GPO vs. EQWL

[tylerwbennett]

I hope it won\'t be difficult to get an unbiased opinion in this forum. I am about to purchase my \"orchestra plug-in\" and I am torn between GPO and EQWL Symphony (silver). I would like to know if anybody has used both, and if so what are the benefits of GPO?

I spent the early part of the 90\'s as director of my own orchestra (The Tyler W. Bennett Orchestra) in support of corporate awards ceremonies, and wrote and produced music for radio and TV commercials. I took some time off of writing and producing to father a handful of children. When the time came to get back to where I belonged (I KNEW it would happen if I was patient), the technicological (is that a word?) landscape had progressed so far! I knew that would happen too.

I awoke from my great sleep to find that the nearly $100K investment I had made in my digital studio was (sigh) obsolete and probably worth a couple thousand on ebay. I\'m so pleased that the capabilities have expanded at the same rate that the cost has diminished.

But enough about me, back to the question. My main areas of interest are prioritized as follows...

Realism of the samples (fooling the ear)
Usability of the samples
Ease-of-Use
Stability
Affordability

So in lieu of a \"trial version\" of GPO I wondered if anybody out there could calm my nerves. I\'m not Donal Trump and this is still a sizable investment. Honestly, based on the mp3 demos I am leaning toward GPO.

Thanks so much in advance for your help.

Tyler

[FossMan]

Well, I did an on-line search for \"EQWL Symphony\" and came up with zilch. What is EQWL short for?

[MalteRathke]

Hey Fossman,

it\'s a typo and should read \"EWQL\" - it\'s the East-West-Quantum-Leap-Symphonic-Orchestra-Silver-Editon or EWQLSOSE images/icons/smile.gif

And Tyler, although I own GPO, I won\'t make any precise statement yet as I didn\'t spent enough time with it. By now - for me - it has it\'s strong and it\'s weak points and I bet this applies to all minor (or even major) libraries out there. Also, I don\'t own EWQLSO and can\'t compare (except for some demo mp3s). In my opinion GPO isn\'t so good in fast, powerful passages - I \"heard\" this isn\'t so in EWQLSO. It seems that neither library is a complete winner when it comes down to the overall soundrange of an orchestra. You will definitely find some superb sounds in GPO that are not available in EWQLSO and vice-versa. Without a demoversion it is really hard to judge which library has the sounds you need and I bet it will come one day that you have to complement whatever library you buy of the both (maybe even with the other one, as I know some people own both). At the end, I guess the support from Gary and this community is unmatched images/icons/smile.gif

Malte

[Francesco]

Hi Tyler,
personally (as you can see in the DEMO page) I love GPO(I\'ve heard both). There are many points over your needs that may convincing you to go with GPO:


1 - Realism of the samples (fooling the ear)
The basic concept of the GPO let you achive the best realism at that price. Using the ModWheel you can do very expressive crescendo-diminuendo. It is extended to some percussion instruments such snare rolls, cymbal rolls and similar, so you control the crescendo, and not (as in the traditional way used in the EWQLS) the crescendo controls you. Moreover you will find in the GPO many more instruments than the EWQLS (Contrabassoon, Contratuba, oboe d\'amore....).
Moreover there are 2 controls called VAR 1 and VAR 2 which let you choose the amount of a random intonation and a random dynamic (often happen to the brass as you know). The EWQLS don\'t have it

2 - Usability of the samples
I\'ve tried the EWQLS, Vienna symphonic library, Symphonic strings and other similar libraries, and I can assure that nothing is more easy than the GPO. More information on the Control webpage from the mainsite http://www.garritan.com (\"http://www.garritan.com\")

3 - Ease-of-Use

You have to Load and Play. Is there something easier?

4 - Stability
The Kontakt player which comes with GPO has a great stability. Anyway Gary has released as well 3 updates till now,and more are in development (the library was out on december 2003), the EWQLS nor 1.

5 - Affordability
there is a little difference in price, but a great difference in contents. With GPO at 249$ you get all you need to start (sequencing program, notation program, reverb and GPO studio host which let you use GPO with your favourite notation program). All the programs are FULL VERSION (so they don\'t shut down after 5-10-30 days of use). With EWQLS at 299$ you get only the library and the Kompakt player to play the samples.

6 - (I ADD) ENSEMBLE MAKER
With Gpo you can build ensembles as in the real world. I did a strings demo (called TILL THE END) where I\'ve used 32 single instruments (9 first violins, 7 second violins, 4 violas, 9 cellos and 3 basses). So when I want to go on divisi with (for ex) the 1st violins, I split the section by 5 playing a line and 4 playing another, obtainig the real sound and balance as in a real orchestra. With EWQLS you can\'t do that, because you have predeterminated sections (such 18 1st violins). When you go on divisi and play two separated lines whithin the same section, you got the sound of 36 violins.
With GPO you can make ensembles of any size.
YOU control the sound, not the opposite.

7 - (I ADD) INSTRUMENTS
With GPO you got some rare solo instruments, such as Stradivari, Gagliano and Guarnieri violins - Montagnana Cellos, just to say a couple. they are very well programmed and expressive. In the EWQLS seems that they don\'t care so much of the solo instruments.

8 - (I ADD) CUSTOMER CARE
I don\'t know the customer care service by EWQL, but I can assure that Gary and his team are very kind and always try to make their customers Happy.
I hope I\'ve calmed your nerves images/icons/smile.gif
hope everything is clear and remember that I\'m at your disposition for more questions.

all the best
Francesco

[dnortana]

I\'d like to amplify on ease of use.

