New string quartet library from Spitfire: Sacconi Strings

[cbergm7210]

Used sparingly, would be very effective. I think I'm gonna' make a purchase.

You won't regret, brother Markus.

[mhschmieder]

Turns out Emotional Cello isn't part of the 2-for-1 deal at ANY of the Best Service sites (main vendor site or resellers). I guess it's still too new.

I haven't had a chance to try out the Sacconi Strings on a serious project yet. The problem is that the ones I'd want it for are mostly viola and cello augmented by other orchestral instruments in single configuration, as opposed to traditional string quartet or piano quintet.

[David Polich]

Pretty sound, but it suffers from what they all suffer from: canned vibrato. I don't hear the variability I'd like to hear, but that's a whole can of worms I won't go into right now. Solo cello needs that spinning vibrato, and the ability to express it fully in real time.

Shoosh

This is my complaint exactly. Which is why I'm
now sold on the Sacconi Strings. Vibrato
depth controlled by mod wheel or assignable cc.
That to me is a total no-brainer.

Those who say an LFO-induced vibrato sounds
fake just dont understand that it is easy to modulate
LFO's with another LFO or pitch envelope.
As a sound designer, I know it can be done.

[HCMarkus]

Used sparingly, would be very effective. I think I'm gonna' make a purchase.

You won't regret, brother Markus.

I most certainly will (am) not.

Other's complaints about built-in (natural) vibrato duly noted, but just have to say the Tina Guo legato cello is simply gorgeous sounding, and very effective in ensemble with other, less expressively performed, strings. Had much fun with Ms. Guo in a mix tonight. I'm sure I'll be hanging out with her again soon.

[cbergm7210]

Used sparingly, would be very effective. I think I'm gonna' make a purchase.

You won't regret, brother Markus.

I most certainly will (am) not.

Other's complaints about built-in (natural) vibrato duly noted, but just have to say the Tina Guo legato cello is simply gorgeous sounding, and very effective in ensemble with other, less expressively performed, strings. Had much fun with Ms. Guo in a mix tonight. I'm sure I'll be hanging out with her again soon.

Just wrapped up a client's mix this evening, Markus, with her in it as well...along with yours truly on solo violin. They blended together splendidly.

[David Polich]

I purchased and downloaded the Cinesamples Tina Guo Legato cello, after reading the glowing reports from folks here on this thread.

Well, it's true that the instrument sounds beautiful and the legato works well. However, I'm finding that it is very slow to respond to velocity, so slow that I have to consider it valuable for "slow" cello parts, certainly nothing Yo-Yo Ma-ish. There's also something wrong with the release - it's way too long, and shutting off the reverb still leaves the insturment sounding like the tails are too long...or, that there is reverb baked into the samples. Rapid playing (fast runs) causes stuck notes, which I
assume is because the releases are running into each other and envelopes are not finishing their
cycle.

[HCMarkus]

Dave, I've used the Guo cello on one tune to date, and loved it but, yes, the part was not a quick one. You may well be correct, but I still love the way it sounds and plays! I really like the way it adds an emotional element when combined with an ensemble and blended dynamically.

[mhschmieder]

Chris Hein has solo strings on the way. He has audio demos for the solo violin. YMMV but I am not impressed by the phrasing, yet the timbre and expressivity (beyond issues with articulation transitions) is quite nice and reminds me a bit of the new Miroslav 2, which BTW is panning out a lot better than I expected -- if only it handled phrasing better.

[Shooshie]

The more I read about new libraries and listen to demos, the more I'm convinced that what is needed is a combination of Wallander's programming and interface, with some of the excellent sampling that goes on out there.

Wallander is the ONLY ONE who has "gotten it." If you disagree, then you have not used his interface to the fullest of its capacity. Things like the "slow response to velocity" that David Polich mentioned would be easily fixable in Wallander. There is a fine line, a delicate touch to programming EACH instrument sound (and one size does not fit all), whereby you can get precisely the reality you want in an instrument's phrasing, articulation and response, all in real time using a WX5 or probably other expressive instrument controllers. The only interface I've seen that can make anything you want happen is Wallanders. He literally took everything and made it a parameter. You can adjust it, and you can adjust it in real time. (MIDI Learn) There are hundreds of parameters. (maybe less than a hundred, but it feels like hundreds)

Once you get an instrument programmed for you and the situation, you just play it. It's wonderful. But it took me literally years to figure it all out. For the longest time I was still getting a tiny blip, almost imperceptible, on attacks, making true legato impossible, though I came very close. Then, I finally figured out the parameter and setting to fix that. (can't remember it now, but would probably figure it out again very quickly) Then I was convinced that Wallander's interface cannot be beat. Every VI needs something like that. Those who think they can set it all up at the factory are in denial. Users who want an instrument to sound like Heifetz, Galway, Coltrane, or whomever, right out of the box, are delusional. It's a process. You have to put in your 10,000 hours. But you must have an interface that gives you the control you need. I had more control over a Yamaha DX7 than most VIs give you over their sounds.

