# Spitfire Symphonic Woodwinds vs. Berlin Woodwinds



## Zhao Shen (Dec 14, 2016)

How do these compare? Or if not SSW, just BML woodwinds in general. I use BWW daily, it's a fantastic library, but I've also heard great things about Spitfire's offerings. Any particular areas that are much better/worse?


----------



## The Darris (Dec 14, 2016)

Well, I don't own Spitfire's Woodwinds but I can say that as a day one owner of BWW, I love it. It's been my workhorse since it came out. With that said, I'm looking forward to Spitfire's Woodwinds because I do love the tone of it. It will be nice to have two vastly different sounding libraries. Spitfire's offering looks like its going to be more forgiving on the wallet as the instruments included are in full (minus Bass flute and Bass Oboe) and you don't have to buy additional expansions to get access to them, unlike BWW which you need to buy three expansion packs to get all of the instruments (total = ~$1100). We don't know how much Spitfire's Woods are yet but considering BWW is only 2 mic positions + a mix perspective, it's completely comparable to the main Spitfire library as it also has 3 mic positions. 

We still don't know the pricing of Spitfire's library yet but if I were a betting man, I'd say it won't be more expensive than Symphonic Strings which means it will be the most cost effective purchase between the two. If that doesn't matter to you than I would consider the tone and content next. To me, they both offer a great sound but in different ways which will make them both important to my work. I've just used BWW so much now that I know its ins and outs and I'm hoping Spitfire's option will help fill in the gaps and offer up solutions to things I can't do well in BWW.

Best,

C


----------



## Neifion (Dec 14, 2016)

Quick correction Christopher, the Bass Flute is included in SSW (formerly in the BML Low Winds module). No Bass Oboe though.

For the OP, in addition to sound, also consider your workflow. While BWW is set up like the recent Berlin Brass, where you have patches for each individual player (1st Flute, 2nd Flute, 3rd Flute), SSW is set up like Spitfire Symphonic Brass, where you have a solo patch and then an a2 patch of two players playing in unison.

Also, SSW does not include a runs builder like BWW.


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Dec 14, 2016)

This is a tough one for me, can't do both right now. Interested to read people's thoughts. Thanks for starting the thread @Zhao Shen.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Dec 14, 2016)

I would imagine that BWW would be far easier to mix in with other libraries than Spitfire Winds; that natural room verb on the winds only would be a nightmare


----------



## The Darris (Dec 14, 2016)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I would imagine that BWW would be far easier to mix in with other libraries than Spitfire Winds; that natural room verb on the winds only would be a nightmare


This is a misconception that a lot of composers think. Yes, less does give you options but at a cost to realism (re; Chris Hein/Sample Modelling/VSL, etc). In the right hands, I could argue that you could create a most realistic sound with Spitfire's approach versus the dryer BWW. And while I've heard some of the industry's bests using Sample Modelling well, it still sounds fake to me. 

What I find interesting is that BWW is, to me, the black-sheep of the Berlin family even though it was the first. I say this because you can clearly hear that they setup Teldex in a dryer way than they did with the rest of the Berlin Series. Strings, Brass, and Perc have a very prominent room sound and far more than BWW. Usually developers learn from previous libraries and make changes for the better. Berlin Brass and Perc are great libraries. I can't speak for Berlin Strings but I know how it sounds compared to BWW. 

If you hate any natural room/hall sound and prefer dry, than I suggest you go with VSL or Chris Hein's Woodwind series. If not, BWW and Spitfire Audio's options are great. Can't speak for CineWinds but I do know that those are only single player instruments without ensembles. Personally, the best selling point for it are all of the ethnic/world wind instruments it comes with.

One simple explanation between these two libraries could be.

BWW = More idiomatic to woodwind writing for Orchestrators
SSW = More useful for composers who need a good sounding final output. (I'm not saying this is better than BWW in this regard, just saying this seems to be the aim of this library. Whereas BWW's aim is on true orchestration).

Best,

C


----------



## tonaliszt (Dec 14, 2016)

Please, we don't even have a walkthrough from SSW yet.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Dec 14, 2016)

The Darris said:


> BWW = More idiomatic to woodwind writing for Orchestrators



Why do you say that? There are lots of solo instruments in SSW, orchestrational much?


----------



## Zhao Shen (Dec 14, 2016)

tonaliszt said:


> Please, we don't even have a walkthrough from SSW yet.



SSW isn't a new library, it's a repackaging of the BML woodwinds with some extra icing on top. Most if not all of what you can conclude about that BML line can be assumed about SSW. If that wasn't the case, creating this thread would be pretty useless.



The Darris said:


> BWW = More idiomatic to woodwind writing for Orchestrators
> SSW = More useful for composers who need a good sounding final output. (I'm not saying this is better than BWW in this regard, just saying this seems to be the aim of this library. Whereas BWW's aim is on true orchestration)



I think that's a little bit of an oversimplification, but what you said about BWW being the black sheep is interesting. Even now in its old(?) age it's still regarded as one of OT's gems, and I hope they consider updating it in the future.

Nevertheless, it's a great library as is. Runs and ornaments are _so _easy to do with their runs builder patches.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Dec 14, 2016)

The Darris said:


> This is a misconception that a lot of composers think. Yes, less does give you options but at a cost to realism (re; Chris Hein/Sample Modelling/VSL, etc). In the right hands, I could argue that you could create a most realistic sound with Spitfire's approach versus the dryer BWW. And while I've heard some of the industry's bests using Sample Modelling well, it still sounds fake to me.
> 
> What I find interesting is that BWW is, to me, the black-sheep of the Berlin family even though it was the first. I say this because you can clearly hear that they setup Teldex in a dryer way than they did with the rest of the Berlin Series. Strings, Brass, and Perc have a very prominent room sound and far more than BWW. Usually developers learn from previous libraries and make changes for the better. Berlin Brass and Perc are great libraries. I can't speak for Berlin Strings but I know how it sounds compared to BWW.
> 
> ...



You misunderstand me. All I was saying is: If you dont have the rest of spitfire's ensemble (Brass/Strings/Perc) trying to mix the winds would be a pain and utterly defeat the purpose of them being recorded at AIR


----------



## The Darris (Dec 14, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> Why do you say that? There are lots of solo instruments in SSW, orchestrational much?


Flute 1, 2, and 3. All different sounding flutes that when layered, sound like an ensemble. This doesn't even count the Flute ensemble which are in octaves. Spitfire only has 1 solo flute and an "a2" patch which is 2 flutes playing together. BWW continues the multi-player concept down the line by offering two players for each main instrument, not including the Clarinet ensemble patch. 

This approach allows you to write more fluently for woodwinds without breaking polyphony for what you would have in a live situation. Such as, play a three notes with Spitfire's solo, you get 3 sounds from the same timbre, which doesn't sound real. It's like overdubbing your voice and trying to pass it off as an ensemble. If you play 3 notes with their ensemble, you get 6 voices which isn't accurate. With Berlin Woodwinds, you can assign the individual voice to each instrument giving you a properly voice and sounding ensemble. I like that approach very much.

Best,

Chris


----------



## The Darris (Dec 14, 2016)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> You misunderstand me. All I was saying is: If you dont have the rest of spitfire's ensemble (Brass/Strings/Perc) trying to mix the winds would be a pain and utterly defeat the purpose of them being recorded at AIR


No, I understood you. I still disagree. Yes, you will be at the will of the 2.10 second hall tail and will have to mix your other libraries to that sound but it's not a pain nor does it defeat the purpose of them in Air. I recommend checking out Peter Alexander's (RIP) Visual Orchestration and his Professional Orchestration series. He goes into extreme depths about this. I've spent the last few years exploring midi composition from a true orchestration and find his approach the most accurate. You just have to know your libraries and their pros and cons and from there you can do anything well, as long as you practice and train your ears.

Best,

C


----------



## tonaliszt (Dec 14, 2016)

Zhao Shen said:


> SSW isn't a new library, it's a repackaging of the BML woodwinds with some extra icing on top. Most if not all of what you can conclude about that BML line can be assumed about SSW. If that wasn't the case, creating this thread would be pretty useless.


We know that there is at least 30 percent more sample content, and who knows how much more scripting advancements?

In my view, the perf. legato patches in the new strings are game changing (As spitfire went from being one of the worst in playability, to perhaps the best), and I am eager to see what the scripting advancements are for the WW. But, you are right in that the sound of the library will be the same as the BML line. 

On a different note, I just realized that the Berlin Woodwinds are half the price of the Berlin Brass/Strings. Weird.


----------



## khollister (Dec 15, 2016)

I own both and rarely use BWW in spite of it being far superior on paper (articulations, run builder, separate players, etc). I never warmed up to the CAPSULE UI change, still hear phasing in crossfades occasionally, and just find the overall tone to be not as "inviting" to me as the Spitfire winds. I can't really list objective reasons why I use BML (now SSW) and not BWW, but that's just how I'm rolling at the minute.

Of course I primarily use Spitfire for all my other orchestral sections now, so that probably has a lot to do with it as well.