With GPO you do not have zillions of different articulations, perhaps scattered across several different computers in your network, to sort through to find the right sound. For the most part, you load the basic instruments you want, on a single computer, and the programming for that instrument takes care of the articulation problem automatically.

This approach strongly simplifies the workflow, and avoids the inspiration-stopping \'find the right sound\' sidetrack entirely. I find this to be a huge plus for GPO.

Also, sound versatility hasn\'t been mentioned. Because the reverb choice is left to the user, you have the flexibility with GPO to be small and intimate, like a chamber ensemble, to huge and bombastic at the other extreme. This is not possible with a sample library that was sampled with a large hall\'s ambience. This flexibility is another big plus, if you will be writing for varying size \'venues\'.

Trond

[Mike Kelley]

Franceso (the expert) has pretty much laid it all out but I\'d add that if the Big Band add-on comes to fruition any time soon GPO will be in a very unique position when it comes to orchestra libraries -- nothing EWQL has can compare to this feature.

(So, please, please Gary and Tom get this out soon!)

[tylerwbennett]

Thank you all for your input. I am convinced that I should purchase GPO, if for no other reason than to become part of this wonderful community. Reading through all of your posts, listening to all of your music, and seeing all of the support that you give one another is encouraging. But the open arms with which you welcome a newcomer \"nobody\" like me is truly moving, and I\'m genuinely touched. Thanks again.

[runamuck]

Hi,

I own both libraries. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. I honestly could not say that one is better than the other.

Garritan\'s support, though, is second to none.

Jim

[nexus]

Well in addition to Francesco\'s detailed comments (well done!) I\'ll add GPO is very much a \'composer\'s tool\' kind of product and is the choice where ultimate control over your orchestra is desired. Also there sure aren\'t any missing instruments in THIS orchestra!
Man is GPO complete!

I am going to be purchasing the Silver edition shortly. I could not bear to be without GPO though, that\'s why I bought it first.

I don\'t think Silver will be a good timbre match for GPO, though from what I heard in the demos. There is still much natural (though lovely) ambience in the Silver.

A better timbre-mate would be VSL Opus, but it\'s pricey.

I currently have had good luck using some sounds from my Edirol HQ orchestra to pair up with GPO. I cannot use the \'far\' samples in my SAM brass at all with GPO, and those are the ones I like best in that collection. They would match perfectly with the Silver however.

Lastly, you just CANNOT beat Gary\'s customer support and attitude and this alone should make you want GPO!

If you want more detailed info on this topic, just search back here and over on EW forum. You\'ll find loads of stuff and many opinions.

[Mike Kelley]

Originally posted by nexus:
Well in addition to Francesco\'s detailed comments (well done!) I\'ll add that there is probably one area that GPO must bow to Silver and that\'s in the area of aggressive \'film score\' types of things (listen to the fine demo \'Blackwing\' on the Sounds Online website to hear exactly what I mean.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">I don\'t think this is true -- certainly Francesco could shed more light on this (and perhaps even Gary and Tom) but for one thing we don\'t know at all if these libraries are playing on the same level field.

My (limited) understanding of Silver is that it is programmed as sections -- thus no ability to \"get intimate\" since you can\'t reduce those sections. But the reverse is not true of GPO -- you ought to be able to build up instruments to make the same sections, and thus achieve the same \"punch.\"

As a matter of fact, I\'m almost positive of it: only my lack of talent would keep me from proving it. And you also have to know what post processing has been applied to those Silver samples.

Ideally someone with both could take the same midi file in the same application, such as Sonar, and only switch out the libraries and compare the results. GPO would need to have been assembled so the sections matched up, of course, but that should be the only tweaking either one provides. My guess is the sound would be very similar.

[MalteRathke]

Hi Mike,

I think your not right..

It\'s true that you can\'t build custom-sized sections with silver (nor with gold or platinum I think) and this is a big plus for GPO - there are many other advantages. But you won\'t achieve the same punch only because you use the same number of violins/horns. You won\'t be able the produce a fast hollywoodesque horn passage with GPO simply because the attack of the Fr.Horns is too slow and the power of the sound builds to late to make any sense in really fast passages. I dare saying same goes for the strings.. the spiccato sound in the high velocity layer is very fine indeed, but you might notice a lack of sharpness/agressiveness that is often heard in the media ventures style.

Don\'t get me wrong, this isn\'t a major flaw in GPO - we can\'t get everything at this price (and I\'m willing to pay for updates that bring these missing sounds in images/icons/smile.gif ) - but if you really try to copy this hollywood sound, you might quickly run into the limitations of GPO. And please: if anyone can proof me wrong, DO SO - I would love to hear that I\'m a complete idiot, that it\'s just my fault.

Malte

P.S.: Once again, this product is great, the support is great, the community is great and even with EWQLSO Platinum, GOS (for strings) or VSL you will surely have to deal with limitations. If possible try asking friends who own one/some of the questioned libs to let you do some tests would be great.

[Mike Kelley]

You might be right about the brass -- one reason I\'m hoping for the Big Band add on soon is that I think it will address exactly this problem -- but the strings seem plenty \"agressive\" to me. The short bow attacks couldn\'t be any faster, IHMO

For me none of this is too important since I don\'t have any talent or skill and GPO itself is way overkill for any orchestration I would do.

