There has been a recent thread (“What are you really paying for?”) that addressed the amount of data contained on each CD within a given library. Even though Donnie\'s original post did not name GOS, the library has been mentioned often enough in this thread that I thought I should clear up any possible misunderstandings. I wouldn\'t want anyone to draw the specious conclusion that the discs in the library are only half-full and could have been packed into 8 discs instead of 16. This is decidedly not the case for GOS.
First of all, I should mention something about maximum disc size: During the development phase we found that several of our beta testers had problems reading discs that pushed the approx. 700 meg limit of CDs. This was apparently a problem that occurred most frequently with older CD-ROM drives. We certainly didn\'t want to deal with this same problem in general sales, so we experimented and found that the problems seemed to go away if we kept the total data on each CD to below 650 megs. From that point on we tried to stay comfortably below this limit.
An important consideration was clear organization of files by string section. We didn\'t want to mix files from different sections and lose clarity of organization in the process. We certainly didn’t want to mix files for the sole reason of filling each disc to its maximum capacity. Even so, in the library as released, the average size of discs 1 through 14 is 537 megs. That leaves disc 15, with the final Basses files, as the last primary library disc (227 megs). What about disc 16? Well, it was originally intended as a bonus \"incentive\" disc to be sent to users after they returned their registration. It contained the combination Full Strings Lite file plus an odds-and-ends file of the players tuning up. The full size of the library comes to about 8 gigs, exclusive of the latest updates.
Which brings us to another point relating to the amount of data in the library: The updates. The library has already increased in size compared to its initial offering and the next update adds over 800 megs of new material (not to mention new programming features) to the already large library. Best of all, this update material comes free-of charge to registered owners of the library. That 800 megs (yes, split between two less-than-full discs) is, by itself, as large as some libraries offered for sale.
In the final analysis, CDs are just a way of delivering the sample data to the customer. We also presently offer the data on 2 DVDs and fully expect DVDs to become the medium-of-choice in the future. The organizational considerations (with CDs) largely disappear with DVDs. With new DVD standards on the horizon we fully expect to eventually deliver all library data on a single DVD. We certainly don’t anticipate it becoming a deterrent to sales just because the entire library is contained on one disc. The important number is the total amount of data, not the method of delivery (actually, even more important is the quality of the data, but that’s not the subject here).
Another issue was brought up in this thread: Redundancy. In GOS there is very little sample redundancy . The closest thing to programming redundancy is the existence of both regular and \"warm\" versions of the same instruments. This was made necessary because the filters used in GS are not totally transparent at their neutral settings – we wanted to give people who wished to use external EQ an unfiltered choice - hence, separate instruments. \"Choice\": That\'s the key word here. There are a lot of instruments in GOS. Some may seem, at first glance, similar to one another, but each has a different purpose in application, sound, polyphony demands, or RAM usage. We took the approach that supplying as many choices as possible would serve the greatest number of users - users with vastly different equipment and applications. Any specific user can then choose the subset of instruments required for his/her needs. Many of the choices were derived from the beta testers\' “wish list” and the suggestions of members of this forum. If we had chosen to do \"minimalist\" programming, some users needs would have been left unaddressed. One approach is inclusive, the other is exclusive. The main drawback of being inclusive is: The user must take the time to become familiar with the library in order to make intelligent choices. And it\'s about to get even more involved: The new update adds over 200 new choices - but they\'re really good choices! Most of the feedback we\'ve received to date from users has been enthusiastically in favor of including as many options as possible, but opinions will vary (just look at this forum!).
A tip for those who can\'t take the time to examine all available instruments in the library: Once you find an instrument that suits your needs in one string section, you will generally be able to use its counterpart in the other sections. Compile these into a GS performance and save it as a basic template. Build templates for commonly required applications. From then on you will have your minimalist setup (plus the advantage of all of those other choices waiting in the wings for special situations).
One last point: having lots of instruments within a .gig file has nothing to do with \"sample bloat.\" A .gig file that contains 100 nested instruments will not take up significantly more space on your hard drive than a .gig file that contains only 1 instrument (the main difference is a small amount of additional programming overhead). That\'s because all nested instruments draw upon the same sample pool within the .gig file. Fortunately, when you load any single instrument from the .gig file\'s instrument list GS will only load the required samples for that instrument, minimizing RAM demands. I think this fulfills my essay requirement for the week.
[This message has been edited by Tom Hopkins (edited 04-08-2002).]
Metallian, you tested this? I didn\'t know RAR could be this efficient with samples. Anyway, I got the DVD version and I think it\'s great that I can just copy it over to my harddrive directly. I can see that feeding 16 CD\'s is much, but you only have to do it once so I don\'t see much of a problem. Be glad it didn\'t come on floppy disks.
Actually just think the idea of Raring just never came up.
Changing it now would be useless too.. think off all the people asking,..hey how come my friend that bought library has 16 disks\"
I can\'t believe you people think that its a marketing ploy. Like it was planned to stretch it out over 16 discs and waste the money AND the freaking TIME to produce them all.
