The Appassionata strings are already incredibly beautiful! Probably the richest most perfect out of the box strings of any library. I don't really understand this.  Everything is going to be  "Synchronized" ?  Somehow it seems wrong to take these pure beautiful sounds and PROCESS them.  Create new ones, yes, fine.  But putting all the previous samples through a meat grinder to create something new?  That is contrary to the whole approach VSL has always had with the scrupulous, purely recorded sound always carefully preserved.  

I don't mean to be negative as I realize the Synchron player is very good, but the great thing about Vienna Instruments is the ability to make your own player!  All of the performances I have done have been with my own presets controlled in a very simple and direct way.  I've always felt that is the great strength of VSL: how the most basic building blocks - the individual notes themselves in a pure state - are right there at your fingertips, not separated by layers upon layers of software like Kontakt etc.

Kontakt instruments always have those layers because they are totally controlled by the interface which somebody decided upon and you can't change a thing.  It is all "baked in" and hidden away and encrypted.   But with VI and MIR you can do so much at a basic level for controlling how it reacts it is almost like building the instrument yourself.   

I guess though people want something that does it for them, so they only use - not build -  the instrument which is provided to them, and that is the goal.  

@Another User said:

I guess though people want something that does it for them, so they only use - not build -  the instrument which is provided to them, and that is the goal.  

I am sure that is also true for many users and insofar justified to be considered for instance with wee designed Default-Presets as starting point for those who want to use their Samples without programming Prests to muich .

You are probably right on those points, and I am not downgrading the Synchron player, it looks great. 

I think it is more that the VSL instruments I have made presets for within VI, and especially with MIR and Dimension strings, are the most perfect technology that I have ever used in any form!  So what is better than perfect?   It is my favorite technology in fact (along with some 4k video cameras I have!) and allowed me to do things that were never possible in the past.  So it's like - how can anything be better than something that great?  Maybe it can, but the previous VI system, Dimension and MIR have got to be some of the finest inventions in music of our time and I hope they are not going to be abandoned.

While I share you appreciation for Dimension Strings to be honest it was exactly the Dimension-Strings-Library providing a complete sampleset restricted on each of the four violinstrings which was so difficult to make reasonable available in a universal Dimensionstring-VI-Preset which (among other usability aspect) made me suggesting five years ago a multidimensional Articulation selection System which is now for the first time realised in the Synchron Player.

I just asked myself: if I just want to have my passage restriced on another String, while keeping all already defined Articulation-characteristics, why does VI forces me to search and load each single patch again? With the Treestructure it is possible to jiust change this single Detail of my sampleselection, while keep all other settings for the articulation selection. That is the reason why I still think it would make very muich sens to synchronize the dimensionstrings to.

I understand, that everybody who has established his own workflow with a running Software, is afraid to adapt it to a new technology, However on one hand they made the Synchron-Player so extremly customizable, that everybody should be able ti continue to reproduce his own way to work with Orchestrasamples, while on the other hand there are advantages, for which I believe it is worth to give it a chance.

OK since my workflow is based on VI Presets conceived already very similar to the Tree-Structure of the Synchronh-Player for me there was nearly anything really new and as you know I was quite early (if not the first) who was able to work seriously, pretty efficient and porductive with the new Synchron-Player.

In short: while VI was until now the most sophisticated and poweful orchestral sample player, believe me the Synchron-Player even compared to that is an incredible powerful step ahead in Playertechnology for Orchestral samples. And the more Libraries are available the more attractive it becomes.

I am not afraid to change to Synchron - I already have used it.  I am talking about VI being a perfected system and I love MIR. With the system I have evolved using them it is a workflow limited only by how much I can do creatively - not by the technology.  That happens with almost no other software.   

Yes MIR is great and to handle the Mikrophone-Mix is something completly new and different, what affords some time to get what one is looking for.

However I am pretty confident, that once you explore the customizability Synchron-Player, nothing will keep you from adapting or developping exactly what you need. And the "balanced Levels" will make important things much easier.