[dewdman42]

EWQL undoubtedly makes it easier to make cliche sounding film scorish kinds of arrangements quickly with little fuss. The question I have is this though..is that what you want to do? Perhaps. For me, ANY MUSIC AT ALL is suitable for a film score...and the more that libraries such as VSL and EWQL come out, the less impact those cliche big bang film score sounds have anymore..because they are becoming increasingly blasse (sp) and mediocre average sounding. So big deal if you can whip up a cool sounding orch track with EWQL lib and hardly any fuss. Where\'s the composing craft in that?

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that GPO will provide a fresh opportunity for people to compose music...which although doesn\'t easily create those cliche effects that some of you seem to want to sound like Hans Zimmer..but perhaps it enables an entirely different kind of sound that is equally pleasing in its own way, equally usable for actual film score work and perhaps will seem less average and run-of-the-mill as that other stuff becomes easier and more common to crank out.

just another perspective..

For me, I\'m trying to learn the craft of true orchestration and GPO is the closest tool in existence for that from what I can tell reading all these posts and listening to demos. I\'m still waiting for mine in the mail (sigh).

[Clark]

One thing, Tyler. Do you own Kontakt? Becuase that\'s what GPO runs on, NOT Gigastudio!

[Mike Kelley]

Um, he doesn\'t have to own it -- GPO (like Silver) come with a player that is standalone as well as VST (and each have an upgrade path to the full version of Kontakt if you so choose).

[nexus]

Originally posted by MalteRathke:
Hi Mike,

I think your not right..

It\'s true that you can\'t build custom-sized sections with silver (nor with gold or platinum I think) and this is a big plus for GPO - there are many other advantages. But you won\'t achieve the same punch only because you use the same number of violins/horns. You won\'t be able the produce a fast hollywoodesque horn passage with GPO simply because the attack of the Fr.Horns is too slow and the power of the sound builds to late to make any sense in really fast passages. I dare saying same goes for the strings.. the spiccato sound in the high velocity layer is very fine indeed, but you might notice a lack of sharpness/agressiveness that is often heard in the media ventures style.

Don\'t get me wrong, this isn\'t a major flaw in GPO - we can\'t get everything at this price (and I\'m willing to pay for updates that bring these missing sounds in images/icons/smile.gif ) - but if you really try to copy this hollywood sound, you might quickly run into the limitations of GPO. And please: if anyone can proof me wrong, DO SO - I would love to hear that I\'m a complete idiot, that it\'s just my fault.

Malte <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Malte, you proved it yourself here already!

He is right here--just listen to the two versions of Malte\'s demo \"New Theme\" done once with GPO and once with Edirol HQ orchestra.

Whatever one\'s opinion of the Edirol, it has that \"Media Ventures\" sound (it is interesting to note that the Roland orchestral library came mostly from Hans Zimmer\'s old library!)

I\'m not a huge fan of Zimmer\'s style, but GPO cannot do it.

But...GPO is a perfect \'composer\'s toolkit\' and gives more control over the orchestra than any other library.

I too will pay for any upgrades to GPO though, that can get a more aggressive sound. I think more \'staccato\' type of samples in the brass and strings are needed to turn GPO into a truely versatile \'all-around\' toolkit. The BigBand stuff is the first step no doubt!

[eaglehvac]

I have to agree when it comes to the spicatto strings. Dont get me wrong cause my GPO loyalty is very high but the truth is the truth. We could use some hard attacks for the spicatto sound. Until GPO addresses this sound, I\'ll have to use the old Roland Orch 1 or EMU Virtuoso which has just the sound of which I am writing. I havent tried to write fast for brass yet so I cant comment there yet. Just my 2 cents. The great thing about GPO is that I doubt these comments go unheard or unanswered. Thanks Gary.

Eric W

[waldorf&stadler]

The most important reason why I chose GPO over Silver (although I do like the John Williams in-your-face-style which is easier to achieve with QLSO) is support and expandability. I personally think that EW simply cannot offer the same amount of support as Garritan does, because they have so many other products (and silver definitely isn´t the most important of those).
GPO is Garritan´s only complete orchestral library and I´m pretty sure it will therefore be expanded as much as possible to compete with the other libraries even better than it already does.

[MalteRathke]

Oh, cool discussion, hey Tyler isn\'t this alone worth enough buying GPO ? images/icons/tongue.gif

Mike: Ok the strings are doing much better, but they could even bite some more images/icons/smile.gif

dewdman42: Oh, I don\'t want to go into any of these \"which style/sound is best\" discussions. You are right with what you are saying though. I just added that IF one is looking for this kind of sounds (whether this is a good decision or not), GPO may be too limited in some articulations YET (hint).

nexus: Again I agree, GPO is giving some control over the orchestra, that one will miss in EWQLSO (no legato for example, fixed reverb for example). And it\'s not that I only want to do the \"Zimmer-man\", but it would be nice to be able to do so images/icons/smile.gif HQOrchestra is good for some other styles also (leaving aside that the sonic quality is nothing compared to GPO - try it without any effect and you will hear the difference between 2GB samples and 150MB (I guess compressed) samples images/icons/smile.gif )

waldorf&stadler: GPO is a really fresh product and I hope the possibilites of the expandability will be used (again I agree this was one of my pro GPO points). I can\'t wait to see what Bela D Media and Gary are giving us...

Malte

[tylerwbennett]

Well I\'ve been reading these replies and I\'ve got to tell you ... yes, Malte, this pretty much is a good reason to purchase GPO (as I mentioned before) and you all should be proud to be part of this faceless community. I can\'t help but wonder if it\'s purely coincidental that the conversation has focused so much on scoring for film. That just so happens to be exactly what I intend on using GPO for.

