Interesting-- I've heard nothing but questionable reviews about the sound EXCEPT where 192k might be concerned. But sample high sample rates are one thing. They are no substitutes or shortcuts for believability.

It seems that DVZ focuses on matters of convenience and expedience more than taking virtual reality to the next level. With a sticker price of $13k for JUST the strings alone, where one might expect "better", it's fair for one to expect something at least "comparable" to the best already out there.

Ultimately, virtual instruments ought to be for the sake of the LISTENER even for as much they are designed for the sake of the user. I found myself listenening more to curves and algorithms than to musical expression on the DVZ demos. My interface tops out at 96k, but in a strange way the shortcomings seemed to be more glaring with higher sample rates.

Perhaps they just need better demos, but elements of the DVZ performance just from a listener's perspective were akin to performances already possible with string libraries in the sub $1000 price range.

Not only has VSL set the bar in quality, believability, and usability, but the same amount of money goes a lot further as well with VSL.

But, I think the attraction of DVZ will rest in its sequence-to-notation process. For those whose scores will be played by a live orchestra, perhaps the sound quality is "close enough" to get the point across-- dunno..... But until there are more demos programmed better than the current one, it may be unfair to judge the entire package based upon the efforts of one programmer.

AES and NAMM are around the corner, so it will be interesting to watch developments and to keep tabs of "the buzz" about this.

@William said:

Also, you have to buy three computers from these jokers! Are they kidding? [8-)] That will happen when hell f***ing freezes over, with me. Also, that is what now exists. What is next on the VSL agenda?

[:D] [:D] [:D]

HAhah! You f***ing Yank!

Yeah- the problem is definitely not just the way it sounds at the moment - it's also the fact you have to have 3 computers (inc. re. price) - and the computers ARE NOT EVEN MACS!!!!

There is also this issue about playing strings via a keyboard using both hands. You would need some seriously serious science to get the strings sounding right doing that - Daryl I think pointed this out on another forum recently. They haven't got that science right by any means going on the sound.

What it almost looks like to me at this point re. DVZ is that it's for writers who want it all done quickly and then printed out with a basic facsimile of string sounds for say a producer or director - and then move onto real players in a studio.

Is VSL thinking of divisi at some point?

I guess those pros with that much money to spend will buy this product although my philosophy still remains about the price- DVZ is porportedly marketed to "professionals" but pros with this kind of money or stature normally have real orchestras play their finished work and have a teams assistants thereby negating the whole need for "seamless transition between the demo stage and written score" which is what I believe the whole credo is behind this product.

I think they could have stood to re-think their target demographic. Me, I am totally happy with my 80 gig Vienna SE library. I love the performance legatos especially in the winds. Nothing touches them.

I can't for the life of me think what the purpose of this product is.


I can understand that you want a quick demo for a Producer or Director and then it gets recorded live. Do these people care about divisi? Of course not, it's just a quick demo. However, I can do a quick demo just as quickly using a JV1080, and it probably sounds better, so maybe this isn't the purpose of the product.

OK, so it is to allow easy translation to a notation program. Right so all the notes will be the correct length and no keyswitches etc. to get in the way. Well, this is already munch easier with products like VSL as the number of MIDI tracks to deal with has been shrunk.

At the moment this product is Strings only, and as Paul has already said, even though I have good keyboard skills, I certainly can't play a whole string section with two hands in real time. If I wanted cr*ppy, amateur, block chordy rubbish then I could probably busk it, but not to write anything remotely resembling music.

As the huge set-up required is for strings only, presumably the rest of my orchestra has to come from elsewhere, thus negating any perceived advantage.

No, I can see no use for this product in its current incarnation, either for high-end, low-end or even a*se-end professionals or amateurs. Oh and did I mention that it sounds worse than my GM SoundBlaster?

DG

But apart from that it's great right? [:D]

@Christian Marcussen said:

But apart from that it's great right? [:D]

I think the idea is great - but the science is just not there at all Christian. However, everyone involved in some sort of sample style music either professional or amateur has great ideas about what they would like from a sample library and a star trek interface.

I like the look of Chris Stone and I think he must be genuinely tired by now.

As an aside, he looks just like my first music teacher looked 45 years ago - and he was called Stone which is freaky and messes with my brain. [[:|]]

Just thought of a great sampling idea actually.

I would like to be able to just 'think' of the sections and they then appear in the studio as holograms. And then you just think of what style strings sound you want - say Hollywood - or Russian - or Baroque - and computers just dial that in. And then you just think the notes. And it all just happens.

But the science is not there - right?

@Another User said:

since EWQLSO does not exist next to them

I am not sure what this means. That (in your opinion, of course), EWQLSO is so far below the quality of VSL that it need not be considered? I am just trying to understand.

jeffn1

Well I was PUI and that crack about EWQLSO is an overstatement. Though I do feel there is no comparison between it and VSL.

To me the main thing that differentiates VSL is the focus on musical expression above everything else. Though the interface of Vienna Instruments has made things vastly simpler to do.

Divisi equivalent to DVZ will be possible with VSL as soon as they record two player desks and perhaps one more solo for each of the strings. I would imagine a matrix could be programmed, or a utility created, that would automatically assign the notes to smaller ensembles or solo. Though I would never use it, since I always like to control everything manually.

@Another User said:

since EWQLSO does not exist next to them

I'm sure VSL are not so arrogant to think that. Whatever the qualitative benefits of VSL over EWQLSO, EW sell bucket loads ... and those bucketloads of money thats not going to VSL. So sure they consider it.