@cgernaey said:

They like you and me learn from experiences and when have they not always come through with something that is breaking the walls down on other companies?  VE Pro first did it, then VI Pro is just astounding.  There is no other word for it, Kontakt doesn't even touch VI Pro.  Nothing I use does.

Amen!

I initially wasn't going to reply to your post, but I just have to make a correction to some of my previous statements on other threads, concerning a point you made. I agree and disagree with the point of 'how much time it takes' to get results.

If I'm composing, I tend to get distracted if the playback isn't at least 'right enough' that it gets the idea across. This takes time and I often loose interest and let myself get unproductive. I realize that this is more about me than VSL. But I think a lot of other users get this way. I think that decent playback results out of the box help in this regard. At the same time, I don't mind fine-tuning my finished products and getting the right sound, after the fact. So in the sense that it really doesn't take long to get amazing sound, this is true when I'm going over a peice. In the composing mindset, I can't stand listening to something that is far too 'off' to ignore, and I don't want to have to take the time now just to get a semi-intended result. I want to put it down, have as close to a real player performance as possible, then move on and continue. Although this may seem too 'picky' to some, it is obviously plays into many users 'creative workflow' which can have a huge impact on the user. So I think it's important to push VSL to aiding us in the 'quick results' features (like humanize, divisi, etc) - but on the other side of the coin, it really isn't that bad in the long run. I think most of these problems come from how much work for realism it takes during workflow, as I've just said... but I'd add by saying that I think most users don't mind the work it takes to fine-tune in the end. Believable performance now, fine-tuned or 'the desired performance style and expressive qualities' later... my problem is when I have to take too much time for real performance now. I can live with the amount of time it takes to fine-tune (but of course, any time saving there is necessary also) but just to get a believable performance, should take as little time as possible.

Hopefully that made sense. Anyway, I was hoping that my 'how long would it take' question would get answered. I was trying to be as general as possible in my initial post. Does anyone know how long the Orchestral String library took from planning through editing?

-Sean

Sean, understand that I really would also like a 2nd violin section.  IMO, it is one of the rare areas where VSL is behind some of its main competitors.  My comments were made simply to indicate VSL's ongoing response, and that it likely will not happen.

lol, I worried that I came off a bit harsh. It wasn't intended. I just think that at this point, with everyone else providing what users are demanding... and with VSL having an even better track record (imo anyway) then VSL would make the biggest mistake as a company by not producing something of equal or greater value to its users. Even then, I'd even argue that VSL would be crazy if they didn't try to far exceed DVZ, Spitfire, EW, and any other decent sounding and flexible library out there.

Now that I remember, I actually saw a post from a VSL guy saying that things were in the works. It was as non-committing and non-answering as possible...other than that VSL records new samples every day and that 'things are in motion', and the topic matter was divisi. So in my eyes... and yes I might be a bit dillusional... VSL is most certainly coming out with a Divisi product, and I will most certainly be selling my soul for it! lol  (and going broke most likely, but I'd sell half of the crap I have just to buy it [:'(] as it is in every way the most crucial 'missing link' in my library right now.

-Sean

VSL has certainly spoiled everyone, and pushed virtual instruments forward a great deal. I don't think other libraries would be as good as they are if it weren't for VSL pushing the envelope and demanding the highest standard.

If they do a "dimension strings" I wonder if it will be "dimension strings 1+2" and "appassionata dimensions 1+2"? Hope so that would be good!

Being able to have true divisi in a virtual instrument is the next logical progression...

Will VSL offer any NEW & IMPROVED Strings in the near future ?

That's the 6 million $ question  [8-)] 

So far.... NOTHING [^o)]

As long as they don't record them in their famous 'Silent Stage' they will sound good !

No barn is needed [;)]. Just a lively, rich,and warm sounding room instead of the dead, poor, and cold sounding Silent Stage.

@DG said:

Seriously, the only thing that needs to be improved is the playing. Not to say that it is bad, but there needs to be vibrato control, at the very least, in order to make the libraries up to date, and less anemic sound from the Orchestral Strings.

Agreed! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the silent stage at all. It's like all of mixing. You make it dead to start, so that you have the flexibility to do whatever you want later. If people aren't getting a warm sound, then they are mixing it wrong. While other libraries might give you warm from the start... you are stuck with THAT warm and you have far less control.

What most VSL users want is more Vibrato control, more articulations, improvements on previous offerings (whether cross fade issues, legato improvements or anything else), and a more flexible library for realism. I think if VSL offered a bit of DVZ style control, it would be nice. I picture a tab next to the matrix tab, that has things like 'looser' among the divisi sections (for legato, pizz, stac, etc) so that we don't have to adjust timings on everything to get a good sound. While VSL has loose patches, it's one thing to have loose vs tight, where DVZ has complete control here. Maybe VSL won't do this, and obviously not necessarily how I've thought it out- but flexibility and realism are key. Vibrato, looseness, more options to sound like a real orchestra, etc.

