# BBC SO vs EW Hollywood Orchestra Diamond



## tc9000 (Oct 29, 2019)

I'm hovering between these two libraries. Both are about 600 GB, need an SSD, about 32 GB RAM, and a fast processor. EWHO Diamond is cheaper (depending if you wait until one of the many sales!).

Could those lucky people who own both please take a moment to compare and contrast them? Lets assume you have a beefy system and leave any technical glitches aside, considering only the sound and the playability, stengths vs weaknesses? For example, people say the EWHO woodwinds are not so good, they say the BBC SO brasses don't have a great dynamic range - this is the stuff I'd love to hear compared. I'd love to hear your impressions.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Oct 29, 2019)

tc9000 said:


> I'm hovering between these two libraries. Both are about 600 GB, need an SDD(?), about 32 GB RAM, and a fast processor. EWHO Diamond is cheaper (depending if you wait until one of the many sales!).
> 
> Could those lucky people who own both please take a moment to compare and contrast them? Lets assume you have a beefy system and leave any technical glitches aside, considering only the sound and the playability, stengths vs weaknesses? For example, people say the EWHO woodwinds are not so good, they say the BBC SO brasses don't have a great dynamic range - this is the stuff I'd love to hear compared. I'd love to hear your impressions.


Eastwest Composer Cloud is a good first step before buying either, and would likely answer your questions better than posts on this forum.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 29, 2019)

You will definitely need more than 32gb of RAM for either. Unless you are just going to flirt with them and use a few patches.


----------



## constaneum (Oct 29, 2019)

hbjdk said:


> I expect to get Gold or Diamond myself.
> EWHO can be made to sound very good IMO.
> Listen to this:
> 
> ...



i think this is made using Diamond ? sounds really good especially the strings and brass but the amount of resources required to run a full Hollywood template would be massive !


----------



## constaneum (Oct 29, 2019)

hbjdk said:


> The Mission Impossible-guy writes:
> 
> _Libraries used:
> EW Hollywood Orchestra Diamond
> ...



i'm already having problem running EWHO Gold strings and brass. The legato patches are too CPU and RAM intensive. Without the legato patches, they're still alright though. 

I wonder what's the reverb used. hmmm


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Oct 29, 2019)

constaneum said:


> i'm already having problem running EWHO Gold strings and brass. The legato patches are too CPU and RAM intensive. Without the legato patches, they're still alright though.
> 
> I wonder what's the reverb used. hmmm


Gotta stay away from those Long Powerful Systems patches!


----------



## borisb2 (Oct 29, 2019)

hbjdk said:


> I expect to get Gold or Diamond myself.
> EWHO can be made to sound very good IMO.
> Listen to this:
> 
> ...


Geeez, that sounds AMAZING for a 10 year old library!! And it still sounds as useable as most of the gaziilion libraries popping up these days


----------



## Willowtree (Oct 30, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> You will definitely need more than 32gb of RAM for either. Unless you are just going to flirt with them and use a few patches.


I disagree somewhat, if you have a decent SSD this shouldn't be a problem. Besides, there's plenty of workarounds at least for Hollywood Orchestra like use of freezing/rendering, not loading all mic positions at once etc. etc.

I've spoken to people who use Hollywood Orchestra just fine with 32 GB and see absolutely no reason to upgrade their RAM.

(personally, I think 64 GB RAM is cheap enough it's worth getting, though)

_EDIT: This is specifically about Hollywood Orchestra, not BBSCO._


----------



## I like music (Oct 30, 2019)

Willowtree said:


> I disagree somewhat, if you have a decent SSD this shouldn't be a problem. Besides, there's plenty of workarounds at least for Hollywood Orchestra like use of freezing/rendering, not loading all mic positions at once etc. etc.
> 
> I've spoken to people who use Hollywood Orchestra just fine with 32 GB and see absolutely no reason to upgrade their RAM.
> 
> ...



With Gold, certainly, you can do more than enough with 32gb. Between the legato and Shorts MODs patches, you've got absolutely tons covered. I don't have Diamond so can't comment, but the "Gold" mic mix is itself a lovely sound.


----------



## Anevis (Oct 30, 2019)

Can't really compare the two, but I use Composer Cloud and am very happy with the sound EWHO Gold has to offer even with the main mics.
They are both great libraries at least judging from what I've read, watched and listened. I'd go for the BBCSO just because it is new and even if some people will say it sounds the same, it just can't as BBCSO was recorded in recent year and EWHO is available for quite some time, years actually. 
And if you really want you can get both. Just by BBCSO and subscribe to Composer Cloud it's about $20 for the annual plan, billed monthly. Yes, you only get the main mics, no access to surround, close nor any other mic positions, but it's a good starting point for layering if you are into that stuff.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 30, 2019)

I like music said:


> With Gold, certainly, you can do more than enough with 32gb. Between the legato and Shorts MODs patches, you've got absolutely tons covered. I don't have Diamond so can't comment, but the "Gold" mic mix is itself a lovely sound.




Again, I would like to see someone's Logic or VE Pro HO Gold template that runs well on a 32 GB Mac. I had to cut mine way back when I sold my slave PC.


----------



## I like music (Oct 30, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Again, I would like to see someone's Logic or VE Pro HO Gold template that runs well on a 32 GB Mac. I had to cut mine way back when I sold my slave PC.



