# Getting full orchestra from one developer vs. multiple developers



## musicalweather (Feb 15, 2018)

Hi all,

I’m wondering what your thoughts are about working with orchestral sections from different sample library developers vs. having all sections from the same developer. I’m currently struggling a bit to get several different orchestral libraries to sound as if they’re in the same space. I currently have Cinematic Strings 2 and Hollywood Brass Gold. For woods, I have Sonokinetic Woodwind Ensembles, those in the XSamples chamber library and a few in EWQLSO. For percussion, I’m still using EWQLSO and have more specialty libraries such as Action Strikes and Damage. Hollywood Brass Gold with its one mic position I find particularly hard to get in the same space as other libraries.

Sometimes I think it would be a lot less frustrating to have everything from one developer — all instruments in one space! Then I could finally stop endlessly futzing around with reverbs and placement. I’m thinking of the Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra. Berlin is appealing but the price is daunting (minimally 2790 Euro for four sections). Vienna Symphonic Cube is about 900 Euro less than that. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## Red Room Audio (Feb 15, 2018)

I agree, I believe one gets a much more cohesive sound when everything's recorded in the same space. If you would, please allow me to throw our Palette libraries into the ring. They're all recorded in the same hall by the same production team and same players, just as you describe. We're a new kid on the block but I invite you to check us out!


----------



## JohnG (Feb 15, 2018)

it kind of depends on what you're trying to do. I mix all libraries from tons of manufacturers and it sounds fine.

If you are trying to emulate something very specific, it can't hurt to have the same room but honestly I think people make way too much of that stuff.


----------



## Sami (Feb 16, 2018)

What @JohnG said. If played expressively most libraries can be made to fit eachother very well (within limits, hard to match something drenched in "room" with an anechoic sample without any room except in sound-design applications)


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 16, 2018)

I mix them like crazy because co for better or worse, I don't want my MIDI based compositions to sound just like a lot of others.


----------



## Syneast (Feb 16, 2018)

I really like the idea of same developer/same room... in theory. In reality I find that the music often ends up sounding like a sample library demo. Not that there is anything wrong with demos, but I want to create music that is associated with me as a musician, and not some sample developer. In an ideal world I'd play all the instruments myself, but that's not a realistic way to make orchestral music.


----------



## JonAdamich (Feb 16, 2018)

I think it's better if you are doing more pure orchestral things. If you are dong more epic stuff with effects and processed sounds, it doesn't matter nearly as much.

I also think people put too much emphasis on it. To get that "perfect room" sound when mixing different libraries. Unless it's way off, people won't really notice, unless you are some audiophile.


----------



## lux (Feb 16, 2018)

I for one prefer the coerence of a whole orchestra in a box. I still love Ewqlso for that reason. But I understand how today it would be really hard, not to say impossible, to get a return on investment for a project like that.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 16, 2018)

Mixing them had better be OK. I've got a real Frankenstein setup.


----------



## husker (Feb 16, 2018)

Great topic for me. I'm fairly new to this, and my only purchase is the East West Hollywood Orchestra. For some reason, I just don't really like "Play" - it just seems overly difficult to me. Again, I am new, so that may just be growing pains. I'm currently considering starting to purchase other libraries, but don't have a ton to spend. I actually like the idea of a "one source" for libraries. I've been doing a ton of reading on this site (thanks to all of you who take the time to post), and am getting close to purchasing some Spitfire libraries. They seem to have a very good reputation here.


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 16, 2018)

This isn't really important with more dry libraries. I like getting dry ones and shaping them into a sound and room I like. I don't even do much, but between the performance, the EQ and the reverb I choose the sound will naturally be different from someone else using the same library.


----------



## novaburst (Feb 16, 2018)

There can be only one ................I did not say VSL stop putting words in my mouth.



I think if there is a Developer that covers every thing and does it well and you like the feel and the way it operates why not stick with one,

On this library journey we do end up with a lot of stuff so stream lining it down to one developer can be quite difficult.


----------



## mcalis (Feb 16, 2018)

husker said:


> Great topic for me. I'm fairly new to this, and my only purchase is the East West Hollywood Orchestra. For some reason, I just don't really like "Play" - it just seems overly difficult to me. Again, I am new, so that may just be growing pains. I'm currently considering starting to purchase other libraries, but don't have a ton to spend. I actually like the idea of a "one source" for libraries. I've been doing a ton of reading on this site (thanks to all of you who take the time to post), and am getting close to purchasing some Spitfire libraries. They seem to have a very good reputation here.



My main answer to this question is as useless as it is honest: find whatever works for you.

Personally, I've grown very attached to the East West Hollywood Orchestra, but I'll be first to admit it took me a while to get used to. Their naming convention is confusing at first, but if you spend an bit of time going through the manuals (seriously, do it!) it'll make a ton more sense.

