# Most realistic (string) library?



## aboxcar (Sep 3, 2020)

I've mostly used VSL libraries in the past, but I wonder if there's anything better. I liked them because they were drier and also sounded more classical to me.

I own east west hollywood strings but I've always disliked it.

This is what realistic sounds like to me:  from memoirs of a geisha soundtrack

I have a preference for drier samples, but it's not a dealbreaker.

What I dislike about VSL is the few number of velocity layers, and it takes a lot of fiddling to even get something to sound legato (but I'm not opposed to fiddling if that's what it takes).

Also, some samples, will "move around" in the stereo field left to right, depending on what key you play. I hear this flaw even in their audio demos. I don't understand how this happened, but it bugs me.

The spitfire BBC library has intrigued me.. any experience?

Advice please !


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 3, 2020)

if you wanted that sound maybe Tina guo's cinesamples libraries? I can't listen loudly, but from what I heard on my phone, sounded like a solo cello


----------



## dzilizzi (Sep 3, 2020)

I know it's probably real, but it doesn't sound very good to me. But then, I prefer more room sound. And I'm on my phone. 

+1 on the Tina Guo. I have it and really like how it sounds. I think it can be pretty dry.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 3, 2020)

I don’t know but I just don’t like any library that’s named after some one. Tina Guo is a phenomenal musician & using her library is like saying “you cannot get her to play your piece & that’s why we have you covered with this library.” In a way that’s helpful but then it’s weird. Who the hell is someone else to tell us to do something and/or you can’t do it. But in the case of this library, it is worth coz you’re not implementing & rather she is playing your composition. Like Yo Yo Ma playing Elgar. I support that. But I don’t like the HZ Strings or Percussions or whatever the hell it is coz you know you don’t wanna sound like Zimmer. Or do you or like Bernard Herrmann? In a way it feels like insulting your fav composers, if the composition or the way the library used is not effectively impressive.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 3, 2020)

But that’s just a dumb opinion.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 3, 2020)

One of my fav movies ever & One of my fav scores ever.


----------



## aboxcar (Sep 3, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> if you wanted that sound maybe Tina guo's cinesamples libraries? I can't listen loudly, but from what I heard on my phone, sounded like a solo cello


the solo cello is yo-yo ma, but I'm referring to the backing orchestra


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 3, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> The spitfire BBC library has intrigued me


Me too..may pick up Pro before the end of the month.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 3, 2020)

What don't you like at Hollywood Strings? For that sound I hear in the video it would be my first choice... or maybe Cinematic Studio Strings.


----------



## I like music (Sep 3, 2020)

I believe East West Hollywood Strings would do this very well! Same for CSS. 

Have you tried mocking it up with EW Strings? Might surprise you!


----------



## ptram (Sep 4, 2020)

I don't have a library to suggest, but what I hear (and have listened to several times) in the JW example is a perfect sounding orchestra with the perfect reverb for the dreamlike sound they were trying to achieve.

I assume any realistic library can do it, but not without some degree of fiddling. This very nuanced degree of emotion doesn't come out of the box from any library, I fear.

As far as I remember (don't have the manuals here now), VSL has up to five dynamics levels in the old VI libraries, and up to eight in the new a Synchron Strings. It should be fine enough. But they are quite neutral-sounding, with the possible exception of the Appassionata strings.

Paolo


----------



## merty (Sep 4, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> ...



A list of 53 strings; 

Maybe you'd like Areia;


----------



## awaey (Sep 4, 2020)

53 string x 250 week = 5years work just for string .... ,no bill,no food etc...


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (Sep 4, 2020)

Hollywood Strings + Cinematic Studio Strings + Cinematic Studio Solo Strings + Tina Guo - "*Shaken, not stirred*"


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 4, 2020)

nawzadhaji said:


> 53 string x 250 week = 5years work just for string .... ,no bill,no food etc...


that figure changes drastically depending on where you live/work. If you're only making 6.25/hr and only work 40 hours a week that's correct... but I'd imagine many people who are into this hobby don't live that kind of financial life.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Sep 4, 2020)

I'd also say Hollywood Strings or CSS for the "background strings", then some solo library for the solo cello - perhaps Cinematic Studio Solo Strings as suggested above. I don't know Cinesamples Tina Guo, that might be fine as well.

What is it you dislike about HS? Some of the patches have a ton of velocity layers, so since you think VSL has too few velocity layers, HS might appeal to you on that account at least.


----------



## Beans (Sep 4, 2020)

Yeah, this sounds perfect for EWHO Strings (Diamond) with some great care on the mics, some light EQ, and gentle reverb. Probably the most important part here would be a lot of restraint on the dynamics.


----------



## Johnny (Sep 4, 2020)

Yes, Hollywood Strings Diamond could tear this in half- even more so with help from CSSS solos added for extra realism. One thing to keep in mind when listening to score like this is: we are trying to mock up a Hollywood recording "out of the box" that's been ever so delicately engineered, edited, recorded and mixed to perfection by engineers of the likes of Shawn Murphy (Who also, to no coincidence recorded Hollywood Strings); these recordists and mixing engineers spent hundreds of hours working on this score, if any one of us spent the same amount of time on a mock up, our mock up would be dam near close to absolute perfection. (At the least as good as a mock up could possibly get!) And then here's what we are up against- time vs man power and talent  


Ramiro Belgardt...music editorhttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm0214010/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr425 (Sandy DeCrescent)...music contractor (as Sandy De Crescent)Hiromi Hashibe...musician: koto soloistMasayo Ishigure...musician: koto soloistEdward Karam...orchestrator (as Eddie Karam)Kenneth Karman...music editor (as Ken Karman)Yo-Yo Ma...musician: cello soloshttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004156/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr431 (Shawn Murphy)...scoring mixerItzhak Perlman...musician: violin solosConrad Pope...orchestratorKenneth Wannberg...music editor (as Ken Wannberg)Masakazu Yoshizawa...musician: shakuhachi soloistAndy Bass...scoring crew (uncredited)Tim Boot...scoring cue mixer (uncredited)https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2036352/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr438 (Tom Boyd)...oboe soloist (uncredited)https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11492285/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr439 (Tom Brown)...music preparation (uncredited)Bryan Clements...scoring crew (uncredited)Peter Erskine...musician (uncredited)Mark Eshelman...scoring crew (uncredited)Melissa Deanne Ferguson...assistant music editor (uncredited)https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0334204/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr444 (Mark Graham)...music librarian (uncredited)Karen Han...musician: Erhu solo (uncredited)Jonathan A. Hughes...music preparation (uncredited)Jason Lloyd...scoring crew (uncredited)Greg Loskorn...scoring technician (uncredited)David Marquette...score recordist (uncredited)Adam Michalak...score recordist (uncredited)Darian Pollard...music coordinator (uncredited)Jeremy Raub...co-music editor (uncredited)https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0745448/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr453 (Peter Rotter)...orchestra contractor (uncredited)https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857125/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr454 (James Thatcher)...musician: French horn (uncredited)Pat Weber...scoring technician (uncredited)John Williams...conductor (uncredited)Robert Wolff...scoring crew (uncredited)

Not to discourage any of us, but only to make us fully realize the amount of time and work necessary to create such a perfect sounding score : )


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 4, 2020)

Real-schmeal, does it sound good?

An elephant farting the Star Spangled Banner sounds real but I don’t want to listen to it.

Most of the current string libraries sound really good, they just sound different from each other. None sound more real than the others In the wrong hands or less real in the right hands.


----------



## I like music (Sep 4, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> but I don’t want to listen to it.



Don't lie!


