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! 

@Another User said:

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)

You are unfortunately still missing the part about reference level.  Macker also appears to be missing this component.  The spreadsheet, as well as the other website I quoted, are referring to the amount of attenuation, not the predicted meter reading.  The source content you are using for a test has an unknown reference level.  

But it doesn't matter that you don't know this, the spreadsheet and the website tell you how much attenuation is being applied by Synchron..and you can then use the same amount of DB + gain to bring it back.

I am basing this on well understood mathematics bout dBFS and amplitude conversion, I'm not making it up.  Hey I'd like to know if this math works too...  I will try a test....

@Macker said:

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

Actually, it's a very interesting discussion, with some math that is useful to learn. But a clear answer (at least, not one I can grab) doesn't seem to be there, yet.

An empirical solution has the advantage of living in our main domain – the music/sound dimension. This one, we can easily understand!

Paolo

@PaoloT said:

Actually, it's a very interesting discussion, with some math that is useful to learn. But a clear answer (at least, not one I can grab) doesn't seem to be there, yet.

 

oh wait...I thought we figured that out already.  What is the open question exactly?

So I did a simple test.  

1. measure a Synchron instrument with CC7/CC11/CC1 all set to max, write it down.
   
   
2. set CC11 = 110, measure again.
   
   
3. add a trim plugin after Synchron and fiddle with different gain settings until the measured result is the same as step#1 above.

A couple points.  Its hard to be precise with this test because we have to rely on a Synchron instrument as the test sound, which is applying unknown humanization to the sound which may or may not produce consistent results.  By playing at least a dozen notes at the same velocity and keeping track of the max peak during that time..might be ok enough.

I agree with Macker that the amount of gain needed to bring the level of step#3 back to the level of Step#1 required is around 2.5db 

which is not the same value as indicated by the 20*log10 formula, which comes up with -1.25db (note - the fact that its pretty much exactly 2x of the calculated value is interesting also)

So there is definitely something more to the story, but at the moment, I'm not sure what, I think its probably that none of us, including myself are calculating reference level into it properly while doing that math.  

VSL has already stated very clearly that the CC controls are a simple percentage of amplitude.   The formula I mentioned absolutely *IS* the correct formula for converting amplitude percentage to dBFS.  But it doesn't match the measured results, I agree.

The good news is, following an attempted insurrection by the crude forces of dogmatism, modern science has reasserted its long-term possession of certain territory in the field of audio engineering,

The bad news is that the attempted insurrection happened at all, and here in VSL's forum.

In the Mac's dictionary, "dogmatism" is defined as "the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence ..."

Over the past 5 centuries, modern science has shown the value that empiricism brings to the progress of human existence. Do we want to turn the clock back to pre-modern times, when often absurd dogmas ruled the roost pretty much across the board? I don't think so. Do we appreciate attempts to drag us back there? I don't think so.

So I'll just say this. Let's be careful who we listen to and believe, and let's make sure that the long-established value and reputation of empiricism in the disciplines of mathematics, science and engineering are protected and upheld against any who try to cast them aside imperiously as if mere trash. Also there are further offences to watch out for and guard against, such as bush-league sophistry and smearing tactics, as used since time immemorial to pave the way for, defend and promote dogmatism.

Over and out.

@Dewdman42 said:

oh wait...I thought we figured that out already.  What is the open question exactly?

It's still the one I asked in the first post. Many interesting ideas and solutions in this thread, but not yet one looking as effective as working with a vu-meter!

Paolo

@PaoloT said:

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

I compared the original VSL presets and my custom ones, whose Master Volume was recalculated by multiplying the original value by 115.3%. It works! Probably just by chance, but the level are matching for all the presets.

Paolo

@PaoloT said:

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

I compared the original VSL presets and my custom ones, whose Master Volume was recalculated by multiplying the original value by 115.3%. It works! Probably just by chance, but the level are matching for all the presets. Paolo And the Vu meter approach has been mentioned several times in the thread as an additional solution. So it seems you are in fact resolved. What other solution could there be? What is left unresolved? Using approximately 115% to compensate cc11=110 is right in line with the calculations I gave you earlier ( now on the spreadsheet ) . The cc11=110 is 86.61% of full. If you take 1/.8661 you get 1.15 which is 115%. Your Vu measurements confirm this. You can change cc11 to any other value instead of using 110 for home and use the calculation 1 / ( cc11 / 127 ) to obtain the needed compensation to use for cc7 fader as a percentage. But when in doubt, using meters to get it where you want is also perfectly fine way to get it without trusting math

@Dewdman42 said:

right in line with the calculations I gave you earlier

Not that I pretend any merit, but it's the formula I proposed in the fifth post of this thread. I only needed confirmation with the most accurate measurement I could do.

I don't really get this idea of "it's resolved, so what's that you still want?". The process is more interesting than the pure result.

Paolo

Sorry I am not meaning to stop any further discussion just checking to see whether you got past your original question which it seems like you did. I also did not mean to offend you by suggesting some math to use or to add my own thoughts about how to derive this number accurately. I hope that anything I have said has been helpful in some way, otherwise this thread has become toxic and I intend to leave it. Just wanted to make sure your question has been answered and i think it has been answered at least four different possible solutions. Cheers

@Dewdman42 said:

I hope that anything I have said has been helpful in some way

Absolutely yes, and thank you very much for this! You brought several interesting things to this articulate discussion!

Paolo