@jammusique said:

I often have to touch up each note if I go from a stacc to a detache because the loundness and consistent between different patches.

I agree, Going from Staccato to Sustain is the worst to me, especially on brass instruments. I have to fine tune the velocity crossfader every time.

The ideal would be not having to program at all so that we can focus on writing great music. This is really impossible as a conductor would still have an orchestra adjust their technique or performance to fine tune a piece, but with merely a simple statement or visual cue. If I want a powerful brass moment I would simply tell them or visual conduct it. With samples I have to take 100 times as long to program it - and that isn't even accounting for the fact that I then have to fine tune the sample performance to sound real, by having notes start at very subtly different times, by having a dynamic crossfade that is always moving just enough to be real, and so on. - and automation or easier workflow regarding those would also be amazingly time-saving.

I know this may seem like a lot to ask for from VIP but I think this is the future of sample playback. Whoever automates, or at least greatly improves these things the earliest will definately be far ahead of everyone. Humnanize as it is, currently does this very thing regarding pitch... but there are many aspects of performance and many of those, as I have outlined, influence 'realism' from samples just as much, if not well more than pitch, in my opinion. As I think that VSL is usually the latest and greatest, this kind of software paradigm is what I expect out of VSL. Hopefully we will see that sometime not too far away.  😊

-Sean

@Another User said:

EDIT: Not to forget the new "Concert Brass" (Kontakt) buy Kirk Hunter, check out the video and see how fast and easy it is to fine tune the attack on all the notes. Lots of morphing going on there behind the scenes (AFAICT). That thing makes my mouth water.

I haven't listened to an Kirk Hunter stuff since the fake violin debacle. I'm not really interested. However, attack on notes can be done with a slider in VIP. Have you tried it?

DG

@jammusique said:

I often have to touch up each note if I go from a stacc to a detache because the loundness and consistent between different patches.

I agree, Going from Staccato to Sustain is the worst to me, especially on brass instruments. I have to fine tune the velocity crossfader every time.

I don't really understand where the problem is. Of course you have to fine tune. You are creating a performance, which is not static. If you have the chops, it can all be played live, but if not, fine tuning will be necessary.

I would agree that the Brass staccatos in VSL take a lot more work to make sound good than they should, and this is probably one area where more work could be done automatically (and I have a good idea how to fix this), but I haven't heard anything better else where yet, apart from really loud out of tune demos that just mask the problem, which is not a solution.

DG 

Hi DG,

I have the feeling that we are coming from different places. I also get the feeling that you never use anything else than VSL and that you haven’t seen or heard how other libraries function (may be wrong though).

Spiccato can be played very loud on strings, and detache can also be played very sofly, it all depends on the presure or weight the player puts on the bow, how fast it is moved.

In the sample world, I want the articulation to sound the same loudness if my Vel x-fade/Expr. fader is at the same place, just like a player can do. And that is (one of the many things) I ask VIP to do for me "behind the scenes". Other samplers can do this, but VIP at present can’t (but I have strong hopes!).

Yes I can change the expression level for each and every note and I’ve gotten fast at it, but I’ve discovered that other systems would allow me to do less programming and more music making.

As for the attacks, I spent a lot of time reprogramming some samples to respond to start offsets, and of course you can fade-in attacks (sfz’s). In theory that all works, but I spend a lot of time, and the results aren’t musical enough enough for me. This is also where I would like VIP to morph between differents attack samples (in the backround) depending on where my "magic attack lever" is. That”s how sofisticated some samplers are.

Again, take a look at some of the other videos that I mentioned above, and then see if they don’t do many important things better than VIP. I think that they do, and I really hope VSL is already coming up with something as good or better. 

@Another User said:

Yes I can change the expression level for each and every note and I’ve gotten fast at it, but I’ve discovered that other systems would allow me to do less programming and more music making.

As for the attacks, I spent a lot of time reprogramming some samples to respond to start offsets, and of course you can fade-in attacks (sfz’s). In theory that all works, but I spend a lot of time, and the results aren’t musical enough enough for me. This is also where I would like VIP to morph between differents attack samples (in the backround) depending on where my "magic attack lever" is. That”s how sofisticated some samplers are.

Again, take a look at some of the other videos that I mentioned above, and then see if they don’t do many important things better than VIP. I think that they do, and I really hope VSL is already coming up with something as good or better. 

 I think that you are right about one thing. You and I have very different requirements. [;)]

DG

Hi again,

Oh well, I’m alway wrong! [:'(] And I’m talking to a self proclaimed "expert orchestrator", who hasn’t seen how other stuff works. Can’t go very far with this discussion. Spiccato always softer than a Detaché? So FF spicc isn’t possible. A PP détaché isn’t possible?  