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 4, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> The only "named" library I would personally trust is the Stephen Limbaugh Brass... coming in 2046. 😜


Actually that sounds good & if you wanna name it after your name, yea you should. May be you wanna name your brand after your name that would be much better.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 4, 2020)

Johnny said:


> these recordists and mixing engineers spent hundreds of hours working on this score, if any one of us spent the same amount of time on a mock up, our mock up would be dam near close to absolute perfection.



That is so true, @Johnny 

Which is why sometimes I spend five days on the mockup, after a few hours writing the music. If you keep at it, and have enough colours available, you can get closer.

It's still not the same, though. Even with IDK how many libraries, I still hire players and never regret it.


----------



## Johnny (Sep 4, 2020)

JohnG said:


> That is so true, @Johnny
> 
> Which is why sometimes I spend five days on the mockup, after a few hours writing the music. If you keep at it, and have enough colours available, you can get closer.
> 
> It's still not the same, though. Even with IDK how many libraries, I still hire players and never regret it.


Yes!!! Exactly!! Good point John! Samples are never the same as a real person with real emotion! I can't count the amount of hours I'll spend programming a solo violin melody, only to eventually replace it with a real musician that can play it in once, with perfection, expression and full of emotion in sometimes just one take  Well stated!


----------



## dylanmixer (Sep 4, 2020)

BBC Strings kill the competition imo. The shorts may not be as well programmed as other libraries but I still strongly prefer it.


----------



## Beans (Sep 4, 2020)

dylanmixer said:


> BBC Strings kill the competition imo. The shorts may not be as well programmed as other libraries but I still strongly prefer it.



I have a mixed relationship with them. I tried using Jaeger strings on something last week, but BBCSO ended up a far, far better fit. 

This week, I started with the same patch on a new project, but think I'll end up happier with EWHO.


----------



## muk (Sep 4, 2020)

dylanmixer said:


> BBC Strings kill the competition imo. The shorts may not be as well programmed as other libraries but I still strongly prefer it.



If VSL strings don't have enough velocity layers for OP she/he should stay away from BBCSO. The long articulations seem to have only two velocity layers, which clearly and audibly isn't enough for many tasks.


----------



## TomaeusD (Sep 4, 2020)

I thought about starting another thread but maybe this is a good place to ask - why do so many great string libraries skimp on non-vib legato transitions? Many of the libraries I have can sound quite real, but they all either have lots of vibrato or the legato transitions take a hit when you turn it off. Does HWS have a dedicated legato patch for this that is convincing?


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 4, 2020)

muk said:


> If VSL strings don't have enough velocity layers for OP she/he should stay away from BBCSO. The long articulations seem to have only two velocity layers, which clearly and audibly isn't enough for many tasks.


I seriously doubt there are only two velocity layers. SF libraries usually have a minimum of three.


----------



## Zanshin (Sep 4, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> I seriously doubt there are only two velocity layers. SF libraries usually have a minimum of three.



I’ve read two a number of times like in this thread here





Comparison between a few strings libraries - including BBC SO


Interesting and cool how tastes differ here. For this short piece BBCSO is my favourite, just because of the gorgeous sound. Cinematic Studio Strings and Spitfire Chamber Strings I do not care for much here (though I love CSS for other things). Jose, about the gaps in the legato transitions, I...




vi-control.net





... but I don’t know the source.

I wish SF laid out the specs for everything like OT does.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 4, 2020)

Zanshin said:


> I’ve read two a number of times like in this thread here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel the same...the most important things in libraries should be clear and out in the open. On the SF site it says "up to 3" dynamic layers...While I know some bass instruments and articulations don't require more than 2, but what DOES have 3? However, having a SCS, Studio Strings pro and their solo strings...I would assume that 3 layers in their legato is pretty standard. For me, sustained long notes are usually just for sketching...I use legato on various tracks to do harmonies, I don't really write double stops..at least not for ensembles.


----------



## Petrucci (Sep 4, 2020)

TomaeusD said:


> I thought about starting another thread but maybe this is a good place to ask - why do so many great string libraries skimp on non-vib legato transitions? Many of the libraries I have can sound quite real, but they all either have lots of vibrato or the legato transitions take a hit when you turn it off. Does HWS have a dedicated legato patch for this that is convincing?



There are legato string patches in HS where you can control dynamics and vibrato independedly - I use em all the time, sound wonderful!


----------



## TomaeusD (Sep 4, 2020)

Petrucci said:


> There are legato string patches in HS where you can control dynamics and vibrato independedly - I use em all the time, sound wonderful!


Thank you! I may finally jump in once we get to see what the Opus Edition is all about.


----------



## muk (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> I seriously doubt there are only two velocity layers. SF libraries usually have a minimum of three.



Load up a horn legato patch and slowly increase cc1 from 0 to 127. It's clearly only two velocity layers. For the horn! Brass has such a variety of sounds depending on the dynamics. Yet Spitfire captured only two. The same goes for the strings to my ears. Here is a quick test:

This is the horn legato patch out of the box. The note is middle c, cc1 slowly and linearly increased from 0 to 127:









BBCSO Horn legato.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com





The two dynamic layers are immediately recognizeable. There is a mezzopiano layer in the beginning, and then the cuivre layer. If you look at the audio file it's also visible:






And a screengrab of the eq. Notice how the high frequency content suddenly comes in where it crossfades to the second dynamic layer:

View attachment Horn Legato.mp4



















Here is the same thing for the Violins 1 Legato patch out of the box. In order to better hear the dynamic layers, vibrato is set to zero:









BBCSO Violin 1 Legato without vibrato.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com












With violins 1 another problem becomes audible and visible. The increase of volume isn't smooth at all when increasing cc1. In dynamic layer 1 there are several small bumps where the volume increases, and then decreases again eventhough cc1 is slowly increasing. Overall, the volume does not really increase until cc1 is raised about halfway. In Dynamic Layer 2 the bumps are more pronounced. And again, the volume does not increase smoothly. The peak is actually where cc1 is about 80 or 90. Then it decreases noticeable, and increases again from about 120 upwards. That's not what a smooth crescendo from violins 1 would look like at all.

Anyway, here's the screengrab for violin 1 legato:

View attachment Violin 1 Legato.mp4





















The high frequency content increases at about 8 seconds in (=crossfade to velocity layer 2).


So yeah, to me this sounds and looks like two velocity layers for the legato patches. It's one point where corners have been cut to keep costs and disk space down. It might explain why Spitfire hasn't been very forthcoming about the numbers of dynamic layers for this library: it's simply not a selling point. I think some of the short articulations do have three dynamic layers, hence the statement 'up to three'.

I'm sorry for the off topic, but it explains why I think that BBCSO is absolutely the wrong choice for the OP if VSL strings don't have enough dynamic layers for her/him.


----------



## Casiquire (Sep 5, 2020)

TomaeusD said:


> I thought about starting another thread but maybe this is a good place to ask - why do so many great string libraries skimp on non-vib legato transitions? Many of the libraries I have can sound quite real, but they all either have lots of vibrato or the legato transitions take a hit when you turn it off. Does HWS have a dedicated legato patch for this that is convincing?


LASS! Non-vibrato to vibrato on all levels of divisi (except the first chairs)


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

muk said:


> I'm sorry for the off topic, but it explains why I think that BBCSO is absolutely the wrong choice for the OP if VSL strings don't have enough dynamic layers for her/him.


Why is that? I guess Spitfires are known for their long list of articulations & deep layers in dynamics right? I don’t own BBCSO C or P but are there not many layers of dynamics in any? I am just curious.


----------



## muk (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Why is that? I guess Spitfires are known for their long list of articulations & deep layers in dynamics right? I don’t own BBCSO C or P but are there not many layers of dynamics in any? I am just curious.



