Bravo, beautifully programmed. The use of Dimension strings for a small baroque ensemble is especially successful, IMO.

Do you ever find the 'bleed-through" of adjacent instruments in the Dim.Strings recordings to be problematic? I mean the slight phasing of the sound quality. How do you work around that? 

The Synchron strings example shows the potential success and also the danger with the more careful &  extensive sampling employed. The performance has entered the "uncanny valley", familiar from modern computer animation, where the image is extremely lifelike but still clearly machine-driven. Perhaps more editing and performance nuance would clear that up in your demo. 

I am familiar with this issue from years of playing the physically-modelled Yamaha VL instruments in live performance. Some sounds were extremely realistic and also had the full 128 level dynamic resolution of MIDI (unlike samples, which often have only 2,3, or 4 dynamic levels.) If the perfromance was too "linear", the machine character of the instrument would come through. I sense some of that in the Grieg demo. 

Also, I'm not sure I like the baked-in reverb of Synchron on such busy music. The sound of the room seems to pulsate with the musical phrasing in a peculiar way, as if the room is coming and going with each dynamic nuance in the phrase. Maybe a layer of overall reverb from MIR would smooth it out? (I've been using Synchron drums, but only  the close mic, and adding MIR to blend it with the other VSL instruments.)

thanks

@brunodegazio said:

Bravo, beautifully programmed. The use of Dimension strings for a small baroque ensemble is especially successful, IMO.

Do you ever find the 'bleed-through" of adjacent instruments in the Dim.Strings recordings to be problematic? I mean the slight phasing of the sound quality. How do you work around that? 

The Synchron strings example shows the potential success and also the danger with the more careful &  extensive sampling employed. The performance has entered the "uncanny valley", familiar from modern computer animation, where the image is extremely lifelike but still clearly machine-driven. Perhaps more editing and performance nuance would clear that up in your demo. 

I am familiar with this issue from years of playing the physically-modelled Yamaha VL instruments in live performance. Some sounds were extremely realistic and also had the full 128 level dynamic resolution of MIDI (unlike samples, which often have only 2,3, or 4 dynamic levels.) If the perfromance was too "linear", the machine character of the instrument would come through. I sense some of that in the Grieg demo. 

Also, I'm not sure I like the baked-in reverb of Synchron on such busy music. The sound of the room seems to pulsate with the musical phrasing in a peculiar way, as if the room is coming and going with each dynamic nuance in the phrase. Maybe a layer of overall reverb from MIR would smooth it out? (I've been using Synchron drums, but only  the close mic, and adding MIR to blend it with the other VSL instruments.)

 

 

thanks

Grazie Bruno. 😊

Yes I also had some trouble with the "bleed" of adiacent instruments in Dimension strings: it obviously prevents single players to be used in very exposed or solo application, but also makes the sections always sound "bigger". For instance the 3 players section still sounds something undefined as 4 or 5 but with higher definition and more expressive vibrato, then it's ok. To work around that I was (a bit painfully to be honest) doing several trials with MIR pro positioning and usually it's possible to find a position and a mix where it's not a problem.

I like your comparison to Computer Animation... yes we are in the same field of "hyper-realistic rendering" still keeping a bit of fake feeling from several ingredients (mostly excess of perfection and lack of noise and random sound modulation, including the lost little performance and sonic interactions of instruments, the first maybe possible to fix with a lot of very expert time editing, but the second almost impossible to replicate: early reflections and sympathetic vibrations are impossible to reproduce with sampled instruments of course). But... in the case of Grieg it's mostly my fault: I was focusing on the sound/articulation and I admit I didn't yet spend time refining the micro-timing of the sequence, as I do with final productions.

About the problem with "baked-in reverb" pulsations I even opened a specific post before 😊. It's a double sided feature the user has to carefully manage. I find my usual work-flow not compatible with Synchron, and I started thinking about and experimenting. My actual opinion is that to keep the quality of Synchron ambience you MUST let the reverb ring, and every serious manipulation of volume is compromising realism a lot. Of course it's possible to add umbrella reverb, (as I did in wet vs. dry examples) and also use the close MIC and try to re-position the Synchron in MIR. Well... of course it sounds as a contradiction, being the Synchron reverb one of the main added values of the library, but another incredible technical advantage of the Synchron String is the sonic and dynamic coherence of the patches and articulations: it's an unvaluable time saver, I found myself working less than 1 half of the time for articulation choice and blending compared to the same activity with Dimension. So why not? The only problem I found up to now is that the residual reverb and mono signal in close samples is creating artifacts in MIR, but probably again is a matter of research and set-up.

