Thanks for the replies.

I personally don't think Adagio is as unconvincing as most of you seem to think, but to each their own. I still prefer most everything about VSL anyway. I found there legato examples VERY unconvincing (except for in one case). Some of the articulations were pretty convincing to me, and the 'room' in their recordings sounds better to me than the room in EW's. The thing I liked so much about Adagio was the different bowing options for legato and spiccato, etc. This is something I would prefer VSL completely adopted.

I've never heard a library that sounded as real and convincing as VSL. I think VSL's dry and quality sound is hands down the best. But I don't think that making VSL more human and organic is as convincing as these other libraries that record performances less perfect from the start. I don't think that VSL should abandon the 'ideal performance' mentality at all. I agree with that in most ways, but real human performance requires imperfection. We all know this, and this is why we make the effots to humanize VSL. I'm just saying that VSL humanized is less organic than other libraries recorded imperfectly. If VSL can produce a new string library that is VSL quality in sound, and more flexible for human or perfect performance, and more bowing / articulation options- then I think VSL would hold up to their reputation. Again, I still think VSL sounds the most convincing- I'm only trying to say how I think VSL could improve and I think perhaps looking at other libraries helps to reflect on that.

-Sean

iscorefilm, I have to ask, which VSL strings libraries do you have?  If your signature is current, and all you have are SE related libraries, you are not getting anything close to the full picture of all the articulations that are part of the full DVD libraries.

I also started with the SE libraries, and they are very good.  But, for maximum realism, there is no substitute for the full DVD string libraries.  The dynamics patches are of importance, and the additional bowing techniques round out the primary articulations in the SE libraries.

In terms of my own RL experience, of the various marketplace offerings I am familiar with, in terms of solo double-bass, only the full DVD VSL solo double-bass library begins to approach what I am actually able to do with a bass bow (side note: natural harmonics are of great importance in the solo bass literature, and VSL, unlike others, includes them).  VI Pro 2 helps as well, as one can begin to program more variations for any given bowstroke, much as a real player will do.

the whole 'real human performance requires imperfection' should not be at the level of the recorded source. it is really a function of timing and idiosyncratic imperfection of the pitch, etc, during performance, by particulars, in context. I would never want bad attack per se, bad playing, bad intonation. we are working towards a bit of the ideal in virtual performance. I don't want to have a poor start. It's not very well thought-through, that argument.

I'm good at sequencing because I have studied in depth what happens when people play instruments. it's a very subtle thing really.

I don't know how good Adagio is until I got busy using it. Whoever made the articulation demos isn't good at sequencing string parts, or it's crap. I won't risk money operating under the assumption, 'sure, the lib. has to be better than that'. If the person sequencing built the library chances are good they aren't really a strings person.

I wanted it to be good so there's an option. It's your money, though.

noldar12,

While I only own the SE libraries myself, I indeed have used the full string libraries on more than one occasion. I found that the full libraries are more extensive, but I still find that what I'm wanting out of VSL still applies. I wasn't trying to say that Adagio is more articulation heavy or more 'able', just that they seem to have tried to make their library with as organic-flexible of an approach as they could. Maybe I'm wrong and VSL is doing just as good of an 'organic job' as everyone else. But I still think that there is a void to be filled here. I play my share of instruments, no strings... yet. But in the little time I've spent practicing my violin I have learned that there are so many ways one can bow something and far more than what the current libraries are offering. Again, I'm not a string player so I'm not sure exactly how to translate this- but oh well. Suffice it to say that I wish the ability of a stringed instrument was more represented in the abilities of a VSL string library.

-Sean

Civ,

Perhaps I didn't communicate well, but I think you misunderstood me. "Real human performance requires imperfection" is not a debatable statement. It's about as plain blunt fact of music making as it gets. A human being is not a machine and a real performance will not sound exactly the same every time, a sample library can. I don't doubt you understand that, but that's the only thing I meant by that statement- to point out the obvious. I said it to make another point, which I think is where the lack of communication is. I don't want a bad performance at all, I prefer VSL for this. But if I want a less perfect performance at moments, in order to make a convincing mock-up- then obviously humanization has it's place. The point- I wasn't trying to suggest VSL record things imperfect, but that sequencing imperfection isn't as convincing as recorded imperfection (being real human performances)- that I want VSL to accomplish this better. You may feel that you can recreate humanization as well, I don't feel like I can (maybe it's my approach to it?)

