Dear Bachrules, thanks a lot for your great help for me to get a DS demo.

The thread here shows that obviously even power users don't use this "multiple-option" because it seems to need a lot of additional work.

So your effort is very kind, BachRules, and you all who wanted to help me till now. But, nobody should produce an extra demo for me.

So I suggest to wait until the end of this weekend and when nobody has a demo - then nobody has one.

Could be that G. Bacos will produce once one one - now with the basses inclusive.

I still believe in a huge undiscovered potential of DS - showed within some seconds in the DS-Video...

So let us being patient ...

Beat

@Beat Kaufmann said:

Dear Bachrules, thanks a lot for your great help for me to get a DS demo.

The thread here shows that obviously even power users don't use this "multiple-option" because it seems to need a lot of additional work.

So your effort is very kind, BachRules, and you all who wanted to help me till now. But, nobody should produce an extra demo for me.

So I suggest to wait until the end of this weekend and when nobody has a demo - then nobody has one.

Could be that G. Bacos will produce once one one - now with the basses inclusive.

I still believe in a huge undiscovered potential of DS - showed within some seconds in the DS-Video...

So let us being patient ...

Beat

This thread shows that people lacking Dimension Cellos -- even power-users / articulation-extremists lacking Dimension Cellos -- are unable to achieve such a wide cello sound as this:

[url]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ZYXb_HdIQhVEFEdXE2UVRnbTg/edit?usp=sharing[/url]

Maybe Beat can produce something comparable with the Chamber Cellos. Let's wait until the end of this weekend and if nobody achieves such width using only Chamber Cellos - then nobody achieves it. I'll wait patiently.

@Beat Kaufmann said:

But, dear BachRules, I am since 1975 in the midi business

What was it like using MIDI a decade before it was invented?

@John Melcher said:

That's pretty amazing, since the MIDI specification was published in 1983.

Hi Mr. Detective

OK, you are right, nevertheless I bought my first Roland Synthesizer in 1975. It was an SH-7 (which came on the market in 1973) and of course it was controlled by Voltage (CV).

Of course I only wanted to say that I'm an "old hand" in the synthetic sound and sample world. [:@]

Give us a link for listening to your "much-more-realistic-orchestra", please. So we have at least one demo even if it is not quite the one I like to have.

Beat

Hello there,

It was only very recently that my equipments allow me to use intensively Dimension String. Until now, I mainly used it from time to time as a simple layer for Orchestral String (to give it more depth or granularity).

I took about an hour to do this short demo quickly. Sorry Beat, but I didn't create separate tracks for each cellos because I have other things to do this weekend [:$]. Anyway, you will find that the sound is very different and very interesting.

I agree with BachRules when he wrote :

You're talking about routing VI's separately, but I'm talking about routing violins separately. I can put the 8 Dimension violins in different positions in a virtual room (not MIR, since you don't want that), and they all reflect off the walls at different times, since they're in different positions, and the left and right mics in a virtual Decca-tree capture the sounds at different times. You cannot do this with Chamber, even if you route your VI's separately.

Important note: I used a MIDI track that Beat made ​​with Chamber orchestra (Grieg Prelude from Holberg suite). To make a true comparison of both collection's musicality, it would have been nessary to take time to adjust velocities, legato transition, etc. In addition, some patches are not present in both collections (Tzigane, for example; the passage with Marcato at the end is wrong; sorry). Finally, to do justice to DS it would have been necessarely to use articulations on one string (G, A, etc.).

I put a slight reverb (that of VIPRO). I obviously did not use MIR here! (I think Beat is severe [;)]  )  In fact, MIR offers in my opinion tools I need to build accurate spatial perception. Like any tools, they can be used with "bon goût" or not.

I see that the thread has lengthened since I started to work! I think we should do our best to maintain our good humor in all our discussions on this forum.  [A] 

I hope this little demo will still be useful:

https://app.box.com/s/5x9xrjc3wqjw3e2srgm0

[and sorry again for my bad english…]

Claude B.

Thanks for posting the cello comparison Claude. I've agonised over this for ages as I have Solo, Chamber and Dimension Strings and looked for every way to get the best out of them all, singularly and in combination. More words I know, but I've settled on blending Solo and DS for a Chamber size template using Solo as the first chair. My reasoning:

1 I find the timbre of DS on their own to sound a little "squashed", particularly the Cellos. Putting Solo Strings in front of them restores some of the up front, raw sonic characteristic while DS provides the complexity and thickening. Note on MIR - Solo and DS seem to behave very differently in MIR, I need to set Solo much closer to the mic to get the blend.

2 With this combination I can build each section in two or three passes (Solo first chair then DS) to blur the attack and dynamics, a critical feature in giving the illusion of realism in my view.

3 With this set up I can move freely in and out of divisi as required.

There are parts of each library I particularly love (i.e.Chamber Cellos and Basses,  DS Violins, Violas and Basses, Solo Violin and Cello).

