QLSO Platinum vs Opus I : Make your opinion !

[Didou]

Hi all,

We all know that the 2 "famous" libraries QLSO and VSL bring about lots of critics and questions. For those who are interressed in it, here are two links with one of my original score : the first one is performed with QLSO Platinum, and the second one is performed with the VSL Opus I.
Make your own mind...

http://clardid.ledan.free.fr/COMEDY%20EWQLSO%20.mp3
http://clardid.ledan.free.fr/COMEDY%20VSL%20OPUS%20.mp3

Did.

[JohnCarter]

IMHO Opus 1 is better, even if it costs 1000 dollars (and Platinum = 3000 dollars)


but it would have been more fair to compare platinum with first edition (~ 3000 dollars)

[JT3_Jon]

Hi all,
the first one is performed with QLSO Platinum, and the second one is performed with the VSL Opus I.
Make your own mind...

http://clardid.ledan.free.fr/COMEDY%20EWQLSO%20.mp3
http://clardid.ledan.free.fr/COMEDY%20VSL%20OPUS%20.mp3

Did.

On which lib did you originally write the piece? To me, this would make a difference, as you can get more out of the library you use the most, and could have even written the piece around that particular libraries strengths/weaknesses.

I'm hoping this is not the case, as I'm really interested in hearing the differences between the two! :)
Jon

[Nick Phoenix]

I think the Platinum one is much better, although you could use some of the close mics if you wanted a more defined sound. To me it's like the difference between good and great speakers. But I am biased.

[panzerD]

Both sound good in different ways. To me the superior real reverb and brass of QLSO and is a clear winner - the opus one sounds duller in my opinion. I do like the european sound of vsl brass as well though, just not in this context. It really is impossible to compare the two in my opinion, both have strenghts and weaknesses.

I'd like to hear what this piece would sound like with both qlso and vsl combined. ;)

[Sovereign]

The opus rendering does not even use, as far as I can tell, any performance instruments. So much for a "fair" contest.

Nick, stop blowing your own horn. :D

[JohnCarter]

by the fact platinum is 2000 dollars higher, IT IS not fair.

Opus 1 is whole tone sampled, and has only one variation for staccato.


But anyway Opus 1 resists well against platinum, for me he is better , some brass moments are better with ewqlso but some moments are inferior, it is clear.
and the vsl snare drum(or snare drums ensembles) blows up ewqlso snare...

[cornelius]

first I think it's not possible to compare two librarys with one track.
Sometimes I like vsl more, but overall I prefer qlso. especial the orchester hits are better in qlso.

[JohnCarter]

the adjective used by nick "is much better" is useless, there is not so much difference, i've to say : each of these 2 demos sounds samples and synth... but unfortunately it's impossible to be really objective when you are the creator of the library tested in this post.

[EricRichmond]

vsl sounds like a great cd recording
qlso sounds like a great live recording

this is how it usually breaks down to my ears when comparisons such as these are made.

[Lux]

Agree with Jon....No comparison possible to me.
Totally different conceptions, ambient approach, tweaking possibilities...

I can only say "nice piece"...

[Ned Bouhalassa]

Excellent work!

I certainly prefered the sound of QLSO. It sounded more homogenous, less clinical. The one thing about Opus that I did like was that it was easier to pick out individual lines in dense passages. What I would really like to hear to compare these two would be an andante piece, with lots of expressive gestures.

[PolarBear]

I didn't listen yet. Why?

I don't know how the "performance" can be compared. Did the composer spend equally much time with each version? Which library the piece was composed with/for? What reverb did the composer choose for each piece? Which other mixing settings? Which strengths of each library were not taken into account (Opus got stac1 and stac2 variations btw., check the articulation list, are they used... what about the performance instruments, what about the legato in QLSO)? Why not compare Gold to Opus?

Not meaning to turn this into another flame thread, but *I* can't make a comparative statement without that info missing, coming from the composer (and mixer) himself. Others don't mind that it seems, they rate blindly.

PolarBear

[PolarBear]

I think the Platinum one is much better, although you could use some of the close mics if you wanted a more defined sound. To me it's like the difference between good and great speakers. But I am biased.
A great speaker tries to reason his statements.

[Nick Phoenix]

Whatever that means? It's just my opinion. Don't shut me out. I have proven my sincerity in the past.

[spinach ravioli]

I have both Gold and VSL Opus One.

This cue confirmed for me what I already think... That the biggest difference between the libs... that is, where one really shows up the other one is the fortissimo brass. Even in Gold, as opposed to Platinum, the "air" around the brass totally blows away Opus One. The Opus one edgy brass sounds totally synthetically produced to me.

