DG,

Well for starters I am very willing to apologize for my own attitude here. I have been heated, upset, and honestly completely frustrated with this thread. I do welcome diverse opinions... but conditionally. If you are contributing something productive I welcome it. Your work-around suggestions were constructive. Thank you. I have stated that they are not useful to me. More specifically, that as a matter of difinitive fact, real human beings would not perform something a certain way... for certain articulations at least. So am I being definitive, yes, but only as it applies to certain circumstances. Am I trying to suggest that this apply to all patches and that there are no exceptions to this? No. I'm only trying to say that the software should play something as a performer would. I'm not saying that all performers and all articulations play the same way. I hope that clarifies.

In any case, thanks for putting up with me. I hope this can get "added" as an option at very least.

-Sean

Sean, without meaning to sound patronising, that is your best post yet in this thread, and I understand where you're coming from, even though comparing samples with real performers is somewhat misguided, IMO, as with samples we need to do what we need to do in order to make things sound good, and sometimes it is the opposite of what a performer on a non virtual instrument would do.

Therefore have a suggestion that might suit you, should VSL choose to consider it. It could be that there is a new radio button in the VI Pro player, like the velocity xFade button, that can act as a Global "Force Start Note" switch, and a controller could switch it on and off. There could then also be control at the patch level, so that the patch is either on, off, or follows the Global setting, again like the Velocity x|Fade button. I believe that this would satisfy everyone. Thoughts?

DG

Thanks... personally, I prefer most just to have disabling it for a patch, but I can also see why the global option similar to x-fade settings is a nice touch for people's unique setups. On a side note: other libraries have been adding faders for legato transitions to control volume. That hasn't been that important to me, but with how much control VSL has enabled for users it would be a nice touch as well. Technically, even that alone could solve my issue if it could be controlled via CC. I'd still prefer the patch option so I would have less to do, but either option (or more options in this area) sounds good.

-Sean

I would think that controlling the volume of legato transitions is easier when they are bolted on separately, but as VSL records most of theirs as part of the articulation I guess that they would have to define how long the actual transition lasts. Maybe there could be a way to draw volume changes in, as there is with the Stretch feature.

DG

The annoying thing about this is my statement that the legatos are made up of sustains followed by legato transitions was ignored.  THE LEGATOS ARE THE SAME SAMPLES AS SUSTAINS on the start note.  Think about what that means for about three seconds.   Iif you get this "feature" - you will get EXACTLY WHAT YOU NOW HAVE by using one sustain note in front of legato.  Guess what - it is the same number of steps to record.  You have to either put in two extra keyswitches, or two controllers values to shut off legato then turn it back on.    So it is totally pointless. 

Now you can go on with your zingers and smart responses - I am out of here . Trying to help people whose goal is to be as rude, sarcastic and irritating as they can be is not my cup of tea.

William,

Asking VSL to add functionality that most libraries have doublefold isn't an attempt to be irritating. Not accepting your work arounds, which create multiple other problems for me, is not an attempt to be irritating. I am simply trying to address my own needs. I'm sorry I offended you. I did the adult thing and apologized and moved forward. I hope we can all promote that level of respect.

I don't own the entire VSL library so I cannot be sure of the results you've observed. But in my Cubase session which is currently running, I get a different result. The Sustain patch and Legato patch are different recordings. I tried every combination of start notes, repetition notes, etc. Nothing matches. The patches are very noticeabely different. Furthermore, when playing the exact same passage, but switching from Staccato to Sustain, I get an unusual blare. With a full x-fade, the sustain patch has considerably more blare than the legato patch. Adjusting the cross fade and volume to compensate produce undesireable results. In any case, it takes me more work and the result is not satisfactory or consistent.

-Sean

O.K., I am sorry also to be irritable.   I simply was trying to point out that the insertion of a sustain is essentially the same thing and also allows you to use other patches to link to a legato transition.  But I understand what you are saying. 

I think I have noticed what you are talking about - there are some inconsistencies between different "types" of samples - for example, staccato tends to be a bit more extreme in dynamics.  Also, the legato patches, depending on which version you are using, may have fewer layers so you are right that it may not match.   I am speaking only about the full extended versions of the libraries, but I basically have found doing switches from crossfade to note-on velocity is a way to deal with this.  In fact, doing instantaneous switches between crossfade and note-on allows all kinds of effects - such as the forte-piano-crescendo - which is a dynamic orchestral effect that I always use but does not exist in the dynamic patches. 

@DG said:

... change the legato threshold...

Will anyone please carify how to change the legato threshold? I don't find the word "threshold" when I search the VI manual. Thank you.

BachRules,

The volume of the legato transitions cannot be adjusted in VI or VI Pro. It would be nice and that relates to our discussion, but I would say that most VSL features make up for it very nicely :)

-Sean

@Another User said:

I would say that most VSL features make up for it very nicely :)

I understand that part of your position. I see room for improvement in some areas, mostly documentation, but I know of no other company putting out better samples or better software overall, and I have a bunch of libraries from different companies here.

Hey everyone, BachRules just joined in the debate. Get him!! lol

I actually think I missed the point before. You can change the timing threshold for start samples in Vi Pro... meaning, the time it takes before the first sample in a RR series is triggered again. That's what he was talking about before based on the context of our conversation. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that's what he referred to as I had looked at that option before posting.

Does that make sense?

-Sean

@Another User said:

Interval threshold: Sets the interval detection time limit. Releasing a key, then pressing another one within this time limit, will give an interval transition.

