# Is EWQLSO Platinum worth if it is $221?



## FantasyCKL

I saw this at Time + Space. And with the loyalty point system, the price of EWQLSO Platinum will be $209. ( The price at EW website is $319 ) However, is it safe to buy product at Time + Space?

Besides, I initially don't want to buy it because people here said EWQLSO is a bit old and no true legato and it doesn't worth $319 with it's quality. ( I hear most of the demos which sound a bit weird and quirky especially the string, it sounds so cheap, like those free library from logic Pro X. ) But now it's ONLY $209, should I go for it?


----------



## szurcio

Yes, sure, Time + Space is a legit distributor/reseller.


----------



## Geomir

For sure Time+Space is a very well known distributor/reseller.

You other question is a little more tricky. You see, the reply (and the question itself) is not "black or white". The truth is in the middle.

Also it's good to know more things about you. Is this your max budget? Will this be your first orchestral library? Are you planning to compose orchestral / classical music, or i.e. pop / rock?

For me getting the Platinum version with $210 is a very good price. The 3 microphones are very useful here, because the orchestra was recorded in a concert hall (so it obviously has natural reverb). I love this, but it's not for everyone. With the close mic, you can naturally reduce the amount of reverb, get a drier sound and mix it more easily with other music libraries.

Even if in the future you find yourself wanting true legato instruments for ultra realism, still EWQLSO offers a huge collection of instruments, i.e. a nice grand piano, a fantastic concert harp, a harpsichord, chamber strings, etc... Also the percussion is still very usable, both the melodic/tuned instruments and the untuned ones.


----------



## JohnG

I would not buy EWQLSO today, even though the percussion and woodwinds still hold up very well. I paid approx. $4,300 for it when it first came out, so I've used it a lot!

If you're seeking a full orchestra, suggest the "Hollywood" series from East West, or perhaps Spitfire's BBC Orchestra.


----------



## nolotrippen

For a first orchestra, you can't go wrong at that price. It does have a wet sound, but having a close mic option will help that. It sounds good right out of the digital box. I still used it.


----------



## awaey

EWQLSO still one of the perfect collection orchestra ,,all instrument from solo to ensemble Piano ,Harp ,Complete Orchestra Percussion , Solo String , Solo Brass , Solo wind ,more ,,,,Plus very good sound ,,EWQLSO Platinum $209 ?? Very Good Price ...


----------



## FantasyCKL

Geomir said:


> For sure Time+Space is a very well known distributor/reseller.
> 
> You other question is a little more tricky. You see, the reply (and the question itself) is not "black or white". The truth is in the middle.
> 
> Also it's good to know more things about you. Is this your max budget? Will this be your first orchestral library? Are you planning to compose orchestral / classical music, or i.e. pop / rock?
> 
> For me getting the Platinum version with $210 is a very good price. The 3 microphones are very useful here, because the orchestra was recorded in a concert hall (so it obviously has natural reverb). I love this, but it's not for everyone. With the close mic, you can naturally reduce the amount of reverb, get a drier sound and mix it more easily with other music libraries.
> 
> Even if in the future you find yourself wanting true legato instruments for ultra realism, still EWQLSO offers a huge collection of instruments, i.e. a nice grand piano, a fantastic concert harp, a harpsichord, chamber strings, etc... Also the percussion is still very usable, both the melodic/tuned instruments and the untuned ones.


yes, it will be my first library, and i want to write classical music for now. my budget for Orchestra VI is $400 max,so I think $210 is a nice option.


----------



## MarcelM

if i were you i would go with composer cloud and check both series out. maybe you dont like either, or maybe you just stay with the cloud and use both. composer cloud is the best option if you are starting out. BUT if i had to pick between ewqlso and hollywood orchestra it would be an easy choice. HO is still awesome and better imho.


----------



## Pincel

It's a very old library as you certainly know, but it still sounds pretty great for general use IMO, even with it's many limitations by todays standards, and I still use a lot of the Percussion especially, most of that stuff still sounds very good, but Hollywood Orchestra Gold is currently selling for $266 at the East West website, so if you're set on buying a library, that would probably be a better choice, although it only has 1 mic position, and maybe slightly less variety of instruments, the samples do sound better and I think you can get a lot of mileage out of that if you're willing to learn it.