Loose staccato and tight staccato are both recorded, why not 'perfect performance and not-so perfect performance' also? That's the only point I was trying to make by that. If you still disagree, I welcome the opinion. I just wanted to make my opinion clear (hopefully I didn't make it more confusing, lol). I definately don't think that VSL should stop recording the 'perfect performance', I just want more convincing humanization in using VSL. Maybe that's my approach, maybe VSL should record both, maybe more software features can help. I'm not claiming to know the exact problem, just that this is what I'm wanting from my library.

-Sean

I don't know what the 'problem' is actually. I don't buy your argument as you have it now. You're making a case that this 8DIo Adagio is preferable due to being more 'organic', which isn't a word I really get here. The implication in your argument is that's so because it's less 'perfect'. You're still saying that as far as I can read it.

I don't want someone in the recording soundstage's purposeful mistakes, I might not like them. I'm sure I don't want error built in. I don't think VSL is going to help you with that.

I think there could be even more tools in VI Pro 2, but as far as a comparison with that library in a kontakt instrument there's no comparison. I know devs that seek to make a solo instrument playable and script the hell out of it for that, but strings are a super-versatile thing and expecting a performance patch to cover everything isn't that reasonable really. IMO.

one can fabricate some fairly god-awful idiosyncracies with VI Pro 2 (humanize pitch, mos def), no worries. Trust me. ;)

The problem with "built in errors" in a sample library is that each time the note with the recorded error is used, that error will be present in an identical manner each time.  In performing, that simply is not how errors occur (one can get into strings "wolf tones" but players learn to massage and work around any particular wolf tone they may have).  The degree of an error will also change from performance to performance or phrase to phrase.  Simply stated, error is never constant.

For example, I am thinking of a recorded error in ye olde EWQLSO Gold... a particular buzzy key click on a particular oboe note.  Did that make the instrument sound more real?  No, rather, it made the instrument sound more fake, or perhaps being played by an inept player (or an instrument that needed serious repairs).

As for overall library sound, and the comments that VSL needs to do new libraries... maybe so.  But, the key question is what sort of sound is one looking for?  All libraries have strengths and weaknesses.  For me, I wish I had migrated to VSL much sooner... it is one of the few series of libraries that is not more or less strictly "out of the box Hollywood" and fits my interests much better than all the various cinema libraries that are out there.  While it can do "Hollywood" it can also be used to create pieces in all kinds of traditional classical styles (Beat stated it far better than I can).  Conversely, if I was first and foremost after the stereotyped lush "Hollywood" sound, there are other library options that would be well worth considering.

@noldar12 said:

No, rather, it made the instrument sound more fake

I found the same thing within the EW libraries, where some errors literally ruined the library imo. But unlike EW, the ideal sample library would be utterly massive. Every articulation has repititions, no? Assume every articulation having 10 reps per articulation (if not more in some cases). Now imagine 10 less than perfect tunings as an alternative articulation. I'd rather have a base 'perfect performance' for all my articulations, then a respectable section of 'imperfect' alternatives I could put it it's place if I want. That would not sound more fake, but only allow for more control and more convincing than a sequencer can mimic it.

Pitch bending a whole string section isn't realistic. Using a solo violin, chamber, and orchestral and pitch bending each or some of them- again is not realistic. 100% divisi would probably be as realistic for fake humanizing as it can get, but of course this comes with it's own problems. Faking the human touch can never be as convincing as the real thing. The real thing is the ultimate goal of a sample library. If you wanted to fake everything, get Wallender's instruments instead of VSL. But as it stands, if a library's goal is to be as convincingly real and as flexible as real as they can be- then eventually real recorded 'human factor' would have to be a part of that plan.

Ultimately, a real orchestra is preferable for several reasons including this one. But where I'm not in a position to make my own library or budget a real one- then I can't see how my suggesting more actual realism is being so disputed on here. Call me crazy, but that just seems odd to me. [:S]

-Sean

I've just been reading about Adagio and thought I'd pipe in with two things about their approach that I really like and would love to see in this future VSL string product we're all fantasizing about. Well, two things apart from divisi and second violins, which we're all counting on. 

1) "round-robin" legato

2) several legato patches with different feels. I wouldn't have thought to ask for that from one prduct, and I think it's a great idea.

Didger, it is interesting that with VI Pro 2, different legato feels are possible (at least to some extent).  As one can change the timings of different portions of a legato patch, it is possible to create alternatives.  Most of the full string libraries (though not all) contain both slow and fast legato.  One can then make further changes and end up with at least 4-6 different legato feels fairly easily.  Whether the results are what one is after is, admittedly, another question.  From my own initial testing, I have found that I sometimes prefer some of my VI Pro 2 alternate legato patches to the original "stock" ones (depending on desired result, of course).

