Hi Federico,

I am most grateful for your comments and caveats. I rather liked your version of 'Winter' on YT. My main comment would be that the strings in the lower registers don't have quite the 'attack' of the real thing - this seems to be something that's especially difficult to capture.That the test is hard will I hope make it a good test of VSL (and the renderer).

I have been corresponding with a VSL expert and he's going to have a go at a few bars of my composition. It requires a lot of double stopping from the violins and viola and a legato line from the cello. If it turns out OK and he agrees I'll post the final result.

I have some experience with other libraries and have indeed found strings to be unsatisfactory. I was motivated by Jay Bacal's rendition of the Ravel string quartet but I'm only beginning to appreciate just how much skill was involved in making it.

Thanks again for your input - please keep up the good work!

My humble opinion on the matter is that nowadays orchestral libraries (VSL included) are nothing short of amazing, but there is no *solo strings* library having at the same time: complete dynamics/articulations and what I call “physicality”: richness, resonance, texture and tone quality. There are libraries with very realistic physicality, but lack articulations. There are libraries with enough articulations, but lack physicality. So I think that technology is mature, just nobody has caught the apple yet. Afterwards, I think that one will be able to do realistic mockups from quartets to symphonies.

I have to add that one thing that strikes me repeatedly about VSL is how different the instruments sound on different pieces, different mixes and styles.  This is because of one thing - the extreme dedication to both purity of sound and truly representative detail that one finds in all the instrument recordings.  This makes even the earliest instruments VSL sampled - such as the tenor trombone, the first woodwinds and strings, etc. - timeless and of great value in the newest recordings.  And the reason for this timeless quality is simply the musicality of the sampling approach, capturing what instruments actually do in methodical detail, and doing it with extremely high quality of recording. It is that approach which allows the richness and resonance that varies radically, just like live instruments, depending on what the piece is, the size of ensemble, the venue and the mix.     

I mean, it's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of how real an instrument sounds. You may like or not the tone of a particular violin, that's the subjective part, but whether it is close or not to a real violin sound is quite objective.

Also the infinite dynamics argument is wrong. It’s like saying that since time is continuous, one cannot make cinema, since a film will only be a finite sequence of pictures. The point is that the brain fills the gaps, so actually one needs only 25 approximations of infinitely many instants. The human ear can as well be fooled with enough dynamic layers, the expression control and the brain filling the gaps. Moreover, a recording is a finite sequence of digital information (bits), so there are no infinite dynamics even in a live recording, which proves my point.

@FedericoAsc said:

I mean, it's not a matter of preference. It's a matter of how real an instrument sounds. You may like or not the tone of a particular violin, that's the subjective part, but whether it is close or not to a real violin sound is quite objective.

That's illogical. There is no way to quanitfy "close or not to real" - that is totally subjective and based on whatever parameters one wants to create, which again is subjective.

Your second point actually contradicts you, not proves.  With samples, since expression can be used to modify velocity, it is in effect infinite based upon the whims of the performer.  So again - it becomes infinite in the subjective perception of the listener. 

This is all very cute to discuss, but not worth spending much more time on since it's just being persnickety - something people on internet Forums spend a lot of time and energy on.  

@William said:

People think VSL and MIDI are just technology.  They are far beyond mere technology.  They are a musical instrument in themselves.  Like other instruments, you get out of it as much as you put in.

As someone currently embroiled in learning this "instrument", I couldn't agree more.  I find the more I treat sequencing and sample programming as an art and craft unto itself rather than a "get sound quick scheme", the more I'm floored by just how surprisingly expressive these little rectangles on a piano roll can be...

Yes, that's very true.   I've been using VSL since it first came out in 2002 (first available in my area) and I still feel that I have not even come close to realizing a tiny percentage of what can be done with it.  And with things like Dimension Strings it is even more complex to the extent that just tiny changes in how you do the various MIDI parameters, as well as the mix, create enormous musical differences.  The expressive complexity of the library overall, performed by a sufficiently expert programmer, is at least equal to a single traditional music instrument played by a master. 

@FedericoAsc said:

As an example, I think my best mockup so far is Vivaldi's Winter:

I enjoyed your performance of Vivaldi's Winter. May I ask which library you use for the orchestra. I suppose, that the solo violin is the first violin of Solo Strings 1 of VSL.

Thank you MMKA. I combine several libraries. I will write you a PM.