• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Topic: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    How does the Seattle libraries in the Virtuouso 2000 compare to the libraries available for GigaSampler?

    Regards / Jonas

  2. #2

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    Now your in MY neck of the woods!!

    I worked on that Virtuoso Having to fit Terra bytes of data into 64 megs for Brass-WW etc.. and another 64 megs for the strings and the rest.

    Stay tuned - it might just show up AS GIGA STUDIO material REEEEEEEEEAAAL soon!! : )

  3. #3

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    I was not impressed at all with this module. The individual instruments sound thin and many instruments are very compressed. Compared to the Librarys I\'ve heard (including Kirk Hunter & the new Gigastrings) it\'s not even a close race...IMHO. My suggestion: Put on a good pair of headphones and listen to the individual patches.

  4. #4

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    It\'s got to be damned hard fitting humungous sample libraries into a 64mb card.

    I wonder what the source recordings sounded like before they were truncated looped and compressed?

  5. #5

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    I, too, was suitably unimpressed. Which is a shame, \'cuz it would be great to have the convenience of a module, but I decided I was better off saving my money for samples.

  6. #6

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    Although I understand it\'s an accomplishment to squeeze in lots of orchestral samples into a limited module, I thought the sounds on the virtuoso 2000 were awful compared to what you\'ll get with a sampler and sample library. It just doesn\'t even come close.

  7. #7

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    bump

    [This message has been edited by SiliconAudioLabs (edited 04-20-2001).]

  8. #8

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SiliconAudioLabs:
    Let me put this into context:

    I have one....

    Just - ONE SINGLE -

    stereo sample of a piatti cymbal sample from those sessions that is:

    Timp roll please: * 72 megs alone*!!! * 72 MEGS!! * ONE SAMPLE !!

    We used 24 bit source, w/ 8 stereo mics accross the hall (5.1 anyone?)

    Getting the picture? now try fitting 2000 + - samples into 64 meg.

    Think: BOXES full of DA88/78, ADAT tapes, CD\'s, DVD\'s, etc. Now put ALL of that data onto a chip the size of your thumbnail!

    Any one here wanna try? MY headphones are ready and waiting.

    \"...I wonder what the source recordings sounded like before they were truncated looped and compressed?...\"

    STAY tuned, I hope your hard drives are big enough!!

    btw sample libraries don\'t have to use heavy (if at all) compression (looping, SR convert, convolution etc.) like the itty bitty Virtuoso module which uses the Proteus 2000 architecture
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


  9. #9

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    Sorry.....It\'s doesn\'t matter how it was recorded, what equipment was used, etc. The ONLY thing that matters is: Are these sample patches usable to make music? In my opinion, it misses the mark by a long shot. The brass is laughable....the woodwinds & brass are very compressed. At least the Roland cards sound convincing. None of the new e-mu modules pass muster in my opinion. Modules would be a very easy way to go IF....they had the muscle. It appears that 64mb doesn\'t cut it.

  10. #10

    Re: Orchestra Libraries compared to Emu Virtusoso 2000?

    I\'ve YET to hear a solitary module that DOES cut it!

    Makes no difference to me who makes it either.

    Including me - let me explain;

    I\'ve programed lot\'s of that stuff for Roland/Yamaha/Korg/Emu, etc. - and they are all frustrating in SOME way or another.

    It\'s a marketing thing;

    1. You are cheap and refuse to spend more than approx. $500-$800 for sound module/sampler/phraseplayer (whatever).

    Result;

    You get cheapo sounds on rom chips (ram too at times) that are @ 64 meg (General Midi anyone?).

    or;

    2. You are NOT cheap and WILL spend over $1,200 or more (or can afford to pay MUCH more) for said hardware.

    Result;

    Big sound - No compression.

    But wait there\'s more;

    In addition, you now have to pay lots of money for large sound banks - to people like me for Giga instruments like say uhmmmm - my Holy Grail Piano for example.

    Which is about 500 megs on 2 CD\'s, and available at QUpArts.com!! hehe couldn\'t resist.

    Compare that to our same piano on the Proteus 2000 rom chip that is:

    32 meg!!!!

    When someone says: \"Oh this bank sucks, or that module is great or these instruments are weak\" - whether it\'s about my work or the other professionals I know in this bussiness; we look at it the same way someone might wanna start a debate over who has the best rock band!

    btw; who does have the best; rock, techno, trance,rap, jazz, postneofunkadiscapunkmetal, whatever band anyway?

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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