iscorefilm,  DG is a conductor, violinist, composer and MIDI programmer whose work is as good as anything on this site.  Maybe better.  But he doesn't post it.    I have said what you are saying about a hundred times - that imperfection is needed with MIDI.  But the point DG was making (I venture to state - sorry DG) is that the imperfection on this Adagio library is going to backfire, because it is too much.  I noticed on the demos that it sounded far too out of tune on the target notes of those legato patches.  The repetitive aspect will surface if you ever have to hear that same out of tune effect.  That is where a RANDOMIZED digital lack on tuning is superior than a built-in recorded one.  For example - if you create two layered tracks that are digitally detuned, you will not be able to tell the difference between that mix and a real one out of tune.  Another example - that swell patch - it was far too regular.  Every swell was the same.  I would never end up using that supposed feature.  Totally artificial sounding and no players would ever do that so regularly except on a sample library.   

One other thing - within the VSL samples already are many very useable examples of variation, detuning and imperfection.  These are besides the VI Pro digital presets.   Just check out the lists of Appassionata, Orchestral, etc.    Incredible amount of variation has already been recorded. 

Not to say that more would be unwelcome though!    Especially something like  Dimension Strings.  If you listen to the Dimension Brass, part of the great feature on that library is the slight, very musical detuning between the individual players and the variation audible in the exact performances.  So that would presumably be a major aspect of a new, supplemental (not exclusive)  VSL string section that would allow both auto-divisi and even more variations of tuning/performance.  

@Another User said:

Not to say that more would be unwelcome though!    Especially something like  Dimension Strings.  If you listen to the Dimension Brass, part of the great feature on that library is the slight, very musical detuning between the individual players and the variation audible in the exact performances.  So that would presumably be a major aspect of a new, supplemental (not exclusive)  VSL string section that would allow both auto-divisi and even more variations of tuning/performance.  

...That is exactly what I'm hoping for. [:D] Performers adjust to each other. Strings that aren't as static as what VSL has now, but not poorly performed as other libraries are- is the ultimate goal. I can still appreciate tuning things off with humanize if people want a seriously detuned performance. But VSL could be less strictly unorganic while still performing things 'relatively perfectly in tune' (now there's an oxymoron!). I've been giving examples in my analogies that involved multiple recordings with different options... but the way you explained the Dimension concept here I think sums up exactly what I, and probably most of us, want.

-Sean

William,

I think you are quite right here:

"But the point DG was making (I venture to state - sorry DG) is that the imperfection on this Adagio library is going to backfire, because it is too much. I noticed on the demos that it sounded far too out of tune on the target notes of those legato patches."

Yes, and that is what gets quite (and each time more) annoying after three or four times listening at some Adagio demos. I don't have any orchestra recording at home of a quality orchestra that suffers from this level of tuning.

"The repetitive aspect will surface if you ever have to hear that same out of tune effect. That is where a RANDOMIZED digital lack on tuning is superior than a built-in recorded one."

Or maybe: scripted built-in one. I don't know.

For example - if you create two layered tracks that are digitally detuned, you will not be able to tell the difference between that mix and a real one out of tune. Another example - that swell patch - it was far too regular. Every swell was the same. I would never end up using that supposed feature. Totally artificial sounding and no players would ever do that so regularly except on a sample library.

I also agree here with you.

Adagio has a nice overall sound in their demos, I think, and, to be honest, for me more appealing than many VSL legato patches, but that Adagio tuning issue will be hard to solve I guess. It is the same reason why I can't or just don't dare to use LASS without layering with other products very often, if I use it anyway. But again: then I am able (and I want to be able) to manage the balance in the mix.

I sincerely hope that it is worthwhile to wait for the Dimension Strings, more flexibility and, as far as I am concerned, a better and more open basic string sound.

I just uploaded the 8DIO page on my blog with (19!!) new examples, based on the midi versions of the "swell melody" as offered by 8DIO themselves. You and/or others might find it interesting. It concerns VSL and many many others.

I am in full agreement with DG.  What scares me about what some developers call "realism" simply, is to me, very sloppy and bad playing - playing at a level that simply does not fly. 

Sometimes, it seems to me, that what people expect in terms of "realism" is a specific special effect, that has little to do with what would be regarded as normal solid technique (extreme bow attack noise being one of the most severe examples).