Steffen - fahl5 - 

I don't need you to introduce me to VSL products.  Like you try to with Guy Bacos who has done one minute sections of music that obliterate everything on your website put together.  I am one of the original demo makers for this library - creating performances that sold this library while you were doing General MIDI performances that were horrible - even embarrassing  -  and your condescending "teach me" attitude is not appreciated or needed in the slightest.

You can learn something from me - but I know you won't, ever, because you are incapable of that.  You are mentally ill.  You are so egotistical and self-centered it is incredible.

Don't tell me how to do anything, don't contact me, don't respond - I don't care what you think. It is an insult to be told anything about VSL by you.

I love the new SY-zed Chamber Strings because it brings some great improvements. But as William said, the Appassionata Strings are already perfect. So, I don't really see the point. I would have preferred to see SY-zed Solo Strings. Maybe for the next time ?

@William said:

Steffen - fahl5 - 

I don't need you to introduce me to VSL products.  Like you try to with Guy Bacos who has done one minute sections of music that obliterate everything on your website put together.  I am one of the original demo makers for this library - creating performances that sold this library while you were doing General MIDI performances that were horrible - even embarrassing  -  and your condescending "teach me" attitude is not appreciated or needed in the slightest.

You can learn something from me - but I know you won't, ever, because you are incapable of that.  You are mentally ill.  You are so egotistical and self-centered it is incredible.

Don't tell me how to do anything, don't contact me, don't respond - I don't care what you think. It is an insult to be told anything about VSL by you.

OMG William has his next rage attack.....👎

@daviddln said:

I love the new SY-zed Chamber Strings because it brings some great improvements. But as William said, the Appassionata Strings are already perfect. So, I don't really see the point. I would have preferred to see SY-zed Solo Strings. Maybe for the next time ?

If they bring more or less all legacy Libraries (except the Cube) in the Synchron Player, this allows a much more generalized and standarized workflow for  all libraries.

• keeping Sampleselection uniform over all Libraries, will make the exchange of Samplesets without loosing Articulation asignement tremdously easier
• Authentic Placemant and "balanced levels" of all available Libraries will be a timesaver for the Mix and Acoustig setting

I think that are some pretty good reasons However no one is currently kept of from using and even buying legacy Libraries with the legacy Player. Nevertheless I welcome each addition for the Synchron-World.

@William said:

The Appassionata strings are already incredibly beautiful! Probably the richest most perfect out of the box strings of any library. I don't really understand this.

@FabioA said:

... try harder to impress us and to present serious and competitive product, as it was in the past.

What exactly do you mean with that? What are your wishes? (Always better to explain because what you wrote is not enough to understand your wishes)

I mean that it's an oxymoron to say "the best out-of-the-box library" about a complete dry library. It's not a critique against VI dry libraries, it's just a fact that you have to add MIR (or another reverb) and you have to shape your sound from scratch. That's amazing actually! But it's the opposite of "out-of-the-box".

And if you ask me, I'm not interested at all in the Synchronized series, because in my humble opinion it mixes together the worst of the two worlds: with the Synchronized series you miss the freedom of VI-libraries, so as the the naturalness of a "real-wet recorded" library (MIR it's great, but to simulate virtual mics it's not the same that recording the real thing, for many reasons).
Not to mention (and this one is a VSL choice, not a technical reason) the synchronized series miss many articulations of the original VI-counterpart (and this one looks like a sad trend in the Synchron Series). 

This is just me. There are plenty of new and old users  that may find this new series useful.

No wishes anyway :) I'm quite stuffed with samples, so it's more and more difficult to convince me to buy new stuff; at the same time it looks like all companies release more and more similar products. Two skew lines at the moment :)

@Another User said:

the synchronized series miss many articulations of the original VI-counterpart (and this one looks like a sad trend in the Synchron Series). 

