@Paul said:

...patches cannot be edited. They contain waves, layers and rules (Legato, Repetition, Interval Detection and more), and are perfectly preconfigured.

With all due respect, there is no such thing as "perfect" in this regard.

Besides, listening to the VI demos clearly give away inconsistencies in timbre/tone (don't know how to describe it better, but perhaps you still understand what I'm talking about) bewteen different articulations of the same instrument (in some examples it jumps all over the place) as well as phasing when crossfading between samples.

It's great and it's nothing short of absolutely brilliant...sure. But perfect...no.

If it was "perfect" then the above obvious problems would not exist, especially since it's impossible for users to even try and correct these problems by themselves due to "locked" samples.

If you do something about the inconsistent timbre and crossfade phasing, then I'll agree you've come extremely close to perfect though.

I know I probably come off as harsh, for which I apologise. It's just that I think perfect is a very strong word and one to be used with great care.

R

@Paul said:

Live via pitchwheel, that´s the realism, the players also adjust the tuning live...

You cannot edit the mapping.

Too bad.
I'm working with a computer since I do NOT want to play "live" like a real
player.
I don't need this kind of "realism".
I need realism in sound, not in the way of performing.
I do not have a violin, I have a computer.
And "perfect" preconfiguration of a patch does not exist. What is perfect in
one tune or phrase, is not in a different.
Noone, even not the whole experience of the vienna team, can foresee and
preconfigure what someone will do musically.

To have to finetune a single note by inserting pitchwheel events into the
midifile (and this way detuning other notes in a stack, which listen to the
same midi channel) is a design and concept flaw in my eyes.

And when I hear the demos on the videos... I agree with Rodney_G about
the inconsistencies. I would not want those phrases let unedited trying to
make the inconsistencies smaller...
When using samples the only chance to hide that you are not using the
real thing is working very sensibly on each note and articulation, if necessary.
I want to be able to choose every parameter for each note... that's why
I use a sampler and a computer...
Sure, in many parts this "fiddling" can be replaced by a good articulation
programm like the one you seem to have written (great idea, btw).
The problem is: I do not believe that this replacement is possible and useful in all parts
and for every situation. There must be the option for the composer /producer to override
the automatic process and do it manually.
This is crucial for me.

So now I have the impression that this is not possible with VI.
I do not believe that a preconfiguration can be so "perfect" that there is
no more need for editing on a single note basis.

I personally don't think that a software version of the old ROMplers (the most expensive one ever? [;)] )
is the right concept for me.

I would want to have more influence on what I'm working with
(a total and detailed influence), so that every time I feel not comfortable
with the way the automatic articulation is interpreting the phrase I have another option.

Again... all those thoughts are based on very little information. Will there be
more material available like a downloadable manual or demo versions
of the program (I mean the player software) in the near future?
If I had to base my decision on the informations I have now I clearly would say:
VI is not the right thing for me at the moment.

boulaki

Paul,
I've read this topic with much interest, and as excited as I am about those new things, I'm also a bit dissapointed.....

Don't take me wrong, but one of the main reasons why I bought VSL was the fact that it was available for GS, allowing me to edit the patches on the sample-level.

There are not much, but there were some broken samples in my First Edition which needed either to be edited (in most cases my Wavelab Declicker allready did the job), or completely altered with a pitched neighbour-note.

In case for the VI's:
What if we come across a "bad" sample ? We would be stuck with it, cause there's no way to edit those patches on the sample-level, right ?

.......well, the same dillemma as with EWQLSO.... [:'(]

Seb

@theiss2003 said:

In case for the VI's:
What if we come across a "bad" sample ? We would be stuck with it, cause there's no way to edit those patches on the sample-level, right ?

The problem is, that in every musical phrase a certain sample could
be the wrong one, even if it is not a "bad" one, and that this phrase would
work better with a modified or different sample.
This might not occur too often, but when, the editing option is important.
And given the price, I really would not be limited by a preconfiguration,
even a very clever one... surely a good preconfiguration helps a lot, but can be
hindering in certain situations.
So I do not suspect that the vienna team will be delivering "bad" samples...
but they limit what I can do with them.
If I tell a real player: "Please perform this note different", he will do.
How flexible will VI be in such a case?

An editor perhaps could solve this problem.

boulaki

Boulaki,

I think you make many good points. However, from what I understood by watching the demos, the possibilities to combine different patches seem very good.

As long as the "sample" (or articulation) you're looking for is in a patch, you will be able to combine it with pretty much any other patch(es) of your choice.

On one hand this will allow for great flexibility and almost endless numbers of combinations, but on the other it also makes consistency of sound between patches of the same instrument the absolutely crucial.

In short I think that Boulaki's might very well practically be able to do what he wants due to the possibility to combine different patches in any way he sees fit...but, at this time he probably won't achieve what he wants soundwise due to the inconsistencies of sound between the patches he combined.

