I edited this post to be a slightly more substantive, though it is probably no longer needed. I agree that the only criticism about the VSL would be that it is a work in progress, in that the only things lacking are things that have not yet been completed, i.e. the vibrato oboe, some missing forte legato, etc. The cross-faded dynamic layer instruments are an essential way of getting a great deal of mileage out of very few separate files, when combined with the staccatos, and the legato tool is a unique invention in sound.

I also have not used the repetition tool much yet, as it is definitely not intuitively obvious, though it is an example of the subtlety of sound that this library excels in because of the difference - slight but noticeable - of rapidly alternated single note samples and multiple notes recorded while the instrument is still "vibrating" from the last note played. It would be possible to have five single note samples on the alternation tool, but the effect would be a "representation" of the effect, not the exact effects itself.

Bravo Peter!

You're amazing man!

With Respect,

Chris

Thanks a lot for contributing to this topic, everybody!

Let me just refer to some of your comments and react on some of them:

Q1/Q2:
I am glad to hear, that the First Edition will become a completely usable orchestra-library by adding the missing dynamics for the legatos. This update plan seems furthermore truly generous, considering the range extentions the marcato Trp and the (Yooouuu!! *jumping to the ceiling hitting my head in exitement*) VIBRATO OBOE!! Not to mention the goodies (I love goodies!). Great!

Q3/Q4:
Herb: thank you for your - as everytime - very interesting suggestions. Slaroussels: Good luck for your timing issues. Peter: you knocked yourself out! In fact appreciate every single comment over here very, very much. I wished I had been in Frankfurt last week to see the VSL demo at the Messe to learn more from Herb. Unfortunately I went ill all week [:(].
Regarding my questions: To be honest, I pretended to be a little more simple-minded than I really am. You know, to stir up the soup a little - and I dont regret it, you gave me wonderful material to think about. Yes, I didn't really dig into learning of the Rep-tool before, so my question was true, that I honestly liked to know how people use it. How could I know that Peter wrote the manual? I would have very conciously read it before asking stupid questions otherwise [:)]. And yes, I didn't like to see lots of figures on the screen to set up before I would be in the state of being able to play "just short notes". Of course I love the "out-of-the-box" thing. But on the other hand I am one of those "nifty-features-freaks" as well as you can see from my freaky Logic-environment for Garritan. The problem is, that I am a real-time- and an ergonomic-handling-freak. My highest goal in this game is to be able to increase real-time-music-access and decrease technical setup. That's why I personally try do program everything within Logic in a way, that I was able to just distribute everything in realtime: I can just play all dynamic-layers of the performance-legatos by auto-distribution to separate MIDI-channels and I use keyswitches to choose short notes and other articulations needed. This way I am able to nail down one line after the other hardly without editing. That's where I come from, this is where I like to go in the future. VSL works wonders in this discipline as well. But it can still be improved tremendously here.

I understand well, that all this is just the beginning of a wonderful friendship [[;)]]. Peter, you got me. Of course we are talking about 1.0. Great things are to come, no doubt about that. All needed seems there: ideas, competence, financial "breath", man-power...

So, although I get pretty OT now, I'd like to suggest to think about an "easy" mode/view for repetitions in the future. The first note and the last note of a repetition line for me seem to be the key to authenticity. If we managed repetitions in a way, that the first note of a repeated line of the same key was always a true first note, then followed by a random cycle of repeated notes (that would maybe differ in tune and brightness very slightly like the GOS VAR's) and for the last note we would e.g. tap the pedal. I know that this would not cover all that can be done with the "pro" mode/view that we have now, but the advatange was, that you didn't have to KNOW the number of notes you are going to play BEFORE you are playing them and you were able to cover a relatively large tempo-range (other than using the release trigger approach). I love to compose recording lines right out of my head. One more chance for the "out of the box"-flyby...