But as someone suggested before, the wisest option would probably be to try out the Composer Cloud first if you can, and get a taste of the instruments there and see if you like the sounds and workflow.


----------



## JohnG

Sorry to fans -- EWQLSO definitely does not sound that great anymore. I love EW and have tons of their libraries. But it is goofy to use a library that came out in about 2004 in 2020.

Composer Cloud, as @MarcelM suggested, is a great idea. That way the OP can find out for himself what he likes.

The idea that beginners are "just fine" with an old, weaker library is completely bonkers, in my view. Hollywood Strings itself is 10 years old. Why go even further back?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

JohnG said:


> But it is goofy to use a library that came out in about 2004 in 2020



I still have quite a lot of it in my big template.


----------



## FantasyCKL

MarcelM said:


> if i were you i would go with composer cloud and check both series out. maybe you dont like either, or maybe you just stay with the cloud and use both. composer cloud is the best option if you are starting out. BUT if i had to pick between ewqlso and hollywood orchestra it would be an easy choice. HO is still awesome and better imho.


But subscription for a year ( $199 ) is the only option for composer cloud now. I think 3-6 months is long enough to test/try whether I like it or not. And only Gypsy is another VI that I want to test, so it's kind of waste of money for joining a year.


----------



## ryans

There are a few...(very few) EWQLSO patches that I still rely on.. some of the brass, percussion, and expressive string patches...

It's a legendary library, but... I have to agree with John, I don't think I can recommend it as a first library... especially with hollywood orchestra gold so close in price...

I still think EWQLSO can sound good however, I used a lot of EWQLSO brass (mixed with some newer libraries) in this mockup below...


----------



## MauroPantin

I would purchase a newer library in lieu of investing time and effort in learning the workflow composers had in 2004 with EWQLSO. 

Sonically, it is not outdated. It can sound great in the right hands. But the process you need to go through to get to a great sound is quite different in a library from 15 years ago than what it is using one released in the past couple of years. It's a steep learning curve that you will likely not be able to transfer somewhere else when switching to a more contemporary sample library.


----------



## purple

You can probably do great things with it but why would you? Other things are better now, and some almost if not exactly as cheap when on sale. People who tell you "it still holds up well" but who cares? Unless you already have it, that is a moot point.


----------



## José Herring

MauroPantin said:


> I would purchase a newer library in lieu of investing time and effort in learning the workflow composers had in 2004 with EWQLSO.
> 
> Sonically, it is not outdated. It can sound great in the right hands. But the process you need to go through to get to a great sound is quite different in a library from 15 years ago than what it is using one released in the past couple of years. It's a steep learning curve that you will likely not be able to transfer somewhere else when switching to a more contemporary sample library.


+1

It CAN still sound great. But, unless you've spent the last 15 years learning it why would anybody put in that time now.

OP, if this is the library you want to get because you love the sound and can't live without it then by all means. BUT.....if you're getting it just because you can get it for $200. That seems like the worst reason to get any library. Save a couple of hundred more and get a newer library.

As John G. stated Hollywood Orchestra though it comes with its own set of challenges would be a better investment and yield better results for you.


----------



## FantasyCKL

josejherring said:


> +1
> 
> It CAN still sound great. But, unless you've spent the last 15 years learning it why would anybody put in that time now.
> 
> OP, if this is the library you want to get because you love the sound and can't live without it then by all means. BUT.....if you're getting it just because you can get it for $200. That seems like the worst reason to get any library. Save a couple of hundred more and get a newer library.
> 
> As John G. stated Hollywood Orchestra though it comes with it's own set of challenges would be a better investment and yield better results for you.


right, I know HO is better, but it's tempting to get all including SOLO instruments with this price.( especially the harp sounds so good ). Except the String, others' sound are acceptable.


----------



## José Herring

FantasyCKL said:


> right, I know HO is better, but it's tempting to get all including SOLO instruments with this price.( especially the harp sounds so good ). Except the String, others' sound are acceptable.


If it helps these are the patches I still use. 

