194,218 users have contributed to 42,914 threads and 257,935 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 16 new post(s) and 94 new user(s).
Which preset and library are you talking about than I can have a look. In the power the pan itself should be left - right but maybe the balance was a little changed so you could hear more from the violins.
For example: Elite Strings. Every preset has the balance changed. So you answered the question already. Was just wondering why. So, in a "normal" recording situation the balance should be in the center.
HI,
For time alignment it can be mad in both directions depending of what is important. If you want be really precise in the sound it is better to have close and mids before the rooms.
For samples everything is time aligned to zero so you do not have any delay when playing with the keyboard. So to go back to real recordings you have to move the tree back again.
If you like to move the close and mids back, try it.
Best
Bernd
For samples everything is time aligned to zero so you do not have any delay when playing with the keyboard. So to go back to real recordings you have to move the tree back again.
I'm not really fond of that keyboard delay thing. At least this explains why the sampled legato is really short (even compared to the silent stage). Wouldn't it be "better" if there was some delay instead of zero? In my opinion, there has to be some tiny bit while playing with the keyboard. The silent stage samples have some delay. But that's another topic. 😄 But to be honest: That's false advertising. If VSL claims to be time-aligned, than it should be "correct" and not zero. This is mentioned nowhere.
Sorry for asking again: I'm not quite sure if I understood correctly. Time-alignment with Synchron means: Everything is at zero and NOT to the "correct" position?
If everything is at zero and the tree is put back again to match reality, why is the mid and the main center microphone not delayed?
My thinking with the new information would be:
– Close: 0ms
– Mid: e.g. 3ms ?
– Tree Center: 21ms ?
– Tree Stereo: More than 21ms?
– Heighs and Surrounds: Even more ?
In my opinion it would be nice if there was a mixer preset which would really resemble reality. Maybe it's too much asked, but, as I said earlier, there is a huge difference in sound with the delays we now have in the presets. I spent a lot of time comparing to other libraries. Why not make a mixer preset with the "correct" delays? I think this would also be a huge thing for other users (who also complain about the sound). And as I also said before: this reduces the phasing issue with the vibrato crossfade in the strings.
That's false advertising. If VSL claims to be time-aligned, than it should be "correct" and not zero. This is mentioned nowhere.
In my humble opinion, it is always a good idea to learn about something before accusing someone of giving false information.
Time-aligned means that all the channels start to play in sync. This wouldn't be possible without time-alignment, for the hard reality that sound takes more time to reach distant positions. Having to do it live, one would do this by adding delay to the closer microphones, so that they are all heard at the same time. In recording, you print this delay in the recorded track.
If you want the same situation as in the original recording, just add delay to the mics, increasing it in order of distance. This is hardly what is intended to be ideal in actual use, for the bare reason that we humans hear from a single position. Our brain can add focus on 'spots', and it is on this illusion that a sound engineer plays when mixing mics, delays, reverbs.
Paolo
If you like to move the close and mids back, try it.
Exploring the mixer is a lot of fun! What I discovered, by delaying the closer mics, is that the attack gets smoothed out in a way that can't be done with the Attack MIDI parameter. Mixing can be a powerful sound design tool!
Paolo
Pixelpoet1985: You are mixing up a few things. The legato timing has nothing to do with time alignment or microphone alignment.
Making presets with the correct delays of the recordings is an option we can think about but that would not be time alignment. Time alignment means "all micrphones start at the same time". This happen when you turn off the delays or set them to 0 as I mentioned before. So please this no false advertising!
The more different delays you have set to the mics the more phasing you will get. That is way I made presets in which the close and mid mics are aligned to get a compact close sound. After around 15 to 20 ms the ear can hear 2 signals which are quite the same as delay and not so much of phasing. Thats why it is set to 21ms and it is very close to the real distant of the recordings.
Is the vibrato phasing also happening when you have opened just 1 mic?
Best
Bernd
BERND,
As the original poster. I wanted to thank you for all the info. Through this thread I've really started to get a firm grasp on how to use the delay function, and already implemented some major improvements in my mix template.
An important follow up question that I do have is regarding the Decca Tree channels/microphones. Were these channels time aligned individually or as a pair? In other words, do I need to delay/offset the Main-LR and Main-C differently to restore the equilateral triangle required for the Decca Tree? I'd think that the spatial relationship between L/C/R channels is important to maintain.