@jammusique said:

Hi again,

Oh well, I’m alway wrong! [:'(] And I’m talking to a self proclaimed "expert orchestrator", who hasn’t seen how other stuff works. Can’t go very far with this discussion. Spiccato always softer than a Detaché? So FF spicc isn’t possible. A PP détaché isn’t possible?  

 No, I didn't say that you were always wrong. However, let me answer your points that you raise:

1. I am not a self proclaimed expert orchestrator. My credits speak for themselves.
2. You assume that I haven't seen how other companies do things. You can't know this, and it's not true, as I wrote above.
3. Actually ff spiccato is not possible in volume terms. If you play spiccato ff, it is much softer than a ff detache. Therefore to have parity with the volume of the samples would make no sense to me. Would you have flautando or sul tasto the same volume for the highest velocity level as a sfz patch?

All I'm saying is that for me (and I can only speak for myself) there are things that I would like from VIP, but I haven't seen anything elsewhere that interests me, other than the things I've already mentioned.

DG

You both crack me up! Let's all just take a big deep breath! :) - but anyway...

"Of course you have to fine tune. You are creating a performance"

This is true, whether sampling or not fine tuning is done... Forget all the specific suggestions on this thread for a second... what we are really saying is that the less fine tuning we have to do with a sampled orchestra, the more like a real orchestra it would be (workflow-wise)... which is what we want - as this means less work programming and more writing music. This is not a new request; I would even say that it should be as much of a focus as 'realism' is for the sounds. It wouldn't matter how good the sample library is, if it takes 1 year to program a piece, it wouldn't be worth it. VSL doesn't take nearly that long obviously, but it takes a much longer amount of time than what I think users want.

One other point on this that is very important. I don't think that it should all be done for me and be automatic... I simply feel it should be less work, like a real orchestra. I put PP on a page and people know what it means... I conducted a group that wasn't getting what I wanted... I simply said to the low brass, "make it sound like an elephant, stomping his way around" and they played it perfectly. This is a simple instruction. Obviously it wouldn't work for a sample library, but if there were simpler ways (presets, faders, ???) of changing the sound with less work in the fine tuning process... I think this is what we want. I think if VSL misses this concept, other companies will certainly do it eventually and I wouldn't want to see that happen. I love VSL, I expect the best from VSL, and I think that this is a main problem to approach in getting there...

"I would agree that the Brass staccatos in VSL take a lot more work to make sound good than they should, and this is probably one area where more work could be done automatically (and I have a good idea how to fix this), but I haven't heard anything better else where yet"

I can see times where that would actually be pretty useful... but in general I wouldn't want it. The only reason I can even think it could be useful is to approach the less work problem, but I don't think it's the cause... I think it would be better just to have a more intuitive and organic approach to performance, like a performance 'humanize' function. It can be turned on and off AND you can control how much affect it has.

Humanize Performance Tool - If you were to draw a melody in Cubase without using any midi cc's it would be very dead expressively, obviously. - There are times to be very unexpressive on purpose as well... but if there was a humanizer for this and I turned the 'expressive' fader up, I should be able to write a melody and have it sound somewhat decent from the start. - I realize this may seem unrealistic and that I am not wording this very well, but consider a few points...

1) Not avoiding programming, but less time doing it means more time writing and is more productive.

2) It might not seem very easy to design VIP to do this, but if it was the benefits would be monumental. People often say that EW is better out of the box, and VSL is far better but with more work to get it that way. I realize it's usually directed at the dry/wet debate... but if VSL sounded good out of the box midi programming-wise it would be an amazing thing and a great time saver. I think the humanize idea would balance the ability to adjust it and the ability to control how the tool would function.

3) Anything that would provide more accurate playback in a way that saves more time is definately a good thing. If VSL was 'human' enough that I wouldn't even need to draw in crossfader patterns in cubase, then I wouldn't be using cubase... I'd be using Sibelius.

To me the ultimate goal of a sample library would make it work in a way that sounded real and that I only had to use a simple notation tool like Sibelius to get that real sound out of. To me the humanize mentality is the way there.

Maybe this seems odd to someone used to the sample world, but how many people wanted to learn midi, cubase, etc, when they started... I wanted to compose. Even though VSL is greatest library to me, I still end up doing more work to get things to sound like a real orchestra than I'd prefer and I do more work to get the right performance out of VSL than it would take for a real orchestra... thus why I think these feature concepts are useful.