All the Percussion
Harp
Celeste
3 Clarinet
3 Oboes
3 Flutes
Bass Clarinet
Tuba
Double Basses

(I still use the solo woodwinds, but it takes a lot to get them to work. I have them setup so I don't have to worry about them, but they sound terrible out of the box).



If that is worth $200 to you then go for it.


----------



## musicalweather

My answer would be definitely not. I used EWQLSO for at least 10 years; it was one of the few complete orchestral libraries out there when I bought it. Yeah, there's still some useable stuff, especially in the percussion. But the strings sound horribly outdated to me now (synthy and overpowered). Brass is also artificial sounding. As others have said, save your money and get something much, much better.

If you're on a tight budget, jump into the EW Composer Cloud. For about the same amount of money as this sale, you can get a year's access to the Hollywood Orchestra which is much more up to date, not to mention all the other stuff on there.


----------



## Jaap

I agree with @JohnG here as well. I used it since it was released and costed me a fortune and it was splendid and good and still there are some gems in it, but if you want to enjoy your classical writing with some good sounds, I would just go for the Hollywood version to be honest. The Gold version is on sale for $266 and the diamond (would go for that) $372 - http://www.soundsonline.com/hollywood-orchestra

You will then have a really good collection of sounds to work with.

Good luck with the decision!


----------



## Geomir

You can still get Hollywood Orchestra Gold (with a nice default mic, that isn't too wet or too dry). There is a package that includes the solo instruments: an average violin, an average cello, and an average harp. Sadly no solo viola, bass, or piano were ever included in Hollywood Series. But still this is a very nice option that costs just a little more than $400.

Another option for you, if you could save extra $50, is a newer library (it runs in the free Kontakt Player), maybe you already researched it, Nucleus Core. It has 2 mics, one of then is "classical", and has also some nice solo instruments. It sounds great out of the box, it's very easy to use, but it is not as detailed as EWHO (has only the essential articulations).






Nucleus (The Orchestral Core for Kontakt Player)


NOW UPDATED TO V1.3 WITH EVEN MORE CONTENT Working on the go? Nucleus preserves system resources while packing a mighty punch, with all the essentials of modern cinematic composition and an intuitive interface. Clean, compact, and easy-to-use, Nucleus is an all-in-one package that’s hard to...




www.audioimperia.com





Composer Cloud is still maybe the best idea, you can use all EW libraries for one year and then decide if you want to buy something or not.


----------



## José Herring

Jaap said:


> I agree with @JohnG here as well. I used it since it was released and costed me a fortune and it was splendid and good and still there are some gems in it, but if you want to enjoy your classical writing with some good sounds, I would just go for the Hollywood version to be honest. The Gold version is on sale for $266 and the diamond (would go for that) $372 - http://www.soundsonline.com/hollywood-orchestra
> 
> You will then have a really good collection of sounds to work with.
> 
> Good luck with the decision!


Man I didn't realize that prices are so low! Why is this even a discussion? 

OP, you just need to hop on the HO Diamond and call it a day.


----------



## FantasyCKL

Geomir said:


> You can still get Hollywood Orchestra Gold (with a nice default mic, that isn't too wet or too dry). There is a package that includes the solo instruments: an average violin, an average cello, and an average harp. Sadly no solo viola, bass, or piano were ever included in Hollywood Series. But still this is a very nice option that costs just a little more than $400.
> 
> Another option for you, if you could save extra $50, is a newer library (it runs in the free Kontakt Player), maybe you already researched it, Nucleus Core. It has 2 mics, one of then is "classical", and has also some nice solo instruments. It sounds great out of the box, it's very easy to use, but it is not as detailed as EWHO (has only the essential articulations).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucleus (The Orchestral Core for Kontakt Player)
> 
> 
> NOW UPDATED TO V1.3 WITH EVEN MORE CONTENT Working on the go? Nucleus preserves system resources while packing a mighty punch, with all the essentials of modern cinematic composition and an intuitive interface. Clean, compact, and easy-to-use, Nucleus is an all-in-one package that’s hard to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audioimperia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Composer Cloud is still maybe the best idea, you can use all EW libraries for one year and then decide if you want to buy something or not.


Okay, so I will rank HO first for now and look for other libraries. I will check for Nucleus and BBC.