I should be clear, sorry. It wasn't a laptop. This was a PC, and quite literally the only things I was using were the legato patches from the strings and brass + Shorts MODs (in Cubase). What I meant to say is that between those articulations, 80% of the stuff I wanted to do was covered. I can very well imagine that creating a _full_ template would kill that machine pretty quickly.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 30, 2019)

Yeah, I’m in no way as experienced as Jay regarding EW and specifically with HOD but I do own HOD and 32gb of RAM doesn’t get me far. My answer to all of these kind of problems is just to get better hardware or add more computers. For me that’s very simple.

I think it’s more than fair to say this. HOD sounds excellent, is priced exceptionally low (compared to its release date prices - HS was £1k in U.K. on release) but the caveat is that it takes a lot of resources to run it. I’ve even watched videos with the Devs of EW and they say “get more computers”. And it’s fair enough. It’s a product for Professionals. And when released, was on a whole new level. It still sounds amazing and still uses a lot of resources. Hollywood Strings could literally rinse a whole slave so I don’t understand how people find 32gb of ram enough!


----------



## Anevis (Oct 30, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Yeah, I’m in no way as experienced as Jay regarding EW and specifically with HOD but I do own HOD and 32gb of RAM doesn’t get me far. My answer to all of these kind of problems is just to get better hardware or add more computers. For me that’s very simple.
> 
> I think it’s more than fair to say this. HOD sounds excellent, is priced exceptionally low (compared to its release date prices - HS was £1k in U.K. on release) but the caveat is that it takes a lot of resources to run it. I’ve even watched videos with the Devs of EW and they say “get more computers”. And it’s fair enough. It’s a product for Professionals. And when released, was on a whole new level. It still sounds amazing and still uses a lot of resources. Hollywood Strings could literally rinse a whole slave so I don’t understand how people find 32gb of ram enough!



No, it is not enough honestly, but it is enough to open a lot of instances and then you just have to find a smart way of making the most out of the 32gb.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 30, 2019)

Anevis said:


> No, it is not enough honestly, but it is enough to open a lot of instances and then you just have to find a smart way of making the most out of the 32gb.



yeah man. I hate freezing tracks and rendering to audio just to work around ram limitations. Kills creativity!


----------



## Anevis (Oct 30, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> yeah man. I hate freezing tracks and rendering to audio just to work around ram limitations. Kills creativity!



Freezing track is an option too, I was forced to do it on my old Mac, then changed to PC, bought 32gb and don't have to freeze anymore.
I was talking more about finding your own "smart" way of working. I have a big template in Cubase and have most of the instances just disabled, there are still present, they just aren't loaded into RAM, so I only enable those that aren't needed, takes way much time to load and unload then actually opening new instances.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 30, 2019)

Anevis said:


> Freezing track is an option too, I was forced to do it on my old Mac, then changed to PC, bought 32gb and don't have to freeze anymore.
> I was talking more about finding your own "smart" way of working. I have a big template in Cubase and have most of the instances just disabled, there are still present, they just aren't loaded into RAM, so I only enable those that aren't needed, takes way much time to load and unload then actually opening new instances.



Yeah it's a good way of working too. Until you enable too manyInstrument tracks and the computer takes a shit.

Also, the more Instrument tracks = longer save times. And that just grinds my gears.

Thank goodness there are many choices to work these days but I still find the answer is to just throw more computer power at the problem! I'm about to set up a recording machine running Pro Tools, connecting to my Master machine, and via Madi, so I can just stem stuff off when ready to do so. In search of any means possible to lessen the waste of life when waiting for stuff to load, save, or render! haha! 

Anyway, I didn't mean to completely derail this so back to BBCSO vs EWHOD


----------



## I like music (Oct 30, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> Yeah it's a good way of working too. Until you enable too manyInstrument tracks and the computer takes a shit.
> 
> Also, the more Instrument tracks = longer save times. And that just grinds my gears.
> 
> ...



Not as good as Kersten vs re-peat...


----------



## tc9000 (Nov 3, 2019)

Thanks for all your responses! 

I upgraded my RAM to 48GB (please don't ask me about mixing RAM ). I built my first template (based on Inspire 1 and 2, MA 1 and some others) and I've discovered loads of incredible articulations I've been neglecting. Doesent stop me wanting more libs though


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 3, 2019)

EWHO uses a lot of ram, but a lot of the problems people complain about are specifically related to setting up large TEMPLATES. A large template will have a lot of tracks with loaded instruments that may or may not get used. So for one thing if you are willing to create each project from scratch rather then having a huge pre-created template; you will mitigate some of the Memory problem. Unfortunately PLAY does not provide a load on first use option so huge templates take huge ram, unlike other libraries that will have load on first use options in kontakt or their own player. 

I don’t know what spitfire has done with their new player in that regard.

Logic Pro has the ability to load plugins on first use so that is one way to build large templates. Vepro has the possibility to disable channels and instances which also can reduce the memory for unused instrument tracks in a large template, etc

i was impressed by the sound quality of the new bbc lib demos I heard, my initial impression was wow this looks fantastic for the price. I’ve already moved on to other products so it’s not for me but my impression of the demos is good. Other threads in this forum have not been that favorable so check them out.

lots of people here use EWHO and can vouch that it’s capable of killer mock up in that Hollywood sound. My impression of the bbc sound is that it’s perhaps a little less in your face with that big Hollywood sound. I like the sound of their demos a lot for that reason, however there have been complaints about some of the programming.

the EWHO is well known to have a very simplistic player with scarcely any keyswitched instruments so it takes a while to figure out how to set it up and use effectively IMHO. The sound quality is excellent but the key switching aspect of EW stuff is really long in the tooth.
But EW does have regular sales where you can get EWHO Diamond for half the price of the bbc one.

honestly for under $1k either one will make a great starter orch library and I would not hesitate either way but I trust spitfire to improve their player more then EW who has not improved HO in literally 10 years. But then EW subscription model is a great way to get started and try it out for a while.