The other difference in my experience with using the libs that is not pointed out by *listening* to this is that getting something up and running with EWQLSO is far quicker and more pleasurable than with Opus One, in my opinion. It is really easy to just start playing stuff in with EWQLSO; the instruments are already mixed in the perfect position with natural reverb, although balancing everything volume wise is still somewhat uneven.

Even with all that said in favor of EWQLSO GOLD, by far the most convincing orchestral mock up I've heard is Andy Blaney's rendition of Jeux de vagues, which used no EWQLSO as far as I can remember (but just about every other lib). But again, that piece doesn't have any exposed truly end-of-the-world brass passages, which is where the EWQLSO dominates, to me at least.

John

[spinach ravioli]

Even with all that said in favor of EWQLSO GOLD, by far the most convincing orchestral mock up I've heard is Andy Blaney's rendition of Jeux de vagues, which used no EWQLSO as far as I can remember (but just about every other lib). But again, that piece doesn't have any exposed truly end-of-the-world brass passages, which is where the EWQLSO dominates, to me at least.

John

Just thought of an idea...

It would be interesting for EWQLSO to hire Andy Blaney to do the Jeux de vagues with EWQLSO I and II when it comes out, for people to compare.

[JonFairhurst]

Wow. This really shows off the advantage of EWQLSO's ambience, though I agree that a bit more close mic would have helped give it more crispness. EWQLSO worked well even on the fast runs - the ambience certainly helps smooth any inter-sample problems.

VSL sounded a bit more synthetic to me. More/better ambience would certainly help it out. Sometimes I heard a voice or two that I didn't care for, but with the voices so exposed, I'm not surprised. More ambience may help hide the (minor) sins. It will be interesting to hear how the VSL & GigaPulse combo will work out.

Both are certainly great products. For the composer who isn't a mix/mastering engineer, EWQLSO seems an easy choice. For the composer with confidence in their ear and some great mixing tools at hand, VSL may offer more flexibility - though one could always use the EWQLSO close mics and flavor to taste.

Not a perfect match: Opus vs. Platinum; dry mix vs. wet mix; different optimizations at the MIDI-level, but I enjoyed the comparison as well as the composition. Bravo!

-Jon Fairhurst

[Max67]

What this proves to me is....

That you can accomplish that orchestral feel in both libraries, so you do not really need to spend the thousands on VSL Pro or QLSO Plat, You can accomplish similar results with OPUS 1 and I'm sure with QLSO Gold.

It just comes down to your orchestration abilities...

By the way, both versions sound wonderful !!

Regards, Max67

[greatzed]

Some Opus parts soundbetter than EWQLSO, some EWQLSO parts sound better than Opus. Both could be improved very much. The opus demo isn't mixed as well as the EWQLSO demo.

[Sovereign]

Some Opus parts soundbetter than EWQLSO, some EWQLSO parts sound better than Opus. Both could be improved very much. The opus demo isn't mixed as well as the EWQLSO demo.One of the few more reasonable opinions in this thread. ;)

Both demos could indeed be improved. I personally am not too fond of the end result and composition itself. If one listens to the Air Force one demo on the VSL site one can easily see how proper mixing can greatly influence the overall quality.

[JohnCarter]

even the platinum which is the "best orchestral librayr recorded with state of the art hardwares in a state of the art hall" i found it a lot synthy, and very close miked

[Didou]

Hello,

In fact, this piece was a command for a cartoon movie. When I wrote it, I used GOS, Sam's, Lop...As the QLSO has been out, I thought that it would be interresting to try this library for this composition. When the mix was finished with the QLSO, the mixer told me that it was not so easy to work on this library (on a such piece) because of the natural hall and the placement of each intrument (less flexible) and directed me towards the VSL.
Because my wallet was a few empty to by the first edition, I choosed the Opus I...
I've got a different piece which has the same advance. I will put it soon online.
Thanks to you Lux, Ned, Jon, Max, Sharmy for your kind regards on the composition.
Did.

[Sovereign]

Hello,
Because my wallet was a few empty to by the first edition, I choosed the Opus I...I take it I am correct in assuming you did not bother to use any performance elements?

[Theodor]

EWQLSO :

Basson
Clarinet
Snare is more powerful
More defintion in strings , warmer legato sound.
Sounds more like an orchestra in total
Very realistic flute sound
Warmer brass
Beautiful solo/choir voice
Cello section for legato, beautiful
I felt the overall recording lacked bottom end. Had a bit of " fuss" in it.