----------



## Jaap

josejherring said:


> Man I didn't realize that prices are so low! Why is this even a discussion?
> 
> OP, you just need to hop on the HO Diamond and call it a day.



Yeah it is insane how the prices dropped José!


----------



## Jaap

FantasyCKL said:


> Okay, so I will rank HO first for now and look for other libraries. I will check for Nucleus and BBC.



Maybe even more important as I forgot to ask that in my previous post. How do you want to use it? Are you planning to work on creating realistic classical pieces in a DAW or are you looking for some good sounds to use in a notation program like Dorico, Finale or Sibelius?


----------



## onebitboy

FantasyCKL said:


> But subscription for a year ( $199 ) is the only option for composer cloud now.


No, there's still a monthly subscription (you just need to click on "Click here to show all ComposerCloud plans" first to see it).


----------



## FantasyCKL

Jaap said:


> Maybe even more important as I forgot to ask that in my previous post. How do you want to use it? Are you planning to work on creating realistic classical pieces in a DAW or are you looking for some good sounds to use in a notation program like Dorico, Finale or Sibelius?


First scoring in Sibelius ( the default sound is awful ) , then tuning in Logic.


----------



## Jaap

FantasyCKL said:


> First scoring in Sibelius ( the default sound is awful ) , then tuning in Logic.



Yeah agree, those default sounds are indeed not to write home about  The reason I asked is because there is also a very neat program called Noteperformer. I use it mainly with Dorico, but this works great with Sibelius as well and I tend to use it for just my classical writings which I don't want to mockup, but also not just want to hear the default sounds. Maybe worth checking out (sorry for giving you even more options to check, but guess it never hurts to be good informed  )

Noteperformer can be a really nice solution if you just want to focus on your writings, without having to worry too much about creating a realistic performance, but also want to step up from the default midi sounds. 






NotePerformer 3


NotePerformer 3 is the Artificial Intelligence-based orchestral playback engine for Sibelius, Finale & Dorico.




www.noteperformer.com





To give an audible example of Noteperformer


----------



## nolotrippen

JohnG said:


> Sorry to fans -- EWQLSO definitely does not sound that great anymore. I love EW and have tons of their libraries. But it is goofy to use a library that came out in about 2004 in 2020.
> 
> Composer Cloud, as @MarcelM suggested, is a great idea. That way the OP can find out for himself what he likes.
> 
> The idea that beginners are "just fine" with an old, weaker library is completely bonkers, in my view. Hollywood Strings itself is 10 years old. Why go even further back?


Opinions are like…


----------



## ed buller

I Must disagree with those QLSO detractors. For 200$ it's a total bargain. I'd buy it in a heartbeat...but already own it


best

ed


----------



## MauroPantin

+1 to NotePerformer. Best money I ever spent.


----------



## dzilizzi

Don't pay for a year of composer's cloud. A month, sure. Anything more is a waste of money. If you decide to buy EWHO, I would check out JRRShop and use the Group discount code. It will be $223.44 for the Gold version, which is a good starter orchestra. Unless Time+Space is cheaper. As an FYI, EW has extended the sale until May 15th.

Though if you just want it for hearing what you are writing? I would +1 on NotePerformer as well.


----------



## JohnG

[edit: I was totally mistaken about the orchestrator who, it happens, was not using NotePerformer at all -- something else hideous. Apologies.]


----------



## José Herring

ed buller said:


> I Must disagree with those QLSO detractors. For 200$ it's a total bargain. I'd buy it in a heartbeat...but already own it
> 
> 
> best
> 
> ed


Nobody is detracting. It's a great library for its day. All we are saying is that for just a little more or even the same price really he can get a lot better.

Ed, I remember you from the old days so we are both EWQLSO users for a long time. All the quirks and workarounds have become second nature to us. As a matter of fact when dealing with newer libraries I have to hold myself back from the hundreds of little habits I picked up trying to get EWQLSO to work right. The OP won't have the benefit of years of experience with this library and will have a hard time finding the information he needs to get it to work well.

So in the end, buying a library that uses more modern sampling techniques would lead to better results. Buying EWQLSO today would be like recommending an old copy of the Vienna Cube to a newbie. OMG would he have a hard time though I'm sure that many people from our day are still using the old VSL to great effect.