Have you read my post that you quoted from? Your question is answered there. Only two dynamic layers in BBCSO for many (all?) legato articulations it seems.


----------



## Vashi (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Why is that? I guess Spitfires are known for their long list of articulations & deep layers in dynamics right? I don’t own BBCSO C or P but are there not many layers of dynamics in any? I am just curious.



Are you trolling?
He just give proof that the Spitfire libraries has only 2 layers.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> An elephant farting the Star Spangled Banner sounds real but I don’t want to listen to it.



Listening to it is one thing. 
But the smell is the real issue, at least for the audience in the front row.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

Vashi said:


> Are you trolling?
> He just give proof that the Spitfire libraries has only 2 layers.


Naa.... I read that but I think from what I’ve seen & heard, Core got 3 layers. I don’t know about Pro so that’s why I was quite curious about. I still am coz may be Pro got all the layers. Btw @muk already mentioned that quoting my post. Thanks again.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 5, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> Listening to it is one thing.
> But the smell is the real issue, at least for the audience in the front row.




Here's a marketing possibility: sample libraries with a discernible odor.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

muk said:


> Load up a horn legato patch and slowly increase cc1 from 0 to 127. It's clearly only two velocity layers. For the horn! Brass has such a variety of sounds depending on the dynamics. Yet Spitfire captured only two. The same goes for the strings to my ears. Here is a quick test:
> 
> This is the horn legato patch out of the box. The note is middle c, cc1 slowly and linearly increased from 0 to 127:
> 
> ...


This has got me in a stand still now. I can’t stand being torn like this...on one hand the tone of the strings is perfect for me, but if they can’t be as expressive as I’d like then there’s no point. Brass I don’t really care about because I have Century Brass and can supplement. I also have a tone of string libraries but none with this tone. I just wish SF would release pertinent information.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

muk said:


> Only two dynamic layers in BBCSO for many (all?) legato articulations it seems.


I only have Discover and that’s one layer...at least they mentioned that and no RR. But the sound difference between Discover and Core even is vast in tone. Can one extra layer really make that much difference? This is all upsetting. Lol.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> I only have Discover and that’s one layer...at least they mentioned that and no RR. But the sound difference between Discover and Core even is vast in tone. Can one extra layer really make that much difference? This is all upsetting. Lol.




They are just sample libraries, Jake, not life and death.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> They are just sample libraries, Jake, not life and death.


It’s just crazy making because why not go that extra little bit? Why make a product that has this concept then fall short? I mean I love the sound overall...to me sounds like an orchestra even in the hands of less talented mock-up artist, it still sounds balanced.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> It’s just crazy making because why not go that extra little bit? Why make a product that has this concept then fall short? I mean I love the sound overall...to me sounds like an orchestra even in the hands of less talented mock-up artist, it still sounds balanced.




So buy it, despite it's flaws and like what you like about it, don't like what you don't. There are no perfect sample libraries.

Or don't, but either way, don't put a lot of energy into it. Especially you, because I believe you said you are a hobbyist and so not dependent on using it for making a living?

Just my pov.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> So buy it, despite it's flaws and like what you like about it, don't like what you don't. There are no perfect sample libraries.
> 
> Or don't, but either way, don't put a lot of energy into it. Especially you, because I believe you said you are a hobbyist and so not dependent on using it for making a living?
> 
> Just my pov.


Hobbyist? No no...I’ve been working in music professionally for decades. I’m a recording and mix engineer. I am new to movie scoring but I fully intend on making this part my work. 
Anyway...yes I like it, but I also have an EDU discount (I teach audio), so maybe for the $240 I’ll just get Core and can always upgrade later. But yes I do like it overall...but as you know listening to what others do with the libraries doesn’t often translate well to what you want to do.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> Hobbyist? No no...I’ve been working in music professionally for decades. I’m a recording and mix engineer. I am new to movie scoring but I fully intend on making this part my work.
> Anyway...yes I like it, but I also have an EDU discount (I teach audio), so maybe for the $240 I’ll just get Core and can always upgrade later. But yes I do like it overall...but as you know listening to what others do with the libraries doesn’t often translate well to what you want to do.




Ah, sorry I got you confused with someone else I guess. And I agree, we all hear what we hear, like and don't like what we do and don't.


----------



## TomaeusD (Sep 5, 2020)

Casiquire said:


> LASS! Non-vibrato to vibrato on all levels of divisi (except the first chairs)


Ah yes! That's another good library that is getting an update (or sequel?) soon. It's odd because the non-vib legatos have never stuck out to me, or I never hear them in the demos I've listened to in the past, so I guess I should give them another listen.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Here's a marketing possibility: sample libraries with a discernible odor.



I can imagine the discussions here on VI-control:

"Sure, that library comes with a fantastic flavour.
But can you smell it in a mix?!"


----------



## Bollen (Sep 5, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> I've mostly used VSL libraries in the past, but I wonder if there's anything better. I liked them because they were drier and also sounded more classical to me.
> 
> I own east west hollywood strings but I've always disliked it.
> 
> ...



Funny that no one's mentioned Sample Modelling strings... In terms of flexibility and consequentially realism, I find them to be the best option for you. 

Disclaimer: I don't own them (can't afford them atm), but from what I've heard from user it seem to best sample library I've ever heard.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Funny that no one's mentioned Sample Modelling strings... In terms of flexibility and consequentially realism, I find them to be the best option for you.
> 
> Disclaimer: I don't own them (can't afford them atm), but from what I've heard from user it seem to best sample library I've ever heard.



unless you become a master with the vibrato control and breath controller you won't be able to get these results...then this is really only practical for SM strings only I think...not sure other libraries will respond the same way. It's just an extra learning curve that I certainly don't want to go through.. LOL


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> unless you become a master with the vibrato control and breath controller you won't be able to get these results...then this is really only practical for SM strings only I think...not sure other libraries will respond the same way. It's just an extra learning curve that I certainly don't want to go through.. LOL


You just need to hire another musician / specialist. lol. What do you want, an easy life?
But seriously, these are not orchestral strings in my opinion. Sounds more like an imitation for a solo with not the best tone in room.


----------



## Bollen (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> unless you become a master with the vibrato control and breath controller you won't be able to get these results...then this is really only practical for SM strings only I think...not sure other libraries will respond the same way. It's just an extra learning curve that I certainly don't want to go through.. LOL


Oh not at all, I own the brass and I just draw everything in and it works just as realistic.


Vladimir Bulaev said:


> Sounds more like an imitation for a solo with not the best tone in room.


Interesting.... 🤔


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Oh not at all, I own the brass and I just draw everything in and it works just as realistic.


If that’s the case then it would really need to be above and beyond other libraries. Meaning then what sets it apart? I didn’t particularly like the tone, but I can see the appeal if you are good with the controllers to play a performance in real time. Times saver.


----------



## Bollen (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> If that’s the case then it would really need to be above and beyond other libraries. Meaning then what sets it apart? I didn’t particularly like the tone, but I can see the appeal if you are good with the controllers to play a performance in real time. Times saver.


Well I'm not going to defend something that I don't own and haven't tested myself. But speaking for the technology and in my case the brass, the instruments are so flexible that you can do anything (excepting avant-garde/extended techniques) that you could with real instruments. A few years ago in another thread we had fun creating brass sections of 60+ instruments!!! You don't get any more epic than that...


