@Pixelpoet1985 said:

Beat, thanks for your input, as I don't have any recording experience. Very appreciated!

Actually, I don't know if I'm still ok with what I wrote. 😊 I would prefer a time-aligned version, I think, but not the Synchron one. I think there is a sonic difference between an alignment where the main microphones were set to 0 ms instead of delaying the close ones to the main mics. I find the sound very "instant" and "flat" (in lack of a better term), and I can hear this especially in the legatos. There is something missing which I can't fully name and describe...

Hello Pixelpoet1985
I'm going to assume that VSL solved the timing synchronization of all microphones well, so we users don't have to take on the task of doing it ourselves between microphones. By the way, I use the tool "https://www.soundradix.com/products/auto-align/" for this matter in my recordings

But as I read from your post, you somehow don't quite like the sound of the sync libraries. Although you attach this circumstance to the Legatos, I sense from your text that this applies more or less generally. At the same time, it seems that this was not yet the case with the VI libraries...

The thing with the sound went me also so. Just because I myself record orchestras, I hoped that the synchron recordings now correspond to how I record strings, for example: A super natural sound, now new with spatial synchron stage component - and everything as we are used to from VSL: in the best quality.
So I ordered in advance the Synchrons Strings ... and was mighty disappointed. I put them aside and used them no more. I didn't like all the presets. Especially the presets that make the orchestra sound distant were the most unnatural sounding to me.
I had the same bad feeling with the synchronized libraries, some of which I bought but never used...
------------------------------
Then one day came the message from VSL - that we can now use the libraries in "default mode". So unprocessed - the sound shuld be as the instruments were recorded. That was the turning point for me. Suddenly I had the sound available that I actually wanted... The libraries suddenly sounded fresh, natural, I could have the second violins play on the right, layering string libraries resulted in more fresh combinations, etc. free from any setting by VSL. Since then, I am an enthusiastic "unprocessed user" who is thrilled with the new synchronous line. Meanwhile I also do all the mixing (positions on stage of the instruments) in the individual Synchron players and put only one Reverb with a little Tail in the output channel. And because sound is a matter of taste - I found my personal sound with the presets "unprocessed". Listen to some "unprocessed" demos... or also here with the Prime Edition.

In short: Maybe you will find your solution also by using the "unprocessed version" or also called "default". I think with different milliseconds between the microphones you gain little. With all my demos, I just make music. I'm never bothered by legatos that don't sound exactly the same as in reality, because everything together sounds quite real (e.g. a little night music) and fresh... In any case, an independent person would not point out the legatos as a serious problem.

In this sense, perhaps a new approach to also regain more joy in the great VSL samples.
Beat

Beat, thanks for all your lengthy and detailed answers. Very appreciated!

I also pre-ordered Synchron Strings and was also disappointed with the sound. But only with the sound – not the legatos, for examples. At least we had patches VSL had been known for and no other developer had: fast legatos, performance trills. This is a missed chance and totally not understandable why VSL took a new route. The old libraries were and are still miles ahead of the competition and better than the Synchron ones. The new libraries only have this agile legato which is awful and only works in some very special cases – useless for me and extremely out of tune (which might be good for strings, but for the other instruments?). VSL should really think about the current legatos, because these aren't good. You can definitely hear that they use crossfaded legatos instead of dedicated landing notes (a clarification by VSL would be nice, by the way). It's very emotionless. And not only is the natural delay missing, also the slight timbre and tuning change when the legato transition happens.

I also miss the natural dynamic behaviour of the VI series, i.e. the vibrato naturally increases with your dynamics. We now have crossfade-able vibrato, but it's not the same, especially with VSL's clean approach. And to get the same feeling as in the old libraries, you have to use crossfade all the time. These espressivo patches are also useless for me, the vibrato kicks in way too late. I don't understand this. But hey, it's only me! :)

Back to the sound:

To be honest, I also tried the unprocessed preset. But where to start? And why has it always be so difficult with VSL? In any (!) other library I have I take the tree and the sound is good. With Synchron I have to experiment and use many microphones (and delays!) to get the same result. Phew! ... We have thousands of presets and they aren't good and not to my taste. Why not drastically reduce them to, let's say, three mixes. I want a classical (scoring stage) sound like in other libraries, with some reverb, EQ, saturation, limiter. For example, the lush presets are ridiculous with all the delay and processing. In which normal situation should these be taken?

