I agree that the main problem are sustained notes on solo instruments with vibrato, especially strings. I am trying and experimenting around in order to get different results but I think Im getting very very close. Just need to work more on the realism.

Here one test where you see 2 versions of a Violin and Cello. One is the Raw Patch and the other always the modified version. Deliberately raised the bow noise but check how the vibrato is changing the entire time. I did alot of changes in the tone. Used patch combos etc.

http://vocaroo.com/i/s0fOZrkdSjvh

@Oceanview said:

The software would apply random types of vibrato to the single sample. The humanize software already includes five types of vibrato. This would mean avoiding the need to do more recording and create more samples, and the software would be added to VPro.

 

The problem I've always had with any kind of randomization functionality built into software, whether it's legato/vibrato varieties or quantizing notes (like in the old days), is that the software always chooses to use the most awkward and/or inappropriate note, start/stop time, velocity, etc. then I have to go back and re-edit everything over again anyway.  The reason for these inconsistencies is really simple: Software will never have any common sense. 

@ Rolf Music,

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything as you sound like a sincere person who is just trying to write better music, like the rest of us, but it could be that you are writing music that is outside the scope of any sample library.  The costs associated with producing these "expansion packs" could be substantial to VSL to say the least and personally I don't think I would be interested in them because they would just over complicate my workflow.  Speaking from a marketing point of view I'm not sure there is enough of a demand for this to justify the expense.     

I agree on both things. Randomizers are bad and you are right absolutely right about the expansion packs idea. I noticed that is true, especially from a marketing point of view. I have to admit, you are absolutely right. However,  I somehow noticed that you can create all articulations you want. Im not just refering to the slot x fade patch combinations but also a rather surgical approach with automation using an equalizer by targeting all relevant areas.

In the first test which I shared here I was experimenting with bow noise and very long sustains. Also the second cello version was rather harsh sounding because I wanted to emulate a very strong bowing. Strong bowing techniques usually expose alot of overtones. The realism in the ears of professionals however can be questionable but by analyzing the frequency of a reference piece (or a few notes) you can actually reproduce a nearly authentic "extreme bowing sound" by properly exposing the corresponding  overtones.

I also have another experiment where I tried to figure out ways to create a strong and fat vibrato. I used portamento for this but every patch gives different results. I could create romantic vibratos, vibrato to gradually less vibratos and viceversa... the options are endless. Again all surgical procedures. Not much reverb.

Here the second test:

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1Oz4ehuMYb3

Again this can greatly be improved and im experimenting around and around. This experiment does not use velocity for the volume / dynamic change, neither any filters but just by automating a few EQ gain parameters yet keeping all frequencies 99.9% in phase.