@Another User said:

and I decided just to go with that since CC11 increases in granularity the lower CC7 is from its max value.

What I mean by that is that Expression has iterations from 0-127, but within the volume range defined by CC7.  If CC7 is set to 127, Expression and CC7 are basically the same thing.  But if CC7 is set to, say, 100, then Expression gives you 128 iterations *within* the 0-100 window defined by CC7.  So, each step or iteration of CC11 then results in a finer volume change, which I enjoy as "smoothing" on top of VelXF (CC1 in my case).

I understand you perfectly here.  The interesting thing here is that the desired level of the instrument needs to be pretty much where it needs to end up for that increase granularity to hold..  If you were to later add some audio gain to the signal (after reducing the gain with lower CC7 setting), then the increments would simply be expanded into the same granularity as before... if you see what I mean..  But yea if lowering the CC7 instead of lowering audio, gets you the correct final desired level for that instrument, then that will result in finer granularity while using CC11

@Dewdman42 said:

I understand you perfectly here.  The interesting thing here is that the desired level of the instrument needs to be pretty much where it needs to end up for that increase granularity to hold..  If you were to later add some audio gain to the signal (after reducing the gain with lower CC7 setting), then the increments would simply be expanded into the same granularity as before... if you see what I mean.

I do see what you mean, never considered that.  My approach (thus far) has been to set all the CC7 and Gain levels (natural volume +/- my own preferences, etc.) and then let VelXF and CC11 do everything regarding volume and dynamics.  I'm not sure if this is the best way, but so far it's working for me for anything needing to sound more-or-less like orchestral whatever.  However, given what you said, I can see how that "fixed" balance could be thrown off via something like stereo bus gain automation after the fact.  One solution (if needed) that comes to mind would be to render/freeze the audio before automating gain - that way, the balance is retained because gain automation is raising the level of a simple audio file, not one of three (four?) different sliders...

Well if a buss is automated it would raise or lower everything on the buss together, its what you’d be wanting do, the buss mix wouldn’t be off per say but if you raised the level of that buss enough, the stair stepping increments in volume during cc11 fades would be enlarged to the same degree as if you had been using a larger cc7 value to begin with. It may not be noticeable though and if you don’t raise the bus level you’d keep the smaller cc11 steps. In some ways it could be better, to use mixer automation instead of cc11 for that particular aspect of dynamic expression above and beyond velXF. Setup the orchestral level balance with cc7 such that daw mixer is at unity and cc11 is at unity and then you automate velXF and mixer faders for dynamics, the mixer fader has way more resolution then midi. Don’t even bother with cc11. I still find velXF to be the more important dynamic control because it changes each instrument’s dynamics in a more realistic way, but you could use mixer fader (or cc11) to just push it a little or back off a little, and let velXF handle the main expression curve. VelXF will have the same stair stepping issue as mentioned though which is harder to hide because of timbre changes in each step during sustained fades. Those would definitely be amplified into bigger fade steps if you raise bus level later, a worthy reason to make sure whatever is coming out of synchron into the daw won’t need any more gain applied. (Note if mirpro attenuates the signal and you add gain back after mirpro that is not going to enlarge those steps unless the net gain post-synchron is more then zero)

@Dewdman42 said:

In some ways it could be better, to use mixer automation instead of cc11 for that particular aspect of dynamic expression above and beyond velXF.

That's a good point!  I'm going to mess around with that a bit...

Something to consider, when setting the starting Volume in Dorico, is that it seems Dorico sends an initialization value to its mixer and to the Master Volume faders of the VSL players. One can change this value in the Init event of the expression map for that instrument. Or can insert a different CC7 value at the beginning of the score.

https://www.vsl.co.at/community/posts/t57399-Dorico--VSL-Synchron-ized--volume-difference-between-instruments

Paolo

@Macker said:

Paolo, I've been measuring what Synchron Player's Main Volume and Expression faders do, but haven't finished that yet - in every measurement it can take ten minutes or more until the meter readout is settled to 2 decimal places. (I'm using BlueCat's DP Pro Meter plugin, which does lots of very useful stuff, including RMS level averaging in real time over however long I want.)

A few highlights of my findings so far:-

   Both faders have the same logarithmic transfer function, as one would expect.