-Sean (and sorry, I know... I'm a long winded guy)

@DG said:

there are things that I would like from VIP, but I haven't seen anything elsewhere that interests me

Agreed. jammusique might have some valid points, I don't know cause I'm a VSL exclusive... I've used play once on a friends computer and I hated it. Maybe other people have more luck... but from what I've seen from other software, nothing comes even close to VIP in my opinion... I'm only recomending some way of saving time getting the 'right sound'.

-Sean

What do your creditials have to do with anything, we’re talking about wanted new features. If none of these are things that you’d like to see in VIP then why are you posting here? If you had seen the Hollywood string intro, Cinebrass video, and Kirk Hunter video, maybe you could respond directly to me, but you if you haven’t why post?

Just a little clarification:

Detaché is on the string, spiccato is off the string. Either can be very loud, or rather soft. Actually you can play detaché in PPP (maybe sulla punta) on the string, changing bow at each note (there it’s all wrist action, no or little arm movement). Spiccato (the attack coming from off the string) is impossible to play very soft if the notes are fast. If very slow, then just a little tap is possible, but still probably loader than anything on the string.

In the real world a passage making use of lots of articulation in played, and the composer writes MP (mezzo piano) and the player makes all his gestures fall under that dynamic. It’s up to the player to learn how to come out of an on the string passage, jump quickly from the 3rd to first string, and play off-the-bow attacks softly (for example) at a quick speed. Well I’d like my sampler to be able to do the same. And it envolves more than just firing off samples, that was possible 20 years ago.

SFZ is by definition a little louder ("forced"), so for me, I’d like to have those a tad loader than the other articulations at the same relative fader level.

FYI, one of the new libraries I mentioned has a feature where the level is controlled by the mod wheel, and the attacks by velocity (which morphs in a tad of an attack sample probably). Not bad !

@jammusique said:

the composer writes MP (mezzo piano) and the player makes all his gestures fall under that dynamic.

In my post I mentioned that there are times I want them all to be the same, this was my exact mentality... fyi

-Sean

@Another User said:

FYI, one of the new libraries I mentioned has a feature where the level is controlled by the mod wheel, and the attacks by velocity (which morphs in a tad of an attack sample probably). Not bad !

Yes, I do this in VIP all the time.

Anyway we're obviously not going to agree so I won't waste any more of your time by posting in this thread.

DG

I was never talking about, the sound (synthy), lack of articulations, ambience, tuning, etc of the other libraries. I was talking about their sampler features (this is a new feature sampler thread). And no, no need for multiplet tracks in HS.

Your definition of what détaché is, and what spiccato is, are samples? And you think that one is by definition louder than the other in the real world?

And you’re an "expert orchestrator"? [:S]

Can I load all samples of, say, EW Stormdrum II into one instance of Play and manipulate it via a matrix or rather set of matrices of my choosing, as with VI/VIP? If not, which seems to be my early experience, then Play blows. I'm not running 17 instances of the same sampler to make one small collection play, regardless of what else it may offer. If I had to load more than one instance of my Vi section, or Vi2 section, I'd feel the same way.

I love VI/VIP. Maybe the lack of human you speak of is more about being a human and writing, rather than relying on software to make it human. I only want playability. I'd never ask for more. You find it a nuisance to adjust between two notes? Have you ever played an instrument? That is often a huge journey, to make it repeatable, especially live. I don't want 128 tracks for 32 instruments. The rest is up to me. If you need to do it in software in the first place, you can't preach, that's how I see it. The rest, write it and let someone else deal with it, if someone ever buys it, if that's your goal. I'd rather write music, slowly, till it's me and I like it, without the constraints of someone's programming. If that wasn't true, I'd have bought EW for orchestral things, much cheaper if you don't mind sounding like Joe Blow, and then I'd be complaining about how crappy Play is; maybe it's good, but it's certainly not intuitive, which VSL software is. Who needs behind the scenes when everything is in front of you?

@Another User said:

Who needs behind the scenes when everything is in front of you?

You're right... lets get rid of the current humanize feature also... I mean, technically it's already "in front of you" isn't it? Use a pitch wheel or go into cubase and draw every last little pitch imprefection on every track using pitch bend because that would just save loads of time. My point is valid. My suggestions are valid. You may disagree with them, and you might not find them neccesary... but that doens't negate in any way that there are those who would benefit from them. This thread was to suggest a feature. If you have a better idea, I'd be happy to listen, but just because you don't like someone elses, which certainly wouldn't affect your current paradigm or workflow... I see nothing constructive in what you said. Perhaps I'm wrong, please enlighten me. [:D]

-Sean

No, you're right, I said nothing constructive. I shouldn't have posted. I occasionally get caught up in the negativity, and open my mouth when I shouldn't. I've read so many posts lately that are anti-everything, pro-everything, and I don't just mean here.