I\'ve had the opportunity to compose msuic for film (ok video) and for those of you who haven\'t, a couple of words. Combining your music with visuals is a most incredibly satisfying task. When you combine your music with images (or vise-versa) you can really move your audience in ways that you cannot achieve with separate components. Seeing several hundred people brought to tears - on command of your que - is an unbelievable experience and I hope you all have the chance to try it at least once. BEWARE - it\'s addictive.

So I pose another question. Who of you are actually using GPO to score for film/video? That seems to be the hot point in the comparison between EWQL and GPO tools.

I agree with the user who argued that they have no desire to mimic the \"Hollywood Sound\". Any film project that would be truly worth having would hopefully have the intention of being unique, rather than a canned remake of what\'s been done before. For the argument, would a painter use all of the same tools and techniques of a successful painter to display his own emotion, or talent? Although I have a great respect for the work of some successful film composers, I would not want to be live in their shadow, but ideally to bring my own sound and my own style to the work. Maybe someday people will say you can\'t get that \"Tyler Bennett Sound\" with EWQL or that \"Mike Kelley Hollywood Bite\" (even if you have no skills or talent Mike which I doubt).

Alas, I submit that I had always envisioned using the sequencing/sampling tools to create the work, but that it would then be performed by a live orchestra. In the not-so-distant past when samples were completely unrealistic, I would hire an *gulp* actual musician to perform the track, and I would mute the MIDI track (then mix and repeat as desired). Sometimes, especially with strings, I could lay just one track of an actual performance over the MIDI tracks and it would be just enough to fool the ear into believing it was ALL live. Plus it gave a local college student some paid (is $20 considered paid?) recording time.

Sorry to go on and on but I don\'t think there will ever be a sample that can replace a good saxophonist (I\'m a low brass guy myself). In fact, any soloing should be tracked by the actual instrumentalist in my humble opinion. I would write more but I\'ve got to head out the door. Thanks so much for your comments, everybody. You will hear from me again, like it or not.

Tyler

[MalteRathke]

Hi Tyler,

I\'m not a pro in orchestration (as I\'m coming from a rock background) but the reason I bought GPO was to be able to do film music - let\'s say it\'s one of my dreams to compose soundtracks. With GPO one definitely CAN do film music (with the mentioned limitations) - depending on style maybe even better than with EWQLSO Silver. As I said, I don\'t own silver nor did I had any chance to listen to it \"live\" respectively playing around with it - but I don\'t even managed to listen to all GPO samples yet images/icons/smile.gif

At first (out of the box) I was a little disappointed by GPO. That\'s mainly because I used Edirol\'s HQO with some demo orchestrations I made and tried to replace HQO with GPO which wasn\'t possible without major reorchestration. The 1:1 comparsion of sounds from this two libs revealed two things at first:

1. Edirol did a really good job with a 150 MB sample lib.
2. GPO was missing some important articulations reffering to what the demos should sound like.

Now I realize that Edirol has made their lib as plug and play as they could nonetheless trying to give the user as much control over the sound as possible (inside their environment). Play the timpani with default patches and they make some real impact. One surely has this sonic control with GPO - but in an external environment (i.e. eq/effect plugins) - thus giving the same impact I missed at first. So it was merely my fault I guess, that GPO disappointed me at first - I thought it would be more HQO like - now realizing that this \"external\" control can be even better.

Another fault of mine was to be biased: i.e. I used one specific cymbal sound in HQO and haven\'t found something in GPO to replace it with. Holy moly, GPO doesn\'t even has this cymbal .. argh .. I beg everyone\'s pardon for being such a snob images/icons/smile.gif For sure this is a totally wrong way of learning a new instrument.

Now I\'m pretty much happy with GPO (furthermore having the ability to complement it with HQO and others), understanding the overall concept and scope, avoiding it\'s weaknesses, trying to rely on it\'s strenths.

I keep on learning and I am sure to learn the basics of orchestra mixing somehow. Once again, I am satisfied with my purchase and try to proof this with some new demos soon images/icons/grin.gif

Malte

[Mike Kelley]

Originally posted by nexus:
Malte, you proved it yourself here already!

He is right here--just listen to the two versions of Malte\'s demo \"New Theme\" done once with GPO and once with Edirol HQ orchestra.

Whatever one\'s opinion of the Edirol, it has that \"Media Ventures\" sound (it is interesting to note that the Roland orchestral library came mostly from Hans Zimmer\'s old library!)
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Naw, sorry I\'m just not convinced.

(And this is only to keep this very interesting discussion open so perhaps Gary and co. will benefit and make GPO even better :>)

I listened to the two versions and while I think Mr. M is very talented (far more than I am) I\'m just not so sure he couldn\'t get the same sound out of GPO he got from Edirol.

For one thing, it sounds like there was almost no EQ on the GPO output -- I for one would have bumped it up in several places and gotten a *much* brighter sound that would have even surpassed the Edirol stuff. Secondly, I don\'t hear short bows in the strings, so I\'m not sure he wasn\'t using the Lush strings there instead. I can sure get much sharper attacks than he did (then again I\'m not sure how he was composing here -- I just play the keyboard rather than compose notes).

