Just to re-focus on the velocity issue...

I would be so grateful if someone from VSL could give us 'some' kind of comment on the subject.

I'm begining to wonder if this is a touchy issue and am surprised you guys haven't expressed your thoughts yet in response to my original post.

Has there been other threads on this? [*-)]

If only the 'search function' would work apropriately. Conducting searches before posting does help to avoid waisting anyone's time.

Regards

Charl

Charl, we recorded as much velocities which made sense to us, that means up to 6 different velocity layers in one certain patch. the whole range of dynamic and sonic possibilities of one instrument is covered by the pure amount of the different patches and performances. we don't believe in doing 100 different staccato velocities, although we know about their existence, because the difference from one layer to an other needs to be relevant, otherwise it's a tough job to sequence let's say for example, a pianissimo line without jumping between the different velocities all the time. if you need a transition from one dynamic step to the next smoother or whatever, you can choose our crescendo- and diminuendo layers or -repetitions. of course, that means more editing at the moment, but we are still at the beginning of a long development road.

cheers, michael hula/VSL

Thanx michi for providing some thoughts...

I understand most of your points quite well..
It hasn't been VSL's philosophy to create patches with a great many velocity layers.. simply because with all the different articulations provided by the library the user should be able to find what he needs...

Well most of the demos show that in an "orchestral" context this works pretty well - setting aside the fact that getting great results with many many different articulations (à la VSL) probably requires "more work" as you say yourself.

@Another User said:

we don't believe in doing 100 different staccato velocities

Neither do I [[:)]]

But I recently put my hands (literal french expression) on an exs 'solo violin' sample patch with 16 velocities & 4 articulations (via keyswitches). Frankly it's a wonderfull experience.
Expressiveness is beautiful. And basically I think it's gonna be for me a real quality (+ time saving) tool for making music. Of course this is no answer to every musical situation I'm going to encounter in the solo violin department. This is why my first choice was the Horizon solo strings.

You may not have believed in 'recording more velocity layers', or 'integrating more velocity layers'.But I have trouble understanding why you would want to stick to this philosophy because my experience (& I can't be the only one around) is telling me the following :

Not only do these extra velocities make a real audible difference, but also bring a greater expressive response with 'no' extra effort from the user who's playing the instrument. It is a fact that 'dynamic layers' on some solo instruments just doesn't cut it at all - simply doesn't exist.
That's why I believe many users would largely benefit from extra patches and might actually be prepared to pay for them. There are many occasions where they'd be a real time savers...

I see your point on 'sequencing difficulties' with too many layers, but let there be 'lighter' patches for those who prefer them in certain occasions. I wouldn't agree that this is an argument for not having more extensive patches...

Finally, I'm aware that in a 'global orchestral context' having patches with fewer v-layers is probably not much of a problem. But I still believe that leading solo instruments REALLY should have more velocity layers, especially if they might be used in a different context than an orchestral one, and in which there aren't as many instruments playing simultaneously.

My point is: Let me share with you 'developers' my very sincere enthousiasm 'as a user' for a feature that I believe you may have slightly overlooked, and that I'd be very keen to find in further developments of your library.

sorry for the long post
Charl [[:)]]

Live players produce a different nuance in every musical event they make even when attempting to stay in the same dynamic. That's what makes it sound real. There is no doubt that each sample in the VSL sounds real and live - it is after all a recording of a human being making a musical action each time - but as soon as the ear hears the same sample again it all sounds less real.

Michi and the VSL team seem to be suggesting that this is not all that important - after all, when the user brings in more instruments the degree of artificiality (repetition) is masked sufficiently. I would strongly disagree, if that is the position, that this is a small issue.

A 'for example': you want to start a piece with 14 violins playing staccato with a slow build in dynamics over 64 strokes of the bow. The sample 'signature' becomes exposed: even with the repetition tool. It just sounds FALSE. Brilliantly recorded samples, but not enough of them.

WE NEED MORE VARIATIONS OF THE SAME. AND I'M SURE MANY USERS WOULD PAY FOR THE EXTRA.

Most of the libraries have 8 velocities? thats BS. you're lucky if you get four. And not all of them have alternate samples. There's only one developer, I know of, that does this.

Anyhow.

Use the repetition samples for more dynamic variations and inconsistancies between note to note performance..

