@nektarios said:

I find it ridiculous 

Ridiculous? VSL was under no obligation to supply anything for what is a third party tool. They went to what they felt was a reasonable effort to support a great third party tool. They did not charge for it. They made a reasoned and generous decision as to how much resources to put into it, and they did it.

Me, I'm thankful for what they DID do. Under these circumstances I don't understand heaping them with ridicule for what they DIDN'T do.

My .02.

VSL is a brilliant and awesome product. Love it. Expression Maps are an extremely important part of utilizing this great product to it's full potential. I only use expression maps to set articulations, as I am able to see what is being set in my compositions. It's ridiculous because it's not well made. Better give me nothing. It's like going to the most expensive restaurant in the world, and being told: "Sorry you must bring your own utensils to eat here!" Seriously, how would you feel? 

You set articulations because you know what articulations you want to set. If I want to set a spicatto, I want to set a spicatto, same for stacatto, detache, portato, etc.. 

Dimension Strings Expression Maps are perfectly made. I love the fact that you don't even need to load a preset to use them.

I am trying get the message accross.. 

Btw, I also sent a harsh message to Steinberg (Cubase) about how bad their Expression Maps feature is implemented. I actually gave them the VI PRO sequencer example as a much better and more intuitive way to set articulations -- color coded and easy to follow.

I see the whole thing somewhat differently: IMO, the expression maps can't possibly be more than a suggestion or a general guideline, just so that one can get a general grasp of how the whole thing can be set up and used. Why would I want to use someone else's expression map? I couldn't reasonably expect a map - and the setup of the matrices behind it - to do exactly what I need them to do and fit into my workflow. There's so many ways of utilizing these things. From that point of view, it hardly makes sense to think in categories like "useless" and "incomplete".

Finally, I don't think there's really a way around making one's own VI Pro setups and matrices. And I don't mind it - I like stuff to do exactly what I envisioned.

I don't see Expression Maps as a suggestion. It's really a convenient way of setting articulations. Each library has a finite amount of articulations. You have Legato, Staccato, Detache, Portato, Marcato, Portamento. etc. etc. Some libraries have variations of these articulations. For example, with Solo Strings, you have performance_detache, detache long, detache short etc. All these different variations can be neatly organized in an Expression map that can cover almost 100% of the articulation set of the specific library.

It defeats the purpose of trying to make one Expression Map for 4 different string libraries. For instance, I see these "bow" articulations in Solo Strings, that don't exist in others.

I just think well written Expression Maps would add so much value to this great product.

One thing I wish we saw more of was shared expression maps among the large community of people who use them. They likely would require adaptation between people who may work differently, or will likely have variations in what libraries they use, and what articulations they have available, but at least they would give people a variety of approaches and some templates off which to adapt maps for their own purposes. It would be nice if Steinberg set up a Repository for user-created EM's.

I still don't get the notion that harsh language is warranted, either for Steinberg or for VSL. In the first place, it usually doesn't move people to respond positively to your suggestions; more often, people will react by diggin in their heels. In the second place, it may say more about your own attitude issues and unrealistic expectations than it does about the people you are unloading on. Direct and unvarnished objective criticism is helpful. Ridicule and harsh language? Usually not so much. You might find it helpful to consider how you would respond if someone turned your own words on yourself. There's enough problems to overcome in life without needlessly creating more for yourself.

I want to reiterate, though, that like you I think Expression Mapping needs to be improved. Some relatively simple editing enhancements would go a long way towards making the process much easier, especially for those of us who work with full orchestras, which equals a LOT of articulations.

@DaddyO said:

I still don't get the notion that harsh language is warranted, either for Steinberg or for VSL. In the first place, it usually doesn't move people to respond positively to your suggestions; more often, people will react by diggin in their heels. In the second place, it may say more about your own attitude issues and unrealistic expectations than it does about the people you are unloading on. Direct and unvarnished objective criticism is helpful. Ridicule and harsh language? Usually not so much. You might find it helpful to consider how you would respond if someone turned your own words on yourself. There's enough problems to overcome in life without needlessly creating more for yourself.

Thanks, I will try to tone it down on my next frustrating moment.  🤐 My apologies...

Btw, Steve Jobs was known to be harsh with his employees, and managed to create amazing products in the end. Bottom line, if something needed a redesign, it needed a redesign, and he'd send it back to the drawing board...

Well written expression maps for Cubase are critical for utilizing VSL to it's full potential (if you are a Cubase user). There needs to be a way to have 100% coverage of the articulations. I can possibly do it myself, but would rather have a solution from VSL as they are far more experienced in this than someone like me.

@nektarios said:

Btw, Steve Jobs was known to be harsh with his employees, and managed to create amazing products in the end. Bottom line, if something needed a redesign, it needed a redesign, and he'd send it back to the drawing board...