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 3, 2019)

Would highly encourage folks to try out PLAY and EW's "approach" to patches by signing up for a month of Composer Cloud. I personally found it dreadful from a workflow perspective, which really lets the library down since it does sound amazing and has a lot of features given how old it is. I was constantly looking up CCs in the manual, how to get X, Y, or Z function to trigger, etc. Compare this to something like Cinematic Studio Series, which has an absolutely brilliant UI or even Spitfire's standard UI (I don't have BBCSO), and you'll wonder why EW continues to make it hard on composers. BBCSO's UI is polarizing it seems, but at least on first glance, seems way more intuitive in terms of all in one patches, etc. compared to PLAY. My 2 cents.


----------



## Heledir (Nov 3, 2019)

jononotbono said:


> You will definitely need more than 32gb of RAM for either. Unless you are just going to flirt with them and use a few patches.





Land of Missing Parts said:


> Gotta stay away from those Long Powerful Systems patches!



Have to slightly disagree here. I have a 6-years-old (that's 96 in human years) laptop with 16gb of ram, and I just finished a piece using: 

Piccolo
Flutes I & II
2 × Oboe
2 × Clarinet
2 × Bassoon
Contrabassoon
3 × 2 Horns
2 × 2 Trumpets
Bass Trumpet (really a down-tuned solo trumpet pretending to be a bass trumpet)
2 × Trombone
Bass Trombone (same as with the bass trumpet)
Tuba
1st Violins
2nd Violins
Violas
2 × Cellos
Basses
All using true legato patches (LT6 versions for the strings) of Hollywood Orchestra Gold. Plus trills patches for Piccolo, the Flutes and the 2nd Violins, a 32" Bass Drum, Timpani, Angelic Harp by Orange Tree Samples and Solo Taiko by 8Dio. All in-sampler fx turned off - no reverbs on in Play, all fx bypassed in Kontakt. All using only close mic, except for the brass, on which I use the mid mic. Then sent into an instance of Spaces II. 

Ignoring a couple crashes (  ), which seemed to occur during inopportune autosaves, it all performed very smoothly.

One with comparable systems (or 32gb RAM as well, I suppose) will likely have to turn down the in-DAW Project sample rate, though (I don't know what people have it set to). I used to have it on 96kHz. Which was dumb considering my system anyway. I switched it to 48kHz a while back - made a world of difference in how a RAM-heavy project performs.


----------



## Fleer (Nov 3, 2019)

This is why I got Hollywood Gold as well as Diamond, the former for my 2012 MBP with 16gb RAM, the latter for the upcoming 16” MBP with 32gb or hopefully 64gb RAM. But I’m mostly looking forward to BBCSO!


----------



## AllanH (Nov 3, 2019)

Since I have both, let me offer my perspective. I've had HO Diamond for 4 years and BBCSO for 2 weeks, so with that:

At present, HO/D is my favorite library and I use it on just about everything. For all the $1000s I've spent on other orchestral libraries, if I had just taken the time to figure out to use HO/D properly, I could have saved lots of money and time. HO/D, and especially the strings and brass, is simply extraordinary. It's exquisite in its detail (where else do you get up to 13 RRs on everything). Just absolutely fantastic.

BBCSO is the first new orchestral purchase that offers something sonically new that I really like. It's also very "cohesive sounding", so a lot of good performances and engineering went into its production. I am working on my first bigger piece that relies on BBCSO. Short of launch technical issues, the Player is fine, makes sense, and the articulations work as expected. The legato patches are super-playable, and I am using them for most parts at this point.

As an "over-simplified" comparison, I'd say that HO/D sounds more intense and in-your-face, whereas BBCSO has a dignified concert hall tone and style. Both are excellent but different.

So much for advice on which one to get!


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Nov 4, 2019)

I have my EW Diamond Orchestra loaded on my Slave PC and that has 32GB of RAM. All sections loaded in VE Pro uses up 21GB...
I have also read a number of places that RAM utilization is better on Windows though. Which from my personal experience working with them daily for work and at home, I have found to be the case

However, I have not written huge pieces of music, having the whole Orchestra playing at once... which is bound to tax the system much more.


----------



## Salorom (Nov 4, 2019)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> I have my EW Diamond Orchestra loaded on my Slave PC and that has 32GB of RAM. All sections loaded in VE Pro uses up 21GB...


Not possible on a fairly powerful MacOS based conputer with 64gb of ram. Last attempt was 2 years ago on Play 5 and VEP 6 though, I have given up since.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Nov 4, 2019)

Salorom said:


> Not possible on a fairly powerful MacOS based conputer with 64gb of ram. Last attempt was 2 years ago on Play 5 and VEP 6 though, I have given up since.


I do believe there have been significant improvements to PLAY 6, so that is one point. I also believe that VE Pro 7 brings some nice savings on RAM 

Slave is running an i7 4770K as well, so not the newest chip!