Thank you again for the nice conversation, and have fun.

@fatis12_24918 said:

About the problem with "baked-in reverb" pulsations I even opened a specific post before 😊. It's a double sided feature the user has to carefully manage. I find my usual work-flow not compatible with Synchron, and I started thinking about and experimenting. My actual opinion is that to keep the quality of Synchron ambience you MUST let the reverb ring, and every serious manipulation of volume is compromising realism a lot.

If you or someone else has Synchron Percussion, is this a problem there at all?

@fatis12_24918 said:

About the problem with "baked-in reverb" pulsations ...

If you or someone else has Synchron Percussion, is this a problem there at all?

Bruno in his post mention Synchron percussions. But I'm sorry I don't own them, just Synchron Strings. (My personal post was about strings indeed, sorry for being unclear), I have no experience with Synchron percussions, so maybe Bruno can comment about your question.

I can't really answer your question because wIth Synchron Percussion I've used only the Close mic, adding MIR for reverb. That way it mixed nicely with my other VSL instruments, and I had no problems with the baked-in reverb pulsating. 

@fatis12_24918 said:

About the problem with "baked-in reverb" pulsations ...

If you or someone else has Synchron Percussion, is this a problem there at all?

Bruno in his post mention Synchron percussions. But I'm sorry I don't own them, just Synchron Strings. (My personal post was about strings indeed, sorry for being unclear), I have no experience with Synchron percussions, so maybe Bruno can comment about your question.

@fatis12_24918 said:

About the problem with "baked-in reverb" pulsations ....

If you or someone else has Synchron Percussion, is this a problem there at all?

Probably you know it better than me, but anyway I'm expecting Percussions being really less problematic using the wet samples, because a part for some dynamic repetitions (e.g. rolls) it's unlikely you use Expression on them. The available crescendos and diminuendos should totally cover the needs and keep the natural reverb almost always ringing. (that's the "think Synchron" phylosophy in my understanding).

Anyway nice to know that it's possible to succesfully mix them in MIR using close samples.

(Probably easier with Percussions, being an almost monophonic source, than a string section, which missing a bit of depth and dimension if you use the close mono mic instead of the stereo ambience image...)

I've never experienced Dimension Strings' bleed through as a problem at all.  It makes the players sound more like a section.  The only time it would be problematic is if you really wanted to use a player as a leading soloist, which is not recommended for so many reasons, the bleed through actually not being the most important of the reasons.  So overall DS is one of my favorite libraries.

As for the demos above, they all sound very good, though I do agree that Synchron has a few choppy-sounding moments.  I don't want to point the finger at your programming or at VSL's programming, but overall that's what I'm hearing.  The shorts, however, are really some of the best out there!

@Casiquire said:

I've never experienced Dimension Strings' bleed through as a problem at all.  It makes the players sound more like a section.  The only time it would be problematic is if you really wanted to use a player as a leading soloist, which is not recommended for so many reasons, the bleed through actually not being the most important of the reasons.  So overall DS is one of my favorite libraries.

 

As for the demos above, they all sound very good, though I do agree that Synchron has a few choppy-sounding moments.  I don't want to point the finger at your programming or at VSL's programming, but overall that's what I'm hearing.  The shorts, however, are really some of the best out there!

Summarizing, I agree. 😊

Bravissimo! If there is any demonstration that has convinced me of the value of the Syncron approach, it is your Holberg simulation. It is the best of its kind I have heard anywhere. You should give classes on orchestral simulation.

I agree with most comments made by others, but I take a different perspective. The sharpness, clarity and "fattiness" of the sound here are such a welcome improvement in sampling. I've spent hours trying to imprint these qualities in my simulations, with very mixed results. It will be easier, I think, to shave off and blur the sharpness than it was to improve the sharpness of more sloppy sounds. To use a cryptic formula, it's always easier to do less with more, than to do more with less.

