# VSL SYNCHRON-ized Chamber Strings



## C-Wave (Jul 13, 2018)

VSL SYNCHRON-ized Chamber Strings:

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Synchron_Package/Synchron_Chamber_Strings


----------



## Seycara (Jul 13, 2018)

I don't know what it is, maybe it's the vibrato or the legato scripting, but from the demos this library sounds dated before even being released. Compared to what SCS is capable of, this just doesn't sound nearly as good in my opinion. The individual notes are fine but in groups they just sound artificial and leagues away from competitors such as SCS, Berlin Strings, or CSS (again, in my opinion).

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you could program it with many hours of hard work and blend it with EQ/panning so that it does sound decent in context but why do that if VSL can't seem to pull it off with their demos? Their Synchron strings sound really nice in terms of tech specs (8 dynamic layers etc. etc.) but all this sampling just doesn't reflect in the sound.


----------



## C-Wave (Jul 13, 2018)

*Compatibility with Synchron Strings I*

Precisely adjusted velocity matching for a seamless sonic blend 

Portamento, Spiccato and additional articulations as a perfect addition to Synchron Strings I

Matching Preset Structure for simultaneous performance of all Synchron Series string sections

Additional vivid divisi sections for complex arrangements with Synchron Strings I


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 13, 2018)

Interesting !

I own both Synchron Strings 1, and Chamber Strings 1, how do I get Synchron Chamber Strings for 75 Eur. ? I only see the Intro standard price when in the basket (365 Eur.)


----------



## C-Wave (Jul 13, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Interesting !
> 
> I own both Synchron Strings 1, and Chamber Strings 1, how do I get Synchron Chamber Strings for 75 Eur. ? I only see the Intro standard price when in the basket (365 Eur.)


check the very bottom of the main page (link above):
Special Offers through July 31, 2018

Special *Intro Price* €365 (€445)
Upgrade Price for registered users of Chamber Strings I*: €145 (€195)
Price for registered users of Synchron Strings I: €295 **
Price for registered users of Chamber Strings I and Synchron Strings I: €75 **
Discounts also apply when you purchase Chamber Strings I* and/or Synchron Strings I*
at the same time as SYNCHRON-ized Chamber Strings, in one order.

* Standard Library or Full Library / ** Promotional Offer only available in July, 2018


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 13, 2018)

That's interesting. The original VSL Chamber Strings still sound great to my ears, and it's a very workable library.

It's kind of funny though that this is kind of meant to fill some of the holes in the SyS articulation list. To some extent it makes sense, as things like spiccato and portamento work better with smaller sections, but one has to wonder why the whole Synchron line was even necessary if the solution is to fall back to very old recordings in order to fix new problems.

I gotta say - I'm actually looking forward to remasters of my trusty VSL Woodwinds and Brass libraries. The stuff is still great to this day and deserves a makeover.


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 13, 2018)

C-Wave said:


> check the very bottom of the main page (link above):
> Special Offers through July 31, 2018
> 
> Special *Intro Price* €365 (€445)
> ...



Clicking on the links only takes me to the relative product, (Chamber Strings I, or Synchron Strings I), it doesn't show me Synchron Chamber Strings at 75. Euros , I might be missing something, but how can I add this and see the price 75 Euros ?


----------



## muk (Jul 13, 2018)

Ouch, that's going to be costly if you want to 'upgrade' all of your existing libraries to the Synchron-ized versions. Basically it looks to be 145€ per library for a new player and specific impulse responses. From what I am hearing here, personally I am not at all tempted to do that. And I like the VI Pro player better for single mic position libraries anyways.


----------



## al_net77 (Jul 13, 2018)

Only the first demo is chamber only, the others two are layered with SynStr I...


----------



## C-Wave (Jul 13, 2018)

Youtube video:


----------



## C-Wave (Jul 13, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Clicking on the links only takes me to the relative product, (Chamber Strings I, or Synchron Strings I), it doesn't show me Synchron Chamber Strings at 75. Euros , I might be missing something, but how can I add this and see the price 75 Euros ?


You’re right. Usually they have a “your price” section when you are logged in. Not here. I will probably email them about this. €75 is a no brainer for me.


----------



## Piotrek K. (Jul 13, 2018)

If this is idea of VSL for divisi in SyS, I don't see reason why they shouldn't do Orchestral Strings Synchronized to give true sfz, portamento, detache, col legno etc. It seems that shortcuts and faking is very deep in Synchron Strings DNA :(

It is an interesting concept though, but for me it seems like a cash grab - MIRx re-invented


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 13, 2018)

C-Wave said:


> You’re right. Usually they have a “your price” section when you are logged in. Not here. I will probably email them about this. €75 is a no brainer for me.