If the point is \"Hey, right out of the box with little tweaking the Edirol/Silver stuff gets the Hollywood sound\" then perhaps I\'ll concede the point. But, of course, that isn\'t what music making is all about. If I\'ve learned anything about digital music (and I have learned very little :>) it\'s that the post is what it\'s all about. One thing is for sure -- any true \"Hollywood\" music you hear (at the movies, for example) is heavily post processed.

I have read that Silver comes with ambience already applied, and this is a huge drawback, IMHO. You can always add this stuff, but you can never subtract it. I think Gary\'s gone in exactly the right direction here.

[MalteRathke]

Ho Mike,

first of all: thanks for the kind words about my talent - really appreciate that images/icons/smile.gif

We are talking strings (no, not THAT string) right now, yes? I must admit (as posted before) that I used always no postprocessing except for the reverb. I did use the short bows and ran them at full velocity. And yes, it was an out-of-the-box comparsion and I begin realizing that this comparsion might be unfair images/icons/smile.gif

So here is what I\'m supposed to do (if I can get enough spare time this evening): I will tweak this short demo, concentrating on strings, to get the most out of them that I can. As I said, I would be pleased to see that GPO can do better with appropriate handling images/icons/smile.gif As a matter of fact the Edirol stuff wasn\'t EQ\'d either, though I guess that the sounds are preEQ\'d.

Malte

[Mike Kelley]

I\'d love to hear what you come up with -- as I said, you\'re obviously talented and I\'m pretty sure GPO will get you to whatever sound you want.

And, yes, I think my point was that the Edirol stuff sounds post processed even if you didn\'t apply it. The downside is you can never get rid of that sound, whereas with GPO you can always add it.

[MalteRathke]

I really don\'t remember but I think you can bypass or change most of the postprocessing stuff in HQO.

Malte

[Skysaw]

Originally posted by tylerwbennett:
So I pose another question. Who of you are actually using GPO to score for film/video? <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">For now, I\'m using for realization of original classical works, and for supplemental instrumentation in some original rock. I\'m toying with the idea of getting back into soundtrack work. It\'s a whole different world from what it was when I used to do that.

[Tarkio Road]

Folks, GPO and EWQLSO are orchestra libraries. They contain most of the sections, instrument and articulations of a \"real\" recorded orchestra. How these sampled instruments are used in a composition is up to the composer.

Both libraries have beautifully recorded instruments. Both can use tender soft articulations, or full crash and brass.

Why would anyone think that loading up either library would force them into to any specific genre of composition? We all have permission to create unique and original music with any of the instruments in any orchestral library.

Sorry, these \"Hollywood sound\" discussions drive me wacky. graemlins/tounge_images/icons/smile.gif

[Shazbot]

I realize (particular since using GPO) that whoever created the specific demos may have had a lot to do with this... but I know that when I was first looking into GPO and Silver, the difference between the two Beethoven\'s 5th demos helped to sway me in favor of GPO. The GPO demo seemed to have better tone and was more expressive and realistic.

[MalteRathke]

Mike: I tried over an hour and did some finetune here and there. I think I managed to get an better sound for the theme, but the strings won\'t do a better staccato - although you can push them some more by eq\'ing.
Best example: use the shortbow violin ens (1 or 2) and play some 16th notes. Place snaredrum hits over the strings. You might notice that the strings a pretty much behind the snare. I\'ve done this at tempo 80 (3/4 beat). The attack isn\'t high enough for real staccatos. It surely is shortbowed but definitely not staccato - at least not my understanding of staccato played at full velocity.

Ok, it\'s late and maybe we should end this discussion for now images/icons/smile.gif

Malte

[Mike Kelley]

If they are behind the snare you can move the snare notes to coincide -- unless I don\'t understand what you are saying.

If you\'re saying you can\'t get 16th notes to play at all (that is, they run together) then I would understand. But timing issues are easily solved in the sequencer.

When I use another sythn from Project 5 it\'s attack times are very slow -- no matter how I play the notes come in late. So I bump the track back 1/16 and everything lines up just fine. The actual attacks are plenty crisp enough, they just don\'t sit in the right place in the mix.

I\'m guessing this is the case here -- that it\'s more of a mix problem than one of actual sample problems, but I could be wrong. As you say, it\'s late (here in the U.S. it\'s 7:30pm or so, but my bedtime is at 8pm :>) so perhaps we can discuss this more tomorrow.

[MalteRathke]

Hi Mike,

no the notes don\'t go togheter, it was just to explain that the attack of the shortbow violins is (at 80bpm) about a 64th behind the immediate sound of the snare. I know that a fiercly played staccato is up in almost no time. Surely you can push around the notes respectively track, but it won\'t sound the same. It\'s really important to the SOUND of the strings, that there is a really, really short attack time. You are able to compensate for the timing issue, but you won\'t for the sound issue. You could even change the sample start, but you guessed it: it won\'t sound the same images/icons/smile.gif

May I conclude this by saying that I don\'t feel like pushing around my tracks for an timing issue and tweaking around with eq for the sound issue to come only near to what I\'m looking for. I think I can wait for an articulation update, hoping there will be one images/icons/tongue.gif And closing: I think it could be worse - the GPO sound is pretty cool and I get no headaches about missing something here and there - I would expect something very complete in a 2.000$+ library and I know my expectations wouldn\'t be fullfilled. Thinking of a 75GB VSL lib and owners who ask for more articulations images/icons/shocked.gif

Malte

[audiopHoBic]

This has been such a good thread - as a very tentative GPO user I\'ve just been layering up very simple line using solo instruments (The solo violins really surprised me!).

