Legato Strings Behind The Beat

[Pyre]

Hi all,

I have a feeling this may be a familiar query...

I'm working on a project in Cubase involving a rock band with VSL string parts. Some of the other instruments have been recorded in, others are VSTs. Some of the string parts involve sweeping arpeggios, and even using fast performance legato, they sound about a semiquaver behind the beat. I don't think this is a latency issue, as the staccato patches sound correct (and VI/VE automatically compensates for latency, right?), which suggests it is due to a slow attack sound on the performance legato.

Is the recommended solution for a faster attack sound to increase the velocity of the note, or to add staccato/detache notes to the slot rack? I would rather avoid both of these if possible, as the instrument tone is currently exactly as I want it, and adding shorter patches or increasing the velocity would alter it. I heard mention of a note-offset system, but couldn't see it anywhere in VI, is it a VI Pro-only feature?

Many thanks.

Pyre

[DG]

A "legato" note consists of a transition sample, followed by the destination note, if your notes are quantised, then they will always sound late. Having said that a semiquaver sounds rather a lot, but I guess that it depends on the tempo. There are features in VIP that could help with this, but the simplest thing to so is just move the notes earlier.

DG

[cgernaey]

Have you tried to use the performance trill patch?  That one's really good for super fast legato playing also.  Maybe give it a try (not sure it has the sound you are going for or not but worth a shot).

Maestro2be

[noldar12]

Another option, though it is not legato, would be to use a fast sustain.

As has already been mentioned, the performance trill is perhaps the best option.  Alternately, you could try to shorten the attack portion of the sample, but that, IMO, is not as good an option.

[Conquer]

Hi Pyre, sampled bowed strings almost always 'speak' late, it goes with the territory. (A bowed note takes time to develop). Rather than changing the patch, I suggest you follow DG's advice and move your MIDI parts earlier. Using Logic, I find the best way to do it is to set the 'Delay' parameter on the strings MIDI track to a *minus* figure, which advances the notes. I'm pretty sure Cubase will have a similar facility. I usually loop a four-bar section and experiment with different 'minus delay' settings till the strings feel right against the click... depending on the patch, the number can be surprisingly large, maybe approaching a semiquaver at faster tempi. If your arrangement contains dramatic tempo changes (for example, a half-time section) you may have to use a different advance setting for different tempi.

[bhartmann]

 For Sonar users, in the Track Inspector, you can type in a certain number of ticks to advance or delay the track.  For example, -5 makes the notes start 5 ticks early.

Better yet: You can also highlight a section of the track and go to Process | Slide and slide the notes a few ticks.  This is better because if you have staccato, pizz, sfz, etc you can leave them out of the section you move.

[Pyre]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the replies, there are lots of good ideas there.

I tried the performance trill patch, it didn't quite have the right sound unfortunately, and wasn't much faster developing in sound than the fast performance legato.

I think DG is probably right with the best solution being to just drag the notes forward to start slightly early. Unfortunately the value to advance them does not seem to be universal. Whether changed by pitch, velocity or articulation, some notes need to start earlier than others to sound in time. This means going through it all with a click, the basics of which aren't so bad, but the fine tuning of which is proving difficult. I tried freezing the VSTs and seeing how out of time the attack points in the audio file were, but the sound is too gentle to have pronounced attack strong enough to really see clearly. This is making it rather difficult! Does anyone by any chance have any brilliant ideas that might help? Sadly I doubt there are many to be found.

Many thanks.

Pyre

[cgernaey]

If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are wanting a much stronger attack on your legato.  I think it was already mentioned but for me, when a note doesn't have a strong enough attack, the best solution has always been to take a staccato patch and put it in cell 2.  Then turn down the volume of the Staccato patch until it sits perfectly with how hard/loud you want it to attack.

Hope that helps.

Maestro2be

[Paul]

Hi, 

Just wanted to add that you´d add additional articulations in additional SLOTS (in the slot rack) of a given CELL (in the matrix), to keep the nomenclature consistent.  

Best, 

Paul

[Conquer]

>I think DG is probably right with the best solution being to just drag the notes forward to start slightly early. Unfortunately the value to advance them does not seem to be universal. Whether changed by pitch, velocity or articulation, some notes need to start earlier than others to sound in time. This means going through it all with a click

I think you hit the nail on the head. Once you start paying close attention to the timing of samples (and this isn't only an issue with sampled strings), you become aware that some samples speak later than others, and fixing that requires careful micro-programming. Since my work often involves a strong rhythmic element (which may not be the case for all the composers here) I find it essential to refer to a click, then most of the time it's just a question of globally advancing the notes until they feel right. Maestro2be's suggestion of adding a staccato layer is a good one (though sometimes it's hard to get a satisfactory stacc / sus blend), but while that can add definition to note attacks, it won't solve the basic problem.