----------



## JamesIV (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> I don’t know but I just don’t like any library that’s named after some one. Tina Guo is a phenomenal musician & using her library is like saying “you cannot get her to play your piece & that’s why we have you covered with this library.” In a way that’s helpful but then it’s weird. Who the hell is someone else to tell us to do something and/or you can’t do it. But in the case of this library, it is worth coz you’re not implementing & rather she is playing your composition. Like Yo Yo Ma playing Elgar. I support that. But I don’t like the HZ Strings or Percussions or whatever the hell it is coz you know you don’t wanna sound like Zimmer. Or do you or like Bernard Herrmann? In a way it feels like insulting your fav composers, if the composition or the way the library used is not effectively impressive.


I had Tina play on my piece: 
The performance of this piece features the amazing Kristee Haney (mezzo soprano solo), cello superstar, Tina Guo (featured soloist on the scores for Wonder Woman, Lion King, etc.), the sensational Kermit B Poling (violin), myself on the piano, and the ethereal voices of Te Deum conducted by the brilliant Matthew Christopher Shepard. Uber-talented feature film editor, Chris Lyon, edited the video. "Great Flowing River" is published by Hal Leonard (https://www.halleonard.com/product/347769/great-flowing-river). Versions for SATB and TTBB are available (strings are optional).


----------



## I like music (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> If that’s the case then it would really need to be above and beyond other libraries. Meaning then what sets it apart? I didn’t particularly like the tone, but I can see the appeal if you are good with the controllers to play a performance in real time. Times saver.



I can't play stuff in, so I draw stuff in. The attraction for me is in how you can draw cc data in very precisely, and the response will be super accurate to what you draw. Consistent, no jumps, etc etc

Being able to dial vibrato depth and rate for solo instruments, is great.

If tone isn't to your liking then of course, that'll often be the end of discussion. But when people say 'playable' I like to ask whether 'tweakable' is also being considered. I rate 'drawing tweakability' quite high up in the libraries I'm looking for. I hope those libraries can make a few leaps in _tone_ realism, but the ability to impart your musical intent into the DAW, exactly (or mostly) as you want, I really like.


----------



## Gerbil (Sep 5, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Funny that no one's mentioned Sample Modelling strings... In terms of flexibility and consequentially realism, I find them to be the best option for you.
> 
> Disclaimer: I don't own them (can't afford them atm), but from what I've heard from user it seem to best sample library I've ever heard.



He looks like he's milking a cow that's lying on it's side (let's not mention what he's doing to the bull). I don't like the sound very much but the fluidity and range of expression is impressive.


----------



## aboxcar (Sep 5, 2020)

samplemodeling looks intriguing. has anyone personally used it?


----------



## Bollen (Sep 5, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> samplemodeling looks intriguing. has anyone personally used it?


@robgb seem to be the one that praises it the most.


----------



## Vik (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Naa.... I read that but I think from what I’ve seen & heard, Core got 3 layers.



"*Dynamic Layers*
For each technique we record selection of levels for the instrument's dynamics (how loud or softly the instrument is played), very soft at _pp_ through to loud _ff_

BBC Discover has 1 dynamic layer per technique.

BBC Core and Professional contain up to 3 dynamic layers."








Which features are different between editions of BBC SO?


Below is a chart comparing the features of the different editions, under that is some further clarification: Round Robins Round Robins offer a different sampled version of the same sound each ...




spitfireaudio.zendesk.com


----------



## bvaughn0402 (Sep 5, 2020)

For everything I try and own ... I often go back to OT Berlin Strings. VERY expensive ... but seems to really work for what I do. I will at times use Spitfire Chamber as well.


----------



## aboxcar (Sep 5, 2020)

I think I'm going to buy samplemodeling and see how it goes.

https://www.samplemodeling.com/products/strings/tutorials
The "Scoring Tools Masterclass " videos sold me


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

Vik said:


> BBC Core and Professional contain up to 3 dynamic layers.


We already established that it is "UP" to 3...but when is it 3, when is it 2? And truthfully, there should be at least 4 layers to be really smooth.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

Vik said:


> "*Dynamic Layers*
> For each technique we record selection of levels for the instrument's dynamics (how loud or softly the instrument is played), very soft at _pp_ through to loud _ff_
> 
> BBC Discover has 1 dynamic layer per technique.
> ...


I know that & you just repeated what I said & more accurately. Appreciated & thanks for that and I don’t have Core or Pro. Also, I don’t think am gonna buy it as well.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> We already established that it is "UP" to 3...but when is it 3, when is it 2? And truthfully, there should be at least 4 layers to be really smooth.


I agree.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

Is there any library that covers pppp to ffff, everything all in between?


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

And who was that composer who composed a piece which he notated ppppp, as in almost muted but not exactly. You gotta have ears for that. Bruckner, Rach or who I know this I am just not being able to recollect.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Is there any library that covers pppp to ffff, everything all in between?


VSL Synchron Strings I have is up to 8 layers...is that needed? Maybe...lol but for most things, I think 4 layers covers it well.


----------



## I like music (Sep 5, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> samplemodeling looks intriguing. has anyone personally used it?



Yep. I've posted a couple of long mockups with it (John Williams' Adventures on Earth, and Jerry Goldsmith's Mulan). They can sound both excellent, and at times synthy, to me. I'll dig out the mockup if you like.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

JamesIV said:


> I had Tina play on my piece:
> The performance of this piece features the amazing Kristee Haney (mezzo soprano solo), cello superstar, Tina Guo (featured soloist on the scores for Wonder Woman, Lion King, etc.), the sensational Kermit B Poling (violin), myself on the piano, and the ethereal voices of Te Deum conducted by the brilliant Matthew Christopher Shepard. Uber-talented feature film editor, Chris Lyon, edited the video. "Great Flowing River" is published by Hal Leonard (https://www.halleonard.com/product/347769/great-flowing-river). Versions for SATB and TTBB are available (strings are optional).



First of all, Bravo! & I wish Composers have their pieces performed by Tina Guo or Uchida or Mullova. How did it happen btw? Any behind stories? And congrats you got your score published by Hal Leonard. Thanks for letting everybody know. That’s what I bless. Composers should live & live good.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> VSL Synchron Strings I have is up to 8 layers...is that needed? Maybe...lol but for most things, I think 4 layers covers it well.


Yea it’s needed may be an gonna write something. Is there any, other than the VSLs?


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Yea it’s needed may be an gonna write something. Is there any, other than the VSLs?


All other libraries I own have either 3-4 layers. Not sure who else has higher than that. It's also in the way it is crossfaded. If the crossfading between layers is smooth enough, you may not need many...Performance Samples has 3 if I recall, and their Con Moto is fantastic...I use it all the time.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 5, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> All other libraries I own have either 3-4 layers. Not sure who else has higher than that. It's also in the way it is crossfaded. If the crossfading between layers is smooth enough, you may not need many...Performance Samples has 3 if I recall, and their Con Moto is fantastic...I use it all the time.


Thanks! Wow it seems nothing can come even close what VSLs can offer. VSLs are so damn tempting & yet it has it own cons. I think just con & not cons coz the only big con I still see is yea......you know it every musician operating VIs knows this. Yea the damn damn dongle. But on the other hand, how about their legatos? They record true legatos? And what’s your experience about the dongle? What if gets damaged or falls down. Is it strong enough I mean it’s like a pen drive & yet what is it that musicians should take care of, when it comes to the dongle ? I heard if you loose the dongle, you loose the license. How that can be handled? Other than that, it’s got this huge orchestral sound and lots of people know that.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 5, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Thanks! Wow it seems nothing can come even close what VSLs can offer. VSLs are so damn tempting & yet it has it own cons. I think just con & not cons coz the only big con I still see is yea......you know it every musician operating VIs knows this. Yea the damn damn dongle. But on the other hand, how about their legatos? They record true legatos? And what’s your experience about the dongle? What if gets damaged or falls down. Is it strong enough I mean it’s like a pen drive & yet what is it that musicians should take care of, when it comes to the dongle ? I heard if you loose the dongle, you loose the license. How that can be handled? Other than that, it’s got this huge orchestral sound and lots of people know that.