Q5:
Great. Slaroussels, very interesting to hear you using the dynamics heavily. Time for me to really dig into this adventure. Herb, it was perfect, if the Performance Tool will be able to handle additional release-samples (half-)automatically in the future. Great idea again. I know it will take months as it has taken me months to really PLAY the Garritans.

Q6:
Just as Iwan said: I feel a little ashamed, but I did not realize, that the "dynamic layers" are what I search for. Ooouch. More layers would contribute to make these layers more convincing, Iwan is right. And I still love those for completely free dynamic playing. Of course some movements simply do not work, but at least for the Garritan-Strings I can't live without them...

And Peter, thanks again for your great effort, ideas and enthusiasm to clarify things. Your conclusions are burnt into my cortex now [[;)]]. I finally agree with almost all you said. Nevertheless I find it interesting, that in some occasions other much more simple samples for my ears do a better job than the VSL, although they are lacking any flexibility. For me some of the Vitous woodwinds have a charm that I can't find anywhere else. But this depends on the condition, if you are composing for samples/production/final mixes or if you like to compose "as-if" for a real orchestra. Then nothing compares to VSL yet. No doubt about that.

All the best

Roman Beilharz

Roman, I think you'll find that things will advance quite a bit in the future. Right now alot of the limitations in VSL is coming from Gigastudio itself. The Legato performances themselves are extensively programmed beyond "normal" giga limitations creating "mock dimensions". As giga opens in up 3.0 there will be alot more control features.

@Roman Beilharz said:

How could I know that Peter wrote the manual?

Actually, my wife Caroline wrote that section of it with excellent support from David Govett, Tom Hopkins and Ashley Witt, and of course, Herb's demo at NAMM.

"My highest goal in this game is to be able to increase real-time-music-access and decrease technical setup."

AMEN! We attempt the same thing in the books we put out, especially the new ones on Cubase SX and Sonar 2.2 coming out this summer. I believe that your concept is very much a quality control (QC) issue that most in MIDILand don't pay enough attention to. We call this, "the user experience." Our approach is rooted in what's called Six Sigma quality planning and training which starts with defining the customer's expectation.

We define a good user experience as productively implementing the software/library within a few hours, then going on to more advanced training. For our software training, we screen shoot every move. So, we get people operational pretty quickly, often within 6 hours, even on a difficult program like Logic.

For the Performance tool, Legato mode was the easiest portion. Alternation mode, Caroline struggled with a little more until we figured out that Alternation mode could really have been named Phrase Shaper. Once we were clear that we were alternating between keyswitches (hence, alternation tool), we then saw the musical application was quickly shaping a phrase using alternating up bows and down bows, etc.

The Repetition tool was the most difficult for Caroline, because we were operating on a false concept. In the VSL literature, it talks about groove patterns. Over here, we thought this was a form of Groove Control similar to what Ilio uses. But it wasn't! Once we saw that you had to play in the repetitions, that's when we understood what was going on. Up to then, Tom, Dave and Ashley were trying all kinds of things to help us get the instruction going. So no, it was not obviously clear, and I hope for the future that the GUI (graphic user interface) will be improved to more "telegraph" to the eye what's going on.

When you consider the "hidden" trumpet repeat fanfares that John Williams often sticks in, you now have with the Repetition tool, a way of replicating that. So I feel it's definitely worth learning, but you do have to set aside the time to do so.

BTW, I hear you're a drummer! I was a percussion major at Berklee ('75) where I lead my own big band playing Kenton, Rich and Don Ellis charts.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Alexander
lacomposers@msn.com
310-559-3779

King,

I am looking forward towards GS 3.0 as we surely all do. I know Perf.Leg. pushes the GS-design to the limit and beyond. But even if there were more dimensions, I am sure we will again run out of them pretty soon, so I am convinced, that a workaround like the multi-channel-approach will not be out of discussion by the release of 3.0. For the real-time-approach a channel/articulation-distribution works perfect and allows me to have as many dimensions as I need NOW. So I think it is important to focus on that part of the cake: what happens with MIDI BEFORE recording, too. No tweak is faster to be done than to change the MIDI-channel of a note to change its articulation. The keyswitchy part of the processing of course stays better behind the sequencer, no doubt. So I propose to think about e.g. a legato-processing, that is capable of "overlooking" more than one channel (mono-mode) for dynamics. I have ideas on how to "recognize" short note/repeated playing and auto-triggering the short-note samples etc. But that leads for off here, so let's discuss that another place.


