Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

196,630 users have contributed to 43,021 threads and 258,416 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 0 new post(s) and 86 new user(s).

  • Suggestion: Unify the Presets of different Synchron (and Studio) Libraries

    last edited
    last edited

    What I ask for, is something which is at least half way already done in my impression:

    The Presets of different (for instance Synchron-String-Libraries) are shaped following pretty similar rules (First Shorts, Longs, Legato, ... etc.)

    Many of the available articulations are in many Libraries pretty similar.

    But still this Coherence is often not complete enough to use for all of them a similar way of Articulation control.
    Especially for Layering or exchanging different libraries it would be really helpful if the same articulations over all libraries would be chosen in excactly the same way.

    It is in my opinion possible, since the most used articulations do not differ in most libraries that much, and the most differences occur in the most rare and most seldom used articulations.

    How would it be to work with all Libraries in the same way for instance with one Cubase Expressionmap wich perhaps leaves room for some subordinate slots for individual differences, but allow to use shorts, longs, legatos, trills, Flutter/tremolo, Harmonics and so on in simply and reliable the same way in all libraries.

    I know I can program them all myself. Yes that is true. But I think, that this might be more than just a personal fancy and would be really a great help for all VSL-User, who work with more than one Library.

    Just a Suggstion to streamline the Universe of VSL-SampleLibraries.


  • One possible Chance to get this unification might be to allow the individual assignment of CC-Value to a certain (kind) of articulation as additional way of Articulation selection.

    As far as I know the CC-Values are currently still defined automatically depending from the position in a certain Slot.

    It would be great to have the chance to assigne a CC or Programchange-Value to an individual Articulation.

    That might allow that kind of suggested Unification presumably, without the need to completly change the exsisting Articulation-organisation of a certain Library and their default presets.


  • Hello fahl5!

    I understand that it would be desirable to have the same switches in all libraries. Please understand that this is impossible to realize, because the libraries include different articulations. To realize such a dimension tree, it would be necessary to reserve a space for every articulation that is available in at least one library. There are more than thousand different articulations spread over our many libraries. So this would result in a huge dimension tree with not enough space for all the required switches. Furthermore this huge tree would include more empty slots than filled slots.

    Best regards,
    Andi


    Vienna Symphonic Library
  • last edited
    last edited
    @andi said:

    Hello fahl5!


    I understand that it would be desirable to have the same switches in all libraries. Please understand that this is impossible to realize, because the libraries include different articulations. To realize such a dimension tree, it would be necessary to reserve a space for every articulation that is available in at least one library. There are more than thousand different articulations spread over our many libraries. So this would result in a huge dimension tree with not enough space for all the required switches. Furthermore this huge tree would include more empty slots than filled slots.


    Best regards,
    Andi

    I understand, that the "dimension tree" (while it has already the obvious character of unified classification as you can see in the first slot which does not differ that much in the most Libraries) might be nevertheless currently not customizable enough for that need.

    At least (as far as I can see) in the way currently the Values or Keyswitches for the single articulation is assigned automatically depending to the sequence loaded in a certain slot.

    And Layering Orchestra Sample-Libraries is currently really a pretty common praxis.

    That was the reason why I ask for a more detailed option of assigning a certain midi-signal to each individual Articulation. You can see exsamples how this is possible in the articulation-management of East-West Opus, the Spitfire Player or the Sine Player of Orchestral tools.

    In all those player you can always decide for each single articulation, if you want to assign any certain Keyswitch, an Certain Value or Range of Values of any CC or Programchange what makes it much more comfortable to customize those Libraries for Layering Purposes.

    I think this option is currently simply forgotten to add to the in many other aspects much more powerfull orchestral Synchron-sampleplayer, so it is a bit kind of strange, that this obviously common option is still missing in the VSL Player where as far as I can see the assignment is only definable up to the last slot with multiple articulations, but not to the single Articulation.


  • last edited
    last edited

    Ok to become a bit more precise ( to make it more realistic to aplly that unification to the VSL-Univers)

    The Reason why I suggested the VSL-Devellopers ca. 10 Years ago this Treestructure was the fact, that VSL always have had the most detailed Repertoire of sampled articulation variants and exactly that made it the more Variants became available the more difficult to reasonable manage them (search and apply in a musical reasonable and Cubase-Expressionmap compatible way, since no Expression map could handle as many Articulation variants as VSL provides).