I posted this question on the VSL forum.


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 13, 2018)

C-Wave said:


> €75 is a no brainer for me.



Yes, the same here. 

Hopefully they will fix the special pricing not showing up (75 Euros) via Your Price when logged in .


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 13, 2018)

Looking at the articulations, it's not the original Chamber strings 1:1 optimized for Synchron Player. There's quite some stuff in the original library that isn't included in the Synchron Version. This new version is seemingly laid out to match Synchron Strings, so you can more or less copy the MIDI data over. 

This might also mean that the same type of scripting/editing trickery is involved.


----------



## wcreed51 (Jul 13, 2018)

I never got the Chamber Strings, as I have Dimension Strings. Am I missing something?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jul 13, 2018)

The commercial has something of 90s teleshopping for me.


----------



## novaburst (Jul 13, 2018)

This is a surprise, I guess there is no stopping, Dimension and orchestral could be in the pipe line, I guess this means they can all be used in the new player.

If they do take this root Dimension is going to be a real favourite.


----------



## richhickey (Jul 13, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Yes, the same here.
> 
> Hopefully they will fix the special pricing not showing up (75 Euros) via Your Price when logged in .



That's fixed. Downloading now


----------



## Ben (Jul 13, 2018)

richhickey said:


> That's fixed. Downloading now


Waiting for your review


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 13, 2018)

Synchron-ized WW's might be very interesting. I admit, I was hoping for totally new multi-mic Synchron libraries. Looks to me like these "reduxes" might push the new stuff back a few years?


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 13, 2018)

richhickey said:


> That's fixed. Downloading now



Thanks. Yes, I just purchased at 75.00 Euros.


----------



## wbacer (Jul 13, 2018)

Ilio has it for $90 US if you own chamber strings 1 and synchron strings 1
https://www.ilio.com/products/vienna-synchron/synchronizedchstrings


----------



## C-Wave (Jul 13, 2018)

novaburst said:


> This is a surprise, I guess there is no stopping, Dimension and orchestral could be in the pipe line, I guess this means they can all be used in the new player.
> 
> If they do take this root Dimension is going to be a real favourite.


I once read at the VSL forum (several months back) that they don’t plan to bring the dimension series into Synchron series.


----------



## richhickey (Jul 13, 2018)

Ben said:


> Waiting for your review



So before too many more people blow $87 here's my initial report:

I have Chamber Strings and MIR and Synchron Roompack. I setup both SyCh with just its synchron stage convolution, no algorithmic, and CS-in-SynchronMIR in VEPro. Fiddled around a while trying to match the room and placement, but soon realized something was significantly different in the raw sound.

Dropped the reverb (SyCh) or MIR (CS) off both, compared raw dry-to-dry from then on.

What I'm hearing in SyCh is a phasey-ness and lack of clarity. After much A/Bing and tweaking of the same artics in each, here is my theory:

1) The remastered samples in SyCh seem to incorporate more of the room (yes, there is a room in silent stage). This yields some phase issues and a distinct increase in slapback/early reflection. While such ERs can sometimes yield more body, in this case I just think it mostly smears the attacks on shorts, sometimes to the point of near erasure.

2) It seems as if Synchron Player (and note, this is my first outing with it) treats velocity crossfade differently then does VI Pro, at least with this library. I'm not a fan of velocity xfade and try to avoid it unless I need to create a dramatic change I can't pull off with expression. It adds a doubling effect and even more phase issues, creates weird vib etc. So I had it OFF in both players. In VI Pro toggling xfade off clears things right up versus when on - the player is no longer mixing samples. In Synchron player it seems as if, even when vel-xfade is off, the player is still (and thus _always_) playing mixed samples, it just is taking the level from kb velocity and not from the xfade CC. So you can't ever get the clarity of unmixed samples. I'm not sure if this is a bug in SyPlayer or by design.

The net result is everything I love about CS - the raw, rosiny, intimate sound, has been blurred in SyCh. I can get a sound I much prefer with CS+MIR, and with more flexibility. I can't see using this unless you really wanted to a) double a SyS part or b) move something recorded for SyS to SyCh, w/o having to redo CCs and artics. These are completely valid applications.