----------



## DocMidi657 (Dec 15, 2016)

Things have shifted for me as well to almost primarly Spitfire because they have been introducing Performance Legato Patches into their libraries. That thrown into the mix has been a game changer for me in regards to a sped up workflow and extremely improved playability. My only gripe is they don't have Performance Legato Patches implimented in enough instrument areas of their Libraries and I also noticed that the playbility in the Symphonic Brass Performance Legato Patches is not on par yet with the 2 string libraries but if they do that would probably have me using their Libraries exclusively. The sound is wonderful.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Dec 15, 2016)

Up until now I have been using a mix of both BWW and BML Woodwinds.

What really impresses me when using BML / SSW is the room sound. Woodwinds sound especially fantastic at AIR Lyndhurst.

But also consistently in my pallette are the BWW soloists, which have a ton of character.
And to a lesser degree, the main library finds use too. I still often go to BWW for runs. Also because BML Reeds were very light in terms of articulations - for more deeply sampled oboes & clarinets. SSW seems to have a fair bit of new sample content, so this might well change things.

I think my ultimate woodwind library would be SSW but with an additional second & third soloists added, for more detailed part writing. And I'd like to see some more articulations added across the board, ideally also some additional legato performances. So here's hoping at least some of that is on a Spitfire development roadmap...


----------



## benmrx (Dec 15, 2016)

This is tough for me. I've basically gone 'all in' with a core spitfire template for traditional orchestral writing. SCS, SSB, and Percussion Redux, but with my winds coming from BWW. I do really love BWW, I can't find much at fault with them, but there's a big part of me that wants to snag the Spitfire SWW package for a number of reasons. 

1) The most obvious reason of having the entire orchestra from a single developer, all on the same stage, blending together as naturally as possible with samples.
2) Only dealing with a single GUI. It would just become second nature for the entire orchestra when considering workflow.
3) To me, the Air Lyndhurst Hall does something extra special for the winds. It simply gives the instruments a beautiful gloss/sheen.
4) I'm hoping that they will come out with a bundle/collection that includes SSS, SCS, SSB, SSW and Percussion Redux, which will offer me an affordable way to grab SSS which would be the only library I wouldn't have. 

Wonderful problems to have...., right?!


----------



## NoamL (Dec 15, 2016)

I have a different approach from many people on this forum as I feel we value different things in libraries  I care relatively little about what I can *control* and I care a lot about what is *baked* into a library and cannot be changed. For example there was a harp library that came out recently that has a "glissando engine" and everyone was raving about it. But that engine was an automated way of triggering a bunch of pluck samples with accelerating or decelerating timing. Effectively, a distant cousin of a step sequencer: you press one note and it tells Kontakt that it's actually a bunch of notes. I have no problem just mashing my keyboard from C to C, transposing to the right key and dragging a note or two to generate the right scale (and in the course of creating mockups that way, I actually ended up educating myself about how harp pedaling works in real life). Anyway, what I noticed about that library was that the samples in the glissando engine were _pluck_ samples and sound very little like what happens when the player _glisses_. So for all the playability of just pressing two keys and hearing a beautifully nuanced glissando out of the box, you get a sacrifice of sound because if you listen closely the samples aren't appropriate. MIDI can be changed! Samples can't! Spitfire's Harp by contrast perfectly captures the difference between those two sounds with their "pluck" + "slid" patches allowing you to build your own glisses freely.

So that's relevant to a discussion of Berlin vs SF. Berlin's "per player" approach is all about giving you maximum control. Spitfire is about building the same orchestral sound with FEWER Kontakt instruments and MIDI tracks, but also less precision. With Berlin you get 6 legato types just for a flute solo, and it's quite easy to audition them in sequence and figure out which performance is best for your passage. With Spitfire you get a single flute solo with a few legato types controlled by velocity as you play. With Berlin you can sit there for hours morphing articulations with CAPSULE to try to get just the right attack on a note. With Spitfire their main playability feature is the behind the scenes scripting engine that tries to do the equivalent task for you with an AI.

What it all boils down to is "sample content is sample content." Just because they give you a new "legato performance patch" or "glissando engine" or a "run designer," doesn't mean it's new content, it's just a way of reorganizing content to make it easier for a composer with tight deadlines at 2 AM.

In short, a cynical motto: "Nobody hears your UI."


----------



## benmrx (Dec 15, 2016)

NoamL said:


> In short, a cynical motto: "Nobody hears your UI."


One could also argue that they DO hear your UI, because we all run on deadlines. The easier and more efficient it is to get your ideas down, and (in my case) as good sounding as possible the better..., especially for people like me where what I'm doing with samples IS the end product. No orchestra is playing my cues. Reorganizing a bunch of samples so that it's more playable, faster to use, and more intuitive will inevitably result in better sounding cues. Also, Spitfire does give you all the individual articulations, so if you don't want their scripting and 'AI' to choose your phrasing, you can always go in and do it yourself....., if you have the time of course. I've never once had the pleasure of spending hours morphing articulations for a cue. I just don't live in that world. I live in the, you have 5 days to score this film, or you have 3 hours to compose, orchestrate, mix/master a 60sec. orchestral cue. Just another angle to consider depending on where you're at.


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Dec 16, 2016)

Thanks @NoamL and @benmrx some lovely meat and potatoes popping up in this thread.


----------



## khollister (Dec 16, 2016)

So I just pulled up the BWW 2nd oboe (which I have always liked better than the 1st, especially legatos) and switched back and forth between BWW Oboe 2 legato and SSW Oboe solo legato. I put a lot more room mic in BWW and some close mic in SSW to at least get something closer than the respective defaults. And then I just noodled around with some moderate to slow melodic stuff.

SSW for the win IMHO, because BWW sounds more "sampled" - each note sounds disconnected from the next even with the legato transitions turned up. It may just be the acoustics (combination of the studio and engineering) rather than the programming, but exposed as a solo line, I just don't feel it. Even though SSW can have some audible transitions between the legato transition and the sustain/vibrato, it is more emotionally satisfying to me and thus sounds less mechanical.

BWW clearly has better fast run capability (SSW can get a bit messy at times), but at least in my writing that is far more likely to be buried in a orchestral cue than a more exposed solo line.

I don't think BWW is bad by any means and SSW is not perfect either, but I just think the imperfect SSW is more musical than the imperfect BWW. That said, I also think Sascha's BWW examples sound great as do Andy & Oliver's for SSW, so it's not like you're guaranteed to turn out crap with either one. Maybe it is just down to the northern German vs English aesthetic or something.


----------



## cadenzajon (Dec 16, 2016)

Really helpful analysis, @khollister. One more question -- In the SSW walkthrough video, the "Release" slider is always left sitting in the middle of its range, and even in the close mics it sounds like there's a substantial possibility of room noise buildup. How usable are the instruments with the releases turned down? Are they still equally convincing?


----------



## khollister (Dec 16, 2016)

cadenzajon said:


> Really helpful analysis, @khollister. One more question -- In the SSW walkthrough video, the "Release" slider is always left sitting in the middle of its range, and even in the close mics it sounds like there's a substantial possibility of room noise buildup. How usable are the instruments with the releases turned down? Are they still equally convincing?



I turn it down anyway, in fact it seems odd to me why they chose that setting as the default. It is useful if you are trying to busk in lyrical stuff playing 2 hands, but I find it gets in the way more often than not using these libraries in the manner many of us do (playing in one line at a time). I have certainly not noticed an abrupt release with an unnatural ambience in the handful of SSW instruments I've tried with the release setting all the way down.


----------



## cadenzajon (Dec 16, 2016)

So, what I'm picking up from this thread is that the distinctives are...
BWW: Individual players, more articulations, very realistic runs, recorded at Teldex.
SWW: More instruments, solo/a2 groups, crossfade-able vibrato, more distinct legato transitions, recorded at Air Lyndhurst.

I feel about ready to make a decision. Anything significant that I'm overlooking?


----------



## khollister (Dec 16, 2016)

cadenzajon said:


> So, what I'm picking up from this thread is that the distinctives are...
> BWW: Individual players, more articulations, very realistic runs, recorded at Teldex.
> SWW: More instruments, solo/a2 groups, crossfade-able vibrato, more distinct legato transitions, recorded at Air Lyndhurst.
> 
> I feel about ready to make a decision. Anything significant that I'm overlooking?



While there is nothing _too_ inaccurate about that, I really feel it fails to capture the difference in actually using them. The best advice I can give is listen to the audio demos (of complete ques, not walk thru demos) on OT's and SA's websites with your eyes closed, forget trying to pick out details and just see if one or the other sounds more "real" than the other.


----------



## storyteller (Dec 16, 2016)

cadenzajon said:


> So, what I'm picking up from this thread is that the distinctives are...
> BWW: Individual players, more articulations, very realistic runs, recorded at Teldex.
> SWW: More instruments, solo/a2 groups, crossfade-able vibrato, more distinct legato transitions, recorded at Air Lyndhurst.
> 
> I feel about ready to make a decision. Anything significant that I'm overlooking?


BWW actually has more instruments in context of the entire package. It also has ensemble patches for a few of the instruments. You can't look at the "base package" BWW and expect an apples to apples comparison. You need to look at BWW + expansions as those makeup the "complete" BWW.