----------



## Geomir

No one can argue (disagree) that EWHO is a much better sounding library than EWQLSO. And its insane value for money (close to $220 for the Gold edition) makes it a very good first purchase. The only contradiction here is that I could not call it exactly a Starter Library. With all these hundreds of patches maybe it's not ideal for an easy comfortable start.


----------



## José Herring

Geomir said:


> No one can argue (disagree) that EWHO is a much better sounding library than EWQLSO. And its insane value for money (close to $220 for the Gold edition) makes it a very good first purchase. The only contradiction here is that I could not call it exactly a Starter Library. With all these hundreds of patches maybe it's not ideal for an easy comfortable start.


He can do what we all did. Start off with the simpler patches then move up from there. Though I got to admit I still have trouble remembering on whether or not the dynamic crossfade is on cc1 or cc11. I wish they would have kept that consistent.


----------



## Geomir

josejherring said:


> He can do what we all did. Start off with the simpler patches then move up from there. Though I got to admit I still have trouble remembering on whether or not the dynamic crossfade is on cc1 or cc11. I wish they would have kept that consistent.


Of course this is an option! And it's up to every individual (depending also if he is a professional musician or a hobbyist) if he is willing to put the all effort for that!


----------



## José Herring

Btw does anybody know what mic position they use on HO percussion Gold edition? It's going for $100 and I was thinking it could be good to replace my aging EWQLSO percussion library.


----------



## Geomir

josejherring said:


> Btw does anybody know what mic position they use on HO percussion Gold edition? It's going for $100 and I was thinking it could be good to replace my aging EWQLSO percussion library.


I could not find anything in EW official site or pdf manuals, but I found this in Best Service Hollywood Orchestra Gold description:

GOLD Edition includes:

All articulations, except bow-change legato in HW Strings Gold
Includes Mid-tree mic position only
Divisi mic positions are not included
44.1kHz 16-bit samples (approx. 100 GB)


----------



## José Herring

Geomir said:


> I could not find anything in EW official site or pdf manuals, but I found this in Best Service Hollywood Orchestra Gold description:
> 
> GOLD Edition includes:
> 
> All articulations, except bow-change legato in HW Strings Gold
> Includes Mid-tree mic position only
> Divisi mic positions are not included
> 44.1kHz 16-bit samples (approx. 100 GB)


Thanks.


----------



## José Herring

Geomir said:


> I could not find anything in EW official site or pdf manuals, but I found this in Best Service Hollywood Orchestra Gold description:
> 
> GOLD Edition includes:
> 
> All articulations, except bow-change legato in HW Strings Gold
> Includes Mid-tree mic position only
> Divisi mic positions are not included
> 44.1kHz 16-bit samples (approx. 100 GB)


Ah I see. This is for strings. I can't find anything on Percussion. I know that HB Gold uses main mics so it's not always consistent on which 1 mic position is chosen for Gold.


----------



## MauroPantin

The labeling is confusing. In Gold, every instrument in Strings and Woodwinds is in the "Mid" mic which I assumed when I purchased it that should be the tree, but according to the Diamond manual, it is not (it says the "Main" is the Decca). It does sound a bit on the dry side, not much room to it. At the same time, it is not the close mic. HO Perc and Brass Gold load up in the "Main" mic instead, which apparently is the tree or it sounds like it is anyway.


----------



## dzilizzi

MauroPantin said:


> The labeling is confusing. In Gold, every instrument in Strings and Woodwinds is in the "Mid" mic which I assumed when I purchased it that should be the tree, but according to the Diamond manual, it is not (it says the "Main" is the Decca). It does sound a bit on the dry side, not much room to it. At the same time, it is not the close mic. HO Perc and Brass Gold load up in the "Main" mic instead, which apparently is the tree or it sounds like it is anyway.


Well, the main/only mic for gold doesn't necessarily have to be the same as they are different samples (16 bit for HO Gold/24 bit for Diamond)


----------



## MauroPantin

True. I had to go to the Diamond manual because the Gold manual does not say which mic each label refers to specifically, it just says it has the main mic, but they might be different from Diamond. So I guess it's up to your ears. To me, it sounds like HO Brass and Perc have a bit more room while Strings and Woods are "closer" but def not the close mic.


