@noldar12 said:

Not ideal, but it certainly works.  Overall, the issue of II violins comes up from time to time, but based on VSL's responses, the creation of a II violin section seems highly unlikely.

No offense, but I think you're way off on this point. First, it's not just 'not ideal', but it isn't even as workable as people suggest. A cheat is still nothing but a cheat, and with it comes problems. Timbre and player performance, even in sections, is still something noticable. Finer ears hear problems with such 'cheating' methods.

The main reason why though, may not even be for it's uses but simply the high demand. Everyone is begging for divisi and Violin II. If VSL indeed comes out with a new string library, I can assure you that I myself would not buy it if those two requirements were not met. Most other users would probably agree. Why buy new if we already have the same 'limited' supply right now? If VSL comes out with a new library, and a divisi one at that... it most certainly will need a Violin II to please users. Not to mention, it would be highly un-competing to say 'Wow EW, nice... you have divisi and the like..... yeah, but we'll stick with our limited playback abilities'. There's no logic behind that if VSL is trying to make money at all.

-Sean

Obviously what I say means nothing because I don't work for nor have any inside knowledge of VSL, however I will say this.  There is absolutely no way you could convince me in any way that VSL hasn't already thought about what you're saying about Divisi strings.  There is just no one who could convince me that they would waste their time recording unbelievable amounts of hours of recording time with so many string players and decide to ignore the few key things they left out last time.  They like you and me learn from experiences and when have they not always come through with something that is breaking the walls down on other companies?  VE Pro first did it, then VI Pro is just astounding.  There is no other word for it, Kontakt doesn't even touch VI Pro.  Nothing I use does.  It completely brought life back into every VSL sample I own and made me much more efficient and professional sounding with minimal learning curve.  Look at MIR.  Look at the new Divisi Brass!  Is this not a clue they are listening, learning and keeping up with the times?  The problem is you're most likely not going to hear anything about them or when they will be released.  They could be ready next month, or maybe they are still "making an outline" of things they need to accomplish.  Everything is speculation at this point but don't think for one second that they will allow themselves to drop their reputation and just "stick it to their users" and let other companies take over the entire market.

So many people complain (including I myself used to) that VSL strings are so hard to make sound real and to give proper space.  I like many got so dam brain washed and obsessed with that idea that I actually started believing it.  Now a days I take a recording of a piece I love and it takes absolutely no time what so ever to get that same string sound or so close that any non-super-critical ear would believe they are the same.  Sure it took getting over the learning curve but now I can make a sound almost anyone would love from scratch within 60 seconds.  I can load some samples, change settings and add a couple effects in less then 60 seconds guarenteed that are aww inspiring in sound and great for atleast laying down a workable track that can be further worked later.

All the other libraries I own sound beautiful out of the box but are so washed in reverb that I am finding now the better I get at this, the more UNUSEFUL those samples are.  There are only so many places you can use massive string sections drowned in reverb I don't care how good they sound when you are plunking chords in realtime.  They are sloppy, slow responding and minimally useful for anything other then layering here and there.  I suppose for writing video game music they are great, but for true music they really limit you and lock you into one sound.  Just last night, I was layering a bunch of strings (not mentioning the competitors) and as I was enabling tracks and disabling tracks I finally said oh hell yes that's the stuff right there!!  I had told myself sure enough, these 3 companies go amazing together.  It was then, that I looked up and realized I had messed up and not actually had the competitors going at all.  What I had was VSL chamber blended with VSL solo strings with a pinch of orchestral just to increase the section size when increasing the velocity xfade (but only a small amount).  I played a live performance CD and my strings were so accurate with the real recording that I don't care how good you think you are, I have perfect pitch and those strings belnded so perfectly into the recording that I had to stop playing because I didn't believe my samples were working.  It was scary accurate.  Hearing the difference with their new Divisi Brass section, I can't imagine what their Divisi Strings would sound like when they are done.

I am every bit as excited as you trust me lol.  I try not to think of it because if I do, it will just create a reason to have an excuse that attempts to justify why it is I can't do something.  I can simply blame VSL for something that is already achievable, just takes a little effort.  So when are those strings coming out :P :).