They offer u p to 8/9 variations of the same dynamic and the crecendo/decrecendo repetitions off multiple velocities.

When it comes to slower notes use slower repetitions, if possible. Try to layer them on top of or crossfade into other sustain samples if you need longer notes. If not, use various different articulations. Using dynamic Xfade patches will allow for alot of variations on note to note performance.

VSL is the only library out there with THE MOST OPTIONS for variations in note to note performance. It excels at this, and will probably be even better as time goes on and more features are implimented and more sampler options become available.

The problem is, you cant think of VSL patches as typical "one patch does all". Its best used as a construction kit IMO (not that it cant be used as standard "simple" playback).

Once AMP comes around I think things will be alot easier. (tho it will take time to get all scripts to work at optimum levels)

64 velocities is never gonna happen. Its incredibly difficult to get a player to even be able to differentiate that much, add that it would take forever,...plus all the inconsistancies from note to note would be MORE obvious since it would never sound like a real player playing each consecutive notes (this is one of the real problems with samples if you ask me)

a 32 note repetition crecendo and 32 note decrecendo repetition might be a way of achieving it tho. Then chop up the repetition or use release triggers.

@jrm1 said:

Live players produce a different nuance in every musical event they make even when attempting to stay in the same dynamic. That's what makes it sound real......

Michi and the VSL team seem to be suggesting that this is not all that important.....

no, jrm1. this is not our suggestion. but we had to define targets, which are possible to achieve. four years ago, people thought we are crazy, when we talked about our project, today we are facing a product which makes everybody proud being part of the team. and we are still pushing! read the second part of the last sentence from my earlier post again, you can trust in our graveness.

thank you for your input.

I agree with King's point of view. I don't think "most of the other large libraries" have eight velocity layers. Not at all.

Also I think there's some confusion on what a 'velocity layer' must do. I read about uses of the velocity layers to avoid machinization, and I fully agree. I hope this can be done somehow.

However, from here to 'Barroque oriented'... my god.

-René

The main misunderstanding is that many people think old-school: One patch = everything you have.

The crucial point is that there is actually little need to do those "fake"-dynamics on behalf of layering when there are actually _played_ variants of them. Yes, this is a new way of doing things, and no, this is not what one would be used to make with the common "String Pad", for example.

Of course, with the means and tools we have up to now, this is sometimes more demanding than the mentioned "Pad"-approach. But what you get is _real_ performances instead of faked ones. And rest assured thet we know pretty good that there will have to be new ways to play with these possibilities even more easily than right now.

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

King,

@Another User said:

The problem is, you cant think of VSL patches as typical "one patch does all". Its best used as a construction kit IMO

This is a good way of putting it.

And that's exactly the problem..

I actually happen to believe that you should be able to ALSO think of 'SOME' VSL patches as being typical "one patch does alot" patches. Thus opening the library power to different approaches for different applications, jobs, deadlines.

The samples sound great, the angle from which they can be integrated in our workflow could be multplied..

What's this "AMP" thing? Looks interesting but I have no idea what it is?

Also who's been talking about 8 velocity layers as standart practice? I missed that - not saying it isn't there just can't seem to find it easily.

Anyway, don't we all agree that '10' should be minimum requirements for any 'top notch' sample library. [8-)]

Michi what are you guys up to? Revolutionnary concepts again.. [:)]
If you plan on developing multi threaded-realtime-frozen-velocity legato, I'm afraid I've already copyrighted the idea + domain name.....

Charl

@charl said:

[...] Anyway, don't we all agree that '10' should be minimum requirements for any 'top notch' sample library. [8-)]
[...] Charl

-> http://vsl.co.at/english/pages/profile/news/sample_counter.htm - and still counting ... is anybody in for 6.000.000 samples ....? [+o(]

/Dietz

@Another User said:

if you need a transition from one dynamic step to the next smoother or whatever, you can choose our crescendo- and diminuendo layers or -repetitions.

are so typical. TYPICAL. I'd like for once to hear them say, "Yeah, we should have done that. That's a great idea."

YOU WILL NEVER HEAR THEM SAY THAT.

They will not admit to being wrong , that their library has areas needing improvement. i don't really understand how they could all be like this. All I can think is it is truly some Viennese thing, as insulting as that sounds. It just doesn't make sense, this mass egoism.