   -1.0 dB is at MIDI value 120; (all dB values here are relative to 0 dB attenuation at MIDI val 127.

   -2.5 dB at 110;

   -4.1 dB at 100;

   -6 dB at 90

   -8 dB at 80;

   -10.3 dB at 70

   Going all the way down to -83 dB at 1, then complete cutoff at 0.

Just saw this thread. FWIW this is to confirm that I got exactly the same results as Macker’s table using a lazier method.  In my DAW (Studio One), dB change is the default unit for changes in Expression. 

So I put in different values of dB change for an Expression automation point in S1, and noted how the Expression MIDI values changed in the Synchron Player for that instance.  I’m glad that the equivalence table I’ve been using from doing that has been confirmed by someone who knows far more than I do.

 

This and the related threads (even with the twists and turns of the discussion process) have provided me as a newbie with lots of insight into questions I’m trying to figure out.  My thanks to Macker and the other participants.

and I also measure the same results when I have done so, but its still important to keep in mind that the results you measure with an external meter do not tell you what the actual faders are doing.  They report resulting change in DB level as measured by the meter plugin.  The DB concept is a logarithmic concept in the way it is measured and reported.

A totally linear fader behavior will translate into a DB measurement that is logarithmic in nature.  That is because of the way DB's are measured as a ratio, based on a reference level.  

The VSL devs have already clarified that the actual faders in Synchron are using a simple multiplier using from 0.0-1.0, which is essentially saying a percentage of the amplitude.  Nothing about DB's are taken into consideration while processing the CC faders.  They simply apply a percentage of the amplitude and that's it.  That is a linear response, in terms of the wave amplitude.  However, a DB measuring device will report that linear amplitude response on a logarithmic scale. 

We are talking about two faders here, they are as multipliers, which means the net effect of the two faders together is as follows:

@Another User said:

dBFS = 20 x log10( multiplier)

However keep in mind that the above is not taking into account the reference level.  

There is a lot of confusing information that is being circulated now on this forum about DB's in general, and the poster keeps moving his post to a new thread when I have tried to clarify these facts, I'm not really sure why other then it seems he really wishes VSL would add DB notches on the GUI next to the CC7 and CC11 faders...which is not in itself a terrible idea, but without having the notches there, the above comments will tell you what you need to know about these two faders.  They are a applying a simple linear percentage to the amplitude.  Linear Amplitude can be converted to logarithmic DB measurement using the above formula.

You can either compute both faders to a DB value and add them together, and also take into consideration the reference level..to arrive at the total final DB value...  or you can multiple them together (as the first quote above), resulting in a final net multiplier, which you can convert to DB once from that, but also you need to take into consideration the reference level if you really want to do that right.

Its a lot of math juggling though.  For me its quite enough to just think of the CC faders as simple multipliers as stated by VSL...they do that job perfectly.  But I can see if someone is really used to keeping track of how many DB they are attenuating things or re-gaining back later, they want to know how much attenuation they are applying in terms of DB.  It would be nice if VSL added DB notches to the GUI to show those cc fader changes as -dBFS attenuation also for that reason.  so a person could set one fader to X number of -dBFS and fader2 to Y number of -dBFS and then set an external gain plugin to X+Y +dBFS to make up the exact same amount of gain..  theoretically.  I get the point of that, but I also haven't found it that necessary actually know that or use it that way.

Welltempered, thanks for your kind words, and for your info about Studio One's automation dB calibration in connection with Synchron Player's Vol and Expr faders.

Indeed without this valuable help from DAW automation's indication of dB, I suspect it can at times be a bit of a struggle for some users when trying to use either or both of these Sy Player faders for mixing purposes - especially given the numerous technical myths and plain incorrect 'facts' that have been posted about these two faders.

I'm just doing what I can to pop these myths and debunk the worst of the specious 'factoids'. (However, that doesn't mean I'm like Doc Holliday looking for a gunfight at the O.K. Corral, lolol. It doesn't serve excellence in any field to dignify the efforts of any laughably cocky champions of their own incompetence; there's no honour in taking them down; I'm content to let them disappear up their own rear ends, cuz, y'know, entertainment. lol.)