Note this is just a theory, which could be wrong (but what I'm hearing is there), it could be player bugs that will be fixed, YMMV etc. Just an experience report.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jul 13, 2018)

I'm really surprised they're doing this. The VSL Chamber Strings came out a very long time ago. They were originally released in GigaSampler and Logic EXS24 format, and required the addition of some extra software (which also served as primitive copy protection) to do legato. I would have thought with their new Synchron stage, they would have retired this old content and replace it with something new (similar to the way Spitfire retired Albion 1 and replaced it with a new version). 

I'm now wondering if we'll be going through this with every VSL library. That's a lot of libraries. Kind of makes me think of the days of repurchasing old vinyl recordings with CD versions.

I wonder if retiring and ceasing to update Vienna Instruments Pro is part of the plan. That would force us to update to continue to use content.


----------



## Vik (Jul 14, 2018)

If a company releases a new and better UI for use with future libraries, it's IMO great that they offer versions of their previous libraries as well - using their new player (unless it doesn't sound as good as it did, of course). 

Re-releasing VSL Chamber strings in a new player doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't planning new products (new chamber strings, for instance) for the new player as well. 

Personally I haven't bought any VSL products since 2003 (partially because they had a GUI I didn't like) - but their new player means that it's more likely that someone like me would buy new libraries from them (or old, rewrapped libraries). Great move.


----------



## muk (Jul 14, 2018)

So what exactly is the 145€ added value of the Synchron-ized Chamber Strings over Chamber Strings with the MIR Pro and Synchron Stage Roompack? It looks like it's the use of the new player, plus samples remastered to match Synchron Strings. The trade-off is that you loose half of the Chamber Strings original articulations (Chamber Strings have 34 articulation for Vl 1, Synchronized CS have 16...).

That VSL wants us to believe that Synchronized Chamber Strings are the solution for Synchron Stages shortcomings in articulations (Portamento, Spiccato) is estranging. Not something I would have expected from VSL. It is a half-baked solution at best.



Lee Blaske said:


> I wonder if retiring and ceasing to update Vienna Instruments Pro is part of the plan.



I really hope that this is not going to happen. I am absolutely content with the VI Pro player, and I don't want to update my Silent Stage libraries to the new player. So I am hoping for continued support for the 'old' player.


----------



## muk (Jul 14, 2018)

Some inconsistencies I noticed on a second look: the Synchronized Chamber Strings don't emulate the mic positions of the Synchron Strings. With Synchronized CS you only have one 'mic position'. Synchronized Chamber Strings have two vibrato layers, while Synchron Strings have three. Odd, given the fact that the original Chamber Strings have three vibrato layers.


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 14, 2018)

In all honesty, I do find a bit deplorable that they've taken time to port this older library to the Synchron player, yet their new Synchron Percussion from last year still isn't ready for Synchron!


----------



## Salorom (Jul 14, 2018)

jamwerks said:


> In all honesty, I do find a bit deplorable that they've taken time to port this older library to the Synchron player, yet there new Synchron Percussion from last year still isn't ready for Synchron!


Yes... I don't understand why VSL won't spend their valuable time fixing what needs to be fixed instead of serving us rehashed. I think their internal decision making these past few months has been terrible.


----------



## mobileavatar (Jul 14, 2018)

Salorom said:


> Yes... I don't understand why VSL won't spend their valuable time fixing what needs to be fixed instead of serving us rehashed. I think their internal decision making these past few months has been terrible.


I wonder how we could wake VSL up??


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 14, 2018)

Salorom said:


> Yes... I don't understand why VSL won't spend their valuable time fixing what needs to be fixed instead of serving us rehashed. I think their internal decision making these past few months has been terrible.



Yeah. Honestly, more than anything else, this newest announcement has kind of made me give up on SyS. Think I'm gonna delete them from the drive now and file them under "DoA", as there's obviously no further improvement to be expected here.


----------



## novaburst (Jul 14, 2018)

C-Wave said:


> I once read at the VSL forum (several months back) that they don’t plan to bring the dimension series into Synchron series.



It is a series of its own with the dimension brass, but the Synchron series is a way to up date sound not to say there is anything wrong with the dimension sound, I guess it may all depend on the feedback with chamber strings


----------



## richhickey (Jul 14, 2018)

Yeah, Synchron-ized CS has me baffled. It's difficult to second guess a company's strategy not knowing sales figures and trends. It seems to me though that introducing 'synchon-ized' anything so early in the Synchron effort seriously undermines the Synchron value proposition (multi-mic recordings, in place, in a great sounding room). Whether you buy into the Synchron idea or not, a 'synchron-ized' library is not it. We all can do this with MIR + Synchron roompack for ourselves.