Maestro2be

@cgernaey said:

They like you and me learn from experiences and when have they not always come through with something that is breaking the walls down on other companies?  VE Pro first did it, then VI Pro is just astounding.  There is no other word for it, Kontakt doesn't even touch VI Pro.  Nothing I use does.

Amen!

I initially wasn't going to reply to your post, but I just have to make a correction to some of my previous statements on other threads, concerning a point you made. I agree and disagree with the point of 'how much time it takes' to get results.

If I'm composing, I tend to get distracted if the playback isn't at least 'right enough' that it gets the idea across. This takes time and I often loose interest and let myself get unproductive. I realize that this is more about me than VSL. But I think a lot of other users get this way. I think that decent playback results out of the box help in this regard. At the same time, I don't mind fine-tuning my finished products and getting the right sound, after the fact. So in the sense that it really doesn't take long to get amazing sound, this is true when I'm going over a peice. In the composing mindset, I can't stand listening to something that is far too 'off' to ignore, and I don't want to have to take the time now just to get a semi-intended result. I want to put it down, have as close to a real player performance as possible, then move on and continue. Although this may seem too 'picky' to some, it is obviously plays into many users 'creative workflow' which can have a huge impact on the user. So I think it's important to push VSL to aiding us in the 'quick results' features (like humanize, divisi, etc) - but on the other side of the coin, it really isn't that bad in the long run. I think most of these problems come from how much work for realism it takes during workflow, as I've just said... but I'd add by saying that I think most users don't mind the work it takes to fine-tune in the end. Believable performance now, fine-tuned or 'the desired performance style and expressive qualities' later... my problem is when I have to take too much time for real performance now. I can live with the amount of time it takes to fine-tune (but of course, any time saving there is necessary also) but just to get a believable performance, should take as little time as possible.

Hopefully that made sense. Anyway, I was hoping that my 'how long would it take' question would get answered. I was trying to be as general as possible in my initial post. Does anyone know how long the Orchestral String library took from planning through editing?

-Sean

Sean, understand that I really would also like a 2nd violin section.  IMO, it is one of the rare areas where VSL is behind some of its main competitors.  My comments were made simply to indicate VSL's ongoing response, and that it likely will not happen.

lol, I worried that I came off a bit harsh. It wasn't intended. I just think that at this point, with everyone else providing what users are demanding... and with VSL having an even better track record (imo anyway) then VSL would make the biggest mistake as a company by not producing something of equal or greater value to its users. Even then, I'd even argue that VSL would be crazy if they didn't try to far exceed DVZ, Spitfire, EW, and any other decent sounding and flexible library out there.

Now that I remember, I actually saw a post from a VSL guy saying that things were in the works. It was as non-committing and non-answering as possible...other than that VSL records new samples every day and that 'things are in motion', and the topic matter was divisi. So in my eyes... and yes I might be a bit dillusional... VSL is most certainly coming out with a Divisi product, and I will most certainly be selling my soul for it! lol  (and going broke most likely, but I'd sell half of the crap I have just to buy it [:'(] as it is in every way the most crucial 'missing link' in my library right now.

-Sean

VSL has certainly spoiled everyone, and pushed virtual instruments forward a great deal. I don't think other libraries would be as good as they are if it weren't for VSL pushing the envelope and demanding the highest standard.

If they do a "dimension strings" I wonder if it will be "dimension strings 1+2" and "appassionata dimensions 1+2"? Hope so that would be good!

Being able to have true divisi in a virtual instrument is the next logical progression...

Will VSL offer any NEW & IMPROVED Strings in the near future ?

That's the 6 million $ question  [8-)] 

So far.... NOTHING [^o)]

As long as they don't record them in their famous 'Silent Stage' they will sound good !

No barn is needed [;)]. Just a lively, rich,and warm sounding room instead of the dead, poor, and cold sounding Silent Stage.

@DG said:

Seriously, the only thing that needs to be improved is the playing. Not to say that it is bad, but there needs to be vibrato control, at the very least, in order to make the libraries up to date, and less anemic sound from the Orchestral Strings.

