# VSL Dimension Strings as main strings library?



## muk (Feb 13, 2014)

Hello everyone

There's a really good deal I could have on the VSL Dimension Strings, but I'm unsure whether they would suit my needs. I'd use them as my main strings, and mostly I'd use them on their own. I could layer with the Orchestral Strings included in VSL SE/SE+, but I'm not too fond of the Orchestral Strings. I'd use Dim Strings for classical music, and it would be smaller stuff (chamber size orchestra mostly).

I listened to the demos intently - there are some I like, but also others that do not convince me. Given the fact that I didn't get to grips with the Orchestral Strings I'm unsure whether Dimension Strings would be the right product for me.

Can anybody comment on it's qualities? What are the strong points? Any shortcomings? Are there other libraries you would recommend over Dimension Strings for smaller classical music?


----------



## Vlzmusic (Feb 13, 2014)

Do you use MIR PRO?


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Feb 13, 2014)

muk @ Fri 14 Feb said:


> would recommend over Dimension Strings for smaller classical music?



No. Unless you use VSL Chamber full.


----------



## muk (Feb 13, 2014)

No Mir here. Stage positioning shouldn't be an issue though. I use Origami for that (I love that plugin!), and Vienna Convolution or Hybrid for reverb.

Don't have Chamber Strings and currently I don't intend to buy it. Can you elaborate on why you wouldn't use Dimension Strings on their own?


----------



## Vlzmusic (Feb 13, 2014)

On the contrary - I think Dimension Strings is the best next thing. ---EDIT--- Not only for small stuff: pop studio strings, "Super Mario Galaxy", Romantic orchestra Bizet/Verdi, Violin ensembles (youtube the Bolshoi Violin ensemble), Octets, Eastern string sections  - it can cover lots of ground if used properly.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 13, 2014)

here is my dimension thread... sorry for those who already know for reanimating this.

in any case dimension strings will be my to-go string library!


http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36562

and here are the audio examples:

https://soundcloud.com/saxer/dimension-strings-test
https://soundcloud.com/saxer/dimension-string-test-2
https://soundcloud.com/saxer/first-view
https://soundcloud.com/saxer/in-the-dark


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Feb 13, 2014)

You'll be wasting your time trying to find a product better than DS especially if you want something to write chamber music. Also their deal for DS finishes up soon so if I were you I'd get buying.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 13, 2014)

Just based on Saxer's recent track I heard and commented on recently I would say yes, I would get them. Certainly for a specific type of string sound and divisi arranging.

It's the first one in his list above. The sound and writing of that particular track (brilliant track) is very sort of Rosemarys Baby, Herrmannesque 1960s sound. :D 

The First View isn't. It's a different style and again, the style can dictate the sound through inner voicing and divisi etc.

In the Dark sounds great too. Nice way to spend 10 minutes before tea listening to these tracks. 

Depends on what sound you want and how you write.

Based on those tracks I would say buy it.


----------



## muk (Feb 13, 2014)

Outstanding pieces Saxer, thanks for sharing. Dimension Strings sound very good here. Hm, three posts ago I thought I'll pass on the offer, but now I'm tempted again.


----------



## rgames (Feb 13, 2014)

I have DS but wouldn't recommend it as a go-to library for a few reasons. They're great as an add-on but you really need another bread-and-butter library for basic strings.

The first problem is that there's no auto-divisi capability. That is such a huge time-saver in LASS that it's hard for me to imagine using another library that doesn't have it. Plus, the VI Player is the most advanced player out there and it can't do auto-divisi - stupid. But that has been discussed before...

The second problem is also related to divisi - you have only 8 players, so a typical 4-part divisi line is 2+2+2+2 rather than the 4+4+4+4 you'd get with LASS and its dedicated 2nd vln section. The difference in sound is very noticeable - I keep hoping to see the e-mail from VSL saying they're recording a 2nd vln section. If you want the smaller sound then it's fine but you don't have the choice of a larger sound if you want that. So DS is a lot less flexible.

Finally, I really don't like the legatos in DS. I have a lot of other VSL libs and the legato on them is really good. But DS is not the same - some of the instruments are OK but some are just plain bad and unusable. Combined with the small-section problem, if you try to write legato divisi then you're stuck with one or two voices that always have legato problems.

rgames


----------



## AC986 (Feb 13, 2014)

Richard I'm surprised to hear that on the legato when having just listened to Saxer's tracks.


----------



## Arbee (Feb 13, 2014)

rgames @ Fri Feb 14 said:


> Finally, I really don't like the legatos in DS. I have a lot of other VSL libs and the legato on them is really good. But DS is not the same - some of the instruments are OK but some are just plain bad and unusable. Combined with the small-section problem, if you try to write legato divisi then you're stuck with one or two voices that always have legato problems.
> 
> rgames


I must confess your comments surprised me, especially about the legato - for me it's great (and as I hear it in Saxer's demos).

.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 13, 2014)

i combined slightly different articulations (legato vib, legato espr, performance trills) which add as a section without problems. so i had 24 legato instruments to build the violin sections. in my template are 10 first and 8 second violins. i used sul G and sul D for the seconds to have a slight difference in sound.
the legato is very timing accurate in all the single instruments. to make it more natural i set the delay-setting in the humanize-function to about 90 (whatever 90 means, but it is rather high) and the humanize factor to 75%. detune is at 45, so there is a lot of 'individual' interpretation going on. i also rised the release time a bit. for me all that helps really a lot to make the sound bigger and even lush. it's an extreme flexible system but needs time to discover. when i started to edit i expected that it would need an extra layer of apassionata or orchestrals... i'll probably try that some day but for now i'm rather happy with the sound.


----------



## FrozeN (Feb 13, 2014)

muk @ Fri 14 Feb said:


> No Mir here. Stage positioning shouldn't be an issue though. I use Origami for that (I love that plugin!), and Vienna Convolution or Hybrid for reverb.


I am using Dimension Strings + Origami + Vienna Suite and I love the sound! Even the template now I am working on I only used half section (4 violins 1 & 2, 3 violas, 3 cellos).

But like the other said, I found it weird the VI Pro player, albeit it offers millions of options for tweaking, actually has a lot of limitations for "on-the-fly" customization, as like auto-divisi rgames mentioned. There are workarounds, like I am using two desks of Violin 1 (2+2) instead of Group 1 (4 violins) so I can do divisi when I record, or copy the track to the other desk when it's unison. Which actually renders the auto divisi function pointless....... >8o 

Frankie


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 13, 2014)

rgames @ Thu 13 Feb said:


> I have DS but wouldn't recommend it as a go-to library for a few reasons. They're great as an add-on but you really need another bread-and-butter library for basic strings.
> 
> The first problem is that there's no auto-divisi capability. That is such a huge time-saver in LASS that it's hard for me to imagine using another library that doesn't have it. Plus, the VI Player is the most advanced player out there and it can't do auto-divisi - stupid. But that has been discussed before...
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with a few of these points. For one thing, LASS uses the "transposition trick" to get a second violin section, so the same can be done with VSL's DS to get 4+4 firsts, 4+4 seconds. LASS doesn't have a "dedicated second violin section". Personally auto-divisi isn't a big killer for me but I understand everyone's different so I won't go into that, but for a classical workflow you wouldn't want auto-divisi. VSL has been pretty straightforward about this: their products are geared toward classical compositions and in classical music the voice leading is so important that you wouldn't trust a computer to do it for you.