Plans to completely drop the Mac Pro as a music machine, then build a 128GB AMD 3950X build as my single slave machine to compliment the 6-core 2018 mac mini.

Mac Pro will be retired as an ESXi LAB machine for work


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 4, 2019)

AllanH said:


> Since I have both, let me offer my perspective. I've had HO Diamond for 4 years and BBCSO for 2 weeks, so with that:
> 
> At present, HO/D is my favorite library and I use it on just about everything. For all the $1000s I've spent on other orchestral libraries, if I had just taken the time to figure out to use HO/D properly, I could have saved lots of money and time. HO/D, and especially the strings and brass, is simply extraordinary. It's exquisite in its detail (where else do you get up to 13 RRs on everything). Just absolutely fantastic.
> 
> ...



Although I use Hollywood Gold, I also own BBCSO and agree with your assessment. Two excellent sounding libraries, but each have different overall tone. I say get both!


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 4, 2019)

Heledir said:


> Have to slightly disagree here. I have a 6-years-old (that's 96 in human years) laptop with 16gb of ram, and I just finished a piece using:
> 
> Piccolo
> Flutes I & II
> ...




Again, I can't believe you can load a full set of common articulations with 16 GB. Yours must be really slimmed down. So maybe you can tell me which you are using?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 4, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Again, I can't believe you can load a full set of common articulations with 16 GB. Yours must be really slimmed down. So maybe you can tell me which you are using?



@Heledir is using Gold, I can easily load that many as well....along with Kontakt stuff. Using a late 2013 MB Pro.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 4, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> @Heledir is using Gold, I can easily load that many as well....along with Kontakt stuff. Using a late 2013 MB Pro.




Again, tell me which articulations because I cannot do it with a full Gold plus H Harp, Choirs and Solo Violin and Cello template with Logic Pro/VE Pro and use anything else much additionally.

Here it is



opening Logic Pro or any Kontakt stuff.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 4, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Again, tell me which articulations because I cannot do it with a full Gold plus H Harp, Choirs and Solo Violin and Cello template with Logic Pro/VE Pro and use anything else much additionally.
> 
> Here it is
> 
> ...



Are you loading directly into Ram? I do not. I also don't know about the other libraries that he's loading, I don't have those.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 4, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Are you loading directly into Ram? I do not.




Nope.


----------



## Heledir (Nov 4, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Again, I can't believe you can load a full set of common articulations with 16 GB. Yours must be really slimmed down. So maybe you can tell me which you are using?



I did in the post you quoted. It's all there, everything I used. So I don't know what you want answered here, I'm afraid.


----------



## tc9000 (Nov 4, 2019)

Heledir said:


> Have to slightly disagree here. I have a 6-years-old (that's 96 in human years) laptop with 16gb of ram, and I just finished a piece using:
> 
> Piccolo
> Flutes I & II
> ...



For sure - you can do incredible things with 16 GB. But you should experience the luxurious feeling of a bit more RAM than you probably need, though. For a pretty small outlay, the immediacy of having a large number of articulations all ready to go is quite dizzying :-D - that said, I've only had a few days playing around with a large template - maybe the thrill will wear off soon?

I also dropped my sample rate down to 48kHz, recently - TBH my ears are old and damaged and I can't hear the benefit of anything greater any more :-( On the plus side, dropping down seems to have boosted performance and stability.


----------



## tc9000 (Nov 4, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Although I use Hollywood Gold, I also own BBCSO and agree with your assessment. Two excellent sounding libraries, but each have different overall tone. I say get both!



EWHO Gold might be a better fit for me than Diamond. I wish BBCSO had a smaller, cheaper version (perhaps with less mics?).


----------



## WERNERBROS (Nov 4, 2019)

EWHO Diamond you can get for as low as $372,80 right now on SALE


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 4, 2019)

WERNERBROS said:


> EWHO Diamond you can get for as low as $372,80 right now on SALE



it is absolutely worth that price. I got it for about $500 (with tax and Customs) and I thought that was a steal!


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 5, 2019)

Heledir said:


> I did in the post you quoted. It's all there, everything I used. So I don't know what you want answered here, I'm afraid.



So only two-three articulations per instrument on average? That's pretty limiting, I generally need 6-8.


----------



## ed buller (Nov 5, 2019)

Hollywood was recorded In a much, much smaller studio than BBCSO. It was good drum room, but for an Orchestra ?










no contest IMHO

e


----------



## Guffy (Nov 5, 2019)

ed buller said:


> Hollywood was recorded In a much, much smaller studio than BBCSO. It was good drum room, but for an Orchestra ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




East West Symphonic Orchestra was recorded in a concert hall.
Yet somehow i'd still pick Hollywood Orchestra over it.
Size isn't everything Ed 😁






I use both EWHO and BBCSO. They work well together.
If i had to pick 1 i'd pick EWHO.



g


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 5, 2019)

BBC has a big and beautiful sound and that is most of the stength of this lib. Also very easy to use. Big beautiful reverb tails without needing a BS in sound design to get it. I also think that in a year from now everyone will be talking about how everything produced with this library sorta sounds the same. This tool will make it so easy to make that sound that we will hear it flooded all over the place. I’d personally still buy this in a heartbeat as a starter orch lib. Even though EWHO is half the price or less on sale, it is too hard to use. This is perfect for someone wanting to experiment and learn orchestration while hearing it playback with glorious reverb wash.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 5, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> BBC has a big and beautiful sound and that is most of the stength of this lib. Also very easy to use. Big beautiful reverb tails without needing a BS in sound design to get it. I also think that in a year from now everyone will be talking about how everything produced with this library sorta sounds the same. This tool will make it so easy to make that sound that we will hear it flooded all over the place. I’d personally still buy this in a heartbeat as a starter orch lib. Even though EWHO is half the price or less on sale, it is too hard to use. This is perfect for someone wanting to experiment and learn orchestration while hearing it playback with glorious reverb wash.



