183,050 users have contributed to 42,273 threads and 254,975 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 1 new thread(s), 5 new post(s) and 42 new user(s).
@fabio.angeleri said:
For me, the most important improvements of VI,s should be: 1) POLIPHONIC LEGATO 2) Multichannel VI plugin (without the need to link VE as an external application to the host software). 3) A switchable LFO should be useful in some situations. 4) A "low quality mode" for saving CPU performance.
Can you explain a little more?
DG
1) One simple solution could be to join with the nearest note. Another solution (more affordable) should be assigning the part legato control to a dedicated midi CC (say 15). The composer could "label" every part with the same value, recognized by VI. Example: every CC 15 vith value "10" corresponds to the lower line, and every CC 15 with value "100" corresponds to the upper line, and so on. In this way, the composer should have the power and the flexibility to say to VI which notes have to join.
2) I would use one VI in Logic (mac) controlling, i.e., 16 differents midi channels, exactly as another multi output sampler can do. Personally i find VE a poor solution to this limit of the VI.
3) Useful only in limited tweaking situation
4) Yes, i have to update my system, but i've spent my money buyng VSL libraries ;-)
@fabio.angeleri said:
1) One simple solution could be to join with the nearest note. Another solution (more affordable) should be assigning the part legato control to a dedicated midi CC (say 15). The composer could "label" every part with the same value, recognized by VI. Example: every CC 15 vith value "10" corresponds to the lower line, and every CC 15 with value "100" corresponds to the upper line, and so on. In this way, the composer should have the power and the flexibility to say to VI which notes have to join.
2) I would use one VI in Logic (mac) controlling, i.e., 16 differents midi channels, exactly as another multi output sampler can do. Personally i find VE a poor solution to this limit of the VI.
3) Useful only in limited tweaking situation
4) Yes, i have to update my system, but i've spent my money buyng VSL libraries 😉
DG
...as far as I can tell the clarinets don't have any vib DG!
...i think saying the Strad is an abomination is a bit extreme... it sounds great with a bit of reverb (and echo and filtering and distortion!). i know what you mean, this and the Garritan cello are a bit thin and artificial in a way, but they can also be quite flexible and expressive in a way that combines well with the VI's more natural but less expressive and flexible sound. hey DG do you have any music / a website? you're such a pompous ass (and I mean that in a very nice way, you're also very helpful!), that I'd like to hear if your ability lives up to your posturing! As I say, I mean that nicely :-) [:)]
@dagmarpiano said:
...as far as I can tell the clarinets don't have any vib DG!
...i think saying the Strad is an abomination is a bit extreme... it sounds great with a bit of reverb (and echo and filtering and distortion!). i know what you mean, this and the Garritan cello are a bit thin and artificial in a way, but they can also be quite flexible and expressive in a way that combines well with the VI's more natural but less expressive and flexible sound. hey DG do you have any music / a website? you're such a pompous ass (and I mean that in a very nice way, you're also very helpful!), that I'd like to hear if your ability lives up to your posturing! As I say, I mean that nicely 😊
The clarinets have very little vibrato, but that's the way that clarinets sound in an orchestra. Vibrato would be a special effect, and not really suited to orchestral music.
I'm entitled to be as pompous as I like and I don't even have to be any good at anything . My ability, or lack of it, is irrelevant. You don't really think that music critics know anything about music do you? [:P]
DG
1) Uh! I don't considered the problem of the velocity XFade. Sorry. But i have to say: this is a limitation of VI. Is the same for the Expression controller.
I realize that at this time, the best solution for using VIs is one instance for one instrument, meaning often "one VI for one voice" (due to VI's limitations on poliphony, vel Xfade and Exp controllers.
It works well, is simple and effective, but for me sometimes is far from a real "sheet" compositive approach, because always it need some tweaks to split parts on multiple tracks, losing the real mind-sheet scheme of the score (i have to put around 3 tracks for each instrument).
Seeing how much people are interested in the Sibelius-VE integration, i think that lot of VI users would like to use VI for composing directly in the midi arrangement, with the same intuitive approach as in one notation program.
In other words, for me should be fantastic if the midi arrangement could be written as an orchestral sheet.
A real BIG evolution could be the passage from the concept
one track(one Vi instance) -> one instrument, to
one track(one VI instance) -> one orchestral staff
Don't say that this is impossible!