One hopes this is just VSL trying to quickly give dissatisfied SyS users some options for tailoring the sound.

More broadly, the Synchron effort makes me sad. It's almost as if VSL has said - the market does not want our actual sound of an orchestra, they instead are looking to mash together samples to create a cinematic orchestra-like sound design quickly and without too much effort. Thus the willingness in Synchron to do so much crossfading, the creation of articulations via layering etc, the simplified and less capable player, the early release of an FX lib, and now this suggestion that we layer 'synchronized' CS over SyS.

And they may not be wrong (about the market). But as a big fan of their legacy approach (dry samples + MIR) it does not seem like an improvement.

But I wonder if we VSL fans haven't helped drive it to this point by responding to everyone who struggles initially with VSL with "you have to know what you are doing" etc. In my experience VSL can be much easier, more consistent, playable and satisfying than wet libs _once you have MIR/MIRx_. My first advice for a new VSL user is: get some flavor of MIR or don't bother.

Instead of doing Synchron I wish VSL would just make MIR/MIRx more accessible instead of optional and expensive. For instance, include one MIRx room with VI Pro, and seriously discount MIR24 (again maybe with only one room) for anyone with a non-SE library. People can then have an awesome sounding and easy initial experience, see firsthand the value proposition of dry samples + MIR, and VSL can make money on (the inevitable) roompack and library purchases.

The other big challenge I think users of VSL's dry libs and VI Pro face is: lots of articulations + matrix/X/Y selection. Again, I don't think Synchron's solution of fewer articulations and N-way branching tree is a satisfying answer (in fact I think it will be much worse in practice, especially with a DAW, at least with matrix/X/Y you always have just 3 dimensions). But it is a real problem, one I solve for myself using a Launchpad Mini and Bome MIDI Translator Pro scripts. With this combo I get one-button selection of 64+ articulations. But it required some MIDI knowledge and programming effort to set this up, and it ends up being somewhat specific for my needs. VSL has developers and could build what I have cobbled together right into VI Pro in a general way.

In the end I have to conclude Synchron is not for me (as I've concluded about most other wet libs), even though it comes from a company whose other products I love. I'm going to redouble my efforts to enjoy and succeed with VSL (legacy?), Chris Hein, etc + MIR, and help others do the same.


----------



## al_net77 (Jul 14, 2018)

Does anyone with both CHS libs (VI and Synchron) post some comparison?


----------



## wcreed51 (Jul 14, 2018)

https://www.vsl.co.at/community/posts/t49019-DEMO--SYNCHRON-Strings-I-now-CHAMBERized#post274609


----------



## al_net77 (Jul 14, 2018)

Seen that, but I mean Chamber String "legacy" vs Chamber Strings "Sync-thinged"


----------



## Piotrek K. (Jul 14, 2018)

At first I though this is VSL idea for lowering prices of their older libraries, but without suggesting that they may have lost some value over time...

But then I noticed that normal price of this experiment is much higher than price of Standard Version of Chamber strings I (445$ vs 295$). It means you pay additional 150$ for IR, different articulations set (not more, just different set), and re-editing made to match flawed (but not worhtless) Synchron Strings I? Wow! It's clearly a no-brainer!

I have no idea what is VSL strategy now and what are they aiming at. Maybe they know that SyS is not good (but too proud / self-confident to admit that) and they have to re-think woodwinds and brass to not repeat same mistakes. But cash needs to flow. And Synchron-ized seems like a simple fix for that. And based on what I read it works...


----------



## shawnsingh (Jul 14, 2018)

richhickey said:


> Instead of doing Synchron I wish VSL would just make MIR/MIRx more accessible instead of optional and expensive.



I really love the dry approach too.

But one thing I struggled with is getting a convincing spaced-microphone sound, which I really like. I tried all sorts of delay panning and early reflection tricks, and tried the mic customization options in MIR. As far as I could ever tell, MIR doesnt have a venue where they've sampled actual microphone positions that could be used for spaced mic setup and I didn't feel like that the customizations they had for emulating a spaced mic pair ever really sounded as 3d as a decca tree or spaced pair. So coming from there, I really welcome the Synchron libraries.

Personally I wanted to see VSL venture into wet libraries while keeping the same approach of true-sampled articulations, with a rich spectrum of articulations, and retaining their sample consistency across articulations that made articulation substitutions and xfading techniques so useful in the dry libraries (I think the sample consistency aspect they did retain pretty well in the synchron articulations they have so far).

So yeah, I'm not as interested in synchron-ized libraries. But I do like the possible future of Synchron series in the long term.


