the disruption although I'm not sure why it only seems to be really problematical in Dorico. Interestingly enough, as I test further, it seems that although brass and woodwind clearly cause the spikes, it's only really audible with strings. I attach a very simple project with just the vln1 extracted so you hear what happens -- the first few bars should be enough. If you don't have access to the the Synchron-ized SE vol1, then you probably won't be able to really replicate. Alternatively you could then just create a short test piece with violins from the full string library and set Master volume to velocity in Synchron (not necessary in the Expression Map) and simply use your CC11 to map VelX in both.

I agree entirely that VelX is the way to go as dynamic controller for most instruments. If I decided to go for the Synchron libraries then I'll probably just have to practice getting an efficient workflow for this using the CC7/11 or whatever lane. It may be, though, that you will immediately see a specific reason in my example for the problem.

In my opinion, the Synchron libraries I have tried give a somewhat greater transparency of sound and fewer issues with odd dynamic changes in the brass among other things so I am considering the upgrade though it's not so cheap if I want to get vol2 as well (I'd need to add a few articulation in the VI version to allow the upgrade). I take it that you are convinced it's worth doing? I also have the VI solo strings and will be interested in seeing what Synchron does to them when they are released.

David

Mike, it's certainly very interesting what you're doing though only having a trial of the SE Synchron, your Expression Map isn't directly relevant. But I do have a question. I see that you are only mapping to CC7 and I asume that in the Synchron libraries themselves, you map to either CC2 if you want VelX or again CC7.

With a Synchron instrument, it is very useful for me to map the Main Volume to velocity so it is possible to use it to easily manipulate individual note loudness in Dorico with the velocity editor, while using CC2 with VelX as the actual primary dynamic controller (the same obviously in Dorico). However, there is are regular and serious velocity spikes when using  velocity as a volume controller in the Synchron libraries I have tried. Velocity wants to go to 127 and sometimes settles there after a break in the music, otherwise the spikes come particularly with articualtion changes. Effectively, this makes Synchron unusable in Dorico unless you're happy to not use the velocity lane.

Could you possibly quickly check for this behaviour if you havn't done so already. One or two others on the Dorico forum have found something similar but an identical controller setup does not result in any issues using VI Pro which make me hesitate to upgrade if this can be confirmed and there is no solution.

thanks, makes sense.

I'm trying out the Synchron SE just now and have exactly the same issue with a very unpleasant phasing at times if vln 1 and 2 are in unison. Same passages work fine with VI Pro. In fact the phasing can also be heard on occasion just with a single violin playing sustained notes (sustained patch is the worst but legato is not immune). Violins are the most obvious but on occasion similar effects can be heard with other sections as well. If there isn't a good workaround for this, I probably won't be able to make the upgrade despite the fine accoustic and the odd improvement elsewhere.

PS I suppose one workaround for unison doublings is simply to set the second part to play silent (talking about Dorico here) but keeping it in the score. I'll need to keep testing but further input would be welcomed!

In trying to work out the best control system for Synchron SE, I notice that the Sibelius soundset defaults to CC2 VelXF as the main controller. The crossfade is active throughout wind and brass but only active with some longer patches for strings? Is that correct what I'm seeing? Is this what you would suggest for other notation software like Dorico as it not the standard setting for when you load a preset which defaults to CC7 and no VelXF active.

David

Ah, I see it now. Under the "Channel" Menu, there's an "insert plug in" option! I'd completely missed that as of course you don't need it for VI as this is the default! Many thanks!

Decided the best way to answer the question was to try it out.. First reaction was It seems it is only monotimbral i.e you need to load a new instance of the player for each instrument. Although this is certainly doable, it would seem strange that we are back a decade or so since before Vienna Ensemble first saw the light of day and made organisation much easier.

I understand that it's possible to spend more money to acquire VE Pro but it doesn't seem that the free version I have already used with the VI libraries is compatible? Is there a free equivalent to Vienna Ensemble for the Synchron player which I have somehow missed? 

Of course there has been quite a lot of discussion about the Synchron Special Edition and comparisons to the VI version. Despite reading what I could, I am still rather unsure if the new version is worth it for me so please allow me to ask a few questions about my own specific set up.

 I have VI SE vol. 1 complete so could upgrade for 2x €47. However, I also use VI Pro and have acquired the Vienna MIRx Mozart and Grosser Saal. It's clear going through the tutorials that the major differences with the Synchron Player is the addition of acoustics and much of the controlability of the Pro version of Vienna Instruments. I can't hear side by side when auditioning the individual instruments/articulations any significant difference between what I have in VI and what I hear on the Synchron videos. I should point out that I am now composing in Dorico so it's largely irrelevant what results you might get out of Cubase or Logic after much tweaking.

One thing that could be decisive is how the velocity crossfade works. Although it's becoming my preferred way to have this actually as the default volume control (with velocity as secondary) for most compositions in Dorico, there is of course some roughness on occasion in the transitions and I'm wondering whether better programming in the Synchron version gives a clear advantage?