Also to note on @khollister 's comparison of oboe 2, there is a solo Oboe in BWW's Expansion B that is intended for solo use, whereas the Oboe 1 & 2 in Berlin Main are intended for orchestral, non-solo context. FWIW, the solo oboe in Expansion B is absolutely beautiful.

Not trying to persuade you one way or the other. Just thought it was important for you to make sure you are comparing apple to apples.


----------



## cadenzajon (Dec 16, 2016)

Great point. Yes, I was only thinking about the base packages (as they're fairly comparable in price) but you're right, it's not "apples to apples".


----------



## benmrx (Dec 16, 2016)

storyteller said:


> there is a solo Oboe in BWW's Expansion B that is intended for solo use, whereas the Oboe 1 & 2 in Berlin Main are intended for orchestral, non-solo context. FWIW, the solo oboe in Expansion B is absolutely beautiful.


Excellent point here. The base BWW library is focused on ensemble writing using the various individual players (or ensemble patches). While the expansions focus more on solo use. Different sampling and playing techniques depending on the main goal of the library.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Dec 16, 2016)

storyteller said:


> Also to note on @khollister 's comparison of oboe 2, there is a solo Oboe in BWW's Expansion B that is intended for solo use, whereas the Oboe 1 & 2 in Berlin Main are intended for orchestral, non-solo context. FWIW, the solo oboe in Expansion B is absolutely beautiful.


... so you're saying we should get SSW and BWW Exp B?


----------



## galactic orange (Dec 16, 2016)

jacobthestupendous said:


> ... so you're saying we should get SSW and BWW Exp B?


or both SSW and BWW Main?


----------



## tack (Dec 16, 2016)

The disadvantage with the BWW expansion soloists is they're recorded with a single dynamic layer. Obviously this avoids any potential problems around phasing, but the timbre differences are really noticeable IMO, especially for a solo line.


----------



## Lode_Runner (Dec 16, 2016)

galactic orange said:


> or both SSW and BWW Main?


And all the expansions, don't forget the expansions... You need to get them all!


----------



## chrysshawk (Dec 16, 2016)

Zhao Shen said:


> How do these compare? Or if not SSW, just BML woodwinds in general. I use BWW daily, it's a fantastic library, but I've also heard great things about Spitfire's offerings. Any particular areas that are much better/worse?


Well, here is how I do it: BWW for small sections, e.g. 1-2 flutes, soloistic and standout material. SWW for ensemble woods. I originally had SWW only, but honestly felt embarrassed by the sound of the exposed woodwinds. However, they glue together very nicely. Then I got BWW to specifically represent exposed woodwinds, and BWW is so much better (unless SWW has fixed the 100000 bugs I experienced for the soloists). Having both is very nice 
Obviously, if you get SWW you will likely A/B the two in the given context. But the above is my rule of thumb. And I also have the BWW soloists in my template.


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 17, 2016)

chrysshawk said:


> Well, here is how I do it: BWW for small sections, e.g. 1-2 flutes, soloistic and standout material. *SWW for ensemble woods*. I originally had SWW only, but honestly felt embarrassed by the sound of the exposed woodwinds. However, they glue together very nicely. Then I got BWW to specifically represent exposed woodwinds, and BWW is so much better (unless SWW has fixed the 100000 bugs I experienced for the soloists). Having both is very nice
> Obviously, if you get SWW you will likely A/B the two in the given context. But the above is my rule of thumb. And I also have the BWW soloists in my template.


When you say SWW above are you referring to the former BML individual Woodwind Vol. "x" offerings combined, or the updated SSW that just came out earlier in the week?


----------



## chrysshawk (Dec 17, 2016)

The former (hence the bugs qualifier) BML. No time/drive space yet to test out the SSW. But count me surprised if they fixed them all.


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 17, 2016)

chrysshawk said:


> The former (hence the bugs qualifier) BML. No time/drive space yet to test out the SSW. But count me surprised if they fixed them all.


Oops.., sorry, I missed that due to the dangling participle it contained...


----------



## Parsifal666 (Dec 17, 2016)

The Darris said:


> If you hate any natural room/hall sound and prefer dry, than I suggest you go with VSL or Chris Hein's Woodwind series. If not, BWW and Spitfire Audio's options are great. Can't speak for CineWinds but I do know that those are only single player instruments without ensembles. Personally, the best selling point for it are all of the ethnic/world wind instruments it comes with.
> 
> C



Excellent post, but I use a different word for Chris Hein's Woodwinds: _*malleable*_. I use QL Spaces and Fabfilter Q and C for a terrific sound. I feel the same way about East West, that bald sound that can be eminently customized by me, by my style. I have the Albions for sketches, unless I'm using them to layer my EW.

I


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 17, 2016)

Interesting thread. I myself are in the market for improving and expanding my libraries. I am trying to decide on one approach (one company), I know that might sound stupid, but I am a creature of habit - For me having 2-3 different UI's will just confuse my little head 

Been looking at starting with SCS (or SSS, or both) -> Spitfire Brass -> Spitfire Woodwinds. And then wait and see what happens with the Solo Strings/Quartet + the upcomming choir.

I really love the end-result of what the EastWest libs offer - I just feel very uninspired with their UI and way of browsing the patches.


----------



## Mithrandir (Dec 17, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> Interesting thread. I myself are in the market for improving and expanding my libraries. I am trying to decide on one approach (one company), I know that might sound stupid, but I am a creature of habit - For me having 2-3 different UI's will just confuse my little head
> 
> Been looking at starting with SCS (or SSS, or both) -> Spitfire Brass -> Spitfire Woodwinds. And then wait and see what happens with the Solo Strings/Quartet + the upcomming choir.
> 
> I really love the end-result of what the EastWest libs offer - I just feel very uninspired with their UI and way of browsing the patches.



Doesn't sound stupid to me at all! There are many advantages to using a coherent set of samples (e.g. from one specific manufacturer) in your template.

I'd definitely begin with SSS and add SCS when necessary. SCS is *not* a symphonic strings library (rather: a chamber-size ensemble as the name suggests) and you'll definitely notice that when trying to create your own mockups. Do keep in mind as well that these are very wet samples! Hollywood-type music tends to work better in a more focused, dry environment.


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 17, 2016)

Mithrandir said:


> Doesn't sound stupid to me at all! There are many advantages to using a coherent set of samples (e.g. from one specific manufacturer) in your template.
> 
> I'd definitely begin with SSS and add SCS when necessary. SCS is *not* a symphonic strings library (rather: a chamber-size ensemble as the name suggests) and you'll definitely notice that when trying to create your own mockups.



True. But SCS can give a more intimate feeling, and its not as if they "suck" for scoring.


----------



## khollister (Dec 17, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> Interesting thread. I myself are in the market for improving and expanding my libraries. I am trying to decide on one approach (one company), I know that might sound stupid, but I am a creature of habit - For me having 2-3 different UI's will just confuse my little head
> 
> Been looking at starting with SCS (or SSS, or both) -> Spitfire Brass -> Spitfire Woodwinds. And then wait and see what happens with the Solo Strings/Quartet + the upcomming choir.
> 
> I really love the end-result of what the EastWest libs offer - I just feel very uninspired with their UI and way of browsing the patches.



I'm there with you - tried EWQL Hollywood a couple years ago, but was also put off by PLAY and the organization of the samples. The woodwinds were also very weak in my opinion. I've now settled on Spitfire and I'm very satisfied with the sound, completeness and UI. Cost was a bit painful though.


----------



## Mithrandir (Dec 17, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> True. But SCS can give a more intimate feeling, and its not as if they "suck" for scoring.



Sure, but they are chamber strings. I'm just warning you, Viegaard.  I've had the chance of trying both, and there really is a big difference in sound.

To be clear: I love the intimate sound of SCS, but it's just that: small and intimate. Definitely not suitable for a symphonic type of sound.


----------



## markleake (Dec 17, 2016)

Mithrandir said:


> Sure, but they are chamber strings. I'm just warning you, Viegaard.  I've had the chance of trying both, and there really is a big difference in sound.
> 
> To be clear: I love the intimate sound of SCS, but it's just that: small and intimate. Definitely not suitable for a symphonic type of sound.


I think a few people would disagree. Have a listen to the track in this thread:

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...iece-help-needed-with-template-balance.58069/

(Specifically the whole track, found in post #8 of that thread).

I've heard others manage the same also using SCS. Spitfire has a video about how to double SCS using the transposing trick to make SCS sound bigger, which I believe is what Kas used in that track to make SCS sound bigger.

I'm not saying that SSS wouldn't be more suitable for that sound. I'm just saying SCS can be a bit more flexible than SSS and it can work quite well in the symphonic space.


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Dec 18, 2016)

markleake said:


> I think a few people would disagree. Have a listen to the track in this thread:
> 
> http://vi-control.net/community/thr...iece-help-needed-with-template-balance.58069/
> 
> ...


Was going to post about the SCS transpose trick. I think it's quite effective and makes it a very flexible package. Flexible enough for me to hold off on SSS as other needs were more pressing. Like a woodwinds solution. And I'm still not sure which way to go, though I think I'm getting more comfortable with the decision.


----------



## benmrx (Dec 18, 2016)

SoNowWhat? said:


> Was going to post about the SCS transpose trick. I think it's quite effective and makes it a very flexible package.