I'm planning on creating my own presets (to the best of my ability) that match something close to the original recording configuration, it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to do since I understand the general layout of the Synchron Hall. For those that are interested: perhaps we could work together to dial this in.
Regards,
Jason Todd Shannon
First: I never accused someone. If it sounded harsh, I'm sorry. It's very easy with written words to interpret something. It was not my intention!
If you want the same situation as in the original recording, just add delay to the mics, increasing it in order of distance. This is hardly what is intended to be ideal in actual use, for the bare reason that we humans hear from a single position. Our brain can add focus on 'spots', and it is on this illusion that a sound engineer plays when mixing mics, delays, reverbs.
Yes, but the problem is: I don't know the numbers. 21m or 42ms seems very vague. Every instrument and each mic would need a number on its own, isn't it?
Is the vibrato phasing also happening when you have opened just 1 mic?
The curious thing is that it happens after some time of playing and not instantly – no matter which preset (senza, regular, molto). I don't know at the moment, but if I recall correctly it also happens with just the room mix. I haven't tested all possible scenarios (I only have the standard microphones), but figured out that some delay eliminates the phasing.
I don't know the numbers. 21m or 42ms seems very vague.
On the contrary, that's very precise! Just convert the time to distance, and you get how much the delay moves the instrument to the back of the stage (or the mics toward the listener). As an added information, Bernd wrote above that 21ms (=7m) is also a safe amount, since it doesn't risk to become phasing.
Paolo
On the contrary, that's very precise! Just convert the time to distance, and you get how much the delay moves the instrument to the back of the stage (or the mics toward the listener). As an added information, Bernd wrote above that 21ms (=7m) is also a safe amount, since it doesn't risk to become phasing.
Yes, but using this value for everything would mean that each instrument was recorded at the same position / distance. 7m for the strings? Come on.
I mean if the original delay of the main mic was e.g. 7ms for the strings and it was negatively delayed by 7ms to match the close mics of the strings. Why do you add 21ms which is way more delay? I don't understand that. This is what I mean with "vague".
I'm asking for the exact numbers and only VSL can give us this information. I don't know at what position the close and mid microphones (and all the other relations) are. Maybe it would have been better if there was no delay built in and all the different delays were made in the Synchron player.
Just posting this follow-up because I thought it might help others...
There are stage plots of the Synchron recording session published on the website, which show where the sections and microphones are placed. Knowing that the Synchron stage is 30m wide and 17-19m deep, it is pretty easy to derive the original distances and spacing between the microphones and the sections.
It looks to me that the 21ms delay in the string presets (as an example) are right on, as Bernd has already suggested, because the distance between the MAIN L/R and the string sections are between 5-7 meters (so a good delay variable to use as a starting point would be 15-21 milliseconds).
Additionally, I did some tests in my DAW, and confirmed everything that was suggested in this thread. The microphones are clearly time aligned, meaning that when you disable the delay, or use 0 as a variable, the transient attack of the samples are all aligned to the same starting point. The one minor exception to this is that the relation between the MAIN L/R and the CENTER of the Decca tree were time aligned as a group, for the purposes of maintaining the spatial relationship of L/C/R.
QUOTE: "And I think it is a very wrong decision by VSL to avoid delay while playing on the keyboard."
I was of a similar mind until I understood what was going on. Now I have to respectfully disagree with this. Time alignment is the right approach because I want minimal latency as a starting point, and it is easy enough to add the delays back in to achieve whatever room layout you'd prefer, including a preset that approximates the original recording layout/timing. I wouldn't want to be in the opposite situation where I was trying to compensate for baked in delays and I was trying to remove them.
And lastly, a note on phasing, because this is something that I've struggled with in the past. To avoid phasing, you have to play with the channel delays and the phase button in the mixer just like you would in a real recording session. These are real audio signals of real microphones and phasing is an avoidable physics problem. This is an absolute requirement unless you are only using a single microphone. Additionally, you have to be careful of how you are routing signals in your DAW. For example, if you are routing a dry signal then using a send for a reverb with a less than 100% wet mix, this can cause phase issues. Make sure to use 100% wet reverbs on FX sends and be careful of any FX that might be splitting and recombining signals. Finally, make sure your MIDI setup isn't double triggering notes. I use a ROLI Seaboard and it double triggers MIDI if it isn't configured for the VSL Synchron player correctly. These things can also cause phase issues!