Actually, I'm just working on a theatrical production right now, using both EWHO and BBCSO....they do indeed work well together.


----------



## ed buller (Nov 5, 2019)

Guffy said:


> East West Symphonic Orchestra was recorded in a concert hall.
> Yet somehow i'd still pick Hollywood Orchestra over it.
> Size isn't everything Ed 😁
> 
> ...


well we disagree. QLSO sounds lush and symphonic...Hollywood Orchestra sounds boxy.........when it comes to room acoustics for 80 plus players.......size IS everything.

best

e


----------



## AndyP (Nov 5, 2019)

constaneum said:


> ... but the amount of resources required to run a full Hollywood template would be massive !


It is massive. I have EWHO and BBCSO. EWHO is more flexible, BBCSO easier to mix. Both sound great.


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 5, 2019)

EWHO needs a usability update badly. Sample instrument interfaces have evolved so much. It doesn’t matter if there are 10 articulations recorded if it is a PITA to use and a slow workflow.


----------



## JPQ (Nov 5, 2019)

Guffy said:


> East West Symphonic Orchestra was recorded in a concert hall.
> Yet somehow i'd still pick Hollywood Orchestra over it.
> Size isn't everything Ed 😁
> 
> ...


Indeed sizr is all and sometimes small room is better exact projet and etc.


----------



## JPQ (Nov 5, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> So only two-three articulations per instrument on average? That's pretty limiting, I generally need 6-8.


to even to 2 is limiting at least commonly i think at least 3-4 needed. btw i must try use soon my current setup and dream same time something else added my samples.


----------



## El Buhdai (Nov 5, 2019)

I lease EWHO with Composer Cloud, and don't own BBC, but have watched a significant portion of Daniel James' video review for it.

I love Hollywood Strings, but the shorts give me a clicking sound that I can't seem to figure out how to get rid of. It's a heavy library that has been somewhat of a pain to work with, but the sound can be great if you know what you're doing.

The strings range from "good enough" to great, but only if you know which of the gazillion patches to use and how to use them. The brass is still pretty solid by today's standards (definitely better than some of what I've heard from BBC). The woodwinds are awful, and borderline unusable in many ways. The percussion has a nice tone and sense of depth. There's some inconsistency here and there and plenty of disappointments. Oh, and it's a resource hog.

As for BBC, I was actually surprised at how little of an upgrade it is over EWHO. The strings (aside from the sloppy shorts) sound superb in my opinion, definitely noticeably better than Hollywood Strings. The brass is awful. From what I've heard so far, the woodwinds have a good tone. The percussion is pure heaven. The problem? The insane inconsistency and all of the corners Spitfire seems to have cut.

Where EWHO is overloaded with patches that you'll probably never use and shows its age in a few places, its consistency across sections, patches, and instruments (aside from the terrible, terrible woodwinds) seems to be far higher than BBC's. BBC is way, way easier to use, but the overall package is sloppy and falls short in numerous areas.

EWHO seems to need a lot more mixing to "excite" the samples, whereas the stuff that actually sounds good in BBC sounds great out of the box and doesn't need to be touched very much.

Personally, I wouldn't go for either of these orchestras. Both are resource hogs that have the potential to sound great, but EWHO is too slow and difficult to work with, and BBC is just way too inconsistent and limited in dynamic range, even if its tone is stellar in some places. I think it's just better to buy your orchestra by section and know that everything you're getting is gonna be high quality. Even if you have to do it slower over time like I am, you may feel a lot better in the end when you don't have to write with unusable EWHO woodwinds or surf for good patches among hundreds of dated/mediocre ones, or use BBC brass that has very little dynamic range and sounds like a buzzy toy.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 5, 2019)

I guess I will have to contact my clients and tell them how wrong they were to like my cues that I gave them with those awful, unusable, Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds. 🙄


----------



## El Buhdai (Nov 5, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> I guess I will have to contact my clients and tell them how wrong they were to like my cues that I gave them with those awful, unusable, Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds. 🙄



Glad you've gotten good results from them, but some of those instruments can't even carry basic melodies and sound believable in my experience. Open to any tips you may have though. 

EDIT: Oh, and I've been told I tend to be more picky than average, so there's that.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 5, 2019)

El Buhdai said:


> Glad you've gotten good results from them, but some of those instruments can't even carry basic melodies and sound believable in my experience. Open to any tips you may have though.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and I've been told I tend to be more picky than average, so there's that.



No tips, find the articulations that work best with the rest of the Hollywood Orchestra and compose to their strengths, not to their weaknesses.

True for every sample library available.


----------



## El Buhdai (Nov 5, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Well I am sure that you can point me to some exceptional sample based work you have done that makes that obvious. I look forward to hearing some.