I realize that for most people who use this stuff, what they are getting is "good enough." They've learned to lower their expectations and to believe that "no VI will ever sound like the real thing." That may be true for the current offerings, but it's not a general truth. The instruments are simply not virtuosic enough in their current form, and everyone still controls them with the same stupid set of controls, starting with Velocity, which has been the bane of the VI's existence.

I wish I knew how to get VI makers educated as to what they must do to create actual quality, but from what I'm seeing, they are firmly devoted to the wrong road. It will lead them nowhere. Riches, perhaps, but not quality.

Wallander got it. Others could get it, too. Wallander's downfall was the limited selection of sounds — and he did a pretty good job of that, too, but not enough. His is sample-modeled. A small sample forms the basis for modeling the entire instrument. The instruments that will set the world on fire will be a hybrid of sorts. Somewhere between sample-modeled and sampled. The difference will be in the interface, which gives real-time control over absolutely everything.

Shooshie

[David Polich]

I havent demoed Wallander recently, so I cant
comment on that product. I will say this..
a VI that requires "years to figure out" is not
a good model for VI's in general. I certainly
dont have years to devote to learning a
virtual instrument.

VI's should be easy and intuitive to work
with. If I program something that someone else
cant figure out in an hour or so, then I havent
done a good job.

[Shooshie]

I havent demoed Wallander recently, so I cant
comment on that product. I will say this..
a VI that requires "years to figure out" is not
a good model for VI's in general. I certainly
dont have years to devote to learning a
virtual instrument.

VI's should be easy and intuitive to work
with. If I program something that someone else
cant figure out in an hour or so, then I havent
done a good job.

1st: You can't demo Wallander. I mean, there may be a demo, but the controls are all locked up, so you can't get even a taste of what it does.
2nd: I can't tell if Wallander is still in business. His forum has been removed from his site, apparently. The site is still there, but it seems to be focused on instrument libraries for the iPhone.
3rd: If it took me years to figure out the finest of details, then one post from me should make it take you about 15 minutes. I'd have to spend a day writing such a post, because it would require figuring things out again, explaining why they are necessary, how they work, and all that stuff. But it could be very doable. More importantly, someone else could take Wallander's controls and make them much more intuitive, explaining them better, working them into the workflow better.
4th: I'm not suggesting to anyone that they get Wallander.
5th: The point is that the next big break in development of VIs will probably be a synthesis between an interface like Wallander's, and a library like VSL. It will probably require some kind of artificial intelligence to blend them together and to choose the right articulation for the right moment and circumstance in the music. But it will need Wallander's type of interface in the background, for deep programming, so that you can get the sound, response, and expression you need. Current VI libraries' interfaces are dumbed down for "ease of use," but they lock up all the parameters that should be available to everyone. The library becomes a black box with minimal access. That's pretty on the outside, but it sucks for anyone who pays for the library and finds themselves with another set of recorded sounds that don't "sound like the real thing."

Sounding like the real thing is 90% in the idiomatic playing of each instrument. That takes talent and practice, no matter what. The last 10% is the quality of the recorded sound. The libraries try to reverse that, and make you think that 90% of it is the recorded sound, and only 10% is practice or talent. In other words: "buy our library. Even beginners will sound like a great soloist!"

In order for you to play every instrument idiomatically, you simply must have access to all the parameters that make it respond and play. You must set those parameters for the idiom which belongs to that instrument. Then you must play as if you are a seasoned player of that instrument with all its characteristics in your ear.

In all the libraries I've seen of today's market, the missing element is that interface that gives you complete control over every aspect of the sound, including formants (the harmonic structure of its fundamental wave), type of attack (not just speed of attack), aggressiveness of the breath or bow, and dozens and dozens of other things.

I'm sick of hearing that VI's can never sound like the real thing. They can, and they have. They can be played with the expression of a real instrument, because they ARE real instruments. Just not the kind made of wood or brass. But they do require virtuosic players who also are pretty good at programming an interface.

I recently played bassoon on a Grammy nominated album. While I'd love for it to win, it probably won't, but that's beside the point. The point is that people hear a bassoon when they listen to that album. Nobody says "too bad it's not a real bassoon." To anyone's ears, it's a real bassoon. The truth is, I don't remember whether I played Wallander or VSL on that album, but whichever one it was did the job. What I can say, however, is that Wallander has taught me to get more out of all VIs. I just wish they all had that depth of programming.

