@Martinz said:

I think that's the most important update for VSL right now. The strings samples are great, but I think they sometimes lack the depth that live recordings have. It's sometimes sounds too perfect. With dimension strings you could change just with a slider how amateurish the string players are playing together by using the humanize functions in VI PRO for each individual player. And there would be no need for chamber strings or solo strings - just add as many players you need. I'd pay a lot for a library like that. 

And if VSL will find a method to handle velocity xfade for each player without "xfading" (so that there are not 2 samples played simultaneously) there would be hard for other string libraries to compete for long. I have no idea how it could be made, but the limitation is disturbing every time I want any kind of crescendo/diminuendo with legato patches.

It would be a huge amount of samples… If it's the size of 1 solo strings instrument per player and there are a maximum of 16 violin I, 14 violin II, 12 violas, 10 cellis, 8 double basses, it would require like 900 gb on your HD. How much ram is that?

The biggest problem with that is that it's already been tried by Audio Impressions. That pretty much proved that 16x1 players sounds nothing like 16 players all playing at the same time.

DG

Ah, didn't know about those. But I know for sure that it cannot be made with the same player. I have tried myself to record a string passage with just one violin player dubbed 10 times… it sounds wrong.

If you combine the power of MIR and dimension strings with unique players (with their personal way of playing and instrument sound), I can't see how it wouldn't be the best virtual strings ever.

Martinz, perhaps the biggest problem is that 16 individual players, even if layered, do not at all have the same dynamic as a string section sound.  In a section, not only do you have the minor differences between the players, which probably could be simulated, but more importantly, the interaction between the players, as each player adjusts to what the other is doing - not to mention more specifically following the directions of the section leader (In general, the section leader has the final say in determining the bowings and fingerings that the members of the section will follow).  It is that dynamic interaction between the players as notes are played that individual layering cannot simulate.

Then, one gets into the problem of the number of MIDI tracks that would have to be created, worked with, etc.  Both brass and woodwind sections are much smaller, and therefore easier to deal with than the far larger string sections.  I would almost wonder if a Dimension Woodwinds would precede a Dimension Strings for that very reason.

 Well, Herb explained that with orchestral woodwinds there is not so much of an issue of needing the Dimension approach.  I agree with that.  YOu can hear it with for example, the flutes.  You can use the two  flutes together on a line, or on seperate notes freely.  There is not the kind of resonance and chorusing with woodwinds - UNLESS you are talking about a symphonic band - as there is with brass and strings.

Yep, there's certainly no need for Dimension Woodwinds, but I would love a Bb clarinet 2. We've got two flutes, two bassoons, and can manage oboes with all the different types available, but a second clarinet would be really nice.

I agree with that about clarinet since two are standard in orchestra and it would be nice to have a distinct, different 2nd player which is what you have with the 2nd flute which is a wonderful, subtly different performance in the samples.  What I've been doing on 2nd clarinet - which you probably already do also - is either a pitch shift/transposition or using the ensemble clarinets as a second.  That latter actually works very well, giving a richness to the sound, even though it is somewhat weird from a strict realism standpoint.

I would look forward to a second Bb clarinet too!

A 2nd Bb (or A) clarinet,  and C trumpet straight mute, would be additions to the library that I would be most happy with.

VSL hasn't released anything new since dimension brass and reported to still record new samples every day. That means there must be something big coming and I guess it will arrive this year (maybe this summer?)!

IMO the future of any sample library lies in hitting the right spot between the greatest flexibility of sample modeling instruments and the unmatched instant sound of e.g. East West Holywood series. I think it would be bad if they changed their route to recording in a different room, hence, they must do something to move towards (physical) modeling, as they already have the MIR-approach for putting it in a room, Dimension Strings would be very welcome, but I would only invest in a new major VSL product, if there would be more features in handling these samples, like better X-fade (as  earlier mentioned), natural sounding pitchbends, etc.

@Martinz said:

 

And if VSL will find a method to handle velocity xfade for each player without "xfading" (so that there are not 2 samples played simultaneously) there would be hard for other string libraries to compete for long.  

That is a physical impossibilty,  crossfading is the term that describes crossfading between two samples,  unless you have two samples playing at once you can't crossfade.

Velocity switching of samples  is still probably the only answer, but it's a case of how many samples are needed to make a velocity switch smooth enough to sound convincingly real, and taking into account all the permutations needed and  enough samples for smoothness - probably too many samples to ever come up with a solution.

Unless of course this is what VSL are working on..........

This assumption that crossfading is always bad is wrong.  There is no audible difference between crossfading and actual recorded dynamic changes with a string ensemble.  In fact, you could be fooled in a blind test.  I know this because of one simple reason - I have used, one note after the other, crossfaded ensemble and actual recorded dynamic ensemble articulations, and you simply cannot hear any difference.  EVen listening for it solo, let alone in an orchestral context.   The only problem arises when there are not enough velocity layers to crossfade with.  Of course if you only have two, it won't sound good.   But the VSL samples generally use 4, and they are very smooth. 

The only reason to avoid crossfade - even though there seems to be some attempt these days to make it seem "uncool to crossfade" - is on solo instruments - especially smooth sounding, non vibrato ones like a trombone or a clarinet - in which the phasing becomes obvious as the layers overlap. 

@markbatuer said:

Finally the Dimension Strings comes. It's fantastic. But only 8 players maximum. It would be very lovely if more players were recorded.

I don't want to be negative about the library we have been waiting  such a long time for,  but I agree that 8 violin players is a little thin on the ground, and what do we do for a second violin section ? 

Surely this is enough. If you want 2nd violins or 16 players you add a second VI and vary the articulations and humanization. For my project I want 48 violins sometimes divided into 2 x 24, 4 x 12, 8 x six and 16 x three and this seems to be the perfect answer as I can have as many VIs as I want with slightly different settings. I'm more concerned about the lack of muted samples and the lack of unlimited glissando control.