I would take all of that well before a warmer sound, even if I liked that sound. I could have a sound that was 100 times better to start, but if it wasn't flexible enough that I could write notes and get that performance... what's the point? Want amazing sound? Hire an orchestra. What to compose, arrange, fill in gaps, orchestrate, and demo on a computer? That's what libraries are really all about- not replacing people, but giving us what we just don't have the resources for in every day use... all of course, imvho. [;)]

-Sean

@iscorefilm said:

I think if VSL offered a bit of DVZ style control, it would be nice. I picture a tab next to the matrix tab, that has things like 'looser' among the divisi sections (for legato, pizz, stac, etc) so that we don't have to adjust timings on everything to get a good sound. While VSL has loose patches, it's one thing to have loose vs tight, where DVZ has complete control here. Maybe VSL won't do this, and obviously not necessarily how I've thought it out- but flexibility and realism are key. Vibrato, looseness, more options to sound like a real orchestra, etc.

-Sean

Unfortunately the DVZ approach doesn't work. Recording violinists two by two does not sound like a violin section when put together. It is a nice idea, but a failure in execution. If it was possible to reverse engineer the difference between that approach and a section all recorded at the same time, it would have merit, but so far there has been no progress on this matter. Things may change in the future, as more and more modelling becomes mainstream, but I think that this is a while away.

DG 

@DG said:

Recording violinists two by two does not sound like a violin section when put together. 

DG 

As juxtaposing/doubling the same Violins I (giving them a different line, panning them) doesn't make them sound like a Violins II section (tweaking them electronically just makes them weird). I believe it's time the major companies consider putting some money together and record some musicians again. The expectations today are not the ones of 2002 or 5.

@DG said:

Things may change in the future, as more and more modelling becomes mainstream, but I think that this is a while away.

I keep saying that here and everywhere: There are only two competitive companies that really knocked my socks off so far: Sample Modeling (and Wallander Instruments). I put the last in brackets, because you have to admitt that it sounds not close to the VSL standard. But my amazement is less about the sound. It is about the usability! Being able to morph between every thinkable nuance of an instrument and use a ribbon controller for pitchbend and all sounds very natural! I just would like to get rid of this approach, where you have to program your music. I want to play it. For certain styles that works with VSL. But Sampling modelling instruments give you the ability to do you almost anything in real time. Just one Instrument loaded and a buch of faders, there you go! Not much editing needed!

This is what I dream of for VSL to become. I think it should be possible, because they already have

of these great, dry samples, MIR ... the rest is software development and ideas. I don't think the future of modelling (or hybrid, like Sample Modeling) is so far away! In my opinon, VIpro 3 just needs 3 vital features:

- a great sounding formant algorythm to make pitchbend sound real

- a convolution engine inside VIpro to morph samples (e.g.: nonVib - Vib)

- a realtime stretch engine

The compination of those would make VSL samples even more flexible ...

Of course, at some point you will be able to modell any instrument performance without using a single sample. But that is indeed something I expect in 20 years or more. In the meantime, I want to be able to play more and program less and I don't think, i will have to wait 20 years for that ...

@DG said:

Unfortunately the DVZ approach doesn't work. Recording violinists two by two does not sound like a violin section when put together.

I should clarify. I didn't mean DVZ in the sense of recording each violin, desk, and so on... but that whatever level of Divisi VSL produces... it should have some flexibility in the performance. Say you have Violin I and II both divisi and all separate performers, etc. That is at least 4 voices. Rather than have separate patches for loose and tight... one could slight a slider... and gradually split the divisi sections up into a more loose performance. A Divisi library would allow for such a simple approach, which saves time rather than having to adjust the performance on our own. As we all know, human performance means imperfection. DVZ's approach at this certainly is more effective, but the recording quality and overall sound is obviously lacking.

Think of my comment geared more at Dimension Brass. A slider to make the 4 trumpets less in time or more in time would have it's uses.. like a timing humanizer... but with Divisi strings, I think such a feature would practically be expected... at least by myself anyway.

Here's how I view the benefits of such a performance adjustment, such as how DVZ has implemented. These are the things I constantly change PER string voice... for a more human performance: Attack, Release, Start-time, and Pitch. VSL has addressed Pitch, but not the other three in an easier to control, more automated way. If I had one adjustment slider to 'stagger' the attack and release amount, and to stagger the start and release times of multiple selected instruments, this would save me a great deal of time in Cubase as it is... If I have a Divisi String library, I wouldn't just be wishing for this anymore, but would expect such a feature. I nearly expect it now... lol Otherwise, each and every last note in Cubase has to be edited VERY tidiously for all of these things to take place. While I'd expect it for Divis strings... I would love to have this now across different midi channels... whether this be a 'timings humanizer' or a slider for sections... or something.

-Sean

@Another User said:

I want to be able to play more and program less

I think that's what most of us want. I don't mind programming for style or shape of the performance, etc. I mind programming just to get what sounds like a real player played it.

