your example 34 really is an eye-opener! I can't imagine it would take more than an hour to write a single line such as this so we're talking for the sake of argument 3 1/2 times as much time to post-process as to compose. That sort of ratio doesn't make any sense to me and indeed, I'm not even looking for that level of attention, merely something which sounds somewhat like music.

Solo string ensemble  tend to be one of the greatest challenges for sample libraries and I am very grateful at least that my string quartets sound immeasureably more like music than they did a decade or so ago before I had access to VSL. And when I consider that the majority of what I hear on the internet sounds considerably worse than my own time-constrained efforts, perhaps I should just leave things as they are. Actually no -- I would be grateful for just one more bit of advice. Using cross-fading with string quartets --any particular tips? I do find activating this makes for a more spontaneous and lively performance though, as the sound is completely different from when it's not activated, there made well be optimal settings I've yet to find. Speaking here of the Special Edition Plus only for clarity.

thanks again for your help,

David

@lunar_28664 said:

... I would be grateful for just one more bit of advice. Using cross-fading with string quartets --any particular tips? I do find activating this makes for a more spontaneous and lively performance though, as the sound is completely different from when it's not activated, there made well be optimal settings I've yet to find....

David

Hope you mean Crossfade and not Velocity-X-Fade

The Velocity X-Fade - function is the possibilty of choosing the volume of a tone by a curve you draw in a DAW. Have a look here (24A) - 24C)):

The Crossfade -  function makes it possible to blend between two articulations. Let us say youstart with a sfz and blend then (with a midi-controller as well) the tone into the sound of a sustain articulation. Or from a Crescendo into a sustain...

Both of these fading-possibilities do have often a problem in connection with solo instruments...

The Velocity-X-Fade: Fading between different layers can lead to a sort of phasing effects because the phases of the two layers are not syncronized. So when it comes to blend from the one into the other layer the sound of the violin got a sort of "CHORUS-Effect". Could be that you mean this sound when the value just is the right for such a crossing point.

The Crossfade: Same matter here. If the blending stops between the two different articulations you also can have such a chorused sound because of different phases as well of course.

You may ask now: Why only with solo instruments?. Ensembles already do have a sort of chorused sound. That is the reason why we don't realize those "crossing points".

Finally, I don't know how you can draw such curves within your score program for controlling the two crossing faders. In any case it is a matter for fiddling with articulations and volumes even "a step deeper in the cake" than the things I showed you in my thread above. I believe you will not really like it... 😉

Beat

This series of messages was very, very helpful. I also use Sibelius, and while I am thrilled that we have NotePerformer, which is far better than any previous playback from a notation program, I still yearn for better mock-ups. So I have started purchasing Vienna products, I have purchased the full versions of Orchestral Strings, Woodwinds I and Brass I. I also purchased Cubase.

So far I have been very frustrated with trying to use these products with Cubase. I struggle to write music that I feel is good enough to fullfill my hopes, and really don't want to then struggle to learn to use Cubase and the VSL instruments.

But I can see no other alternative.

What is needed is a very elementary, step by step approach to learning to use Cubase and VI instruments. Perhaps there is something like this avaialable now? So far I have only found tutorials or videos that cover one or two pieces of the puzzle, but do not put it all together in a step by step approach.

Some of the reasons I suspect, you will never find a true, elementary, step-by-step approach are as follows:

1)  the sheer level of complexity of creating/producing music using virtual instruments, notation programs, and daws, along with the infinite variety/combination of tools an individual will use, make it difficult to create an organized tutorial from beginning to end that would be relevant to a large number of users.

2)  a lot of the learning happens from using/making mistakes and creating "building blocks of information" so that over time, you figure out what to do more efficiently/effectively; avoiding these steps may seem desirable, but ultimately the greatest learning happens from experiencing the process, mistakes and all.