Play is not really that hard, but I may be biased because I'm rather used to it. To be completely blunt with you however, I had to look up more stuff on how to use Kontakt when I first started out than I had to do with Play, but I'm just one monkey so... who knows, maybe Kontakt is easier for you to understand.

I would warn you against Spitfire though, not that their products aren't good (they are, most of them at least), but they're very, very wet. When I started out I didn't care much. Heck, it sounded great to my ears, but the longer I've been doing this, the more I've started to prefer a drier sound. With Spitfire, I can't really get there whereas with EW I can go from pretty darn dry to as wet as I like through the use of reverbs.

I kind of see Spitfire as the Apple of sample libraries. Their products works and they're great on ease of use (sounds pretty good out of the box), but the uses/freedoms are limited because it's very much one particular sound (the Lyndhurst hall, which is very much their main selling point) and after enough use... it all kind of becomes a one-trick pony. I find that the microphone positions provided in East West Hollywood Strings, Brass, and Percussion can really give an entirely different character to the sound. I can go close and dry in hermann-esque style, but I can also go wide and lush in a more typical hollywood style. If I wanted really gnarly strings and had access to the diamond edition of hollywood strings, I could opt for the divise close mics. This is where I feel EW makes the difference. It's just more flexible in my experience.

In my humble opinion, Spitfire's products are also overpriced (I still can't believe the amount I payed for the BML Reeds package, which was one of the packages that eventually got bundled into Symphonic Woodwinds. It had like a ridicolously low amount of articulations (three or four maybe?) for a staggeringly high price).

Maybe I'm being a little too harsh here though because Spitfire's marketing strategies annoy me a lot and so I've gotten a little grumpy about the company. My main point is this: Spitfire stuff is good, but costly and just isn't as flexible as drier libraries. East West's Hollywood Strings and Hollywood Brass are, in my view, much more flexible and much more content rich. From all the products I own, the Hollywood stuff are also the _only_ sample libraries where every note is actually sampled. Almost all other developers use whole-tone sampling, where every _other_ note is sampled (basically mapping one sample to two keys instead of having a sample for each key).

At the end of the day however, you're likely more helped by libraries that you enjoy playing. If you're more of a keyswitching person, you'll likely be better served by anything else than EW stuff. Personally however, I'm one of those one-track-per-articulation people and so I'm much better served by the EW approach.

If you like the Spitfire sound and it looks easier to you, feel free to go that route. I just wouldn't dismiss the EW Hollywood series too quickly. You can always just use the composer cloud to use the EW stuff when you need it, and once you get more used to it you can just wait for a sale (EW does sales quite regularly) and grab Hollywood Strings, Brass, Percussion, and maybe the harp too (can't recommend the woodwinds) at a bargain price.

The last thing I'll say is that I'd recommend you avoid the pitfall I initially fell into, and that was to judge libraries by their age. The VSL special edition woodwinds are old, but they're great. Hollywood strings is old, but it's great and I use it over Mural Vol 2, Cinematic Studio Strings and Cinematic Strings 2 almost 99% of the time. There's also some old Project Sam stuff I've heard about that's really good, but I haven't tried that myself.

Oh, and if you do get the composer cloud (or already have it), it's really worth installing the East West Quantum Leap Orchestra. That thing is ancient but there's some great instruments in there, especially in the percussion section.

Apologies for the wall of text! Please take everything I say with a grain of salt. I've found my preferred way of working and what works for me may not work for you. Best of luck!


----------



## Mike Fox (Feb 16, 2018)

This is exactly why I wish all libraries were recorded as dry sounding as HO. It really does make things much easier to coherently sit in a mix, and you can control how much reverb you want. ProjectSAM have done a fantastic job with recording their samples. They come stock with reverb, but you can easily remove it, and it still sounds incredible, sometimes even better. I could be wrong, but it seems like some developers rely too much on reverb to define the sound of their samples.


----------



## chrisphan (Feb 16, 2018)

mcalis said:


> If I wanted really gnarly strings and had access to the diamond edition of hollywood strings, I could opt for the divise close mics


I think that's exactly the OP's problem though, as he only has Gold. It's a shame that EW doesn't offer extra mic option for Gold as they used to


----------



## kitekrazy (Feb 16, 2018)

mcalis said:


> The last thing I'll say is that I'd recommend you avoid the pitfall I initially fell into, and that was to judge libraries by their age. The VSL special edition woodwinds are old, but they're great. Hollywood strings is old, but it's great and I use it over Mural Vol 2, Cinematic Studio Strings and Cinematic Strings 2 almost 99% of the time. There's also some old Project Sam stuff I've heard about that's really good, but I haven't tried that myself.



Post of the week.


