which one better???
which one better???
I think one should put it better that way: The Vienna Symphonic Library is recorded with (lots of) ambience, but without actual "reverb". - We record in a dedicated sound-stage, built for exactly this task. There are several pictures available online, where you can easily see that a room _that_ large can't be "dry". ;-) -> http://vsl.co.at/en-us/65/72/19.vsl , for example, or that one: -> http://vsl.co.at/en-us/65/73/6500/6693/6703.vslOriginally Posted by geronimo001
The ideas is to give the instruments plenty of air to breathe, while keeping the option to put them into any hall of the user's preference.
All the best,
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
A dry sample can be piped through a concert hall impulse and get a satisfactory result, even "the Hollywood Sound". The mythology of recording the "room ring" with the instrument sound falls apart on technical and creative grounds. Things like legato and release triggers never sound right with too much room in the sample - and you give up too many other creative options when they're "locked" to one room.
Garritan has annouced an exhaustive impulse project that includes thousands of room samples from the same hall where EW did their sessions. I'd much rather have a set of relatively dry samples that I can "place" in Benaroya, Bestyr, Lincoln Center, Chan Centre in Vancouver, etc - rather than to be locked into a single sound as part of the sample. I'm particularly excited about being able to pipe a virtual orchestra in Kontakt 2 through one of Garritan's surround impulses - something that would be nigh to impossible with samples that have the room recorded with them.
If I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick VSL. As it is - I chose another vendor that was not part of the original question - for reasons I state above, but VSL seems to cater to the same philosophy.
I use both. I think both VSL and EWQLSO both have merit. I still like the performance legato for smooth parts but I prefer EWQLSO brass and percussion. I like the VSL harp better. Some of the strings I use too although I also use Prime Sounds Session Strings and S.I. Orchestral Strings too. My philosophy is whatever works.
It's hard to recommend a single orchestral lib though. I really like the Gold Pro XP samples and as such use them the most. The built-in hall is convenient too.
I find myself layering EW with VSL instruments quite a bit. They really aren't the same sound. It is majorly an issue or price and preference.
I have never understood why some people like EWQLSO brass. To me they sound thin, buzzy and synthetic. VSL brass instruments are nice for some genres, but for the Hollywood sound (which EWQLSO is supposed to master) Project SAM has IMHO the best brass with a huge difference to the competition. VSL Epic Horns is very good (propably the best Hollywood horn library) but it only has french horns. Kirk Hunter has very nice brass patches too. EWQLSO is a great library but as I said I can't understand why people like the brass.Originally Posted by davecos
Agreed - that's why I was so glad to read that GPO Advanced was to include the ProjectSAM horns.Originally Posted by janila
I'm looking forward to this year's NAMM show (or MusikMesse, whichever they choose to use as a release party for GPOA).Announcing: Garritan Personal Orchestra ADVANCED Version
GPO ADVANCED version will includs many new features and many new instruments. There are more solo strings (violins, violas, cellos and basses) from which users can create string orchestras, symphonic bands, sections or orchestras of any size from individual instruments as well as play divisi or separate parts. There are new string articulations such as harmonics, col legno, non-vibrato, string effects and more. There are more brass (including ProjectSAM samples), percussion and woodwind instruments as well as more lesser-known specialty orchestral instruments, such as a cimbasso, Wagner Tubas, mellophone and more. The Advanced version follows the same concepts as Personal Orchestra - easy to use, with advanced programming for real-time expressive control of instruments. Expected early 2006.
tnx guys...especially geronimo...nice xmas gift! i don't know..all these libraries....strings from there, brass from another, percussion from another .... symphonic cube is really amazing and i think also easy to use...but...10,000 $ ...it's to much for me i prefer buying a car with that money...or just write down on paper...without all these Virtual stuff...too much confusion...anyway when i reach the money i shure will buy something! i'm not looking a lot for the quality ...but just a library that offers all the articulations ....tnx again bye ...merry xmas! (sorry 4 my eng)
What is EQLO Vsti??? a new library coming out?
To expand upon what Dietz is saying, think of the ambient content in VSL as a very well-designed approximation of what a conductor hears coming from the podium. There is distance, there is a certain amount of bounce from surfaces.Originally Posted by Dietz
But there is no "tail" because if you will look at the photographs, you will see that the "Silent Stage" was designed with almost equal amounts of reflective diffusion and absorption. You get one space defining "reflection," but not a series of echoes which would create a tail.
Therefore, if you use good stereo panning technique and a good "tail generator" with VSL, you will very much get a full "podium perspective" sound.