Some presets are good, but not unified across the instruments. For the strings I like the ambience mix, for brass the close or classic mix. Why not make, as I just said, one or three mixes with a good classical sound in which the instruments share the same base microphones? I mean, in which normal recording situation you have various settings for the tree? Never. It's always the same.

I hope it didn't sound harsh again. Because I start to think if you get too harsh you won't get any answers. I'm still waiting for Bernd to answer some of my previous questions ... ;)

I produced a video...

How to enhance (improve) the legatos of newer string libraries?

Have fun

Beat

Hi Beat,

just to be double sure, in your video, the violins1 and 2,  and viola solo unprocessed use MIR though right? 

Best, 

 

Rubens

@Beat Kaufmann said:

I produced a video...

How to enhance (improve) the legatos of newer string libraries?

 

Have fun

Beat

Laying first chairs has always been a good addition, but doesn't solve the problem.

I've spent a long time with the legatos (maybe too much :D) and come to a new conclusion:
The playability is indeed different as in the VI libraries, more instant, more direct, and – neglecting the delay I mentioned earlier – the only thing I miss is a fast legato (and not a slower one). As said, the agile legato is useless for me and can only be used for very fast movements or runs. The normal legato (I'm talking about Elite Strings here) is indeed quite "long", but it should only be used at a specific (i.e. slower) tempo. If you play faster we need a faster legato with different attacks and shorter transitions, like in Synchron Strings I and all of the VI libraries. This is missing across the whole Synchron range. Yes, we have the agile legatos, but I miss a fast legato without these out-of-tune, portamento-ish transitions which is described as a new approach by VSL. Please, VSL give us the normal fast legatos back and, at least, I will be happy. 

As I also said earlier, the fast legatos and performance trills have always been VSL's killer feature and I can't understand that they took a new route. The old ones were perfect. Without "proper" fast legatos it very easily does sound synthetic and midi-ish like in the majority of other libraries on the market, because these also doesn't have fast legatos. But at least, they have some kind of mechanism that alters the transitions via your playing speed. 

@Rubens Tubenchlak said:

Hi Beat,
just to be double sure, in your video, the violins1 and 2,  and viola solo unprocessed use MIR though right? 
Best, Rubens

Hi Rubens

No, the Solo Strings are completely unprocessed, as are the String Ensembles. Neither the Synchron String Ensembles nor the Solo Strings use MIR. Everything is truly "unprocessed". The very dry solo strings are only "panned" to the right place (L, R, M).  Finally there is just some "reverb tail over all" in the output channel of the daw... (see the mixer in the attachment)

All the best

Beat

Hi Beat,
Synchron Strings Pro and Elite are inside the Synchron stage, being that, the sound comes already with some treatment "by nature", by the choosen mics, and there is no need of MIR, that is clear.
The confusion of mine was how to deal with the violin 1 (vi version for example). The answer is: it will be completely raw, having only the same amount of tail as the other ensembles and panned, right? In other words, ensembles inside the Synchron stage room and violin 1 only some algorithm tail.
Sorry to insist! :-)

@Rubens Tubenchlak said:

The confusion of mine was how to deal with the violin 1 (vi version for example). The answer is: it will be completely raw, having only the same amount of tail as the other ensembles and panned, right?

I'm not Beat, but I would guess that the added Solo Strings are like spot mics on the first chairs. The drier they are, the more their raw character will emerge, emphasizing their legato (among the other things).

Paolo

Great answer, thank you Paolo!

@Rubens Tubenchlak said:

Great answer, thank you Paolo!

Hello Rubens
Here are the individual tracks as they were mixed.

https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/Legato-Improvement.zip (ca. 7MB)

Synchron Pro Instruments:
positioned using the various microphone options and Pan (preset: default).

Synchronized Solo Instruments:
MIR Unprocessed - dry (and yes, used like First Chair Instruments - so to say).
-------------------------------------
You can drag all tracks into an audio mixer and you will get the raw version of my mix in the video. The rest is fine tuning and some EQ on the quiet parts.
The individual track files (even as mp3) should now answer your last questions.
Regarding MIR - I basically never use MIR! We have never become friends 😊

Beat

Concerning the microphones and mixes, here are some new thoughts:

Even though these are two different recordings concepts, the Synchron stage libraries match curiously and surprisingly very well with the Blumlein setup in MIR Pro. After having experimented a lot of time (again) I think I found a good sound. And the solution is: Lower the center mic of the decca tree.