Yeah, the transpose trick DOES work IMO. SCS really is quite 'mailable' in this regard. It's also absolutely lovely when paired with the Strings from Loegria.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 18, 2016)

Would someone mind shedding light with explaining what "the transpose trick" is and does?


----------



## khollister (Dec 18, 2016)

benmrx said:


> Yeah, the transpose trick DOES work IMO. SCS really is quite 'mailable' in this regard. It's also absolutely lovely when paired with the Strings from Loegria.



BTW, the transposition trick works with SSW as well to allow divisi writing with occasional unison passages. While I would certainly use the a2 patches for long and/or prominent unison phrases, the transpose "trick" with 2 solo patches works a treat when you have parts that may slur in and out of unison (where trying to transition to the a2 patch would be problematic). It works even better if you play in each part of the unison to get some minute timing variations rather than just running a single MIDI part to 2 patches (unless you are quantizing stuff of course).


----------



## khollister (Dec 18, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> Would someone mind shedding light with explaining what "the transpose trick" is and does?


 
The SCS video explains it, but you basically play the part a few steps sharp or flat and set Kontakt to play it back the opposite amount. The reason it works is you are using different samples


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Dec 18, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> Would someone mind shedding light with explaining what "the transpose trick" is and does?



http://vi-control.net/community/thr...transposition-trick-to-me.33231/#post-3722160


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 18, 2016)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> http://vi-control.net/community/thr...transposition-trick-to-me.33231/#post-3722160



Thanks man!


----------



## benmrx (Dec 18, 2016)

khollister said:


> The SCS video explains it, but you basically play the part a few steps sharp or flat and set Kontakt to play it back the opposite amount. The reason it works is you are using different samples


The beauty with SCS (and other Spitfire libraries) is that it's all built into the interface, so you don't need to transpose your MIDI. You could in fact have a single MIDI track feeding 3 instances of SCS.


----------



## tigersun (Dec 18, 2016)

khollister said:


> BTW, the transposition trick works with SSW as well to allow divisi writing with occasional unison passages. While I would certainly use the a2 patches for long and/or prominent unison phrases, the transpose "trick" with 2 solo patches works a treat when you have parts that may slur in and out of unison (where trying to transition to the a2 patch would be problematic). It works even better if you play in each part of the unison to get some minute timing variations rather than just running a single MIDI part to 2 patches (unless you are quantizing stuff of course).



Can't believe I never thought of doing this for other Spitfire libraries. Now I'm more excited for SW!


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Dec 18, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> Thanks man!


Thanks @AlexanderSchiborr 
Sorry Jono, I would have posted this sooner but have been sleeping. A hazard with multiple time zones.


----------



## Karma (Dec 18, 2016)

The transpose trick is great, I use it a fair bit with SCS & SSB. Though be warned, it does definitely stress your CPU a lot more in the long run.

On the subject of the OP: BWW is my absolute go-to woodwinds library, and personally I'm yet to find anything to beat it. A good buddy of mine has the Flute Consort and I've done a little messing around with that. It's definitely a different sound (the Sforzando and Flutter articulations are so Morricone-esque, I love them!), but for me BWW still wins in the flute department at least.


----------



## markleake (Dec 18, 2016)

Karmarghh said:


> On the subject of the OP: BWW is my absolute go-to woodwinds library, and personally I'm yet to find anything to beat it. A good buddy of mine has the Flute Consort and I've done a little messing around with that. It's definitely a different sound (the Sforzando and Flutter articulations are so Morricone-esque, I love them!), but for me BWW still wins in the flute department at least.


For me the tone of the solo C flute in SSW doesn't really grab my attention when listening to demos and other people's work. I haven't played with the library yet though, so my impression may change. It doesn't sound bad, just not as sweet sounding as some other libraries.


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Dec 18, 2016)

markleake said:


> For me the tone of the solo C flute in SSW doesn't really grab my attention when listening to demos and other people's work. I haven't played with the library yet though, so my impression may change. It doesn't sound bad, just not as sweet sounding as some other libraries.


Have you picked up SSW Mark?


----------



## galactic orange (Dec 18, 2016)

Karmarghh said:


> The transpose trick is great, I use it a fair bit with SCS & SSB. Though be warned, it does definitely stress your CPU a lot more in the long run.
> 
> On the subject of the OP: BWW is my absolute go-to woodwinds library, and personally I'm yet to find anything to beat it. A good buddy of mine has the Flute Consort and I've done a little messing around with that. It's definitely a different sound (the Sforzando and Flutter articulations are so Morricone-esque, I love them!), but for me BWW still wins in the flute department at least.



Thanks for your input here. Do you use BWW together with SCS perchance? I purchased both of these recently, but haven't had time to more than audition patches, let alone put them together in a composition. I'm wondering which of BWW Main or SSW would play nicer with SCS, being that with the Spitfire combo you've got the hall sound going for you, but SSW might be too BIG sounding? (in a good way, just not the best for SCS pieces) Whereas with BWW you have the individual players so it might be more capable of the "intimate" sound that would be less likely to make the overall sound bigger.


----------



## markleake (Dec 18, 2016)

SoNowWhat? said:


> Have you picked up SSW Mark?


Yes. I just finished downloading it yesterday, so has taken a few days... I'm on typical slow Oz internet here. I was playing with it for a small amount of time earlier today and it is fantastic. All of the instruments sound very good; many are better than good!  I'm not disappointed so far by anything, except a small audio issue I noticed with the Alto Flute legato when going from G# -> A and from A - Bb above middle C.

I haven't had any other proper orchestral WW library before now. Well... apart from HWW which I mostly didn't like and try not to use, the Fluffy Solo Clarinet which I love, and the Versilian Studios Chamber Orchestra 2 woodwinds which are surprisingly good but are inconsistently mic'ed and have no true legato.

So this is a new thing for me, and I will certainly be using it a lot. And of course for full orchestral stuff it will be fantastic once I improve in my skills. It completes the Spitfire set for me, so I'm very excited.

I think for anyone with other Spitfire libraries but who don't have the WW, this would be ridiculous to pass up. IMHO it can cover your WW needs very comprehensively.


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 18, 2016)

My resistance is weaker than a *0*ohm resister... I just broke down and bought SSW from T+S. Now I have SSS, SCS, SSW, and if SSB goes on sale for Christmas I'll likely get that too...

I'm done waiting on CSW or CSB to arrive for now, since they don't seem to publish any updates that I can find, and I don't want to miss the intro price on SF's offerings. If CS_x_'s turn out to be really good, as I expect they will, then I'll probably just pick them up next year - if they have an intro price or bundle that is.


----------



## galactic orange (Dec 18, 2016)

lp59burst said:


> My resistance is weaker than a *0*ohm resister... I just broke down and bought SSW from T+S. Now I have SSS, SCS, SSW, and if SSB goes on sale for Christmas I'll likely get that too...



I'm getting weaker by the day. I want to hold out for Cinematic Studio stuff, passing on SSB and SF Perc during the Black Friday sale. I found some other things to get me by. But if there is another sale it will be hard to resist. I don't know how likely a Christmas sale on that particular library would be considering that Spitfire had everything on sale a month ago.

The current promo on SSW is appealing. If I hadn't picked up BWW a few weeks ago I'd be all over this. And if Spitfire get their new Symphonic Bundle together, it might be worth plunking down a big chunk of change to save a bit of change. I wonder if there will be a Christmas sale/promo sale on that...


----------



## Karma (Dec 19, 2016)

galactic orange said:


> Thanks for your input here. Do you use BWW together with SCS perchance? I purchased both of these recently, but haven't had time to more than audition patches, let alone put them together in a composition. I'm wondering which of BWW Main or SSW would play nicer with SCS, being that with the Spitfire combo you've got the hall sound going for you, but SSW might be too BIG sounding? (in a good way, just not the best for SCS pieces) Whereas with BWW you have the individual players so it might be more capable of the "intimate" sound that would be less likely to make the overall sound bigger.


SCS may be a small amount of players, but you can still make it sound fairly big (even without the transpose trick). When it comes to blending BWW with SCS I have a good bunch of 2C B2 presets which I bought to blend with the hall sound. I just use the BWW close/dry mics with that reverb and viola, they sit well. I have never had any problem using BWW with SCS in terms of 'size', so don't worry about that


----------



## Killiard (Dec 19, 2016)

I cracked and bought SSW last night. I already owned Low Reeds and Flute Consort so it was only £230 to upgrade. Very happy with how it's sounding. Only slightly squiffy thing I've come across so far is on the solo clarinet legato patch. The transition from G3 to Bb3 is really messy. Just sending them a ticket about it now.


----------



## Vik (Dec 19, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> Been looking at starting with SCS (or SSS, or both) -> Spitfire Brass -> Spitfire Woodwinds. And then wait and see what happens with the Solo Strings/Quartet + the upcoming choir.


Starting with SCS instead of SSS could be a very good choice. SCS can probably be used as divisi for lots of other libraries (including SSS), and can also be made "larger" by adding something else on top, but SSS can't be made smaller than it actually is (although there are some close mic recordings as well): You can also double or triple SCS with itself, but you can't split the 16 V1s in SSS in two. SCS is also a more mature product, with more articulations.

