Hi, 

Settings applied to a cell will be applied to all further cells in the following tree-branch structure. 

Best, 
Paul

I am not sure if you understood my question right.

What you said seems to me already the case with the current VI-Player. Nevertheless I do have currently very large and complex VE-Project-Presets with own VI's for each microphoneposition of an "Instrument" to cover and controle the multimicrophonesetup of the  Synchron series.

For pure the Articulationsselection this is not the problem, since all seperate VI-players can be controled parallel with the same midisignals since the different articulation are always in the same cellposition.

However if I would like to raise the release time for the first Violins I have to raise it at least as often as much different microphoneposition are in use what means for the Full-Library Sur-Stereo Setup I must change thge same setting 7 times. and If i would like to raise it in alll strings (1 Vl, 2, Vl Vla, Vc Kb) I have to do this 35 times just for a little general increase of the release time. This is redundant.

It would be much more  comfortable If I could do my settings per instrument and would not be forced to repeat them per microphoneposition. But that would mean, that part of the very complex VE-Synchron-Series-Presets must be integrated in the player, so that the user does handle just the 1. Violins if he want to chnage any Playersetting  for the first Violins and is not forced to repeat all he wants to do always for each further Microphoneposition.

You know that most other multimicrophone-Samplelibraries do have the Microphonemix as part of the instrumentpatch intergretated in their player. I just ask if (and hope that) you have thought about that to for your new Synchronplayer since the Luxury of the Amount of mixable Synchronseries Microphonepositions deserves a userfriendly non redundant handling.

Maybe it's easier if you'll use different slots for the mic positions instead of vipro instances?

As far as I understand, the mixer in VI does apply currently only for the certain cell where you layer patches with slots.

Since you presumably want to use several different cells with different articulations and each one likewise with multiple slots for all used microphonepositions, this would be even much more tedious, since you would have to do your microphone-mix for each cell in your player seperat. for the Synchronseries Violin 1 Preset this would mean doing exactly the same mix 192 times for each of the 48 Cells in each of the 4 Matrices. -   Sorry thats even much worser.

VI is great to go in and tweak Details. What is needed are possibilities to integrate, what means, to do Player settings and Mixes intended for a certain entity (Instrument or Section) that apply on all parts of one musical entity without the necessity to repeat settings or mixes which are musically inteded for the same thing and technically only apply to parts and details of the whole let it be the set of different articulations which makes a certain Instrument or section, or the different microphonepositions from which that instrument or section was recorded.

In so far I do like the Concept of the Synchonpercussion VePro-Projekt, where based on a complex Bus-Structure you can finally even cotrole the mix of the seven different available microphonepositions globally for all Instruments.

That's the spirit: keep together what belongs together 😃

So please care for the best possible integration of settings and mixes to avoid as much avoidabkle repetition for the User. Again this is what I ask for siince it is necessary.

You can sync the mixer settings (p.61 in the (german) manual)).

OK, thats a good hint.

That seem to make possible what we usually find in the UI of other competitors which usually mix their microphone positions inside their players.. 

But than I do not understand the necessity for the pretty complex VE-Pro-Syn-IFull to Stereo Project.

Why than don't they program VI-Synchron-String Presets with all microphonepositions of one Section mixed already inside each single Cell synchronized for all cells of a player-instance.

This will spare one level of busses in VE and keep it easier for the User: one Instrument/Section = one Player

So please provide us Playerpresets which mix the microphonepositions syncronised inside the instance of a player.

(For those who must keep an eye on their RAM-resources it might be perhaps useful, if one would have than another option to enable and disable slots in a likewise syncronisable way.)

Hi, 

Did you check the ROOM-MIX presets yet? You will find one slot filled with the MID mic (as a close mic) and the other with a ready-made mix of ALL available room mics. 

Placing all mics in one VI / PRO player will max out the streaming possibilities too quickly. 