I am selling my Synchron Strings 1...not because of any other reason that I probably won't use them, as I have developed a different way of working and like a different sound. PM me if you want any details.

I never had issues with any dongle, VSL or ilok...just plug it in and forget about it.


----------



## Casiquire (Sep 6, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> samplemodeling looks intriguing. has anyone personally used it?


In my opinion, the brass is fantastic and that's all I own from them. The rest just doesn't sound as good to my ears as more traditional samples.


----------



## Pianolando (Sep 6, 2020)

It’s not only how many layers they recorded but how it is programmed. An extreme example is the Embertome Popelka basson that only has two recorded layers but still is (in my opinion) smooth from pp-ff. They scripted the transition so that it blends to a great my in the middle etc. Or I just don’t know how a bassoon is supposed to sound, but to me it works great 
That being said, the SF BBC sounds to my ears like it’s a bit lacking in that department, even if the tone is beautiful. But to each his own!


----------



## muk (Sep 6, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> We already established that it is "UP" to 3...but when is it 3, when is it 2?



From my experience with the library it's two layers on legatos and sustains. For me that's just not enough. I assume that some of the short articulations on some instrument have 3 layers. For most of the patches that I use the most often I only hear two layers.




jaketanner said:


> And truthfully, there should be at least 4 layers to be really smooth.



Indeed. I completely agree. This has been discussed on this forum after the release. Some members here, me included, said that we'd gladly forfeit half of the mic positions if we could have 4 dynamic layers instead of 2. Recording more dynamic layers increases recording time. More mic position only increases editing time. The former is apparently much more expensive, and Spitfire wanted to keep the cost down. If I remember correctly someone from Spitfire gave that explanation why there are 21 (?) mic positions but only 2 dynamic layers. Spitfire can sell the library at an incredible price. That makes it a very good entry-level choice. The tradeoff is that for more detailed and nuanced stuff, the lack of more dynamic layers is holdong the library back from really shining in my opinion.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

muk said:


> Load up a horn legato patch and slowly increase cc1 from 0 to 127. It's clearly only two velocity layers. For the horn! Brass has such a variety of sounds depending on the dynamics. Yet Spitfire captured only two. The same goes for the strings to my ears. Here is a quick test:
> 
> This is the horn legato patch out of the box. The note is middle c, cc1 slowly and linearly increased from 0 to 127:
> 
> ...



You can also just look at the voice count. For basic longs, section strings have two. Solo strings have three. The horn actually has three, though with how people complain about it it might as well be one.

Forfeiting mic positions is of course not the solution. But certain less needed articulations, long and short, represent studio time that could instead go towards more detail in the fundamentals. Alas.


----------



## robgb (Sep 6, 2020)

aboxcar said:


> samplemodeling looks intriguing. has anyone personally used it?


Click the link in my signature for a review.


----------



## Seycara (Sep 6, 2020)

muk said:


> From my experience with the library it's two layers on legatos and sustains. For me that's just not enough. I assume that some of the short articulations on some instrument have 3 layers. For most of the patches that I use the most often I only hear two layers.



This is it right here; in 2020 where JXL brass has 5 layers of sustain *+ 5 layers of legato* a mp and fff layer on a solo horn (of all instruments) doesn't nearly cut it anymore. This is the exact reason why I have not purchased BBCSO.


----------



## Casiquire (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> You can also just look at the voice count. For basic longs, section strings have two. Solo strings have three. The horn actually has three, though with how people complain about it it might as well be one.
> 
> Forfeiting mic positions is of course not the solution. But certain less needed articulations, long and short, represent studio time that could instead go towards more detail in the fundamentals. Alas.


I strongly disagree. Dynamics and articulations are like the fundamentals of getting a good performance. Some of my favorite libraries use one mic position. They could settle for four well chosen mic positions and still have a huge range of ambiance for the composer to play with while not skimping on a dynamic performance


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 6, 2020)

muk said:


> From my experience with the library it's two layers on legatos and sustains. For me that's just not enough. I assume that some of the short articulations on some instrument have 3 layers. For most of the patches that I use the most often I only hear two layers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am really miffed...two layers is nonsense really, and should have been openly disclosed in the beginning. however...I can't help to think/hear that the difference between Discover sustains and the full BBC is so different that it may work in most cases. I have been listening extensively to every mockup and piece created using BBC, and many of them sound so damn good, that perhaps it's not noticeable that it has two layers only...this truly has me at a crossroads now...LOL The strings and winds are my main focus for getting BBC. I have excellent strings already, but the tone of the BBC strings for me is fantastic.

So you have BBC pro right? For what type of passages do you feel it needs the extra layer? Do you hear what I hear between Discover sustain and full version? Seems almost night and day from the walkthroughs... (I have only Discover). 

Also, the brass..while I have Century Brass and don't need to really rely on BBC brass...does that have only two layers also? SO the one layer I hear in Discover, plus one more only which I believe is the FFF brassy one? 

Anyway...I have until the end of September to decide with my EDU discount...if Audiobro or NCS releases before then...I may give up on BBC.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

Casiquire said:


> I strongly disagree. Dynamics and articulations are like the fundamentals of getting a good performance. Some of my favorite libraries use one mic position. They could settle for four well chosen mic positions and still have a huge range of ambiance for the composer to play with while not skimping on a dynamic performance



I don't think you read what I wrote carefully. I'm not talking about whether or not mic positions are necessary, but how some people think including fewer would allow developers to sample more in depth. The costs of putting up another set of mics vs. recording another pass of dynamics for even just a single instrument are not at all equivalent.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> I am really miffed...two layers is nonsense really, and should have been openly disclosed in the beginning. however...I can't help to think/hear that the difference between Discover sustains and the full BBC is so different that it may work in most cases. I have been listening extensively to every mockup and piece created using BBC, and many of them sound so damn good, that perhaps it's not noticeable that it has two layers only...this truly has me at a crossroads now...LOL The strings and winds are my main focus for getting BBC. I have excellent strings already, but the tone of the BBC strings for me is fantastic.
> 
> So you have BBC pro right? For what type of passages do you feel it needs the extra layer? Do you hear what I hear between Discover sustain and full version? Seems almost night and day from the walkthroughs... (I have only Discover).
> 
> ...



Dude your deliberations about this have reached the point of absurdity. Listen to what people do with it. If you think it sounds good and could be useful for you, go for it.


----------



## Seycara (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> I don't think you read what I wrote carefully. I'm not talking about whether or not mic positions are necessary, but how some people think including fewer would allow developers to sample more in depth. The costs of putting up another set of mics vs. recording another pass of dynamics for even just a single instrument are not at all equivalent.



I do believe some developers these days are trying to "make up" for less articulations and less layers by stuffing in boatloads of mic position content. At some instinctual level, many people are marketed into buying when they see a large storage foot print or "60,000+ samples". 

My favorite example of top notch libraries made with the utmost care and detail into each articulation rather than 20+ mic positions is @Embertone ; their libs are quite small in size and have just one mic position yet their scripting and editing has so much work put into it that I use it way more than other libraries with more mics than articulations that take up 50+ gb


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

And yet most of those Embertone examples are still as limited in dynamic layers as BBCSO is, if not more. That doesn't seem to prevent people from putting them to great use, and that's really the point here.


----------



## Seycara (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> And yet most of those Embertone examples are still as limited in dynamic layers as BBCSO is, if not more. That doesn't seem to prevent people from putting them to great use, and that's really the point here.