Shooshie

[HCMarkus]

I love Wallander; for me most useful are the brass instruments, french horn in particular. I like the trumpets a lot too. Having BC control of timbre and attack make these sounds a joy. The inherent difference in the way Wallander generates sound reminds me of the difference between FM and Sampling… given a single static note, the sample always sounds more realistic, but the FM synths are often more fun to play, because they respond to the performer like a real instrument.

This stated, absent a comprehensive understanding of how an emulated acoustic instrument is played and what it sounds like in context, a musician using even the best VI will, more times than not, fail to produce a performance that sounds authentic. A great VI simply makes it possible for a skilled performer to produce great sounds.

While I agree with David in the sense that I, too, don't have the time to devote to a single VI that I spent with my clarinet when I was a wee lad, this may be less a reflection of my limitations than it is a byproduct of the lack of range of expression VIs offer when compared to the acoustic instruments they strive to emulate. We spend out time searching for the perfect sample. The acoustic artist simply plays his or her heart, and it is real, warts and all.

Now, please excuse me; I have to go clean the rosin off my keyboard.

[Shooshie]

I love Wallander; for me most useful are the brass instruments, french horn in particular. I like the trumpets a lot too. Having BC control of timbre and attack make these sounds a joy. The inherent difference in the way Wallander generates sound reminds me of the difference between FM and Sampling… given a single static note, the sample always sounds more realistic, but the FM synths are often more fun to play, because they respond to the performer like a real instrument.

Very good analogy. After FM came stuff like the Yamaha TG77 and others with "wavetable" synthesis. I never figured out exactly what they were doing in those, but I believe they were early precursors to sample modeling. Nevertheless, they behaved and programmed very much like FM devices, and that made them very responsive to controllers like the WX-7 (which was the wind controller of the time) The result was an order of magnitude better than FM. FM was great, as long as your sound had "tubular" or "bells" in it. Their ethnic whistles were pretty good, too. The rest was pure electronic stuff, some of which could be played like a trumpet or trombone, and it would very much resemble such a thing. But the TG77 had recognizable instruments. Still a far cry from orchestral sounds, they at least belonged in the family with their kind: flutes, horns, trumpets, clarinets, oboes, etc. And you could still get killer tubular bells with 3-D effects where other sounds were meandering through the tones. Some keyboards even had a joystick that gave you real-time blend of multiple parameters.

I was good at emulating other instruments, because I did that on saxophone. I learned the Bach Violin Partitas and Sonatas, especially those for solo violin (unaccompanied), and also played flute, clarinet, trumpet, and other string music. I'd find myself emulating the vibrato, attacks, sustains, and releases of the original instruments, and people seemed to like what I did. So, when I came to MIDI, I thought this was going to be fun and easy. Fun, yes. Easy... omigod. It couldn't have been harder. I stayed ahead of the curve throughout the development of the technology, always getting more out of the instruments than was intended for those instruments. But we've hit a plateau now.

Each new library promises more and more realism, yet I see the same controls, the same techniques, and the same assumptions and mistakes. If any developer of VIs is reading this, please note the following statement:

You cannot get better playing virtual instruments by hiring finer and finer players to sample. Maybe incrementally better on occasion, but no consistently measurable improvement overall. The only way to get better instruments is to approach virtuosic VIRTUAL players, and let us help you design the interface according to our needs. A good start would be to emulate Wallander.

That takes us full circle, back to the fact that samples vs. Wallander are like the difference between early samples and FM. It's a little like oil and water. They don't mix naturally. But technology brings us hydrogenated oils, and technology brought us wavetable synthesis, leading up to sample modeling. There is a middle ground in here somewhere, and maybe it requires joystick control or other 3-D control. You've got to think out of the box into which you've driven yourself with expensive libraries which you are reluctant to change. But maybe you can use all those sounds, if you learn to manipulate them in real time with IRCAM-like technology and a fabulous interface.

But please... start asking the people who play these things virtuosically. It's always a downer to pick up a great library and immediately feel how limiting it is to your phrasing and other playing skills. You search for controls to loosen it up a bit, but they aren't there. Beautiful sounds, but you have to dance around their recalcitrance, sluggishness, repetitions, and canned vibrato or other expressions.

It should be our job to play these things musically, not to piece together someone else's playing like Lego Music.

I wish there were a way to get all you developers together in a small room around a round table and SHOW you what we're talking about. Don't tell us "we can't do that." Learn to do it. Figure it out, boys. I've waited a lifetime for it, and it's hit a fracking plateau. Let's get off our buttes and start up the mountains to the Valhallas of VIs.

Shooshie

PS: if you know any developers, send them a link.

[Shooshie]

One more thing.

Let's quit using MIDI velocity.

Period.

Thanks.

[HCMarkus]

One more thing.

Let's quit using MIDI velocity.

Period.

Thanks.

For strings, I like using velocity to adjust attack time, as long as velocity is not also coupled to volume/timbre. And I'd prefer to keep velocity around for my piano VIs…