Now I'm guessing that is what DG was referring to, because I can imagine that would change the behavior when moving from staccato (or anything else) to legato. As for whether that would solve your issue, I'm still not getting into that. I'm going back to lurking in this thread. Thanks for your help.

Sorry for the incorrect terminology. My only excuse is that it used to be called legato threshold, but is now called interval threshold.  [:$]

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, if you set the Interval threshold as low as you can (around 5ms) it means that if there is a gap of less than 5ms, or even an overlap, the legato transition is triggered, if it is more than 5ms, you get a start note. Therefore it is pretty easy to avoid the transitions, as long as your keyboard playing is good enough to play legato when you want a legato transition, and not when you don't. However, the OP said that he didn't want this behaviour, so I'm only clarifying to clear up any misunderstanding.

DG

I should explain that one of the reasons I haven't found this an issue is that my custom presets have legato and sustain as the first two patches in the matrix.  The reason for that is the most significant musical decision about a single note you have to make is whether it is a new attack, or whether it is connected with legato to the previous note. So I want total control over that issue.  You might have a whole phrase of notes that are held for their whole lengths and very smooth but are still freshly attacked.  Or you might have a series of notes that are held similarly long, but are slurred together.  You need to have both legato and sustain articulations in your setup instantly keyswitchable.  Also, if one analyzes the number of musical lines that can be executed simply by switching between sustain notes and legato notes, sometimes it is entire compositions! 

And so, the fact that switching to sustain accomplishes the shut-off of legato transitions, instantly,  and I always had access to that choice which is a very important thing to be thinking about - like is this a new downbow in strings?  or is it a new attack after a breath in brass? - as a result I never worried about using a separate controller to shut off legato. 

This seems somewhat similar to manual vs. automatic transmissions in automobiles.  I tend to like clutches because you know exactly what your engine is doing... 

Then there's me who prefers riding the train. [;)]

-Sean

Hi all, without wanting to reopen the can of worms that this debate became earlier in the year, I did want to add my own expereince because I suspect it is the same, similar or related to that of "iscorefilm".

I'm working in sibelius with solo stings 1 extended and VI pro, and have struggled with just abut all combinations of staccato and slurs. I've been adjusting interval threshholds, turning slurs off, extending the release on sustained notes, shortening the length of notes in the sibelius inspector, writing semiquavers when I want a quaver, doing just about everything except finishing my score. And it still dosen't sound right (or even close to it).

Is the short answer that even though in sibelius I can see what I want the score to look like, and I know in my head what it should sound like -  is it that I am expecting to much of VSL to reporduce it. ie, play a staccato note then play a start note on the first of the slur, and play the slurs evenly and smoothly? (tempo 100bpm. 12/8. slured passage is semiquavers so reasonably fast and triggering the fast legato patch). 

I think I need to turn the interval patches off as they are not helping, but as I understand from this post I am not able to do this.

Cheers,

Rangi.

@scoredfilms said:

However, every solution here assumes I either missed something or that there is a solution... yet those solutions are jimmy-rigged instead of a fix which would not conflict with any other variable to this problem.

Yes, you are missing something, or you are deliberately ignoring the SOLUTION which was given you from more than one user. So here it is again from another user:

To play a legato phrase after a staccato note you have to switch to stacc, play the stacc. note, swich to a sustain or portato patch, play the first note of your legato phrase, then switch to perf_leg and play the rest of your phrase.

This is no workaround, but the way you are supposed to work in VI. This way you can freely choose, which kind of sound should begin your legato phrase, not only in your specific situation, but in all cases. Can your perfect kontakt library do that?

By the way: even a real horn player cannot begin a legato phrase legato, because the term legato simply means, that the note has to be connected to the preceding note. As the first note of such a phrase does not have a preceding note to connect to, the horn player must decide what kind of attack he gives to that first note. You see, VI is exactly working kike a real musician in that case.

Your request is to remove that possibility, what would limit the start of any legato phrase to just the sound of the legato starting notes (which are, as several users already pointed out, actually sustain samples).

So, in short:

You consider the VSL legato handling as a bug.

I consider the VSL legato handling as a feature.

DG considers the VSL legato handling as a feature.

William considers the VSL legato handling as a feature.

Sorry, but you are outnumbered by so far. Next topic.

EDIT: Apologizes if this post sounds too rude, I was not aware that this thread had a second page, I wrote this reply after reading page 1.

Actually, not next topic, and you are both correct.

This user is in Sibelius. As someone who does a fair bit of score prep, I can commiserate. Switching to sustain first then to legato is a small step for a sequencer, but a giant leap for notation. 

Rangi, you are literally going to have to create your own Sibelius matrix where the legato patch has a sustain in the first slot, and then legato in the next, and then use "Sequence Map" as your axis control (in VIPro 2) so that the first note is always sustain and then subsequent notes are legato.

Have fun with this.

While I am a big fan of VSL, and slow to criticize unless I really feel like something is a major problem, it quickly became clear to me that no one over there actually tried their Sibelius mapping in context or this would have stuck out like a sore thumb.  

HTH

MOH

EDIT: Addressed my reply to the wrong person. Apologies.

Hello Rangi and MOH!

I am fully aware that legato following staccato without a rest in between in Sibelius is producing an unwanted legato transition. This is because notation programs keep the MIDI "Note on" message as long as the note value is by default. Please understand that we will not change the way the legato mode works because of that. By the way. There's a chapter in the "Optimizing Sibelius Playback" manual that deals with this (page 19). The manual can be downloaded from the MyVSL area under "Notation related".

Best regards,
Andi