My personal little peeve is when someone brings up "Steve Jobs" in any kind of discussion. From there on, I just stop listening. "But dude, Steve Jobs used to boil his eggs soft!.." Well?.. It's also generally brought up as an attempt to drive a non-existant point home, by the head and shoulders.

Meaning: don't you think you're really exaggerating now? A "redesign"? We're talking about expression maps. We're not even talking about VSL products!

Considering the time and energy already invested in this thread: you could have punched in those few spiccati and portati you're missing into the expression maps by now.

You prove my case: if it is so simple, why didn't they add them? I can certainly add them myself, but that is not the point. What is needed, I think, is each library should have their own individual Expression Map that matches the library presets (without the need to load a separate expression map preset). That's because some libraries just have more articulations than others (i.e. Orchestral/Solo Strings).

It needs a redesign because right now it's more of a setup than a way of specifying articulations (a setup I don't favor). For instance, articulations change based on speed (staccato/spiccato). Anyway, they have already done it perfectly with Dimension Strings, and that should be their gold standard. I could probably devote a whole weekend and do it myself, but right now, I just don't have the time...

I am done with this subject now. I'm glad we've beaten this to death... 😈

Hmmm... the strength of the VI Pro is that you can configurate it for your very own unique needs.

IMO very soon one will come to the point when one will have to create ones own Xmaps designed for ones specific needs.

It is nice to have some Xmaps for a start but actually it is the cook who has to keep the knives sharp.

Each person can have their own unique setup, which is great. For example, the Y Axis being cotnrolled by speed, or having a sequence map etc. etc. But I am not looking for a setup. I am looking for a way to specify any articulation from the given set of articulations. For example, if I want a detache articulation, to specify it, and indicate in a different selection if it's the long or short version. In other words, being able to see all articulations being specified on the midi editor. They do this already with many of them.

At the end, I think I'll devote a weekend and do it myself and share it with everyone.

Dimensions Strings has fewer articulations than many other VSL libraries, so it is possible to work with one neat expression map. If all of the articulations of say Solo Strings were put in a single expression map, it would be a mess in Cubase, which isn't really set up to deal with an instrument having 150 articulations.

@johnstaf said:

Dimensions Strings has fewer articulations than many other VSL libraries, so it is possible to work with one neat expression map. If all of the articulations of say Solo Strings were put in a single expression map, it would be a mess in Cubase, which isn't really set up to deal with an instrument having 150 articulations.

Since articulations can have different variations, it can easily be condensed. For example, staccato and rep_stacatto. So if I select a staccato, I can specify which type I want (repetition, or regular). They do this already, but don't cover a vast number of them.

@nektarios said:

Each person can have their own unique setup, which is great. For example, the Y Axis being cotnrolled by speed, or having a sequence map etc. etc. But I am not looking for a setup. I am looking for a way to specify any articulation from the given set of articulations. For example, if I want a detache articulation, to specify it, and indicate in a different selection if it's the long or short version. In other words, being able to see all articulations being specified on the midi editor. They do this already with many of them.

At the end, I think I'll devote a weekend and do it myself and share it with everyone.

Yeah, I get what you're looking for. That's how I'm starting out with expression maps, just mapping individual articulations so I can select them. I changed my initial approach to where I'm now saving the X-axis cells (after the first column) for variations on the each articulation, whether it be multiple articulations, or cross-fades, or time-stretched versions, etc. That way my map can grow easily as I advance in my ability to us VI Pro.

Thank you TFIS for sharing. I've running around the issue of VSL Expression Maps in Cubase for years now, and unfortunately there is no best method to be found. Everyone just has to custom create a map which suits his or her way of working. Until Steinberg gets their act together and develops this excellent feature further, possibly trashing the useless and space-consuming "staircase" pattern of the articulation lane in favor of a drop-down menu and one or two simple lines. There is absolutely no point in having all possible articulations visible at all times when most of them never occur simultaneously.

Just my 2c.

While trying to make expr. maps for chamber strings and for solo woodwinds and brass', I have of course also been looking for "universal principles" to facilitate making maps without too much effort. I would be interested to find out/hear about any "principles" VSL had in making the expr. maps with the presets that were made available for us.

regards Gerard

Hello Gerard!

For the Special Editions and our later Instrument collections we made Expression Maps for the VI presets and matrices that come with the library content. This seems to be the better way to go than making dedicated VI presets with matrices of grouped articulations which we did for earlier Instrument collections.

Best regards,
Andi

Andi, thanks, I can well agree with that approach. Lacking "in depth" experience in instrumentation, I add to the matrices one or two with the articulations that appeal to me, but those are without "any" structure,

regards,
Gerard