In general i found this one much warmer, suited for more Classical oriented stuff, if you wanna do John Williams or Tchaikovsky go for this one .
--------------------------------------------------------------

VSL Opus :

Brighter Brass
Better instrument Seperation and panning
Snare blends in better
Better low end definition , fuller overall puchier sound
Brighter strings, sometimes a little bit too bright.
Cleaner woodwinds
Very good tuba
Good cymbals/percussion

In general i found this one much brighter, more "FF" and more defined, oriented towards a new age Hollywood score, If you wanna do Danny Elfman or Zimmer go for this one.

-------------------------
General comments :

Very similar voice files even though ewqlso had more lush solo voice.
Orchestration of the song is different in some parts. It seems that the Ewqlso is a older version of the song.
Opus had less reverb.
Ewqlso had more reverb.
----------------------------------------

All the above are my personal oppinions and i am in no way " biased" or affiliated with any of the two companies. I don't even remember which one is the most expensive or supposed to be better of the two .

I put both mp3's into my wave editor and i was looping each small part and muting - unmuting so i can hear both versions and compare them .
I wrote what i thought while comparing both files in realtime , many times i contradicted myself depending on the different parts of the song, at the end i left the most common observation .

Every person forms his oppinions based on what his listenings in general are and have been in the past. I might have favoured one more than the other because my tastes are formed different, but that's me . I suggest you do the same before buying the libraries , muting / unmuting is a good way to compare stuff. And listen to a *BEEPload of demos before buying anything, don't do a comparison just by two files. WE are talking about GB's of samples here :)

Last word : I wish i could buy both of those libraries and i swear i will one day . Both are overally excellent and creativity will be boosted if you buy any one of them , but don't forget they are not the only libraries in the world ;)

aaahhh.. enough typing. :) Time for some coffee . I hope you found this post helpful in some way .

EDIT :

All that sound oriented comments made me forget about the most important thing ( Besides Coffee ) THE COMPOSITION !

Well, the composition is truly proffesional and outstanding. Good job well done !

[Theodor]

I'd like to hear what this piece would sound like with both qlso and vsl combined. ;)


Put them in your multitrack and align the beggining of each song To the last sample :)

The tempo is exactly almost the same . SO you can hear both together hehehehe

It is a really full sound :D

[wes37]

Hmm...I guess I'd have to say that QLSO sounded better, but I'd also have liked to have heard a rendition with VSL First Edition to better compare flagships with flagships. Fortunately, both QLSO and VSL seem to be excellent products.

I haven't heard much about QLSO II...what's the scoop?

[Rich Pell]

I think a "fairer" more realistic comparison will be: QLSO 1 and 2 (complete).
VS. VSL Pro cube and Perf. Set. (with Mir?).
Right now your comparing half of what QL/EW has in store (QLSO 2 will round out it articulations and add QLegato..) VS. a scaled down-budget version of VSL`s sprawling Lib.
The QLSO demo sounded more cohesive to me but i could tell that the mic choices could have been better to get more clarity and focus.
Just as mixing and EQ and Verb choices are a bit of an art when using VSL, so is mic choices ,the balance of those and the odd time EQ in QLSO.
Pretty good piece Didou!! Rich

[PolarBear]

Nick, of course opinions are just that, I agree with you. There are just too many variables that make a statement not so easy as you and others make it look like, and especially not as general as you meant. There are often two ways to discuss opionions on it, as it is, to rephrase your picture, like a comparison between two great speakers. But isn't this all a bit like 'audiophiles' (others don't talk a lot about it) comparing a NY Philharmonics recording to a London Philharmonics one of the same piece, with one being as valid as the other?

At the risk of being argued with I try to reflect some points I noticed after listening to both a few times. First I have to say, a combination of both played at once sounded somehow more convincing to me than each alone.

Some people are missing performance elements, I do hear some of them indeed in the VSL demo - I can't say if each articulation choice was the best for each instrument, but I think also the QLSO demo could be improved by other choices. If we just have a listen to the very beginning (first few seconds), to me it sounds almost like another piece when listening to the two different files. With the VSL version a bit more opened in stage, having a clearer image I consider the QLSO one more dull. That may also derive from the mixing where the higher instruments in the VSL version are mixed more prominently whereas in the QLSO mention the darker parts are more emphasized. I do miss the in the VSL version too prominently mixed trumpet line(s) in the QLSO version. The flute in the QLSO version plays an octave lower (more favorable sound) - perhaps that could be due to a not properly chosen setting in the performance tool, as later on it's not the case anymore? In the end you can('t) hear another trumpet part, the choir here blends better to the VSL one to me, though in the middle (around 1'00) it blends better to the QLSO version while in the VSL version it has a fuller sound at the same point.

