You guys are thinking too much. I understand the wish to save time, but you've been using VSL libraries successfully for many years (I suspect), with these 'transition' faults, without batting an eye, until it became a forum topic. If it was a real issue it would have been addressed a long time ago by VSL. It's an affectation, not an issue. No one but those who listen on a microscopic level hear this, I'm sure. Who do you want to please? The people who listen, or the people who play? If listeners, it's a non-issue; if players, well, that's your ego talking. If yourself, learn to dumb it down like has always been the case.

I am speaking grossly of course, maybe some patches need reworking, but in general, no one hears these slight differences, except the musician who wrote the piece; so move on and think in 8 bit for your listeners.

Shawn

@jammusique said:

I’ll probably need all the possible dynamic extremes

That's just the point though... if an oboist can play a staccato note louder than a sustain... then having a full dynamic range would not allow for a consistant volume level between patches. - One thing I haven't played with is the x-fade on/off option. I would certainly be easier than crossfades in certain instances... but there are still plenty of times where I need cross fading on and I still run into the problem... so it would still be nice to have it addressed.

To VSL (or anyone):

This thread has consisted of two issues, 1) the volume consistancy bit, which has been addressed and 2) the crossfade bit about limiting the amount of work it takes to fine-tune to get a good result... which hasn't properly been addressed. I'm not trying to diminish the first point, but I created the thread entirely for the second point. Please, any answers, feature posibilities, suggestions for users?

Thanks,

-Sean

@Hicks said:

my main concern is the phase on velocity crossfading!

I'm glad you mentioned this. I've been writing and noticing it, then thinking to post that on this thread... but I kept forgetting. I agree completely! Phasing is definitely a concern I have and the solo violin was the exact example I was using a few hours ago.

Could a 'crossfade humanize' feature be possible? Something to automate the imperfections that a real player has... the reason I mention this is because VSL's samples are recorded as plain and even as possible. I certainly get why, there is a need for it in many ways... but it's also in every way inhuman. I still want the ability to fine tune, but the current humanize feature for pitch imperfections allows for both fine tuning and a degree of automatic 'humanization'. Having a similar feature for crossfading, making things more human rather than very flat dynamically in my opinion would be an essential feature.

In the meantime, I agree... VSL still has the best samples available...

-Sean

@Hicks said:

But my main concern is the phase on velocity crossfading! It has been created while ago and since it seems that time haas changed and a lot of improvement have been found. Would it be possible to change the velocity crossfading to try to avoid the most the phase and the "multi" instrument effect (ie when using solo violin and riding the xfading and hearing two violins because samples are layering). Regards

This is a very real concern and I would hope that VSL is actively working on solving it. Phase aligning such a huge sample set is a really daunting task, so i would settle for just the legato and sustain samples. However, this would not suit the people who like to do all dynamic control with a continuous controller. This has always seemed counter-intuitive to me, as "one-shot" samples are perfectly suited to velocity control, but would those people be prepared to accept a compromise?

AFAIK the only sample library developer that allows you to cross-fade on solo instruments without phasing is Samplemodeling, and that is not really a sample library. I would imagine that phase aligning a few MB of samples takes far less time than a few hundred GB. [;)]

DG

@iscorefilm said:

 

Could a 'crossfade humanize' feature be possible? Something to automate the imperfections that a real player has... the reason I mention this is because VSL's samples are recorded as plain and even as possible. I certainly get why, there is a need for it in many ways... but it's also in every way inhuman. I still want the ability to fine tune, but the current humanize feature for pitch imperfections allows for both fine tuning and a degree of automatic 'humanization'. Having a similar feature for crossfading, making things more human rather than very flat dynamically in my opinion would be an essential feature.

I think that for large ensemble patches this is not really necessary, as those imperfections are ironed out when you have many players playing together in the same patch. However, it is useful to have some human element for solo instruments, and I would recommend getting a breath controller so that you can play the expression live. I know some people use a control surface, or even an expression pedal, but particularly for Woodwind and Brass instruments, I wouldn't be without my BC.