I never claimed to be an excellent composer, nor do I have to be to have an opinion on the libraries I've used or done research on. In fact, I'm quite new to this vi-composition thing in general. When I say I'm "picky", I mean that I don't really like very many sample libraries, and the ones that I do, I still tend to nitpick them. I can't help it. I love the orchestra so much and I just wish the tools we used to emulate it were closer to the real thing than they are, even though I know they can never be. 

My pickiness has nothing to do with my skill (or lack thereof). If you've gotten good use and good work from these libraries, my opinion on them doesn't matter. Orchestral libraries are about as personal as someone's outfit. Everyone expresses their compositions differently and chooses different tools to do so.

I wouldn't mind attaching something I've done with EWHO, but I think it would be rude for me to derail the thread more than I already have.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 5, 2019)

I changed my response before I read your reply because it was overly agressive.

That said, I will go to my grave maintaining the unpopular view that the less skill you can demonstrate and the less you have accomplished, the more measured you should be in how you state your opinions.


----------



## El Buhdai (Nov 5, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> I changed my response before I read your reply because it was overly agressive.
> 
> That said, I will go to my grave maintaining the unpopular view that the less skill you can demonstrate and the less you have accomplished, the more measured you should be in how you state your opinions.



But how will I ever be able to judge a restaurant's food given my lack of culinary skill? Oh well, guess I can't have strong feelings about a good or a bad meal ever again. 

Teasing aside, I respect the fact that you know your opinion on that matter is unpopular. My opinion on EastWest is unpopular as well. I for one think that there are definitely genuine criticisms you can give their libraries, but that the hate against them has snowballed to the point where it is disproportionate to the actual problems with their libraries. As stated, a lot of the bad things people have said to me about EWHO applies to BBC as well to the point where at best it's a sidegrade compared to a nearly(?) decade-old library, hence why this thread can exist in the first place. There are many things I like about EWHO, even with its flaws.

I'm not alone in my opinions about Hollywood Woodwinds, either. People far more accomplished and skilled than me (not that that matters at all by the way, you don't have to be Gordon Ramsey to know if you like the taste of a meal or not) share the same opinion, but I must reiterate: There's no reason you should care. Everyone's ideal orchestra is different. You like those woodwinds and have pleased clients with them, I find them limiting and restrictive to the things I want to write as a hobbyist.

If you're more accomplished and capable of demonstrating more skill than me, you shouldn't care what I think, and certainly shouldn't take it personally. People disregard my opinions on this stuff all the time simply because they're more experienced. I'm used to it and have learned not to let it bother me.  I'm just a kid messing around in his dorm. I have no marriage to any sample libraries because I have nothing to gain by being loyal to them. I do this for fun, not for a living.

Cheers .


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 5, 2019)

Funny how the assumed inexperienced youth can be much more polite and eloquent at expressing their opinions than the “skilled and accomplished”.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 6, 2019)

El Budhai
just to clarify, my push back was not against your not liking HOW. In truth, they are also my least favorite section of the Hollywood Orchestra. My push back was against your hyperbolic and frankly silly statement that they are unusable. They are only unusable to those not skilled enough to use them.

Sorry if my bluntness offends your delicate sensibilities 5 Lives.


----------



## cqd (Nov 6, 2019)

Haha..burn..


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 6, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Sorry if my bluntness offends your delicate sensibilities 5 Lives.



Don’t worry - you don’t carry enough weight on any subject to offend me. I do hope you’ll find some happiness though, maybe through your beloved HOW and EW products.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 6, 2019)

El Buhdai said:


> and BBC is just way too inconsistent and limited in dynamic range, even if its tone is stellar in some places. I think it's just better to buy your orchestra by section and know that everything you're getting is gonna be high quality.



Errr....how can you claim this without even owning the library? Take DJ's video with a grain of salt. He even claims in the video that he didn't read the manual (and questioned if any of us of ever do). I personally love BBCSO, and highly recommend it. I also love EWHO, but they are two completely different libraries.


----------



## AndyP (Nov 6, 2019)

I heard exactly how aggressively BBCSO is pronounced here. You can also pronounce it softer ... then it sounds like EWHO ...


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 6, 2019)

In other news, was comparing HOB Gold and CSB last night and I would certainly recommend CSB - much easier to work with and sounds really great. HOB is one of the better HO libraries and so it does sound quite good but I found the dynamics transitions and tone of CSB preferable to me personally. Also the all in one patch of CSB makes it a breeze to program.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 6, 2019)

5Lives said:


> Don’t worry - you don’t carry enough weight on any subject to offend me. I do hope you’ll find some happiness though, maybe through your beloved HOW and EW products.



You don't read very well, do you? I guess you missed where I wrote that HOW was my least favorite section of the Hollywood Orchestra. Therefore, hardly beloved. But also, hardly "unusable."


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 6, 2019)

5Lives said:


> In other news, was comparing HOB Gold and CSB last night and I would certainly recommend CSB - much easier to work with and sounds really great. HOB is one of the better HO libraries and so it does sound quite good but I found the dynamics transitions and tone of CSB preferable to me personally. Also the all in one patch of CSB makes it a breeze to program.




Both excellent in my opinion, but very different sounding. Either one benefits greatly from articulation switching rather than the default keyswitching with CSB.


----------



## AllanH (Nov 6, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> I changed my response before I read your reply because it was overly agressive.
> 
> That said, I will go to my grave maintaining the unpopular view that the less skill you can demonstrate and the less you have accomplished, the more measured you should be in how you state your opinions.