It sounds to me the VSL version is supposed to sound similar to QLSO's hall. Thankfully the problems with the high-mids in the mix weren't imitated with the VSL one (perhaps first on purpose - cartoon for TV?), as the QLSO one to me could have a much better standpoint without it. The snare around 1'26 seems against better knowledge be recorded in another hall having more solo character, while the VSL snare has a ensemble character (not at its glance I might add). In the following around 1'36 you can the FF's from QLSO shine through the mix, while the VSL brass is having tea time not to loose character and playing with more body. Overall the brass seems more emphasized in the QLSO version to it where in the VSL one the winds are more prominently. Of course these are only some points, others already stated a few more.

Though I like or dislike certain things in the different versions, I wonder why it had to be a this-or-this-exclusively piece, when a combination of both could have even better proven the composition an example of effective scoring to picture.

Thanks for your time,
PolarBear

[Didou]

Hi,
To answer to the QLSO mic's question : The close mics have been choosen for this piece. The mixer used the Altiverb to bring a different reverb and make the whole sound more homogeneous.
I tried to choose the differents articulations according to the piece's style.
Perhaps some others articulations should have been better, but I think it becomes a more subjective choice...
OK, the both libraries are not on the same "scale" (prices...), but does it matter ?
It presents a part of what it's possible to do with the QLSO Platinum and VSL Opus I (sorry, I don't have the Pro Ed. ;-)) in this context.
In putting those two mix online, I didn't want to say this library is better than the other, but to show another example of what it can be done for those who don't have yet those libraries (even if there are a lot of differents ways to make a such comparison, with other style of orchestration, other articulations, other mix, other composer...
As you said, Theodor, both libraries are excellent... ( and thanks for congratulations !)
Did.

[Nick Phoenix]

I am confused. The Platinum mix is the close mics only with altiverb?

[JonP]

In putting those two mix online, I didn't want to say this library is better than the other, but to show another example of what it can be done for those who don't have yet those libraries
Did.

Your thread title suggests very much the opposite!.

[Didou]

Nick, I swear ;-), it's only close mics with the Altiverb ( wood church preset). The mixer used the Altiverb to "cover" the natural reverb which is here, in spite of the close mics...


Your thread title suggests very much the opposite!.???

Did.

[Frederick]

For a truly fair comparison wouldn't it be better to use the 3 mic position of EWQLSO Platinum? Although I truly respect your music accomplishments, I do however question your methods of comparison.

Based on the title, it does say: "QLSO Platinum vs Opus I". Perhaps it should have been "QLSO Platinum (close mic position only) vs Opus I" - for that would have been closer to the truth.

[Frederick]

If you wanted close mics only perhaps the comparison should have been done with QLSO Silver instead - because the entire point of offering a product such as EWQLSO Platinum is the superb way it was recorded as well as the three mic position without the need to wash reverb over it.

Let's hear the piece again with 3 positions (or at least with stage and hall mics) to make this more scientific. Thanks.

[Nick Phoenix]

Well I am amazed how much I like the sound of the close mics + verb. I would love to hear it using all 3 ambiences.

[Waywyn]

to be true, i cant compare these two because you didnt take advantage of the big feature of ewqlso: the natural hall.

in the end it's in the programmers ability to let a library sound great. both library have their features and no lib is worse or better, they are just different.

so my suggestions is: if you are not pleased with one sound alone, buy two and mix 'em :)

[JohnCarter]

"to be true, i cant compare these two because you didnt take advantage of the big feature of ewqlso: the natural hall."

it would not be fair also to compare a 3000 $ library with a 1000 $ other library.
And why do you want didou to use the naturall hall ? he uses only the close mics to give his music a certain feeling.

Anyway, if he had used the hall mics, it would not have been fair too, because it's more difficult to make VSL sounds big(but you can) and so the composer wouldn't have put a lot of works on the mixing.

[PolarBear]

Fair or not - is that a question? As long as decisions are documented I think I can extract that "fair" by myself. Knowing the hall mics in QLSO were not used - why is this a problem? If that's all QLSO could sell, it wouldn't be that good library. Of course it's great, Nick already repeated that. Knowing "only" Opus 1 was used - what does it matter if Pro Edition would have suited the comparison better in your eyes? The missing details? If that was all VSL could sell, it wouldn't be honored as great lib.