As for the legatos, I think they sound great when there's some humanization. I take this to the extreme by playing the same lines in a half-dozen times but you could easily just apply a humanization preset and I'm sure it'll sound just as good. The legatos need enough variation. And as Saxer mentioned you have so many different legato types to choose from that you can vary it even more.

From this point it probably comes down to a matter of opinion. LASS is still my one-and-only for large ensembles and sweeping, passionate, expressive lines but DS is so good for detail, precision, small ensembles, etc. that I wouldn't count it out for any of the reasons mentioned in the post I quoted above unless auto-divisi really is that important to your workflow.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 14, 2014)

mainly there's one thing missing in dimension strings: easy to use presets!

not everyone has the time and patience for editing. the big filled matrix has everything you need but the possibilities are endless and time consuming even before the playing the first note.

so it would be cool to have i.e. a bigger symphonic section with divisi, a small session ensemble (4/4/3/2/1) and everything in between, retro-strings with more vibrato and humanization but less stereo, a baroque chamber, simple two-articulation-sets (short+legato) for pop etc... not to forget stacking with the other vsl string ensembles and solo-strings. the possibilities are all there!

as they need(ed) one and a half year to complete violas, celli and basses they probably don't have the capacity for that at the moment. i even don't might to imagine what an incredible amount of work the creation of DS was and still is. but i hope when they are ready with the basses (and made a good revovery) they will offer some easy to load sections.


----------



## Goran (Feb 14, 2014)

On the issue of DS legato - never had any problems with this myself. Especially in combination with VI PRO one can get as good as any shading of legato one wants to achieve.

For some additional examples of DS legato in action, check the Wagner and Mozart examples in the playlist:

https://viennatraining.com/leiter


----------



## muk (Feb 14, 2014)

Thanks for all the insights. Auto Arranger would be a nice feature, but it won't be too important for my personal workflow. The question is: what would Dimension Strings offer me that LASS doesn't? Particularly for chamber orchestra size sections and classical style.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 14, 2014)

I don't like the Violins legato. The Cello is OK, but not great. I haven't checked the Violas out yet.

D


----------



## AC986 (Feb 14, 2014)

Daryl @ Fri Feb 14 said:


> I don't like the Violins legato. The Cello is OK, but not great. I haven't checked the Violas out yet.
> 
> D



Ooo er!


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 14, 2014)

Suggestion in regards to string libraries that might or might not work for you: Compare demos that show the sound of the libraries themselves (and not too much of drums and trumpets and synths layered over it) and personally decide whether you really want your strings to sound like that. Then out of a short list go for practicability. Asking others is not always the best option.


----------



## muk (Feb 14, 2014)

That's true Hannes. I did a lot of listening already, but I'll watch the VSL video again to get a better insight on the workflow. There are some demos of Dimension Strings I really like, but there are also others that left me cold. That's why I asked. I will have to try and compare Dim Strings directly to LASS before deciding.


----------



## rgames (Feb 14, 2014)

Casiquire @ Fri Feb 14 said:


> VSL has been pretty straightforward about this: their products are geared toward classical compositions and in classical music the voice leading is so important that you wouldn't trust a computer to do it for you.


If you're talking about concert music then you're not using samples for production, anyway, so it doesn't matter if a mockup uses auto-divisi or not.

Second, VSL's stated position (that I've seen) on why they don't have auto-divisi is because of the added latency, not voice leading. You can do divisi with VI Pro, just not auto-divisi, but you still can't really control the voice leading. Plus, the whole concept of voice leading arises from the desire to have connected notes within each line, but mockups aren't playing connected notes - they're playing recordings of individual notes that are artificially connected by the sample player. So the whole concept of proper voice leading doesn't really apply.

Finally, I've been playing in orchestras my entire life and have seen plenty of "div" parts that leave it up to the musicians to figure out who plays what. Software can do the same and it sounds fine.

There's no excuse for the VI Player not to have auto-divisi capability! Come on VSL!

rgames


----------



## DocMidi657 (Feb 14, 2014)

Hi Richard,

I have both Dimension Strings and Dimension Brass (the latter which I just got). What's odd is that I could have sworn just playing around with Dimension brass the other day that it does have Auto Divisi ....so I wonder why VSL cannot/will not do it with the strings?

Dave


----------



## Paul Steinbauer (Feb 14, 2014)

Hello everybody, 

Just thought I´d chime in here: 
Of course Auto Divisi is also available for Dimension Strings. 

As there are so many options with Dimension Strings (double the players), you need to activate Auto Divisi with a click on the "on" button on the "voice" page in Advanced View, and you need to quickly define how you´d like to have your voices distributed. 

This way you can design Presets with Desks, Groups or all players, and with Desks and groups you can decide whether you want them divided into section of 2,3 or 4 players. 

It was relatively easy to decide this for the Dimension Brass, and with Dimension Strings the many options would have let the already quite huge presets and matrice database explode 8) 

Best regards from Vienna, 

Paul Steinbauer

---
Product Manager
Vienna Symphonic Library


----------



## FrozeN (Feb 14, 2014)

Hello Paul,

Thanks for chiming in! :D 

Correct me if I am wrong, as I have only bought and played with Dimension Strings for two days. The auto-divisi, or should I say, auto-voicing function only plays auto-divisi "literally". If I play a single note, it won't play back in unison with all the instruments loaded in that particular patch.

It would really be great if that on/off button for auto-voicing can be triggered by a MIDI event so as to trigger unison and divisi at will. :wink: 

Frankie


----------



## Erik (Feb 14, 2014)

It is so simple: make a matrix with two cells, one with auto-voicing activated, one with non-activated.
Ctrl-dragging should do the trick when copying a cell btw. The only _midi event_ that you are referring to is in this case a keyswitch or whatever CC-event. Your choice, that's it.


----------



## rgames (Feb 14, 2014)

Paul Steinbauer @ Fri Feb 14 said:


> you need to quickly define how you´d like to have your voices distributed.


Exactly - it's not automatic! So it's not auto-divisi!

Adding auto-divisi (like in LASS) would be extremely easy and extremely useful and would make writing for DS a lot easier.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Feb 14, 2014)

Just to clarify - as I said above, you can do divisi with DS but not auto-divisi. At least not when I looked a while back - I'll check again to make sure I'm not confused... I believe it was Dietz who said on the VSL website that they would not implement it because of the necessary added latency (silly reason!).

In VI Pro, you can, indeed, set up a divisi function. However, you need different configurations for unison, two-part divisi, three-part divis, etc. You then have to MANUALLY select which configuration is used for a given number of notes. So, for example, you need to send a CC before each change in voice count. Otherwise, some voices stay silent. So it is not AUTO divisi.