----------



## ChristianM (Jul 14, 2018)

How does Paul get such a smile when he introduces us to these libraries?


----------



## Ben (Jul 14, 2018)

Simple: He gets paid for his job :D


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jul 14, 2018)

ChristianM said:


> How does Paul get such a smile when he introduces us to these libraries?


Not only that, he always seems to be sitting when he makes these announcements...


----------



## Dear Villain (Jul 14, 2018)

Prockamanisc said:


> Not only that, he always seems to be sitting when he makes these announcements...


Should he be standing behind a podium with a PowerPoint presentation clicker in hand?


----------



## MA-Simon (Jul 14, 2018)

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Synchron_Package/Synchron_Chamber_Strings
Hm... Spitfires Chamber Strings are so much more advanced then this. I am very sorry, but those demos sound ancient to me.


----------



## antcarrier (Jul 14, 2018)

richhickey said:


> Yeah, Synchron-ized CS has me baffled. It's difficult to second guess a company's strategy not knowing sales figures and trends. It seems to me though that introducing 'synchon-ized' anything so early in the Synchron effort seriously undermines the Synchron value proposition (multi-mic recordings, in place, in a great sounding room). Whether you buy into the Synchron idea or not, a 'synchron-ized' library is not it. We all can do this with MIR + Synchron roompack for ourselves.
> 
> One hopes this is just VSL trying to quickly give dissatisfied SyS users some options for tailoring the sound.
> 
> ...



Yep dry libs + MIR is the best approach. I doubt I'll be buying any more synchron products. Older libraries are so much more versatile.

I completely agree with what you say about MIR. Once you have MIR, mixing with classic VSL libraries (or any other dry lib) is easy, and sounds fantastic.


----------



## muk (Jul 15, 2018)

For me, VSL libraries were interesting because they were good for mockups of concert music. They were consistent, flexible, and had a long list of articulations few other companies could match. These were unique selling propositions.

With Synchron Strings I and Synchronized Chamber Strings all of these are gone. There are so few articulations in Synchron Strings I (with some crucial omissions, and with some of them apparently even being patched together rather than being recorded...) that all flexibility is lost.
I understand that VSL is targetting a new group of customers. Wet libraries that should sound great out of the box or with very little mixing, and a basic set of articulations for film/trailer/media-music. But here the competition is steep. Selling these Synchronized Chamber Strings at 445€ regular price vs Spitfire Chamber Strings at 699€ (or around 445€ on a discount) - I really don't see how the former could be a better choice. In fact, I can't even see how Synchronized Chamber Strings should be a better choice than their normal Chamber Strings which have many more articulations and which you can spatialize any way you want.

To be honest, to me the 'Synchron-izing' of the Chamber Strings looks - and, unfortunately, sounds - like a dumbing down of a library that was fine in the first place. But maybe that's just because I like their 'old' libraries. And here's the good thing about VSL: they are giving us lots of choices.


----------



## dhlkid (Jul 15, 2018)

I am about to retire my VSL Chamber Strings 1, or only use it for writing/sketching...


----------



## Ben (Jul 15, 2018)

antcarrier said:


> Yep dry libs + MIR is the best approach. I doubt I'll be buying any more synchron products. Older libraries are so much more versatile.


In my opinion the Synchron Piano CFX is the best sampled piano on the market. So I would not ignore all of the Synchron products; there is definitively potential.


----------



## ChristianM (Jul 15, 2018)

Ben said:


> In my opinion the Synchron Piano CFX is the best sampled piano on the market. So I would not ignore all of the Synchron products; there is definitively potential.


I have not it, but the Bechstein from Bechstein-Digital is very good for me (I have v1.1)


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 15, 2018)

Hi,

I don't see a convolution (waveform) icon in the mixer in the Mix Page of Synchron-ized chamber strings. I only have the normal built-in Reverb that is visible.

Could I have missed to install something ? I didn't see anything other than the one install file that I downloaded from MyVSL which I dragged to the Library Download Manger App.

Any feedback on this would be appreciated.

Here is how my Mixer channel looks (note there is no waveform icon for the convolution option in the reverb of the mix channel).


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 15, 2018)

Hi,

OK, I had not installed the latest version of the Synchron Player, (didn't notice it was updated), so Installed it, and now I see the waveform Icon in the mixer, which opens up another small windowshowing the position of the string sections, and a Preset IR for each section. 

