The Synchron-Player is by far much more individual configurable than the VI ever could be.
Just in order to comply with my natural obligation to oppose blatant anti-intellectualism:
This is nonsense.
Carry on!
-
-
Well... Fabio to be honest I don't think his answer was polite at all, the opposite was enphatic (as usual) and dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering! Obviously you are right and anybody with a minimal understanding of digital audio and wording knows.
About VI vs. Syn. again the statement is enphatic and wrong: it's obvious that VI has more features than Synchron: disregarding the sequencing features, anyway at least the brilliant humanization functions are missing in Synchron.
Puh.... Fatis as we know him.... 👎
unfortunately many unpolite personal debasing words ("dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering") and, very little contribution to the Subject of the thread:
- Yes I did'nt mentioned the "Sequencer", since nearly nobody uses VI or Synchron without a real fully featured DAW-Sequencer like Cubase etc.
- the rest is wrong (of course I have discussed the "humanization" features)
- or without any concrete substance (what ever is "enpathic" I never heard and could not find this word at all 😕 I even have no Idea what sens it would have, or what contribution to the Subject of this thread it would be if you meant "emphatic" instead)
I hope we will and can better keep and continue the discussion as polite as Fabio has done.
-
The Synchron-Player is by far much more individual configurable than the VI ever could be.
Just in order to comply with my natural obligation to oppose blatant anti-intellectualism:
This is nonsense.
Carry on!
That is so true - it is absolute nonsense. With VI you have total control of all MIDI parameters down to the patch level in a powerful interface that is simple and direct and completely reconfigurable. It can be as simple as one articulation, or as complex as hundreds - whatever the player wishes.
-
With VI you have total control of all MIDI parameters down to the patch level in a powerful interface that is simple and direct and completely reconfigurable. It can be as simple as one articulation, or as complex as hundreds - whatever the player wishes.As far as I can see in the Synchron Player you likewise do have "total control of all MIDI parameters down to the patch level in a powerful interface that is simple and direct and completely reconfigurable. It can be as simple as one articulation, or as complex as hundreds - whatever the player wishes"
- Just take a look on the Midi CC's asigned to each single Parameter and the Dropdown menu to configure that controle as you like.
- You can easily "edit" the individual level and envelope and further details of each patch, or treeposition with all its dependend Subtree items in the "Edit" section.
There is as far as I know nothing missing what we have had in VI. Correct me if I am wrong. But this aspect does not seem to make any difference in customizability between VI and Syn-Player.
But:
- In Vi you are not able to controle the Level of any Mixer-Slot with any individual Midi-CC in Synchron Player each Value of a Mixerslot could be asigned to its own Cotrole option (Midi CC etc.)
- Do you remember the tremerdous complex VE-Templates the VSL-Guys provided for Synchron-Samples while the Synchron Player was not available. It does not seem to me that the necessity of such Templates would be any kind of advantage.
-
Well... Fabio to be honest I don't think his answer was polite at all, the opposite was enphatic (as usual) and dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering! Obviously you are right and anybody with a minimal understanding of digital audio and wording knows. About VI vs. Syn. again the statement is enphatic and wrong: it's obvious that VI has more features than Synchron: disregarding the sequencing features, anyway at least the brilliant humanization functions are missing in Synchron.
Puh.... Fatis as we know him.... unfortunately many unpolite personal debasing words ("[i]dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering[/i]") and, very little contribution to the Subject of the thread: [list]- [i]Yes I did'nt mentioned the "Sequencer", since nearly nobody uses VI or Synchron without a real fully featured DAW-Sequencer like Cubase etc. [/i]
- [i]the rest is wrong (of course I have discussed the "humanization" features) [/i]
- [i]or without any concrete substance (what ever is "e[b]n[/b]pathic" I never heard and could not find this word at all 😕 I even have no Idea what sens it would have, or what contribution to the Subject of this thread it would be if you meant "e[b]m[/b]phatic" instead)
[/list] I hope we will and can better keep and continue the discussion as polite as Fabio has done. Emphatic because of the “ ???” Just to underline your ignorant retoric question, because you don’t know what simulated virtual mic was meaning, and that it’s exactly what you have in MIR and what you have in synchronized libraries, as Fabio later correctly explained to you. The day you will stop teaching about things other know better than you, will always be too late. But to quote you, that’s YOU the way we know YOU 😂😂😂
[/i]
-
If I am right the "term" "virtual Mic" is not used in any way by VSL to describe any aspect of their products. If I am wrong just show me where VSL uses it. That is the reason why I am asking what you exactly mean when you use it. Unfortunatly you havent yet answered this simple question at all, but prefered obviously to write strange posting occupied with the number of Questionmarks someone uses.
However if this is all, what you are able to contribute.... your problem.
-
If I am right the "term" "virtual Mic" is not used in any way by VSL to describe any aspect of their products. If I am wrong just show me where VSL uses it. That is the reason why I am asking what you exactly mean when you use it. Unfortunatly you havent yet answered this simple question at all, but prefered obviously to write strange posting occupied with the number of Questionmarks someone uses. However if this is all, what you are able to contribute.... your problem.
After this last sentence, if you had a minimum honor and sense of limits, you should blame your self for exposing your self to so obvious evidence of arrogance, ignorance and humiliation, and the only way to fix should be humble apologies to all. But I know you will not do it... Anyway, for the information of others, it’s enough to read the VSL MIR Pro manual: please go to page 20, point 4, line 2, and learn from the words of VSL what a “virtual microphone” is. On the other side, if you just were more familiar with digital audio, there was no need of asking “the holy bible of your religion” to believe and understand. It’s a pretty clear concept, and it’s pretty obvious it’s the way MIR IR work in MIR Pro, MIRx and Synchronized libraries.