----------



## husker (Feb 16, 2018)

mcalis said:


> My main answer to this question is as useless as it is honest: find whatever works for you.
> 
> Personally, I've grown very attached to the East West Hollywood Orchestra, but I'll be first to admit it took me a while to get used to. Their naming convention is confusing at first, but if you spend an bit of time going through the manuals (seriously, do it!) it'll make a ton more sense.
> 
> ...



No answer is worthless. Thank you much for your detailed thoughts. As a newbie, I'm grateful for folks who will help out.

You may have hit the nail on the head about Play. I find the listings very unhelpful. As an engine, I really have no preference I guess between Kontakt and Play.

I think you are correct, I should spend more time with what I have, and keep my money in my pocket.

Thank you again.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 16, 2018)

If you know to write for the samples, EWQLSO Platinum, the old Kontakt version.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 16, 2018)

I'm almost onehundred% sure that not even Alan Meyerson could reliable tell whether a sample was recorded in the same room as another for the most part. Maybe a full recording but... not a sample... the release/hall bloom is messed up anyway with the room basically being repeated and fragment, shortened and mangled through the very process of sampling and then playing those fragments back. + You mostly add some additional room or reverb.

+ Is it even desirable to have all things sound like they are in the same space? There is also the concept of sonic dimension in mixing - a cool concept I think. This approach wants sounds to feel like they are all in different spaces/dimensions rather than the same and is applicable to all kinds of music - including orchestral.
I'd say sections (strings (maybe longs seperated from shorts in trailer music), brass, woodwinds, some of the percussion) should sound like they are in the same space. But the whole orchestra? Maybe more for classical scores than more modern orchestral (film) music. 

I also think that which mics you use and where you place them impacts the sound as well. So you would also have to have the absolute very same microphone settings for every single sample... puh...


----------



## markleake (Feb 16, 2018)

I think for ease of use in terms of positioning and a good sounding space, then something like Spitfire, Orchestral Tools, or maybe Cinesamples are the way to go. 

I have too many libraries now to count. My first libraries were Hollywood Gold Strings / Brass / Woods and EWQLSO, where I discovered I really didn't like Play, or the EW approach to lack of key switches, etc. Plus I just struggled with getting a more lively/realistic sounding space, even with using QL Spaces for reverb. So I moved across to Spitfire's SSO and never looked back. Since then I mix SSO in with various other libraries, some Spitfire and some not. Or sometimes I use something like CSS or another string library as my base, depending on what kind of track I am creating. Using a mix of libraries personally I haven't found that much of a challenge, even though I'm probably one of the worst people at mixing/production. But I don't often go back to Hollywood for the strings, and not at all for the woods.

I guess my point is that I personally found using the Spitfire sounds -- with their bigger space, depth, and multiple microphone positions -- a lot easier as a composition starting point compared to the Hollywood Gold series. And it is very easy to use a lot of their other libraries also due to being recorded in the same space, eg. HZ percussion. It was just less effort for me, I got results faster, I found it a lot more intuitive in terms of interface and such, and I just liked the results better.

I'm not dissing the Hollywood series though, I listen to other people's tracks and they can sound fantastic, and I know they are technically better in some ways than the Spitfire products. Just that for me they didn't work.


----------



## MatFluor (Feb 16, 2018)

I started off with "mix and match" - trying to get good sound by saving money. Meaning I bought sub-par libraries, and with my lacking experience, the just couldn't sound the way I heard it in my head.

Then I stood up, grabbed some cash and went for pro libraries. days and weeks of tutorials, comparisons, demos and asking around. In the end I decided for the "one dev" route with Spitfire. Berlin was way more expensive (and too heavy on ressources for my taste). But the most important factor for me was the sound. From all Demos and tracks I heard that were made with the respective libraries (from amateurs to professional mockups) the sound of Spitfire resonanted the most with me. It's still like this, when I hear a track in my head or evolve an idea in my head, the sound my inner orchestra has is very close the the sound that Spitfire and it's Lyndhurst Hall has. So, I went that route, am very happy, and didn't nearly spend as much money as I would've with Berlin or with the "mix and match approach" down the line. Does my Orchestra sound like everybody elses Spitfire Orchestra? Almost - I can still add some spice to it if I need to (with my custom recorded stuff or with my personal preference of space and mixing) - but from that perspective - Real recorded soundtracks don't sound all different, they use the same players and the same couple of halls to record.

That was my first reason to go the "one dev" route. The other reasons are very much the lack of control, meaning I don't need to take care of positioning, panning, reverb, glueing too much. I still adjusted some things, but not nearly as detailed as I would've ith a mix and match where every library has it's own baked on (or none) reverb to fight it out.

So: 1. It matched the sound in my head, 2. Convenience that comes with it


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 17, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> Real recorded soundtracks don't sound all different, they use the same players and the same couple of halls to record.



