Using VSL/MIR vs. EWQLSO

[hendrkf]

Hi. I don't want to get into a VSL vs. EWQLSO debate, but because I have limited mixing skills I have difficulty getting VSL samples to sound as real in the final mix as my EWQLSO samples.

That being said, because I compose mainly by real time improvisation, the intelligent design of the new SC VI seems like a true advance for expressive, real time playing of acoustic instrument samples. I am truly excited about its possibilities.

Now, to the point of my question. There seems to be a debate that using samples recorded without ambience (ie VSL) can't sound as good even with advanced convolution as samples were recorded with the ambience built in.

Will MIR allow someone of modest mixing skills to get as high a quality of sound as using the EWQLSO samples?

Thanks for your response. [*-)]:

[Dietz]

Hello Keith -

I think it doesn't make much sense to comment _our_ point of view regarding "high quality sound" and "realism", for obvious reasons . [6]

But regarding your MIR-question it is save to say that the process of "mixing" will be much more the process of "conducting", at least regarding aspects like sound and soundcolour, position, dynamics and volume, depth, room, reverb and so on. - Nontheless it will _still_ help a lot to have an aesthetical vision, though ...

HTH,

[Holgmeister]

@hendrkf said:

There seems to be a debate that using samples recorded without ambience (ie VSL) can't sound as good even with advanced convolution as samples were recorded with the ambience built in.

Mixing with samples, especially with large arrangements like orchestra is a challenge by itself. (I am at the beginning of such a curve myself)

You can always start with presets or pre-recorded samples. As a beginner, or for quick draws, for your first CD, it is always good.
But very soon, you will realize, that it sounds over and over again the same and as more people are using it, everybody will recognize: "Aah, its XYZ etc". And then you start thinking: Here, i need more transparency.. the horns needs to shine through, I don't like the violins this way... etc,

And then a "wet" samplke really comes in your way of working. Dry and Wet does not have to do with quality. A dry sample is like a player sitting in front of you and waiting for you to do something, like setting up the mic, adding room, monitor etc.

A "wet" sample is like "Painting by numbers". (IMHO) Somebody else did the work and wants you to do this one color exactly at that one spot.

It is a long way to your second, third CD, especially if you want to be an excellent craftsmen. You will be always learning, working, deleting, learning, etc..
And people will sense it immediately, that everything is preset.

Presets, wet Samples are like a sweet siren, promising... but beeing stale after the second time.
It is definitely challenging, a dry sample. But if you want your fingerprint on your work, there is no "shortcut". Otherwise, you will always do "cookie cutting".