2) Some misunderstandings. What i'd like is to have a "multipart" and "multioutput" version of the VI plugin. Most Virtual Instruments have also the multi output version. One instance could load i.e. a large set, receiving midi data from different midi channels. You can route the instruments on one output at your choice. A sort of VE but as a plugin opened within the host application. Memory limitations due to non 64 bit applications...OSX Leopard is 100% 64 bit. Ok, if Logic is not 64 bit it can't load more of 3 Gb, patience... but let's talk about the future!
3) Maybe it was a bad idea.
4) ....
Regarding VE as a plugin, I'm not quite sure what is wrong with the current setup of VE2. There are inherent problems for 64bit sequencers trying to run 32bit plugs, and it has proved (so far) that the best solution is to go the VE route, where a 64bit plug can be loaded in a 32bit sequencer. Once everything is 64bit this will be a non issue, but that is not likely to be the case for up to a year IMO.
DG
now for my 2 cents worth, which i've mentioned previously in other posts.
More uniformity amongst the articulations (specifically DYNAMICS) within (and between) collections.
What i mean is this:
If my Orch Strings 1 had a 1.5 sec, 2 sec, 3 sec, 4 sec, and 6 sec PFP articulations for the regular Violins, id like those same exact numbers for the the strong dynamics, the medium dynamics, the con sordinos, the tremeloes, and the same values available on the Violas, the Celli. the Double Bassi, etc. My Chamber strings DO seem to be more uniform. Nearly All have available a 2, 4, and 6 sec dynamic cres/dim patch, which is good. Maybe it's just the Orch strings that are less congruent, i dont know. Anyhow it would be nice :)
And the other thing would be to have the glissandi available for all instruments in a collection. In Orch String 1 and 2, they are only available on the violins. [:(]
oh yeah, one more thing: I'd like all the collections to be made available as free shareware and come with a T-shirt, bumper sticker, and free VSL Secret Decoder Ring. [:P]
Special Edition. I'm not so sure that LFO cannot sound acceptable. Add random variations in speed and amplitude and it will be good enough.@DG said:
Which Collection doesn't have vibrato patches? I can tell you now that LFO won't happen. It never sounds good anyway.
DG
Special Edition. I'm not so sure that LFO cannot sound acceptable. Add random variations in speed and amplitude and it will be good enough.@DG said:
Which Collection doesn't have vibrato patches? I can tell you now that LFO won't happen. It never sounds good anyway.
DG
Random is not good enough, When a string player plays with vibrato, it is not random; if follows a very specific set of rules, and even then it still sounds different, depending on the player. I would think that to make anything even bearable with LFO you would require a detailed knowledge of playing the instrument, and then you would know enough not to be satisfied. [;)]
With regards the vibrato patches, which instruments are you missing them with, so that we can be totally clear about this?
DGFabio,
To further elaberate on DG's point 1 above, there is a small transition sample played between notes when playing the legato patch. So, as DG pointed out, how would VI know which note to attach to which other note. That's why legato patches are not polyphonic. At least that's how I understand it.
@fabio.angeleri said:
For me, the most important improvements of VI,s should be: 1) POLIPHONIC LEGATO 2) Multichannel VI plugin (without the need to link VE as an external application to the host software). 3) A switchable LFO should be useful in some situations. 4) A "low quality mode" for saving CPU performance.
Can you explain a little more?
DG
I was refering to this post here. Sorry I forgot to quote it.
@DG said:
Random is not good enough, When a string player plays with vibrato, it is not random; if follows a very specific set of rules, and even then it still sounds different, depending on the player. I would think that to make anything even bearable with LFO you would require a detailed knowledge of playing the instrument, and then you would know enough not to be satisfied.
With regards the vibrato patches, which instruments are you missing them with, so that we can be totally clear about this?
DG
I cannot find any vibrato patches in the string section of SE for example.
I was not talking about random vibrato, I was talking about randomizing pitch variation. Technically it can be done with 3 "standard" LFOs. The first makes the "core" pitch variation, the second modulates the amount of the first with a random wave, the third modulates the rate of the first. An envelope can be used instead of the thrid LFO. I will make a sample of what I'm talking about and see if it sounds good enough (if I find a sampler with enough LFOs of course 😊