Best, 
Paul

Btw, did you already think about a "Mix Down" Feature for the Synchron Player?
So you once choose your mix (from all positions als desired) then click the Mix-Down Button and "new" physical files are created with exactly this Mix.

I assume this feature could be handled very similar to VI-Pros time stretch functionality, and would not only allow to safe some memory/CPU, but in addition also SSD Space (having 5 MIC positions on slow hard disk and only the "Mix-Down" position on SSD. 

Anyhow this does not need to be a "day one" feature :)

Hello Paul

SYNCHRON PERCUSSION when I can give you a discount? I want to buy

Hi,

No discounts available for Synchron Percussion right now, sorry to say. Our Special Offers are changing on a regular basis, however, and our newsletter will keep you up to date.

Best,
Paul

Hi Paul!

SYNCHRON STRINGS I Legtos and leg-slur, you can do a LASS or APPASSIONATA STRINGS, DimensionStrings, all right? SYNCHRON STRINGS I Legtos and leg-slur are bad, unnatural. Can Syncrhon Player solve these problems???

During his presentation Paul mentioned that VSL are already recording with the String Ensemble at Synchron Stage. I am sure that VSL will record "the best Portamento ever" after our requests.

(They're always reading our requests; even if nobody answers.)

@gabriel81 said:

Btw, did you already think about a "Mix Down" Feature for the Synchron Player?
So you once choose your mix (from all positions als desired) then click the Mix-Down Button and "new" physical files are created with exactly this Mix.

I assume this feature could be handled very similar to VI-Pros time stretch functionality, and would not only allow to safe some memory/CPU, but in addition also SSD Space (having 5 MIC positions on slow hard disk and only the "Mix-Down" position on SSD. 

Anyhow this does not need to be a "day one" feature 😊

I do not really understand what you are talking about. Did you think about rendering single tracks in order to unload their samples ? OK that is nothing new It was the First Idea which came up to handle large orchestraprojects in times of 32bit-System RAM limitations (not more than 3GB). But this you can always easily do in your Sequencer . If it is about the ready programmed track how should that be a feature of the player.

If you are thinking just about cleaning all samples loaded which your ready programmed track do not need. I think there are already now some options to purge those unused samples from the RAM.

If  you do not think of rendering individual tracks in larger projects or ubloading unused samples from RAM, but really want that just the available patches should be mixed in one complete sampleset with all patches in your individual mix (like the roommix) than it seems to me as if you ask them to give the option to render for each new imdividual mix your own completly new sampleset This would perhaps safe RAM but it will multiply your need for storage resources.

You know that the first still not completed Parts of the Synchronseries took together already more than one TB Each time you would produce another individual mix it seems to me as if you should be able to provide additional over 100 GB Storage capacity. (and this would not be less if all parts of the Synchronseris will be on the market) If I understood you right and this would be your Idea, I fear the dimensions of the currently available SSD will limit the usability of such a "feature" to much to be realy useful. And however to render the complet patchlist in your individual mix would also not be anything you can do "on the fly" it will take its time and will do so again each time you decide to change your individual mix again.

You almost got it with "render individual patch mixdowns"

For the violins in Standard version:

I need ~70 GB of storage for 5 (in reality 4) Mic Positions. This means 1 Mic Position has around 15 GB.

If i now make my own "Mixdown" exactly as I want it I will require additional 15 GB of storage space (as you wrote)

However what I could do now is to put the original 70GB ona a slow and cheap harddrive and only take my personal mixdown on my SDD.

This might not be the perfect way to go if you want to alter the mix in every track you do, but as my approch is "make it nice once and then use it forever" it would grant me 55GB for 5 Instruments --> 250 GB overall SDD space

Hi Paul!

Synchron-1st- violins_library_update_2018-02-07, what is updated??? thank you

@gabriel81 said:

You almost got it with "render individual patch mixdowns"

For the violins in Standard version:

I need ~70 GB of storage for 5 (in reality 4) Mic Positions. This means 1 Mic Position has around 15 GB.