DG

I definitely agree with the request for matrixes where the levels of the various articulations are matched.  I see the reasoning behind doing it the other way but that's much less useful for me - if I'm playing a phrase that mixes different lengths of notes, I want to be able to just play the phrase in and have the dynamics reflect how I'm playing it in, not jump all over the place every time I switch articulations.  Seems like the best solution would be to improve the patches as opposed to adding more interface functionality for each user to try and fix it themself.

If there are users who like it the other way, then what about having some sort of switch in the interface?  Or providing two sets of matrixes?

The inconsistent transitions between dynamic layers are an important issue as well, thankfully I have only noticed problems a few times with the VSL libraries.

@DG said:

I would recommend getting a breath controller so that you can play the expression live.

I have one last question for you then. My sole goal is to save time... I often get distracted from writing, specifically 'moving forward' with a piece cause I spend so long working on the getting the beginning sounding right. I'm OCD and if it doesn't sound right I just don't want to move on.

would using a breath controller be faster (more accurate) than using a fader or mod wheel? Because I'm used to drawing in this expression, I do very fine-tuned 'crossfade drawings', so to speak, so I want to know basically if the BC will be better at that than faders, knobs, etc. While those seem faster, they don't allow me to fine-tune quite as accurately.. thus my question.

Thanks,

-Sean

@mike connelly said:

 Seems like the best solution would be to improve the patches as opposed to adding more interface functionality for each user to try and fix it themself.

I disagree. Herb outlined the perfect reason to have different volume levels, because if you want an instrument to be as 'real' as possible, with all the dynamic range it can.. certain samples will have more range than others... making this problem inevitible. Changing the samples wouldn't be an improvement, it would take away true functionality. I think this has a very simple sollution... a button (possibly linked to a midi cc) that turns on volume leveling between patches or turns it off... just like the vel x-fade on/off feature.

This pretty much would solve this problem for everyone, without having to make it tidious to users to make mass template changes, tedious mixer settings, etc...

-Sean

@DG said:

I would recommend getting a breath controller so that you can play the expression live.

I have one last question for you then. My sole goal is to save time... I often get distracted from writing, specifically 'moving forward' with a piece cause I spend so long working on the getting the beginning sounding right. I'm OCD and if it doesn't sound right I just don't want to move on.

would using a breath controller be faster (more accurate) than using a fader or mod wheel? Because I'm used to drawing in this expression, I do very fine-tuned 'crossfade drawings', so to speak, so I want to know basically if the BC will be better at that than faders, knobs, etc. While those seem faster, they don't allow me to fine-tune quite as accurately.. thus my question.

Thanks,

-Sean

 I have two suggestions for you:

1. Actually write the music. Don't go straight to programming. It may sound a long way round, but I find it is quicker to do a rough pencil sketch, type a score, then program. That way the creative bit is done fast and the rest is the performance. They are two different things. If I'm writing using a lot of synths, then might do a very rough string demo before doing it properly, but for orchestral stuff it is much slower for me to program with no printed score.
2. Depending on how you set the BC up it could well be quicker and more musical. I play all my Ww/Br legato lines in using the BC and then, if necessary, edit the BC CC data. I've never tried using BC or even xFade on short dynamics, as it doesn't seem natural to me.

DG

@iscorefilm said:

I disagree. Herb outlined the perfect reason to have different volume levels, because if you want an instrument to be as 'real' as possible, with all the dynamic range it can.. certain samples will have more range than others... making this problem inevitible. Changing the samples wouldn't be an improvement, it would take away true functionality. I think this has a very simple sollution... a button (possibly linked to a midi cc) that turns on volume leveling between patches or turns it off... just like the vel x-fade on/off feature.

That's exactly what I suggested, so I guess you agree with me after all.  There's an argument to be made for both ways of doing it - since different users will want it either of the two ways, the best solution is to provide the option to have the patches behave either way.

lol, well maybe I do... it just seemed like you wanted to change the patches themselves, not with VI Pro but the files... which to me wouldn't have solved it for both sides. But I think the button idea is great, I don't know if VSL would consider it... but I think it wouldn't be hard to implement and would solve this issue.

