200,414 users have contributed to 43,198 threads and 259,082 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 11 new post(s) and 80 new user(s).
So I dont think that we differ that much. neither is here any "polemic" or need of any reminder against polemic. I can only see great apreciation and interest in the Work of VSL aswell that was already done as in what they are currently doing.
Yes with this vision, now, I totally agree. Well stated Fahl.
Historic winds - SACKBUTTS! Absolutely essential for so many historic era performances.
Speaking of the Renaissance trombone, I don't think I have anything useful to say to a company based in the town of the Concentus Musicus Wien, but I'll anyway suggest a reading (or re-reading) to this interesting book on the various sackbuts available today:
https://books.google.it/books?id=9IMVxu1y9O0C&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=sackbut+small+bore&source=bl&ots=12XAGRd080&sig=il-qvxrXsbxZbWXlLix2jRkWRLw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrn9Dbnc3dAhWJjCwKHatED3wQ6AEwEXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
In the meantime, while waiting for a true Renaissance trombone library, after having heard what can be done with the Solo Violin 2, Solo Cello 2 and Chamber Strings for Baroque music, I'll see what can be done with the modern trombone family already included in the VI collection.
Paolo
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but weren't bowed string instruments a little different during the Baroque Period? Weren't the bows shorter for example?
I'm not sure if that would have any affect on the sound but I was just curious what the differences were between historic strings and contemporary.
There are many different instruments altogether that no longer exist, but also differences in construction, size, materials, timbre, playing techniques. The modern instruments are just the tail end of instrument-making. Even in the Classical era - let alone Baroque or earlier eras - one would find instruments considerably different from those in a modern orchestra, which of course accounts for all the interest in "period" recordings one sometimes finds for example Beethoven symphonies played on all "authentic" instruments of the time, etc.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but weren't bowed string instruments a little different during the Baroque Period? Weren't the bows shorter for example?
Instruments at the beginning of the Baroque era (let's say, the age of Monteverdi) where very different. The violin had a shorter neck, a flatter table, a lower bridge, a very different bow and bowing technique, and different strings. Monteverdi himself, however, ignited several innovations to instrument's making.
Some instruments no longer exist. We no longer use viols. The cornetto, included in the VSL collection, was a common instruments at the beginning of the Seventeenth century, and progressively disappeared while the century progressed. The trombone was different, with a smaller bore and less flared bell, and a technique that asked for a mellower sound conceived to accompany human voices.
The time of Bach was nearer to us. Still different, but with more modern ideas of instrment making and use. There are still noticeable differences, but a VSL user (Philippe Baylac) showed how well you can imitate that style and sound with the instruments contained in the VSL collection of modern instruments. You can listen yourself in his Soundcloud channel:
https://soundcloud.com/search?q=Philippe%20BAYLAC
Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. Some experimentation can however result in interesting hybrid results (like, for example, the kind of interpretation we were accustomed to with orchestras like the St. Martin-in-the-Fields, or the ones by Pinchas Zukerman).
Paolo
I think that the following statements:
The Silent Stage is dry
The Silent Stage has a lot of early reflections
The Silent Stage was built to color the sound as little as possible
The Silent Stage does have its own color
are all true statements. You're all correct, the Silent Stage was built to be dry but even a dry environment still has a bit of color, and early reflections are not the same as reverberance. I have also previously read that Silent Stage recordings get edited to further reduce the amount of tail that gets recorded, maybe I'm remembering wrong but I thought I had read that before. All of this just means that the VI recordings were *designed* for a particular type of use, and sure you can use Synchron the same way, but that's not its design, and that does make a difference.
"Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. " - paolo
That is true and why expanding the Historic Instruments is so desirable. It would be great to have a complete "authentic" Historic collection featuring strings and percussion as well as winds.
I agree, and VSL is the most trustworthy company to get that right!
Quite apart from the excellence of the VI libraries, VI Pro is such an elegant solution to problems inherent in libriaries with a large number of articulations. With VI Pro everything is so easy, yet hugely flexible and powerful.
And in my humble opinion the Synchron Player compared to the VI-Player simply the next quantum leap ahead: in literally every aspect easiet, yet more flexible and more powerful.
It is NOT more flexible or more powerful. It is just a different interface that is all. It is personal preference whether one uses it or not. Don't elevate mere preference into a fact.
With VI one can control EVERY PARAMETER OF MIDI in an elegant setup with all needed controls upfront. You have stated VI is "laborious" - it is not "laborious" at all with the proper templates, but rather is very easy and quick to use. And MIR, the companion to VI, is the easiest of all to use of any professional software I have ever encountered.
