Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

181,823 users have contributed to 42,187 threads and 254,605 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 26 new post(s) and 48 new user(s).

  • Chamber strings relative volumes to full sections?

    Having just found out that my local shop (with the payment plan [:D] [:O]ops: ) is also running the winter sale promotion, I've very nearly decided to take the plunge and finally get the chamber strings (which I've been eyeing since day one).

    One thing that I've been curious about (and which may or may not have been addressed in the forums already) is if they come with appropriately proportional volumes in comparison to the VSL full ensemble string sections "out of the box"? This would of course be rather important to be able to use them effectively as divisi, which is at least half the appeal of the set for me!

  • Whats wrong with adjusting the volume in your sequencer? [*-)]:

  • last edited
    last edited

    @Christian Marcussen said:

    Whats wrong with adjusting the volume in your sequencer? [*-)]:


    Well.. it isn't the end of the world, and I certainly would hardly reject the chamber strings for a reason such as that, but it is an extra irritant! I already have more than enough settings to keep track of with all the different things I use, if you know what I mean.. [:)]

    Another point is that I do the bulk of my work in Finale, not a sequencer so adjusting relative volumes is a bit more of a hassle (I keep as much as I can on a single track via patch changes to keep the score legible - and as close as possible to printable - and am anyhow limited to four layers per stave, for now at least) - mostly because the results are not always predictable, unfortuneatly.

    So I ask again, and to be clear this is mostly a point of curiosity rather than a 'purchase consideration': how closely balanced (if at all) are the chamber strings to the full sections? [:P]

  • Ok, I dont own CS yet, although I purchased them today.

    But based on my experience with other instrumenst from VSL I suspect their volume is releative to themselves, rather than the full section.

  • It wouldn't really make sense to have the chamber strings (or any other instrument) edited with a volume relative to another group - after all, there's people who won't only use them as divisi but also as what they are, or in a context with solo instruments, which then would have to be likewise adapted. And downsizing the volume always results in a loss of definition which cannot be made up by turning the sequencer's volume fader up - so it's better if you have to turn it down instead ...

    BTW, the Chamber Strings really sound great!

    Cheers,
    David
    VSL manuals

  • David is completly correct with his explaination.

    But just to make sure that we are aware of the idea behind that: The MIR will offer the possibility to instantiate each instrument or ensemble with its "natural" loudness. Of course this will be only a starting point for finer adjustments, depending on factors like arrangement, selected stage, positioning of the instruments and so on.

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • last edited
    last edited

    @Christian Marcussen said:

    Ok, I dont own CS yet, although I purchased them today.

    But based on my experience with other instrumenst from VSL I suspect their volume is releative to themselves, rather than the full section.


    Does that mean you get them with the VI interface later with an upgrade price?

  • Yeah, it means I save like £30... So thats not really why I got them now.

    My main reason for getting them now was - why not? [:)]

    I'll have them a month or two earlier, and have them for Giga should I need them.

    Ordered WW ensemble, and Glass and Stone while I was at it.

  • last edited
    last edited

    @david ender said:

    It wouldn't really make sense to have the chamber strings (or any other instrument) edited with a volume relative to another group - after all, there's people who won't only use them as divisi but also as what they are, or in a context with solo instruments, which then would have to be likewise adapted. And downsizing the volume always results in a loss of definition which cannot be made up by turning the sequencer's volume fader up - so it's better if you have to turn it down instead ...

    BTW, the Chamber Strings really sound great!

    Cheers,
    David
    VSL manuals


    Thanks for chiming in - the reasoning does make sense.. *sigh* more volume adjustments for me.. [:P]

    The demos leave no doubt of the sound, and I look forward to exploring it further first hand very soon. [H]

  • last edited
    last edited

    @Dietz said:

    David is completly correct with his explaination.

    But just to make sure that we are aware of the idea behind that: The MIR will offer the possibility to instantiate each instrument or ensemble with its "natural" loudness. Of course this will be only a starting point for finer adjustments, depending on factors like arrangement, selected stage, positioning of the instruments and so on.


    Well this is really quite interesting! It seems, and other little details that have been surfacing have also indicated, that MIR is really going to go well beyond what a 'regular' convolution reverb does..

    Perhaps this has already been asked, but will it be possible to use MIR effectively (ie. to the full capacity of its features) with the Giga versions of the VSL libraries (as well as integrating any other samples one may choose to use)?

  • Its no secret any more now that the MIR will rely a lot on the possibilities that the dedicated player-format of the Vienna Instruments offers. The embedded meta-data will supply the MIR with information what to do with a certain incoming signal, regarding volume, positioning and more.

    Due to the close integration between MIR and the VIs we will concentrate on this, I think. But of course the will be an option to send other signals into the MIR, too - at least to a certain amount.