-Sean

I did try playing with setting expression and Vel X-fade to the same CC, and don’t remember thinking that it worked, but will try again adding also the dynamic range into the equation.

I doubt that VSL would go back and change levels on patches, but continue to think that some behind the scene correction might be possible. Like the "button" mentioned above, maybe an "automatic" (that’s the tricky part) gain adapter with a fader to either let different levels pass (like when you want a sfz), and when you want smooth levels.

I don’t understand anything about phasing and related subjects, but also think that the future for these VSL libraries, would be a VIP (3.0?) that would go beyond simple patch playing, but rather morphing (whatever that means) between various base patches to achieve the sound (definable though automation). I’m thinking along the lines of some advances of the libraries that I mentioned earlier.

I believe I suggested a morph feature toggle button for the velo X fade for VI Pro 1.0. Something similiar to Kontakt. I quite certain that something like that would improve drastically the blend between the layers.

Also I'm still hoping for a fix for some legato instruments. I mean, imho I feel that arranging for appasionata strings takes far less time to get the legatos sounding smooth than the orchestral strings, for instance. In fact I use them much more often. I don't know, perhaps these fixes have to be done to the libraries themselves rather than the player.

I am actually now using Orchestral, Chamber, and Solo to achieve the sound I want... even smoother legatos... better raw sound that is dynamic and only enough 'raw' comes through when I want it, etc. Cross fading now takes me 3 times the amount of time as before... because now that I have discovered this wonderful way that I should have been doing from the start... everything takes loads longer. :(

But good results are worth it!

-Sean

Have you tried just doubling the midi track (from the orchestra strings ) for a seperate chamber & also solo track? That can work well. I’ve found that I have to push back the Chamber, and even more so the Solos (less dry signal, more verb signal) to make them blend well.

You may already be a knowledgeable eq’er, but I’ve recently found that cutting about 4db at around 5200mhz can do wonders for VSL strings. At bit less proximity and less bow sound !!

WOW- again WOW.. I'm an idiot!

I didn't even think to double the midi track... there is a very small drawback there... but the time it would save would be worth it. I usually push back the chamber and the solos a bit more also... but not 'pushing back' in the verb... Half the time I want that bow sound brought out more... half the time I don't... It  depends on what it's for really. But I usually use the master fader, adjust volume, and adjust a little bit of dry/wet to get the sound. Honestly, I typically play with it until it sounds right... lol

I am knoledgeable enough to know ABOUT the point of cutting out certain frequencies, etc... and I do it from time to achieve better sound.. but I haven't read enough on it or played with it enough to feel compitent. I've been wanting to learn more eq for a better mix. The only tips I've seen really are compression in some cases (or some people say all cases) - cutting out or boosting certain frequencies with eq - and some reverb stuff lately. I feel I almost have it... but that I'm still missing something, some last thing to make samples shine! [:D]

-Sean 

-Have you tried just doubling the midi track (from the orchestra strings ) for a seperate chamber & also solo track?

This may be newb to you, but: A book I'm reading suggests, or rather often says, to take a doubled instrument, use midi to transpose it one semitone, then take that track and move it down one semitone, note-wise. It apparently forces a new sample so that you're always playing different 'instruments' if you have say Vi1 and Vi2 tracks.

Such would load the same number of samples (the full violins for example) but each track would sound slightly different, that's the theory anyways:)

Yeah, Beat K. has mentioned it on here and his tutorial site also. I actually don't prefer it though. To me, it's a lot of work to get a result that leaves my library 'handicaped' as it isn't the 'normal setup' (if that makes any sense). I don't want to take the time to explain that more, lol

I actually use other methods which again won't be wise to detail on here (long explanation) but I add the chamber and solo vi's to it so that it will sound right.

Of course, a nicefull featured divisi string library... cough cough... might solve this ... cough cough... problem. Wink wink, nudge nudge. [:D]

-Sean