As regards articulations seen lacking in GPO, would anyone see the GOS-Lite library as being able to support GPO here?

On the face of it it strikes me as an economical way of expanding your GPO possibilities without having to fork out for an additional full string library, most of the \"big library\" articulations and hall ambiences you can recreate with GPO and a good reverb (I find the Anwida DX reverb an excellent (free!) alternative to Ambience).

So, GPO & GOS-Lite - do they compliment?

Andy

[Tarkio Road]

Originally posted by nexus:
I also cannot use the SAM brass with GPO because of the \'hall sound\' they share with products like QLSO. I think it creates much more realism, but it \'locks you in\' to whatever hall the samples were recorded in, and so having many choices as GPO gives you, is good<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Why not use the close mic SAM brass programs? They are quite dry.

BTW, I have used GPO winds with EWQLSO Silver with excellent results. Silver has no hall reverb release trails, so the only reverb trails you would hear in a GPO/Silver composition would be coming from your own digital reverb. Try it, you\'ll like it! images/icons/smile.gif

[robgb]

Articulations, smarticulations -- who needs \'em? With clever playing and some good post-processing (think compression) GPO can easily imitate that \"Hollywood\" sound that everyone seems to want to copy.

The BEAUTY of GPO is it\'s expressiveness and the ease at which you can create that expression. Somebody recently complained that he tried to do brass swells with another library, but got too impatient, so he just went back to GPO where it was cake. THAT\'s the key to GPO.

And don\'t give me the GPO\'s brass doesn\'t sound that good argument -- that\'s b*llsh*t. Use it right, process it right and it\'ll be big and brassy and real.

A bad player/programmer even with the most expensive library will make it sound like crap.

[Declan]

Ok this has been well covered, but to add my two cents just going from the demos they do sound different. The EWQL Silver demo was less to my taste.

But I fell SO in love with the GPO that the EWQL Silver shot up my \"hit list\" because of specific things that have already been mentioned here.

Then Gary announced the Big Band module and I did a 180 and.. (this is heresy, don\'t hurt me too much) I bought Spectrasonic\'s Atmosphere.

It\'s a synth that has 3.7 gig worth of samples you can mix and match with almost frightening results - but the relevant part here is the strings. Among the gazillion presets is one called \"Hollywood Strings\". There are others too I use with the GPO string sections because the ASDR gives me quick ability to fill in tonal spaces in string sections. At $329 (Guitar Center)it\'s not cheap but I bought it now because the EWQL demos reminded me that those almost too syrupy (to me) \"swells\" do have their place.

And most of the orchestras I\'ve seen use synths in some capacity anyway (musicals primarily) and yeah I\'m a rock guy too. And this synth is unbelievable.

The comments about the brass in the GPO have validity, but I completely trust Gary to cover me there with the big band module (Gary, please don\'t make it too expensive).

So now I\'m just going to eventually upgrade to the GSO and the EWQL Silver missed getting my money by one day simply because on my birthday Guitar Center dropped Atmosphere\'s price by $79.

Being you\'re a classical guy, this may sound retarded to you, but depending on one\'s intentions I honestly believe this is a valid alternative for some people including modern symhonic composers.

Good people don\'t kill me too bad here. images/icons/grin.gif It\'s just a different perspective and utilizing samples with the capability to alter ASDR does give you that extra oomph with the GPO strings without being really talented (like most of the guys here), or really learning how to do it.

[RodneyR]

Declan,
Thanks for a useful reminder. I haven\'t dug around in Atmosphere\'s strings since getting GPO.

Back to topic, I perform primarily world beat & reggae now, so I am far removed from my more traditional early days on piano. However, I do collaborations in a number of different styles over the internet. I am self-taught in the fields of harmony & orchestration & using GPO to try to reapproach the texts I have. OK, disclaimer out of the way. I am currently contributing to a CD of Civil War music to be used to benefit music education. We lost a violin player, which resulted in my doing some fiddle tracks with GPO. Specifically the solo Guarneri. It worked well enough to fool some very discerning ears who work with real fiddlers. Admittedly it was not a pronuonced spiccato that was called for, but for the rather quick nature of fiddle attacks it proved quite satisfactory. Quite frankly, it surprised me how very well it did work in this rather specialized style. It did require a bit of EQ to sit well in the mix, but that was due to the inherent ambience in samples, rather than a deficiency in upper partials.

[Declan]

Thanks for the kind words Rodney. I\'m always squeamish about posting here - even though this a a very friendly site.

But I get the sense that some here don\'t have my set-up and worry that if I respond to someone that doesn\'t have a really good sequencer or adequate keyboard controller I\'m misleading them.

I so love the GPO and I don\'t want to throw anyone, especially here, off-base.

Re: Atmosphere it\'s incredible, but it does love to eat sonic space so with the GPO the use is minimal but helpful to me in certain instances, and as you know - a whole lot more than that.

Coming from where I am, it\'s a more than comfortable solution to what my ear hears. I know of only one other guy who has Atmosphere and the GPO and he doesn\'t post here.

And I\'ve never thought to ask him his perspective on what I\'ve said here. But I will now.

Attitudes are funny about the GPO if it is your first orchestral collection (as it is for me). There\'s an impulse to keep the GPO pristine - away from hybrid sounds whether or not they\'re comprised of the same acoustic instruments you\'ve got loaded in the GPO.

I understand it. But you probaly can understand as I do. If it acts like a synth - even though it\'s a synth - then it\'s still a synth - even if it uses high-quality samples. Gary\'s changed the game, Spectrasonics has been busy doing it as well.

