@William said:

It was designed to be absolutely as silent and non-reverberant as possible in order to allow total freedom of additional reverbs of any kind. This is its great value. It adds almost no color or ambience to the recordings.  The fact that it can be scientifically analyzed in a lab as having "reverb" that is barely detectable by the human ear doesn't translate into what one hears in a simple musical sense, which is a totally dry sound.  The proof of this is that no one ever uses the Silent Stage samples in an actual performance without adding some kind of reverb - they would sound far too dry.  But this allows any kind of reverb from hardware to MIR to Moog analog delay to be used.   

Exactly👍

This is what I meant by flexibility.  Thanks William, you've crystalized my thoughts quite eloquently here.

Let's not forget that creating a sonic environment can be an art form in itself.

@fahl5 said:

So I dont think that we differ that much. neither is here any "polemic" or need of any reminder against polemic. I can only see great apreciation and interest in the Work of VSL aswell that was already done as in what they are currently doing.

Yes with this vision, now, I totally agree. Well stated Fahl.

@William said:

Historic winds - SACKBUTTS!  Absolutely essential for so many historic era performances.

Speaking of the Renaissance trombone, I don't think I have anything useful to say to a company based in the town of the Concentus Musicus Wien, but I'll anyway suggest a reading (or re-reading) to this interesting book on the various sackbuts available today:

https://books.google.it/books?id=9IMVxu1y9O0C&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=sackbut+small+bore&source=bl&ots=12XAGRd080&sig=il-qvxrXsbxZbWXlLix2jRkWRLw&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrn9Dbnc3dAhWJjCwKHatED3wQ6AEwEXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In the meantime, while waiting for a true Renaissance trombone library, after having heard what can be done with the Solo Violin 2, Solo Cello 2 and Chamber Strings for Baroque music, I'll see what can be done with the modern trombone family already included in the VI collection.

Paolo

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but weren't bowed string instruments a little different during the Baroque Period?  Weren't the bows shorter for example? 

I'm not sure if that would have any affect on the sound but I was just curious what the differences were between historic strings and contemporary.

There are many different instruments altogether that no longer exist, but also differences in construction, size, materials, timbre, playing techniques.  The modern instruments are just the tail end of instrument-making.  Even in the Classical era - let alone Baroque or earlier eras - one would find instruments considerably different from those in a modern orchestra, which of course accounts for  all the interest in "period" recordings one sometimes finds for example Beethoven symphonies played on all "authentic" instruments of the time, etc.    

@jasensmith said:

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but weren't bowed string instruments a little different during the Baroque Period?  Weren't the bows shorter for example?

Instruments at the beginning of the Baroque era (let's say, the age of Monteverdi) where very different. The violin had a shorter neck, a flatter table, a lower bridge, a very different bow and bowing technique, and different strings. Monteverdi himself, however, ignited several innovations to instrument's making.

Some instruments no longer exist. We no longer use viols. The cornetto, included in the VSL collection, was a common instruments at the beginning of the Seventeenth century, and progressively disappeared while the century progressed. The trombone was different, with a smaller bore and less flared bell, and a technique that asked for a mellower sound conceived to accompany human voices.

The time of Bach was nearer to us. Still different, but with more modern ideas of instrment making and use. There are still noticeable differences, but a VSL user (Philippe Baylac) showed how well you can imitate that style and sound with the instruments contained in the VSL collection of modern instruments. You can listen yourself in his Soundcloud channel:

https://soundcloud.com/search?q=Philippe%20BAYLAC

Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. Some experimentation can however result in interesting hybrid results (like, for example, the kind of interpretation we were accustomed to with orchestras like the St. Martin-in-the-Fields, or the ones by Pinchas Zukerman).

Paolo

I think that the following statements:

The Silent Stage is dry

The Silent Stage has a lot of early reflections

The Silent Stage was built to color the sound as little as possible

The Silent Stage does have its own color

are all true statements.  You're all correct, the Silent Stage was built to be dry but even a dry environment still has a bit of color, and early reflections are not the same as reverberance.  I have also previously read that Silent Stage recordings get edited to further reduce the amount of tail that gets recorded, maybe I'm remembering wrong but I thought I had read that before.  All of this just means that the VI recordings were *designed* for a particular type of use, and sure you can use Synchron the same way, but that's not its design, and that does make a difference.

"Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. " - paolo

That is true and why expanding the Historic Instruments is so desirable. It would be great to have a complete "authentic" Historic collection featuring strings and percussion as well as winds.  

@William said:

"Imitating older instruments with modern instruments seems to be impossible. " - paolo

That is true and why expanding the Historic Instruments is so desirable. It would be great to have a complete "authentic" Historic collection featuring strings and percussion as well as winds.  

I agree, and VSL is the most trustworthy company to get that right!

Quite apart from the excellence of the VI libraries, VI Pro is such an elegant solution to problems inherent in libriaries with a large number of articulations. With VI Pro everything is so easy, yet hugely flexible and powerful. 

@johnstaf said:

Quite apart from the excellence of the VI libraries, VI Pro is such an elegant solution to problems inherent in libriaries with a large number of articulations. With VI Pro everything is so easy, yet hugely flexible and powerful. 

And in my humble opinion the Synchron Player compared to the VI-Player simply the next quantum leap ahead: in literally every aspect easiet, yet more flexible and more powerful.

It is NOT more flexible or more powerful.  It is just a different interface that is all.  It is  personal preference whether one uses it or not.  Don't elevate mere preference into a fact. 

With VI one can control EVERY PARAMETER OF MIDI in an elegant setup with all needed controls upfront.  You have stated VI is "laborious" - it is not "laborious" at all with the proper templates, but rather is very easy and quick to use.   And MIR, the companion to VI,  is the easiest of all to use of any professional software I have ever encountered.  