Not unless you are restricting yourself to films of a couple of genres.


----------



## MatFluor (Feb 17, 2018)

Ashermusic said:


> Not unless you are restricting yourself to films of a couple of genres.



Ah, of course. I meant the almost "generic" Hollywood film, where they mostly "play it safe".

The more I listen to contemporary TV-Series, the more I hear very interesting Sonic pallettes, some of which sound very unique in their own right.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 17, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> The more I listen to contemporary TV-Series, the more I hear very interesting Sonic pallettes, some of which sound very unique in their own right.



These days, big budget films produce 80% of their revenue outside the US, whereas 20 years ago it was more the other way -- 80% North America, 20% rest of world. When you are risking $100-200 million or more, it is not surpising that the producers elect to play it pretty safe and use the same approaches -- it has to have the mass appeal not only in English-speaking countries but _everywhere._ That doesn't encourage a lot of experimentation or ambiguity.

By contrast, television is competing in such a crowded universe that they have to take chances to stand out. Yesterday, I watched part of a Netflix show, "Babylon Berlin," and it's crazy in every way -- visually, musically, and story. (not sure if it really amounts to anything beyond sensationalism but it's daring). There is an absolutely wild production number in episode three or four that gets major audacity points from me, especially for tv.

There is also a process issue. On a large budget film, the movie is constantly scrutinized and fiddled -- the editing, colour correction, VFX, SFX, ADR -- absolutely everything including music is subject to revision right through to the end. A nearly endless number of people are permitted to weigh in with notes to the composer, in some cases at least. In such a process, inevitably anything in the score that is atypical or sticks out in any way is at risk of being shaved off / sanded down / squashed. Television, in part because of its schedule, often can't realistically get dragged out like that with endless editing and comments, so idiosyncrasies can slip through.

So I think I'm hearing more chances taken with television than with movies now.


----------



## jgbsound (Feb 21, 2018)

Just to put my two cents in here. I often compose using a variety of different libraries, and then add a little of the same reverb to all the libraries' outputs so they blend together better. This is just my own take on it.


----------



## Ric Flauding (Feb 21, 2018)

News: My orchestral arrangement of the hymn, "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" will be performed at St. Peter's Basilica (Vatican) next month (March 2018). Also, my arr. of "Amazing Grace" (jazz band) featuring Wayne Bergeron & others continues to get great reviews. Thank you Mike.


----------



## romantic (Feb 23, 2018)

My view:
I absolutely love working with only one library. You know the Workflow, Keyswitches, possibilities, ... so more time for music 
I also extended my (orchestral) template once but after several weeks I returned to my single supplier philosophy again.

So for the perfect result, with high amount of time (and monetary investment) mixing and blending might be the option, but I want to focus on music, not on mixing


----------



## Jaap (Feb 23, 2018)

Always compared composing and cooking with eachother and I don't cook with just one ingredient


----------



## MatFluor (Feb 23, 2018)

Jaap said:


> Always compared composing and cooking with eachother and I don't cook with just one ingredient



Of course not - but you don't just use one violin 

The comparison would rather be, running through the city through all grocery shops, or go just into one to get all your ingedients


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 24, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> Of course not - but you don't just use one violin
> 
> The comparison would rather be, running through the city through all grocery shops, or go just into one to get all your ingedients



Yes! And sometimes you need to go to the fish market for something fresh. The analogy holds up well because it's equally situational. It's easy to say, broadly, that getting everything from one place is ideal, but the truth is that every one stop shop has strengths and weaknesses, and all that your dinner guests will notice is how everything tastes as a whole.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 27, 2018)

I don't endorse the advice on how buying libraries from different developers will in result give you a "unique" sound

There honestly isn't that many "good" libraries out there (yet). And if we did the math what's the combo/permutation of mixing brass strings and wood winds where there is about only 5 very good libraries for each of those sections in the market?

Sooner or later and there will always be someone who has the same combination of libraries that you use and only by then you would realize that you had been wasting time trying to engineer those libraries to the point they mix together


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 27, 2018)

ctsai89 said:


> I don't endorse the advice on how buying libraries from different developers will in result give you a "unique" sound
> 
> There honestly isn't that many "good" libraries out there (yet). And if we did the math what's the combo/permutation of mixing brass strings and wood winds where there is about only 5 very good libraries for each of those sections in the market?
> 
> Sooner or later and there will always be someone who has the same combination of libraries that you use and only by then you would realize that you had been wasting time trying to engineer those libraries to the point they mix together



I agree in essence, I think the way you perform samples and the way you arrange and the effects you use add so much more variety all together, but using different samples is just another variable. For example if it's everything-Spitfire, then not only do a lot of other people have the same sample set, but they're all unlikely to add much reverb. So it cuts out a couple variables, but overall yes the way you use samples is more likely to make a bigger difference.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Apr 4, 2018)

I personally don’t like dry libraries all that much, so when I combine relatively wet libs together from different companies, they do sound quite good as good to me. I find that combining Cinesamples with Orchestral Tools works really well.