It is true that most recent embertone libraries have 2 dynamic layers, as does BBCSO; however what BBCSO does not have is the meticulous scripting/editing that goes into embertone to make for seamless crossfades and legato etc. As @muk posted earlier, those examples of cc1 crossfading for the horn and violin I are very abrupt to the point that you need extensive additional cc editing or eq to make it sound remotely realistic should you want a dynamic swell.

Edit: Of course you can still use BBCSO if you want to work with these caveats, but what I mean is that you can do so much with less resources/storage footprint yet BBCSO chooses to do neither by having a huge library size as well as unpolished articulations.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

I haven't found extensive additional CC editing or EQ necessary to deal with that. If you play it in isolation and tell somebody to listen for it, of course it's noticable. In context? Drastically less so.

I think I need to spend a little less time on this forum. I don't seem to care about wading through this kind of nitpickery as much as many others, and I can't seem to stop myself from trying to point out how silly it is, despite it falling on deaf ears every time.


----------



## Seycara (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> I haven't found extensive additional CC editing or EQ necessary to deal with that. If you play it in isolation and tell somebody to listen for it, of course it's noticable. In context? Drastically less so.
> 
> I think I need to spend a little less time on this forum. I don't seem to care about wading through this kind of nitpickery as much as many others, and I can't seem to stop myself from trying to point out how silly it is, despite it falling on deaf ears every time.


If a library works for you, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. At the end of the day it's all about how well these tools work for your workflow, not anyone else's.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

I am as picky as it gets when it comes to all this. There is a really short list of commercially available virtual instruments that I'm willing to pay for and use, when every facet is critically considered. None are perfect, but what they do right outweighs the shortcomings in every case, especially when compared to alternatives that may be stronger in one sense but even more lacking in another.

This is all just based on my really particular taste though. As I've said before, there are very few tools out there that I think are truly so limited as to prevent the production of really impressive stuff.


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> If you play it in isolation and tell somebody to listen for it, of course it's noticable. In context? Drastically less so.


I agree. So many of these concerns disappear in context. 

What’s also not noted about additional dynamic layers is they often create more problems than they solve as you then encounter more crossfades and the dynamic range within each layer is reduced. And the price of effective crossfades is often a lack of movement in the samples themselves, so they lose tone. It’s tradeoffs all around. 

People also make the comparison between JXL Brass and BBCSO without comparing the price. You want 5 dynamic layers for BBCSO, you’d be looking at what, $2500-$3000. Which on one level is fine but would definitely be a different idea for the library than what SF decided to do. So would you prefer that SF sampled many fewer instruments, many fewer articulations, or offered, say, a pro version at a much higher price point in order to get those additional dynamic layers. Because that’s where the trade off lies.


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 6, 2020)

Regarding the number of Sustain Dynamic Layers a Sample Library has, if you consider Physical Modeling Libraries like Sample Modeling's Solo & Ens. Strings, or SWAM Solo Strings, they surely offer a big advantage when it comes to dynamics, and the smooth transition between them without having to deal with phasing, or discrete number of layers, but rather these libraries offer a continuously smooth transition between the various dynamics, just like a real bowed strings instrument does.


----------



## Casiquire (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> I don't think you read what I wrote carefully. I'm not talking about whether or not mic positions are necessary, but how some people think including fewer would allow developers to sample more in depth. The costs of putting up another set of mics vs. recording another pass of dynamics for even just a single instrument are not at all equivalent.


Ah got it, that makes more sense


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> Dude your deliberations about this have reached the point of absurdity. Listen to what people do with it. If you think it sounds good and could be useful for you, go for it.


How is it absurd? lol I don't have the library...so therefore all I have is what people that have it say. Ive listened to countless demos and YES..it sounds great...every one of them, including the less than "pro" demos sounded very balanced and great to me..hence wanting the library. But...I've been burned too many times by libraries because as everyone uses them differently, and while the shortcomings might not be apparent with someone else, it might when I use it. Trying to weed out as much as I can.

No double that it sounds good to me...I know of the brass weakness as well..but the two layer thing is new, and called for a second guess.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 6, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> So would you prefer that SF sampled many fewer instruments, many fewer articulations, or offered, say, a pro version at a much higher price point in order to get those additional dynamic layers. Because that’s where the trade off lies.


personally...less articulations like the odd ones, or not used so often...then WAY less mics. I can not imagine doing an orchestral gig with that amount of mic options in a real live setting unless it's specifically for a movie...perhaps I am wrong.

EDIT: Since we are in MIDI and have full control over each instrument, less mic options would not be so bad. I understand that maybe a live movie gig might have many mics...for virtual world, I don't think we need that many.


----------



## holywilly (Sep 6, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> VSL Synchron Strings I have is up to 8 layers...is that needed? Maybe...lol but for most things, I think 4 layers covers it well.


8 dynamic layers add more timbre change, I like how it sounds, more dramatic.
Stacking different libraries together yield more realistic sounding. My recipe is Synchron Strings I (*Cantabile*) + dimension strings (expressive legato, 44332) for melodic writing, add LASS Spiccatos for aggressive epic music.


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 6, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> On dynamic layers, an important benefit is not necessarily the change in volume, rather, it is the change of _color_ to the sound.
> 
> French horns for example, can play fairly loud without their sound becoming brassy. A legato solo horn passage with VSL (Vienna Instruments version) sometimes needs the lower dynamic layer with CC7 turned up, or the louder dynamic layer with a little filter to round off the sound.


I find it hard to get the full utility out of 5 dynamic layers of JXL Brass without loading multiple instances and not loading all the layers into any one instance. I can’t imagine what it would be like managing 8 dynamic layers with the current midi CC resolution. Then too the better the crossfades the less timbral benefit you get from the added layers. At least that’s been my experience. And phase aligned samples always feel to me like the life has been sucked out of the samples.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

Well this is a big MIDI resolution problem/limitation, as you say... which is another conversation entirely....


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 6, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I'm less familiar with JXLB, but is the issue the transition between the layers?
> 
> With VSL Synchron Strings, there is a clever way they handle the transitions. They divide each the articulation trees into four group: Full, Loud, Medium, Soft.
> 
> ...


I think hes saying that with there being only 127 steps of midi cc1, cross fading between 5 vs 2 is the difference between 127 shades of in-between 2 samples and 33. 

I personally love 5 layers but certainly 4 or 5 is the sweet spot for cross fading. I do like more for percussion though.


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2020)

MIDI needs an update.

Failing that, I think there's something to breaking up different dynamic groups into different patches as apparently VSL and a few others do. It's true that the normal longs in BBCSO only have two layers in them, but you then also have a separate intense marcato long, sul tasto in two dynamics, and flautando. Normal brass have two or three, plus the separate cuivre. This seems to be a nice to way to preserve the integrity of these individual sounds, as well as allow for less resource-demanding patches.

Really, how often do you need to sweep all the way from ppp up to fff on a single sustained note? I'd happily trade the ability to do that if it means cleaner sound.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 6, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I think I understand.
> 
> So, the Synchron Strings "loud" patches of f, ff, and fff, is 3 layers across 127 steps of midi CC1. Mp, mf, and f (I think?), 3 layers across 127 steps of midi CC1. Then ppp, pp, and p across 127 steps of midi CC1.
> 
> ...


thats now how it works

you only have 127 "possible" midi CC1 amounts, which when cross fading between articulations is divided up more or less smoothly independent of smoothness of transition between the actual layers. think of it like this, when there are 2 dynamic layers, when CC1 is at the value of 7, it's 120/127 parts dynamic 1 and 7/127 parts dynamic 2. That means there are 127 different possible "shades" between these two dynamic layers. A short chart on how this works

2 dynamic layers = 127 different blends between each dynamic layer
3 dynamic layers = 63 different blends between each dynamic layer
4 dynamic layers = 42 different blends between each dynamic layer
5 dynamic layers = 31 different blends between each dynamic layer
13 dynamic layer = 10 different blends between each dynamic layer

So there is a tradeoff, as there is currently no infinite resolution between CC1 values. If there were, more dynamic layers would always be better in general(although this can be a problem with solo instruments) but since there isn't there's actually a combination of a trade off between the dither resolution between those layers as well as the diminishing returns of the value of dynamic layers. 