And please don't start lecturing me on Synchron like I am a beginner - your normal mode of dealing with everyone.  I already have Synchron and think it is very good.  As I stated this was simply a supportive statement about VI, not about putting down Synchron.  

@William said:

It is NOT more flexible or more powerful.  It is just a different interface that is all.  It is  personal preference whether one uses it or not.  Don't elevate mere preference into a fact. 

With VI one can control EVERY PARAMETER OF MIDI in an elegant setup with all needed controls upfront.  You have stated VI is "laborious" - it is not "laborious" at all with the proper templates, but rather is very easy and quick to use.   And MIR, the companion to VI,  is the easiest of all to use of any professional software I have ever encountered.  

And please don't start lecturing me on Synchron like I am a beginner - your normal mode of dealing with everyone.  I already have Synchron and think it is very good.  As I stated this was simply a supportive statement about VI, not about putting down Synchron.  

Hi William, since there have been times we were able to discuss reasonable, I still think we both will be able to comunicate as respectful as this forum deserves it.

So let me start exactly with that: I respect totally your personal preference for the workflow you have developed over ther years with VI I think we both consent, that there is still by far no other sampleplayer from any other competitor ready to compete VI in any way. It is tremendouspowerful, and versatile.

There are three aspects which I personally esteem in Synchron as even more powerful:

• While VI is basedf on a more or less two dimensional Matrix systemthe Treestructure of Synchron opens up x⁸ as much possible ways top combine patches in certain 8 different "dimensions" of the same preset. In my humble opinion that is just "more".
• VI provides for each "cell" one option to X-fade selected Patches in a special slot for that function. In Synchron you can chose up to xfade through each "Dimensioon" what gives at least the option to X-Fade with the same patch in multiple directions that is just "more" than one.
• The mixer in Synchron is full featured and as such in nearly every detail accessible for seperate midi-conmtrole (as most other functions to) this is just "more" than the Pan and volume options of the VI-.Mixer

I will stop here to avoid what you might judge as lecturing and hope I havend took more text than you just to indicate my point of view. While Of course the fact, that the Symchron-Player is still un vivid develpoment makes it very resonable if we the users discuss exactly what we like and what we expect the Player should do. So if there is anything Synchron currently is not able to and anyone of us might regard as necessary feature. I think now is the best time to discuss that.

So please dont think I would have any interest to dispute your standpoint. It is just the exchangfe of oipnions and diffderent personal views which can be of iumportants for the further development of the VSL-Products and thats in my humble opinion a good reason to discuss detailed and concrete.

Dear Fahl, I agree 100% that Synchron player is an elegant and powerful system, but I don't think it's "more" than VI for the reason you listed, and your description was not very accuarate, sometime incorrect:

@Another User said:

• The mixer in Synchron is full featured and as such in nearly every detail accessible for seperate midi-conmtrole (as most other functions to) this is just "more" than the Pan and volume options of the VI-.Mixer

No, the slot mixer of Synchron is exactly the same of VI Pro, it has just volume and pan. What you mention is the channels Mixer, because Synchron player is multichannel to manage multiple mics: the multichannel manager of VI Pro is VE, and VE Mixer has of course the same functions of Synchron, and more more more other functions of course!

Finally still lot of precise and professional features of VI Pro (e.g. scales and intervals, sample stretch, sequencing, divisi, humanizing etc.) are missing in Synchron of course, because they have slightly different targets and application, so I can't really understand why we should try to compare so different tools, but at the end, it's impossible to state that the actual version of Synchron is better than VI Pro today, in my very humble opinion of course, but also checking facts.

Dear Fatis, dont take me wrong I see we consent in many aspects. Let me just try to indicate a few aspects I slightly differ in my personal understanding of the concept.

@Another User said:

Finally still lot of precise and professional features of VI Pro (e.g. scales and intervals, sample stretch, sequencing, divisi, humanizing etc.) are missing in Synchron of course, because they have slightly different targets and application, so I can't really understand why we should try to compare so different tools, but at the end, it's impossible to state that the actual version of Synchron is better than VI Pro today, in my very humble opinion of course, but also checking facts.

It is right that some of the features you mention are still not implremented. We will see what the further Development might bring. I do have the impression, that they ad as much features you might need to use the Libraries offered, and will ad new features as soon a new library will make that reasonable to have.

However no one is currently kept from using VI. It is already a great Player. Nevertheless to discuss what we would like to see in Synchron might contribute to focus the development of it and that is in my humble opinion of course a good reason for exchange our different understandings in a detailed discussion here.

I hope I was able to keep everything fine for you, even if I pointed on some different understandings in details.

They should have just built the mixing section to vipro.

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

@TFIS said:

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

Which exactly?

@TFIS said:

The new player has (imo) more dis- than advantages.

Which exactly?

Humanize gone

repetitions can't be edited

less control sources,

sequencer gone,

keyboard volume tracking gone,

mirx integration gone,

adjusting controller curves in sy-player is a pain in the ass,

scale editor gone,

remote app gone,

master release switch gone,

A/B switch gone,

"auto" voicing gone (which was never  "divisi"),

standalone mode gone...

just to name a few without looking too deep into the details.

@Another User said:

just to name a few without looking too deep into the details.

You might be right in some aspects. meanwhile the Synchron-Player is young and is presumably growing with each new library available for it.

To sum up: I understand and share your apreciation for VI which is in many aspects impressivly full of reasonable features, while I also like the large additional felxibilioty and power of the new concept, which nevertheless will need its time to unfold up to the same maturity the VI has already reached. Still I think the fundamental advantages available with the new concepts deserve to be patient to let the synchron Player develop likewise in the next years.