@Laurent said:

...please don't spend 3 days recording a string orchestra from a bathroom !!
[*-)]

[[[:D]]] [[[:D]]] [[[:D]]]

[Uhm - things become a little bit weird now, so I will just emphasize that we neither sample strings in a bathroom nor the reverb of the latter, and rest my case.] [*-)]

@Dietz said:

[Uhm - things become a little bit weird now, so I will just emphasize that we neither sample strings in a bathroom nor the reverb of the latter, and rest my case.] [*-)]

The words "Vienna Symphonic Lavatory" come to mind. [[;)]]

Sorry, I just couldn't suppress that one.

Duncan

Really Duncan, you should've taken your Pepto Bismal.

@Craig Sharmat said:

That said I have never seen a large string ensemble sampled well. Most often in samples, the larger the section, the more synthy it becomes. Large sections of course can be fantastic recorded live, but so far the larger sections sampled (EW, KH) do not work well.

Having produced one set of the above initials in three different formats, I can experientially disagree. That's because we found that what creates the synthiness is processing.

I have a set of gig files from the above initials that were not processed. Just basic looping, a little filtering for noise, and that's it.

The sound is really unbelievable. I had Larry Seyer (Larry Seyer Reverb in GS3) listen to it, and he concurred.

Then I talked to the fellow who's reprogramming GOSII but in Kontakt. He removed all the processing from the original set and got the same results we did.

Both of these string sets were recorded in two different halls. One was in Lincoln Center, and the other I'm under non-disclosure to not reveal. But independent of each other we achieved similar results.

I tested my set with very dense harmony from Vaughn Williams, and I didn't have any synthiness at all. Nor phasing.

FYI, the above is NOT an ad. [[:|]]

Peter, can u post a demo?

Thks,

Iván

Yes - a demo would be very helpful.

Rob

oh. So they're reprogramming GOS huh?

How nice for all the new customers... [8o|]

Herb :

What do you mean by "the Orchestral Strings collections" ?

Have I to buy Orchestral Strings I AND Orchestral Strings II (standard and extended) to have the "collection" ?

Thanks

Orchestral Strings I are the violins, violas,
Orchestral Strings II cellos, and basses

I would say collection I is deciding

best
herb

As the flow of sugestions for the string sampling session appear to have dried up or taken a different tack can I add my voice to those who would like the silky strings option. One of the most used samples has to be legato violins (well strings really).

Also I do find the jump between dynamics (where there are only 2) to be very obvious and can only be sorted by either a massive overlap crossfade between the dynamics or staying on one dynamic only. In addition the louder dynamic, to my ears does not have the realism of the quieter.

So my vote would be for a looped legato violin section (+violas if possible!) that could be played in chords but has 4 dynamics with a suitable crossfade acrss the sample switches. If we end up with a instrument that can start smoothly and quietly and carry a movement right up to an fff climax that would be really cool!

Thanks

Julian

ps I have seen a number of posts about the effect of splitting say a 12 section violin sample into a 3 way chord and suddenly having 36 players when really you only want 4 per note. Is this something that could go on the development list for VI. To offer the ability to call up 2 or 3 or 4 smaller ensemble samples when there is a chord recognized. This could create an added level of realism in some compositions. With VSL breadth of recordings and uniformity of sampling techniques this might be a possibility?

Julian,
you're not so far from an idea i had a little while back about recording 'desks' or pairs of players. Sections could be built according to requirement.
Whatever the end result is, i think it's generous of the company to offer this.
There are few that would consider such a step.
And Herb said he had three days spare to do this. Makes you realise just how busy and well organised the team are that three days is 'spare', and it's only three days. Plus scheduling so far ahead. Well planned i'd say, and a positive sign of things to come.

Regards,

Alex.

@julian said:

Also I do find the jump between dynamics (where there are only 2) to be very obvious and can only be sorted by either a massive overlap crossfade between the dynamics or staying on one dynamic only. In addition the louder dynamic, to my ears does not have the realism of the quieter.

So my vote would be for a looped legato violin section (+violas if possible!) that could be played in chords but has 4 dynamics with a suitable crossfade acrss the sample switches. If we end up with a instrument that can start smoothly and quietly and carry a movement right up to an fff climax that would be really cool!

Thanks

Julian

I think that this is what the sus 4L instruments already do. It is not possible in a legato instruments to play chords.

DG

@DG said:

I think that this is what the sus 4L instruments already do. It is not possible in a legato instruments to play chords.
DG

I was going to say that - and then I realized you don't actually need to 'play' them. You could play them and then simply program the legato via overlaps or whatever afterwards.

I think that this is what the sus 4L instruments already do. It is not possible in a legato instruments to play chords.

DG[/quote]

But the're not silky smooth!

I find I am able to play chords on the legato instruments. you just have to ensure the start time of the respective chord notes is at the same time - yes a build up chord is a no no but a chord with all notes starting at the same time works

Julian

@julian said:

But the're not silky smooth!

I find I am able to play chords on the legato instruments. you just have to ensure the start time of the respective chord notes is at the same time - yes a build up chord is a no no but a chord with all notes starting at the same time works
Julian

Although in real life - notes never start at the same time from all the desks - or at least hardly ever. This is one of the complicated issues with getting silky, warm sounding strings - in other words, the samples should probably not be perfect.

After all and all, I am still fighting the big string sound. Though, I admit, I am getting close. Paul, so true what you have said. In the mean time the fight goes on.....

Because VSL raised the bar so high, it actually ended up doing something that old samples libraries did, but with far more advanced instruments.

This is the old pp vs. ff contrast., which is heard in Siedlaczek to an egregious degree. There is no middle. And yet the middle is the most commonly used sound. This has happened in VSL because of the legato instruments, which are nightmarishly hard to record, but are so far represented in the strings only by a relatively dry p, and a very strong ff. So I feel, as has already been stated, that this mp middle layer of legato, especially with portamento, is crucially important.

it is interesting how the old Miroslav library had a lot of mp or middle dynamic samples, and as a result is STILL BEING USED even though it is a Pre-Cambrian Period sample library.

And what is the most incredibly useful sample the VSL has yet created? Some argument there obviously, but perhaps the mp legato horns. Another MIDDLE DYNAMIC.

Essential! But still non-existent in VSL strings legato.

(Though of course we have to realize they have their hands full, sampling everything in orchestral creation! But the problem is they have created Frankenstein monsters in their customers, demanding MORE AND MORE...)

William,

I agree with you entirely but I'm curious why you never mention mf? Is this assumed as a part of mp? I would be frustrated to have mp but not mf as so much playing falls into that categorie.

mf or mp, either. A full, but not edgy sound is what I mean. I have to admit I don't make a huge distinction between mp and mf. My usual distinction is something like ppp vs. fff. Though of course in scores mp and mf are different in their meaning. But in isolated samples, that distinction breaks down somewhat, especially in the horn samples for example. The mf ensemble with filter samples, are almost the same dynamic as the mp solo with no filter. Or the other way around...to use two I was just playing around with!