Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

184,842 users have contributed to 42,370 threads and 255,389 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 8 new post(s) and 62 new user(s).

  • velocity x-fade and expression CC

    Hello there. I would like to ask you if it's a good idea to have assigned Expression CC and Velocity X-fade to the same CC? Then I can achieve variable timbre depending on the loudness of the sound and wide dynamics (from 0 to the maximum, which is not possible with only velocity x-fade). Now I have both velocity x-fade and expression assigned to one CC , so they have always the same value. Is it good way, or you can recommend other better techniques?

  • Velocity X-fade deals with instruments with the layers (and there are not typically that many), so it acts on those [numbers], where there is the actual change to the next layer. So you're relying on coincidence of the value of 'expression' felicitously corresponding with the other thing. I don't think it's a great idea, no.

  • So, what would be better? How to control x-fade i the best way?

  • I control the crossfade with the modwheel, but then I usually raise the dynamic range slider so that loud notes sound even louder and quiet notes sound even quieter.  The effect would be far too pronounced if you had Expression tied in to that--the loud notes would be full volume and then the quiet notes would be completely inaudible.

  • Frankly I think on this forum velocity cross-fade is highly overrated. It's a few layers where, instead of using velocity, you would access the layers by a controller. Now, I'm using solo instruments almost exclusively. Here I find this controller less than meaningful. I use velocity.

    A thick ensemble texture does something more pronounced in a layer crossfade. Its value lies more in long durations and a swell, IME. Per particular note-ons I think velocity suffices.

  • Combining expression and velocity cross-fade is most probably too much. As suggested, increase the DynR (=dynamic range) slider! It will give you better results. I tend to use velocity cross-fade for longer notes (legato, sustain etc.), and switch it off for short notes (staccato, spiccato...).

  • I have to disagree with Civilization, a crossfade adds an essential layer of expression when used well, especially in MIR which is brilliant at sort of washing out the effects of phasing.  With solo instruments, I can't imagine using the flute, clarinet, or solo strings without some crossfading.  There are some instruments that might suffer a bit more from crossfading like the oboe but overall it's necessary IMO.

  • Yeah, I'm not trying to wash out things, particulary a solo. I want to hear detail; we're talking about tonal changes but you want to hide behind reverb.

    I think for a solo instrument it's not only not de rigeur, it tends to be a bad idea owing to the phasing. The change in tone is availed to us through the change in velocity. I found zero necessity for it in solo instruments (it doesn't suit me, I use velocity and these two approaches disagree, it isn't useful to me), and wasted quite some time following this kind of advice in these fora.

    And again I think there is a hazard of placebo effect believing in it. I think crossfading velocity layers is indicated for, designed for long notes in ensembles. There are other tricks for solo insts, dynamics patches particularly which can be stretched/shrunk, and give the actual response as recorded, which has to be more genuine.

  • I just want to second civilization 3 on this. Much smoother sound without it and a more tightly controlled dynamic range. I have pretty much stopped using it. Use the dynamics patches.