----------



## halfwalk (Apr 4, 2018)

ctsai89 said:


> There honestly isn't that many "good" libraries out there (yet). And if we did the math what's the combo/permutation of mixing brass strings and wood winds where there is about only 5 very good libraries for each of those sections in the market?



Well, that doesn't get into the math of mixing libraries within a section. Maybe you want a a Spitfire bassoon (who doesn't) with a Sonokinetic clarinet and an Embertone flute, for example. Maybe two Embertone flutes. Maybe fourteen. Maybe one clarinet from Spitfire and one Berlin. Even with just five different libraries, you're looking at thousands of ways to build just a woodwind section.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 4, 2018)

halfwalk said:


> Well, that doesn't get into the math of mixing libraries within a section. Maybe you want a a Spitfire bassoon (who doesn't) with a Sonokinetic clarinet and an Embertone flute, for example. Maybe two Embertone flutes. Maybe fourteen. Maybe one clarinet from Spitfire and one Berlin. Even with just five different libraries, you're looking at thousands of ways to build just a woodwind section.



That would most likely be a complete mess and much risk of someone pointing that it's a mockup. Unless you're willing to sit for months and tweak all the volume levels till they are 100% realistic but good luck with that. I would say I'm decent at doing that but I prefer to spend the time composing.

The Composition matters more than trying to sound different than others by using diff combos of libraries


----------



## Rohann (Apr 5, 2018)

Mike Fox said:


> This is exactly why I wish all libraries were recorded as dry sounding as HO. It really does make things much easier to coherently sit in a mix, and you can control how much reverb you want. ProjectSAM have done a fantastic job with recording their samples. They come stock with reverb, but you can easily remove it, and it still sounds incredible, sometimes even better. I could be wrong, but it seems like some developers rely too much on reverb to define the sound of their samples.


Except the string legatos have this irritating thing where they sound dry until you do a run or something similar, then all of a sudden it gets drenched in room.

As a general question -- what about getting libraries from the same developer _not _purely because of room, but because of dynamic balance between instrument sections? Assuming you want your orchestra to sound like a live orchestra.


----------



## halfwalk (Apr 5, 2018)

ctsai89 said:


> That would most likely be a complete mess and much risk of someone pointing that it's a mockup. Unless you're willing to sit for months and tweak all the volume levels till they are 100% realistic but good luck with that. I would say I'm decent at doing that but I prefer to spend the time composing.
> 
> The Composition matters more than trying to sound different than others by using diff combos of libraries



I was just responding to the remark about how many possible combinations there would be. Of course composition is important, but that's not what I was commenting on, nor is it what the thread is about. 

Not everyone here is trying to write for an actual orchestra, as most projects don't have the budget for that, so 100% realism doesn't matter anyway. But standing out from the rest of the crowd might just help land a gig.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 5, 2018)

halfwalk said:


> I was just responding to the remark about how many possible combinations there would be. Of course composition is important, but that's not what I was commenting on, nor is it what the thread is about.
> 
> Not everyone here is trying to write for an actual orchestra, as most projects don't have the budget for that, so 100% realism doesn't matter anyway. But standing out from the rest of the crowd might just help land a gig.



I mean I agree that there's plenty of possibilities if you put it that way.

Problem is that most of us don't have assistants like professionals do, to help them mix all the libraries into 1 template.

So now how many "legitimate" possibilities that you can "easily" create using that method of mixing instruments into a template?

I'd say it's pretty dangerous unless you're 100% fluent in audio engineering orchestral music.

I would focus on my composition skills and making that stand out from the rest of crowd.

Again I agree with you but I find it impractical  dont get me wrong


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2018)

I have horribly bad OCD so in my head everything has to be the same and when it’s not I go absolutely mental, but that’s only when I’m away from the computer. In practice, when I’m actually making music, I don’t pay any attention to it and I mix libraries together, it’s always sounded fine to me and I think it’s a good way to get a different feel for your orchestral arrangements. A string library from one company might sound very full and huge, but their brass might be a little too mild, so you’d turn to another companies brass library to get something with a similar feel to the other companies strings.

As for the Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra, it’s really really good, I don’t have it yet, but I’ve watched videos extensively and know how it sounds, which is great, I’d recommend it if you’ve got OCD like me and want to use the same companies products.