I had the privilege of working with Tallin Chamber Orchestra with Tõnu Kaljuste (the ensemble/conductor Arvo Pärt has worked a lot with) a long time ago. I don't remember the exact numbers of V1s, V2s etc now, but it sounded truly amazing. Sometimes strings simply sound more like strings when there are not too many of them.

Cinematic Studio Strings are 10 1st Violinists, 7 2nd Violinists, 7 Violists, 6 Cellists and 5 Bassists, and I don't think many users miss extra players. Berlin Strings are 8/6/5/5/4. SSS are 16 1st Violins, 14 2nd Violins, 12 Violas, 10 Cellos & 8 Basses.

For me, the ideal library, if I should have only one (too late!) would have had between 5 and 7 V1s (but recorded twice, with different instruments). This way it could be used both as a chamber orchestra and a symphonic orchestra with divisi. Ideally, the two recordings shouldn't have the same number of players - one could eg have 5 players while the other had 7. Then you would have the choice between 5, 7 or 12 V1s (or more using the knows tricks).


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

Vik said:


> SCS is also a more mature product, with more articulations.


Not _many_ more, surely? SSS has some things that SCS doesn't, like super sul tasto and blended con sord.


----------



## blougui (Dec 19, 2016)

On Spitfire's related pages :
Symphonic strings : 175 articulations, including 59 shorts, 94 longs, and 5 extraordinary performance legato patches programmed by Andrew Blaney.
Chamber Strings : 244 articulations; 38 shorts, 53 longs, 19 FX & 45 legatos


----------



## Vik (Dec 19, 2016)




----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

Interesting how the SSS chart only shows bartok pizz on the basses. It's definitely available in all sections.

I actually counted up all those boxes (OCD?) and after correcting for the bartok pizz error, I have 194 for Chamber Strings and 204 for Symphonic Strings.


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 19, 2016)

Vik said:


> Starting with SCS instead of SSS could be a very good choice. SCS can probably be used as divisi for lots of other libraries (including SSS), and can also be made "larger" by adding something else on top, but SSS can't be made smaller than it actually is (although there are some close mic recordings as well): You can also double or triple SCS with itself, but you can't split the 16 V1s in SSS in two. SCS is also a more mature product, with more articulations.
> 
> I had the privilege of working with Tallin Chamber Orchestra with Tõnu Kaljuste (the ensemble/conductor Arvo Pärt has worked a lot with) a long time ago. I don't remember the exact numbers of V1s, V2s etc now, but it sounded truly amazing. Sometimes strings simply sound more like strings when there are not too many of them.
> 
> ...



I already own Cinematic Studio Strings.

Will it be hard for a rookie like me make SCS sound bigger? I know I am going Strings first from Spitfire. Just dont know if I have the skill to pick SCS first and make it sound more "big" and "epic", like SSS can do easely.


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 19, 2016)

tack said:


> Interesting how the SSS chart only shows bartok pizz on the basses. It's definitely available in all sections.
> 
> I actually counted up all those boxes (OCD?) and after correcting for the bartok pizz error, I have 194 for Chamber Strings and 204 for Symphonic Strings.



Dem OCD's hold on I must knock on my table 11½ times for the world not to end in a nuclear war.

Ok done. Where was/were I? :D


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> Will it be hard for a rookie like me make SCS sound bigger?


Did you see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6vglSQm08Y (this video)? The transposition trick is really not difficult at all, especially with Spitfire patches which have the capability built-in.


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 19, 2016)

tack said:


> Did you see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6vglSQm08Y (this video)? The transposition trick is really not difficult at all, especially with Spitfire patches which have the capability built-in.



Still pretty shaky on taking the final step between SSS and SCS.

I just know I love the Spitfire/AIR sound, and I really really really feel inspired by playing the instruments and I like the UI.


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> Still pretty shaky on taking the final step between SSS and SCS.


Only you can decide what will fit your style better and inspire you more. If you've a healthy amount of disposable income then I suppose you're not taking much of a risk either way. 

I bought Mural (SSS) first, and then later bought Sable (SCS). For me, Sable was much more inspiring and usable. Mural has some very lovely textures but as a strings workhorse, Sable has trumped it for me. But then I prefer that more delicate style. If you like the big thick sweeping lush stuff and you're less about agility, then SSS may well be a better fit. In my case, my first orchestral library was Albion, so if I wanted big and sweeping, Albion Redux handled that nicely enough.

When it comes to Air Lyndhurst, I agree there is something rather special about that hall, but interestingly I find that with smaller sections one can actually hear _more_ of the hall, perhaps because less of one's attention is taken up by the sounds of the instruments.

And I see we've veered completely off topic. I hope the OP doesn't mind.


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 19, 2016)

tack said:


> Only you can decide what will fit your style better and inspire you more. If you've a healthy amount of disposable income then I suppose you're not taking much of a risk either way.
> 
> I bought Mural (SSS) first, and then later bought Sable (SCS). For me, Sable was much more inspiring and usable. Mural has some very lovely textures but as a strings workhorse, Sable has trumped it for me. But then I prefer that more delicate style. If you like the big thick sweeping lush stuff and you're less about agility, then SSS may well be a better fit. In my case, my first orchestral library was Albion, so if I wanted big and sweeping, Albion Redux handled that nicely enough.
> 
> ...



Sorry OP:

Is Albion Redux = Albion One?


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 19, 2016)

tack said:


> Only you can decide what will fit your style better and inspire you more. If you've a healthy amount of disposable income then I suppose you're not taking much of a risk either way.
> 
> I bought Mural (SSS) first, and then later bought Sable (SCS). For me, Sable was much more inspiring and usable. Mural has some very lovely textures but as a strings workhorse, Sable has trumped it for me. But then I prefer that more delicate style. If you like the big thick sweeping lush stuff and you're less about agility, then SSS may well be a better fit. In my case, my first orchestral library was Albion, so if I wanted big and sweeping, Albion Redux handled that nicely enough.
> 
> ...



Sorry OP:

Is Albion Redux = Albion One?


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 19, 2016)

This is way OT but.... Tack, I just noticed your tag-line from the original Planet of the Apes... Charlton Heston...



Ok, back to your regularly scheduled programming...


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

lp59burst said:


> Tack I just noticed your tag-line from the original Planet of the Apes... Charlton Heston


Yes, it's both an homage to that classic (and Goldsmith!), and a tip of the hat to my hominid cousins. 



Viegaard said:


> Is Albion Redux = Albion One?


Albion 1 Redux, which predates the subsequently released Albion ONE, the latter which is a more processed and less organic sound IMO.


----------



## Vik (Dec 19, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> I already own Cinematic Studio Strings.
> 
> Will it be hard for a rookie like me make SCS sound bigger? I know I am going Strings first from Spitfire. Just dont know if I have the skill to pick SCS first and make it sound more "big" and "epic", like SSS can do easely.


My guess is that SCS and CSS would be a perfect combination. Did anyone here try it yet? And - should we make a separate thread about the string topic?


----------



## markleake (Dec 19, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> I just know I love the Spitfire/AIR sound, and I really really really feel inspired by playing the instruments and I like the UI.



I agree with @tack. It really just comes down to what library you need more. Which one do you think you will get more use out of? How do you intend to use the library?


----------



## markleake (Dec 19, 2016)

Vik said:


> And - should we make a separate thread about the string topic?


Sorry, we are getting very off topic.


----------



## Viegaard (Dec 19, 2016)

Vik said:


> My guess is that SCS and CSS would be a perfect combination. Did anyone here try it yet? And - should we make a separate thread about the string topic?





markleake said:


> Sorry, we are getting very off topic.



I was just told that Spitfire and Cinematic Studio Strings could be hard to make sound like they were played in the same room, due to one being really wet and one dry.

I am not doing trailers. I want to write full orchestral pieces as a hobby. So it needs to sound good with the end result. Cause I cant just hand over the finished piece to a world-class orchestra when I am done


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

Viegaard said:


> I was just told that Spitfire and Cinematic Studio Strings could be hard to make sound like they were played in the same room, due to one being really wet and one dry.


That tends not to be as much of a problem as people make it out to be, I think.

I did a quick demo of SCS and CSS separately. Maybe I'll do up a video of that same progression with them layered and see what it sounds like.


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 19, 2016)

I have SSS & SCS and they're both great. In my opinion SSS has a larger, fuller, richness to it's sound. SCS seems to have more presence, more singularity to the notes you play (best way I can describe it), a more subtle and intimate richness of sound.

SSS is like a Cruise ship and SCS is like a Yacht.


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

tack said:


> I did a quick demo of SCS and CSS separately. Maybe I'll do up a video of that same progression with them layered and see what it sounds like.


Same chord progression with the libraries layered.


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 19, 2016)

tack said:


> Same chord progression with the libraries layered.



-
very nice demo... they do play very nicely together don't they... pardon the pun...


----------



## tack (Dec 19, 2016)

lp59burst said:


> very nice demo... they do play very nicely together don't they... pardon the pun...


I agree. They have very different sounds and I think do complement each other surprisingly well in layering -- at least arco.