Agreed! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the silent stage at all. It's like all of mixing. You make it dead to start, so that you have the flexibility to do whatever you want later. If people aren't getting a warm sound, then they are mixing it wrong. While other libraries might give you warm from the start... you are stuck with THAT warm and you have far less control.

What most VSL users want is more Vibrato control, more articulations, improvements on previous offerings (whether cross fade issues, legato improvements or anything else), and a more flexible library for realism. I think if VSL offered a bit of DVZ style control, it would be nice. I picture a tab next to the matrix tab, that has things like 'looser' among the divisi sections (for legato, pizz, stac, etc) so that we don't have to adjust timings on everything to get a good sound. While VSL has loose patches, it's one thing to have loose vs tight, where DVZ has complete control here. Maybe VSL won't do this, and obviously not necessarily how I've thought it out- but flexibility and realism are key. Vibrato, looseness, more options to sound like a real orchestra, etc.

I would take all of that well before a warmer sound, even if I liked that sound. I could have a sound that was 100 times better to start, but if it wasn't flexible enough that I could write notes and get that performance... what's the point? Want amazing sound? Hire an orchestra. What to compose, arrange, fill in gaps, orchestrate, and demo on a computer? That's what libraries are really all about- not replacing people, but giving us what we just don't have the resources for in every day use... all of course, imvho. [;)]

-Sean

@iscorefilm said:

I think if VSL offered a bit of DVZ style control, it would be nice. I picture a tab next to the matrix tab, that has things like 'looser' among the divisi sections (for legato, pizz, stac, etc) so that we don't have to adjust timings on everything to get a good sound. While VSL has loose patches, it's one thing to have loose vs tight, where DVZ has complete control here. Maybe VSL won't do this, and obviously not necessarily how I've thought it out- but flexibility and realism are key. Vibrato, looseness, more options to sound like a real orchestra, etc.

-Sean

Unfortunately the DVZ approach doesn't work. Recording violinists two by two does not sound like a violin section when put together. It is a nice idea, but a failure in execution. If it was possible to reverse engineer the difference between that approach and a section all recorded at the same time, it would have merit, but so far there has been no progress on this matter. Things may change in the future, as more and more modelling becomes mainstream, but I think that this is a while away.

DG 

@DG said:

Recording violinists two by two does not sound like a violin section when put together. 

DG 

As juxtaposing/doubling the same Violins I (giving them a different line, panning them) doesn't make them sound like a Violins II section (tweaking them electronically just makes them weird). I believe it's time the major companies consider putting some money together and record some musicians again. The expectations today are not the ones of 2002 or 5.

@DG said:

Things may change in the future, as more and more modelling becomes mainstream, but I think that this is a while away.

I keep saying that here and everywhere: There are only two competitive companies that really knocked my socks off so far: Sample Modeling (and Wallander Instruments). I put the last in brackets, because you have to admitt that it sounds not close to the VSL standard. But my amazement is less about the sound. It is about the usability! Being able to morph between every thinkable nuance of an instrument and use a ribbon controller for pitchbend and all sounds very natural! I just would like to get rid of this approach, where you have to program your music. I want to play it. For certain styles that works with VSL. But Sampling modelling instruments give you the ability to do you almost anything in real time. Just one Instrument loaded and a buch of faders, there you go! Not much editing needed!

This is what I dream of for VSL to become. I think it should be possible, because they already have

of these great, dry samples, MIR ... the rest is software development and ideas. I don't think the future of modelling (or hybrid, like Sample Modeling) is so far away! In my opinon, VIpro 3 just needs 3 vital features:

- a great sounding formant algorythm to make pitchbend sound real

- a convolution engine inside VIpro to morph samples (e.g.: nonVib - Vib)

- a realtime stretch engine

The compination of those would make VSL samples even more flexible ...

Of course, at some point you will be able to modell any instrument performance without using a single sample. But that is indeed something I expect in 20 years or more. In the meantime, I want to be able to play more and program less and I don't think, i will have to wait 20 years for that ...

