I just wanted to clarify the reason for my post.

I am new to Vienna SL and am very excited about this. I started with the solo strings and would liek the whole library at some point. The clips that I uploaded are the best I have been able to achieve compared with any other software I have used.

The reason for my post is to with some hope that the one thing I find problematic, i.e., quality of some of the samples, can be fixed. This would make this library just even more wonderful.

Thanks.

@agitato said:

I just wanted to clarify the reason for my post.

I am new to Vienna SL and am very excited about this. I started with the solo strings and would liek the whole library at some point. The clips that I uploaded are the best I have been able to achieve compared with any other software I have used.

The reason for my post is to with some hope that the one thing I find problematic, i.e., quality of some of the samples, can be fixed. This would make this library just even more wonderful.

Thanks.

I am with you on this. I want to see this already great product improved. The workflow of creating a new MIR PRO venue needs to be examined by VSL and evaluate what tweaks or workflow changes are needed to achieve this. 

@agitato said:

...The reason for my post is to with some hope that the one thing I find problematic, i.e., quality of some of the samples, can be fixed...

Hello again Anand

My post above was a bit "all-embracing". So I try it once more and an more focused on your upper point:

Maybe that some articulations (in your example 0:55-1:03) - and specially when they are played in a row - sound a bit synthy or what ever. Now, why don't you take another approach instead of the synthy sounding detache articulations. I always try the best sounding combinations what ever the name of the articulations are. In another situation that synthy detache has probably quite the right sound... Therefore my text about the DAW = easier for putting in unsusual articulations. BTW: Detache Articulations do have 3 layer levels as far as I know. Did you try to play them with the next higher level (louder?)

A further information: Library producers are faced with the dilemma that their samples should sound very! neutral but nevertheless and simultaneously musical. As soon as the balance tip to one side the certain sample will be recognized at any time when it's played... So improving samples for "a good sound in one certain situation" is the best idea.

But also:  Playing music with samples is making compromises at any time. You don't have a sad, warm, lovely, nice or shiny legato you have just legato. This is sometimes not easy for musisicians when the start with samples...

So: See your library as a pool of thousands of different tones (incl. all different layers of the samples). Choose just the one which sounds closest to your idea... you will find one without any improvement of VSL.  

Beat

Thanks Beat. I will try the different velocity layers, but this will affect the context of the piece.

But given I am very lazy, the beauty of this rendering was that I did not have to do anything and almost got a very good performance directly playing from Sibelius. While tweaking and compromise is common for any other sample libraries VSL, is far better and I was just wishing the sample quality will also be perfect.

I will try your other suggestions as well.

Best

Anand

@Another User said:

I expected these samples to sound good 'out of the box' (much the same way as any cometently recorded live violin piece will sound on a CD).

@goran_tsch said:

VSL doesn't work that way 😉 - what you get with VSL is first class "raw" material, but then you have to shape it into the final result yourself (and that both in the performance shaping and audio engineering departments). This has the great advantage of VSL libraries being compatible with as good as any production environment and sound/performance "aesthetics" (which no other library I have and use (EW Hollywood libraries, 8dio woodwinds, Cinematic Strings etc.) can claim). On the other hand, the learning curve is somewhat less steep, as you have to take care of every aspect of the production yourself,   

Goran,

thanks again for listening.

Maybe the mistake I make is to expect a sample library to sound like a real performance while actually, it should be compared to recorded performances, since the samples themselves are recorded. In other words, while I could expect a perfect sound in a live concert hall if a written score is performed by professional musicians (no processing is done by live listeners), an accurate recording and reproduction of that sound is another level of professional work altogether. So I guess one has to learn the tricks of mastering the sound with samples as well. 

But to me the ability of Vienna instruments to interpret the score so effectively is a major step. This is in fact FAR better than East west, partly because their samples (at least the SO) are not consistent across various articulations, in terms of velocity and texture. With VSL solo strings I the performance seems very well connected as articulations switch rapidly. I guess the missing part for me is why does the sound come out synthy sometimes. I have noted in some other posts here that the sound is almost always synthy, much worse than what I get. I did not do any audio processing beyond the rendering, so I am not sure how they can get worse performance compared to me. But thats a different matter

I suppose you are saying that the individual samples (example detache or sustain) are by themselves as good as what can be achieved with sampling technology today, but when put together in a performance, additional audio mastering steps need to be taken using DAW to achieve realism? (In other words, it is incorrect to assume that just because the individual samples are good quality, putting them together will sound good 'out of the box', whether one uses keyboard input or notation software like Sibelius etc., but needs some post processing). 

Thanks

Anand

@Another User said:

In other words, it is incorrect to assume that just because the individual samples are good quality, putting them together will sound good 'out of the box', whether one uses keyboard input or notation software like Sibelius etc., but needs some post processing. 

Exactly, this assumption is fundamentally incorrect - the VSL is a first class virtual instrument, but it won't make music for you - just as a first class violin you may posess won't play itself for you. YOU have to play the instrument in both cases - a very important point one sometimes tends to forget...

@goran_tsch said:

...the VSL is a first class virtual instrument, but it won't make music for you - just as a first class violin you may posess won't play itself for you. YOU have to play the instrument in both cases...

For showing Goran's statement: Twice the same piece with VSL-products....

Paganini a

Paganini b

Have fun

Beat

Thank you for the convincing examples.

Granted that post-production MIDI processing is necessary, I am trying to understand what is missing in the playback and VI interaction that makes this performance shaping necessary.