3)  those users with great expertise are likely busy creating music and lack the time/desire to go back and create a helpful learning guide for those just starting out on their journey.  Further to this, experts often lack the educational background to break down or chunk information in such a way as to effectively teach it to newbies.  They may make suppositions or take for granted what they believe is common knowledge, leaving important steps out of the process (this has often happened with tutorials I've viewed, in which the instructor left out "in between" steps because they are so familiar with doing something that they assumed everyone would know "where to click" for example).  At the other end, some tutorials are wayyy to methodical and slow paced, repeating ad naseum, the same information to the point where you feel like they're speaking to five year olds.

4)  this one is a reality that nobody outright admits, but is a fact (in my opinion);  composers are in a highly competitive field and will not divulge the knowledge necessary to compete with them.  It would be like KFC telling you their 11 herbs and spices.  Furthermore, many artists are insecure both with their skills and their process, and don't want to subject their ideas to criticism or scrutiny by those that might attack the way they do things as being inferior.

5)  the financial incentive just isn't there to develop such a methodical guide, in a world where people will "take, take, take" and maybe at most give you a "thanks for the info" on a forum like this.  When you start charging, you realize that only a fraction of people that would welcome these materials, will actually pay for them.

Just my two cents,

Dave

www.soundcloud.com/carovillano <---like all of us writing music, I would sincerely appreciate you taking a few moments to listen to a track or two and leaving feedback!

Wow Dave, that was certainly very thorough. And I am afraid you are probably 100% correct. Perhaps for those who are willing to pay, such as myself, perhaps some kind of private lessons would be appropriate. After all, we pay teachers to help us master the violin, or piano, or any other instrument. Why not a private teacher for VSL virtual instruments?

@Paul McGraw said:

What is needed is a very elementary, step by step approach to learning to use Cubase and VI instruments. Perhaps there is something like this avaialable now? So far I have only found tutorials or videos that cover one or two pieces of the puzzle, but do not put it all together in a step by step approach.

Hi Paul

Here it is - for free:

A) How to integrate VI in Cubase. (select no. 25.) You also will be able to download the project you see with the image-steps...

B) About using always the same "organisation" of inserting articulations within the Vienna Instrument.... creating BASIC PRESETS (as an idea)

C) About the use of the Vienna Instrument within Cubas >>> a first simple example.

------------------------------------------------

Important:

1. Go from A) through B) to C) 

2. C0 within the Vienna Instrument is in Cubase C-1 / C~0 within VI is C-2 within Cubase. This is important to know in connection with "selecting" matrices of a VI via Midi-Track within Cubase

3. Please forget the Vienna Ensemble for the very first steps within Cubase. Cubase is a host for VIs as well and it can do all the things you need for the first steps. Once, when you are familiar with the use of VI then it will be easy to understand why you could need a further host (VE) within a host (Cubase)...

Now I wish you a lot of sucess, my dear. I'm keen to hear about your results...

All the best

Beat

Thanks Beat. I found your website and will give this a try. I will definately let you know how I do with this.

I have refrained from commenting on this thread, but perhaps I now I will share my experiences.  As a Sibelius user, I have spent years off and on trying to come up with performances of the string quartets I was writing using the Special Edition.  I did not consider my audio files to my liking.  I did not see the point of spending money on Solo Strings I when I did not like what I had created using the SE and some of the files were based on SE quality samples.  I came into some unexpected money and with reservations I purchased SS I Full.

The first thing I noticed was the all my previous Sib files were sounding better.  While watching VE, I noticed that the soundset was choosing a greater number of samples because it had more from which to choose.  Combined with VE (which uses  your VI, I believe) and maxing out the humanizing features in VE, I was able to produce performances that it not make me cringe. Add to that MIR and I not need to jump for the "Next" button on my iPod when my pieces came up in public.

Should you buy SS I?  That would be, in my humble opinion, whether you can afford it.  I do not believe that my current pieces have any more commerical value that my SE versions.  A person wanting to hear a string quartet will prefer the real thing.  While I do like what I am able to do now, none of the results have made any financial gain.  The string players liking my music has not increased just because I used SS and not SE.  Some of my orchestral music has been performed by real orchestras.  In every case,  the conductors were uninterested in my mp3s and have said that they will "hear" my composition by looking at the score.