----------



## halfwalk (Apr 5, 2018)

ctsai89 said:


> I mean I agree that there's plenty of possibilities if you put it that way.
> 
> Problem is that most of us don't have assistants like professionals do, to help them mix all the libraries into 1 template.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, and good points. Though I'm a working musician, I'm still relatively new when it comes to orchestral stuff; it's more of a hobby and a dream right now. In other words, I can afford to waste some time and make all kinds of mistakes, because my deadlines have almost nothing to do with sample libraries at the moment. My thoughts were more in the theoretical realm than the practical one.

Cheers


----------



## Casiquire (Apr 5, 2018)

KEM said:


> I have horribly bad OCD so in my head everything has to be the same and when it’s not I go absolutely mental, but that’s only when I’m away from the computer. In practice, when I’m actually making music, I don’t pay any attention to it and I mix libraries together, it’s always sounded fine to me and I think it’s a good way to get a different feel for your orchestral arrangements. A string library from one company might sound very full and huge, but their brass might be a little too mild, so you’d turn to another companies brass library to get something with a similar feel to the other companies strings.
> 
> As for the Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra, it’s really really good, I don’t have it yet, but I’ve watched videos extensively and know how it sounds, which is great, I’d recommend it if you’ve got OCD like me and want to use the same companies products.



My impression is that if your OCD makes you look for consistency, Spitfire may be a misguided move. Nobody beats VSL consistency.


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> My impression is that if your OCD makes you look for consistency, Spitfire may be a misguided move. Nobody beats VSL consistency.



But their prices... those can certainly be beat haha.


----------



## Casiquire (Apr 5, 2018)

KEM said:


> But their prices... those can certainly be beat haha.



Not by Spitfire. And $50 single instruments? Entire sections with the most necessary articulations for $100? I disagree.


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> Not by Spitfire. And $50 single instruments? Entire sections with the most necessary articulations for $100? I disagree.



Isn’t their player very expensive? I’m not well versed in the VSL stuff, but I do know that the quality is very high. But I’ve only heard that they’re stuff is very expensive.


----------



## robgb (Apr 5, 2018)

musicalweather said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I’m wondering what your thoughts are about working with orchestral sections from different sample library developers vs. having all sections from the same developer. I’m currently struggling a bit to get several different orchestral libraries to sound as if they’re in the same space. I currently have Cinematic Strings 2 and Hollywood Brass Gold. For woods, I have Sonokinetic Woodwind Ensembles, those in the XSamples chamber library and a few in EWQLSO. For percussion, I’m still using EWQLSO and have more specialty libraries such as Action Strikes and Damage. Hollywood Brass Gold with its one mic position I find particularly hard to get in the same space as other libraries.
> 
> ...


I tend to buy different libraries from different developers and mix them, so that I'm not stuck in a particular ecosystem. That said, some of the libraries are hard to mix with others. Some combinations work, others don't. I also personally tend to wait for sales and build my library piece by piece. Otherwise it's too easy to go broke.


----------



## kitekrazy (Apr 5, 2018)

KEM said:


> Isn’t their player very expensive? I’m not well versed in the VSL stuff, but I do know that the quality is very high. But I’ve only heard that they’re stuff is very expensive.



No the player is free unless you go with their Pro players. Their software is incredible. You can make your VSL libraries as expensive as you want. I stick with the SE editions. The drawback to VSL is if your dongle is lost you pay 50% of your licenses.


----------



## kitekrazy (Apr 5, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> Not by Spitfire. And $50 single instruments? Entire sections with the most necessary articulations for $100? I disagree.



They also do a sale every month. If anyone wants to make a small risk trying VSL, Perc. & More SE is cheap.


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2018)

kitekrazy said:


> No the player is free unless you go with their Pro players. Their software is incredible. You can make your VSL libraries as expensive as you want. I stick with the SE editions. The drawback to VSL is if your dongle is lost you pay 50% of your licenses.



Yeah that sucks, I’d rather not buy another usb hub, or a bigger one than I already have.


----------



## dzilizzi (Apr 6, 2018)

KEM said:


> Yeah that sucks, I’d rather not buy another usb hub, or a bigger one than I already have.


If you use Cubase, it's the same dongle


----------



## KEM (Apr 6, 2018)

dzilizzi said:


> If you use Cubase, it's the same dongle



Oh then that’s great!!


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 6, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> My impression is that if your OCD makes you look for consistency, Spitfire may be a misguided move. Nobody beats VSL consistency.



And nobody beats Vsl synthy lol jk


----------



## Casiquire (Apr 6, 2018)

ctsai89 said:


> And nobody beats Vsl synthy lol jk



Lol! Depending on the product, sometimes. I'd say less synthy and more lacking in expression compared to the competition. I go with their strings if I want them to sound precise, clinical, or brutal, and with a bit of work I can squeeze a lot of expression out of them but to be fair it's nowhere near as easy as some other libraries (in my case, LASS). Most of their other libraries are unbeatable, especially the woods, and they've sampled a lot of instruments nobody else has.