If VSL fixes these problems, then I think everyone (including Boulaki) will be able to acheieve pretty much whatever he/she wants and not being able to edit will be of extremely minor (if any) consequence to anyone.

However, if VSL does not fix these problems, then I think Boulaki's (and others) concerns are most valid and not being able to edit will be a major drawback.

Just my 2 cents.

R

@Another User said:

And "perfect" preconfiguration of a patch does not exist. What is perfect in one tune or phrase, is not in a different.
Noone, even not the whole experience of the vienna team, can foresee and
preconfigure what someone will do musically.

So you want a billion articulations so that you can hand pick every single note of a symphony individually? Personally, I would rather be writing more than one piece a year that have a few minor flaws - just like a real performance!

There has been an awful lot of negative response to this latest release. And yet we don't even now what's being included in each set, let alone had any 'hands-on' experience of using it. VSL are selling us groundbreaking opportunities and yet people rubbish them before they've even tried it. If your not happy go and create your own library (but don't count on me to buy it) and let the rest of us enjoy what's to come.

Colin

Hi Colin,

@Another User said:

This makes no sense at all to me.

Yes, I see (oui, j'comprends).

To see it more practical:
Perhaps Rodney_G is right and the options VI offers are already so flexible
that further tweaking on sample level really is not necessary.
At the moment I am sceptical....so:

A demo of VI would be great.
Everybody then could exactly see in practice, how well VI suits his needs, including me [:)]

Before you shell out so many bucks, it's a good idea to try before you buy,
isn't it?

boulaki

Boulaki,

I'm with Colin, and fail to understand why you can't have both. The demand to control every aspect is yours.
Simply play/record Vi as you wish. Then on a seperate track play/record the changes you wish.

That's only two tracks, as opposed to 10,or 20, or 30, etc.......

I think you'll still be a long way in front of where you are now.

Regards,

Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

.
Simply play/record Vi as you wish. Then on a seperate track play/record the changes you wish.

That's only two tracks, as opposed to 10,or 20, or 30, etc.......

I thought VI is not multitimbral?

boulaki

It's not multitimbral, but that doesn't stop you loading another instance of the plugin and doing a second pass with different articulations of the same instrument if necessary. My hope is that won't be necessary too often.

Colin

@cwillsher said:

It's not multitimbral, but that doesn't stop you loading another instance of the plugin and doing a second pass with different articulations of the same instrument if necessary.

A new instance for every note I want to tweak? To me this seems not very useful.

boulaki

Boulaki, you said ealier; "I just need the option of overriding the preconfiguration in certain cases."

Do you really think there will be a necessity to change that many notes? What exactly are you wanting to change? 99.9999% of the pitches will be correct, I've little doubt. The placement of notes in your piece is down to you, as are your selection of articulations. There are ADSRs and Filters available to control the patches and you have far greater control over dynamics and velocity than were available before. Without re-recording the samples precisely to your taste I don't know what you're looking to change.

Someone help me out here? This guy continues to baffle me.

Colin

@cwillsher said:

Do you really think there will be a necessity to change that many notes? What exactly are you wanting to change? 99.9999% of the pitches will be correct, I've little doubt. The placement of notes in your piece is down to you, as are your selection of articulations. There are ADSRs and Filters available to control the patches and you have far greater control over dynamics and velocity than were available before. Without re-recording the samples precisely to your taste I don't know what you're looking to change.

Someone help me out here? This guy continues to baffle me.

Colin

In this thread
http://www.vsl.co.at/en-us/69/128/33.vsl">http://www.vsl.co.at/en-us/69/128/33.vsl
Thor is explaining it. Baffling, isn't it ? [;)]
I like to control certain notes on sample level, because in certain cases
this way the musical performance is simply more dead on.
The reason behind this is, that the samples and configurations are
manufactured isolated from the musical phrase I use them in
(or anybody uses them in).
That very often gives room for improvements.. that you cannot do on
patch level, because you change all the notes then.
Eg I want one single note have a longer release time... to better fit
the performance of the phrase... maybe it's only one note in a chord...
in this case doing it by quickly altering the releasetime for the whole patch
would be not appropriate.

As a result I often have edited patches for certain pieces or even
certain parts of them.

There are many who do not understand such an approach.
But that does not prevent me from following my own ears and tweak
the performance where I feel that it might improve it.
A real performer is also controlling every single note, if he can [;)]
Sure, many tweaks can be done by editing parameters for the whole patch,
as you mention. But not all.

If this baffles you, I can live with it [;)]

boulaki

@boulaki said:

Eg I want one single note have a longer release time... to better fit the performance of the phrase... maybe it's only one note in a chord...in this case doing it by quickly altering the releasetime for the whole patch would be not appropriate.

If this baffles you, I can live with it [;)]

Which ever way you cut it, there are still ways and means to achieve the same results without editing 'inside' the patches.

Anyway, I give up. Can we stop the winking now [[;)]]

Colin