You know, that:

• Many Articulations provided as tons seperate Articulations in the VI-Series are already integrated in the main patches, like "repetetitions" or "Harsh" etc.
• Synchron Strings "I" is just a Volume "I" to get the full set, we still have to be patient (good things need their time)
• You can already now achieve many charateristics of VI-patchtypes currently not part of the Synchron Strings I with use of the Manipulating-Options of the Synchron player
• Filter for Sordini - as the only way many competitors are providing Sordini,
• different Attack values for smoother or more aggresive character,
• Editing Velocity-Xfade+ Expression via CC to get the natural tone development of longer stringnotes

As I said I do respect your Opinion and do not intend to convince you to anything, but those are the aspects, which seem to me a bit different, from how you described it as I understood it.

@LAJ said:

I understand the Synchronized Libraries as exception and I say Chamber and Appassionata will be the only transfer to the Sy Player FOR STRINGS.

Regarding to Paul's new introduction video my assumption was correct.
Means: No transfer to SY for EVERY VI-product (... and this is good)! It is better to keep the VI-Series separated with a dedicated Player that will be modernized/improved one day. (Time-Stretching, MirX-Mode and Humanizing make no sense for the SY-Series anyway ...)

Cheers.

@LAJ said:

I understand the Synchronized Libraries as exception and I say Chamber and Appassionata will be the only transfer to the Sy Player FOR STRINGS.

Regarding to Paul's new introduction video my assumption was correct.
Means: No transfer to SY for EVERY VI-product (... and this is good)! It is better to keep the VI-Series separated with a dedicated Player that will be modernized one day.

Cheers.

OK "transfer to SY for EVERY VI-product" is presumably already therefore not necessary, because new Synmchron-Libraries will in any case be build originally for Synchron-Player and therefore fit much better, than anything "synchronized".

While I still believe the Dimension Strings would benefit very much from being transfered (and the player perhaps to if we think about the humanizating features introduced with dimension strings.) 

However the Dimension Strings are still a very powerful and most appreciated Libraries, which in their complex structure will scarcly be replaced so fast by any Synchron Library..

If ever they would teach any Editing-Software to edit their existing samples in kind of any "batch rendering" as diligent, as their engineers currently do, this will boost up the output tremenmdously and a Synchronized Dimension-String Library will be much more realistic to get.

(Oh shit again one of my impudent futuristic suggestions for the VSL-Developpers, which will not be realised earlier than in approximatly five years😛)

@fahl5 said:

If ever they would teach any Editing-Software to edit their existing samples in kind of any "batch rendering" as diligent, as their engineers currently do, this will boost up the output tremenmdously and a Synchronized Dimension-String Library will be much more realistic to get.

That is what I mean with improvements. But as I wrote above (edited) some features like MIR-X-Modi (for all kind of Roompacks etc.) do not fit in the SY-Player. That's why I think a dedicated solution - similar to the SY-GUI is better. And ... think of the "Transposition Trick-Button" ... 😄 ... biggest wish of all ... :D💡😎🍺

@fahl5 said:

The Synchron-Player is by far much more individual configurable than the VI ever could be. As far as I can see you are of course always able to work with it in nearly every aspect as you did with VI before.

 

Where are "simulate virtual mics"???? You never could or even was supposed to do that in Mir. The Synchronized Libraries  also doesn't provide anyother than the real recorded Microphoneposition and the Microphonepositions in the Synchron Series-are of course not at all "virtual" in any way. So perhaps I did'nt understood you but I can not see any "virtual mics" at all.

To try explaining myself better: I think you never have a simple convolution with the "real recorded responses" in MIR PRO, neither in MIRx or with the Syncronized Series. It's always new IRs calculated taking into account several factors; in the case of MIRx and Synchronized seris VSL already made that choices computing for you, so that your system is "simpling" doing a convolution with a pair of responses, where you can just set the ratio of the convolution.

But even if you do a 100% convolution with a simple IRs recorded in an hall, it's not the same result of a real recording (as for the syncron series and for the majority of libraries out there) ; I think every users here agreed that the 3D definition of the Syncron Series is a "step-forward. It is so obvious, but it comes with a price: the only way you have to change the stereo imaging perception is to change the balance of various mics positions.