In general, IMO, it is helpful to test and try different things, to learn what the existing software can (or cannot) do before seeking new libraries or additions to existing library additions.

 VSL already has some out of tune samples. I never use them. [;)]

I also think that if I heard a live violin section playing in this "imperfect" way on one of my sessions I'd top and do a re-take. A section not playing in tune together is not a good sound, and although it may, in some strange way, sound more real, it doesn't sound good to me.

DG

@DG said:

I also think that if I heard a live violin section playing in this "imperfect" way on one of my sessions I'd top and do a re-take.

I don't mean this as an insult, but more in humor... but have you even ever heard an orchestra!? Conducted one!? lol, I'm sure you are have compitent musical experience behind you- but no group plays every last note perfectly in tune all the time. Besides being physically impossible for human beings, if you had machines playing instruments instead of people- you'd probably get the same result some people seem to want on here. VSL doesn't sound like a machine; but if you left 'unhumanized' the result is certainly not a convincing performance.

I hear a lot of people gripe about intonnation like it makes or breaks a performance. I have always considered myself to have VERY picky standards here. Growing up, I never liked a string section lower than the highest of professional quality because of intonnation. However, even professionals aren't absolutely perfect; and if I can recognize that with my snobbish distaste for 95% of the performaning string ensembles out there, I guess I just don't understand how others here can't. [*-)]

I've had many experiences where people complain about pitch just to make a big deal about something. Meanwhile, those with very good sense of intonnation or even perfect pitch are often the ones not complaining. One of my favorite performances of Mahler's 8th has a Soprano that goes slightly out of tune and that note sounds 100x better than if it wasn't. It's a divine moment in the recording. It works. It's a powerful and effective performance. I've heard imperfections in the greatest film scores. So do I think I've made a decent case for why humanizing matters? Yes. Did VSL add humanize features for valid reasons and because people wanted them? Yes! The point I have been trying to make isn't about humanizing, because anyone with any experience and common sense I would expect would already agree with this! I mean no offense by that, but I feel it's a common sense point. In the end, if you want VSL to be perfect, great. But there's no harm in suggesting 'less perfect samples' also. I'm not saying VSL should switch to a crappy performance, but include optional 'slightly less than perfect' alternate performances.

The real point I've been trying to argue isn't even that the 'human touch' matters. I'm arguing that mimicing it with VI Pro isn't as convincing as the real deal- in some cases you don't even have the option. You can't "humanize" a recording of 14 violins. And if VSL used their less than perfect recordings to build an 'alternate imperfect repetitions' base or something, then VSL would have put together the best possible method of accomplishing a convincing performance. It wouldn't be as horribly performed as some other libraries sound, plus you'd still have all those perfect samples you want if you don't like humanizing samples. The benefit is that it also wouldn't be a 'mimiced' sound from VI Pro that isn't as convincing as a real recording. No one is really arguing that point with me and that's the suggestion I'm actually posting on here anyway.

-Sean

@noldar12 said:

Didger, it is interesting that with VI Pro 2, different legato feels are possible (at least to some extent).

Yes, of course. But if the rumours are true and VSL's working on "Dimension Strings," I'm just saying this would be a great addition. I adore the VI Pro 2/ MIR Pro combo, both for the amount of flexibility it gives through tweaking it, and also because it's the closest thing to just making expressive music out of the box rather than having to be a programmer. That could only be improved with the Adagio model of multiple sampled legatos. I'd love to be able to alter my VSL template for any given piece in a moment by selecting whether the strings were recorded with ET, Sunset Boulevard, the Jupiter Symphony or, God forbid, Inception in mind. 

iscorefilm,  DG is a conductor, violinist, composer and MIDI programmer whose work is as good as anything on this site.  Maybe better.  But he doesn't post it.    I have said what you are saying about a hundred times - that imperfection is needed with MIDI.  But the point DG was making (I venture to state - sorry DG) is that the imperfection on this Adagio library is going to backfire, because it is too much.  I noticed on the demos that it sounded far too out of tune on the target notes of those legato patches.  The repetitive aspect will surface if you ever have to hear that same out of tune effect.  That is where a RANDOMIZED digital lack on tuning is superior than a built-in recorded one.  For example - if you create two layered tracks that are digitally detuned, you will not be able to tell the difference between that mix and a real one out of tune.  Another example - that swell patch - it was far too regular.  Every swell was the same.  I would never end up using that supposed feature.  Totally artificial sounding and no players would ever do that so regularly except on a sample library.   