One of the drawbacks with samples (and I am glad VSL's samples are less forgiving) is that one can create pieces without really knowing how an instrument works.  In strings, the issue often shows up in discussions regarding portamento/bow stroke technique/legato playing.  Nevertheless, "One doesn't know, what one doesn't know," and educating/teaching about these, and similar, issues is always a good thing.

@DG said:

I also think that if I heard a live violin section playing in this "imperfect" way on one of my sessions I'd top and do a re-take.

I don't mean this as an insult, but more in humor... but have you even ever heard an orchestra!? Conducted one!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. [:D]

Sorry, but having conducted professionally for nearly 25 years, 10 of those being in full-time employment, I find your comments very funny. Not that you'd know about my background, so I don't blame you.

However, I could ask the same question of you. Have you ever conducted a professional orchestra?

DG

I heard the demos and I agree that the intended "errors" are too frequent and grinding, and I would expect such only from a 3rd rate ensemble, and not as often as with the demonstration video. I must say I did like what I heard in some instances and perhaps there is some future potential there, however they are too expensive for what they offer at the moment in my opinion. Further, I must say I haven't worked with the Humanizer of VI PRO, but from the demos it looks that it can "compensate" for that error-feature much better (I'd rather be in control as to where the error occurs in my mix).

DG, I'm glad you got a laugh. I wasn't really even questioning whether you have worked with other professionals or not, but more of just trying to say that every last performance will be imperfect in some way. Either way, it is true that I am a youngin' and my experience conducting is limited... Just remember that I wasn't being serious, lol.

I think one of my favorite musical jokes just has to be shared after that- 'The guy just can't play his instrument, so they gave him two sticks and sent him to the back. He still couldn't play, so they took one away and sent him to the front.'

Anyway, I think we've resolved the tuning dispute with William's comment and my reply. I don't think things need to sound as imperfect as Adagio to sound real, just more dimension-brass-styled organic instead of being as static as things currently are. Hopefully we'll see Dimension Strings become a reality.

-Sean

@Another User said:

Anyway, I think we've resolved the tuning dispute with William's comment and my reply. I don't think things need to sound as imperfect as Adagio to sound real, just more dimension-brass-styled organic instead of being as static as things currently are. Hopefully we'll see Dimension Strings become a reality.

If your strings really do sound static, you need to ride the CCs much more. William has already given you some solutions for getting a more out of tune sound, should you require it. My main sound is a mixture of App, Chamb and Orch strings, and within that mixture I could easily make some tuning "errors", if I thought that they would improve the performance. Mostly I use timing though, because that makes the section seem to have more life to me.

DG

DG, I combine strings and primarily use timing to offset them just slightly from each other. I also adjust the attack and release to give smoother transitions when needed. A lot of people I know don't like doing this because they think it's not 'authentic enough' but in sampling, I find that a convincing demo is more important than doing things the "right" way. I don't feel the need to have things as out of tune as Adagio, and I appreciate sampling like VSL does now to have a good performance- but if I wanted to have an imperfection, I think a sample is more convincing than using Humanize to mimic the same result.

About your re-take comment, I guess I have to take what I said back. I had this mentality that 'unless it was perfect' you'd do it again. Your toleration zone bit clarified it for me.

By "static" I only mean that VSL if played without any adjustments to it, you won't get as organic of a performance. Rather than mimicing everything with the computer- the more that can be accurately accomplished with samples, the more convincing, imo. VSL does have dynamic patches, but again- my mentality is just that 'the more organic patches the merrier', instead of mimicing via software. I think when I say this, people think I don't like VSL's current method. I would still have all the same patches VSL currently has, just with the option of using a recording in place of cc'ing, humanize, changing attacks, etc. Hopefully that clarifies things.... I think? lol

-Sean

I didn't see an answer to 'do you have VI Pro 2?' If you don't, do, before you conclude that the tools are inferior to get that human error in there. VIP 2 has ways to get out-of-tune in time, determining the error by envelopes.

& it's a learning curve. It doesn't sound to me like you are familiar.

@iscorefilm said:

By "static" I only mean that VSL if played without any adjustments to it, you won't get as organic of a performance. 

the mistake on the soundstage (by a guess?), is going to be the same mistake every time. I don't get how convincing that will be at the end of the day. if you want that to be a number of these errors by a repeat menu, that's what VIP 2 provides specifically with its humanize.