Regards,
Jason Todd Shannon
And lastly, a note on phasing, because this is something that I've struggled with in the past. To avoid phasing, you have to play with the channel delays and the phase button in the mixer just like you would in a real recording session. These are real audio signals of real microphones and phasing is an avoidable physics problem. This is an absolute requirement unless you are only using a single microphone. Additionally, you have to be careful of how you are routing signals in your DAW. For example, if you are routing a dry signal then using a send for a reverb with a 50/50 wet/dry mix, this can cause phase issues. Make sure to use 100% wet reverbs on FX sends and be careful of any FX that might be splitting and recombining signals. Finally, make sure your MIDI setup isn't double triggering notes. I use a ROLI Seaboard and it double triggers MIDI if it isn't configured for the VSL Synchron player correctly. These things can also cause phase issues!
Thanks for the input! Very appreciated! But I don't use any processing. The phasing just happens. And it's also not my job figuring this out. In no other library I have there is such a severe phasing issue. I think it's because of the delays.
Hello all
Here are my 2 cents on the subject of microphone signal delay:
My job is "Recording Live Concerts". For this I usually base my recordings on a main mic (ORTF, Decca, EBS etc.). When the formations get bigger, I have to use mic spots especially to bring the rear instruments into the mix a bit to give them back some presence (but also soloists). If you didn't do that, then all the percussion instruments, for example, would sound rather washed out and reflections from walls, ceilings, etc. would then be so dominant, which wouldn't do the overall sound any good at all. In order for the "presence-return" to work well, it is important that the distance "main microphones - spot microphones" is balanced in time (0ms). The trick is to balance the volume of the spot microphones (close) in such a way that the distant instruments sound more present, but are still perceived at their natural distance - in other words, they don't really move closer.
To cut a long story short: In a good and transparent recording, the times between the microphones are more likely to be balanced (in time) than not. If there are time differences between the microphones, the main danger of acoustic cancellations is great.
What am I trying to say? Experimentation is always good. If it sounds better, unconventional things are great of course. But with all experimentation, you should always try a variation where all delays are set to 0ms. Then you have the situation that all signals generate the least amount of such (mentioned above) cancellations. It simulates the situation as if all microphones were 0m away from each other in time. So adding delay times by you as the user means restoring the "real recording world", but at the same time " re-worsening" the situation, which the recording engineer tried to correct by all means.
A lot of success
Beat
Beat, thanks for your input, as I don't have any recording experience. Very appreciated!
Actually, I don't know if I'm still ok with what I wrote. :) I would prefer a time-aligned version, I think, but not the Synchron one. I think there is a sonic difference between an alignment where the main microphones were set to 0 ms instead of delaying the close ones to the main mics. I find the sound very "instant" and "flat" (in lack of a better term), and I can hear this especially in the legatos. There is something missing which I can't fully name and describe.
With my posts I tried to give ideas to think about. I don't know if this is the solution at all, but I (and many other users) simply don't get warm to the sound. I mean, this has to tell us something? Why does the Synchron libraries does sound so different to other libraries?
Especially the legatos. It is because of the microphones being used or the time-alignment? I don't think that these are the famous VSL legatos. Unfortunately VSL doesn't talk much about these things. Do we still have dedicated legato landing notes or just crossfades like in the older leg-sus patches? For me it sounds more like the latter one, and this would really be a pity. I don't want an overly expressive legato, I wan't the same legato we have in the VI libraries. But again: I didn't want to bring the legato topic back, but for me this is still a huge turn-off from the Synchron series (everything else is top-notch as always with VSL).
Beat, thanks for your input, as I don't have any recording experience. Very appreciated!
Actually, I don't know if I'm still ok with what I wrote. 😊 I would prefer a time-aligned version, I think, but not the Synchron one. I think there is a sonic difference between an alignment where the main microphones were set to 0 ms instead of delaying the close ones to the main mics. I find the sound very "instant" and "flat" (in lack of a better term), and I can hear this especially in the legatos. There is something missing which I can't fully name and describe...
Hello Pixelpoet1985
I'm going to assume that VSL solved the timing synchronization of all microphones well, so we users don't have to take on the task of doing it ourselves between microphones. By the way, I use the tool "https://www.soundradix.com/products/auto-align/" for this matter in my recordings
But as I read from your post, you somehow don't quite like the sound of the sync libraries. Although you attach this circumstance to the Legatos, I sense from your text that this applies more or less generally. At the same time, it seems that this was not yet the case with the VI libraries...