And please don't start lecturing me on Synchron like I am a beginner - your normal mode of dealing with everyone. I already have Synchron and think it is very good. As I stated this was simply a supportive statement about VI, not about putting down Synchron.
It is NOT more flexible or more powerful. It is just a different interface that is all. It is personal preference whether one uses it or not. Don't elevate mere preference into a fact.
With VI one can control EVERY PARAMETER OF MIDI in an elegant setup with all needed controls upfront. You have stated VI is "laborious" - it is not "laborious" at all with the proper templates, but rather is very easy and quick to use. And MIR, the companion to VI, is the easiest of all to use of any professional software I have ever encountered.
And please don't start lecturing me on Synchron like I am a beginner - your normal mode of dealing with everyone. I already have Synchron and think it is very good. As I stated this was simply a supportive statement about VI, not about putting down Synchron.
Hi William, since there have been times we were able to discuss reasonable, I still think we both will be able to comunicate as respectful as this forum deserves it.
So let me start exactly with that: I respect totally your personal preference for the workflow you have developed over ther years with VI I think we both consent, that there is still by far no other sampleplayer from any other competitor ready to compete VI in any way. It is tremendouspowerful, and versatile.
There are three aspects which I personally esteem in Synchron as even more powerful:
I will stop here to avoid what you might judge as lecturing and hope I havend took more text than you just to indicate my point of view. While Of course the fact, that the Symchron-Player is still un vivid develpoment makes it very resonable if we the users discuss exactly what we like and what we expect the Player should do. So if there is anything Synchron currently is not able to and anyone of us might regard as necessary feature. I think now is the best time to discuss that.
So please dont think I would have any interest to dispute your standpoint. It is just the exchangfe of oipnions and diffderent personal views which can be of iumportants for the further development of the VSL-Products and thats in my humble opinion a good reason to discuss detailed and concrete.
Dear Fahl, I agree 100% that Synchron player is an elegant and powerful system, but I don't think it's "more" than VI for the reason you listed, and your description was not very accuarate, sometime incorrect:
- The mixer in Synchron is full featured and as such in nearly every detail accessible for seperate midi-conmtrole (as most other functions to) this is just "more" than the Pan and volume options of the VI-.Mixer
No, the slot mixer of Synchron is exactly the same of VI Pro, it has just volume and pan. What you mention is the channels Mixer, because Synchron player is multichannel to manage multiple mics: the multichannel manager of VI Pro is VE, and VE Mixer has of course the same functions of Synchron, and more more more other functions of course!
Finally still lot of precise and professional features of VI Pro (e.g. scales and intervals, sample stretch, sequencing, divisi, humanizing etc.) are missing in Synchron of course, because they have slightly different targets and application, so I can't really understand why we should try to compare so different tools, but at the end, it's impossible to state that the actual version of Synchron is better than VI Pro today, in my very humble opinion of course, but also checking facts.
Dear Fatis, dont take me wrong I see we consent in many aspects. Let me just try to indicate a few aspects I slightly differ in my personal understanding of the concept.
Finally still lot of precise and professional features of VI Pro (e.g. scales and intervals, sample stretch, sequencing, divisi, humanizing etc.) are missing in Synchron of course, because they have slightly different targets and application, so I can't really understand why we should try to compare so different tools, but at the end, it's impossible to state that the actual version of Synchron is better than VI Pro today, in my very humble opinion of course, but also checking facts.
It is right that some of the features you mention are still not implremented. We will see what the further Development might bring. I do have the impression, that they ad as much features you might need to use the Libraries offered, and will ad new features as soon a new library will make that reasonable to have.
However no one is currently kept from using VI. It is already a great Player. Nevertheless to discuss what we would like to see in Synchron might contribute to focus the development of it and that is in my humble opinion of course a good reason for exchange our different understandings in a detailed discussion here.
I hope I was able to keep everything fine for you, even if I pointed on some different understandings in details.
The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.
Which exactly?
Humanize gone
repetitions can't be edited
less control sources,
sequencer gone,
keyboard volume tracking gone,
mirx integration gone,
adjusting controller curves in sy-player is a pain in the ass,
scale editor gone,
remote app gone,
master release switch gone,
A/B switch gone,
"auto" voicing gone (which was never "divisi"),
standalone mode gone...
just to name a few without looking too deep into the details.
just to name a few without looking too deep into the details.
You might be right in some aspects. meanwhile the Synchron-Player is young and is presumably growing with each new library available for it.