The software can figure that out (as it does in the LASS script). So all you have to do is play one note or a three-note chord or whatever and the script assigns the voices appropriately - you don't have to send another CC that tells the player how many voices are coming. That functionality is not available in the VI player.

rgames


----------



## FrozeN (Feb 14, 2014)

Erik @ Sat 15 Feb said:


> It is so simple: make a matrix with two cells, one with auto-voicing activated, one with non-activated.
> Ctrl-dragging should do the trick when copying a cell btw. The only _midi event_ that you are referring to is in this case a keyswitch or whatever CC-event. Your choice, that's it.



Definitely this works when you are creating your own matrix/preset from scratch. But gosh look at the already overly complex VSL presets..... My current template has 10 matrices and each matrix has at least 36 cells. Out of all the cells I estimated I need roughly 40% of them that need to be set to auto-voicing capable, and someone please do the maths? :mrgreen: 

And that is only the 1st violins..... >8o 

Frankie

EDIT : I forgot to mention since I am using Cubase, and I rely on expression maps a lot too. So that adds some more work if I am adding additional matrices on top! :?


----------



## muk (Feb 15, 2014)

Can anybody comment on Dimension String's advantages over LASS? If you already have LASS, what new things does Dimension Strings bring to the table? And which would you deem better for classical music and chamber music? It's of course possible that it only comes down to which tone one likes better.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Feb 15, 2014)

muk @ Sat 15 Feb said:


> Can anybody comment on Dimension String's advantages over LASS? If you already have LASS, what new things does Dimension Strings bring to the table? And which would you deem better for classical music and chamber music? It's of course possible that it only comes down to which tone one likes better.



I did a quick demo of only legato patches in both DS and LASS - Just one pass at each. Tried to leave them as they were played in as much as possible. 

It goes
1DS VLN (Open string Trill Marc Legato)
1DS VLN (Regular Legato, Regular Trill Legato at higher speeds) 
8DS VLN (Forced G String o-[][]-o )
A Section LASS (Only Legato Patch)
B+C section LASS (Only Legato Patch)

https://soundcloud.com/simonhannamusic- ... s-and-lass


----------



## muk (Feb 15, 2014)

Thanks, very interesting. Will listen carefully this evening on my home-rig.


----------



## Dietz (Feb 15, 2014)

rgames @ Fri Feb 14 said:


> [...] I believe it was Dietz who said on the VSL website that they would not implement it because of the necessary added latency (silly reason!). [...]
> 
> rgames



Hmmm ... would you please provide a link? I can hardly imagine that I wrote that - but thanks for calling it silly, anyway.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Feb 15, 2014)

I am not sure always what people mean when they say VSL can only do concert music type well. 

If VSL has said this in the past then I think they should really humbug this misconception themselves.

I am seeing a lot of people say that VSL is stale and useless these days and really it seems to me most of these people don't know how to use it well. 

I think VSL can do pretty much both film music and concert music type of thing equally well. And of course by that I mean, whatever is possible currently with their samples and generally with samples over all. 

They have issues as do all sample developers. I use VSL on a daily basis for about 9 years now and its still my main library. 

No idea about dimension strings because I have stayed away from it as many people have mentioned problems with legato and it does look a little overly complicated at first.

May be I will get it at a later time.


Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Feb 15, 2014)

I also feel that all VSL demos are not representative of what it really is capable of. I have earlier asked VSL to diversify the kind of music they use as demos for their products. 

A lot of the demos focus on poor emulations of concert type music without focusing on realism and what the samples can do really well. I find it odd that they continue to do this. While the reality is that people continue to use it really well for more realistic sounding music and even in big feature films. I use it myself on all my projects. 

Many things simply cannot be done realistically with samples yet. No matter what developer it is. 

Tanuj.


----------



## rgames (Feb 15, 2014)

Dietz @ Sat Feb 15 said:


> Hmmm ... would you please provide a link? I can hardly imagine that I wrote that - but thanks for calling it silly, anyway.


No link - I'm running off memory. But it doesn't matter - you can just clarify right here: can VI do auto-divisi?

Again, I'm not talking about divisi where you have to "prepare" the matrix by telling it how many notes are coming, I'm talking about auto-divisi, where the software figures out how many voices there are and assigns them appropriately.

In the VI player, if I switch from unison to a four-note chord, I have to send an ADDITIONAL CC or keyswitch or whatever to tell the player what's coming. In the LASS script, that additional CC or keyswitch is not necessary - it figures it out for you. It's automatic!

Software can detect chords and assign voices appropriately (e.g. the script in LASS) but that does add latency because there is time required to detect the number of voices and assign the instruments appropriately. As I recall (sorry, no link...) that added latency was the reason for not adding auto-divisi to the VI player. And yes, I think that's silly! VI is the most advanced sample player out there and not having that capability is, well, silly!

Again, maybe I'm wrong and the functionality is there but I couldn't figure out how to make it do auto-divisi. Divisi - yes, but not auto-divisi.

Thanks,

rgames


----------



## Stephen Rees (Feb 15, 2014)

rgames @ Sat Feb 15 said:


> Dietz @ Sat Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm ... would you please provide a link? I can hardly imagine that I wrote that - but thanks for calling it silly, anyway.
> ...



If you said that Dietz said something, and he didn't in fact say it, then it does matter actually. An apology as a small courtesy would be nice don't you think?


----------



## rgames (Feb 15, 2014)

Found the link: http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/280 ... spx#182725

It was Herb.

I don't think I need to apologize for anything - I didn't accuse anyone of anything untoward and made it clear I was going off memory.

EDIT: but, OK. Sorry Dietz  It was another member of the VSL team, not you.

And Herb's statement in that thread contradicts Paul's statement earlier in this thread. However, the linked thread is a few years old, so maybe things have changed.

It would be good if VSL could clear up the confusion right here because auto-divisi is a very handy feature if it's available in the VI player.

rgames


----------



## Goran (Feb 15, 2014)

vibrato @ Sat Feb 15 said:


> I am seeing a lot of people say that VSL is stale and useless these days and really it seems to me most of these people don't know how to use it well.



...stale and useless... :mrgreen: ...one can meet some very amusing folks out there, that's for sure (I had some similar encounters myself, this type usually more then compensates for arrogance in ignorance of anything beyond today's trailer music and lack of any skill which would be even remotely comparable to that demonstrated by many people who work with VSL...)


----------



## Gusfmm (Feb 15, 2014)

Richard, how does LASS handle a div3 part? Does the script know what section plays what part, how the sections need to be divided to play each part?

Although I never use it, VIP handles a reasonably logical auto-divisi via its "auto-voicing" function as Dietz/Paul mentioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5opIaAMbfLQ

With DS, now it has been expanded to handle up-to 8 voices.


p.s. Herb's comment back when goes along the lines of my question above. This would still be the case nowadays. And I don't believe there is any way around that. In my view, VSL's approach is pretty clever, in that you can assign a div3 part (for instance) as a 4+2+2 if you so desired, alternatively to 3+3+2 for instance. Or you can have a patch that plays the div3 as DS 4 + 4 and the last part played by Chamber Vl1.


----------



## Gusfmm (Feb 15, 2014)

Just responded my own question...http://audiobro.com/arc-auto-arranger-and-dnh/

Again, I don't use the auto-voice function, but just a thought on how I'd do it, I'd create the few keyswitches to alternate between the unison to the proper divisi section size I want, and create an expression map with the series of div splits that I may need in the composition. That'd be as efficient as the LASS model, if you use Scoring on Cubase, as I heavily do.