As an aside, I've been intending - If I find time - to investigate the accuracy of automation's indicated dB values for the AU Synchron Player in Logic and the VST version in Cubase, versus measured end-to-end automation of the two Sy Player faders by these DAWs. I've already noticed some small numerical discrepancies when using Logic, but thus far, glad to say, nothing to write home about.

The vast majority of members here I'm sure don't need reminding of the differences between gain, attenuation and level, when dealing with audio; nor how these things have usually been dealt with for many many decades.

To confuse these things would be like, when dealing with money for a purchase, confusing added tax or discount deduction with the total amount to be paid. Pretty basic stuff, uh? lolol.

But ah well, there's always a few. I guess it's just another of the hazards these days when so many depend on Googling to cover for lack of basic knowledge, understanding, experience and skill in this or that field of interest.

Greetings to all,

I'm new to VSL, but been using other virtual instrument libraries for quite a few years, so not a complete noob. Having just bought several of the superb Vienna Synchron libraries, I've been learning to drive the excellent Vienna Synchron Player. Among other queries, I was wondering how most people here use the two sliders called Master Volume and Expression so I came to this forum to read up on the topic. Unfortunately I've found some confusing information here about how these sliders are supposed to work. If I may, I'd like to ask for help here so I can get a clear understanding. Specifically, I'm wondering how others get around the problem of not having any direct means of seeing gain changes as relative dB, and how to reconcile some of the advice given in this thread with results I'm getting from simple test runs with the Vienna Synchron Player.

 

My test-drive setup:- In my first very simple test runs with the standalone Synchron Player I've used the 02 Horns-12 - VelXF Preset and the 02 Horns-12 Classic Room-Mix Mixer Preset. I start with Master Volume, Expression, Vel XF (enabled) and Dynamic Range all at maximum, and Timbre Adjust disabled. With Articulation set at Long Notes and Type set at Regular.

My first test drive:- Playing and holding C4, the output level meter at the top reads about -6 dBFS. Then when setting Expression half way down so it indicates 64, the meter then reads about -18 dBFS. With Expression back at maximum and Master Volume set half way down at 64, the meter again reads about -18 dBFS. So far so good. Then I set both sliders half way down. So, totting up both their relative gain reductions of -12 dB gives -24 dB, then I looked for the meter to confirm the initial level of -6 dBFS is now reduced by 24 dB, giving -30 dBFS. And hey presto! That's what the meter indicated. All good.

 

That was an easy case just for test purposes. But knowing what gain reduction these two sliders give at any other settings is not obvious. The MIDI CC setting readouts on the sliders give no clue about their dB gain reduction. Also, like many others I'm used to working in dB up or down relative to a common working point set for mixing. Much closer to the final mix bus, dBFS levels become important. So on its own the Synchron Player's dBFS meter, though a welcome aid, is not what I'd usually find convenient for mixing. I'm also wondering if these two sliders are intended for mixing directly, rather than being buried in a host that would use other faders and with automation. Is the latter way how most people here generally use them? I'd guess so.

On the topic of dBFS, and the main source of my confusion, I see a post here by @Dewdman42 suggesting that we use his spreadsheet for calculating dBFS from MIDI CC setting. I've tried it but unfortunately it doesn't match up even approximately with the dBFS meter reading test I described above. That spreadsheet seems to use a very different scaling factor from the two faders in question - looks to me to be different by a factor of 2. Has anyone else tried to use the spreadsheet? Has the spreadsheet been verified, or even tested? Is the Synchron Player's output level meter out of whack? Or have I missed out something important in my test run? Something somewhere has to be very wrong.

Thanks in advance for any help on this knotty problem.

All the best,

Hermann

A practical answer to myself to get the same default 'natural' balance of the presets when lowering Expression from 127 to 110:

- Create two tracks in a DAW, and let them play a long note at maximum dynamics.

- Assign two VSL players to the tracks, one with an original VSL preset, the other with my custom one.

- Start playback in cycle, and along the level of the custom preset to the original one, by using the Master Control. Use the finest meter to balance them.

Paolo

Ok I've found good info in a thread called "A Graph of MIDI CC vs dB for Vol & Expr Faders" by @Macker.

That info agrees with my first test run. I've done some more test runs at different fader settings and they all agree too. So the spreadsheet is out of whack. Macker's formula is 40*log (ratio) but the spreadsheet's formula is 20*log (ratio) which doesn't match the fader scaling. Solved! Props to Macker!