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • last edited
    last edited

    @Dietz said:

    Its no secret any more now that the MIR will rely a lot on the possibilities that the dedicated player-format of the Vienna Instruments offers. The embedded meta-data will supply the MIR with information what to do with a certain incoming signal, regarding volume, positioning and more.

    Due to the close integration between MIR and the VIs we will concentrate on this, I think. But of course the will be an option to send other signals into the MIR, too - at least to a certain amount.


    So Dietz, a few thoughts from someone who has beta tested a fair amount of software in the last 18 months.

    1. I would like to see you have with MIR simplified ensemble templates for orchestral positioning. An excellent resource for this is Anatomy of the Orchestra by Norman Del Mar which can be purchased through Amazon. Here, Del Mar, a conductor, shows a number of different orchestral setups, all of which can be achieved with VSL because of how you recorded it.

    2. Next, it would be great to have templates for smaller ensemble setups like:

    a) string quartet
    b) woodwind ensemble(s)
    c) standard brass ensemble
    d) Percussion ensembles

    3. I trust you have Giga 3 and know to some degree GigaPulse. I've spoken to Larry Seyer who created the Larry Seyer Reverb that's packaged within GigaPulse. Given the close mic position in which VSL has been recorded, within GigaPulse you can create close, far and distant mic positions. Assuming you can do this within MIR, how fantastic it would be to have templates by section by mic position.

    I mention this because of one word: budgets.

    In doing professional film/tv/dramatic work, most of us are not engineers. So what we need are pre-engineered solutions.

    4. Similar to SX3, Logic and GS 3, it would be great to have inputs so that other libraries that may need to be used can have MIR applied to it, thus creating a consistent sound. Without such a feature, we now have to try to either match reverbs (a valuable loss of time) or only use MIR for panning purposes and have the audio run into a hardware reverb like the Lexicon PCM 90 (which is constantly in use for film/tv) or the Lexicon 960.

    I bring this up because so often, companies bring out products without ever asking about our work procedures or demands producers/studios put on us.

    Anyway, these are just a few thoughts. Please don't take offense, especially since I never knew about the awards you've previously won.

  • last edited
    last edited
    Peter, thanks for your detailed question. I'll try to answer as thoroughly as possible, assuming that the MIR is not ready for official announcements yet.

    ad 1&2: Templates are part of the MIR concept, they can be stored and recalled partially as well as whole setups. They are user-configurable and can be shared amongst users, and of course there will be some default settings, too. Be aware, though, that we talk about _real_ stages in real halls, so not every parameter will lead to comparable sonic impressions in different halls (regarding distances or relative volumes, for example).

    ad 3: Our MIR-IRs are recorded from up to four distances in a multi-channel format. Of course you can choose from which distance you will listen to your virtual orchestra, but in general you will not be able to _mix_ these mic-positions (except for some special applications I won't elaborate here). The reason for this is simple: Due to our concept and recording format, we are talking about 300 and more IRs for a complete stage form _each single mic-position_ - you can imagine that it would be impossible (within reasonable limits) to double or triple this amount within one single setup.

    @Another User said:

    I bring this up because so often, companies bring out products without ever asking about our work procedures or demands producers/studios put on us.

    Peter, all people involved in the MIR development (and more or less the whole Vienna Symphonic Library) are active musicians, arrangers, producers and/or engineers, so we don't work inside an ivory tower here. We won't make _everybody_ happy, that's for sure, but it's safe to say that our concept is innovative as well as straight-forward and highly practical.

    I hope this answers your questions.

    Kind regards -

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • MUST

    HAVE

    MIR

    NOW!

    God I hope it will be released around the time that the final part of SC ships![:)]

  • last edited
    last edited

    @Christian Marcussen said:

    MUST

    HAVE

    MIR

    NOW!

    God I hope it will be around the shipment of the final part of SC![:)]


    Yeah, I'm with you on that one. I just wish that I knew how much work I have to do to be able to afford it, as I like to do as little as possible [:D]

    DG

  • last edited
    last edited
    Uh ...

    @Dietz said:

    [...] I'll try to answer as thoroughly as possible, assuming that the MIR is not ready for official announcements yet. [...]

    I just realized that this is a silly statement, as the MIR is now officially announced since quite some time ... [8-)] ... what I actually wanted to say is: "... not ready for the official announcement of its complete feature-list."

    I hope that makes more sense like that.

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • We understood it well enough to want it [;)] [H]

  • We all still believe in MIRacles [:D]

  • Is it true that in 2006, NAMM stands for "National Announcement of MIR Module?"

    Please don't overlook this fine marketing opportunity.

  • [:D] ... nice try!

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library