That's my 2 cent, for what it's worth.
PolarBear

PS: Replay: If the NY Philharmonics got two more players in their orchestra hall than the London Philharmonics with less players in a smaller hall with both having extremely different mixings on the recordings - a comparison then is not fair to you, right? It's sooo different!

[spinach ravioli]

PS: Replay: If the NY Philharmonics got two more players in their orchestra hall than the London Philharmonics with less players in a smaller hall with both having extremely different mixings on the recordings - a comparison then is not fair to you, right? It's sooo different!

Honestly, this is not even a relevant argument.

I think it is completely fair to compare two sample libraries that make the same claim, namely that they provide the best simulation of the orchestra. That's what we are comparing here is their ability to do that.

[Sovereign]

Honestly, this is not even a relevant argument.

I think it is completely fair to compare two sample libraries that make the same claim, namely that they provide the best simulation of the orchestra. That's what we are comparing here is their ability to do that.I did not know you could take out the human component. Shame on me for not figuring out that both VSL and QLSO have a button which says "compose and mix". :D

[griels]

I love Opus 1 because I can make it NOT sound like a real orchestra :D

I can monkey extensively with the sound before applying the room ambience of my choice, if I choose to do so :D

[sirbellog]

I love Opus 1 because I can make it NOT sound like a real orchestra :D
??
Is'nt it something which is very easy to achieve with nearly any orchestral library ?
(for me at least, unfortunately it is so much easier than the reverse... !)

[griels]

No, sometimes I don't want to have room ambience on the samples I mangle. It gives me more flexibility. I can manipulate the samples prior to the reverberation stage :D

I tend not to use Opus 1 in the traditional 'classical orchestra' setting. I want to put things in my own space. Once I've put it through various effects (band pass filtering, distortion, vinyl simulation) it's harder to tell whether the room ambience is synthetic or not :D

[spinach ravioli]

I did not know you could take out the human component. Shame on me for not figuring out that both VSL and QLSO have a button which says "compose and mix". :D

The same human did both mock-ups, so I'd say the human part of the equation is equal on both sides, assuming Did spent equal effort on each mock up.

[Sovereign]

The same human did both mock-ups, so I'd say the human part of the equation is equal on both sides, assuming Did spent equal effort on each mock up.It appears then you are assuming something without really knowing. Secondly, one doesn't necessarily "know" how to mix properly. "Equal effort" means nothing.

[spinach ravioli]

It appears then you are assuming something without really knowing. Secondly, one doesn't necessarily "know" how to mix properly. "Equal effort" means nothing.

You are just being argumentative. The guy was trying to compare the sample libraries and wanted to present a case where people could do that. If you think that is an impossible exercise, then that is your opinion.

John

[robgb]

What this proves to me is that you can't go wrong with either library. A head to head like this shows strengths and flaws in each, and if you can't afford a "bigger" library, there's a helluva lot you can do with the smaller one.

Bottom line, you could make a living with both.

[Dietz]

Well I am amazed how much I like the sound of the close mics + verb. [...]

See, Nick? That's exactly what _we_ thought before we started! :-]

[Nick Phoenix]

Yes I know.

[seanmccoy]

Nice piece, Did! Very busy, which I assume is justified by the underlying images, and it works. An ambitious undertaking for any sample library, and these two versions are highly educational. All things being equal (yeah, right), the EWQL mix sounds more appropriate for this particular piece. I'd describe that version as bigger and brighter, while the VSL version is "fatter," darker and much more intimate. This goes right along with what many people say all the time of course: that using VSL requires more "engineering" to achieve the same live, orchestral integration as EWQL. With a bit of brightening and a bigger and better reverb, the VSL version probably could have sounded closer to the EWQL---not that it necessarily needed to.

BTW, Opus 1 has no choir, so where did they come from in the second mix? I'd love to hear your original version using the mix & match libraries you mentioned. Thanks for the most interesting thread.

[Didou]

The same human did both mock-ups, so I'd say the human part of the equation is equal on both sides, assuming Did spent equal effort on each mock up.
You're right John, here the mixer and myself have taken the necessary time on each library for the same reason, bring to our customer our best work (I said in a previous topic in this thread the reason why there are two versions)...

"BTW, Opus 1 has no choir, so where did they come from in the second mix ? "

The Opus has no choir, and no choir in the EWQLSO too.
Still the choirs are the same on the two versions : VOTA (Quantum Leap)
Happy you enjoyed the piece.
Did.

[MadJoe]

Great work didou, the sound is very impressive and I like both.
Thank you for your assistance.