@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.

 "I think every users here agreed that the 3D definition of the Syncron Series is a "step-forward." - fabioa

What does that mean?  

You are saying it is better than MIR?  

@Another User said:

And about MIR, I'm pretty sure I'm right instead 😊 MIR makes ambisonics computing simulating the propagation of the sound of instruments and "virtual microphones" patterns that catch the sound. You don't see that, because you get a"stereo decoding" as result. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I understood it, MIR does not rely in any way on different (virtual) Microphone positions, but calculate the acoustic reflections of a "Source" depending to its position in the room nevertheless "recorded" by only one Stereomicrophone. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

If I remeber right Dietz has already experimented (inhouse only) with a Multimicrophone Version of Mir, which gave several complex possible simulation problems to solve that he rejected to develop anything like that for the user. However what we currently are able to mix in MIR is nothing more than the Dry + wet ratio.

@William said:

 "I think every users here agreed that the 3D definition of the Syncron Series is a "step-forward." - fabioa

What does that mean?  

You are saying it is better than MIR?  

I'm stating the obvious 😊 : a well-done real recording will always be more natural than dry samples plus digital/convolution reverbs. 

That doesn't mean that difference is huge, and as we know wet samples comes with some downsides.

@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.

Well... Fabio to be honest I don't think his answer was polite at all, the opposite was enphatic (as usual) and dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering! Obviously you are right and anybody with a minimal understanding of digital audio and wording knows.

About VI vs. Syn. again the statement is enphatic and wrong: it's obvious that VI has more features than Synchron: disregarding the sequencing features, anyway at least the brilliant humanization functions are missing in Synchron. 

@fahl5 said:

The Synchron-Player is by far much more individual configurable than the VI ever could be.

Just in order to comply with my natural obligation to oppose blatant anti-intellectualism:

This is nonsense.

Carry on!

@fatis12_24918 said:

Well... Fabio to be honest I don't think his answer was polite at all, the opposite was enphatic (as usual) and dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering! Obviously you are right and anybody with a minimal understanding of digital audio and wording knows.

About VI vs. Syn. again the statement is enphatic and wrong: it's obvious that VI has more features than Synchron: disregarding the sequencing features, anyway at least the brilliant humanization functions are missing in Synchron. 

Puh.... Fatis as we know him.... 👎

unfortunately many unpolite personal debasing words ("dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering") and, very little contribution to the Subject of the thread:

• Yes I did'nt mentioned the "Sequencer", since nearly nobody uses VI or Synchron without a real fully featured DAW-Sequencer like Cubase etc.
• the rest is wrong (of course I have discussed the "humanization" features)
• or without any concrete substance (what ever is "enpathic" I never heard and could not find this word at all 😕 I even have no Idea what sens it would have, or what contribution to the Subject of this thread it would be if you meant "emphatic" instead)
  

I hope we will and can better keep and continue the discussion as polite as Fabio has done.

Fabio - you're not stating anything obvious.  

@fahl5 said:

The Synchron-Player is by far much more individual configurable than the VI ever could be.

Just in order to comply with my natural obligation to oppose blatant anti-intellectualism:

This is nonsense.

Carry on!

That is so true - it is absolute nonsense.  With VI you have total control of all MIDI parameters down to the patch level in a powerful interface that is simple and direct and completely reconfigurable.  It can be as simple as one articulation, or as complex as hundreds - whatever the player wishes.    

@Another User said:

With VI you have total control of all MIDI parameters down to the patch level in a powerful interface that is simple and direct and completely reconfigurable.  It can be as simple as one articulation, or as complex as hundreds - whatever the player wishes.   

As far as I can see in the Synchron Player you likewise  do have "total control of all MIDI parameters down to the patch level in a powerful interface that is simple and direct and completely reconfigurable.  It can be as simple as one articulation, or as complex as hundreds - whatever the player wishes"

• Just take a look on the Midi CC's asigned to each single Parameter and the Dropdown menu to configure that controle as you like.
• You can easily "edit" the individual level and envelope and further details of each patch, or treeposition with all its dependend Subtree items in the "Edit" section.

There is as far as I know nothing missing what we have had in VI. Correct me if I am wrong. But this aspect does not seem to make any difference in customizability between VI and Syn-Player.

But:

• In Vi you are not able to controle the Level of any Mixer-Slot with any individual Midi-CC in Synchron Player each Value of a Mixerslot could be asigned to its own Cotrole option (Midi CC etc.)
• Do you remember the tremerdous complex VE-Templates the VSL-Guys provided for Synchron-Samples while the Synchron Player was not available. It does not seem to me that the necessity of such Templates would be any kind of advantage.

@fatis12_24918 said:

Well... Fabio to be honest I don't think his answer was polite at all, the opposite was enphatic (as usual) and dictated by ignorance of basic sound engineering! Obviously you are right and anybody with a minimal understanding of digital audio and wording knows. About VI vs. Syn. again the statement is enphatic and wrong: it's obvious that VI has more features than Synchron: disregarding the sequencing features, anyway at least the brilliant humanization functions are missing in Synchron.