My SS I string quartets can be heard here, but I warn you, I am no Beethoven!

www.markthomas.ca/virtual-string-quartets

thomand,

I went to your website and enjoyed listening to several of your works. I listened to some of the string quartets and also to some of the orchestral pieces.

Do you always work in Sibelius for both you quartets and orchestral pieces? Never a DAW? Do you think you could achieve better results with a DAW?

Thanks, Paul McGraw

Thank you for the comments on my music, Paul.  It is appreciated.

No, I do not use a DAW.  Even though I have purchased all the Cubase versions since version 2, I do not use it for Vienna.  Ever since I was told that I needed to keep dual versions of my music (score and performance), I have disliked it.  I found it very annoying to make changes in one and have to reflect that change in the other. I gave up on it.  With the capabilities of Sibelius now, I prefer to use that for my VSL work.

I predate computers and even calculators. (For math, I used a mechancial slide ruler or manually worked out the answer.) My first computer cost $800 and for that and a week of soldering parts on to the circuit board, I got the play with patterns on the light-emitting diodes.  I seen computers come and evolve in capability. I would spend hours counting machine clock-cycles to make my programs run faster only have it replaced by high-level program writing software.

I do not mind those that spend their time playing with alternate samples and fine-tuning DAWS to make their music sound better.  They are laying the ground-work for the programs of the future.  I liken their efforts to me counting clock-cycles.  I could spend the time learning, but in five years it will be replaced by a program or plugin that will do a better job in a fraction of the time. I would rather compose.

thanks for this interesting contribution, Mark. I listened to some of these samples and at times I felt there might be a bit more richness than with the Special Edition alone but in general the sound was rather on the harsh side. I'm still rather agnostic. Also, I'm coming round to the idea that you need VelXF for a typical tring quartet, otherwise the sound is simply too bland -- the biggest probem being a real muddiness in faster passages. On the other hand, setting the VelX slider on maximum gives a real brittleness to the violins in particular so I've decided on around 90 for the violins and nearer 100 for viola and cello which is the best compromise I've found to date and guarantees that slow sections at least are genuinely expressive.

You can see  an example of my efforts here if interested. I suggest starting at 14.20 for the short scherzo which I think is probably still better with Wallander but certainly an improvement on my previous attempt or straight to the Cavatina (yes, exactly --that one!) around 17.00 for lyrical expressiveness.

https://app.box.com/s/rbqotm0dou76u9dk911p8hvfounhkfnh

David

@lunar_28664 said:

I'm coming round to the idea that you need VelXF for a typical tring quartet, otherwise the sound is simply too bland -- the biggest probem being a real muddiness in faster passages. On the other hand, setting the VelX slider on maximum gives a real brittleness to the violins in particular so I've decided on around 90 for the violins and nearer 100 for viola and cello which is the best compromise I've found to date and guarantees that slow sections at least are genuinely expressive.

Aside from keyboard and plucked instruments, you need VelXF for just about everything including strings.  You also should use it in conjuction with the Exp fader as well to really bring out the detailed nuances of the instrument.  Also you should be making subtle adjustments to Attack while the piece is playing in real time.  If it's too much it tends to cause the muddiness in faster passages that you might be hearing.  Too little makes things choppy.  The release fader I set to about 70 and leave it alone.

But the real kicker for solo strings, or any solo instrument for that matter, is tunning.  Ever so slight manipulation of the tunning fader (15 to 30 cents) can pump life into your MIDIstrations.  In addition to increases and decreases in tempo at appropriate parts of the piece; slowing at the end of a melody line that usually falls on the root note for example. 

If you have VIPro you can achieve a lot with the humanization function and time offset.  But all of these tools are useless if you don't know how to use them and learning the craft of MIDIstration takes blood sweat and tears I'm afraid.  It's just like learning an instrument.

@jasensmith said:

Aside from keyboard and plucked instruments, you need VelXF for just about everything including strings.  You also should use it in conjuction with the Exp fader as well to really bring out the detailed nuances of the instrument.  Also you should be making subtle adjustments to Attack while the piece is playing in real time.  If it's too much it tends to cause the muddiness in faster passages that you might be hearing.  Too little makes things choppy.  The release fader I set to about 70 and leave it alone.

