What's new

Who likes the Synchron Player a LOT more than VIPro?

Lee Blaske

Senior Member
Just got the notice from VSL about the "Synchronized Woodwinds." I've purchased or upgraded to most of the Synchron/"Synchronized" instruments to this point, and I'm just not falling in love with the Synchron Player. At this point, I'm still a lot faster and more versatile using the VIPro versions of the instruments (the iPad interface makes it extremely fast for me). The internal sequencer for ornaments, etc. is also great. I have no problem getting the appropriate space on the instruments.

Is there anything about the Synchron Player, outside of it being a tad more colorful, that I'm missing? Switching to it seems like a big step backwards for me. With that being the case, I'm wondering if I should just call it quits on any more "Synchronized" upgrades. My only worry all along has been that VSL would eventually drop support for VIPro.
 

DaddyO

Senior Member
I have the same concerns you do, that VI Pro development will cease and eventually support as well. Bring this up on the VSL forum and you get carefully worded, limited denials. To be sure, it's impossible for ANY company to promise product development and support in perpetuity.

One thing positive about the Synchron Player is it's scalability and readability, making it much easier on older eyes like mine. In VI Pro cells the 4-character abbreviations can be very difficult to read. I had been waiting for VI Pro 3 to address scalability, but alas we instead got the Synchron Player and no whisper about a new version of VI Pro.

VI Pro 2 was released a long, long time ago. You can't help but wonder about it's future.

So I get really tempted by introductory Synchron offers for the sole reason that a switch may prove inevitable. This woodwind library would cost me about $150 US to protect myself against the possibility. Is VSL counting on this element of doubt, in a sense capitalizing on it? I don't know.

One other consideration is my investment in MIR Pro, which serves no purpose in the Synchron world.

I hate the idea of having to reproduce my existing VI libraries in the Synchron system. For all I know it is unnecessary, but introductory prices will be long gone when in some future date the situation with VI is unmistakably clear.
 

Saxer

Senior Member
My only worry all along has been that VSL would eventually drop support for VIPro.
Same here. VIPro works great here and I have hundreds of patches premade over the years for fast and easy use. Combi- and performance patches with articulation layers and switches controlled by speed, CCs and velocity. The Synchron Player seems to be optimized for hierarchic key switches but I avoid key switches as much as possible. VIPro helps me doing this. The synchronized Dimension Strings sections doesn't play even monophonic lines at all without crackling on my MacPro. Unusable. Actually all investments I made in the Synch and Synched series (Synchron Strings, Synced Dim, Synced DimII and DimIII) have never been used here. Nothing of the invested time in editing VIPro is compatible to the Synchron Player any more. So if VIPro will be out of support some day it will be the end of VSL for me.
 

SimonCharlesHanna

Senior Member
It's fascinating IMO VIPro is the best sample players I've had the pleasure of working with. We're talking about VSL discarding it, meanwhile I cant even get Keyswitches or mic automation in the latest version of PLAY.

Crazy

on topic: I've found Synchron to be adequate and has the flexibility I am use to in VIP. Runs okay for me. I assumed it would be as fully featured as VIP eventually?
 

holywilly

Active Member
I still prefer VI Pro instead of Synchron Player, although I have invested some Synchronized instruments. Even with Synchron Strings, I still like the one for VI Pro. It seems that Synchron Player is quite buggy when using with Cubase Pro, loads of issues and crashes even with the latest update.

For now, VI Pro sits in my template, not Synchron Player.
 

synergy543

Senior Member
Synchron Player definitely makes a lot of sense with the real Synchron libraries that have multiple mic positions as it handles working with multiple mics and making adjustments to other parameters much more elegant. However, this isn't the case with with "Synchronized" libraries as they don't have independent mics. There is also the aspect that with MIR removed, its a bit more of a trick to create a different venue ambience with the Synchronized libs. You need to shut off both the built-in algo and IR reverb and then put them through MIR, or something equivalent, in which case, you lose most of the "synchronized" features or so it seems? It would be good to hear what the official thought is regarding these issues.
 

Jimmy Hellfire

Senior Member
I mean, I don't hate it or anything. I just use it and that's it. Obviously it has a mixer, and it's equipped for handling a multi-mic setup, which was just extremely important for the Synchron libraries, so I'm happy to have that. In VI PRO, if you wanted to make a Synchron Percussion preset for example, you'd have to manually, one by one, drag and drop every single patch and articulation for every single available mic position into the cells, that's just completely nuts and simply not viable.

For the single mic stuff, I'm not sure there's a benefit from the Synchron Player. At the moment I'd actually say it's inferior to VI PRO because some important features of the latter are still missing and there are still QOL issues and little bits and pieces of design oversight in various places (can't enter values for CC curves, Synchron IR dry-wet faders are in % and not 1-127, so they do not translate 1:1 to CC values, which is highly impractical for automating in the sequencer, etc.). And at least visually, the VI PRO matrix makes more sense to my brain than the tree structure of the Synchron Player.