Leaving aside completely the question of whether the upgrade is worth getting for the extra instruments --and they do sound good -- I'm trying to work out if there rally are a) any significant new articulations which I can't see and b) a way in which the whole orchestra comes together in a more musical way such as better dynamic balancing. This is what I can't test and I fail to find side by side comparisons with the two players performing the same score. Hoping someone, especially a Dorico composer, might be able to give some advice here.

many thanks, David

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

I like NotePerformer for how immediately it allows one to make a clear image of the music. Its artificial intelligence has really great musical taste, and can render any style in a very musical way. I have however a couple reservations on it for my personal use: first of all, the more dense the orchestral texture become, the least realistic it is. Great for small ensembles, however.

Interesting what you say here about NP, Paolo. My take is that for dense orchestral texture, it usually provides an admirable clarity but on the other hand makes any "holes" in the score clearer and can lose something of the atmosphere or warmth of sound. With my 12th symphony as a whole, VSL creates the atmosphere of the whole a bit better.

Bruckner is clearly present in all of my symphonies even where the initial inspration may have been quite different. The trilogy 10-12 is rather more "post-romantic" with composers like Silvestrov or Weinberg being models but yet Bruckner so often dominates in scherzi or slow movements. Hope you do manage to get the whole of the Bruckner 7 scherzo done. What is the source for your score? If there are scores availalble in Sibelius or Dorico format, I might one day be tempted to try my hand ppaurely as a "conductor" rather than a composer/conductor.

William's suggestion is also interesting. I wonder indeed whether Dorico, which naturally shortens many notes other than legato as default, would automatically create more drive with VSL SE than the same score in Sibelius? Perhaps a little experiment is in order!

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

David, just a short note to thank you for listening!

I'll be back with some more thoughts on your stimulating post shortly.

EDIT: I think the link to your second example is broken.

Paolo

Strange -- looks like something went wrong with the original hyperlink. Pls. paste in this -- tests OK to me

https://app.box.com/s/8kosap44lcjqgdnrxxe7xcbzmsgbjl2x

that's a lot of work - shame I don't actually have the instruments to make use of it!

just an update having listened to the whole thing. I found the technical explanations useful but the snippets of Sorabji's views and comments even more fascinating. From what I can gather, he (at any rate at one time) really didn't want his music to be peformed becuase he felt the results would probably be much worse than not hearing it at all. Exactly the opposite of most modern composers. This orchestra must be huge! I can scarcely imgine a more difficult task to take on in terms of rendering and of course, very few of us could even afford the hardware and software required, never mind the time. It must be a labour of love.

Also listened to The Rose Garden played by the composer himself. Like many others, I struggle to find a structure in either piece and wonder if I am going about things the wrong way. For some reason, both pieces are curiously compelling which for me is very rarely the case with contemporary music which relies mainly on a soundworld (or tedious minimalistic repetition) rather than a musical argument or at least an emotional one.

I'm particularly interested in this thread because I regard Bruckner as the God of symphonists (and the idea that he was a simpleton is increasingly coming under question in more modern research). Mahler comes close in no. 10 and obviously Beethoven in especially 3 and 6 but taken as a series, nothing can for me match Bruckner's consistency and depth of inspiration, He is also the main influence on my own modest symphonic output. For full orchestra, I only have the VSL special edition and it's precisely on dynamics and clarity that I have considerable difficulty when compoing through notation software -- Sibelius but with a recent switch to Dorico.

I have never been able to get what you have achieved here, Paolo,  but I imagine there is a good deal of DAW tweaking? There are a few things which are unbalanced or sound a little artificial but in general I'm certainly impressed. The difference between the full version and the SE is actually less than I'd been expecting even though it's audibly there.

I can find purely in notation that using the sforzato articulation, there is a bit more attack to the sound but like many others (not you), I still find it a bit flabby and lacking in transparency. This https://app.box.com/s/sj...omxxs772y4kfwb4wq02f4ns7 is a fairly short example from my most recent symphony. It would almost certainly be worse using any other sample library from my experience. Grosser Saal accoustic used.

I have to say, and this will probably be contentious, that for orchestral works where rhythmic drive and clarity and more important than purely accuracy and distictiveness of sound, that I prefer using NotePerformer which uses only a modest sample base to drive its modelling algorithms. This is not because NP is objectively better -- it isn't and they're not really comparable anyway -- but becuase it requires far less work and knowledge. Here   https://app.box.com/s/8k...nrxxe7xcbzmsgbjl2x  is another scherzo example from my 8th symphony which (unlike 12 which has a different remit taken as a whole) got its initial impetus from Bruckner 7 so I request indulgence in posting it here as there is a clear connection.

I'm interested in a) are there other things I can do purely at a notation level with inscore CC's allowed to boost the impact and clarity, so to speak of music like this using VSL SE? Is it really necessary to tweak every note in the string ostinati for instance? b) do others feel as I do that the NP rendering is somehow more alive? You might say apples and oranges but I no longer have the VSL version of no. 8 for direct comparison.

David

to call this composer controversial would be the understatement of the year. I find it extraordinary that you've managed to bring something like this to the general public and can only be totally in awe. Whether he's just another in a line of English eccentrics I'm not sure. I've had this on for around half an hour and am not at all bored despite what initially at least seems like an enormous ramble. This language is like nothing I've ever heard despite some superficial resemblance to Szymanowski's central mystical phase ( I regard Krol Roger and the Litany to the Virgin Mary as containing some passages of the most beautiful music ever written) . I'm going to get all the way through in the next day or two.

David