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## SomeGuy (Jul 17, 2018)

Some quick questions. So in terms of placing the original recordings into synchron hall, its basically done like MirX where you can adjust the wet/dry ratio, but its applying a convolution to the samples in the player, correct? Is this done to simulate the individual mics of Syncron Strings (close, Mid, MainC, MainLR, etc) or is it just a single overall "synchron hall" sound?


----------



## SomeGuy (Jul 17, 2018)

richhickey said:


> So before too many more people blow $87 here's my initial report.



If you are willing, I (and I'm sure many others) would love to hear examples of what you are talking about, especially this smearing attack / phasing issue. 

Also, I would recommend posting on VSL support forums about your issue 2). I for one would support you in getting this behavior fixed so if you are not using velocity crossfade, that only a single dynamic layer is played. Seems like a bug to me.


----------



## Ben (Jul 17, 2018)

SomeGuy said:


> Some quick questions. So in terms of placing the original recordings into synchron hall, its basically done like MirX where you can adjust the wet/dry ratio, but its applying a convolution to the samples in the player, correct? Is this done to simulate the individual mics of Syncron Strings (close, Mid, MainC, MainLR, etc) or is it just a single overall "synchron hall" sound?



https://www.vsl.co.at/community/pos...about-Synchronized-Chamber-Strings#post274669

In short: Reworked dry Chamber Strings + Synchron-"MIRx" (stereo, no multi-mic)


----------



## Pixelpoet1985 (Jul 17, 2018)

Could someone please be so kind and say something about the legatos? We all know how the old library sounded, but the samples have been re-edited and re-mastered. Do the legato transitions sound similar to Synchron Strings 1 or is there a "better" or "improved" sound?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 17, 2018)

A more playful demo, for synchron chamber strings only.

Wanna Play Marbles?


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jul 17, 2018)

Pixelpoet1985 said:


> Could someone please be so kind and say something about the legatos? We all know how the old library sounded, but the samples have been re-edited and re-mastered. Do the legato transitions sound similar to Synchron Strings 1 or is there a "better" or "improved" sound?


If I recall correctly, the Legatos in Chamber Strings were some of VSLs best


----------



## Ben (Jul 18, 2018)

Guy Bacos said:


> A more playful demo, for synchron chamber strings only.
> 
> Wanna Play Marbles?



Thanks Guy! Sounds incredible!
In a new project would you prefere the original or synchronized Chamber strings in a new project (without Synchron Strings)?
Do you think that an upgrade from the chamber-strings is worth it if I am not planning to use the Synchron Strings (but I have the Synchron Stage)?

Best, Ben


----------



## muk (Jul 18, 2018)

Ben said:


> Thanks Guy! Sounds incredible!



Do you really think so? To me it sounds like the work of a masterful composer and mockup-artist who had to resort to working with less than ideal tools. Wonderful composition. And I can clearly hear and admire the know-how, expertise, and work that went into creating the mockup. And yet the result sounds unconvincing to me, and quite far from the best mockups from Guy I have heard. The musicality and performance is there in the mockup, but they don't not translate through the samples. At least that's my impression of the mockup.


----------



## Ben (Jul 18, 2018)

muk said:


> Do you really think so?


Yes, I think it sounds great.
The strings sounds larger than just chamber strings (which is fine for this piece), but still smaller than orchestra size. I think this is because of the Synchron IR.
And if you want a smaller section, a little mixing with solo strings should do the trick.


----------



## mobileavatar (Jul 18, 2018)

Thanks for sharing the demo! Chamber Strings by itself is quite nice, but as soon as it is layered with Synchron Strings (like in the other demos), the image of my Korg Triton emerges.

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Synchron_Package/Synchron_Chamber_Strings#!Demos


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jul 18, 2018)

mobileavatar said:


> the image of my Korg Triton emerges


Sorry, this reference is lost on me. Is that really good or really bad?


----------



## Ben (Jul 18, 2018)

Prockamanisc said:


> Sorry, this reference is lost on me. Is that really good or really bad?


I assume he is just trolling.


----------



## mobileavatar (Jul 18, 2018)

Ben said:


> I assume he is just trolling.


you should check out the demos first... before using such harsh word, Mr.


----------



## mobileavatar (Jul 18, 2018)

Prockamanisc said:


> Sorry, this reference is lost on me. Is that really good or really bad?


What I meant was, it sounds very synthy.


----------



## Ben (Jul 18, 2018)

mobileavatar said:


> you should check out the demos first... before using such harsh word, Mr.


I did, and I could not find any comparison between those sounds. The Syn. Strings Demos on the Synchronized Chamber Strings page sound good.