The thing with the sound went me also so. Just because I myself record orchestras, I hoped that the synchron recordings now correspond to how I record strings, for example: A super natural sound, now new with spatial synchron stage component - and everything as we are used to from VSL: in the best quality.
So I ordered in advance the Synchrons Strings ... and was mighty disappointed. I put them aside and used them no more. I didn't like all the presets. Especially the presets that make the orchestra sound distant were the most unnatural sounding to me.
I had the same bad feeling with the synchronized libraries, some of which I bought but never used...
------------------------------
Then one day came the message from VSL - that we can now use the libraries in "default mode". So unprocessed - the sound shuld be as the instruments were recorded. That was the turning point for me. Suddenly I had the sound available that I actually wanted... The libraries suddenly sounded fresh, natural, I could have the second violins play on the right, layering string libraries resulted in more fresh combinations, etc. free from any setting by VSL. Since then, I am an enthusiastic "unprocessed user" who is thrilled with the new synchronous line. Meanwhile I also do all the mixing (positions on stage of the instruments) in the individual Synchron players and put only one Reverb with a little Tail in the output channel. And because sound is a matter of taste - I found my personal sound with the presets "unprocessed". Listen to some "unprocessed" demos... or also here with the Prime Edition.
In short: Maybe you will find your solution also by using the "unprocessed version" or also called "default". I think with different milliseconds between the microphones you gain little. With all my demos, I just make music. I'm never bothered by legatos that don't sound exactly the same as in reality, because everything together sounds quite real (e.g. a little night music) and fresh... In any case, an independent person would not point out the legatos as a serious problem.
In this sense, perhaps a new approach to also regain more joy in the great VSL samples.
Beat
Beat, thanks for all your lengthy and detailed answers. Very appreciated!
I also pre-ordered Synchron Strings and was also disappointed with the sound. But only with the sound – not the legatos, for examples. At least we had patches VSL had been known for and no other developer had: fast legatos, performance trills. This is a missed chance and totally not understandable why VSL took a new route. The old libraries were and are still miles ahead of the competition and better than the Synchron ones. The new libraries only have this agile legato which is awful and only works in some very special cases – useless for me and extremely out of tune (which might be good for strings, but for the other instruments?). VSL should really think about the current legatos, because these aren't good. You can definitely hear that they use crossfaded legatos instead of dedicated landing notes (a clarification by VSL would be nice, by the way). It's very emotionless. And not only is the natural delay missing, also the slight timbre and tuning change when the legato transition happens.
I also miss the natural dynamic behaviour of the VI series, i.e. the vibrato naturally increases with your dynamics. We now have crossfade-able vibrato, but it's not the same, especially with VSL's clean approach. And to get the same feeling as in the old libraries, you have to use crossfade all the time. These espressivo patches are also useless for me, the vibrato kicks in way too late. I don't understand this. But hey, it's only me! :)
Back to the sound:
To be honest, I also tried the unprocessed preset. But where to start? And why has it always be so difficult with VSL? In any (!) other library I have I take the tree and the sound is good. With Synchron I have to experiment and use many microphones (and delays!) to get the same result. Phew! ... We have thousands of presets and they aren't good and not to my taste. Why not drastically reduce them to, let's say, three mixes. I want a classical (scoring stage) sound like in other libraries, with some reverb, EQ, saturation, limiter. For example, the lush presets are ridiculous with all the delay and processing. In which normal situation should these be taken?
Some presets are good, but not unified across the instruments. For the strings I like the ambience mix, for brass the close or classic mix. Why not make, as I just said, one or three mixes with a good classical sound in which the instruments share the same base microphones? I mean, in which normal recording situation you have various settings for the tree? Never. It's always the same.
I hope it didn't sound harsh again. Because I start to think if you get too harsh you won't get any answers. I'm still waiting for Bernd to answer some of my previous questions ... ;)
Beat, thanks for all your lengthy and detailed answers. Very appreciated!
I also pre-ordered Synchron Strings and ... I'm still waiting for Bernd to answer some of my previous questions ... 😉...
I have no real answers to your questions. These must actually give VSL. But I have a few more thoughts and facts on the subjects if you're interested.