----------



## reutunes (May 15, 2018)

I think that it's usually a solid idea to get your core instruments recorded in the same space, whether that be Air Studios (Spitfire), Sony Pictures Scoring Stage (Cinesamples) or EastWest Studios (Hollywood Orchestra). It is possible and usually pretty easy to use multiple mic positions in various libraries to approximate the same recording space but not as easy as just combining libraries that were recorded in the same space to begin with.

For anyone that's starting from scratch, the entire *Hollywood Orchestra* collection from EastWest is currently discounted by 60% (the best discount I can recall) so that could be a good sandbox to begin with.


----------



## ctsai89 (May 15, 2018)

reutunes said:


> I think that it's usually a solid idea to get your core instruments recorded in the same space, whether that be Air Studios (Spitfire), Sony Pictures Scoring Stage (Cinesamples) or EastWest Studios (Hollywood Orchestra). It is possible and usually pretty easy to use multiple mic positions in various libraries to approximate the same recording space but not as easy as just combining libraries that were recorded in the same space to begin with.



Exactly. Well it's also easy to get diff libraries and mix them to about 90% perfection. But the last 10% is perhaps an eternal trial and error kind of process lol. Rather not go through it.

Some libraries though, and I heard about Hollywood woodwinds have some of the volumes mixed wrong. Spitfire also had the problem but I believe they updated it to fix it.


----------



## jgbsound (May 15, 2018)

One way to mix multiple libraries is to add a light dusting of the same reverb to all the libraries in varying degrees until they sound pretty close. There's a tutorial up on Spitfire's website that details how they do the same thing. I use VSL, Spitfire, Omnisphere, Keyspace, etc etc etc all together in my compositions and have had good success thus far.


----------



## WhiteNoiz (May 16, 2018)

reutunes said:


> For anyone that's starting from scratch, the entire *Hollywood Orchestra* collection from EastWest is currently discounted by 60% (the best discount I can recall) so that could be a good sandbox to begin with.



Dude, your post is appreciated and all, but please *disclose it's a referral link*. Wasn't there a discussion some time ago about this? Will have to look it up.



ctsai89 said:


> Some libraries though, and I heard about Hollywood woodwinds have some of the volumes mixed wrong. Spitfire also had the problem but I believe they updated it to fix it.



Any direct (official) source on that? I remember some posts some time ago (some of yours too) about SF solo brass reaching louder levels than sections and stuff like that. Though not sure if it ever was determined if it was actual dynamic layers or gain/volume? As far as I know, the only libraries that are volume matched are the OT/Berlin ones.

http://www.orchestraltools.com/downloads/user_guides/CAPSULE User Guide BBR Main.pdf



> With the innovative *Auto Gain* the overall volume stays at the same level while you morph between the different microphone positions. A feature that helps you to keep the natural orchestral dynamics in balance.





> To allow all these articulations to stack, switch and morph, we completely overhauled the Berlin Series. A dedicated team re-arranged the natural orchestral dynamic balance between all Berlin instruments and articulations, matched the mic position volumes to each other and developed a new approach to set up the release samples in a more natural and organic way. Now each articulation sits wonderfully and convincingly in the best-balanced room you ever heard.





> Our goal is to provide a set of tools that easily adapts to any workflow and creates a coherent sonic representation of the orchestra. The main way we achieved this is by recording every instrument in its orchestral position. All collections come pre-panned and pre-mixed with their respective volumes balanced. If there are multiple types of the same instrument, they are recorded in slightly different positions, yet still in their general section area.





> All collections feature a number of microphone positions commonly used in orchestral recording. The position of these microphones is identical in every collection, which means that for example the Tree is much nearer to the string section that it is to the percussion section (because the percussion section is situated at the back of the orchestra). This enabled lively acoustics that come pre-mixed for the respective stage position.





> We have chosen to not normalise the audio samples used in our collections. This means that all samples are at their natural volume, making some instrument ranges much quieter than you may find in other libraries. This is intentional to give you the full dynamic spectrum. If you want to raise the overall volume of the patches, you can either raise the volume of individual patches or raise Kontakt’s master volume slider.


 (I suspect this is SF's approach at the base level)



> Dynamics is what makes an orchestra sound good. And incidentally, it is also what makes many mockups sound bad. A piano can be really quiet and a forte can be really loud, not something in-between. Because there is a fixed amount of velocity layers in any sample library, it can happen that a real musician could play that piano part much quieter than your samples do.