You might first think, "This is not an audience perspective."
And you would be right.
But no recording of an orchestra is audience perspective. Audience perspective is a nice thing to fantasize about. In reality, audience perspective would be a horrid way to hear a recording.
Try this: Next time you are attending a live orchestra performance, close your eyes and try to erase the visual picture you've been taking in. Listen instead only to the sound, and imagine it coming from your monitors at home.
Chances are, the very next thing you'd do in your "virtual studio" is reach for the reverb knob and turn it way down. The next thing you'd do is wonder why the instruments have so little presence...
We don't listen to music as it sounds in a public hall. A public hall is a compromise, designed to allow the largest number of people to hear a performance without the sound just totally sucking.
The best "seat" in the house, in any recorded situation, is the conductor's podium. This is where the music was rehearsed, where it is best balanced, where it lives with the ideal combination of presence and ambience.
And all the major libraries, including EW libraries and VSL, are designed to deliver that "ideal" perspective...just through different means.
The lesson here is: Don't get too hung up in the particulars of specific halls, specific mic plots, etc. Examine the methodology based upon best recording practices, and extrapolate the different ways to produce your music based upon the juxtaposition of the library at hand to the overall best practices. If you don't know these things, read a book and discover them, because the quality of your final product depends MUCH MUCH MUCH more upon how you leverage a given tool than some imaginary idea that one is "more Hollywood" and another is "more Classical."
Those distinctions simply don't exist. They're impediments to a larger truthfulness...the reality of how music is recorded live versus which techniques were used to create a given product--AND how that all fits together to arrive at YOUR final product.
You're making the presumption that by "convolution" I only care about room simulation. I was simply refuting some of the broad generalizations that were made in a previous post - but I by no means am limited to thinking of convolution in terms of room ring.Originally Posted by Lee Blaske
In the same way that a live recording engineer chooses the mic, the pre-amp, the EQ settings on the console - I choose the mic simulator (iZotope's convolved ribbon mic sim is my first choice for significant alteration of a sound), EQ settings, positional impulses (to establish distance between source and room reponse - where appropriate), multi-band compressors (to simulate proximity effect and dynamically control the top end - again - where appropriate) and of course good old fashioned gain changes for the desired effect. Some of this stuff you just *can't* do with a sample that has too much room ring in it, because you change the color of the "room" on an instrument along with the instrument itself. Most people don't care about factors and just want to bang something out that sounds like all of the movie trailors you hear on TV every day. I think that's great if that's what gratifies them. I'm not one of those people and I think it's a disservice to the community to make sweeping generalizations about the quality of a sample library based on a over-simplistic view of what constitutes "better".
Let me give you a bit of background on why I know what I know - and am sure that it's correct. For starters, I've got a few more than 75 recording credits here...
...and another few dozen credits here...
...and in the latter I spent two months placing mics and taking acoustic measurements as they were completing construction - upfitting the dressing rooms and such. I was also fortunate to perform in both locations extensively and even conducted there on occasion, so I knew those venues inside and out - and am intimately familiar with the audience, player, podium, and control-room perspectives -- and this is completely aside from all of the other venues I've had exposure to as a recording engineer and performer. So you can try to force words into my mouth about what I do or do not choose to believe - just understand that I'm not some Full Sail flunky with an itch to pretend I'm John Williams. I've literally been there, done that, and know the difference.
"You can't fix everything in the mix." is a straw man tactic - this isn't about compensating for something that's not there, as you insinuate - this is about building a mix in a manner that's much more closely associated with the technical and creative realities that can't be replicated with a library with canned reverb imprinted on the samples. You can't do performance legato with any level of believability using wet samples - you can't do variable release triggers with wet samples. You simply cannot perform other performance-controlled expressions such a realtime tremolo, percussion rolls, trills with variable speed - ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The library you choose can have a significant impact on the way you compose - as those libraries that leave you with little expressive control of the important details - the tell-tale traits that "give away" a repeated sample or clunky legato line - will tend to "steer" your choices as a composer as the intuition tries to avoid these subtle (and many times not-so-subtle) indicators. That's why a lot of these "user demos" sound relatively the same - similar harmonic sequence, similar color and contour to themes and few truly virtuosic or exposed parts. You can't be musically daring if every time you try to perform an idiomatic phrase the end result screams THIS WAS SAMPLED!
The next time someone hears a cue with the third run through of a one-shot tympani roll sample and they say "that's a great sounding sample library" when they should have waited for a well-performed and well-mixed cue to complete to say "that's a great piece of music" you might think on what I've written here.