I suppose the secret to mixing with Synchron Player is to ignore the MIDI CC settings on the Master Volume and Expression faders. When listening doesn't tell me enough I'll rely on the dBs shown in the DAW automation.

Slowly getting the hang of working with VSL's beautiful instruments. Just a matter of care, patience and knowing what's what and who's who - just like always 👍

Hermann

@170480 said:

Ok I've found good info ina thread called "A Graph of MIDI CC vs dB for Vol & Expr Faders" by @Macker. That info agrees with my first test run. I've done some more test runs at different fader settings and they all agree too.So the spreadsheet is out of whack. Macker's formula is 40*log (ratio)but the spreadsheet's formula is 20*log (ratio) whichdoesn't match the fader scaling. Solved! Props to Macker! Isuppose the secret tomixing with Synchron Player is to ignore the MIDI CC settings on the Master Volumeand Expression faders. When listeningdoesn't tell me enoughI'll rely on thedBs shownin the DAW automation. Slowly getting the hang of working with VSL's beautiful instruments. Just a matter of care, patience andknowing what's what and who's who - just like always Hermann

No the formula from macker is not correct. The formula I explained earlier is a well known formula. Macker derived his formula by looking at output readings in an external meter without taking into account the reference level. If you apply attenuation with the cc controls, they are applied as a percentage of the amplitude. That percentage can be converted to dBFS using the well known formula of 20 * log10( amplitude percent), since we don’t generally know the reference level we assume it’s 0 Otherwise if we knew the reference level the amplitude percent would also involve the reference level as a ratio

To your second point I personally try to avoid using either cc7 or cc11, I prefer to use velXF for expression and daw faders or mirpro for orchestra balance. However it’s all fine to use cc’s for either purpose and honestly it’s not that critical that You get the exact gain back through some other means after synchron, if you want to bump the level back up equally across all your synchron instruments so that the orch balancing will be retained then send them all to a bus, add some gain back until it’s in the zone you want. Doesn’t have to be precise really. All this talk about DB’s has been a side show that complicates the matter more then it needs to

Dewdman42, I'm going to stand by empirical evidence. Empirically, I found that your solution does not work.

The simple tests I did on your solution produced a result that speaks for itself and can very easily be reproduced and inspected by others. If you would kindly address that result, I'd welcome your explanation of it.

What result did you want me to respond to? As I said already, the discussion about DB’s on this thread is clouding the topic unnecessarily

With this extremely basic test, anyone still in any doubt can and should try this:-

With Master Volume set a max, start some sustained sound going forever. Pump up Synchron Player's output by any method until it's just tickling 0 dBFS on Synchron Player's output meter. Then drop Master Volume to half way, at CC level 64.

What do you read on the output meter? Is it about -6 dBFS,  as the spreadsheet says it should be? Or does it actually read about -12 dBFS, as predicted by Macker's figures? (Spoiler: it'll actually read about -12 dBFS)

It's ok Dewdman42, I don't need an answer from you because the empirical facts speak loudly and clearly without any help. Anyone can run this very simple test and see for themselves. It's really not rocket science.

Paolo, so, we're back at the original problem - we haven't provided you with any real help. Shame on us, lol.

Yeah I can see the 'twin-track' method ought to work as your compensation trick, as long as your instrument presets all provide just enough room for raising your "natural balance' fader by the amount you require (about 2.5 dB, looking it up in my table). And I reckon it could be done just by comparing the two loudness levels carefully by ear, or by by whatever meters happen to be there - without any need for fancy metering. 

One thing I'm thinking is, wouldn't it eventually get a bit tedious for you? If so, would it be less hassle to insert a VSL gain plugin on all active channels in the Sy Player mixer, and raise them all by that 2.5 dB for your compensation? Up to you of course - whatever method you're most comfortable and confident with.

Hello Hermann and welcome to the forum.

Looks like you prefer to dive into the deep end - great stuff! lol

Appreciate your testing and your kind comments about my tests and calculations. Totally agreed about empirical evidence being the ultimate arbiter. Heaven knows we need more of that!

The ultra simple test you describe is indeed a deal-breaker. No need for lengthy confabulations or endless faffing with these or those conditions for further tests. That one test will tell the truth clearly without fear or favour.

Good job!