So yeah, I would have kind of preferred VI PRO 3 over the new player, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Shredoverdrive

Active Member
The thing that worries me the most is the fact that the Synchron player, even without the convolution reverbs activated is more CPU-hungry than Vi Pro II. No worries on my laptop with an I7 but my old desktop, which can manage a whole orchestral template in VIPRO II, just coughs up blood with the same template and Synchron Players instances.
 
OP
Lee Blaske

Lee Blaske

Senior Member
It all just leaves me scratching my head. Synchron Player is not an awful plug-in, but if you already had VIPro2, why do it? My only guess is that someone in the VSL marketing department thought they needed something more approachable and appealing for the mass market to stimulate sales. If I had never seen the Synchron Player, or VIPro2 before, and got to see both of them at the same time for the first time, I think it would be pretty clear to me that VIPro2 was the more professional tool.

In another way, though, I guess I'm sorry to see VSL lavishing so much time and energy repackaging their entire library (at this point, it doesn't seem like they're going to stop "Synchronizing" until they were done). I remember back when first saw all those videos about their newly acquired Synchron Stage and the excitement over all the libraries that would be produced there. But now with all the Synchronizing going on, it looks like what they mainly got out of it was an impulse response.

I don't know... Maybe there's a lesson here for sample library companies. Don't buy an expensive recording studio! EastWest went down the same path. At one time, they were extremely active, releasing all kinds of products. Then they bought Cello (the old Universal Audio Studios), and we were expecting to see lots of new content coming from that. But then they largely went dormant. Hard to say what the future holds, but sample library companies sure seem to have a life cycle.
 
OP
Lee Blaske

Lee Blaske

Senior Member
One thing positive about the Synchron Player is it's scalability and readability, making it much easier on older eyes like mine. In VI Pro cells the 4-character abbreviations can be very difficult to read. I had been waiting for VI Pro 3 to address scalability, but alas we instead got the Synchron Player and no whisper about a new version of VI Pro.
I hear you on the vision thing. I'm still able to read stuff, but I need cheaters. Don't know if you're using the Mac OS, but there is that magnifying tool in the Accessibility pane. Also, a second decently size screen set to a much lower resolution can really help. Then, you can park those hard to read things on that screen and easily see them.
 

ptram

Senior Member
I still prefer the matrix concept, rather than the tree. To me, its easier to read and with a more direct access to articulations.

Since I'm not using the Synchron(ized) libraries, if there are no alternatives (like the pianos), I am not much concerned until VI is still here. I'm happy with the Synchron Piano Player, but I will always prefer VI for the other instruments.

Paolo
 

Eloy

Member
This did not need to be so...... and I love VSL.

When I bought the Synchron percussion and Synchron string library.
The samples worked in VIPro .....good (well not exactly as the legato.... oh I digress). Then here comes the Synchron player and we have new samples that only work on the Synchron player (it was good I kept the old Synchron VI samples). The same sample sounds have a higher CPU usage on Synchron ( try mixing new Synchron Cantabile with VIPro in your template) than they did on VIPro = BAD! Now we have all of these new/old Syncronized libraries and.... we have to pay extra to have less ( I get it new old samples are enhanced - but they are only in Synchron room). The beauty of the VI series was low CPU and when you mix the string libraries ( example - Orchestral strings with Dimension and solo strings) for a cell/matrix you can create just about any string sound (with MIR) and put it in any room (this means all Berlin series works with VSL through Teldex = Fantastic .......we never did get Synchron reverb presets for MIR VI series .....but that’s another story ).

I get it it ...... they purchased a new facility (it needs to get payed for), they dumbed down the old libraries (compare articulation lists) so new people can have instant gratification in sound - but removing flexibility - tinkering under the hood.

I can only shake my head .........this did not need to be so............
 
OP
Lee Blaske

Lee Blaske

Senior Member
I still prefer the matrix concept, rather than the tree. To me, its easier to read and with a more direct access to articulations.

Since I'm not using the Synchron(ized) libraries, if there are no alternatives (like the pianos), I am not much concerned until VI is still here. I'm happy with the Synchron Piano Player, but I will always prefer VI for the other instruments.

Paolo
I agree that the pianos are fine with the Synchron Player. I have no problem with those.
 

EgM

Game music!
I don't care much for the Synchron player, it's not bad by any means. But VIPro with its matrices has a much better workflow.

I did upgrade my Special Edition 1 to Synchron just to test the waters since Epic Orchestra wasn't enough to play with, the price was fine as well.

But I guess it's safe to say that I will not be upgrading my Woodwinds1 to Synchron, 165 euros is way, way too much! Even if it contains a few extras. The end upgrade cost for all my VI instruments wouldn't be justifiable.
 
Top Bottom