-Sean

 I would just like to say that with this simple phrase " I want to be able to play more and program less" you have eloquently summed up what so many of us have been thinking for years. VSL provides the most wonderful resource, however so does Mercedes. The trick is to provide the driver who is not an engineer with a rewarding experience. Not an easy task when so many customers demand to "get under the bonnet" to tweak to their own preferences, and also resist the impulse to "dumb down" the product. Perhaps VSL really are doing all that can be done in this regard, but it would be helful if there was a sign above the door of the office saying " I want to be able to play more and program less". Point well made!

When you take away the ability to program and fix it so it can't be changed, you make it easier to use, but you also remove functionality. Sure, when there are things that can be automated but don't lose functionality, of course, that's why the VSL team keeps releasing software, to improve and expand on these functions.

In this case, VSL is not a mercedes but in reality, it's a modular, complex musical instrument in it's own right. There's nothing wrong with asking the engineers to make existing functionality easier, if that's possible, but there's going to be a limit where you can't tweak something to get a certain result anymore. Point being, for myself I would always in the case of VSL chose functionality over ease of use if there had to be a choice in any particular given example.

I remember a flight to LA, when by chance I sat next to a music developer. He said that orchestral modeling was imminent, and those with bloated, expensive sample libraries would soon be left holding obsolete gigabytes of unusable sound.  

It was 1995. 

I've bought a few now-obsolete sample libraries since then. But they were supplanted by better sample libraries like VSL. Orchestral modeling (synthesis) remains a work in progress. 

I am by no means against extensive tweakability at the cost of ease of use! It is just the philosophy some VSTi's I really digg (e.g. sample modeling). You have one patch, where everything is at you command with some controllers. Also, every aspect of articulations can be morphed via CC to another, whereever the real instrument could do just that.

In the end, only a very detailed physical modell could render all possible output of the real thing! But, until that will become possible, I would like to have access to this kind of technology. Even, if it is not yet without any limits. I share plowmans opinion, that it will still take a very long time, until we will be there (if we ever will). But that doesn't mean, we can't have something close to complete in the meantime. SM has proven that IMO. VSL could make something like that possible without even having to record a single sample more. This is what I wish for in the future in VIpro.

@mpower88 said:

VSL is not a mercedes but in reality, it's a modular, complex musical instrument in it's own right

That is a good idea, and very true about VSL.  The thing that makes it not become obsolete like libraries of the past or the quickie symphobia type stuff is that it is based upon building orchestral sound from the ground up.  The methodical approach and carefully, analytically constructed edifice of samples that VSL pioneered are based not upon clever technology, but upon fundamental musical notes and expressions.  That is why it will not become obsolete. It is authentic musical sound, and the system they have developed allows for continuing additions and improvements without invalidating the very first samples recorded ten years ago. They sounded great back then and still sound great, but many hundreds of thousands more have been incorporated into the instrument, making it immensely more expressive.  New programming approaches of Vienna Ensemble and Instruments and Dimension Brass allow new uses of these basic musical building blocks, but it is the intense focus upon pure, true musical sound that makes VSL so great.

VSL can indeed be easier to program while maintaining the same level of flexibility.

I and others have come up with great ideas regarding how. We have stated these on here, the VSL DAW thread, and others. Before I purchased VSL I'm sure others did before me, and so on. The point isn't whether VSL can make improvements, but concerns of user demand (which I think we all agree is prevelant) and developement (that darned money eater).

Humanize is a step in the right direction, but is more random than anything. It's not really random as one has degrees of control, but while reading on Numerical Sound (Ernest Cholakis's site) regarding his DNA Groove Templates... I realized that the humanize feature isn't where it could potentially be. Playing patters of individual players would be a more effective tool than what VI-Pro currently has. I have suggested a timing humanizer, that would adjust the attack, decay, start, and end times of each note played just so slightly as to create a humanized performance.

Vienna Instruments Pro, if radically upgraded (Like 3.0 or something) could have an entire screen tab full of humanize options. On the VSL DAW thread, many of us referred to ways that a VSL DAW or VSL Notation editor (or a combination of both, like Notion, etc.) could have features that would save 'programming time'. We even came up with ideas of how those could work. So again, I don't think the problem is flexibility vs ease of use. I think it's just a matter of whether VSL finds enough market in this issue and what they do about it. I absolutely think there is market. I think someone would be a fool to say otherwise. VSL has shown some more committement in the promise of Vienna Instruments Pro 2.0 but we just have to wait. Perhaps that will solve a great deal of this frustration. Perhaps only parts of it; maybe we'll even see more from VSL in the future. That future could be upgrades in VE, VIP, or by other means. We'll just have to wait and hope for the best.

I thought that Cubase has scripting abilities and possibly even plugins (not VST, but actual program feature or gui plugins). Am I wrong? Has anyone made any decent ones to save time on such issues? I know that I heard or read Hans Zimmer saying that Klaus Badelt had created several scripts for saving time. I have often wondered how and what and what I can do to save time myself. Perhaps some of us (myself included) just spend too much time commenting on here. [;)]

-Sean