Thanks for a very interesting topic, if I can find some time to make an exposed track with my set up I'll do it.

Claude that's a nice demo.  Though I thought you might have used the performance trills on the last one, it shows how much more complex the Dimension sound is.  The Chamber cellos sound like great but uniform ensemble samples but the Dimension have that individual player quality impossible with ensemble sampling.  

The purpose of Dimension is not to replace the older libraries for single line performance, but  to allow free use of divisi and unison, as well as enriching the overall string timbres of the various VSL libraries.  However, they can be used as shown here and other recordings as the only string sounds in a smaller ensemble.  Also, it is possible to double the sound with transpose/pitch shift for larger and even more complex sounds. 

The use of individual players vs. an entire ensemble of Dimension is an interesting question.  I have a tendency to want each player totally separate on his own MIDI channel.  However, I have noticed how with the great new humanize and tuning preset functions in VI you can load all individual players in MIR (or other reverb though MIR is better for these orchestral sounds)  and give them the same channel for a single line and they truly behave exactly like individual players.  i have been experimenting extensively with humanize in both the MIDI and the corresponding VI instruments and trying to push them as far as I can into the complexities of tuning and timing one hears in live ensembles.  This is why i am so enthusiastic about the Dimension instruments because they have that exponential increase in complexity.  Though the other VSL string libraries are still as essential because they provide a starting point that you can add to with Dimension. 

I did that on my Vertigo demo -   http://www.vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoID=5980   which combined the Dimension violins in 6 part divisi, with a "concertmaster" Solo violin and then in the big tutti at the end the Appassionata.

@Beat Kaufmann said:

... But, nobody should produce an extra demo for me....

I wouldn't be doing it for you; I'd be doing it for other readers holding an unprejudiced interest in hearing Dimensions's capabilities; and I want to do it; but if you don't want me to show Dimension in a good light in this thread, I'll save it for a different thread.

Sorry for the late reply, Herb,

I've seen the video and it does demonstrate what I was looking for, however, I still hope for an audio file with that type of demonstration. Hopefully the community will put one up, like the South by Southwest comparison of the string orchestras. 

Thank you for the video.

1. unprocessed except for panning, 8 violins on 1 midi track;
2. same as previous, but 8 individual midi tracks;
3. Decca-tree simulation + algo verb on 8 violins playing 1 midi track;
4. same as previous, but 8 individual midi tracks;
5. MIR on 8 violins playing 1 midi track;
6. same as previous, but 8 individual midi tracks:

@Beat Kaufmann said:

Can some body publish a DS-Demo ... which shows all 8 violins... played with individual articulations?...

No, not unless I learn of any instance where Bach or Beethoven scored 8 different articulations for 8 violins playing in unison. Which they never did, because it would be bizarre.

Hi Claude

@C.B. said:

I hope this little demo will still be useful:

https://app.box.com/s/5x9xrjc3wqjw3e2srgm0

Thanks a lot for this demo. I am very impressed! First of all that you did such a big effort for showing me and others the difference between all those libraries and trigger possibilities.

And secondly I'm impressed by the results.

I see that the Chamber Strings not seem to be a low class library compared with the DS and I also see that obviously this multi trigger feature of the DS could bring a big amount of more reality into the music.

So more than ever I don't understand why obviously only a little number of users use this super feature.

It could be, that your demo here can encorage DS musicians to use this feature more in future.

Thanks, thanks, thanks a lot

Beat

PS The DS Cellos seem to have a problem with legato-trills... a bit a strange sound?

@Another User said:

...No, not unless I learn of any instance where Bach or Beethoven scored 8 different articulations for 8 violins playing in unison. Which they never did, because it would be bizarre.

I see, we probably do not speak about (mean) the same thing.

The way I play with samples

When I produce a piece of music I don't use the samples because of their names but because of their sounds.

So sometimes I chose spiccato instead of staccato just because it sounds even more "groovy" or so.

So if I understand DS the right way each player could play another articulation:

Transated to the production

In a fast part I could chose spiccato for 4 players and staccato for the other 4 players - this combined with multiple triggering could give an even more real ensemble sound.

What do you think?

Beat

@Beat Kaufmann said:

PS The DS Cellos seem to have a problem with legato-trills... a bit a strange sound?

I worked too fast (about one hour with video). As well as William remarked, I should have used the performance trills.

Like all VSL's colletions, the DS takes time to fully exploit. The humanization tools (time and pitch) can achieve very good results faster, but less finely that when using  dedicated tracks to each of the instrumentalists. Everyone has their own priorities and needs. For my part, I tried all sorts of combinations and I am impressed by the potential of the DS to add "dimension" (thickness, granularity, a less polished sound, imperfections, etc.) to other collections of VSL which remains nevertheless quite essential (a starting point as wrote William)

Claude

@Beat Kaufmann said:

In a fast part I could chose spiccato for 4 players and staccato for the other 4 players - this combined with multiple triggering could give an even more real ensemble sound.

What do you think?