Granted, live playing, VIP would not be as automated as LASS, as you depend on keyswitches.


----------



## rgames (Feb 15, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Sat Feb 15 said:


> Granted, live playing, VIP would not be as automated as LASS, as you depend on keyswitches.


That's right - the VI Player requires additional input in the form of keyswitches or CC or whatever to tell it how to divide the voices. LASS does not. Therefore, the VI player cannot do AUTO divisi.

It would be so easy to implement - right now, the main problem is that when you set up for four-part divisi in the VI player but send only one note, three instruments don't play. All they have to do is add the code to detect the number of notes in the chord then make sure that all voices play. If there's only one note, all four voices play the same note just like they would if it were a group of musicians reading the music. That's exactly what LASS does but, as Herb said in the thread I linked, VSL doesn't want to do that because of the added latency. But why not at least make it an option? It would be so easy to do and I don't even notice the latency in the LASS script.

Of course, Paul said earlier in this thread that it can be done, and maybe it can. But I can't figure out how to make it work. I think he's confusing divisi with AUTO-divisi.

At any rate, clearly Herb and Paul are at odds on what they think the player can do. Unless, of course, the auto-divisi functionality has been added since Herb's comment that they would not be adding it.

Hopefully they'll chime in and clear up the confusion.

rgames


----------



## muk (Feb 16, 2014)

If you set up three trumpets and a bass trumpet as in the video Gusfmm linked to, the bass trumpet will always play the fourth note sounding. That's not very logical to me. If you play an arpeggio from low to top, trumpets 1-3 will play the lower notes, the bass trumpet the top note (as it sounds last). So in this example the lowest note will always have to be played last.
In my opinion that's a rather restrictive, unflexible setup. Why can't instrument ranges be defined, so that the bass trumpet always plays the bass part?

Anyway, back on topic. Can anybody point me towards examples where DS has a warm sound? The demos show that they can have a nice and realistic bite. But can they sound mellow too? In Saxer's "First View" I would have preferred a lusher, more relaxed sound. Maybe that's not possible with the relatively small section sizes?
In the demos I've heard so far there's always a focussed, concentrated sound to DS. Can they sound laid back as well? That would be great, but I think I'm sold on the offer anyway.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 16, 2014)

isn't 'laid back' a term of timing? one of the main reasons for me having fun with DS is the fast and direct reaction on playing and dynamic-cc in all tempos. but maybe it would be interesting if the sound gets more lush when increasing attack and release time. if so it might be worth to assign midi controller to the attack and release fader to control 'lushness' on the fly.


----------



## muk (Feb 16, 2014)

Hm, haven't expressed properly what I mean, it seems. I meant the sound/timbre, not the performance. I'd like to know if it is possible to have less resin, so to speak. The DS demos sound all cristal clear - a pinpoint sound. Increasing the attacks would add to that impression, no? 
But for some situations I'd like to have the opposite: a broader, warmer, less 'cut through'-sound. Something soft. If DS was capable of that too, that would be the icing on the cake


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Feb 16, 2014)

muk @ Sun 16 Feb said:


> Hm, haven't expressed properly what I mean, it seems. I meant the sound/timbre, not the performance. I'd like to know if it is possible to have less resin, so to speak. The DS demos sound all cristal clear - a pinpoint sound. Increasing the attacks would add to that impression, no?
> But for some situations I'd like to have the opposite: a broader, warmer, less 'cut through'-sound. Something soft. If DS was capable of that too, that would be the icing on the cake



Mixing.


----------



## Goran (Feb 16, 2014)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Sun Feb 16 said:


> muk @ Sun 16 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > Hm, haven't expressed properly what I mean, it seems. I meant the sound/timbre, not the performance. I'd like to know if it is possible to have less resin, so to speak. The DS demos sound all cristal clear - a pinpoint sound. Increasing the attacks would add to that impression, no?
> ...



+1... and spatial disposition to begin with... soundwise (and not just soundwise), this is probably the most flexible string library available today. Just as other VSL libraries, it is (to borrow Peter Alexander's _bon mot_) "what you want it to be" (provided you know how to get there).


----------



## muk (Feb 16, 2014)

Great, thanks for all the feedback. I'll take the plunge.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 16, 2014)

yepp, mixing... and i was talking about increasing the attack *time* which makes the note start slower and softer.


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 16, 2014)

Not only mixing, but good arranging too! A proper arrangement can cut your mixing and EQing work in half.


----------



## rgames (Feb 16, 2014)

muk @ Sun Feb 16 said:


> If you set up three trumpets and a bass trumpet as in the video Gusfmm linked to, the bass trumpet will always play the fourth note sounding. That's not very logical to me. If you play an arpeggio from low to top, trumpets 1-3 will play the lower notes, the bass trumpet the top note (as it sounds last). So in this example the lowest note will always have to be played last.
> In my opinion that's a rather restrictive, unflexible setup. Why can't instrument ranges be defined, so that the bass trumpet always plays the bass part?


This gets at the latency issue - the software has to be given a timing reference to decide whether a succession of notes is a chord or individual notes to be played one after the other. Obviously it can't know the note-off times when they start. Notes that are separated by less than that timing reference are treated as a chord and automatically assigned appropriately. Notes that are separated by more than the timing reference are treated as successive notes, not a chord.

If you give it that reference (say, 30 ms) then the software can, indeed, always give the bottom note to the bass trumpet. That is what LASS does and is the essence of auto-divisi. When you set up the instrument, you tell it which instrument plays which note (top, bottom, second from top, whatever) then you just play. As you play, it adapts the instruments to the notes as you assigned them.

VI Pro can't do that - you have to tell it which instruments play what as you play along. So it's not automatic.

Again, at least I can't figure out how to do it automatically. Paul says you can - I hope he's right because I really like that feature in LASS and would love to have it in DS.

rgames


----------



## muk (Feb 16, 2014)

Ah Saxer , you're right. My bad. Will see how broad I can arrange and mix them when the license arrives


----------



## Diffusor (Feb 18, 2014)

rgames @ Sat Feb 15 said:


> Dietz @ Sat Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm ... would you please provide a link? I can hardly imagine that I wrote that - but thanks for calling it silly, anyway.
> ...



Just get Band in the Box if you need that sort of thing.


----------



## rgames (Feb 18, 2014)

Diffusor @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Just get Band in the Box if you need that sort of thing.


Or LASS.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 18, 2014)

Whether you can use Dimension Strings for your "go to" library really depends on how you treat them. Separate from Saxer's excellent work, I've included them for demos in Lecture 7 of Visual Orchestration 3. Working with Performance Legato Expressive, I applied from FORTI/SERTI 30_ER_Orch_42_99_med. Just the addition of that one ER really gave the Leg Expressive a beautiful sound. 

Let me put it this way - a _competitive_ beautiful sound. 

RE: auto divisi. I never use it. First, because I'm not a great keyboard player (disclaimer alert!). But secondly, even I were a good keyboard player, I don't see myself using that approach because I'm reharmonizing and voicing chords based on divisi writing principles for the orchestra, not for keyboard convenience techniques for Peter. 