The more dynamic layers the more audible the crossfade between them, the less dynamic layers the more audible the crossfade between them - but somewhere in the sweet spot(probably 3-6 depending on the instrument) it's the least audible. 

thank you for coming to my ted talk. 

also @jbuhler I'm coming up with something you might like using JXL in a less than orthodox way. I'm the kind of jerk who has to use things differently than everyone else LOL.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 6, 2020)

Mike T said:


> MIDI needs an update.
> 
> Failing that, I think there's something to breaking up different dynamic groups into different patches as apparently VSL and a few others do. It's true that the normal longs in BBCSO only have two layers in them, but you then also have a separate intense marcato long, sul tasto in two dynamics, and flautando. Normal brass have two or three, plus the separate cuivre. This seems to be a nice to way to preserve the integrity of these individual sounds, as well as allow for less resource-demanding patches.
> 
> Really, how often do you need to sweep all the way from ppp up to fff on a single sustained note? I'd happily trade the ability to do that if it means cleaner sound.


Are you saying you like BBCSO and is definitely workable with less layers because there are separate patches for other articulations? And it's true...the only patch that I really go through the possibility of p to f is on the strings and brass but usually not within the same passage (at least not the brass), so one can easily switch to a different patch for a different need.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 6, 2020)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> I guess I don't follow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you can do this with a number of available options. Basically any of the developers that let you control which dynamic layers are active.

infact, he was describing that he had to do this with JXL brass, because having all 5 dynamic layers on the same "patch" is a little much.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 7, 2020)

Some developers focus on more mics, others on more layers, some more articulations, others fewer but better execution of the included ones, etc.

Jake, at the end of the day, ya puts your money down and ya takes yer chances here in the wild, Wild,west.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Sep 7, 2020)

jaketanner said:


> I am selling my Synchron Strings 1...not because of any other reason that I probably won't use them, as I have developed a different way of working and like a different sound. PM me if you want any details.
> 
> I never had issues with any dongle, VSL or ilok...just plug it in and forget about it.


Sure if you can sell it for what I had before like $2? Lol!


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 7, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Jake, at the end of the day, ya puts your money down and ya takes yer chances here in the wild, Wild,west.


Ain’t that the truth


----------



## ptram (Sep 7, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> you only have 127 "possible" midi CC1 amounts, which when cross fading between articulations is divided up more or less smoothly independent of smoothness of transition between the actual layers.


I don't know how it works in Synchron Strings or JXL Brass, but in the VSL VI series you also have single velocity layers. You can use them alone, or set them in a matrix where you can decide the velocity split/xfade point.

I guess in the first case there will not be enough variation, in the second one there will always be a point where you can still hear the transition between pp and mp.

Paolo


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Sep 7, 2020)

ptram said:


> I don't know how it works in Synchron Strings or JXL Brass, but in the VSL VI series you also have single velocity layers. You can use them alone, or set in a matrix where you can decide the velocity split/X fade point.
> 
> I guess in the first case there will not be enough variation, in the second one there will always be a point where you can still hear the transition between pp and mp.
> 
> Paolo



you can do that pretty interestingly with JXL, if you use a 2nd external way to switch articulations per channel. I might make a guide on it, but it's kinda weird because you need something like flex router sending midi to it, or cubase expression maps/logic/ect.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 7, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Some developers focus on more mics, others on more layers, some more articulations, others fewer but better execution of the included ones, etc.
> 
> Jake, at the end of the day, ya puts your money down and ya takes yer chances here in the wild, Wild,west.


BTW, do you have BBC? Not sure if I asked already.


----------



## richhickey (Sep 7, 2020)

There's nothing to this 7-bit CC stuff - you move the CC up and down like always and instead of getting some made up blend or turned-up/down samples most of the time, you get realistic-sounding samples much more often. It sounds more realistic and it works better (at least for instrumental sections, solo instrument phasing is still an unsolved problem).

If you are used to having your entire dyn CC range map only from mf-ff, Synchron strings provides the Loud mapping. Solved, there is no 7-bit MIDI problem. Nor is there any 7-bit _limitation_ on MIDI CCs, MIDI has supported 14-bit CC for a very long time. Any tool that supports pitch bend (another 14-bit message) could support 14-bit CC. Ask your tool vendors to support it and stop blaming MIDI.

*In (kinda) pictures*

m = missing/made-up bs (samples turned down/up)
x = xfade bs (samples mixed together)
R = realistic moment!

Yes, I know crossfading can be more sophisticated, for demonstration purposes only:

*Your typical 2-dyn lib:*

0------------------------------127
mmmmmRxxxxxxxxxRmmmm

Featuring craptastic low dyns and no ff+.

*3-dyn:*

0------------------------------127
mmmmmRxxxxxxxRxxxxxRm

Note that in 3-dyn the uppermost xfade range can sound really bizarre if the max sample captures harsh/blaring (and if it doesn't, people complain, especially if brass, that it can't quite get there)

Turned up/down samples don't sound realistic, and the bigger the gap covered by made-up xfades (longer strings of xx...s), the worse the sound.

*Synchron strings (and similarly OT JXL's 5-dyn brass):*

0------------------------------127
RxxxRxxxRxxxRxxxRxxxRxxxR

This sounds better, and feels better in hand (yes, even with, horrors, only 128 steps).

I just don't get the memory arguments. People were doing 3 dyn sampling long ago. 5-7 dyn sampling is only ~2x the memory of 3x. Does your computer not have >2x the memory of your computer from the dawn of sampling? Don't blame the dyns, blame the mics. And even there, OT has custom mic premixing and VSL has premixed room mics.

The opinions/ownership ratio of SyS here seems like 100:1. As an _owner_, VSL synchron strings have categorically more dynamic control than any other sampled string library I own (lots), approaching the experience of using modeling. You can actually perform sforzandos with them. And realistic swells etc, for which detailed libraries (including VSL's) used to provide dedicated recorded dynamics patches. It works completely fine with 7-bit (128-value) CC and with even more nuance in the split range patches. You can not like the _sound_ of SyS or JXLB (that's subjective), but the power of their approach to dynamics is undeniable.

I hope VSL and OT keep ignoring the arguments full of bad MIDI math, "I can't hear it" and "moar mics" and "epic starts at mf" opinions, and continue to pursue more realistic and expressive sampling. I want to use the additional memory in my machine for more dyns and artics, not 20+ mics, and I appreciate the vendors that understand that means more sampling work (for them), and take it on.

With sampling, more sampling is the path to more realism (and _more mics are not more sampling_). You just can't get purple if you've only got blue and yellow to blend.


----------



## jaketanner (Sep 7, 2020)

richhickey said:


> There's nothing to this 7-bit CC stuff - you move the CC up and down like always and instead of getting some made up blend or turned-up/down samples most of the time, you get realistic-sounding samples much more often. It sounds more realistic and it works better (at least for instrumental sections, solo instrument phasing is still an unsolved problem).
> 
> If you are used to having your entire dyn CC range map only from mf-ff, Synchron strings provides the Loud mapping. Solved, there is no 7-bit MIDI problem. Nor is there any 7-bit _limitation_ on MIDI CCs, MIDI has supported 14-bit CC for a very long time. Any tool that supports pitch bend (another 14-bit message) could support 14-bit CC. Ask your tool vendors to support it and stop blaming MIDI.
> 
> ...