I think we should all give VSL $1 each, the day they actually admit that the library in it's current condition is in need of improvement. NOT in a NEW library with more articulations, which is AGAIN just another way of avoiding the issue and giving a work around, ... but in a genuine apology for not having delivered to many customers needs, and admitting that the library is missing things that should have been considered, and that the engineering of their software did indeed miss some very valid strengths if not an entirely different approach to a more practical library.

I mean, this library is not exactly practical. I love seeing VSL tell you "it's practical" and in the same sentence tell you that all you need to do to get repetitions to work is go to this particular thread and read the 7 pages of 40 posts on how to do it. If that's engineering than I guess I'm not a rocket scientist.

Sorry if it's hurts fellow VSL users, but I will not stand by and let them get off the hook so easily. Playing devil's advocate might not be nice for the opposing party, but it can actually be a very effective means towards innovation and improvement. i think listening to customers criticisms, and providing reassurance that the customer is onto something that VSL would consider and is something that VSL had not thought of is a powerful business tactic that the VSL crew do not seem to like very much. Instead, they like to say, "the library is amazing","this is the ultimate library","a great deal of money was spent on this library","the musicianship of this library far exceeds that by others in comparisons".

You know I remember this attitude from when I used to deal directly with the developers of the notation software, SIBELIUS. i would say, could you please implement harp pedalings? The twin brothers in private meetings with me and other Hollywood heavyweights, would answer, "you just draw them with the line tool." Can you believe that? I have multiple instances of them trying to convince us that a work-around was gonna make us happy. That kind of customer relation is useless. What would have made me happy is them saying, "That's a great idea .. we will add that to our suggestion list, and perhaps implement it in the near future." Workarounds are silly excuses.

A real leader admits fault. Every CEO knows that (except one in Vienna I guess).

Evan Evans

@jrm1 said:

Michi and the VSL team seem to be suggesting that this is not all that important - after all, when the user brings in more instruments the degree of artificiality (repetition) is masked sufficiently. I would strongly disagree, if that is the position, that this is a small issue. ... WE NEED MORE VARIATIONS OF THE SAME. AND I'M SURE MANY USERS WOULD PAY FOR THE EXTRA.

I, OF COURSE, agree with this and second it, including the bold yelling.

[:)]

Evan Evans

@Another User said:

This is a good way of putting it.

And that's exactly the problem..

I actually happen to believe that you should be able to ALSO think of 'SOME' VSL patches as being typical "one patch does alot" patches. Thus opening the library power to different approaches for different applications, jobs, deadlines.

Are you getting the same clues that I am Charl about how they treat their customers with work arounds instead of listening and saying thank you?

8 Velocity layers is the start. 10 would be the mark of a great library.

They've got the room, the business plan, the musicians. What's the big deal? It;s not like they have to spend much more money. and as mentioned above, I would certainly pay MORE for MORE. unfortunately I was dissappointed that the $8K to $12K I spent was for as meager of a library as it was. But I suppose if it's worth it, we pay for it. That doesn't mean we are happy about it.

Evan Evans

But let's get back to the actual title of this thread shall we?

WILL THERE BE MORE VELOCITY LAYERS IN THE SYMPHONIC CUBE?

I understand if you can't comment on that at this time. That is a sound business tactic that I agree with. But who knows, the VSL team has shown incredible graciousness in the past with giving information to their customers/users.

So what's the word VSL?

[:)]

Evan Evans

evan, i'd ask you kindly not to post anything for - hmm, let's say three months.
thanks for your contribution so far, others might follow.
kind regards, christian

btw: i'm sure you understand the inscription *i am root* - edit: and please don't ask me to explain it!

@evanevans said:

8 Velocity layers is the start. 10 would be the mark of a great library.

Evan Evans

Evan,

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but this just isn't necessary. You often mention that you're working in the real world - well in the real world the dynamic range you can ask from a player is normally from ppp - fff. I make that 8 velocities. The truth is (and I know you must know this because you work with live muscians) that there is very little audible difference between ppp & pp, and ff & fff. So that would require even less.
The Debussy La Mer mock-up was created using VSL samples that have no more than 2 velocities per instrument. Not once did I receive the criticism that the dynamic range was lacking (maybe you disagree?). When you consider how many samples have been/are being recorded, it's a little naive to think that VSL would listen to every suggestion and respond accordingly.