A while back I did an audio presentation called _What The Heck Is Divisi And Is It Contagious?_ You can find it here (it's free).

http://alexanderpublishing.com/studyhall.aspx

This library has a very specific design to it. The design, to be blunt, is NOT to mimic LASS. The design IS, to be blunt, to mimic the STRING ORCHESTRA so that divisi is planned as you would a live performance. 

The easiest string divisi is two parts, div a 2. Easy to do in DS. Div a 4? Pretty easy to do in DS. Div a 3 (hellooo Debussy) - planning required since for 3 parts with 8 players, the distribution is 3-3-2. Div a 4? One part per desk in DS which is 2 players to a part, which you can double up on and have 4 players per part (creating a 16-player section in effect).

In fairness to LASS, you can plan a div a 2 with absolute ease. You can use the transposition trick and create additional A, B, and C sections for more divisi options. So you can still write with LASS as you would for live orchestra.

These are the only two libs you can do that with.


----------



## muk (Feb 18, 2014)

The divisi approach of LASS and DS struck me as very good idea. Not only because of the divisi capability. But even more so because you can record non-unison passages in multiple takes, layering individual players/groups of players. In my ears that adds greatly to the livelyness of a mockup.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 18, 2014)

muk @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> The divisi approach of LASS and DS struck me as very good idea. Not only because of the divisi capability. But even more so because you can record non-unison passages in multiple takes, layering individual players/groups of players. In my ears that adds greatly to the livelyness of a mockup.



Agreed. However, the challenge I find is getting separate players to play both expressively and cohesively as a single section. Unlike real players, you lose the body cues and eye contact between players and I find this very tricky to compensate for. The best solution I've found is to do multiple takes and listen player against player until the performance "feels right". The downside is this is time-consuming. Editing differences is the other method, though I prefer playing live as much as possible. 

I'd be curious to hear how others are dealing with this issue?


----------



## DaddyO (Feb 18, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> A while back I did an audio presentation called _What The Heck Is Divisi And Is It Contagious?_ You can find it here (it's free).
> 
> http://alexanderpublishing.com/studyhall.aspx



Thanks for the heads up, Peter. I went to watch it but the button or graphic after "Listen to the free MP3 audio seminar." appears to be broken. I'd really be interested in listening to your comments on divisi.

EDITED TO ADD: OK, it appears the PDF transcript link is fine, it's only the audio that is not functioning.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 18, 2014)

DaddyO @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > A while back I did an audio presentation called _What The Heck Is Divisi And Is It Contagious?_ You can find it here (it's free).
> ...



Just tried it. Audio is working fine.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 18, 2014)

synergy543 @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> muk @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > The divisi approach of LASS and DS struck me as very good idea. Not only because of the divisi capability. But even more so because you can record non-unison passages in multiple takes, layering individual players/groups of players. In my ears that adds greatly to the livelyness of a mockup.
> ...



For easy div-a-2, I put vlns 1A (8 players) on track 1 and Vlns 1B on track 2. This gives me 16 players. When I want div a 2, 1A gets the top line and 1B gets the bottom line. 

This program is so deep, to get producing with it, I look for the simplest approaches and get those happening first. 

If you want 8 players only, on track 1 put vlns 1
on track 2 put on group 1 (4 players)
on track 3 put on group 2 (4 players)

EZ div-a-2. Watch your volume levels.


----------



## rgames (Feb 18, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> If you want 8 players only, on track 1 put vlns 1
> on track 2 put on group 1 (4 players)
> on track 3 put on group 2 (4 players)
> 
> EZ div-a-2. Watch your volume levels.


Not as easy as just playing the notes and letting the software do what you're doing manually...!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 18, 2014)

I write out all my parts and prefer to use MY musical imagination since software has processes, not imagination, which human beings are endowed with.


----------



## rgames (Feb 18, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> I write out all my parts and prefer to use MY musical imagination since software has processes, not imagination, which human beings are endowed with.


First of all, as I already said, there are plenty of composers who write divisi lines in a way that lets the musicians figure out who plays what. The algorithms the musicians use pretty much match what LASS uses - there's no imagination in it, it's just a process, and software is very good at process. The notion that "real composers don't use auto-divisi" is bogus as evidenced by my decades of experience playing in an orchestra. Sometimes they don't, but anyone who has ever spent time playing in a professional orchestra know that the musicians are going to do whatever they want, anyway, because nobody can tell the difference, not even the conductor.

Second, as I also already said, you're talking about samples. The reason we like to think about voice leading is that it adds continuity to the individual lines when played by live musicians in a single musical phrase. We don't have musical phrases when we're working with samples, we have chopped-together bits of audio that approximate a musical phrase, so applying the same argument doesn't make sense. There is only a rough approximation to continuity, so the entire reason for paying attention to voice leading doesn't even apply.

Third, post an example of your rendition of a divisi line using the individual instruments in LASS then the same line as rendered by auto-divisi in LASS. I doubt anyone can tell the difference.



rgames


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 18, 2014)

It's how _I_ choose to work.


----------



## muk (Feb 19, 2014)

synergy543 @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Agreed. However, the challenge I find is getting separate players to play both expressively and cohesively as a single section. Unlike real players, you lose the body cues and eye contact between players and I find this very tricky to compensate for. The best solution I've found is to do multiple takes and listen player against player until the performance "feels right". The downside is this is time-consuming. Editing differences is the other method, though I prefer playing live as much as possible.
> 
> I'd be curious to hear how others are dealing with this issue?



Yes, interesting topic. I don't know how to best achieve that group sound when stacking single players. Will have to experiment a lot when my license arrives. Saxer, are you here? I'd love to hear how you deal with the matter, as your tracks sound phenomenal.


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 19, 2014)

Rgames, you're clearly the only person here who takes such issue with auto-divisi, no need to hijack the thread over it. We all heard you and accepted your opinion and moved on.


----------



## Carles (Feb 19, 2014)

I don't know how I would do it if I had tight deadlines but as hobbyist it works perfect for me this way:
I use all players first, so I program the main expression and so on until I got the character.

Later, duplicate the track and use 2 groups.
If divisi work is required, then I mute the corresponding voices in each track to keep the proper ones for each.
Keep the first track quite quantized and modify the data of the second track until it becomes a bit erratic (tempo, notes lenght, dynamic, etc).
If sounding as I've expected then the task is done (mostly times you can bring some life using two groups only).

If I need more divisi voices then I duplicate again and use desks (and since I got 4 tracks now it would be a waste not to add more erratic playing  With 4 tracks I think the level of humanization you can reach is pretty high already.

Honestly I don't see the need of editing each individual players (8 in the case of violins) unless a hell of different articulations sounding simultaneously will be required.

I mean, DS is not exactly like 8 solo players. These players are in there available for you to create lots of combinations according your needs. I think that's the strongest point on DS with the particularity that rather than solos, the musicians have played all together so there is some interaction from the neighbor soundwise and rendition wise (sound wise is very obvious in dimension brass, same concept), so it is essentially an ultra-flexible ensemble.