If i now make my own "Mixdown" exactly as I want it I will require additional 15 GB of storage space (as you wrote)

However what I could do now is to put the original 70GB ona a slow and cheap harddrive and only take my personal mixdown on my SDD.

This might not be the perfect way to go if you want to alter the mix in every track you do, but as my approch is "make it nice once and then use it forever" it would grant me 55GB for 5 Instruments --> 250 GB overall SDD space

I second that.

Like timestrech in the "old" vipro, there should be a render button, which freezes the mic positions to your current setup. Disk space is much more cheaper than RAM

@gabriel81 said:

You almost got it with "render individual patch mixdowns"

For the violins in Standard version:

I need ~70 GB of storage for 5 (in reality 4) Mic Positions. This means 1 Mic Position has around 15 GB.

If i now make my own "Mixdown" exactly as I want it I will require additional 15 GB of storage space (as you wrote)

However what I could do now is to put the original 70GB ona a slow and cheap harddrive and only take my personal mixdown on my SDD.

This might not be the perfect way to go if you want to alter the mix in every track you do, but as my approch is "make it nice once and then use it forever" it would grant me 55GB for 5 Instruments --> 250 GB overall SDD space

I just want to remind you that even if you use only the reduced Standard version, Synchron Strings I ar not at all complete and the Legatopatches from three of five Instrumentsections belong to the most storage intensive patches.

And of course if VSL would provide any function like that they are forced to think how realistic it would be to use for the whole and whole Full Series and the fact, that the first parts of the Percussion and the still incomplete first part of the Strings are in Full version already nearly one TB (what means afaik nearly a half TB in Standard version) does not raise imho much hope that there will be any function which let you render the whole set of ptaches in your own mix. To me that seem to be a very time and storage intensiv tedious and clumsy  solution, I suppose a reasonable use of the other RAM-saving features will allow you to keep and tweak your personal mix in a much smarter and more flexible way.

Hi Fahl,

I don't think I get your point.

With Full version the math would be even better

I don't know how big full is so I am guessing here a little

For one Instrument (Violin 1) You have 8 MIC Positions á 15 GB --> 120 GB

You either store these 120 GB on an expensive SSD, or - What my recommendation would be - Store these 120 GB on an inexpensive Storage and only use your "Mix Down Position" (15 GB) on the Fast Storage.

Multiplying this by 5 (Assuming all instruments with full legato patches have comparable storage requirements) would mean

120 GBx5 =
600 GB SDD or 600 GB Slow Disk + 75 GB SDD

So there is a HUGE financial benefit there, by still having full flexibility (On the cost of preparation work, moving samples, ...) - with secondary effects of requiring less Memory and CPU.

[Edit]

And you could even make it better by removing the now obsolete Mix-Down Position , which would bring you down to 525 GB Slow Disk and 75GB SDD (enven though I am not shure if I want to go this way ...)

[/Edit]

Hi Gabriel,

OK my first point is that you can not calculate now, what Straoge would be needed whlie VSL is just starting to publish the first (incomplete) parts of a series which would be still considerable larger.

This does not only apply to the fact how much extra starage place you need for your personal mix(es!). with every further TB the time increases to produce your personal sampleset. And this again reduces it changability and therfore also its flexibility in short it's usability.

Another point would be that your Idaes abot producing downmixed personal Patchsets might eventually create complicated situation fior the licensing.

So my guess care for a good portion of RAM or/and perhaps another Slave save your own templates and mixes in personal lpresets and keep them always tweak and changable.

They manage the licensing part with Time Stretch already, And completely independent how big one Mic Position in the final version will be, (Let's assume it is X GB), I would prefer to store 5*X GB on Slow Drive and 1*X GB on SSD, and still would like to get this feature implemented (with low priority). And yes, there will be some tinkering, but for me as amateur I prefer tinkerinv over HW investment :)

So let's agree to disagree here