----------



## markleake (Dec 20, 2016)

There's some oddities with the Bassoon Solo extended techniques patch in SSW, which I just reported to Spitfire. Is anyone else who has SSW hearing the Multitongued articulation play a semi-tone higher than the other artics, and the Minor Trills artic an octave lower? I just want to verify that it's not something odd with my system. Thanks.


----------



## The Darris (Dec 20, 2016)

markleake said:


> There's some oddities with the Bassoon Solo extended techniques patch in SSW, which I just reported to Spitfire. Is anyone else who has SSW hearing the Multitongued articulation play a semi-tone higher than the other artics, and the Minor Trills artic an octave lower? I just want to verify that it's not something odd with my system. Thanks.


Yes, all confirmed here.


----------



## khollister (Dec 20, 2016)

markleake said:


> There's some oddities with the Bassoon Solo extended techniques patch in SSW, which I just reported to Spitfire. Is anyone else who has SSW hearing the Multitongued articulation play a semi-tone higher than the other artics, and the Minor Trills artic an octave lower? I just want to verify that it's not something odd with my system. Thanks.



Confirm the octave problem on the trill - haven't tried the multi-tongue stuff yet


----------



## markleake (Dec 20, 2016)

Thanks @The Darris and @khollister. I logged these 2 issues with Spitfire, and also for the keyboard colours being wrong on same patches.


----------



## SamplesSlave (Dec 20, 2016)

Confirmed on my system as well.


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Dec 20, 2016)

tack said:


> Same chord progression with the libraries layered.



this sounds lovely Tack.


----------



## nas (Dec 20, 2016)

Would a moderator please move the posts on Strings (or start a new thread) as they're not really relevant to this thread on Woodwinds comparisons.

Thanks
nas


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 21, 2016)

nas said:


> Would a moderator please move the posts on Strings (or start a new thread) as they're not really relevant to this thread on Woodwinds comparisons.
> 
> Thanks
> nas


Oh my goodness... some slightly OT posts in a thread... that never happens... 

And yes, _*@Mods*_... please drop everything you're doing and move these before it gets out of hand...


----------



## nas (Dec 21, 2016)

lp59burst said:


> Oh my goodness... some slightly OT posts in a thread... that never happens...
> 
> And yes, _*@Mods*_... please drop everything you're doing and move these before it gets out of hand...



Very helpful - you're a real gem


----------



## nas (Dec 21, 2016)

Back on topic... Does anyone know if some of the bugs and tuning problems that were in the Mural versions of some WW libraries been addressed in this most recent release?


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 21, 2016)

nas said:


> Very helpful - you're a real gem


Uncanny... that's exactly what I was thinking when I read your original post...


----------



## lp59burst (Dec 21, 2016)

nas said:


> Back on topic... Does anyone know if some of the bugs and tuning problems that were in the Mural versions of some WW libraries been addressed in this most recent release?


Based on earlier posts in this thread that were on topic... I'd say that yes, some have. However, it appears that there may be some new, or possibly previously undiscovered, issues that are cropping up now that have been reported to SF.

I hope this was helpful...


----------



## blougui (Dec 30, 2016)

tack said:


> Interesting how the SSS chart only shows bartok pizz on the basses. It's definitely available in all sections.
> 
> I actually counted up all those boxes (OCD?) and after correcting for the bartok pizz error, I have 194 for Chamber Strings and 204 for Symphonic Strings.


Allright then.
[edit : interestingly enough, there's more in the Mural/SSS ensemble longs than in SCS]


----------



## cadenzajon (Jan 17, 2017)

The Darris said:


> Well, I don't own Spitfire's Woodwinds but I can say that as a day one owner of BWW, I love it. It's been my workhorse since it came out. With that said, I'm looking forward to Spitfire's Woodwinds because I do love the tone of it. It will be nice to have two vastly different sounding libraries.
> ...
> I've just used BWW so much now that I know its ins and outs and I'm hoping Spitfire's option will help fill in the gaps and offer up solutions to things I can't do well in BWW.



@The Darris , have you had a chance to try SWW by this point and see how it "fills in the gaps" for your workflow? If you've been able to evaluate it, I would love some more details about how you find it to stack up against BWW, and particularly things you "can't do well in BWW" which it may be able to handle.


----------



## The Darris (Jan 17, 2017)

cadenzajon said:


> @The Darris , have you had a chance to try SWW by this point and see how it "fills in the gaps" for your workflow? If you've been able to evaluate it, I would love some more details about how you find it to stack up against BWW, and particularly things you "can't do well in BWW" which it may be able to handle.


I am actually about to start recording my review of SWW right now. What I can same in terms of a comparison is that SWW doesn't replace BWW for me. What it does offer is a much more warm sounding tone and colors of instrumentation that are lacking in the core BWW library. In terms of articulations, there are some in there that aren't in BWW and vice versa. SWW is definitely more inconsistent across the range in terms of articulations where as BWW offers a more well rounded list across the instruments. SWW can't do fast runs convincingly like BWW can. This was surprising considering how well Chamber Strings does this and it is way older too. Spitfire's demos do reflect what SWW cannot do and when you listen to them pay close attention to moments that stick out as sounding dull or fake. Those are the type of things that library can't do.

As for a stand alone library on its own terms, it's very good. I do love the warmth it has as well as the split of single and a2 patches for building your own ensembles. Where it lacks in fast agile playing, it makes up for it in lyrical and melodic performances. It blends very easily with any of the Symphonic libraries from Spitfire and I think the price works just fine for what is there. It doesn't do it all but then again, I've never used a library that could do everything. I'm glad I now have this as an addition to my palette of colors. More will be evident in my review.

Best,

Chris


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jan 17, 2017)

The Darris said:


> I am actually about to start recording my review of SWW right now. What I can same in terms of a comparison is that SWW doesn't replace BWW for me. What it does offer is a much more warm sounding tone and colors of instrumentation that are lacking in the core BWW library. In terms of articulations, there are some in there that aren't in BWW and vice versa. SWW is definitely more inconsistent across the range in terms of articulations where as BWW offers a more well rounded list across the instruments. SWW can't do fast runs convincingly like BWW can. This was surprising considering how well Chamber Strings does this and it is way older too. Spitfire's demos do reflect what SWW cannot do and when you listen to them pay close attention to moments that stick out as sounding dull or fake. Those are the type of things that library can't do.
> 
> As for a stand alone library on its own terms, it's very good. I do love the warmth it has as well as the split of single and a2 patches for building your own ensembles. Where it lacks in fast agile playing, it makes up for it in lyrical and melodic performances. It blends very easily with any of the Symphonic libraries from Spitfire and I think the price works just fome for what is there. It doesn't do it all but then again, I've never used a library that could do everything. I'm glad I now have this as an addition to my palette of colors. More will be evident in my review.
> 
> ...



Agreed here on most of the points. Though: Some of the Blaney Demos showcase pretty convincing agile Woodwind writing and even frenetic runs on the winds. For me they sound pretty convincing.


----------



## The Darris (Jan 17, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Agreed here on most of the points. Though: Some of the Blaney Demos showcase pretty convincing agile Woodwind writing and even frenetic runs on the winds. For me they sound pretty convincing.


Yes, I should have specified that the a2 patches aren't convincing enough when it comes to fast agile playing. The soloist are pretty decent for that but they lack that timbre (because they are only one player) that you would want when doing big woodwind runs. For that, I wish they had spent some time on recorded runs like they did with Albion One. Maybe they will for a future update. I don't know.

-C
[edit; Oliver's demo for the Woodwind Teaser really demonstrates what I am talking about when it comes to the fast playing.]


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 18, 2017)

The Darris said:


> I am actually about to start recording my review of SWW right now. What I can same in terms of a comparison is that SWW doesn't replace BWW for me. What it does offer is a much more warm sounding tone and colors of instrumentation that are lacking in the core BWW library. In terms of articulations, there are some in there that aren't in BWW and vice versa. SWW is definitely more inconsistent across the range in terms of articulations where as BWW offers a more well rounded list across the instruments. SWW can't do fast runs convincingly like BWW can. This was surprising considering how well Chamber Strings does this and it is way older too. Spitfire's demos do reflect what SWW cannot do and when you listen to them pay close attention to moments that stick out as sounding dull or fake. Those are the type of things that library can't do.
> 
> As for a stand alone library on its own terms, it's very good. I do love the warmth it has as well as the split of single and a2 patches for building your own ensembles. Where it lacks in fast agile playing, it makes up for it in lyrical and melodic performances. It blends very easily with any of the Symphonic libraries from Spitfire and I think the price works just fome for what is there. It doesn't do it all but then again, I've never used a library that could do everything. I'm glad I now have this as an addition to my palette of colors. More will be evident in my review.
> 
> ...



This was particularly helpful, Chris. I passed up both Berlin and Spitfire woodwinds to complete my Hein WW collection, and now I'm wondering what the general consensus is? Seems to me Berlin might be the preferred overall.

I'm really looking forward to your review!