Are you part of the developing team anywhere? Just curious where you got this knowledge...but not doubting it, as it seems logical for sure. BTW, I have Sy Strings 1 also.


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2020)

richhickey said:


> I hope VSL and OT keep ignoring the arguments full of bad MIDI math, "I can't hear it" and "moar mics" and "epic starts at mf" opinions, and continue to pursue more realistic and expressive sampling.



I'm not sure what the point of this post is (other than to caricature those in the virtual instrument world who lack your sparkling standards). Surely it's possible to want more expressive and realistic sampling, as well as more sensitive control methods. It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 7, 2020)

Most soft synths compensate the MIDI resolution by interpolating the single CC steps into a curve. I think Kontakt & co is doing the same. Otherwise we would hear zipper noise on any CC movement (like we had in the 90s).


----------



## MartinH. (Sep 7, 2020)

I onlys glanced over the posts here, but afaik Kontakt internally interpolates at much higher precision than 127 values. Iirc @EvilDragon mentioned something like that once. Is that what "lag" slider under the hood of Kontakt instruments is for?


----------



## EvilDragon (Sep 7, 2020)

Yeah so Kontakt's engine parameters are all 32-bit signed internally. If you use MIDI CC modulators, you have an option to lag process it (smooth at a set rate), which would smooth out incoming MIDI data. However it's not gonna get rid of steps fully, especially if you do very very slow movements on that CC. Then you basically get smoothed steps, but still steps. Again, really depends how you set the lag time.


----------



## Bollen (Sep 7, 2020)

richhickey said:


> 0------------------------------127
> RxxxRxxxRxxxRxxxRxxxRxxxR


Speaking as a developer and just having spent 5 years researching this, I agree this is the model for most realism! However, it will depend on the instrument i.e. some have bigger colour changes at different levels than others and some are more particular in one area over others.

For example, brass gets extremely complex in the higher echelons, but string, especially the plucked one, are more complex at lower dynamics.


----------



## richhickey (Sep 7, 2020)

Bollen said:


> Speaking as a developer and just having spent 5 years researching this, I agree this is the model for most realism! However, it will depend on the instrument i.e. some have bigger colour changes at different levels than others and some are more particular in one area over others.
> 
> For example, brass gets extremely complex in the higher echelons, but string, especially the plucked one, are more complex at lower dynamics.



Yep, and of course it need not be evenly spaced out as in these diagrams.


----------



## richhickey (Sep 7, 2020)

Mike T said:


> I'm not sure what the point of this post is (other than to caricature those in the virtual instrument world who lack your sparkling standards). Surely it's possible to want more expressive and realistic sampling, as well as more sensitive control methods. It doesn't have to be one or the other.



The point was to counteract the various bits of FUD and misinformation in this thread without picking on anyone in particular (as you just have).

The point was to make clear that MIDI resolution and number of dynamic layers are _orthogonal_ - what matters is the dynamic range mapping.

To further help illustrate, here's a video of BBSCO and Synchron Strings, Violins I Longs playing the same 2-note chord, while moving the dyn CC from 1-127:




Note how both libraries map about the same dynamic range (about 30 dB, a little more for BBCSO [top meters] in fact!) to the full CC range, _even though SyS uses more than twice as many dynamic layer samples to represent that same range_.

That means each CC step for both libraries moves the dynamic by about 1/4 dB. Not something most people could hear as anything but smooth. My point is not to do an X vs. Y thing here. Moving the dyn CC with BBCSO and SyS should speak for itself to anyone who has both.

The point was to state the basic fact that if one wants more resolution anyway, e.g. so that you could move a controller over a small dynamic range and not get hand cramps (and I do want that!), _what's missing is not something in MIDI itself_, which supports 14-bit CCs, but controller and software support for 14-bit CCs. At no point did I say it had to be one or the other.

These are just facts.

Also incorporated are some of my opinions, like I disagree with those who insist on hopping on every SyS thread and saying the 8 dynamic layers are a waste. IMO they're not.

And I didn't make SyS or JXL-B - VSL and OT/JXL are pursuing their own standards. I am just praising their choices, is that bad?


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2020)

richhickey said:


> The point was to counteract the various bits of FUD and misinformation in this thread without picking on anyone in particular (as you just have).
> 
> The point was to make clear that MIDI resolution and number of dynamic layers are _orthogonal_ - what matters is the dynamic range mapping.
> 
> ...




I happen to mostly like the sound and idea of Synchron Strings. Your post just struck me as needlessly "let me correct all of you on your wrong ideas" in its tone. Always difficult to tell on the internet, but you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical when someone can't make a point without resorting to decrying another group in the process. 

As for the deficiency being in controller architecture and not necessarily in the MIDI protocol itself, I agree, to a point. I still think it would be worth at least a minor overhaul, and some people who know far more than me about this seem to agree. We'll see what the future holds....


----------



## ptram (Sep 7, 2020)

Mike T said:


> As for the deficiency being in controller architecture and not necessarily in the MIDI protocol itself, I agree, to a point. I still think it would be worth at least a minor overhaul, and some people who know far more than me about this seem to agree. We'll see what the future holds....


MIDI 2.0 has finally been approved. Finer resolution in controls is included. I ignore how and when it will be implemented in all music devices.









Details about MIDI 2.0™, MIDI-CI, Profiles and Property Exchange (Updated November 2022)


The core MIDI 2. Specifications are available for download by MIDI Association Individual MembersCorporate Members have access to all specifications including those under development You must be logged in as a TMA member to download the spec. If you are not a member yet (or not logged in) ...




www.midi.org





Paolo


----------



## richhickey (Sep 7, 2020)

ptram said:


> MIDI 2.0 has finally been approved. Finer resolution in controls is included. I ignore how and when it will be implemented in all music devices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, plenty of great stuff in MIDI 2, including 16-bit velocity and 32-bit CCs, as well as per-note attribute types and values (think articulations). 

But we have to insist our DAW/VI vendors support it. Currently VST3 treats MIDI as second-class and delivers a broken mapping to 'VST3 parameters'. Furthermore, VST3's developers reject MIDI as something that should even be allowed to travel into VIs, ignoring the entire heritage of VIs being virtual _MIDI_ instruments, the foundation of the entire sequencer, DAW and plugin industry. And too many VIs are thinking automation params are enough (they're not: they're non-portable, don't travel in MIDI files or over IAC and are non-scriptable via plugins like Scripter, PlugnScript, KSP and Bidule).

I hope Apple doubles down on pure MIDI 2.0 support in AUs, and DP and other non-Steinberg follow suit. It seems Steinberg thinks they are more important than MIDI and are trying to ram VST3 down everyone's throats. MIDI is an actual standard and spec, that travels in/out of hardware, over wires, in/out of files and, until recently, through the IAC/DAW/plugin ecosystem. VST3 is only about DAW->plugin, is proprietary in every way, while posing as a standard, but if VST2 was actually a standard it couldn't have been shutdown as it has been. Caveat emptor.


----------



## ptram (Sep 8, 2020)

richhickey said:


> It seems Steinberg thinks they are more important than MIDI and are trying to ram VST3 down everyone's throats.


Alas, that's the only real major issue in Dorico. Insisting on being VST-only is preventing a much needed opening to the world. Compliance with MIDI MTS is something I solely miss.

Paolo


----------

