Looks like no con sordino in this release. Is con sordino planned? ETA?

Thanks!

Steve

I looked in the mirror after reading this exchange, and I decided to install a mute button in my own attitude. If what I have to say is positive and might be helpful to the other readers, no mute and I will post. If it is negative and not helpful, my mute button will engage and I won't post. This has been an invaluable forum over the years with information that has been very helpful to me and I am very grateful for that. Thank you everyone.

Bravo - thank you!

Sorry, I strongly disagree. Con sordino is so important and the only way to get that sound is to sample the real thing. It's a "must have" and I will create whatever extra drive space is necessary. By the way, if I postpone my projects that involve con sordino, I'll have nothing to do.

Thank you fahl5, I appreciate your comments. As with most things in life, we all win if we can stay positive. As for con sordinos, hopefully Vienna will deliver additional packages. As for legato, are you willing to share what you're doing to get a good legato sound? (or if you've already done that, provide a link?)

Thanks!

I must say that my enthusiasm over the recent Synchron products is, well, muted... no con sordinos which is a "must have" for me. Between that and the disappointing legato intervals in Synchron strings I am much more cautious and concerned about buying more of these products.

... and if I have a broken key that is out of warranty, I send it in and what do i pay? Just the cost of a replacement key? Or more?

Thanks,

Steve

Syncron is the clear winner for me. I hear more detail, and the room is more convincing. Also I get a clearer visual image of the string sections; maybe that comes from using one library? Great writing - and thanks for sharing!

Steve

Thanks!

I see a new library update for Syncron Strings dated March 16, 2018. When I download I get a large zip file. When I unzip I get an unfamiliar file format on  my Mac of "viupdate." What is this, and what is the procedure to install it? Thank you!

Steve

I am a heavy user of con sordino strings in my projects. I am not an experienced arranger and I am not a string player, but to my ear the biggest difference in the con sordino sound is that the fundamental and lower harmonics are being damped. I'm not so sure that taking out the high frequencies is the way to go.

Having said that, I avoid simulated con sordino because it can't come close to the real thing. Most string libraries skimp on con sordino, which is a real mistake. Vienna has provided more con sordino than anyone else, but we could still use more. I would love to see more articulations and more real trills (I'm sorry, there is no substitute for a real trill). 

Good luck!

Steve

When playing a legato performance patch in legato (i.e. overlapping notes) with release samples turned "on", do release samples sound on any of the notes besides the last note? Or only the last note?

Thanks,

Steve

I am having trouble - not able to see new presets and matrices. I believe I have followed correct instructions. I downloaded library updates from user area, and dragged over Directory Manager, but no luck. Help!

I am having the same problem described in this thread from 2012 - my VI Pro 2 doesn't see the newest presets and matrices. I've followed the instructions to download library updates and drag over Directory Manager. I'm stumped. Help!

I'm experiencing significant latency problems using VEPro/MIR to host several instruments in Protools 10 sessions that also include audio tracks. What can I do to minimize or eliminate the latency? Thanks!

Steve

Forgive me if covered in a prior post.

What is the recommended approach to coordinate settings in Protools 10 and VEPro to minimize latency of sampled instruments relative to audio in Protools track?

Thanks!

Steve

Thank you Fred and Dietz. My experience confirms what you told me. The plug-in works like a dream, and with zero latency (after reading manual I set latency in MIR Pro preferences to zero).

Is it possible to use the plug-in to set up two difference rooms in the same session?

Thanks,

Steve

I recently bought a Kawai VPC1 and absolutely love it. Better than any other MIDI keyboard I've ever played. 

Is it better to run MIR in VEPRO or in direct plug-in in Protools for latency or other reasons? Will my standard MIR authorization allow me to leave all my MIR settings in VEPro and also open the MIR plug-in directly in Protools (all on one computer), that is, to run both?