I'm willing to spend as long as it takes to get a note to sound how I want, but I realize that's just my way of trying to do things. Some people don't have that luxury. And I just spent the farm to try and do just that, so I'm very excited, and nervous, and frankly a bit touchy LOL. Will feel much better when I figure all this gear out:)

And my comment about people playing real instruments was obviously off. Many of you are certainly better performers than I'll ever be, and the fact that I only play guitar with any kind of competency, well...

But that sort of makes me realize why I said some of these things in the first place. I very often, just jamming for example, will play my guitar into an audio track (the real guitar) and double it (via my GI-20 midi thingie) with a sample. They are NEVER even close, the sample is dead compared to the live instrument. But do I want a few people who think 'this is how to fix it' solving all of my transitions for me? No, I can't imagine that.

I think you have valid points especially for someone who is making a living at it, is time-bound etc., but for the most part I can't - personally- see myself ever wanting things to get too, too automatic. 

Case in point: VST Expression, after trying to wrap my head around it for a couple of weeks, loading VSL's templates etc., and finally seeing how it works, I came to the conclusion that: why bother? I had no problem with VI (before I bought Pro) using 4-5 lanes in Cubase because it was touchable: go into VI, choose your controller, and spend every second in a song paying attention to the details. I'm not saying VST Expression isn't touchable, but unless you want to spend WAAAY too much time writing code, lanes are easier, and they are visual/tactile, giving me much more control. But ask me how I feel if I ever start writing in the Scoring pane, I'll probably deny all this lol!

Less auto-button pushing, more listening, more decision making. Slower? A lot. But I don't ever think I'll be trying to get my music into movies...

Sorry again, I came on half-caulked last night. My mistake.

And FWIW I love the humanize feature in VIP. It allows my samples to play as out of tune as I do in real life:)

Shawn

Oh I was a smart-alec in my reply so it's all good.

I guess I need to re-word one point. I definately don't want automatic performance in one way and I do in another. The humanize timing idea I mentioned would certainly be automatic. Although I think it's not absolutely essential, just like the current humanize, but that it certain would help in realism without manually adjusting all the start times of each pitch...

The thing I don't want automatic is fine-tuning, which I think people misunderstood. I want a very specific sound out of "my orchestra" so I fine tune and I will also take as long as it needs. Any artificial 'clues' revealing the use of samples, I try to get rid of as much as I can... All I meant was that DURING the fine tuning process I would like features that will save as much time and work as possible in getting to that fine-tuned 'right sound'. I doubt anyone would disagree with that, I simply didn't word it well. How to save the amount of fine-tuning time it takes... I am not sure. I gave the crossfade idea, but ultimately just for the goal I just mentioned. I really want fine-tuning time savers more than anything but without diminishing the level of control I have over VSL.

-Sean

Well I’m not sure this is relative to VIP or relative to each individual library, and how the individual samples are edited.

I loaded up some Appassionata violins and alternated between different patches all playing the note E4, and noted the levels in db(RMS and Peak in a Logic Multimeter). 1st at Velocity X-fade 20, then at 110. Patches used are

1 Sus Vib Strong

2 Perf Legato 4 velocities

3 Stacc

4 détaché

5 Pizz.

6 Trem

Vel X-fade 20

1 (sus) -22db

2 (leg) -17db

3 (stacc) -17b

4 -19

5 -25

6 -20

Vel X-fade 110

1 -25db

2 -26

3 -15

4 -24

5 -28

At Vel X-fade 110, when I go from 2 short notes (stacc then detache) the second is 9 db louder. I really can’t believe my ears. This really isn’t acceptable (or am I missing something?). That’s why I’m having to insert automation data note by note. And going from Sus to Legato at low level (Vel X-fade 20) there’s a huge jump, while at Vel 
X-fade 110 it was smooth. Why haven’t all patches at corresponding velocity layers been brought to the same levels?

Let’s forget the pizz and Sfz, but shouldn’t sus, legato, stacc, detache, trem, trill, have very close levels, allowing us to just draw in a bit of phrasing with the Exp-VelXfad faders, and the rest just sounding musically correct?

Can someone from VSL please chime in and maybe tell me where I’m going wrong, or maybe what could be done? [B]

I did some tests yesterday with the Fl. 1. In the mixer I was lowering the sus by 3 db. In some circumstances that can help, but didn’t find any consistent settings that would lessen the need to automate. And since each patch contains 2-4 samples (that we have no access to), there’s not much we can do.

I know that there a tens of thousands of samples that would need to be reedited, but there are programs that should be able to automatically do that.