I don't know what setup VSL used for recording the Synchron libraries. It's not a typical decca tree, isn't it? Would be nice to have some more details on this from VSL (e.g. cardioids vs omnis). Of course, there are many variations for this setup.

The Blumlein variant "Triple-8 Coincident" (and also the other Blumlein variants) in MIR Pro has the center lowered by 10 to 15 db by default. And the same value sound very good with the Synchron libraries. And this is also (in some way) used in the "Wide Surround to Stereo" presets. Sorry, but if this preset is loved by everyone and considered the best, then why not make a mix out of it? Yes, we have the room mix, but it sounds different. Of course, it can't have the same depth, but I think it also has a different microphone balance. I only have the standard microphones and all the presets have the center NOT lowered to this extreme degree. (And I always thought with the "standard" decca tree you shouldn't go lower than 6 db with the center).

Of course, the mixes are all subjective. But with lowering the center I get closer to the sound I love and also to get the sound I have in all of my other libraries. I can only repeat myself: It's very curious and surprising that you can achieve nearly the exact sound in MIR Pro if you use the exact microphone levels / balances (and even the delay settings) used in the Synchron libraries.

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

..And the solution is: Lower the center mic of the decca tree.

I don't know what setup VSL used for recording the Synchron libraries. It's not a typical decca tree, isn't it? Would be nice to have some more details on this from VSL (e.g. cardioids vs omnis). Of course, there are many variations for this setup....

Of course, the mixes are all subjective. But with lowering the center I get closer to the sound I love and also to get the sound I have in all of my other libraries. I can only repeat myself: It's very curious and surprising that you can achieve nearly the exact sound in MIR Pro if you use the exact microphone levels / balances (and even the delay settings) used in the Synchron libraries.

Basically, what sounds good is OK.
You say: I don't know what setup VSL used for recording the sync libraries....
There is actually a picture with the microphone setup for each library.

For the Synchron Strings Pro you can read out for the standard version that the single sections (e.g. Violins 1) have A Close-Mic. It was obviously in front of the first violins. If you listen to the sound, the violins sound in mono (it's not the first violin solo, but the whole register). If you set the preset to "Default" this microphon can be heard unpanned in the middle of the stereo field in mono. In the offered VSL-presets the close microphone signal is often "panned" to the left.

Violins 1 have then a second microphone. This time a stereo variant. Probably a small AB arrangement with the name "Mid". With the preset "Default" you hear the violins in stereo and that the microphones must be relatively close to the 1st violins. If you choose presets from VSL, this pair of microphones is also panned more to the left. With this setup "Mid-Microphone" you can well adjust the width of the sound the register.

On the plan there is also the "Decca Tree" (Main). This is actually an AB stereo method, i.e. 2 microphones with relatively large distance (2m), in order to be able to capture the width well also with larger orchestras. The disadvantage of this "large AB method" is that later there would be a "hole" in the stereo center between the speakers. There simply sounds nothing, even if actually instruments play there. That's why Decca used a "center microphone" in the middle between thos AB-Mics - just to fill this stereo hole. The special thing is that this center microphone (Main-C) projects forward (about 1.5m) into the orchestra. Of course, this does not mean that this Main-C must be as loud as the two outside microphones. But if it is missing completely, there is a risk of the mentioned "center hole" and if only the two large AB microphones are in use, larger correlation errors usually occur because the large time differences between the microphones inevitably lead to cancellations. In the headphones such "errors" (unfortunately) always sound great, because space effects are always great there.

Finally, there are room microphones (Room). You have to read the individual libraries more closely. It is usually a mix of the main mics and the surround mics.

So we know very well how VSL recorded the Synchron Libraries. You can hear all the microphone signals (best with the preset "Default") and see on the respective plan of each library.

How far with MIR the different microphone arrangements are actually real recorded or whether they are "only" simulations, would have to say Dietz. It is the father of this baby.
As said, if settings fit, then everything is OK - however, such "good sounding" settings should always be checked via loudspeakers as well and also quickly with a correlation meter.

Beat

Beat, thanks again! But I've done my homework, I read all manuals and am very acquainted with the setup pictures. This is basically the same all other developers record their libraries. I wanted to know more technical details, maybe I was not clear enough. In another thread VSL mentioned the microphones they used (AKGs, DPAs vs Neumanns). Maybe they made changes to their patterns (cardioid, omni) or other things? Bernd mentioned that they used various distances for the tree which I don't understand. In a "normal" recording situation you won't have different settings, for example. Maybe it's all too technical or unimportant for some users, I'm interested in these things. Firstly, I simply want to understand why certain decisions were made. And secondly, with my experiments, I want to help finding a "good" sound (i.e. the sound I and most users are after).