Not everyone seems to agree on VelXF, I get the impression, though I'm with you in general. And you can't make subtle adjustments to attack when a piece on playing in real time unless you play through a DAW -- the initial discussion was partly if improvements can be made using notation software without going through the "blood, sweat and tears" of MIDIStration. It's looking like the answer is "no"!

I use Finale for notation but I concede that I don't use it with VSL.

Are you saying the Vienna Player, or VIPro won't work in real time with Sibelius?  Well that's a crying shame😢   I suppose you could map CC controller changes after the notation but with only 128 values to work with in MIDI that would be a lot of trial and error. 

Hello jasensmith!

Our instruments can be used with Sibelius and with Finale in real time.

Best regards,
Andi

I may add the to my posts to say that I do use SE and Jazz Drums to create Jazz backing tracks in Cubase to practice improvization. My use of the Vienna libraries has created an amazing learning envoronment.

May I join in on this thread, please, having read every post carefully twice over the summer and autumn, during which time I've completed a string quartet using Sibelius 8 and the Solo Strings packs?

I can see that I have the same concerns as you, David; and that my work sounds uncannily similar to your files, Paul (thanks for posting!).

So much so that - just as, say, Janet Baker's voice or the Amadeus' string sound are recognized immediately for their timbres or textures - the VSL/Sibelius sound is unmistakable.

This isn't a bad thing. And I'd say we have to be realistic about what a notation program like Sibelius (and eventually Dorico) can do.

I think I'd settle for knowing that I can, though, consistently produce the best possible.

And both Andi and the documentation (especially v. 3.2 of the 'Optimizing Sibelius Playback with Vienna Ensemble' pdf) are both helpful, of course!

But there are indeed so many combinations of so many variables in the patches and presets etc that even something simple - perhaps in binary tree form to help make the necessary either/or decisions and eleminate wrong turnings - for, say, solo strings would be a great help. Also some way of knowing which tweaks are additive and which cancel one another out, and/or changing which settings achieves nothing without some other parameter's being altered first.

Similarly a list of changes to experiment with - but one that put each parameter in order of likely effectiveness… "x will make the biggest change because it does y" and "don't expect to hear greater realism with a until you've balanced b and c" etc!

For instance, I find the violins have a thinner - and often noticeably 'whinier' - sound than the cello (which is invariably excellent); and that the viola - because it's a quieter instrument, perhaps (?) - tends to sound growly in its lower register, and insipid above C.

I do believe all this is only a good starting point; and would really welcome specific/concrete guidance… I know the samples are capable of great sound.

Another data point: I use Sibelius and VSL, without a a DAW. I have considered using a DAW, but I don't have the patience. I would much rather write music than produce it. (Some of my music is here:  https://soundcloud.com/mhcoffin. The string stuff uses VSL solo strings full library.) I am completely certain that If I spent a lot of time messing with a DAW, the simulation would be better, but it isn't bad, and life is short. In any case, I doubt it would sound as good as it did last week when I heard the Acadia Suite played by real people. :-)

I agree, Mike!

(I started with Logic and quickly realised that I was more interested in notation; and that that was where I wanted to put my time and energy: not least because working that way (in my case, so far, Sibelius) taught me so much more about serious music and music theory.)

That's why I'll happily settle once I know that I've got the best I can - even though that may not be 'real' playing.

One has to realize that using samples involves bypassing everything that performers do.  

The sample user has to become a conductor, but even more - he has to become a player to a certain extent.   Conductors actually have it much easier than the sample user.  They can stand in front of a great orchestra, wave their arms, and beautiful sound comes out.  

With samples, you don't have that luxury - you have to work harder.    Because you are doing a lot of what the players do, with expression, and what the conductor does, with controlling all the elements of the perfomance. So there is no easy solution - it is pure musical work, figuring out what sounds best on each line of your composition.