----------



## N.Caffrey (Jan 18, 2017)

The Darris said:


> Yes, I should have specified that the a2 patches aren't convincing enough when it comes to fast agile playing. The soloist are pretty decent for that but they lack that timbre (because they are only one player) that you would want when doing big woodwind runs. For that, I wish they had spent some time on recorded runs like they did with Albion One. Maybe they will for a future update. I don't know.
> 
> -C
> [edit; Oliver's demo for the Woodwind Teaser really demonstrates what I am talking about when it comes to the fast playing.]



Hi Chris, when will your review be available?


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 18, 2017)

I guess it's safe to say there are plenty of people looking forward, Chris


----------



## N.Caffrey (Jan 18, 2017)

I already have BWW.. but I love AIR, although I wasn't really blown away by the BML Flute have to say. So yeah it'll be interesting to say what Chris has to say


----------



## The Darris (Jan 21, 2017)

N.Caffrey said:


> Hi Chris, when will your review be available?


Well, I had some personal affairs pop up earlier in the week that had to be handled before my drive down to LA for NAMM. It will be out this week after I get back home.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2017)

[QUOTE="Parsifal666, post: 4044375, member: 11643" now I'm wondering what the general consensus is? Seems to me Berlin might be the preferred overall.

I'm really looking forward to your review![/QUOTE]

Don't. The "general consensus" is not a good way to choose. The _specifics_ that people you respect have to say about each is, and of course, what you yourself _hear_ that you like or don't like.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 22, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Don't. The "general consensus" is not a good way to choose. The _specifics_ that people you respect have to say about each is, and of course, what you yourself _hear_ that you like or don't like.



Hi Jay, though there's certainly truth in what you're saying, I never mentioned anything about being committed to following the general consensus. I just like reading reviews...including yours 

We all can look forward to whatever we want.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Hi Jay, though there's certainly truth in what you're saying, I never mentioned anything about being committed to following the general consensus. I just like reading reviews...including yours
> 
> We all can look forward to whatever we want.



Fine, but you can learn more from disagreeing opinions than consensus.


----------



## cadenzajon (Jan 22, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> The "general consensus" is not a good way to choose.



Actually, if the folks on vi-control were so united in their opinions that, for once, there actually _was_ a general consensus, I would expect to find it pretty trustworthy.

However, for the questions posed in this thread as well as most others, I can rest quite assured that the conversation won't reach anything near a consensus.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2017)

I don't agree. There have been a number of times here over the years when I think the general consensus totally got it wrong. One guy writes something, another who doesn't even have the product repeats it, and so on and so on, and it became the accepted view.


----------



## robgb (Jan 22, 2017)

cadenzajon said:


> Actually, if the folks on vi-control were so united in their opinions that, for once, there actually _was_ a general consensus, I would expect to find it pretty trustworthy.


LOL. There are a lot of opinions here.


----------



## jlefkowitz (Jan 22, 2017)

Hey everyone, this is my first time posting and using this site! I found this site because I was trying to decide between spitfire symphonic woodwinds, berlin woodwinds, and chris hein woodwinds. I had concerns about spitfire's clarinet sounding fake and then the fast woodwind runs that are so crucial in adding color, i thought spitfire didn't do it convincingly. However, I own spitfire symphonic brass and HZ1. My business partner than told me today that he is going to get the spitfire symphonic orchestra which of course has SSW so I am now deciding that me and him should have different libraries because we are going to be combining into 1 account for our studio. Which then leaves me with Berlin woodwinds and Chris Hein. For Berlin, my concerns were that it sounded so real that it sounded processed and like a computer. I also wish it had an alto flute. And lastly theres Chris Hein. My mentor LOVES Chris Hein and obsesses how its 8 dynamic layers whereas spitfire and berlin are 8. However, based off the demos, I didn't love Chris Hein. And also after my mentor being at NAMM and seeing Berlin woodwinds, he now really likes them but still swears over Chris Hein lol So thats my situation. Thanks for those who read this, I wrote way too much haha I look forward to participating on this site, thanks!!


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jan 22, 2017)

jlefkowitz said:


> Hey everyone, this is my first time posting and using this site! I found this site because I was trying to decide between spitfire symphonic woodwinds, berlin woodwinds, and chris hein woodwinds. I had concerns about spitfire's clarinet sounding fake and then the fast woodwind runs that are so crucial in adding color, i thought spitfire didn't do it convincingly. However, I own spitfire symphonic brass and HZ1. My business partner than told me today that he is going to get the spitfire symphonic orchestra which of course has SSW so I am now deciding that me and him should have different libraries because we are going to be combining into 1 account for our studio. Which then leaves me with Berlin woodwinds and Chris Hein. For Berlin, my concerns were that it sounded so real that it sounded processed and like a computer. I also wish it had an alto flute. And lastly theres Chris Hein. My mentor LOVES Chris Hein and obsesses how its 8 dynamic layers whereas spitfire and berlin are 8. However, based off the demos, I didn't love Chris Hein. And also after my mentor being at NAMM and seeing Berlin woodwinds, he now really likes them but still swears over Chris Hein lol So thats my situation. Thanks for those who read this, I wrote way too much haha I look forward to participating on this site, thanks!!



No, you wrote not a way too much. And welcome to the Forum.
BTW: Why do you think fast woodwind runs are so crucial to add color? There are so many ways to add color so I ask. BTW: I think you can do pretty good runs with their woodwinds. Just interested about that. The Clarinet is sounding fake? Didn´t noticed that yet. So what is sound faking in that clarinet? A specific articulation? The way of the sonic character? The legato scripting?


----------



## jlefkowitz (Jan 23, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> No, you wrote not a way too much. And welcome to the Forum.
> BTW: Why do you think fast woodwind runs are so crucial to add color? There are so many ways to add color so I ask. BTW: I think you can do pretty good runs with their woodwinds. Just interested about that. The Clarinet is sounding fake? Didn´t noticed that yet. So what is sound faking in that clarinet? A specific articulation? The way of the sonic character? The legato scripting?



Its just one of my favorite ways and styles of writing. Its more of a personal thing. To me, Spitfire sounded messy and a bit fake and Berlin was clear and really nice. For the Clarinet, it just didn't sound right tone wise to me. Nothing really problematic, just some personal issues i'd say.


----------



## The Darris (Jan 30, 2017)

My review of Spitfire's Woodwinds is live if you check out my youtube channel. I would post it but I don't think I am allowed to in this thread. All the best.

-Chris


----------



## TintoL (Feb 1, 2017)

I wanted to ask if anyone has heard in the SWW solo flute legato patch a second kind of "ghost flute" ringing very softly in the higher octaves when playing a run. It feels like something in the legato transition creating like an "air overblown" of the player. I just want to know if this is something that can happen when a flute player is playing or if this is an actual artifact in the library or if it's a problem in my template.
I don't hear that in my vsl flute.


----------



## Thorsten Meyer (Feb 1, 2017)

The Darris said:


> My review of Spitfire's Woodwinds is live if you check out my youtube channel. I would post it but I don't think I am allowed to in this thread. All the best.
> 
> -Chris


Chris,

I watch your review and you have some really good points as a pro and contra included.
Thank you again for sharing your views,
THorsten


----------



## The Darris (Feb 1, 2017)

TintoL said:


> I wanted to ask if anyone has heard in the SWW solo flute legato patch a second kind of "ghost flute" ringing very softly in the higher octaves when playing a run. It feels like something in the legato transition creating like an "air overblown" of the player. I just want to know if this is something that can happen when a flute player is playing or if this is an actual artifact in the library or if it's a problem in my template.
> I don't hear that in my vsl flute.


It's the harmonics of the instrument resonating in the studio. This, to me, is a natural characteristic of the instrument. However, some careful EQ'ing can help tone it down if it is too much for you. You won't get that with VSL because of the fact that they recorded it dry. Dry rooms won't pick up on the harmonics as much.


----------



## TintoL (Apr 26, 2017)

The Darris said:


> It's the harmonics of the instrument resonating in the studio. This, to me, is a natural characteristic of the instrument. However, some careful EQ'ing can help tone it down if it is too much for you. You won't get that with VSL because of the fact that they recorded it dry. Dry rooms won't pick up on the harmonics as much.


Sorry I didn't see this before. Thanks The Darris for your answer. It calms down my thought that I had bad samples here and there.

VSL has a perfect tuning that at times felt too perfect. Only the humanization feature will help. Nevertheless, having now the spitfire woodwinds, even thought I love the sound of them, I miss that "perfect tuning " because some times I find some notes in some instruments to be a bit too off, specially the release samples. I am sure now, that it's better to combine samples, maybe SSW with orchestral tools woods combined. I also miss the "runs" a lot in the SSW samples. Nevertheless, the runs in VSL were not tempo locked, which was a bummer. You could only get the tempo lock working by using the additional "sequencer" tool that VSL instruments pro has (up to my knowledge). Anyways, thanks again Darris.


----------



## The Darris (Apr 26, 2017)

TintoL said:


> Sorry I didn't see this before. Thanks The Darris for your answer. It calms down my thought that I had bad samples here and there.
> 
> VSL has a perfect tuning that at times felt too perfect. Only the humanization feature will help. Nevertheless, having now the spitfire woodwinds, even thought I love the sound of them, I miss that "perfect tuning " because some times I find some notes in some instruments to be a bit too off, specially the release samples. I am sure now, that it's better to combine samples, maybe SSW with orchestral tools woods combined. I also miss the "runs" a lot in the SSW samples. Nevertheless, the runs in VSL were not tempo locked, which was a bummer. You could only get the tempo lock working by using the additional "sequencer" tool that VSL instruments pro has (up to my knowledge). Anyways, thanks again Darris.