You might work quickly with DS if you need quicker results by playing all together or you can invest time to deeply get into detail by dividing, that's up to you and your needs.

The same we have to understand that as LASS, DS is not a candy box, it's a raw tool (a very flexible one) so it has not a predefined sound but a source sound. It is just loyal to what microphones got in a very dry stage, so DS sounds quite punchy out of the box. It works great like this when the piece requires such a definition, and of course for layering to add detail to a bigger ensemble (as the body is given by the bigger ensemble).
You can smooth the punch at your taste with EQ/filtering if you wish but also by dividing in two tracks and anticipating-delaying unison notes in one of them the attack gets smoother in a quite natural way, and combining two different dynamic layers on the same articulation sounds way more natural than playing all the same dynamic (no idea if LASS can do that automatically, but it works great in DS).

To me duplicating tracks is essential. I do layer ensembles with ensembles and of course solo with ensembles to get a more alive result, and layering in VSL is great because everything matches well with everything given its raw nature.

Indeed DS it's a very particular library. A great tool alone (outstanding as "small" ensemble) and an excellent complement for other libraries.

If I'd have to choose one and only string library from VSL it would be DS because DS can be the detail and the life of any other library in the market when properly layered.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 19, 2014)

i also use lass and spitfire sable (with transpose-trick) with divisi but i stopped using lass' auto-divisi as there are always problems with balance and missing individual dynamic lanes per voice. examples: ostinato figure in part B and a fade in in part A. or some more "lead" melody character in voice A while voice B stays on one note.
for me it's much easier to have two tracks per section, and if it's non divisi i just can copy part A to track B. 
two-part-divisi per section is enough for me in most cases. if not i can always load some "string-pad" for jobs like that. because that's what is is then: a keyboard string pad instead of individual melody lines.

@rgames: it's always bad if you want some feature and it's simply not there. always depends on the individual workflow. if i talk about the way i work i don't want to tell others how they have to work. so it would be cool to have a good automated divisi implemented in the VIpro Player. some like and use it, some don't. that's would the best.


----------



## DaddyO (Feb 19, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> DaddyO @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Alexander @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> ...



Check, must be something in my system then.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

Carles @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> x
> If I'd have to choose one and only string library from VSL it would be DS because DS can be the detail and the life of any other library in the market when properly layered.



Carles have you anything we can hear with DS as yet?


----------



## muk (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks for that detailed accounts. Without having tried it yet I think I'll play it in twice and then layer two groups of four, or play it in four times and then layer desks. For the latter procedure there might be the cohesion problem DaddyO mentioned. I may have to think about a strategy how to best deal with it. Or, if I'm lucky, it's not that big an issue.


----------



## Carles (Feb 19, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Feb 20 said:


> Carles @ Wed Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > x
> ...



Hi Adrian, got several demos almost done (95% I'd say) but still building my own VI Pro instruments and learning about VSL in general to see how far can I reach with the remaning 5%. However DS is not very exposed in these demos but layered to add detail.
In the other hand I'm working on a personal test using only DS + solo violin (Vivaldi autumn 1st movement) which I do expect to finish this weekend so I could share this soon-ish.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## DaddyO (Feb 19, 2014)

muk @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> Thanks for that detailed accounts. Without having tried it yet I think I'll play it in twice and then layer two groups of four, or play it in four times and then layer desks. For the latter procedure there might be the cohesion problem DaddyO mentioned. I may have to think about a strategy how to best deal with it. Or, if I'm lucky, it's not that big an issue.



I think it was synergy543 that mentioned cohesion. I do not have Dimension Strings. Wish I did, though.


----------



## rgames (Feb 19, 2014)

Casiquire @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> Rgames, you're clearly the only person here who takes such issue with auto-divisi, no need to hijack the thread over it. We all heard you and accepted your opinion and moved on.


Would be nice if VSL cleared up the confusion - the thread is about VSL libraries vs. other libraries and auto-divisi is a major feature that (I think) is lacking and would affect others who read the thread. I know more people who use LASS than any other library and use it specifically because of the auto-divisi feature.

Would be good to know if VSL can do that. Paul says it can do it and Herb says it can't. So who knows! I can't figure out how to make it work and I think Paul is confused about what we're describing.

So, again, would be good to get clarification because it's a major consideration for a lot of people. Totally relevant to the thread and still not clear, so worth keeping in the discussion.

rgames


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 19, 2014)

I'm not arguing with what you're saying, just the fact that you're saying the same things over, and over, and over again after the original poster already stated it wasn't a game-changer anyway.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Feb 19, 2014)

My thoughts exactly. For example - there are specific Sibelius patches, that correspond to real life score markings: Solo, a2-a8, div (can`t recall the exact expressions) and all. And that`s implementation of a 300 years old feature - which for me, personally, weights more.


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2014)

DaddyO @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> I think it was synergy543 that mentioned cohesion. I do not have Dimension Strings. Wish I did, though.



Sorry for the misattribution. And thanks to you for clearing it up


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 20, 2014)

muk @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> synergy543 @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. However, the challenge I find is getting separate players to play both expressively and cohesively as a single section. Unlike real players, you lose the body cues and eye contact between players and I find this very tricky to compensate for. The best solution I've found is to do multiple takes and listen player against player until the performance "feels right". The downside is this is time-consuming. Editing differences is the other method, though I prefer playing live as much as possible.
> ...



I'd love to hear more thoughts on this topic as its most puzzling to me as to the best approach.

I have tried free-form duets and I can't get the timing to work well. Although Lindsey Stirling has no problem with this on her * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA8a5qibUJU (overdubs)*. So clearly its possible but not easy (though she may have had the benefit of visual contact if she was playing to video - something most of us don't have).

I have tried playing a single line expressively and then trying to adjust the others accordingly but its not easy as you have to pay attention to both the timing and the modulation expression levels. So it results in multiple takes for me to get acceptable results.

My current conclusion is that its best to still plan on doing lots of editing even when you put effort into playing the parts. I don't really see a way around this at the moment although I'd prefer to play, the truth is that much of what I want to play is beyond my ability to do so as well as I'd wish. Also, playing a keyboard line is very different from play a complex string line as then notes don't naturally fall under a pianist's fingers the way they would for a string player (or wind or whatever) - which is a beauty of the different instruments but a dilemma for the virtual one-man band.