One other thing - within the VSL samples already are many very useable examples of variation, detuning and imperfection.  These are besides the VI Pro digital presets.   Just check out the lists of Appassionata, Orchestral, etc.    Incredible amount of variation has already been recorded. 

Not to say that more would be unwelcome though!    Especially something like  Dimension Strings.  If you listen to the Dimension Brass, part of the great feature on that library is the slight, very musical detuning between the individual players and the variation audible in the exact performances.  So that would presumably be a major aspect of a new, supplemental (not exclusive)  VSL string section that would allow both auto-divisi and even more variations of tuning/performance.  

@Another User said:

Not to say that more would be unwelcome though!    Especially something like  Dimension Strings.  If you listen to the Dimension Brass, part of the great feature on that library is the slight, very musical detuning between the individual players and the variation audible in the exact performances.  So that would presumably be a major aspect of a new, supplemental (not exclusive)  VSL string section that would allow both auto-divisi and even more variations of tuning/performance.  

...That is exactly what I'm hoping for. [:D] Performers adjust to each other. Strings that aren't as static as what VSL has now, but not poorly performed as other libraries are- is the ultimate goal. I can still appreciate tuning things off with humanize if people want a seriously detuned performance. But VSL could be less strictly unorganic while still performing things 'relatively perfectly in tune' (now there's an oxymoron!). I've been giving examples in my analogies that involved multiple recordings with different options... but the way you explained the Dimension concept here I think sums up exactly what I, and probably most of us, want.

-Sean

William,

I think you are quite right here:

"But the point DG was making (I venture to state - sorry DG) is that the imperfection on this Adagio library is going to backfire, because it is too much. I noticed on the demos that it sounded far too out of tune on the target notes of those legato patches."

Yes, and that is what gets quite (and each time more) annoying after three or four times listening at some Adagio demos. I don't have any orchestra recording at home of a quality orchestra that suffers from this level of tuning.

"The repetitive aspect will surface if you ever have to hear that same out of tune effect. That is where a RANDOMIZED digital lack on tuning is superior than a built-in recorded one."

Or maybe: scripted built-in one. I don't know.

For example - if you create two layered tracks that are digitally detuned, you will not be able to tell the difference between that mix and a real one out of tune. Another example - that swell patch - it was far too regular. Every swell was the same. I would never end up using that supposed feature. Totally artificial sounding and no players would ever do that so regularly except on a sample library.

I also agree here with you.

Adagio has a nice overall sound in their demos, I think, and, to be honest, for me more appealing than many VSL legato patches, but that Adagio tuning issue will be hard to solve I guess. It is the same reason why I can't or just don't dare to use LASS without layering with other products very often, if I use it anyway. But again: then I am able (and I want to be able) to manage the balance in the mix.

I sincerely hope that it is worthwhile to wait for the Dimension Strings, more flexibility and, as far as I am concerned, a better and more open basic string sound.

I just uploaded the 8DIO page on my blog with (19!!) new examples, based on the midi versions of the "swell melody" as offered by 8DIO themselves. You and/or others might find it interesting. It concerns VSL and many many others.

I am in full agreement with DG.  What scares me about what some developers call "realism" simply, is to me, very sloppy and bad playing - playing at a level that simply does not fly. 

Sometimes, it seems to me, that what people expect in terms of "realism" is a specific special effect, that has little to do with what would be regarded as normal solid technique (extreme bow attack noise being one of the most severe examples).

One of the drawbacks with samples (and I am glad VSL's samples are less forgiving) is that one can create pieces without really knowing how an instrument works.  In strings, the issue often shows up in discussions regarding portamento/bow stroke technique/legato playing.  Nevertheless, "One doesn't know, what one doesn't know," and educating/teaching about these, and similar, issues is always a good thing.

@DG said:

I also think that if I heard a live violin section playing in this "imperfect" way on one of my sessions I'd top and do a re-take.

I don't mean this as an insult, but more in humor... but have you even ever heard an orchestra!? Conducted one!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. [:D]

Sorry, but having conducted professionally for nearly 25 years, 10 of those being in full-time employment, I find your comments very funny. Not that you'd know about my background, so I don't blame you.

However, I could ask the same question of you. Have you ever conducted a professional orchestra?

DG

I heard the demos and I agree that the intended "errors" are too frequent and grinding, and I would expect such only from a 3rd rate ensemble, and not as often as with the demonstration video. I must say I did like what I heard in some instances and perhaps there is some future potential there, however they are too expensive for what they offer at the moment in my opinion. Further, I must say I haven't worked with the Humanizer of VI PRO, but from the demos it looks that it can "compensate" for that error-feature much better (I'd rather be in control as to where the error occurs in my mix).