    I see that the amount of variants does it likewise seem to make it difficult to "layer" that much most differentiated VSL-Articulations to the in most cases still notably less detailed Articulation repertoire of other Libraries.

    So just come back to the Idea why I suggested to found such an hierachical tree like organisation of Articulations: It was the expierience, that Expressionmaps make sence as long you handle with them a relative short list of common Articulation types for instance (one of) the first slots leaving the further differentiation other options of sampleselection like velocity, seperate Midi CC, HArdware Midicontroler, Wheels and so on.

    In so far the subordinate "branches" or "Dimensions" of this Dimension are always not controled in the same way than the more basic first slot, I think especially the Dimensiontree-architecture should allow you to unify the basic classes of articulations, while it can leave the decision for a certain Variant still open for other controlers.

    In so far for a reasonable Expressionmap which is small enough to be handled efficiently you scarcly need more than the most basic decisions for the type of Articulation. I think this potential of the tree architecture is what makes it even more probable to streamline the articulation-organistion even more consequent unified as it is already in most Presets done.

    My current suggestion just want to ask you to combine this Dimension-tree-architecture with the in the current market well known possibility to chose the selectionsignal from all available options up to the free defintiion of certain values, rangges etc. for certain CC, controler etc. This is definitly nothing new neither for VSL nor for most competitors. But just don't stop with it in the slots (for a whole group of Articulations) and make it available for each "node/branch" or single articulation-variant of your Dimensiontree.

    The necessary popup must not be as complicated as the the long lists to chose from in the Automation section of VE. As I said: if you look on OT, Spitfire or Eastwest, you can find very manageable options, which might be easily integrated in any popup with wich one would desire to define a certain position everywhere in the Dimensiontree.

    Just a thought, what might help the Synchron player to easily keep the level with his competitors in this point.


  • last edited
    last edited
    @andi said:
    There are more than thousand different articulations spread over our many libraries. So this would result in a huge dimension tree with not enough space for all the required switches.

    OMG really ?!
    most Articulations in most libraries are not at all "singular" Articulationtypes but "regular" if you sell hunderd Libraries with legato, staccato, spiccato, Sustain, Marcato, Tremolo/Flutter, Swell, Harmonics decrescendo, crescendo, Halfton and Whole Tone Trill, than you really dont need need "a huge dimension tree" to cover the largest part of Articulationtypes but not much more than 12 different types to cover the most used Articulations for the most Libraries. the "huge" amount of "other" Articulation are nothing completly different, but most of them just variants for instance of Attack or Release behavior.

    It is exactly the benefit of the dimensiontree architecture, that there are no more endless lists of articualtiontypes to scroll to find the one which fits best, but the search is spread over multiple decisions from the basic articulation type to a specific variant which allready streamlined a lot the search compared to the VI-Player.

    So it is defintily not a task of a "huge" Dimensiontree to unify the articulationselection, but a question of a cohrent basic architecture of this tree in all libraries. Actually this architecture is already quite similar in most libraries, but, just not similar enough to allow a unified articulation selection.

    If you have a bit practical expierience with working with Cubase Expressionmaps, you know that they become pretty clumsy to handle as soon the amount of articulation to chose from exceed more than 20 different types. So no expressionmmap will really cover all variants a Synchron Dimensiontree includes. You always have to manage severyl variant selections by other means what is also a benefit of the Dimensiontree architecture, that you can chose variants by Velocity, X-Fade, Mod-Wheel and so on.

    So sorry I really do not understand, what kind of "huge dimensiontree" you might think about, which should keep you from unifiying the Articulationmanagement just a bit more consequently as it already is.


  • The unification of articulations should be taken care of in the future by MIDI 2.0 Orchestral Articulation Profiles, which assign standardized cross vendor ID numbers to all articulations. The idea is that then all libraries use those and you can copy and paste MIDI between libraries and the articulations being triggered remain correct.


  • To be fair, VSL have taken the approach that each instrument has attributes that are unique to that instrument (or instrument group), and have even gone as far as to offer specially tailored GUI's for some categories, such as piano, harp, and organ. I consider that a plus!

    FWIW, I am finding the Studio series to have more consistent and rational articulation presentation than the older Vienna Instruments versions, as well as being more in line with the Synchron series, and this has also helped me to better understand some of the deeper features and take better advantage of them, though there always seems to be something new to learn (or a new feature) that causes me to revisit renderings that I thought were frozen. 😊