Concerning the tree:
Thanks again for your input! I don't turn the center off, just lower it. And VSL does the same in their presets, that's why I was wondering. The majority of presets have the center lowered and even turned them completely off (e.g. "Wide Surround to Stereo). In my opinion, it has to be lowered in order to sound "good". So I don't know what they made with the tree.

Concerning the room:
The room mix is indeed a combination, I know, but we don't know the balances – and it's not changebale in the standard libraries. So I'm limited with the sound, if I don't like it.

Concerning the close and mids:
Here I would like to hear your opinion about the panning VSL made. If the close microphones are mono, why do you narrow the width instead of only panning it to the left or right? In my opinion there is a huge difference in sound if you let the width intact as it is or if you narrow it. Wouldn't this make mono out of a mono microphone? Or is it because the original mono microphone was panned very wide so that you always have to narrow the width?

@Air said:

Hi,

Yeah Paolo got it right! The mics are all time aligned if the Delay is turned off or set to 0. It is a runtime offset like you would have it in a real recording. You can play around with it.

As also said before the presets are just starting points. If you wanna have a time aligned sound turn them off. If want to move the tree or the room mics away from your close mics or mids use the delay (3ms = 1 meter). If you want the room playing a 16th note or what ever after your close mics, go for it.

Hope that helps

Best

Bernd

Bernd - I am also noticing that some Surround presets have the "21" delay listed on certain microphone channels yet the delay slot on said microphone channel is deactivated (even when the microphone is turned on) -- and this can differ from instrument to instrument -- is this a bug? a feature? Why would they be set for 21 yet deactivated?

I've tried to figure this out but I cannot glean an answer from the manual

Thank you

@Beat-Kaufmann said:
Then one day came the message from VSL - that we can now use the libraries in "default mode". So unprocessed - the sound shuld be as the instruments were recorded. That was the turning point for me. Suddenly I had the sound available that I actually wanted.

OK - that opened a new world for me Thank you Beat

@Beat-Kaufmann said:
hat we can now use the libraries in "default mode".

It seems though, with the "default" mode, that there is no panning applied and the microphones all show no volume differences between L/R

If the "default" was actually how the instruments were recorded, would they not naturally skew more to the side of the stage on which they are being played? For example, I opened Synchron Duality Strings, Violins 1 (Mixer Preset Room - Classic) and nothing is panned

Am I misunderstanding that the instruments would not be even in volume between L/R?

@cinematicpop said:
It seems though, with the "default" mode, that there is no panning applied and the microphones all show no volume differences between L/R

Is it you who asked a similar question on VI Control just recently ...?

Of course, only the main stereo microphone pairs reveal the "natural" panning with the typical differences in volume, timing and timbre. However, all close and mid layer microphones are aimed at a group or a specific instrument, and they are often mono anyway. This is where panning comes into play. 😊

On a more philosophical note, there is no "natural" sound in audio recording, just as there is no "natural photo" or "natural movie". The choice of tools, their position, the spatial relationship between subject and listener/viewer (i.e. camera or microphone) is always an artistic decision (even if it is an unconscious one). And that's before we even talk about any kind of editing/shaping/sculpturing with a technical or an artistic intention.

@Dietz said:

@cinematicpop said:
It seems though, with the "default" mode, that there is no panning applied and the microphones all show no volume differences between L/R

Is it you who asked a similar question on VI Control just recently ...?

Of course, only the main stereo microphone pairs reveal the "natural" panning with the typical differences in volume, timing and timbre. However, all close and mid layer microphones are aimed at a group or a specific instrument, and they are often mono anyway. This is where panning comes into play. 😊

On a more philosophical note, there is no "natural" sound in audio recording, just as there is no "natural photo" or "natural movie". The choice of tools, their position, the spatial relationship between subject and listener/viewer (i.e. camera or microphone) is always an artistic decision (even if it is an unconscious one). And that's before we even talk about any kind of editing/shaping/sculpturing with a technical or an artistic intention.

Yes, I asked on VIC as well - I was trying to cover my bases to find an answer

I appreciate your response as it cleared things up for me

I am learning as I go and appreciate all the assistance along the way with my newbie questions

I love writing music but the technical aspects and the virtually boundless audio parameters involved in getting the sound in my head into the DAW and routed properly in a library overwhelm me at times

Thank you again for helping light the way