Here is a more detailed description of my situation. I'm adding strings to a jazz track in Protools 10 (real performers other than strings). I've finished arranging strings in VEPRo and have MIR all set up in VEPro the way I want. I am about to turn track over to mixing engineer who has VEPro and MIR but is not as familiar with how they work. I want to give him the easiest file to work with, and want to minimize risk of latency issues. He doesn't own the string libraries. I've already printed audio for all the string parts with no MIR, EQ, or other plug-ins.

Plan A: Keep my MIR setup in VEPro and run audio through VePro and back to Protools with reverb added. Mixing engineer would make any adjustments to reverb in VEPro.

Plan B: Open MIR plug-in directly in Protools. I'd like to keep VEPro in the picture in case we need to re-print strings, but otherwise mixing engineer works right in the MIR plug-in in Protools. In this situation, will my standard MIR authorization allow me to leave all my MIR settings in VEPro and also open the MIR plug-in directly in Protools (that is, run both on one computer)?

Sorry this is so long. Thanks!

Steve

I'm not a string player, but this two note only legato concept is surprising and doesn't sound right to me. If it is true, how did they handle the original recording sessions when the samples were collected? Did they have to collect every other interval in order to get all the legato intervals? Don't string players take pride in making each interval sound precise regardless of whether they're rebowing? I'd love to hear from Vienna and from string players on this. 

Once you play the Imperial, you won't want to play any other sampled piano.

I agree dimension is great choice, as is solo. But don't under estimate the chamber strings. That is a beautifully recorded set, and gives you more flexibility to add a few dimension strings here and there. Also, chamber performances are more like what players would play in s section. Sometimes solo never fully blends with a larger section, in my humble opinion. 

Yes, and yes. For some projects, I use the Spitfire Sable "tree" mic, which for me is the most gorgeous mic sound in Sable. Then I'll put my other libraries in MIR and try to match the sound of the hall. I'm pretty satisfied with how this sounds. For other projects, I use the Spitfire Sable close mic sound right into MIR, and I find it matches really well. Just for the heck of it, I tried running the Sable close mic through the setup I was using to match the Sable tree mic, and I was surprised that they sounded totally different. The Sable close mic has a very distinctive quality (very detailed) that survives no matter what you do with it. I like to use con sordino a lot, and it is always a challenge to find the various articulations I need, and I often have to cobble together a mix of Vienna, LASS, and Sable. So these reverb techniques are really essential to what I do.

I've had several projects lately that required blending various combinations of VSL, LASS and/or Sable strings as if they played in the same room. I've learned from a prior thread that step 1 is to "center" the sound output before it goes into MIR, keeping as much stereo width as you can. One of the contributors in the prior thread posted a video showing how he does this with Powerpanner and LASS.

I'm posting to add a couple things I've learned about Powerpanner and LASS, and about a similar process with Sable.

Assume for the moment that your sound is a first violin that was recorded off to the left. You would pan the left side of the signal towards the right until the output is equal. Powerpanner does this easily, and the sound actually sounds louder. That is, until you decide where to set the "pan law" which opens at 0db. Since pan law addresses the issue that we perceive things to be louder when panned to the middle than when panned to the side, it seems to me it makes more sense to set this to a similar setting as in whatever DAW you're working with, perhaps -3 db. Once you do that, the sound seems roughly the same in volume.

The first time I tried to do this process with the Sable close mic samples, I got some unexpected imaging and phasing issues. It took awhile to figure out. Sable comes with a "stereo width" setting. It loads from the factory in the center position, but if slid to the far right, produces the greatest stereo width. It turns out that the far right setting invokes an uber-stereo effect in Kontakt that artifically exaggerates the stereo image; and the center position is the setting you want if you just want the two mics panned hard left/right without any further processing. Once Sable is in the center position, you can use Powerpanner the same as with LASS, and you're on your way.

I hope this is helpful.

If I am not yet using Protools 11, is it better for me to update all of the VE Instruments Pro, VE Pro, and MIR software with the June 23 updates, or to continue working in the prior versions?

Thanks,

Steve