----------



## José Herring

MauroPantin said:


> The labeling is confusing. In Gold, every instrument in Strings and Woodwinds is in the "Mid" mic which I assumed when I purchased it that should be the tree, but according to the Diamond manual, it is not (it says the "Main" is the Decca). It does sound a bit on the dry side, not much room to it. At the same time, it is not the close mic. HO Perc and Brass Gold load up in the "Main" mic instead, which apparently is the tree or it sounds like it is anyway.


Yes. Mid stands for "mid-tree" mics. Which apparently is a special mic combination that Shawn Murphy uses. I vaguely recall that he was a fan of the old Philadelphia Orchestra records done by RCA so I assume that it could be based on the mic set up they used. 

Main stands for Decca-Tree which was the setup used by Decca Records for recording orchestra. HB used the Decca mics, which is fine by me because nothing sounds more horrible to me than close mics on orchestral brass in a large room and the room isn't so huge that surround mics make that much of a difference. 

It would make sense that the percussion uses the Decca Tree as the Mid-Tree would make everything sound really distant. 

HWW from what I can recall does benefit from having all mic positions as well. HS, the mid-tree always worked well enough for me. I do like the Mains though but they sound a little two generic for my taste. So I never got HS Diamond because I never fully saw the need.

As far as surround mics, I never understood why people that don't work in surround would even need or want them. It takes the far off ambient mics and shoves them into your stereo field. But, at the same time it could be useful for percussion if you wanted them to set way back. Certainly use them for choirs.

For percussion with a lot of transients I think the Mains plus close mics would be the best combination. So I think I'll end up just getting Diamond if the price holds this low for a week or two.


----------



## Geomir

MauroPantin said:


> True. I had to go to the Diamond manual because the Gold manual does not say which mic each label refers to specifically, it just says it has the main mic, but they might be different from Diamond. So I guess it's up to your ears. To me, it sounds like HO Brass and Perc have a bit more room while Strings and Woods are "closer" but def not the close mic.


I also checked my EWHO Gold and was surprised to see that you are right and I have never noticed! Not all 4 libraries use the exact same mic! Weird decision (I mean, "balance-wise").
- Strings and Woodwinds have the Mid mic enabled
- Brass and Percussion have the Main mic enabled
I couldn't tell what the difference is by ear.

Still I believe that most people that are not pro musicians and/or don't own a very strong PC / Laptop / MacBook, etc. should really be happy with the Gold edition, you can do miracles with it (me, not yet). But check this out. This was made with the Gold version:



It's "good enough", even without the extra mics, isn't it?


----------



## MauroPantin

Absolutely. I have Gold and it is amazing! I understand the appeal of the extra mics (and it is a bargain) but upgrade pricing is kind of weird with EW, so I never went for Diamond


----------



## Geomir

MauroPantin said:


> Absolutely. I have Gold and it is amazing! I understand the appeal of the extra mics (and it is a bargain) but upgrade pricing is kind of weird with EW, so I never went for Diamond


I know it's crazy! At least they listen to people! As you have already noticed, they took a huge step! For the first time (it has happened also with their previous sale I think) starting this year they always include upgrades in their sales! 

But still with all those sites, i.e. TimeSpace, AudioDeluxe, JRRShop, you can find the full library cheaper than the upgrade! 

From my point of view, I don't know if I would wanted the Diamond version even if they gave it to me for free as a gift! My 7th generation i5, my 32GB of RAM, my 2 x 1TB SSDs and my Focusrite Scarlet solo can handle all my sound libraries perfectly! If I add the Platinum version, everything is going to collapse "performance-wise"! And I really don't want that to happen!