This sentiment makes complete sense, and as such has no place on a forum or the internet


----------



## Kery Michael (Nov 6, 2019)

Heledir said:


> I did in the post you quoted. It's all there, everything I used. So I don't know what you want answered here, I'm afraid.



I've gotta back of Heledir here. I've got a 16 GB system and I love using HOD (logic proc on a 2015 iMac). My templates are only about 30 tracks though, smaller than most I guess.

Runs smooth, but I try to limit how many legato patches I load. Usually two timpani tracks, 12 to 16 string articulations, then brass as needed, 3 or 4 tracks. Rarely use woodwinds. Of course only one mic.

I would love to upgrade to 32 or 64 GB of RAM because I think that I'm up to the limits of my system.


----------



## tc9000 (Nov 6, 2019)

El Buhdai said:


> I lease EWHO with Composer Cloud, and don't own BBC, but have watched a significant portion of Daniel James' video review for it.
> 
> I love Hollywood Strings, but the shorts give me a clicking sound that I can't seem to figure out how to get rid of. It's a heavy library that has been somewhat of a pain to work with, but the sound can be great if you know what you're doing.
> 
> ...



El Buhdai: I for one really appreciate hearing your impressions!


----------



## Christoph (Nov 24, 2019)

I just read the complete threat. Some of you wrote that EWHO has a more Hollywoodish sound while the BBC Symphonic orchestra has a more classical sound.



Dewdman42 said:


> lots of people here use EWHO and can vouch that it’s capable of killer mock up in that Hollywood sound. My impression of the bbc sound is that it’s perhaps a little less in your face with that big Hollywood sound.



My question is, where is the difference? What makes the one sound more Hollywoodish than the other. And is it possible to achieve a more classical sound with the EWHO (by adjusting the reverb or EQ?)?

Thanks to everyone in advance!


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 24, 2019)

Christoph said:


> I just read the complete threat. Some of you wrote that EWHO has a more Hollywoodish sound while the BBC Symphonic orchestra has a more classical sound.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent question and in my view, this has changed iver time and definitions have not kept up and always were somewhat imprecise. In general, people think of the “Hollywood“ sound as a more lush sound than a concert hall sound, and that may have been true back in the so called Golden Era of Alex North, Alfred Newman, et al. But a John Williams score sounds really different in terms of lushness than a John Powell score and even within Williams work, it’s different in different decades.

And in “Classical music, a modern performance of a Ravel piece is going to sound very different in lushness from a Mozart piece.

So really for me, it is more a matter of size and wetness. HO is going to sound big and fairly dry. BBCO sounds smaller and a little wetter while most Spitfire offering I have heard sound smaller and considerably wetter.

Labels are great for marketing but for end users I think we should ignore them, use our ears, and choose what we think wants to fit the sound we wish to achieve.


----------



## RogiervG (Nov 24, 2019)

CSB for sure. (for the more emotional/classical works anyway)

But that's offtopic 

I would go for what you personally like better (sound wise, from end user demos and the likes). Both libs have a different aim. One is for more modern classical music, the other for the "Hollywood movie" sound. (hence the names of each product)
note: don't forget the workflow. Play engine vs SF engine. If you work hours on end, you want an engine that suits that flow you use...


----------



## Wunderhorn (Nov 24, 2019)

RogiervG said:


> engine vs SF engine. If you work hours on end, you want an engine that suits that flow you use...



This.
Not an aspect to be overlooked. 
For me the SF engine has to prove itself first, and PLAY has revealed itself to me as not being not a first choice when considering new libraries (but that is a result of personal preferences)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 24, 2019)

this ^^^ I ended up with VSL and choosing my own way to add the hall sound, which is a HUGE part of the sound. The ability to manipulate the articulations and performance is perhaps the most important aspect to me. 

I think EWHO is extremely good value. I plan to use it more, but I keep gravitating towards my VSL stuff, because they are just so much more straightforward to find the articulations and performance I want.

I don't really need the BBC thing, but I also happen to think its a very nice sounding library and easier to use then EWHO from what I've seen it will have a more direct way to access articulations, perhaps performance....with a very nice baked in sound...but it will be somewhat one trick pony in my opinion in terms of the hall used, the silky smooth tone of it will lend itself well to certain kinds of musical work...and it will sound brilliant and sweeping types of stuff, but I predict we are going to hear on onslaught of easily produced music that sounds about the same way like that..then it will lose its appeal in my mind.

I think EWHO, at 1/3 the price of BBC will provide a wider sonic palatte due to the close mics (if you get diamond), and ability to completely turn off or change the IR hall sound as well. I love the timbres of certain things in EWHO, the brasses in particular, and out of the box with the provided non-close mics and IR's provided from EW, it also has a certain kind of sound, that will sound more "hollywood" (sorry for the marketing term asher), but it has plenty of room to separate from that hall and to pull completely different performances out of it. But as many have noted, its not entirely straightforward for how to access various articulations and performance options. They are all there, but the PLAY software has never made it as easy or straightforward as many other offerings, including VSL and SF. Those of you that have become experts at using EWHO are not bothered by this because you put in the time and learned how to use it and get excellent results across a wide range of halls and sonic palettes. And for the price, it is just insanely good value that way.


----------



## Christoph (Nov 25, 2019)

Thanks for all your great answers. Currently, I own EWHO Gold but I feel a strong urge to upgrade to Diamond. The close mics might be the key to a realistic and classical sounding orchestra.