I\'m sure if someone would have mentioned rar it might have been a different story on disc count.
besides I thought it might be a liscensing nightmare to distribute a product in RAR format. apparently I was wrong and its not an issue at all
There\'s also the option of WA! format, dan deans libraries are in this format, and I believe they\'d take MORE space if it wasn\'t.
however... I hate this format... It \"locks me out\" of the library... which for me. is of course, like locking candy in a cage and throwing away the key!!
For some reason I have this BIG BIG BIG feeling that if the CD count could have been shrunk and it was done in a way that wouldn\'t confuse end users, Gary would have done that.
With RAR being a format that some developers are distrubitring in. I\'d expect all future libraries from alot of developers to come in this format.
Tho, i\'d be curious to find out how many people would think a self extracting RAR executalbe would be installing some sort of softwaare they dont want on their computer.
I\'ve seen the question \"what is RAR format\" here more than once too, so I wouldn\'t expect anyone to distribute in a non selfextracting version if it was compressed.
Also when installing VotA, whichis via a self extracting RAR over multiple discs, Its confusing even for veteran computer geeks. There is no progress bar on the version with VotA, if thats whats required for distibution, expect a few calls from customers saying, \"the damn thing jsut locks up\". When in fact its jsut combining and copying a HUGE file.
Do you guys Really think it was *THAT* important to the marketing to make the library 16 disks?
any marketing idiot can change that into ***gigs of data in an instant.
while a bit of this post is \"cronie\" (sp?) defense for Gary, its also that I don\'t want to see people making an effort ot use compression schemes that make it a PAIN IN THE *** to install one file, by RARing the whole damn library.
BTW, what about Puurrfect Drums? Theres got to be a reason Jim\'s got it stretched accross so many disks. Or do you guys think its a marketing campaign?
BTW, Not attacking you mettalian, but trying to make a point to the people who just think all the developers here are stupid enough to try and market their libraries by CD count, and go out of their way to do it. None of them are That idiotic.
What are we paying for indeed..... I hate that thread as much as any endicott craziness, or the threads that start with \"hey I like titanic\'s music\" and go on and on into oblivion.
Really...I am an Idiot
[This message has been edited by KingIdiot (edited 04-09-2002).]
I can\'t believe the size of a library and how it fits on a disc is an issue for some people.
In the case of GOS, I\'m amazed at its comprehensiveness and multitude of options available. That is not to say I like every single patch; but then again I\'ve never come across a library where I liked every single patch anyway.
I like the fact that I can copy it straight to my harddisk without any hassle. Had the gigs been rared, I\'m sure a lot of people would have complained and asked why the sounds couldn\'t have been spread over a few more disks, because they\'re so cheap anyway!
What I don\'t like is paying full price for a library that promises the world and then only uses 50% of the disc and isn\'t that great after all (Danny Jeager\'s private collection comes to mind), but to be honest, I so far haven\'t noticed that with Giga format libraries at all.
Lastly, I think the latest mud slinging posts have descended into Jerry Springer type antics. I sincerely hope NS returns to the level it once was at.
My GOS is the 2-DVD version. I was copying the files & roaming internet, and before I knew it, all the files\'ve been copied.
QL56, 3 discs only, was a pain to install (to me). It used RAR and I had to swap discs all the time - not 1 and then 2, 2 and then 3, but something like 2 and back to 1 and then jumping to 3.... I was terribly confused. Fortunately the sound quality was so good that once I played with it I forgot the pain of installation - which only happened once anyway.
I\'ve talked to Gary on the phone and he really sounded like a nice person, but I think people who have problems with the numbers of discs of his libraries don\'t really care about this.
I don\'t understand why we\'re talkin bout this.
The GOS is one of those shortforms that many musicians have and will have in their vocabulary.. And for good reason.
Gary n guys. Ignore the stupidity. Keep up the good work!
Whine, whine, whine.
Spend a $100 on a DVDROM and get some work done.
\"Quality is more important than quantity\" - I am sure we all agree on this.
I am a very happy owner of both GOS and LOP. I have never spoken with Donnie, but have with Gary and he seemed a really, really nice guy. I was especially surprised and felt that it was great customer service for the fact that he called me in the UK from the States. He didn\'t know me from the next purchaser yet made my buying experience very positive.
As for discs quantity, although I could have taken the DVD option with only 2 discs, I ended up taking the 16CD collection. I just kind of felt that I\'d rather have one scratched CD of 16 in the future (yikes!) than 1 of 2 DVDs.
I didn\'t buy GOS based on the fact that it came with 16CDs. I bought it because of the quality and reviews from the users, not from the reviews or demos on Gary\'s website. I wanted quality sounds for a quality price - which I got.
The number of MBs for each sample or the number of discs in the library is irrelevant if you are happy with the quality of what is on them.
Anyone selling something thinking that someone will buy a bad quality 3 CD library in preference to one that costs $200 more and is only on one disk is delusional.
Take the Miroslav library, no doubt many more of us would be happy owners of this 5 CD set (for the whole orchestra!) if the price was a little more easy to bear! The fact that it is ONLY on 5 CDs is irrelevant to me. I just cannot justify paying that price, even if it is a quality item.
Quality of Library + Good Price = Happy User
(note number of discs doesn\'t come into the equation!)
[This message has been edited by Mark UK (edited 04-09-2002).]