To sum up: I understand and share your apreciation for VI which is in many aspects impressivly full of reasonable features, while I also like the large additional felxibilioty and power of the new concept, which nevertheless will need its time to unfold up to the same maturity the VI has already reached. Still I think the fundamental advantages available with the new concepts deserve to be patient to let the synchron Player develop likewise in the next years.
Where exactly should that end up?
"Oh please VSL do not improve anything you ever did, just always sell the same thing and release every year the same products again and again"
Is that what you are looking for?
Not at all. It seems you didn't read or didn't understand what has been (by the way clearly and in details) written. Or maybe your post is just an off-topic provocative sarcasm?
It is a simple and plain question, which you did not answer at all with your wild speculations what I personally in your opinion alledgly have read or not. Just stay with the topic and already posted arguments of the thread and answer my question related to them (and not what ever you try to insinuate to my person).
OK to make it a bit easier for you:
To ask for more VI, is kind of rejecting the Synchron-Series VSL is just starting to launch for which they spend very much hard work to develop major steps ahaed in usability, versatility and quality is kind of rejecting all the work which they already spent to present their customurs major and fundamental improvements of the products provided by VSL. In short it is as if you just reject all the effort they have done to improve what they sell. So what should that end up. What improvement should that be, if you dont want the improvement they in reality are currently on the way to introduce.
Beside some Ideas of rare hiustoric instruments this thread at least has not answered this question.
So here is your chance to just put some light on the question what improvement you are exactly asking for.
First, holy smokes, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Damn, and I thought I was the cranky one...
There are a few things that Synchron is lacking that VI offers and is so much more flexible. Most notably, the humanization feature in Instruments pro. This small thing makes every performance different, and more importantly, adds a human element to compositions. In a teaching capacity, it is so useful to be able to set the humanization feature to something extreme and play back a composition for students so they can hear the difference between a professional orchestra and a high school performance. I have found it useful to demonstrate how important intonation is.
I will also say, since I am not that familar with synchron (I have the full orchestra thingy they just released), the UI does NOT work for me. Personally, to start with, the colour scheme and the bubbly buttons feels fisher price to me (as in, it feels like a toy). Instruments Pro INSTANTLY connected with me. While I wish Instruments Pro had colour theming options, the layout is immediately understandable to me. I also like to have seperate synchron windows for each instrument, like I do with Instruments Pro.
I will tell you where synchron stands apart is the effects. A user can create pads that are just magnificent for the price of around $100. I am actually stunned that with using the existing libraries, these kind of sounds are possible.
I might be wrong here, Im not as familar with Synchron, but what I like about VI is the provided templates and matrices. I can load up a flute ensemble matrix and all my articulations are there. Sure Synchron has this, but what I cant seem to figure out how to do is remove articulations I rarely use. To put it bluntly, the matrix system in VI works for me, the linear setup in Synchron does not.
They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, to each their own.
Now, I have been RAILING about Vienna sampling ethnic instruments. Bagpipes, pan flutes, that weird Indian guitar thingy you hear in just about every middle east song (haha, sorry, cant remember what its called, no offense intended), even some ethnic percussion might be nice (if there is one area Vienna is lacking even in modern instruments is percussion).
This isnt a one camp against another. You dont need to defend one product verses another, nor do you need to defend Vienna verses another company. They all have unique benefits. Where Synchron is great for more fluid background instrumentation, VI is about being the center piece of a composition. While Vienna is mostly fantastic, their percussion lacks the punch sometimes needed for more dynamic compositions, requiring the use of *gasp* other percussion from other companies. While Vienna's choirs sound great, they lack many of the features found in other more modern choir libraries (I am SO in love with 8dio's silka and insolidus choir libraries). Vienna's guitar libraries are not my first go to for a guitar, there are others that far surpass Vienna.
That being said, in my opinion, Vienna, for core orchestra instruments, beats the competition, hands down. Sure, they dont have all the articulations other libraries have, but they have the 99% that are necessary, and they have the UI to match. For the love of God, I HATE KONTAKT. If that wasnt clear enough, I HATE KONTAKT! Its awful. I use it because I have to, but its terrible.
Where was I? Oh right, Synchron and VI. I think of VI and VE as the command centers of a composition and I think of Synchron orchestra as the thing sitting over to the side playing the background pads.
For reference, my purchased products include special edition core 1-4 and special edition 1 plus strings, synchron orchestra, mirx teldex & grassier hall (umm, the big hall, I dont know how to spell it), and instruments pro.