I could be reading you wrong, you may be just frustrated with that approach in VIP 2. But more saliently I doubt VSL is going to record a lot of out-of-tune performances, *guessing* what's 'more organic' for you.

@iscorefilm said:

 I combine strings and primarily use timing to offset them just slightly from each other. I also adjust the attack and release to give smoother transitions when needed. A lot of people I know don't like doing this because they think it's not 'authentic enough' 

@civilization 3 said:

frankly this is the art of sequencing, that 'adustments' bit.

That is really true - it is the whole art of changing MIDI from sheet music playback of notation,  into a natural sounding performance.  Also what you say about the recorded inaccuracies is absolutely right -  as soon as you hear them a second time, you instantly know it's the same.  Very treacherous to do that on samples.   The VSL samples have just the right amount of accuracy vs. inaccuracy.  Plus, the  humanize functions in VI Pro are really good because of how adjustable they are - from subtle to extreme. 

anopther aspect that can detract from the realism is that players of strings and winds strive towards concordance in a way that samples, being straight 12 tones, equal, don't provide. so, VSL provides a few menus of intonations. in the general, we strive towards just intonation, a 5:4 type of major third for instance. so the VI Pro interface can allow us to eat our cake and have it too, a just intonation for the next key or what-not.

Civ,

I do use VI Pro 2, and I do use the humanize features. My experience has been that a real recording of an imperfect phrase is more convincing than using humanize to recreate it. However, I do love the idea behind the humanize features. I just find the alternative more convincing. Players adjust to each other, and thus Dimension Brass was made. I think a Dimension String library would likely be a partial answer to what I was trying to get at before.

One of my biggest problems with a humanizing vs recording is that you can't effectively humanize a recording of 14 violins. For obvious reasons it doesn't work. I don't mind combining different string libraries to accomplish a slightly more convincing sound- but it still isn't as convincing as 14 violins all adjusting to eachother naturally. A Dimension string library could help this, imo. But even then, I'm still not sure how convincing it would be for me. DVZ strings are ideal for accomplishing this level of individuality between instruments, but they lack in other ways that still makes them not convincing enough. I doubt VSL will ever be 100% divisi (as I believe if I remember, this has inevitable problems???)... so with all that in mind- this is why I suggest having recordings of near-perfect performances and performances with imperfections. To me, this gives the best of both worlds.

I understand that a 'pre-recorded' imperfection may seem less convincing to some people on here because it's "the same imperfection", but this isn't a very strong argument to me. Compare this to the instances where VSL has less-than-slight timbre imperfections (especially on solo instruments). I notice them myself, but by having repetition samples users have both options, and sometimes the timbre variance is very useful for a certain phrase or moment.

I have arranged my samples to have a base articulation, then time stretch variations where applicable, then for each and every articulation or stretched alternative- I have an additional row of the same articulations but having deactivated the repetitions with a noticable timbre difference. This way my performance defaults to use the basic VSL library, but when I want a time stretch sample, I can access it- when I don't like the timbre of a specific VSL recording, I can access a different recording for that specific note. I essentially have ultimate control over my library this way. I don't see why it would be any different for pitch. If I had 10 recordings of a Viola section staccato, and 10 of a slightly less perfect performance- then I have both options in front of me. And the people who say they would notice using 'an imperfect recording more than once' aren't convincing me as the current timbre differences are already a part of the VSL library. Why doesn't that bother anyone here? If it does, you have the option of not using it. If you want a real recording of a human performance, you currently can't accomplish this with any ensemble patches.

-Sean

@iscorefilm said:

One of my biggest problems with a humanizing vs recording is that you can't effectively humanize a recording of 14 violins. For obvious reasons it doesn't work. .

"If you want a real recording of a human performance, you currently can't accomplish this with any ensemble patches"

it's already there. an ensamble patch is a real recording of human performance. Did you think they used robots? You now appear to asking for a solution for a problem you are fabricating.

You have an honest difference, that occurs on the soundstage, to work with. and are making a strange argument in favor of recording intentionally poor playing in its stead. I'll leave you to that. You have a position and a kind of ideology to support it now.