@mducharme said:

The "Synchron" libraries are recorded in Synchron Stage, so the recordings naturally pick up the reverb from the hall and there is no way to remove that (when the performer plays in Synchron Stage, you hear not only the performer, but the hall, and so the recording hears that too).

The "Synchron-ized" libraries are different - those are updated versions of their Vienna Instruments libraries, which were recorded in VSL's very dry "Silent Stage" a long time ago. These libraries are very dry and come with a Synchron Stage simulation reverb (which you can turn off) to make it sound like they were in the Synchron Stage, to aid in their placement in a mix together with Synchron libraries. If you turn off the Synchron Stage reverb in this case, you get the bone dry samples as they were recorded in the Silent Stage.

Even in the Synchron libraries, you can reduce the recorded hall ambience by mostly using the close mics. There is still a lot of control because Synchron Stage is not the wettest stage, so the samples are still dry enough that you have a lot of flexibility in making them work with other samples. It is much more dry of a stage than the Air Lyndhurst that Spitfire often records at, and much more dry than the Sony stage that Cinesamples records at, and a bit more dry than the Teldex stage that Orchestral Tools uses in Berlin. Because of this, you aren't locked in quite as much to the "large hall" sound as with some other libraries.

Thank you for that synopsis - I appreciate it and it taught me some things

However, I am still not clear on the following:

1. Is the "Reverb" plugin on the channel strip different than the baked in reverb? and
2. In order for the instruments to blend, should the same mic mixes be used?

Thank you

@cinematicpop said:
In order for the instruments to blend, should the same mic mixes be used?

Not necessarily. I'm not really a mixing expert so I'm not the best person to answer this. However, with ensembles of any meaningful size, you usually want to create a sense of depth, where it sounds like some instruments are behind others. For instance, in an orchestra, the brass and percussion sit at the back and the strings at the front. So it would be normal to use more of the far and surround mics for brass and percussion to make them sound further away, and more of the closer mics for strings to make them sound closer, creating this virtual sound stage.

That's not to say that you'll not use any close mics for brass and percussion. Perhaps there is a case where you want more detail in the brass and percussion, and you can get this detail by adding more close mic, but adding too much close mic to brass and percussion might make them sound too close to you and create an unrealistic sound stage. So you might take the close mic channel and EQ it to reduce the proximity effect to make it sound further away, and add reverb to it so that it still provides the detail you want but blends with the tree and surround microphones that you're also using. This is a situation where you might have different amounts of reverb used on different channels in the Synchron Player mixer, with the close mic needing more reverb to blend with the more distant mics.

Again, the Mixer Presets provide a pretty decent starting point, taking a lot of these things into account.

Thank you for the very clear explanation!

**Leigh

With a view to helping not only Synchron-inexperienced users such as the OP above but also many Synchron users generally -

would any users of Audio Grocery's latest version of X-Daw be kind enough to give us a brief review of that product here, especially as relevant to Logic Pro users who have to find ways of working around Logic's limit of 3 output-messages per Articulation ID when using the big Synchron libraries?

I'd very much appreciate such a review and I guess many other members would also.

Never mind, I've just ordered Pro X-DAW.

Looking forward to using some nicely developed professional scripts and especially the very handy opto text reader.

If it turns out to be a neat 'secret weapon' - perhaps why nobody's speaking about it here - then don't expect me to blabber about it either! Haha!

@Helmholtz, your question was off-topic, but I did want to respond. If you have questions relative to XDAW, Logic, and VSL products, please consider creating a new topic. If I see it and I can further assist you, I will.

Ivan, the creator of XDAW, has always been very good responding to any questions I’ve had. I recall the first product I purchased from him was in 2014. I haven’t used the iPad features, but my templates owe a great deal to XDAW.

Logic’s own art editor is a cringe. I will only use it for impromptu, per-song art sets of no more than ten or so patches. And here, XDAW shines.

XDAW does have a learning curve, but it was worth it.

@Plowman, yes sorry, you're right, I was off-topic there - but very glad you found it.

Your review of X-DAW - coming from you in particular - has strengthened my resolve to struggle through the learning curve and get to know the thing thoroughly. I'm grateful to you. It's also good to hear that Ivan is positively responsive to queries.

I too am not interested in the touch screen remote control feature. Funny thing about that whole topic. Several years ago I found videos of quite a few top pro media composers who had Steven Slate's big Raven touch screen remote below their main screen(s). And time and time again I noticed their momentary hesitation or fumbling with Raven. That served to boost my long-held suspicion that elaborate remote control 'solutions' can all too easily tend to reduce rather than enhance ergonomic efficiency. Well, I see it as pretty much like attaching a door knob to a door knob; and when there are loads of extra configuration details and rules to learn and remember when using the attachment, it can become an unwelcome distraction and extra burden on the user who needs his interactions with his DAW and music to be as intuitive and slick as possible. Never been a fan of door knobs attached to door knobs myself LOL.

A wonderful metaphor, perfectly apt to the dangers of “knob and button glut.”

When it first came out, I bought the Logic Control unit. In some universe, it helps someone, I’m sure. Perhaps deep audio mixing. For me, it’s an expensive play/stop transport. It sits unloved to my immediate left, living in mouse envy.

But back to our off-topic topic: I also resist the tiny text in the iPad buttons, and I have no real estate left in my workstation to accommodate an iPad.

The goal is shared and self-evident: access to the greatest number of articulations in the most non-intrusive, directly intuitive way. XDAW is a meaningful contributor to that end.

Over the years, I have begrudged one point of wisdom: I don’t need to have all sounds available at all times. This truth was authenticated with Synchron Strings Pro and the even more prolific Duality Strings. Because the fact is, with XDAW you can create hundreds and hundreds of arts, but in real-world composing, it’s diminishing returns. The drop-down menu descends like a bottomless chasm, and you scroll forever, reminding yourself what your own acronyms and abbreviations meant, as the music you’re creating waits idly for you to return.

All this using the Art set you spent weeks creating to “speed your workflow.”

In the pharmaceutical industry, it is said that the difference between medicine and poison is the dosage. So let us design our templates with some moderation and not forget the endgame, which is composition.

Of course, I’m speaking to myself here.

I'm totally on-board with all of those sentiments. And I readily confess you've reminded me that I should avoid trying to construct a mega monster template and a do-all, be-all, end-all set of articulations – yes, yet again I felt the temptation, this time very strongly, when first reading Ivan's account of X-DAW's capabilities!

As you said, diminishing returns is indeed the inflection point to be noticed and seriously heeded in this endeavour.

Many thanks again for your very pertinent, helpful and valuable observations.