-
Anyway, for the information of others, it’s enough to read the VSL MIR Pro manual: please go to page 20, point 4, line 2, and learn from the words of VSL what a “virtual microphone” is.
Please read a bit more carefully This sentence is about the "meta format called Ambisonics" in which the Impuls responses for MIR have been recorded based on which the Output for the MIR Main output is calculated. But this does not change tha fact, that the Main Output of MIR is nothing but the Main Output givining you the whole simulated ambiance.. Beside the factg, that MIR does simulate the Synchron Venue and this is Part of the synchronized Liobnraries I dont see any direct relation, to the fact that a synchronized Library offers only one Recording from this Main Output in opposite to a couple of different mixable real "Microphone positions"
(And please try just to stay with the arguments we are talking about in this thread. No one is really interested here what ever you think about my person or niot.)
-
It's dangerous to join a heated (and quite unfriendly, one could say) debate like the one at hand _this_ late, but nevertheless .... :
However what we currently are able to mix in MIR is nothing more than the Dry + wet ratio.
That's definitely not the case (unless the statement is just misworded).
Kind regards,
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
However what we currently are able to mix in MIR is nothing more than the Dry + wet ratio.
That's definitely not the case (unless the statement is just misworded).
As I already pointed out, you simply missed to carefully understand my point before stating what ever is the case or not.
Mir does defenitly not offer the possibility to simulate a couple of different virtual microphonepositions that could be mixed in any similar way to the microphonepositions of the synchron series but calculate the result for one main output. That was the reason why I just asked Fatis, what he meant with the term "virtual microphone" talking about the Synchronized Product including the simulated Synchron ambiance while VSL as far as I know does not make use of any term like that to characterize the synchronized Products.
Like you I also regrett very much that Fatis entered so much misleading and completly unnecessary personal aggression instead of just frankly answering my simple and pretty polite question.
Since I see that after all even you seem to have some problems to figure out what exactly was the question. I hope I was able to shed some light on this strange discussion.
-
[...] And as you confirmed yourself, the producrt does not offer the ability for the user to simulate and mix different virtual Microphonepositions, but calculate the reflections of a source at a certain position for one Stereo MainOutput which position could also be simulated based on that ambisonic format.
Well - then I don't understand the "product" I invented and designed myself, obviously. Sorry for joining the discussion in your thread.
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
Hello fahl5,
Please read carefully: I am really really getting tired of this conversation style.
It's totally ok to have your point. Let others have their point. And stay friendly.
Best,
PaulWhy exactly did you ask me?
Just show me any "unfriendly" word in any of my postings. If not better talk to those who more often loose the track of the subject with getting personal unpolite.
-
[...] And as you confirmed yourself, the producrt does not offer the ability for the user to simulate and mix different virtual Microphonepositions, but calculate the reflections of a source at a certain position for one Stereo MainOutput which position could also be simulated based on that ambisonic format.
Well - then I don't understand the "product" I invented and designed myself, obviously. Sorry for joining the discussion in your thread.
No one pretends anything like that and if you have read more careful you should know that. however you confirmed yourself, that currently neither any synchronized Library nor even MIR as it is sold "offer the ability for the user to simulate and mix different virtual Microphonepositions simultaneously," in any comparable way to mix the real microphonepositions of the Synchron series.
Is that polemic subtone realy necessary what exactly makes you refuse any attempt to just understand what the discussion is realy about: the Synchronized Appasionata Strings and the benefit for the User of the use of the term "virtual microphone" to describe exactly that cxertain product. It would have been enough to take a look of the title of this thread to ask your self if you realy fully respected the relation to the Synchropnized Appasionata Strings of this discussion in your answer.
I still hope at least you VSL-guys will finally consent that we better discuss refered to concrete arguments based on the attempt to understand what the other is talking about to keep the discussion friendly, polite and not personal but subject based.
-
I still hope at least you VSL-guys will finally consent that we better discuss refered to concrete arguments based on the attempt to understand what the other is talking about to keep the discussion friendly, polite and not personal but subject based.
In the end, this is a user-driven forum. It's up to you and your fellow forum members what it looks like.
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
I admit that I don't have the time to read through all the ebb and flow of these threads, so I just can answer, "Yes, I didn't read carefully". I just wanted to pin down some technical basics for the occasional reader who might mistake what has been asked and written before.
I thought iot would be like this. No problem, we are all humans 😉
-
It's dangerous to join a heated (and quite unfriendly, one could say) debate like the one at hand _this_ late, but nevertheless .... :
Hi Dietz, for some of us (I do for sure) it's a pleasure and a privilege to have the chance to talk and question aswered directly by you occasionally.
To definitely end this debate (for every person with a minimum of common sense) could you tell us if the "customized impulse responses" that we find in the Synchronized products are generated with the "MIR technology" ?
Many thanks!
-
[...] could you tell us if the "customized impulse responses" that we find in the Synchronized products are generated with the "MIR technology" ?
Yes, they are. We are indeed discussing solutions for matching the sounds of the two "worlds" even better, but for now the "Synchronized" IRs are plain and simple some carefully sculpted and balanced MIR exports, plus hand-crafted EQ settings.
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
To definitely end this debate (for every person with a minimum of common sense) could you tell us if the "customized impulse responses" that we find in the Synchronized products are generated with the "MIR technology" ?
Many thanks!If this would end the debate for you: I personally expect, that it is exactly as you indicated 😉 while Dietz is indeed the best who can answer this question.