VSL sound development over the last 20 years
When VSL started, the credo was to produce samples that sound as natural (neutral) as possible. Furthermore, the samples should be as universal as possible. So they offered them as dry as possible. The difficulty at that time was to produce samples as neutral as possible, but still in a way that they didn't sound too dead. VSL achieved super high quality, whereas other libraries sometimes had individual sounds that contained errors. This was very annoying when the error was always heard at the G#...
Despite all the super sound of the VSL libraries, it was obvious that the neutrality was "interpreted" by some users as somewhat expressionless and that many of the users had trouble creating a concert atmosphere with the dry samples. I always used as much as possible different articulations and had never problems with "an expressionless sound". But it is understandable that a composer would actually want to simply combine his piece with samples and then it should sound like a real orchestra.
So VSL came up with the brilliant idea of MIR - a processor that takes care of the mix with the right acoustics, just by placing the instruments on a virtual stage. VSL wanted to do it quite well (as always) and even integrated the possibility to have instruments play backwards - away from the listener but also integrated many microphon systems and and and. So at the same time, VSL wanted to continue to offer the great flexibility of the past. The result is/was a product where you can adjust so much that the beginner is overwhelmed and where you can adjust so much that the sound is certainly not 100% the best. Since MIR, in my opinion, all demos are (partly far) away from the former neutrality in sound. This is especially true when a lot of instruments play in MIR. The people at VSL never agreed with me on this point. This was also the reason why I hardly ever commented in the forum during the last years. I respect, that they can sell a product that the find super, without a customer who has not the same meaning.
When VSL then recorded their libraries in the Synchronstage, the library sounds were strangely all still somehow "processed". In any case, there was no perceptible gain in the sound, even if "real space" could now be added with other microphones. But then suddenly the samples could also be used unprocessed. Now the former neutrality in sound is/was available again. For this I am very grateful to VSL.
Which customers VSL wants to satisfy with their presets I don't know exactly. It is probably the sample beginners. I can see it in myself. The experienced user accesses the unprocessed samples. But I agree with you that there is still room for improvement in the sound of the presets. Many just sound totally discolored, "boomy", "cheesy" or...
To the Legato sounds
VSL was one of the first companies to offer Legatos. But soon there were musicians who demanded a more "warm legato", a sad legato and so on. The discussions about legatos are actually as old as the first legato samples.
From earlier times I know that VSL recorded the intermediate notes for an octave up and for an octave down (from each note). In painstaking work, one (Herb) then somehow cross-linked these transition tones so that they were used correctly when playing. An incredibly huge and fine job, considering that this was also done for different layers.
I can imagine that a simplification had to be made, because today the instruments not only have different layers (dynamics) but also different microphones. The work of producing legatos in the past (e.g. solo strings) would get out of hand with the new libraries. Especially when you consider that everything would also have to be done for surround. So I believe that the legatos are done simulated in "another way"
This is how I solve "a more natural legato"
In large ensembles you don't really hear the legato thing and in smaller formations I "layer" the ensemble libraries with solo libraries anyway. So the whole legato thing doesn't bother me much.
My attitude towards the limited possibilities when using samples
When I bought my first synth in 1975, there were no computers to record music, only sequencers. Ping-pong recording on a Revox tape produced polyphonic music because the first synthesizers only played monophonic. In the 80s, midi gradually appeared, along with midi sounds. When I bought the first library in 2002, it was another huge step towards real orchestral sound. Knowing all the music prodaction matters before I'm still thrilled when I have a whole symphony orchestra by my side at 3 a.m. No divisi, some artificial legato sounds and things like that don't really bother me. I've learned over the years that working with samples also means making a lot of compromises (missing articulations, wrong vibratos, legatos, timing problems due to fixed articulations, etc.). I'm just trying to do the best I can and I'm happy with the results so far. Nevertheless, I also notice that the music with samples sounded just as good about 20 years ago as it does today. If you can't make this willingness to compromise, it's probably best to leave the music with samples. Anyone who is halfway willing to accept the restrictions should try to enjoy what is already possible. He can also hope that manufacturers like VSL are trying to get better and better. The fact that none of the competitors is really that much better shows that the task is not easy.
Future
A next level will probably be reached when more artificial intelligence supports us in choosing articulations, connecting two notes (legatos), etc. Reaching this new level will probably take a while.
All the best
Beat