For instance the 'Paganini b' version sounds less convincing than the 'a' version (which is almost as good as a real performance btw). It seems that there are artifical delays between the notes in 'b', almost as if a slow processor, or hard drive and poor latency is the reason. Is this because VI cannot respond fast enough to the articulation changes?

If this piece was notated in Sibelius and all articulations and dynamics were placed properly, and the computer was fast enough, I am not sure why it would sound like the 'b'. It may not be as good as 'a' but still, shouldnt we be closer to 'a' than 'b' with an 'out of the box' rendering and proper notation? 

sorry to be a pain, or if my question doesnt make sense. I am not disagreeing that more performance shaping is necessary, but I am trying to understand why VI cannot handle this automatically. Of course, one could say that shaping allows one to change the expressions according to what is desired, but the example 'b' is not ready for that.

From my little experience with VI it does an amazing job with Sibelius and gets me 90% of the way (to my ear at least). I will need to learn further about performance shaping to fix the remaining 10%. The example 'b' above is not yet 90% in my opinion and thats why I was trying to clarify....

Thank you

@agitato said:

[...] I am trying to understand why VI cannot handle this automatically. [...]

"The score is not the music."

😊

Hi guys!

Sry to hop in without having read everyone and listened to anything, but I think there's one really important thing to keep in mind with Mir Pro. I know it has already been said, but it's tremendously important. Mir Pro doesn't give rooms in which you can put your instruments as if you were there. It gives you rooms in which you can RECORD them. And that's a huge different.

Because you can certainly mess up a recording session in any hall and make a violin sound ugly :p

In other words, one must really try to think as a sound engineer (even though, of course, we're not) and try to have an intelligent setting with the microphone(s), the microphones/instruments placement, the microphones/instruments' directions... OF course, since you begin with a pure, raw and dry sound that an recording engineer never have, the balancing isn't quite the same, but I believe it's the same type of work.

Also, don't forget the Room EQ. It tends to be overlooked, but VSL provides you "already baked" EQs in your user area for all of their rooms, and they can do a marvelous job at reducing the "frequencies eccentricities" of certain halls ^^ And it's not some sort of tip for virtual rooms. If i'm not wrong, it's actually done as well with real rooms, even though, of course, one cannot separate the rev from the dry sound like we do in Mir Pro.

@Another User said:

[...] If i'm not wrong, it's actually done as well with real rooms, even though, of course, one cannot separate the rev from the dry sound like we do in Mir Pro.

Yes and no. 😊 In case of a real recording, you would have a main microphone array and spot microphones, which will be treated differently. That's the way us sound engineers usually approach a modern orchestra recording session, and you will find the same basic idea implemented in MIR Pro (although with certain adaptions according to the possibilities of the virtual world).

Best,

Sidenote to the original poster: Can we change this thread's title now to something more appealing ...? ;-) Many thanks in advance!

@Plougot said:

[...] If i'm not wrong, it's actually done as well with real rooms, even though, of course, one cannot separate the rev from the dry sound like we do in Mir Pro.

Yes and no. 😊 In case of a real recording, you would have a main microphone array and spot microphones, which will be treated differently.

I was actually referring to the Room EQ, correcting the way halls react, though I was not sure. Sorry if I was not clear, I'm not a native english speaker. Anyway, what I can say on the matter is of little interest since I'm no professional sound engineer like you.

One small question I had, which is I think still kind of related to the subject : I believe the Mir Pro rooms were recorded empty. Can it change the way the sound react in the halls ? I mean, I imagine all those warm bodies^^ would absorb some of the sound and make it bounce in a less predictable way. Would it be something with a big impact on the final hall sound ?

@Another User said:

One small question I had, which is I think still kind of related to the subject : I believe the Mir Pro rooms were recorded empty. Can it change the way the sound react in the halls ? I mean, I imagine all those warm bodies^^ would absorb some of the sound and make it bounce in a less predictable way. Would it be something with a big impact on the final hall sound ?

Almost everything has an impact on sound - it's just a matter of magnitude whether we are able to perceive a change or not. And even _if_ we can hear a change, the question remains what's "better", what's "worse" - or what's just different. 😊

Most good concert halls on this planet have taken measures to avoid severe changes of the overall acoustics with or without audience. You can see simple provisions like upholstery on the lower surface of the folding seats typically found in conert halls up to sophisticated tools like moveable wall coverings. After all, conert halls are used empty as often as full with people: For rehearsals, recordings, and so on.

That said, it was funny to realize during MIR's development that for almost every venue we recorded in, we found at very knowledgeable locals who were convinced that the empty hall was actually better sounding. Go figure ... 😊

But in the end, in case of MIR Pro the discussion is futile anyway, as we can't have several hundred people sitting quietly in a hall while listening to loud sine-sweeps for 24 hours or more. ;-D

Kind regards,

@Another User said:

But in the end, in case of MIR Pro the discussion is futile anyway, as we can't have several hundred people sitting quietly in a hall while listening to loud sine-sweeps for 24 hours or more. ;-D

You could make fake bodies like the ones in the mythbuster's show and put several hundred of them in each concert hall you record. Sounds like a both reasonable and cost efficient way to discover it has not significant impact on the sound.^^

@Dietz said:

Sidenote to the original poster: Can we change this thread's title now to something more appealing ...? 😉 Many thanks in advance!

I changed it...hope this is better.

Thanks! Very kind of you. I really appreciate that!