No worries!! Concerning tuning. There are different camps of users out there on that. I used to be the one who wanted the best tuned sound but then I found that you actually get a more realistic sound with those libraries in a mix than you do with perfectly tuned libraries. One library that sticks out is Strezov Sampling's 2 Trombones library. The tuning in that library is pretty bad in some places. Enough to make you cringe when soloed. However, layer those with some other trombones in a mix and suddenly there's some life brought to it. For me, getting the best out of VSL is to layer it with other instruments that are imperfect.


----------



## TintoL (Apr 26, 2017)

Thaks for your answer. I do agree that you have to layer to get a better realism.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 26, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> Or use sample modeling



Who was in charge of timing this this time?


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 26, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> I wait for the most opportune time to strike
> 
> Really though, something about SM that is breathing to me - a living sound, its a much more intimate experience
> 
> ...


 
So I guess you really just don't _like_ Sample Modeling?


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 26, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> Did you see my for sale posts? I was about ready pawn MIR pro and my first born son so I could buy more
> 
> I'd say i have an addiction, but I bought all of it... not many instruments left on their immediate plate
> 
> ...



I get it, you're just not a fan of Sample Modeling.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Oct 17, 2017)

Reading through this again there doesn't seem to be a swing either way on what library was better.
Any thoughts now Berlin is looking to update?


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Oct 19, 2017)

I'm also interested in this. Assuming Spitfire does their 25% off wishlist deal again this year, the price of SSW will be darn near the discounted price of BWW.


----------



## ModalRealist (Oct 19, 2017)

@Kaufmanmoon and @jacobthestupendous: I think it depends on the kind of writing you want to do, as well as your current setup. If you're already working in Air Lyndhurst, then SSW is a no-brainer because Spitfire's symphonic samples are just _so _wet—like, dripping wet. If you're working with anything drier (CSS, Hollywood, maybe even CineSamples) then BWW is a very, very serious contender. Here's how I think one might choose (there are all "or", not "and")...

_Choose SSW if..._

you work in Air Lyndhurst/with very wet samples;
you _mainly_ write in textures;
you don't generally write harmony for the woodwinds.
_Choose BWW if..._

you work with drier samples (EW Hollywood, CSS, Berlin, VSL, etc.);
you want to write harmonies in the woods;
you want to write idiomatic woodwind lines (runs, twirls, etc.).
This isn't to say that SSW can't do idiomatic or that BWW can't do textures, but these are, IMO, their relative strengths. Personally, I just couldn't do without the three separate flutes in BWW, and nor could I do without all the playable runs and the runs builder. But that's because of the kind of music I write.


----------



## markleake (Oct 19, 2017)

ModalRealist said:


> @Kaufmanmoon and @jacobthestupendous: I think it depends on the kind of writing you want to do, as well as your current setup. If you're already working in Air Lyndhurst, then SSW is a no-brainer because Spitfire's symphonic samples are just _so _wet—like, dripping wet. If you're working with anything drier (CSS, Hollywood, maybe even CineSamples) then BWW is a very, very serious contender. Here's how I think one might choose (there are all "or", not "and")...
> 
> _Choose SSW if..._
> 
> ...


Very useful advice! Thanks!

I have SSW, and they are fantastic, but I've started writing more with woods, and have discovered some of their limitations. I've never been especially taken with the flute in SSW, mainly with the runs (too blured) and the longs (the flute isn't as sweet sounding as the flutes in BWW, the second register sounds a bit off to my ears). So I have my eye on BWW, and love the runs it can do... if the demos are any indication. What you describe is exactly what I had expected from BWW based on what others have said also. So yes, BWW are very tempting...

I've noticed also in other pieces where BWW are used that some instuments have a smoother playing style than SSW - the legato sounds a bit more controlled, where in SSW the instuments have more built in swell and dynamics that can't be controlled. Having both, would you say this is true? Maybe I'm just imagining it?


----------



## Omji (Jul 9, 2019)

I have a question...I am about to get the Berlin Woodwinds Exp B, and maybe C. It appears in all reviews, as well as comparison videos, that is sounds much better than the original library. So, if it sounds so much better, is much smaller and much cheaper...what is the purpose of the original library? Maybe some extra mic positions or articulations? Can somebody please explain this?


----------



## markleake (Jul 9, 2019)

Omji said:


> I have a question...I am about to get the Berlin Woodwinds Exp B, and maybe C. It appears in all reviews, as well as comparison videos, that is sounds much better than the original library. So, if it sounds so much better, is much smaller and much cheaper...what is the purpose of the original library? Maybe some extra mic positions or articulations? Can somebody please explain this?


The Soloist libraries (EXP B and EXP C) are recorded very differently to the main library. They are recorded in a dry recording booth, and have no recorded dynamic layers. They're designed for exposed solo playing, and have built in expression.

The main library is recorded in the Teldex scoring stage, so will have more natural reverb, variation in mic placement, and have multiple dynamic layers recorded (in particular the original instruments that were part of the original library before it was re-packaged as Revive). They're designed for an orchestral mix, and allow you more control over the dynamics/expression.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jul 9, 2019)

nevermind the discrepancy in articulations.


----------



## Omji (Jul 10, 2019)

markleake said:


> The Soloist libraries (EXP B and EXP C) are recorded very differently to the main library. They are recorded in a dry recording booth, and have no recorded dynamic layers. They're designed for exposed solo playing, and have built in expression.
> 
> The main library is recorded in the Teldex scoring stage, so will have more natural reverb, variation in mic placement, and have multiple dynamic layers recorded (in particular the original instruments that were part of the original library before it was re-packaged as Revive). They're designed for an orchestral mix, and allow you more control over the dynamics/expression.


Thank you! So, would you still use the original library for Solo parts? I think that would be my main use.


----------



## axb312 (May 3, 2020)

Anyone know when the last update to Spitfire Symphonic WWs was released and what was included in it?


----------



## jbuhler (May 3, 2020)

axb312 said:


> Anyone know when the last update to Spitfire Symphonic WWs was released and what was included in it?


May 2019 is the last update. Here is the fix file:
FIX: [PB-400] - Piccolo Legato - A4 to Eb 5 produces an octave below at the attack.
FIX: [PB-471] - Flute Solo - Long Vib ff C6 | melodyne glitch in tail.
FIX: [PB-573] - Stretch control missing from TM patch for solo flute.
FIX: [PB-601] - Bassoon a2 Tenuto has an incorrect sample on the C#1 4th RR.
FIX: [PB-657] - Audible re-tongue/re-attack in Bass Clarinet long.
FIX: [PB-669] - Flute Trills slightly tuning in the last octave.
FIX: [PB-232] - Articulation keyswitches inconsistent in extended techniques.
FIX: [PB-363] - Odd clicking attack at low velocity (~75% dynamics).


----------



## axb312 (May 3, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> May 2019 is the last update. Here is the fix file:
> FIX: [PB-400] - Piccolo Legato - A4 to Eb 5 produces an octave below at the attack.
> FIX: [PB-471] - Flute Solo - Long Vib ff C6 | melodyne glitch in tail.
> FIX: [PB-573] - Stretch control missing from TM patch for solo flute.
> ...



Thanks!

Any glaring QC/ bug fixes needed at the moment that you're aware of?


----------



## jbuhler (May 3, 2020)

axb312 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Any glaring QC/ bug fixes needed at the moment that you're aware of?


I like the instruments quite a lot aside from the solo clarinet and clarinets a2 and I haven’t found any glaring issues. The flutes a2 and solo flute are not well well calibrated for sharing midi. The articulations across the library are not as uniform as they should be. Many of the instruments are incomplete (clarinet, oboe, English horn) compared to what would be ideal. It’s the inconsistency across the library that would be my main gripe and I’m hoping they address these issues when they finally port them to the SF player. I also have the full set of mics, and those aren’t currently available. 

But in general I find they sound reasonably cohesive as a group and I’ve never had to work hard to make them sit with the other instruments of SSO. The solo instruments work reasonably well as orchestral soloists though there are more expressive instruments for real solo or chamber work.


----------



## ism (Apr 30, 2021)

Vik said:


> I had the privilege of working with Tallin Chamber Orchestra with Tõnu Kaljuste (the ensemble/conductor Arvo Pärt has worked a lot with) a long time ago. I don't remember the exact numbers of V1s, V2s etc now, but it sounded truly amazing. Sometimes strings simply sound more like strings when there are not too many of them.



Soory, old thread. But just to say, first of all - how cool is that?

And yes, those TCO strings really, really sound like strings.


----------



## muziksculp (May 1, 2021)

ism said:


> Soory, old thread. But just to say, first of all - how cool is that?
> 
> And yes, those TCO strings really, really so sound like strings.


Yes, that's very cool indeed. 

Also looking forward to the release of OT's *TALLINN* Library, that features their Chamber Strings, May 5th


----------