Peter,

sorry, my deepest respect for your wife Caroline and her obviously very serious and competent work. And yes, I am a drummer (who talked - Tom, eh?). Played a lot of Big-Band stuff, too when I was young (hoooooo, that sounds funny, I am 31 now, but it is true, it was when I was around 16-22 years old...). Let's mail in private for more brabrabra, if you like. Nice to hear that you have this background, too (any background you don't have?? [;)] ).

All the best


Roman

I dont know, I think with double the dimensions, I'd have just about everything I'd want in keyswitch or auto-alternate (I'd also have some RAM Hogging patches). Not focusing on how far they've pushed things already jsut seems to undermine what they've done and also doesn't really let in on what they could be doing for the future/pro edition release.

Anyway, about the repetition tool. I look at it as an option for "after" I've done my composing. I use the regular stacattos and sfz/dynamic samples for playing in real time, then I go back over the parts with the repetition tool to make it sound more realistic if I need to. It is possible to use the repetition tool the way you commented on, in realtime.

Just set up one Keyswitch to look like this

1:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0

and one to be:

0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

then either one like this:

0:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:0

or multiple variations of that with some middle ones turned off

then just hit the first KS on the first note, then the third for "repetitions" and the last for "ending notes" in phrases. Its just too much of a pain to do this in fast sequences, so I dont deal with it. Its also impossible to have it automated without some sort of mind reading tool [:)]

I have some other ideas that I'm going to pass on to the VSL guys that might make it easier to do using some CC controllers and a slider. Its still something I'd do after the fact tho, to get it "right"

@KingIdiot said:

It is possible to use the repetition tool the way you commented on, in realtime.

The repetition tool is/was designed to be used in real time. Period. That's how Herb designed it. You might want to review Caroline's documentation on it.

PA
peter@alexuniv.com
310-559-3779

I'm really confused now - does this mean the repetition tool really doesn't work well if the music is notated in? I would have imagined, that very fast repetitions would be better notated and in fact, difficult to play in realtime.

Perhaps Herb or someone at VSL could give more of an explanation of this tool - particularly for intended buyers who don't have access to the explanatory pdf file or manual.

Herb, would it be possible to post just the string part of your Dvorak piece or another example of the repetetion tool with strings?

They're saying the opposite, that your sequenced part will be a direct musical representation of the actual sounding part. You will play (or program) every note in rhythm, and the tools do the job of alternations or repetitions.

@Bruce Richardson said:

They're saying the opposite, that your sequenced part will be a direct musical representation of the actual sounding part. You will play (or program) every note in rhythm, and the tools do the job of alternations or repetitions.

100% Correct!!!!!
PA

[[;)]] Thanks guys.

It would still be good to have a pdf file available on the site with more information about the repetition tool, plus a definitive example of the repetition tool at work (by itself) in a demanding classical piece.

@Another User said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KingIdiot
It is possible to use the repetition tool the way you commented on, in realtime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The repetition tool is/was designed to be used in real time. Period. That's how Herb designed it. You might want to review Caroline's documentation on it.

PA
peter@alexuniv.com
310-559-3779

I did say *is* [[:)]]

and what I mean is real time playing in notes. It doesn't mean its always the best way to work with it tho [[:)]] In fact, I find it more useful to adjust midi sequences after I've recorded them, instead of playing in realtime trying to get all the keyswitching "right". Some speeds are just impossible to get done correctly, if you have multiple Keyswitches. The chaining is a bit too universal to work through out a whole piece.