I think constructive criticism is healthy, but we also need to recognise that VSL have achieved a massive leap in realism, and in the most part the technolgy isn't sufficiently up to supporting it fully. I'm happy to have the Perf-leg & RepetitionTools with only limited velocities as they're really working for me and (more importantly) helping to feed my family.

Andy.

p.s. I understand if you feel unable to reply.

Wow,

another Evan mega-post (you can't resist can you?) [[:)]]


I just want to say a couple of things..

My idea in this thread is to create à discussion, à friendly constructive discussion on certan aspects of the Library. I frankly apreciate the fact you express your opinion & insight on the velocity issue but I don't feel the tone of your post, Evan, is helping me out.
I really apreciate having answers from the VSL folks (even if they don't always match my expectations - but this is just fine with me) and I just cannot imagine how they'll enjoy participating in a thread that's blatently becoming a personnal rant (and not particuliarly kind) about the way they handle their communication.

I'm pretty gratefull that these guys take some of their time to post, and I also understand how & why VSL has gradually become such a passionate thing for them. I like that. It shows how much of themselves they've given to the project...

I personnaly try to express my thoughts & ideas in the most positive way I can because my 'humble' experience in life has shown me that this is how you get the best of people & the best out of yourself.

I take quite a bit of time when it comes to writing my posts. English isn't my native language & I want my points to come across with max transparency.
I understand VSL folk's replies can sometimes be disappointing. I personnaly am disapointed by some parts of their replies because they decide not to comment in detail on what I consider to bethe important points. However even if I feel they're not 'textually' adressing the issues I'm raising, I respect that it's their choice not to.

Further more, the reality is that they (as insiders) have a broader picture than I on the future of the library. The best I can do is tell them "Hey listen, this is how I, as a user, feel about what could make your product better & more flexible." They'd be idiots not to listen. And I think they are actually listening.

I actually suppose (& trust) that they might have an "undisclosed" plan on how to give us the flexibility that's missing in the current VSL library.

Well that's how I understand Michi's posts anyway.
And it's my only explanation as to the fact that they're treating some of our thoughts and proposals as simply irrelevant... I accept that.

To me, my ideas & suggestions seem 99.9% relevant untill someone (or something) opens my eyes on why they're only 99.9% (This is why I posted on the forum - I really don't mind changing my mind if it's for a better understanding of a situation )

I still haven't changed my mind because they haven't convinced me yet that I was wrong. Also, they don't seem to need to convince me right now. That's no biggy, I can live with that, so can they, and we can continue having a whole bunch of other pleasurable discussions on music, vsl or whatever...

I for sure am really looking forward to discover what our VSL friends have in 'la grange'.
And if the stuff they come up with doesn't match our X-treeeeeemly high (near godlike) expectations, we will be once again confronted to nothing else but... our expecations. [8-)]

More seriously, I for one will surely continue to sypatheticly tell them what I think could still make the product better... But for a start why the hell don't they fix the 'search function' once & for all. So we don't all endlessly repeat ourselves. [[:)]]

Charl

Evan, if you have any further thoughts you'd like to share feel free to PM me.

Evan Evans' posts on this are way out of line. I want to say I totally disagree with what he is saying. specifically -

VSL apologize to users? Are you kidding? - for giving them the most revolutionary advance in the art and science of sampling yet created?

8 velocity layers are necessary - that is absurd. Of course it is always nice to have more samples, but you could create a recording with three and one with eight, and nobody could tell the difference - if you know what you are doing.

"Pompous business atittude" "Any criticism from customers becomes a "touchy" issue wih VSL. Again, it is their motus operandi."

- that is total bullshit. The VSL has showed an incredibly open and friendly attitude that responds to their customers as much as any business I ever dealt with.

"Some Viennese thing... this mass egoism" -
Not only is this prejudice, but it is total crap - there is no egoism that has been shown by the VSL at any point, only fully justified pride in having created a great product. This is a real insult and I don't feel the person who wrote this has any damned right to do this on the website paid for by the company he is attacking. Evan, you are goddammed lucky to be using what you are using, but instead whine and bitch because it isn't flawless. Guess what - nothing is. Do something better and get back to everyone here. Don't respond to me Evan, I am sick of this crap you write and I'm out of here.

make love , not war

[H]

@Carter said:

make love , not war

[H]

You want Evans to make love to CM? I'm not sure Christian would agree. [:D]