@Carles - The best example of realistic virtual orchestral performances I've heard was by Carles (who claims he's a hobbyist?). In fact, I didn't believe it as his sound (Holst and Dvorak) was SO CLOSE to the performance nuances of many of my CDs (and actually tracked very closely to some for quite a number of measures) so I thought he must have used actual recordings as a reference at least. This is not a bad idea at all as you'll learn a tremendous amount about orchestral timing (and its fluctuations) which is completely different than just playing to a click track. So Carles, if you're reading this, I'd be most interested to hear your methods in more detail (as while I agree with much of what you say, not all you've written adds up completely to what I've heard). And please don't take offense with my critical comments. I've read enough by you to know you're deeply interested and play close attention to detail (probably from your skills as a graphic artist?) so I'm not making acccusations but am purely interested in how to overcome some of these tremendous hurdles that those of us interested in tackling such issues. And sometimes, those with less experience have different and often better methods than the common approaches others use. (Good god, maybe you read the manual? :shock: )

Cheers to all, Greg


----------



## Saxer (Feb 20, 2014)

my opinion: don't make it too complicated.

overdub technique is common since decades, singers, brass and wind players have to double their performances all the time. if you can't nail it, practise. have a click for timing. you can also re-click a free performance to have a guide for the overdubs. and if you can't play too exactly it will probably sound even better as an ensemble performance.

i don't want to perform all single violin players. one performance per score stave is enough detail for me. i don't want to loose fun!

my personal main features of DS are the fantastic reaction on the TEControl breath controller and the possibility to play - slow and fast! no other string sample library is that good for that! it feels like samplemodeling when playing it. there's no key switch in all my legato/long passages, no run, no trill, no romantic legato or lure or whatever. if i want romantic i have to play romantic. if i want a trill i play a trill. i'm not a good keyboard player but i just edit when nessecary. there's only one keyswitch for tremolo.
and i have a second track per section for the short articulations. spicc/stacc/marcato switched by mod-wheel and one keyswitch for pizz.


----------



## Carles (Feb 20, 2014)

synergy543 @ Thu Feb 20 said:


> @Carles - The best example of realistic virtual orchestral performances I've heard was by Carles (who claims he's a hobbyist?). In fact, I didn't believe it as his sound (Holst and Dvorak) was SO CLOSE to the performance nuances of many of my CDs (and actually tracked very closely to some for quite a number of measures) so I thought he must have used actual recordings as a reference at least. This is not a bad idea at all as you'll learn a tremendous amount about orchestral timing (and its fluctuations) which is completely different than just playing to a click track. So Carles, if you're reading this, I'd be most interested to hear your methods in more detail (as while I agree with much of what you say, not all you've written adds up completely to what I've heard). And please don't take offense with my critical comments. I've read enough by you to know you're deeply interested and play close attention to detail (probably from your skills as a graphic artist?) so I'm not making acccusations but am purely interested in how to overcome some of these tremendous hurdles that those of us interested in tackling such issues. And sometimes, those with less experience have different and often better methods than the common approaches others use. (Good god, maybe you read the manual? :shock: )
> 
> Cheers to all, Greg



Thanks Greg.
Yup, I'm a hobbyist, and not offence at all, constructive criticism (as quite usual in this forum) is a very appreciated gift to me. How one could properly learn without criticism, isn't it?.

I do work at Weta Digital as CG artist. Sometimes in movies that are subject of discussion in this forum, so I'm part of them but "from the other side" :D and I don't think it's a good idea so far to leave my career in CG to get an immersion in the composers jungle in a city like L.A. with very low income expectatives while having a family to feed and without much experience in this field... no way :D


I've learnt 5 years music theory / 4 years piano many years ago, and I love music as much as I love CG.
I was using for a couple weeks in 2004 and couple weeks in 2007 a copy of Cubase with a "module" named Edirol Orchestral because I needed some music for my CG demo reels so I've composed it myself (nothing good, but certainly free of any royalties issue). So I had no really experience in samples until now. 
In 2012 I've got interest for the amazing results of the current virtual instruments (something like Edirol Orchestral got so many limitations) so I bought some equipment and tried to do something for fun, and I really love it. Greatly frustrated with the audio itself as I have no any skills, but enjoying by performing as "conductor", giving some life to those dead samples.
And I do not play lines, I do pure editing job, to me it's the single way to have some control on the beast.

The Dvorak and Holst mockups were produced using "easy sounding" libraries but from my current perspective I easily find now incorrect phrasing/articulations (way more in Tchaikovsky) that would be unacceptable for myself today.
The technique is not much different to how I do currently, in these mockups the strings are HS but the detail is given by Spitfire violin layered on top, as well a solo brass onto brass ensembles.
I use VSL currently. It's hard to me deal with the sound of a dry library (MIR is a huge help though) but I much love the detail and clarity you can reach with VSL regarding expression/performance. Having a broad set of articulations is invaluable help in the classical orchestral arena where you cannot hide the weaknesses of a library (performing music composed for a real orchestra rather than composed for samples or hybrid productions).

Indeed I use references. I try to find several versions from different conductors and once have listened them for a while there are things that I love from a given conductor and things that I don't like at all, so I do my own "puzzle from conductors" based on my own personal taste.
Apart of a matter of contrasted styles/tastes, the references are greatly useful for sonic comparison too.
So, not a big deal, it's a matter of patience and attention to detail (I have no deadlines 
Technically speaking I doubt I'd be entitled to give any advice as I'm quite new to the samples world, but as artist I can tell that whatever you do in your mockup that will help to create the illusion of single individuals playing together (rather than "path" or "organ" playing) surely will contribute to give some life, and I don't know how to do that other than by layering, specially solo with ensembles but also ensembles with ensembles, not only strings but also brass all the time and woodwinds eventually.

Honestly, when listening mockups I don't care much about realism but about expression, cannot avoid that. At some point, I'd enjoy more listening a well expressed FM Synth than a flat "realistic" orchestra.

I think -expression- is the true essence of the music itself, libraries are just tools with some performing capabilities, so let's do that, let's perform rather than just stacking samples one in top of other.

Given my strong technical limitations and inexperience this is the only "trick" I can share, just try to "sing" the music via CC editing and tempo editing.


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2014)

Almost SampleModeling playability with Dimension Strings? Now that's tempting  Especially when the outcome sounds as superb as your demos, Saxer.

Carles, I'm looking forward to your demo.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 20, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your honest and sincere replies.

@Saxer - Yes, I hear what you're saying and its the way I've always worked (playing to click). Sometimes I make a matrix and and use several keyswitches but its a one-time situation because each matrix I make is unique. So my memory of keyswitches is just short-term. The ability to create such matrix though is a huge benefit of VIPro2. It is by far the best virtual UI I've used. I also love the map scaling feature that lets me drive two or more parameters but with scaled results for each - very helpful for creating expressive performances. It does sound to me like your approach is just very pragmatic - "do what you need to get it done". Makes good sense. Your use of the TEC controller is interesting - do you use it with strings too? I think I'd run out of breath (and patience) but I do hear of a lot of people using it these days. And your end results speak for themselves - most impressive.

@Carles - Rimsky-Korsakov (in the beginning at least), Holst, and Mussorgsky were not "professionals", they held day jobs (hobbyists as you say, but we know thats not true). I think your interest and focus and background as a graphic artist qualifies you for more than you're giving yourself credit for. I also do graphics (Modo, Vue, Photoshop, AE, photography, etc.) so I know that many of the skills and techniques translate well to music. Parameters of art such as contrast, color, balance, depth, etc. are all the same whether its music or graphics. And 3D modeling using very similar parameters to a DAW (sequencing, spline curve editing, color adjusting (EQ), level adjustments (dynamic range) etc.

