Thank you for the convincing examples.
Granted that post-production MIDI processing is necessary, I am trying to understand what is missing in the playback and VI interaction that makes this performance shaping necessary.
For instance the 'Paganini b' version sounds less convincing than the 'a' version (which is almost as good as a real performance btw). It seems that there are artifical delays between the notes in 'b', almost as if a slow processor, or hard drive and poor latency is the reason. Is this because VI cannot respond fast enough to the articulation changes?
If this piece was notated in Sibelius and all articulations and dynamics were placed properly, and the computer was fast enough, I am not sure why it would sound like the 'b'. It may not be as good as 'a' but still, shouldnt we be closer to 'a' than 'b' with an 'out of the box' rendering and proper notation?
sorry to be a pain, or if my question doesnt make sense. I am not disagreeing that more performance shaping is necessary, but I am trying to understand why VI cannot handle this automatically. Of course, one could say that shaping allows one to change the expressions according to what is desired, but the example 'b' is not ready for that.
From my little experience with VI it does an amazing job with Sibelius and gets me 90% of the way (to my ear at least). I will need to learn further about performance shaping to fix the remaining 10%. The example 'b' above is not yet 90% in my opinion and thats why I was trying to clarify....
Thank you