Any week now I think definitions, terms - whatever - will be forever altered. Because unless you know the person your communicating with the specifics can get very warped.

The GPO\'s not really just a collection of orchestral instruments, and Atmosphere\'s not really just a rompler. They\'ve both been out roughly the same amount of time too.

But they both share the same similar non-defineability. The GPO is not really like the EWQL Silver package and Atmosphere isn\'t really like Sampletank either.

The differences I find more more significant than their similarities. I\'m very much waiting for updates. images/icons/smile.gif

[Karl Garrett]

Declan,

I too use Atmosphere and Trilogy. I have used them primarily to accompany my guitar work. The Hollywood strings are nice for quick pads and such. I do have to say that I\'ll probably replace them with GPO if I ever get time. I really like the acoustic bass in Trilogy, except for that goofy left-right hand thing to achieve staccato. If Tom can program the same realism into the interface of GPO for the big band samples, we will sure have a winner.

Of course I can\'t speak for Gary, but I feel he would be the first to applaud the blending of other companies products with GPO to create unique music. There have been a few such pieces posted on this forum. For me, it seems if I am making the money to be able to afford all the programs I want, I don\'t have the time to get the most out of them.

So many toys, so little time. Sigh!

[RodneyR]

Declan,
Yes, I suspect for those like us layering sounds is almost 2nd nature. I\'ve been doing it since my 1st synths(\'72), which were monophonic. Even as little as 10 years ago I would take at least 2,sometimes 3, synths, at least one rack mount module, and a sampler to layer to get \'good\' sounds. Apps like Atmosphere,which I like fairly well & GPO which I am absolutely in love with(good thing my wife\'s not the jealous type images/icons/wink.gif ) have absolutely changed the nature & level of the playing field.

Admittedly this is in those suspect realms of pop music,but I have already had 3 instances in the 5 weeks I\'ve had GPO where musos I was working with decided to go with strings from GPO rather than contact good string players they knew. It wasn\'t financial, it\'s the quality of GPO\'s sound. I still find it a bit mind-boggling.(Though it could merely indicate a lack of judgement) Nevertheless we certainly appear to be heading into a brave new sonic world.

Mr. Garrett,
I love the upright in Trilogy myself & I am glad to hear I\'m not the only one who finds the staccato implementation somewhat goofy, if not a bit awkward. As a 53 year old piano player I loved your line in your thread about elder wisdom & young hands. I have added it to the sig files I use - of course with quotes & proper attribution to you. I hope this is acceptable to you, if not I shall remove it from my rotation list. By the way, you may add me to the list of those who love to hear you play.

[Tarkio Road]

Originally posted by nexus:
There really, truly IS something to be said for the sound of orchestral instruments played in their natural enviroment, and this has very little to do with \'release\' trails and the like.<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">nexus - I love GPO, but even though I had heard many demos, I never really appreciated how expressive GPO could be until I actually used it.

It\'s also hard to appreciate EWQLSO Gold until you play the keys.

I bought Silver and was fairly happy until I tried the teaser Gold 18 violins program that is included with Silver. I was in total denial about release trails until then. The rest of Silver suddenly sounded chopped in half by comparison.

Try out that program when you get your copy of Silver. I upgraded to Gold fairly quickly. The new programming in Gold allows great expressiveness. And when you actually play the instruments with that \"sound\" AND the natural hall trails it\'s goose-bump city. And as you mentioned, it is not hard to add some of the great GPO instruments with reverb once you have established the hall ambience with the rest of the orchestra.

Of course Gold comes with a Platinum teaser program. I was never able to get Silver to sound like Gold because the hall decay was completely artificial (reverb). But, I have found that I can achieve a very reasonable Platinum sound using Gold since I only need to slightly enhance the natural hall reverb with a touch of the artificial variety. Also, I need to stay on 1 fast computer, not 3 or 4. images/icons/smile.gif

[Declan]

Originally posted by nexus:
There really, truly IS something to be said for the sound of orchestral instruments played in their natural enviroment, and this has very little to do with \'release\' trails and the like.

Fine, you\'ve said it. But a fascinating perspective. All we\'re trying to do is fake that environment, and you have the best method for faking it. Bravo.

And release trails may have nothing to with getting pristine orchestral sounds, but who said that\'s why I or a lot of others bought the GPO? Eventually most of the people who own it are going to use it like they use everything else at their disposal - orchestral or not. They\'ll use what works for them and move on.

And if I want a string swell to sound a certain way and set up a fairly heavy guitar solo anyone else\'s subjective opinion is just that.

I read an interview with Lloyd-Weber and he was asked about the heavy use of synths in \"Phantom\" and he harked back to the original \"Jesus Christ Superstar\" performances where the orchestra was right there and if you listen you can hear the sound die in places when confronted with the electric instruments. And synths afford that bridge sonically in concert halls.

Sure you can fix everything in the mix now-a-days and it usually is, but I generally want the sound to be there before then.

Look we\'re not arguing here and we\'re talking about about sample libraries that cost $249 & $299. I recommend the GPO to everyone I know, but as been said in this thread - I do perceive limitations - and they\'re more because of my tastes than my ineptitude.

As I said I want a larger library, and I\'m so knocked out by the GPO that I\'d like a shot financially at upgrading to GSO - and the Big Band module, well I want it yesterday.

[R. Glenn]

Hi all images/icons/smile.gif

I bought GPO about a month ago, but I haven\'t had much time to do anything with it so far. Just some minor playing around.