> On the other hand, having the quietest samples at too low a volume can make a library hard to use. We thought about this and have a solution: The volume range slider in the Settings View allows you to set the overall volume range of your instruments between the lowest and the highest velocity. If the Volume Range setting is at 0, the samples will have their recorded dynamic range. Move it to the far right and the lowest velocities will be very quiet while the highest velocities will be pretty loud, giving you the full possible dynamic range. By default, this slider is set to give you some nice dynamic range compared to the raw samples while at the same time not leaving you with almost inaudible low velocities.





> When the display says mf, what you are hearing is the actual sound of the violas playing mf, not just a random sample lowered or raised in volume!


 (I guess dynamic range interpretation can vary, even if slightly, across different sections/musicians and sessions of actual recordings)

As far as the actual question is concerned, some stuff will mix, some will not. I think you generally can't tell if you expend some effort to try to sit the instrument (mainly EQ/reverb/volume and maybe careful panning or stereo channel/width reduction), unless you actually want something to stick out. It's all about (spatial and creative) perspective. Also, layering can generally increase realism/detail/liveliness/expression/musicality (whatever you wanna call it) and add some nuance/randomness even if it's not perfectly matched, so there's that, too.

Also, pretty sure EastWest stuff is already processed, so you'll prob still have to EQ/volume balance and add reverb. I don't think it's volume matched anyhow.

( https://vi-control.net/community/th...f-the-room-without-reverb.57506/#post-4019789 )

Here, directly from the manual:


> *Panning*
> As was done with EastWest’s ground-breaking Symphonic Orchestra, Hollywood Brass is different from most other collections of orchestral samples in that the panning of the various instruments to the traditional locations on the sound stage is built in to the stereo samples. *The French Horns, for example, are already louder in the left channel.* Therefore, one can leave the panning level at “center” for all instruments and they will be correctly placed on the stage in the final mix. Of course, if you want to adjust the panning to achieve your own sound and/or a non-traditional placement of instruments, that can be accomplished either in the PLAY interface or in the host sequencer.



http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/docs/EW-QL_Hollywood-Strings-Gold_Manual.pdf



> The next stage is crucial and highly subjective. EWQLSO responds to two different volume controllers: CC7 (volume) and CC11 (expression). It is highly recommended you record a CC7 message at the beginning of every track. Spend some time to set the initial volume of every track at a level in natural balance with the rest of the orchestra. This is tricky and will never be perfect, but the more time you spend the less hair you’ll lose later. If you will be using Hollywood Strings exclusively, the balance of section is easier than if you’re bringing in other, non-string instruments. If, for example, you’re using the winds and percussion of EWQLSO, then start by playing the timpani, horns, and big string ensemble really loud and at the same time; that will give you a reference of what the loudest passages will be like. Together, they should be at least 3 db below 0. Then adjust the other instruments to blend with these loudest instruments.


----------



## Rohann (May 16, 2018)

WhiteNoiz said:


> Also, pretty sure EastWest stuff is already processed, so you'll prob still have to EQ/volume balance and add reverb. I don't think it's volume matched anyhow.
> 
> ( https://vi-control.net/community/th...f-the-room-without-reverb.57506/#post-4019789 )
> 
> ...


That's so bloody annoying. Why would you not volume match when building sections of a full orchestra? Why would the default not _already _be engineered to be able to drop into a template and use without having to mix as if they're libraries from different manufacturers?


----------



## Casiquire (May 18, 2018)

Rohann said:


> That's so bloody annoying. Why would you not volume match when building sections of a full orchestra? Why would the default not _already _be engineered to be able to drop into a template and use without having to mix as if they're libraries from different manufacturers?



I've always wondered this too.


----------



## Studio E (May 18, 2018)

JohnG said:


> it kind of depends on what you're trying to do. I mix all libraries from tons of manufacturers and it sounds fine.
> 
> If you are trying to emulate something very specific, it can't hurt to have the same room but honestly I think people make way too much of that stuff.



I couldn't agree with this more. I think it comes down to having some basic mixing skills as well. I little Eq. third party reverb, and maybe a bit of glue on the 2-buss can do wonders. By glue I mainly mean saturation from a few character plug-ins like Compressors, Tape emulators, or the like.


----------



## rJames (May 18, 2018)

Rohann said:


> That's so bloody annoying. Why would you not volume match when building sections of a full orchestra? Why would the default not _already _be engineered to be able to drop into a template and use without having to mix as if they're libraries from different manufacturers?


It takes time. That’s why they don’t do it. So annoying.


----------



## Rohann (May 22, 2018)

Honestly, I was relatively close to buying the whole library, but considering I have to mix and balance it anyway, there's no real reason I should stick to HWO instead of piecing together from different manufacturers. I don't get the lack of attention to detail in that regard -- they did so many things about this library well, but Woodwinds just doesn't gel the way the others do, and this would have been such a straightforward thing to include given all their effort.


----------

