Hi Helmholtz,
Thanks for the very good explanation.
I'm going to continue experimenting with everything you suggest.
Thank

Antonio

Hello Antonio

Here you get some more information...

CC 24

All the best and have fun

Beat

Hello Beat,

Thank you for this great and good information.

I have been on the YouTube channel, so much wisdom, thank you very much for sharing it.

All the best

Antonio

Hello Antonio

Thank you for your kind reply.

Here is a musical example where CC24 - i.e. the use of the filter - is almost mandatory: For long notes with dynamic changes over time. For example:

Cherubim Hymn, Tchaikovsky

Here it would not be possible to achieve crescendos/diminuendos over a longer period of time with just the volume change. The use of CC02 (VelX), CC11 (Expression = actual volume) and CC24 (Filter) and/or CC08 (Timbre) is therefore almost absolutely necessary.

Unfortunately, when using all of these controllers, there is no getting around the fact that you usually have to do this manually. In any case, I always have trouble making such slow changes cleanly using any hardware (controllers). In general, of course, slow pieces are much more difficult to play sensitively with samples than fast ones, right?

All the best

Beat

Hello Beat,

As far as I'm aware, not only all Synchron libraries but also all Syz'd libraries can now make use of Synchron Player's Timbre control. This is a more realistic way of simulating the timbral changes associated with expressive dynamics, as compared to the simple low pass filter, and marks a welcome step forward from the days of the VI Pro player. But both together? I can't think of a realistic benefit of using that combination. However, perhaps in your last post above you were talking about various combinations of those controls you named but not including Timbre and Filter together?

As for pure volume (CC11), I'll agree using this might be an additional necessity in some concert compositions because VSL's velocity layers, it appears to me, are aimed at the smaller dynamic range of music for media, Therefore, yes indeed, CC11 in combination with VelXF and Timbre might well be needed if writing and/or mixing concert works is the intention, although only for extending the instrument's dynamic range downwards towards or even including niente.

Hello, Helmholtz and Beat,

It would be good to use Timbre Control with winds and CC 24 for strings?

a_mozota_21,

well perhaps first you would tell us what you find to be good about that idea? As I wrote above, personally I regard the CC24 filter as a static distance effect; I don't see — nor indeed hear — any virtue in using it as an alternative to Timbre for any instrument, and certainly not dynamically in combination with Timbre.

But in any case, why not just let your ear's experience tell you what effects — whether inside or outside Synchron Player — yield the most authentic results in terms of your subjective impressions of distance and expressive dynamics?

On the other hand, if audible authenticity isn't a priority for you, or if perhaps you ear isn't yet well enough accustomed to real orchestral music, then no amount of rules, methods and procedures can guarantee that your MIDI mockups will sound appealing, engaging and attractive to other listeners. Yet still it may be an engrossing and enjoyable hobby for you, and still be money and time well spent.

Hello Helmholtz,

As I already said, with the CC 24 control, although I have experienced little, I do not notice any changes and I do not use it (it may be that my ear bones are sclerosed), the opposite happens to me with the Timbre control .
Neither the audible authenticity nor the authentic and human interpretation of and with an instrument is achieved by anyone with a virtual instrument (although I would like to get close) for that, I have my wooden instrument, bought in the city of Vienna.

Hello Beat.

I have followed your instructions and I notice how the sound softens.

Thanks for your interest

Antonio