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 (Ã la VSL) probably requires "more work" as you say yourself.
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 [[:)]]
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 (Ã la VSL) probably requires "more work" as you say yourself.
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 [[:)]]