@DG said:

Unfortunately the DVZ approach doesn't work. Recording violinists two by two does not sound like a violin section when put together.

I should clarify. I didn't mean DVZ in the sense of recording each violin, desk, and so on... but that whatever level of Divisi VSL produces... it should have some flexibility in the performance. Say you have Violin I and II both divisi and all separate performers, etc. That is at least 4 voices. Rather than have separate patches for loose and tight... one could slight a slider... and gradually split the divisi sections up into a more loose performance. A Divisi library would allow for such a simple approach, which saves time rather than having to adjust the performance on our own. As we all know, human performance means imperfection. DVZ's approach at this certainly is more effective, but the recording quality and overall sound is obviously lacking.

Think of my comment geared more at Dimension Brass. A slider to make the 4 trumpets less in time or more in time would have it's uses.. like a timing humanizer... but with Divisi strings, I think such a feature would practically be expected... at least by myself anyway.

Here's how I view the benefits of such a performance adjustment, such as how DVZ has implemented. These are the things I constantly change PER string voice... for a more human performance: Attack, Release, Start-time, and Pitch. VSL has addressed Pitch, but not the other three in an easier to control, more automated way. If I had one adjustment slider to 'stagger' the attack and release amount, and to stagger the start and release times of multiple selected instruments, this would save me a great deal of time in Cubase as it is... If I have a Divisi String library, I wouldn't just be wishing for this anymore, but would expect such a feature. I nearly expect it now... lol Otherwise, each and every last note in Cubase has to be edited VERY tidiously for all of these things to take place. While I'd expect it for Divis strings... I would love to have this now across different midi channels... whether this be a 'timings humanizer' or a slider for sections... or something.

-Sean

@Another User said:

I want to be able to play more and program less

I think that's what most of us want. I don't mind programming for style or shape of the performance, etc. I mind programming just to get what sounds like a real player played it.

-Sean

 I would just like to say that with this simple phrase " I want to be able to play more and program less" you have eloquently summed up what so many of us have been thinking for years. VSL provides the most wonderful resource, however so does Mercedes. The trick is to provide the driver who is not an engineer with a rewarding experience. Not an easy task when so many customers demand to "get under the bonnet" to tweak to their own preferences, and also resist the impulse to "dumb down" the product. Perhaps VSL really are doing all that can be done in this regard, but it would be helful if there was a sign above the door of the office saying " I want to be able to play more and program less". Point well made!

When you take away the ability to program and fix it so it can't be changed, you make it easier to use, but you also remove functionality. Sure, when there are things that can be automated but don't lose functionality, of course, that's why the VSL team keeps releasing software, to improve and expand on these functions.

In this case, VSL is not a mercedes but in reality, it's a modular, complex musical instrument in it's own right. There's nothing wrong with asking the engineers to make existing functionality easier, if that's possible, but there's going to be a limit where you can't tweak something to get a certain result anymore. Point being, for myself I would always in the case of VSL chose functionality over ease of use if there had to be a choice in any particular given example.

I remember a flight to LA, when by chance I sat next to a music developer. He said that orchestral modeling was imminent, and those with bloated, expensive sample libraries would soon be left holding obsolete gigabytes of unusable sound.  

It was 1995. 

I've bought a few now-obsolete sample libraries since then. But they were supplanted by better sample libraries like VSL. Orchestral modeling (synthesis) remains a work in progress. 

I am by no means against extensive tweakability at the cost of ease of use! It is just the philosophy some VSTi's I really digg (e.g. sample modeling). You have one patch, where everything is at you command with some controllers. Also, every aspect of articulations can be morphed via CC to another, whereever the real instrument could do just that.

In the end, only a very detailed physical modell could render all possible output of the real thing! But, until that will become possible, I would like to have access to this kind of technology. Even, if it is not yet without any limits. I share plowmans opinion, that it will still take a very long time, until we will be there (if we ever will). But that doesn't mean, we can't have something close to complete in the meantime. SM has proven that IMO. VSL could make something like that possible without even having to record a single sample more. This is what I wish for in the future in VIpro.