Your focus on expression and performance I think is "key" and that's what made your efforts standout to me. Your use of a reference I think is not so common but a really excellent idea. I assume that you used it for timing as well based on what I heard? This is not simple to do as I've tried it a few times - editing to existing audio is tedious work! I think I will use this more in the future mainly just to learn from. I still view it somewhat as a "crutch" as you're using someone else's interpretations sort of, but in terms of expression and dynamics there's much to learn from this approach. The end result was your tracks sounded far closer to a real orchestral performance (classical CD of a good conductor) than most mockups I hear. So whether your approach is just as a "hobbyist" or not, you've hit on a useful technique than many "professionals" would overlook. Very cool. Patience and focus on the performance is the key. I suppose you could do it all in 10 days if you just want a wall of sound and banging drums. But if your focus is more that of a conductor, then it takes time and effort - certainly well worth the results IMO. Keep doing what you're doing sir.

@muk - Do you have MIR and VIPro2? There are ways around MIR, but its really worth getting if you're invested in VSL (I use MIR24 and MIRx is useful, but more limited). You should download the MIR demo and try it, you'll see what I mean. I read that you have Vienna Suite Hybrid so can achieve excellent results with that but takes some additional effort to balance properly. Also, I couldn't live without VEPro as it helps compensate for limitations of my old computer's limited RAM (I switch sections quickly with VEPro and burn tracks) and helps to organize "section templates". Dive into Dimension Strings and you'll enjoy (everything but the basses :oops: ). Cheers.


----------



## muk (Feb 20, 2014)

Thanks. I don't have Mir - as much as I like it's interface, I'm often not that convinced by the sound. Just a personal taste thing. But with Origami and the Vienna Hybrid reverb I'm confident of getting results I'm content with 
I'll be adding VE Pro soon. So I hope I can soon work on some nice Dimension Strings templates


----------



## 667 (Feb 20, 2014)

MIR is a must have (in my opinion of course). With the new MIRx profiles it's so much faster to setup-- at least as a starting point if not final mix. But its value is in the mic simulation since DS is recorded so close. It's hard to simulate with other tools e.g. DS + reverb still sounds like a close mic'd source. I'm not sure Origami can simulate this or not (I have never used it).


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2014)

Hey Carles, looking forward to hearing soonish.


----------



## Goran (Feb 21, 2014)

synergy543 @ Thu Feb 20 said:


> I suppose you could do it all in 10 days if you just want a wall of sound and banging drums.



Since you brought up "wall of sound and banging drums": there is a widespread misconception that high quality mockup of today's typical trailer orchestra piece of the variety described above can show you the real skill level of a MIDI mockup artist/producer. In the vast majority of cases, nothing could be further from the truth. This type of production relies heavily on (in good examples) well balanced, but also extremely noisy and untransparent tutti textures (usually with addition of heavily processed percussion and/or additional electronic elements). Especially with libraries tailored to this particular style, this is fairly easily done today (at least in comparison with creating a convincing performance of non-media orchestral music in general). 

Not to say that people who do this well don't do a good job - they do, but what they do can't be taken as a general benchmark for assessing somebody's sample-based orchestra production skills. In great majority of cases, as soon as you give them, let's say, a "concert" string orchestra piece with somewhat more sensitive textures to it and no possibilty to hide behind overcompressed brass, drums and electronics, it's game over immediately.


----------



## Vik (Nov 1, 2015)

I have a feeling that VSL DS may be the most suitable library if one is looking for a detailed, close, intimate chamber sound, but many of the DS demos documents that DS also can be used to emulate larger sections, and have a quite reverby sound. 
Here's one of my favourite albums from last year, and if you listen to eg track 4 from 1:06, or track 14 from 1:10, you'll hear some brilliant chamber string recording which I, for one, never have heard any sampled library come close to:
https://itun.es/no/J5Qe2
Can Dimension Strings - or any other library - come close to this?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 1, 2015)

Carles said:


> Honestly, when listening mockups I don't care much about realism but about expression, cannot avoid that. At some point, I'd enjoy more listening a well expressed FM Synth than a flat "realistic" orchestra.
> 
> I think -expression- is the true essence of the music itself, libraries are just tools with some performing capabilities, so let's do that, let's perform rather than just stacking samples one in top of other.



I totally agree with that and that is why so much of your work sounds as good as it does, Carles.


----------



## Vik (Nov 1, 2015)

I also agree in the thing about expression (and that Carles makes great mockups!). 
OTOH - since our hardware and samples as such don't actually "express" or "feel" something, and since string players who spend a week in a studio recording all kinds of expressive samples don't necessarily express or feel something throughout this week, aren't we actually talking about using samples which sound as close as possible to someone who actually plays with "feeling"/expression? 

And, in that case (and in terms of string libraries): don't these two phenomenons (realism and expression or feeling) usually overlap each other?

I'm not saying that one cannot "feel" something by using synthetic sounds. But if the idea is to actually make a mockup (either to check things out, in order to compose, or to create a final result for use eg in a movie), wouldn't a lack of realism make the whole idea of creating a mockup kind of... fail?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 1, 2015)

Vik said:


> But if the idea is to actually make a mockup (either to check things out, in order to compose, or to create a final result for use eg in a movie), wouldn't a lack of realism make the whole idea of creating a mockup kind of... fail?



It depends on the goal, If the goal is to make it sound as close to real as possible or if it is to make it sounds as musical as possible. The two are not always the same.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 1, 2015)

Carles said:


> I think -expression- is the true essence of the music itself, libraries are just tools with some performing capabilities, so let's do that, let's perform rather than just stacking samples one in top of other.
> 
> Given my strong technical limitations and inexperience this is the only "trick" I can share, just try to "sing" the music via CC editing and tempo editing.



How wise!
A great post of you (your complete post), Carles! You do not need to be "the" star, you are just one!


----------



## Saxer (Nov 1, 2015)

here's a little test cue with dimension strings using the lower dynamics


----------



## Vik (Nov 2, 2015)

Thanks a lot, Saxer! To which extent is this edited? I'm asking because in a way this little clip is also an example of DS stuff which – in spite of the close mic'ing, dry sound and reputation about an intimate sound etc - does not sound very detailed/feathered? One fascinating thing about good chamber recordings is that they sometimes sounds bigger that recordings of larger ensembles, not as in sounding like being more players than they actually are, but due to the rich overtones and warm/detailed/woody sound. 
Note that when I have compared DS demos and other stuff I've been checking out with actual recordings, I've done it on Sennheiser HD 650s or Genelec 1032As, which usually reveals a lot more nuance and detailed than when listening on other speakers and headphones I have (and – some people will claim that the 1032As may even make some recordings sound better than they are).


----------



## Saxer (Nov 2, 2015)

I put this little cue together last night and I used one of my templates including room. It's not special designed to show a chamber character. I just wanted to show how DS sounds in that situation. I also have another smaller template which is doubled by the VSL special edition solo strings. Sounds smaller but it works better for legato. Probably became better for short notes too if I had the full solo strings with all articulations... Just a smaller number of string players from DS makes the sound kind of boring and meatless instead of delicate and detailed.

I think the fatness of a chamber section comes from closer miking. Distant miking adds room but looses bottom and detail. This has more impact to the sound than the actual number of sampled strings. And of course the playing style.

A good library for feathered short articulations is the Adagio series from 8dio. I'm not a fan of 8dios different legatos which is much too much searching and editing (instead of just playing) for me, but the short articulations are very detailed and tasteful.


----------