From what I\'ve discovered myself, I like GPO a lot, and I think there are some great demos out there to prove it\'s quality.

Still, as many pointed out, it\'s mainly a quick and easy to use \"sketch\" tool, which is it\'s great strength, but in same ways I see it a bit as it\'s \"weakness\" as well...since it\'s quite limited when it comes to customizing and modifying...at least if you don\'t have the full version of Kontakt, which many of us attracted by a tool in this particular pricerange can\'t afford.

The programming in GPO is very good, no question about that, but it\'s never wrong to have more choises and control, especially when it comes to changing the sound.

I think GPO has the edge when it comes to ease of use and the benefits of its special programming.

GPO has proven that it\'s a groundbreaking easy to use tool, much due to it\'s excellent programming.

I\'m no expert, but it seems to me that it would be very hard for EWQLSO to try and match the special features of GPO.

I for one hope that Gary at least considers adding some more editing features to GPO, because that would make GPO even more excellent than it already is, and as far as I\'m concerned, it would easily leave all current competition behind.

Of course it\'s a matter of time resources and money, but it might still be worth it. I know I would gladly pay for such an update.


Just my 2 cents.

Thank\'s to Gary and the GPO team for a great tool.

Thank\'s to all here for reading.

Cheers images/icons/smile.gif

Rodney

[jeeves9000]

BTW, what is this \"GSO\" you are all talking about? And where can I find more info on the \"Big Band Module\"?

[Declan]

Nice post Nexus. I agree with you completely. I\'m a huge Garritan fan now and I wonder how it\'s going to be economically feasible for him to be able to \"beef up\" the GPO. The overhead on orchestral samples is so high and it\'s hard to imagine the cost compared to the kind of upgrade/add-on prices I\'m used to shelling out.

But that problably is going to depend on how many devoted GPO users we can generate after we convince them to buy it. images/icons/grin.gif

Most of the forums I\'m on don\'t get threads asking about orchestral authenticity, they are only concerned with the quality of the orchestral sounds they want. And that\'s the basis I use to try to convince them to buy the GPO.

The discussion we\'ve had here would have little relevance. If they hear something they like that to them sounds better they\'ll spend the extra $50.

I\'m poor images/icons/smile.gif , but would have also.

But I do read threads where people have 512 mb (very fast) ram and hesitate about buying the GPO - and that\'s the one area I wish Gary had emphatically marketed differently (I do not pick on genius here :-).

But my perception is guys can spend a thousand on software in a given year, but they tend to balk at upgrading their computers especially if they\'re like me and don\'t install hardware themselves.

I routinely see rather puny computers specs from people that have very expensive software I don\'t have (and want) and scratch my head. But I also see guys with dual 2.4 processors and 512mb ram that fret about the GPO. images/icons/confused.gif

I know Gary states it perfectly on this site and everywhere, but I really have to reassure people who admittedly do not buy software without having recommended specs.

You\'d think the minimum recommendation of 256mb would hold some sway, but there\'s a lot of competition out there (not orchestral except for some small sfs) that want your $250.

And orchestral samples are cool, but not necessary for most DAW owners. The beauty of what Gary\'s done here is to get guys like me to buy it and seemingly everybody I know wants it. Most regard it as a luxury item they just want really bad for some reason (a lot I think is the legions of George Martin fans out there).

And it\'s not to have 64 instruments loaded at one time in Sonar, Cubase/Nuendo or Logic. That\'s only how a small minority of those users would work with the GPO except out of curiousity (I did).

Well my musical curiousity continues to grow by leaps and bounds and the GPO has expanded it in probably the most unexpected way (along with the great posts, help and work by those on this forum).

So I push this product because I love it and despite my financial state I don\'t know where I want it to go. I trust Gary will enlighten me along the way regardless.

But I will be more sensitive to Garritan filling an important void for musicians whose needs/wants differ from mine and the work he\'s already done to achieve it. Especially in this forum.

I\'m busy spreading the word in my way, certainly you are in yours. And we\'ll both benefit in the end.

[tylerwbennett]

Being the guy who started this post, I thought I\'d write back and let you all know the status on my purchase decision so you can finally sleep at night.

I\'m just awfully impressed with the demos that you all post. This is Gary\'s best marketing tool IMHO. I\'ve said it before, I\'ll say it again - this forum community is just awesome.

So you all don\'t think I\'m a huge hanger-on, I really, really do plan on purchasing GPO ASAP. We are in the process of buying our first house, and we\'re on a \"spending freeze\" until June 1st. I\'m going to celebrate our closing by purchasing GPO. Then I\'ll come home and consumate my on-line relationship with you all by posting my first demo.

To show you how sad my life is, you have become like a second family to me. If you just put up with my demo-less posts for a while more, I\'ll walk the walk with you until my processor becomes obsolete.

Thanks again for all of your input and your music. Gary you should be proud of what you\'ve done here.

[Mike Kelley]

Originally posted by tylerwbennett:

I\'m just awfully impressed with the demos that you all post. This is Gary\'s best marketing tool IMHO. I\'ve said it before, I\'ll say it again - this forum community is just awesome.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Yep -- never underestimate the power of a good forum community.

It was actually one of the things that sort of put me off of EQWL. They have a forum on this site as well, but most of the forum seems more focussed on their higher end products. If I had their low end Silver I think I\'d be somewhat intimidated to post there.

Good luck with your house and on joining us here.