A last note: I have never heard any simulation that could really stand up the comparison with a top notch orchestra. In this case, I listened to Karajan directing the Berlin Philharmonic in the Holberg Prelude, and I must say that your simulation held up very strongly. Not perfect, OK, but extremely convincing, with a sound envelope that is very dense and lifelike. Now, the challenge is to humanize and blur the contours, an easier task than trying to make blurry stuff more incisive. Once again: bravissimo!

@Yan Barcelo said:

Bravissimo! If there is any demonstration that has convinced me of the value of the Syncron approach, it is your Holberg simulation. It is the best of its kind I have heard anywhere. You should give classes on orchestral simulation. I agree with most comments made by others, but I take a different perspective. The sharpness, clarity and "fattiness" ofthe sound hereare such a welcome improvement in sampling. I've spent hours trying to imprint these qualities in my simulations, with very mixed results. It will be easier, I think, to shave off and blur the sharpness than it was to improve the sharpness of more sloppy sounds. To use a cryptic formula, it's always easier to do less with more, than to do more with less. A last note: I have never heard any simulation that could really stand up the comparison with a top notch orchestra. In this case, I listened to Karajan directing the Berlin Philharmonic in the Holberg Prelude, and I must say that your simulation held up very strongly. Not perfect, OK, but extremely convincing, with a sound envelope that is very dense and lifelike. Now, the challenge is to humanize and blur the contours, an easier task than trying to make blurry stuff more incisive. Once again: bravissimo!

fatis

Somehow I missed this - it is truly excellent! The Dimension Strings pieces sound so good they should be VSL demos - they are basically a perfect performance and mix sound.  And they have the wonderful intimate quality that the Dimension strings can give, which is totally unlike other sample libraries which usually are massive numbers of players in a block.  It is a very "musical" performance showing a great amount of sensitivity and delicate phrasing. 

Interesting to notice how when the Synchron performance starts, at first with the very fast short notes it sounds outstanding, perfect - and then when the high legato violin line comes in it instantly identifies itself as "SAMPLED." Too bright, even shrill, the legato not natural-sounding, no sense of the individual players.  If the same line was done with humanized Dimension Strings it would sound perfect probably.  But that is not a criticism of your performance, it is an aspect of the library which is different.  Your performances are fantastic and show a real expertise and musicality -  some of the best I've heard!  

I just want to say, that the dimension strings sound so well, incredibly well. Respect! And what I heard from other music done with Dimension Strings that's for sure not only the library but also the way it is used. Very good.

@William said:

fatis

Somehow I missed this - it is truly excellent! The Dimension Strings pieces sound so good they should be VSL demos - they are basically a perfect performance and mix sound.  And they have the wonderful intimate quality that the Dimension strings can give, which is totally unlike other sample libraries which usually are massive numbers of players in a block.  It is a very "musical" performance showing a great amount of sensitivity and delicate phrasing. 

Interesting to notice how when the Synchron performance starts, at first with the very fast short notes it sounds outstanding, perfect - and then when the high legato violin line comes in it instantly identifies itself as "SAMPLED." Too bright, even shrill, the legato not natural-sounding, no sense of the individual players.  If the same line was done with humanized Dimension Strings it would sound perfect probably.  But that is not a criticism of your performance, it is an aspect of the library which is different.  Your performances are fantastic and show a real expertise and musicality -  some of the best I've heard!  

Thank you William. Yes I agree with your comment: I had big pleasure with some of the library features (mostly shorts and consistency) while some trouble with long notes. My main issue is I can't really use the cc11 at the extent I can do in VI, due to the wet tail being impacted. I'm also missing the power in high velocity, because in my opinion they move to "harsh" before reaching the full fff sound. For the rest I think they have pretty good applications.

@MMKA said:

I just want to say, that the dimension strings sound so well, incredibly well. Respect! And what I heard from other music done with Dimension Strings that's for sure not only the library but also the way it is used. Very good.

Thank you very much, and about synchron, I agree: in my humble opinion the main issue is the reverb management. The release samples and the algorithmic reverb are producing some strange effects in fast passages and long notes cross fading as well. I always find better for fast music turning the reverb off, avoid the release overlapping in legatos, and let the release ring as much as possible at the same level of the last sound to keep synchron stage natural reverb audible.