And yes, notating in stuff and having the tool is definitely one of the best ways to work. Still tho, you may find that you'll want to make slight adjustments in either the settings on the tool, or the note on/off positions. Depending on your pickyness, and certain tempo settings, as well as instrument choices.

[*-)]: "I can just play all dynamic-layers of the performance-legatos by auto-distribution to separate MIDI-channels and I use keyswitches to choose short notes and other articulations needed. This way I am able to nail down one line after the other hardly without editing."

Roman, would you be kind enough to tell us how you constructed this setup in Logic? Is it some kind of transformer in the Environment , routing notes to channels according to velocity?

Thanks for this very interesting & informative discussion!

Nigel [/quote]

Nigel,

yes, it is a ciruit using mainly a bunch of transformers. The basics are:

At a definable velocity-split-threshold (using a meta-fader that alters the minimum velocity-condition of a transformer that adds +1 to any incoming note's MIDI-channel) all notes are being sent to the next higher MIDI-channel (which I put the louder patch to, e.g channel 1 p and channel 2 mf). It gets a little more complicated if you like to process 3-4 channels of 3-4 dynamics. And in fact I use a mod-wheel>CC11/velocity-remapping to simulate the behaviour of a multi-layer-crossfade-patch. I am sorry it is far to complicated to describe here. Please mail me in private and I will try to send you a layer as soon as I have some days off to create a special version for interested VSL users (too much special freak-stuff within my layer right now). Give me a week or two. I have heaps of things to catch up with before, because I have been knocked out for a whole week. Damned influenza (no, this is no italian rondo-dance, you know: fever, coughing, headache...).

Good night europe

Roman

Roman

yes, that does sound a bit like "rocket science". I, and I'm sure many Logic Users, would certainly appreciate having a Layer like that.

Get well soon [:)]

Nigel

@Nigel Watson said:

Roman

yes, that does sound a bit like "rocket science".

I originally studied to go to the US Air Force Academy. Rocket science is much easier.

[H]

Hello again,

as I have been experimenting with the rep.-tool (don't we have a "republican-tool" to switch some of those guys off in time, hehe) recently - I even read the - btw. excellent - manual carefully this time, line by line [[;)]] - I just wanted to tell you what I am thinking about it after all. To make this post not too lengthy, I try to nail my points on the board one by one:

1. I understand now, how it is possible to create very convincing repeated note's lines with various dynamics and/or tempi. The tool offers many more ways to manage repetitions than anyone was able to check out in a short period. I know I will love the feature in quite some occasions being in production. I consider it to be a fantastic toolbox for digging into patterns and rythmic/minimal stuff.

2. Nevertheless I still don't think, that the achieveable results justify the repetition-tool's long learning curve/awful handling and the time-consuming setup. It feels like filling the bathtub with a liner-cap, somehow. The tool offers endless repetition-patterns, only that I don't find it essential to have them. Yes, it is the LATER thing currently, but this section cries for the NOW-approach: Let's have the NOW version LATER, OK, Peter?. I don't see any reason, why the UI shouldn't get much more simplified in the future and I miss one IMO very important factor: randomization (of note-cycles between start and end-note AND of timbre as well as - optionally - tuning to mask the cycles).

3. Having to deal with note-tails at the BEGINNING of each repeated note makes it very difficult to PLAY repetitions, the delay-compensation for the start note seems no big helper, if you don't substitute pre-recorded lines by a repetition-performance. Timing is hard to get right. Furtheron, the concept limits the tempo-range where repetitions sound good and notes connect seamlessly dramatically.
I experimented with staccato brass-samples, that have natural decay. As soon as I have enough samples to alternate after an accented (short) starting note, the note tails don't run into phase interference while overlapping each other (using random that avoids direct repetitions: 124532154213415 etc.). When I add random alterations of brightness (slight) and tune (+/- 5 cent), the sample-repetitions are hard to get recognized as such. When I place a note, that is a little longer than all others and a bit more pronounced at the end of a repetiton-phrase, the whole thing sounds perfect to me. The achievable "good" tempo-range is much larger due to the fact, that there are no tail-interuptions by design. The timing is easy to nail down. I don't see why the repetitions shouldn't get automated to get widely playable AND post-fiddleable repetitions at the same time - e.g. tapping the pedal for the last note (I love to have my left hand free for switching articulations via keyswitches). Sorry if I repeat myself (a real repetition-post, eh?).

