• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Topic: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

  1. #1

    Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development


    As the development of Khso Ruby progresses, I am finding that the sample size of this thing is getting HUGE. This is largely due to the surround and hall samples.

    Other than this surround and verb feature, most of the beneficial features of Ruby vs. Emerald are:

    •LegatoLive and IntervaLive
    •Release tail samples (not the verb or surround samples)
    •Additional velocity and "round robin" layers
    •Mini runs for 24 violins
    •Short notes for solo strings, such as detache, etc.
    •Romantic Solo Violin included

    To add these features to Emerald does not require a HUGE increase in actual sample size, yet still profoundly improves the set.

    My question is...
    Originally my reason for adding the verbs and surround was because good convolution seemed to require so much cpu power, that a lot of people out there simply could not run a full orchestral set successfully. (unless, of course, they were using external verbs) However, things seem to be changing quickly on that front. Computers are getting faster and verbs are getting more and more "lean". Therefore, I'm re-evaluating whether it's worth it to include all these huge samples.

    What do you think?


  2. #2

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    Hi Kirk,
    it´s a very good point you make. I personally don´t use surround sounds but I´m no professional composer. I´m now in a stage where I begin to get harddisk problems due to the enormous size of all these wonderful libraries. You can easily buy larger harddisks but one would alsoy like to have backups of songs and libraries which makes you buy even more harddisks.
    If I could decide for or against surround and reverb samples with the drawback of a huge library size I would vote against surround samples. But this is just my opinion and their may be other needs within the sample user community.
    best regards

  3. #3

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    Hi Kirk

    Like everyone else that leaps into this thread this is only an opinion but I would say that you're thinking the right way. I must admit that I don't use Emerald but am a big VSLVI and EWQLSO user and with the latter NEVER use the surround samples and to be honest with you even the stage mic samples often don''t quite sound "right". For me the dry + Altiverb/Lexicon approach ALWAYS works best.

    With the improvements over Emerald, Ruby already looks like a huge step forward anyway so personally I'd concentrate on those improvements.


  4. #4

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    Given that Ruby is aimed mostly at professionals, I would think that its customer base would be willing to invest in a computer fast enough to handle convolution reverbs. Therefore, if you must remove something from that list, removing the reverb samples would probably have the least impact on our use of the product. I have to admit I think reverb samples is a really neat idea, but I for one would still prefer to have all the other stuff on your list.

  5. #5

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    I second the "lose the hall sample" approach. I never use the surround samples in any of the libraries I use -- because invariably I end up mixing them with ultra-dry samples like VSL and Sonic Implants. Mixing two types of reverb sometimes is more of a pain than it's worth.

    I really like Emerald, though. It's gone from a library I use when sketching stuff out to one of the more stand-out libraries that makes it into my final comps.

  6. #6

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    I also am not terribly excited by the recorded convolution. I am a Cubase user, so I can just assign one of my computers to do that task and move on. I would prefer to have the original samples left in tact, so I can do what I want with them. I would like to put in another request for a bass clarinet, though! And some way to add toungued attacks to the horns- mostly the trumpets.

    Looking forward to the new release.


  7. #7

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    Produce a dry master, bring it to a concert hall and re-record it there!

    Sorry, Kirk, I'm looking forward to listen to Ruby whatever choice you'll make.


  8. #8

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    I haven't had the pleasure of using KHSO, but FWIW I often find myself trying to get rid of the ambience on EWQLSO.

  9. #9

    Smile Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development

    My opinion is: keep it light excluding verbs and surround.

    I think you are right about increasing power. At least reserve the verb and surround as an expansion kit to sell separately.

  10. #10

    Re: Opinions Wanted For KHSO Ruby Development


    I vote for non-effected - let us put our effects on there. As a professional, I have plenty of HIGH QUALITY effects (and Sonar's awesome convolution reverb), so I really don't need it.

    I love the idea of surround sound, although I do not get a lot of work in that area.

    My thoughts on computers are this: Even though computers are getting very powerful, not everyone has upgraded to one. In my case, it is not a matter of finances as much as the pain in the butt it will be to reinstall a lot of my stuff. I'd rather keep my AMD64 2.8ghz as it is right now (maxed out on 2GB ram) and make do with less if I need to.

    Case in point, EWQL Symphonic Choirs - what a BEAST - it requires SO MUCH processing power to use properly, that my computer isn't even really up to the task!

    I'd rather have Ruby lean and mean and let me add the fx!


Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts