I am addressing my contribution in a thread separate from the named one so that it does not get lost in the middle of that one.
I feel bound to say how sad I am to see how far the GPO, full of promise when it first appeared, is (like all other orchestral libraries) proving to be a potential curse rather than a blessing. The basic idea was to give us users an approximation of orchestral sounds so that we could get a fair idea of what our compositions would sound like when actually performed. It was true in those early days, and remains true now, that whatever we may do in a computer, it will never sound exactly like a real orchestra with their subtle phasings and slight changes of timbre, etc. (most of all in the string department.) But we were satisfied if it sounded pretty much like the real thing, because then we knew we had made no major blunders, and could happily produce our score and parts for real performance. Well, that's what I valued it for: a confirmation that my imagined orchestrations would actually work in practice. It is true that we could also use computers for pieces that would not actually get performed, perhaps for our own amusement, or in my case, for studying classical masterpieces by going through the process of playing every note in the score and thus discovering what it was there for.
Why do some users, even senior members, want to use GPO and its ancillary computer facilities to achieve absolute perfection? Perfection in what? We have had in the past everything from up-and-down bows to baroque oboes in an attempt to get everything "right", which is impossible; from arguments about the proper amount of reverb, finally settling on convolution reverb whilst nearly always forgetting that these are recorded in empty halls; to worrying about whether a Bb clarinet can be used as an A clarinet when they are supposed to sound a little different. And now we are to go through every instrument in our "mix" (horrible word) and doctor it until it sounds, not like the instrument that was recorded in the first place, but some theoretical model of it which will make it unique and not interfere with other sounds. It is totally absurd! The latest thread, referred to in my header, concerns itself with an incredible amount of advanced technical trouble, to achieve what? A result where every instrument can be heard separately, whereas the objective of a real orchestra is to blend well. If the composer/orchestrator has done his job properly, those instruments that actually do need to be heard separately, will be.
Where will it all end? All the fun is going out of creating music. Our main thoughts should be on our compositions and whether they are what they should be, not on the minutiae of aping a "studio recording" (another anathema to real live musicians.) We ought to use GPO and our other programs as tools, not as channels for showing how scientific we are. I want to see and hear musicians in this forum, not scientists. Viva la musica! never did refer to machines.
I think it was C.P.E.Bach who said, "I would rather be moved than astonished." Can't we concentrate on that? Let's be musicians, not geeks. Sorry if I sound out of date. Perhaps I am.