4. The cresc./dim. repetitions sound fantastic, if I use them as recorded. But of course they can't get automated in a "similar-to-3." way, because no tool will ever be able to anticipate the number of repetitions you are going to play to adjust the cresc./dim. "curve" accordingly. I have to repeat myself again: IMO nothing beats the mod-wheel-to-dynamics (xfade-layers) concept. As long as we have enough dynamic-layers (at least 4 for best results), I prefer realtime-control and freedom of curvature to depth in natural timbre. With a patch/tool-combination as described in 3. , that was constructed as a multi-layer-xfade-patch, I had the choice to play whatever dynamic progression within ANY repetition-line SPONTANEOUSLY. OK, maybe I am one of a rare species, that still plays and improvises lines, but that is how I see it. Besides - Peter mentioned that Perf.-Legato is the star in hollywood - I am convinced that such a NOW-repetition-thing would

SELL LIKE HELL (in case there is a chance to top your sales at all [[;)]]... )

Instant gratification. That is where it goes to - everywhere. As it seems to me. At least.

And please note, that I appreciate very much to have the repetition-tool even as it currently IS. I just can't shut up as long as I see the potential to go for more. I am thankful, that this tool has made me really think about the whole repetition-issue at all. Lots of manpower in there, I have deepest respect for what VSL comes up with NOW. So many fantastic ideas at your fingertips, that of course I am nitpicking somehow. - Just to be understood right.

All the best


Roman Beilharz

PC & Musik, Germany

Roman, I have VSL perf. for about a week now and could not agree more.

Roman,

Caroline and I both read your post and we do agree with you. Caroline also noticed the timing issues with those samples. Unfortunately, the last version of the manual we did was the day the Performance tool was released. So as it was being released morning time in Vienna, 3AM in LA Caroline was finishing it and sending it over! So we had no "play" time.

Overall, not to be critical of Herb or Chris, we did feel that the Repetition tool was not NOW oriented enough. In fact, in all our sales presentations done in our studio today, we don't show it, because once composers saw it in earlier demonstrations, the immediate reaction was, "Oh my God, what's THAT!?"

The next reaction was, "Holy S***! How long does it take to learn that?"

Thus, we keep the focus on the Legato tool and the Layers because that gets everyone going the quickest.

You know, we have a 35-lesson Logic course. And as you know by experience, Logic is a deep program, and many have difficulty getting going with it. I can't begin to count how many hours I put in to make Logic so simple that within 6 hours, someone could be sequencing with it and feeling good about the experience.

I feel the same is true with the Repetition tool and to some degree with the Alternation tool. But it takes time and organization to know how to make it simple so the customer can be using it NOW. For example, I'm reading through the strings "manual" now. Nearly 100 pages! It takes a lot of reading to find the articulations that can be applied with the Alternation tool. And the way the Instruments are named doesn't help. I can't just look at a VSL Instrument's name and know/guess what it is. I have to look it up every time.

That's time consuming and it adds to the learning curve for the other tools.

I have the same critique with GOS, SISS, and the DD naming structures. And when every company has its own naming convention, it's a nightmare to figure them out unless you keep a notebook.

So it's not just the UI, it's the naming conventions, too. And there's one other issue: orchestration knowledge.

If the user doesn't know his/her orchestration (and a lot DON'T), then the tool's are even more complex.

So when you add it all up, these tools require:

1. a clear naming convention for the instruments
2. a clear actionable user interface that looks simple and inviting
3. a practical orchestration knowledge
4. a practical knowledge of sound reproduction to understand tails, and other terms.

All of these design issue affect the NOW usage.

But in saying this, understand I speak for myself and no one at VSL.

PA