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 18, 2018)

Hi,

While testing the new VSL Synchron-ized Chamber Strings, I noticed that if the IR slider is set to a value higher than around 35, the sound of the strings starts getting mushy, and kind of phasy, or synthy. So, maybe that is what you are hearing in Guy's demo. Maybe he had dialed a high value for the IR, which is making the sound too mushy and less focused. 

I use a value of 35 or less for the IR, and then add an Algorithmic Reverb, to get a nice realistic sound from this library. 

@Guy Bacos ,

How much did you dial in the IR slider in the demo ? 

Thanks,
Muziksculp


----------



## HBen (Jul 18, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Hi,
> 
> While testing the new VSL Synchron-ized Chamber Strings, I noticed that if the IR slider is set to a value higher than around 35, the sound of the strings starts getting mushy, and kind of phasy, or synthy. So, maybe that is what you are hearing in Guy's demo. Maybe he had dialed a high value for the IR, which is making the sound too mushy and less focused.
> 
> ...



Can you post a quick demo for this? I'd love to hear it. I am thinking not to buy this, but if it sounds good, and adjustable to sound not synthy, I might think it over again.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 18, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Hi,
> 
> While testing the new VSL Synchron-ized Chamber Strings, I noticed that if the IR slider is set to a value higher than around 35, the sound of the strings starts getting mushy, and kind of phasy, or synthy. So, maybe that is what you are hearing in Guy's demo. Maybe he had dialed a high value for the IR, which is making the sound too mushy and less focused.
> 
> ...



Hi Muziksculp,

The value was at 37.5 for the violins and less for the cellos, the reason for this is that I had many isolated violin sections, and sometimes playing very soft and fast, and since the natural panning was quite on the left you couldn't hear the reflection well at that volume in the overall mix, so I panned the violins less to the left using the Main Power Panner in the SY Player combined with a higher IR. Your idea: _"I use a value of 35 or less for the IR, and then add an Algorithmic Reverb"_, is good, and something I will consider. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Pixelpoet1985 (Jul 18, 2018)

Thanks for the demo, Guy. What do you think of the legatos? 

The demo is on the VSL website, too. What I'm still missing is a "hollywood"-like demo. Apart from the Tchaikovsky demo I have the feeling that the demos were made for the library's capabilities, but not the other way round. Do you understand what I mean?

But I have to agree with @muk. I don't like the sound, the composition is great. I finally have to say that, maybe, it's the room ambience which "destroys" the sound and makes it "phasy", because the old chamber strings sound more convincing. I'm still thinking that there is something wrong with the way the samples were edited and the phasy crossfade behaviour someone mentioned. For me the crossfade gets just louder, but there is no timbre change, so I don't understand the huge amount of velocity layers. Just my opinion.


----------



## Casiquire (Jul 18, 2018)

Thanks for the example Guy, as always a well-done work.

I really don't know what's going on over at VSL. I think Synchron-izing past libraries is a decent idea, in six years after the rest of the Synchron series is done. And it should be done better. Couple mic positions at least, for example.


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 18, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> Thanks for the example Guy, as always a well-done work.
> 
> I really don't know what's going on over at VSL. I think Synchron-izing past libraries is a decent idea, in six years after the rest of the Synchron series is done. And it should be done better. Couple mic positions at least, for example.



I totally agree. 

I would rather they keep moving forward with the new Synchron Line of Libraries, and maybe improve their current Sychron Libraries. (ie. Synchron Strings 1). I hope we see them release Synchron Strings II, Synchron Solo Strings, Synchron Chamber Strings, Synchron Appassionata Strings, Synchron Woodwinds, Synchron Brass, ..etc. ..etc. ).

They have a lot of work ahead of them to develop the Synchron Line, re-Syncronizing the VI Libraries should be given a lower priority. Maybe after they are done with the whole Synchron Line.


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 18, 2018)

Not a bad sound imo. Better than the original Chamber Strings (which was a strong library). I dare say though that same piece rendered with SCS would probably sound much better.


----------



## Nicola74 (Jul 19, 2018)

I have only synchronized chamber strings and I quite like it so far...
If someone have also the ViPro version, could he/she post some easy melodies played with both the instruments?
Just few notes, with legato maybe, for comparison...


----------



## Nicola74 (Jul 19, 2018)

I have only synchronized chamber strings and I quite like it so far...
If someone have also the ViPro version, could he/she post some easy melodies played with both the instruments?
Just few notes, with legato maybe, for comparison...