Of course, this would be possible, but doing so in general would lead to a such huge amount of work, that it in the end might be cheaper to hire a chamber orchestra to record one's music...

In fact, the individual players sound so different from each other, that it is not necessary to use different articulations. Best way probably is to copy one miditrack for multiple instruments, then hear each player solo'd. When an articulation sounds odd at a specific point, use another just for that individual player.

I made a short example to demonstrate the different sound of the 8 violins - you hear the same phrase played by each of them seperate, then all 8 together. It's all dry whithout any reverb added, so you can apply your favourite room.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mey1ppt9crz66oj/Dimension%20Violins.mp3?dl=0

@Beat Kaufmann said:

The way I play with samples

When I produce a piece of music I don't use the samples because of their names but because of their sounds.

So sometimes I chose spiccato instead of staccato just because it sounds even more "groovy" or so.

So if I understand DS the right way each player could play another articulation:

Transated to the production

In a fast part I could chose spiccato for 4 players and staccato for the other 4 players - this combined with multiple triggering could give an even more real ensemble sound.

What do you think?

I have only the Standard library, so the articulations tend to sound significantly different from one another, for the short articulations at least. If you hired a real 8-player ensemble and they were playing so differently from one another, you would not think this is good, you would think, these guys need to practice more. So I haven't been inclined to try.

When you mix Chamber with Solo, playing the same line, do you mix articulations? Your results sound great, of course, so if you are doing this, I'll maybe try it with DS.

Hi BachRules

@BachRules said:

...When you mix Chamber with Solo, playing the same line, do you mix articulations? Your results sound great, of course, so if you are doing this, I'll maybe try it with DS.

As I mentiond above I do not chose articulations by name but by their sounds. And of course when I selected them for the chamberstrings I copy the "articulation controll notes" in a first step to the solo violin(s) but then I check the whole track again and often I change articulations...

Those who own full libraries can confirm that for example portato long/short notes not do have the same length with every instrument.

Nevertheless, I don't know any other libraries which are so compatible between instruments as those from VSL are.

Further:

I prepair each instrument in a way that it also could be heard as a soloist.I treat it so that it sounds as natural as possible - even if it is an "unimportant" instrument in the context.

This uses a lot of work and time but only the sum of all these little tweaks will lead to a good result.

If you know the Pareto-Rule "80% of the work is done within 20% of the time" then you know that the rest (20%) will need the other 80% of the time.

I normally try to find an acceptable compromise.

You probably know the demos of "Jay Bacal". Most of his demos seem to be 100% - jobs.

I need 1 day for 1min. music (for an orchestra with chamber size). incl. Mastering etc.

I don't know Jays average time value for 1 minute. 

Beat

@Beat Kaufmann said:

I prepair each instrument in a way that it also could be heard as a soloist.

That is a good point.  If you make even a secondary viola chordal accompaniment sound like what you hear live players doing it adds greatly to the naturalness.  And this is on parts that live players themselves would be bored by.   As a sample performer you cannot be as bored as they are in reality by less-than-spectacular parts. 

ALso, I really agree on the compatibility between different but similar instruments within VSL.  This is one of the remarkable, great aspects of the library in how you can totally change an orchestration simply by substituting the same articulation names for a different instrument.  It is a wonderful way to experiment with orchestration by the way.  For example,  I recently discovered that the bass trumpet sounded better, in fact perfect, on the third horn part of a piece I was recording than an actual third horn part.  I would never have thought this in a live situation or in a written score.  It is pure experimentation which is allowed by this consistency across instuments that VSL has.  It is even more consistent within instrument groups such as the strings.  

Here, you can originally record an entire string orchestra performance, with the biggest sounds such as Appassionata and Orchestral, and then create a completely different articulation groupp with Chamber and Sol simply by exchanging articulation names, and almost no tweaking because of the methodical sampling/naming of articulations.  You can then add that smalleer ensemble on top of your original for extremely complex effects especially considering you can do further humanizing within the MIDI tracks as well as VI. 

All of this applies even more to Dimension, which functions as an even great amount individual control and complexity.  So with the various string ensembles within VSL now the individual line complexity has become really close to live ensembles. In fact, beyond some live ensembles in certain cases.

Hi again to all!

Well, I went to a retro/film vibe at the end, and took the theme from the Italian-Russian movie "The Red Tent". It apparently had two soundtracks, worldwide release with Morricone, and the Russian version by A.Zacepin - which I took for a spin.

First is the wet, processed version (also in a manner to suit the style of the original), and the second is dry, pre-panned and some moderate pre-eq, which is inherent in the MIR dry sound as well I guess. Well I haven`t switched the MIR altogether, as it would leave just a plain mono stock of violins dead center (not interesting).

I am far from satisfied with it - and I always struggle with the slow tracks more than lively ones, but some of the things I mentioned at the thread are there.

https://vlzmusic.bandcamp.com/album/dimension-violins

Thanks!

Vlad.

What does this post have to do with this thread?