Thank you so much for your advice! I'm amazed at how helpful this community is!


----------



## BassClef (Nov 25, 2019)

Christoph said:


> I just read the complete threat. Some of you wrote that EWHO has a more Hollywoodish sound while the BBC Symphonic orchestra has a more classical sound.



To me... being new to VI... this is an environmental thing... meaning the listening environment. I think of it as either... 

HOLLYWOOD: the sound I hear in a movie theater, giant speakers, perhaps sitting way up front, massive wide stereo image, fff is nearly painful.

CLASSICAL: the sound I hear in a good concert hall, perhaps half way back in the seating, live orchestra, nothing over hyped, fff is just loud, natural reverberation in a great place, the sound is away from you rather than right in front of you.


----------



## JPQ (Mar 13, 2021)

Heledir said:


> Have to slightly disagree here. I have a 6-years-old (that's 96 in human years) laptop with 16gb of ram, and I just finished a piece using:
> 
> Piccolo
> Flutes I & II
> ...


does this 48khz makes things easier to cpu? to comprated to what. btw i have 32gigabytes ram and try found what get for orchestrla needs. you setup gives hope me.


----------



## JonS (Mar 13, 2021)

I own both and BBCSO is used a lot, EWHOD is never used anymore. Definitely get BBCSO over EWHOD, and wait for a big time sale for everything you buy!!


----------



## Markrs (Mar 13, 2021)

Love working with BBCSO Pro, but I am now trying to put some effort into EWHOD as it has so many articulation options (for me, probably too many options) and it does sound very good (as does BBCSO)


----------



## JPQ (Mar 13, 2021)

Markrs said:


> Love working with BBCSO Pro, but I am now trying to put some effort into EWHOD as it has so many articulation options (for me, probably too many options) and it does sound very good (as does BBCSO)


To me they sound different. generally ew product lacks something what i really like in another. makes me think even its offtopic how well mix my other samples. if i someday buy bbc core and later upgrade it to pro. and mainly vsl stuff. even 32gigabytes ram limits me much. and i feel my vsl lacks something in brass and strings. and of course my set dont have woodwind sections.


----------



## Heledir (Mar 13, 2021)

JPQ said:


> does this 48khz makes things easier to cpu? to comprated to what. btw i have 32gigabytes ram and try found what get for orchestrla needs. you setup gives hope me.


It made a massive difference on the Average Audio Processing Load. I'm not technically proficient, so I'll not claim to know how it all works, but I'd say that means the CPU has it a lot easier. 
Basically - I believe - it cuts the processing the CPU needs to do on the audio, VSTs and Fx in a project in half (96kHz to 48khz).
But maybe someone with actual know-how can be of more help here.

In short, though - yes, it made a very big difference, and should also do for you. 
If you're turning the sample rate _down_ that is. If you're on already 44.1khz, for example, turning it up to 48khz will logically have the opposite effect.


----------



## zediiiii (Oct 13, 2021)

Being an avid user of composer cloud, I wanted to weigh in on how my system runs large libraries.

I can have 20-30 instruments with multiple patches running flawlessly at the same time on my modest rig:

Ryzen 5 1600
32 GB RAM
X370 motherboard (for all the I/O choices)

Here are the important parts:
--500 GB TB WD black NVME M.2 drive with R/W up to ~3500 MB/S peak on a PCIE 3.0 4 lane slot
(the majority of my libraries are on this monster, it's about 65 bucks right now)
--500 GB Adata NVME M.2 on a PCIE 3.0 4 lane slot
(Other libraries are on this one that I tend to use concurrently with the ones above)
--Samsung 860 Pro SSD for OS
(Some of the lower-intensity libraries are on this one)

The idea is to spread out the libraries onto multiple really fast drives with enough bandwidth to stay ahead of the I/O demand. Based on my experimentation, I think I/O is the issue, in addition to bandwidth, on SSDs. I see no difference doing this vs loading into ram except this way is way more convenient (and cheaper per GB).

The WD black is a beast -- I can load an entire session including multiple mics strings, piano, brass, woodwinds, choir, harp, a whole symphonic orchestra, in about 30-40 seconds, and I don't ever get drop outs or other issues like that. I can also run convolution reverb (spaces II), EQ and comp on most of the PLAY engine buses, and my latency is pretty dang good (under 40 ms).

Someday I'll nab a couple PCIE 4.0 1 TB drives (~7000 MB/s each at peak with good cooling) and that should be sufficient to do just about anything.

I'm running in Reaper if that makes a difference.


----------



## zediiiii (Yesterday at 11:12 AM)

zediiiii said:


> Being an avid user of composer cloud, I wanted to weigh in on how my system runs large libraries.
> 
> I can have 20-30 instruments with multiple patches running flawlessly at the same time on my modest rig:
> 
> ...


Fun update, with an i7-13700k and a fast 2TB gen 4 m.2 for the libraries, I can load the same EW libraries in about 15-20 seconds and run multiple dozens of instruments and instances of OPUS with my buffer count set to 64 samples (that's around 5 ms latency) and no dropouts. The trick was to turn off multithreaded options (I guess it's not supported yet on the new i7), but live tracking a whole orchestra without bouncing is pretty darn awesome.
I'm not sure if the DDR5-5600 ram makes a huge difference for the low latency here (I suspect it probably does based on VST benchmark forum discussions), but honestly, I'm happy with anything <10 ms latency for my needs.


----------