----------



## Ben (Jul 19, 2018)

You can find performance demos here (called: Chamber * Performance): https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Chamber_Strings_Bundle/Chamber_Strings_I#!Demos


----------



## SomeGuy (Jul 19, 2018)

Is anyone who already owned the original Chamber strings and upgraded to the "SYNCHRON-ized" version happy with their purchase?


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Jul 21, 2018)

SomeGuy said:


> Is anyone who already owned the original Chamber strings and upgraded to the "SYNCHRON-ized" version happy with their purchase?



Chamber Full owner here.

Love 'em.

Thought about Synchron Chamber for a minute.

But looking at SE Vol. 3 for some Appassionata Reg/Sordino and Chamber & Solo String Sordino to round out my VSL.

Not quite on board with Synchron.


----------



## Nicola74 (Jul 21, 2018)

I don't have the original chamber strings, it is the only vsl strins library that I don't have...but where are all the articulation in the synchronized chamber strings? Harmonics, col legno...will there synch chamber strings II or what?


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Jul 21, 2018)

The more i look into other chamber sized string libraries (including Synchron), the more i appreciate my old VSL strings.


----------



## SomeGuy (Jul 25, 2018)

SomeGuy said:


> Is anyone who already owned the original Chamber strings and upgraded to the "SYNCHRON-ized" version happy with their purchase?



Guess the lack of anyone commenting gives me my answer. :(


----------



## Erik (Jul 26, 2018)

No SomeGuy,
There is relief for your sorrows!

Herewith some _user _demo's with the new Synchronizd Chamber Strings, also in comparison with the old version and the new Synchron Strings as well. Source used: a fragment from "South by SouthWest", composed by Stephen Barton, who wrote a lot for film. This is a very energetic piece for string ensemble, written at the time for DVZ, Audio Impressions.

I tried to give some strenght to the more raw side of this piece, so no feathering spiccato, but bows into the strings: there is a lot of _ff marcato _indicating in the score.

Using the three libraries, I would say: there is soundwise a difference between the 1.0 and 2.0 version of these chamber ensembles: 2.0 is some more polished and suffers less from a thin and bit nasal sound that in some cases the 1.0 version could demonstrate. 

BTW: I turned the reverb off in the 2.0 version and lowered the IR settings to about 11-12%. Furthermore a touch of dynamical EQ, again in the violins. Added tail: some RC48, which I love for orchestral mockups.

I all cases I used some help from the LASS ER's from Numerical sound to sweeten a bit the first violins. Despite this help I must say that moreover the Synchron violins still give me a sort of unpleasant listening experience. What lacks is basically a convincing, musical vibrato and legato imo. Shorts do the job OK, but if you listen carefully to the isolated violins in example A, sixth track, you'll hear what I described. It is really a pity that these strings have so many disappointing issues in the violins a.o..

On the contrary for me: both chamber libs are more convincing in most cases in this particular work, and guess what: the combination of Chamber Strings 1.0 and (!) 2.0 gave a surprisingly good result! Chamber 2.0 and SyS is quite OK for me, but 2.0 doesn't exactly compensate all issues of the Sys imo. I would have hoped for a Synchron strings product with the same musical (input and ) output as in the products they made in the past, or even much better and lively. Enough talking now, I hope you'll enjoy these tracks here.

Here two short fragments: the beginning of the piece and secondly a small legato part in the violins. Order of appearance: Chamber Sy_ized (2.0) - Chamber 1.0 - SyS



Some more of this work, the first half, order of appearance: Chamber Sy_ized (2.0) - Chamber 1.0 - SyS - Chamber 2.0 + 1.0 - Chamber 2.0 + SyS


----------



## richhickey (Jul 26, 2018)

Erik said:


> No SomeGuy,
> There is relief for your sorrows!
> 
> Herewith some _user _demo's with the new Synchronizd Chamber Strings, also in comparison with the old version and the new Synchron Strings as well. Source used: a fragment from "South by SouthWest", composed by Stephen Barton, who wrote a lot for film. This is a very energetic piece for string ensemble, written at the time for DVZ, Audio Impressions.
> ...



Thanks for putting this up. It's a good demonstration. It confirms for me my initial impression of Synchronized CS - it's a blur.

Original CS is by far the best here IMO, even though it is less loud and has a different spectral and ambience profile from the others (also, I think you dropped a low part at 1:40 in the second track). It's raw, it sounds like strings. I'd much rather work with that (and eq/IR/verb) than the blended-up Sy_izedCS. Once you lose clarity you can never get it back.

I do like the _sound_ of SyS. It's a shame many are struggling to get a good performance with it.


----------