----------



## ed buller

josejherring said:


> Nobody is detracting. It's a great library for its day. All we are saying is that for just a little more or even the same price really he can get a lot better.
> 
> Ed, I remember you from the old days so we are both EWQLSO users for a long time. All the quirks and workarounds have become second nature to us. As a matter of fact when dealing with newer libraries I have to hold myself back from the hundreds of little habits I picked up trying to get EWQLSO to work right. The OP won't have the benefit of years of experience with this library and will have a hard time finding the information he needs to get it to work well.
> 
> So in the end, buying a library that uses more modern sampling techniques would lead to better results. Buying EWQLSO today would be like recommending an old copy of the Vienna Cube to a newbie. OMG would he have a hard time though I'm sure that many people from our day are still using the old VSL to great effect.



noted....but it's 200 bucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!...and I agan disagre . The Prof I think did a really good job recording this. The brass still sounds amazing. The strings and woodwind have aged but again 200 Bucks. I prefer the sound ( not programming ) of this Library to the Hollywood series any day. Cello is a small studio in comparison to the Seattle Symphony Hall !......again 200 bucks !!!!!!!!

best

ed


----------



## danevaz

So, Play quirks aside...
Does the "Close" mic included in the EWQLSO Platinum version mitigate some of the "wetness" of the sounds? While I found Play to be slow and quirky, I did like the choices of different sounds, especially the included solo strings in EWQLSO. But the "wetness" of the sounds was too much for me. When I demoed EWQLSO Gold via CC, I found that disabling the "release tails" dried up the sample sounds a bit more to my tatse.


----------



## RogiervG

JohnG said:


> The sounds in NotePerformer are so feeble that I'd rather just use a piano. I have worked with orchestrators who use it and, while it's ok to give someone an idea of an arrangement, it's a long way from "pleasing to the ears."


nonesense. i've hear more real sounding np3 renders, vs sample/daw based (orchestrals that is)...


----------



## JohnG

RogiervG said:


> nonesense. i've hear more real sounding np3 renders, vs sample/daw based (orchestrals that is)...



[edit: was mistaken -- my guy was not using NotePerformer at all! Deepest apologies to @RogiervG for my blunder and harsh rebuttal! mea culpa etc.]

Always happy to learn something new.


----------



## MauroPantin

Noteperformer is much, much better than the original Sibelius playback. It is well balanced, overall. I do believe that if you write music in notation software it is a must. There are a few particulars, but all in all, in a larger sense it works well for orchestrating. Particularly in this age when people don't have that many chances to sit in and conduct and/or write for a real orchestra.

Noteperformer is not a magic mockup machine, though. Mockups take time.

Also, the comparison is a bit unfair. Noteperformer will play everything exactly the same way every time, but who's doing the mockup to compare against? That's a big factor. I'm willing to bet Andy Blaney's pieces are consistently better than anything noteperformer could possibly churn out. And I'm also willing to bet that it can outperform an amateur doing his first mockup with BBCSO Discover.

So you will find examples of both "It's better than a lot of mockups!" and "It sucks compared to THIS!". Yep, both true and also not the point of using it. You would never, ever in a million years get a scoring gig and just deliver the noteperformer playback and be satisfied... or get another job afterward. That's not what it's for.


----------



## RogiervG

JohnG said:


> "nonsense?" It's my opinion.


don't forget the wink emoticon, means don't take it too serious


----------



## purple

MauroPantin said:


> Noteperformer is much, much better than the original Sibelius playback. It is well balanced, overall. I do believe that if you write music in notation software it is a must. There are a few particulars, but all in all, in a larger sense it works well for orchestrating. Particularly in this age when people don't have that many chances to sit in and conduct and/or write for a real orchestra.
> 
> Noteperformer is not a magic mockup machine, though. Mockups take time.
> 
> Also, the comparison is a bit unfair. Noteperformer will play everything exactly the same way every time, but who's doing the mockup to compare against? That's a big factor. I'm willing to bet Andy Blaney's pieces are consistently better than anything noteperformer could possibly churn out. And I'm also willing to bet that it can outperform an amateur doing his first mockup with BBCSO Discover.
> 
> So you will find examples of both "It's better than a lot of mockups!" and "It sucks compared to THIS!". Yep, both true and also not the point of using it. You would never, ever in a million years get a scoring gig and just deliver the noteperformer playback and be satisfied... or get another job afterward. That's not what it's for.


Hate to toot my own horn, but I think many experienced daw users will find this also applies to them:

Noteperformer isn't awful, but it certainly sucks compared to _my_ mockups.

I think if I were writing out arrangements in notation software and not using my midi mockups as a final product (which is pretty much all I do these days), I'd absolutely get noteperformer. It sounds great for what it is!


----------

