# East West Hollywood Orchestra



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

I have recently purchased BBCSO and while I'm liking it their is lots that I don't like, especially the Brass and lack of RR on long notes. So today I decided to explore Hollywood orchestra gold. I purchased it quite a while ago but have never really used it as I had SSO, however, after trying it out today I got to say it sounds amazing. Is it me but Hollywood strings and brass sounds just as good as the best sample libraries out their, if not better. With Spaces 2 reverb and the Hollywood orchestra I think I'm actually preferring the sound of some of the articulations more than SSO and the BBCSO. The only negative I can see is the way the articulations are all laid out with far too many separate articulation patches. I've also been finding the playability of Hollywood orchestra better than a lot of other sample libraries. I'm now considering buying the full Hollywood orchestra diamond. What's everyone else's thought's on this? I've currently got the strings, brass and woodwinds gold so an update would actually cost me more than just buying the whole diamond pack for the sale price of $372. Also, what's everyone's thoughts on the negatives of the Hollywood orchestra vs other newer libraries like Berlins strings and SSO?


----------



## Mike Fox (Nov 19, 2019)

Yep, Hollywood Strings/Brass are still some of the best sounding samples to date.

The perc and woodwinds are good, but nothing to write home about.

It is kinda crazy how much you get with HO for the price, especially when you compare it to something like BBC. I honestly think HS and HB raised the bar so high that it's been difficult for developers to surpass.


----------



## alpacaroom (Nov 19, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> The only negative I can see is the way the articulations are all laid out with far too many separate articulation patches.



Yeah. As a complete mockup beginner, I'm finding that I can get good sounds from HO, but fiddling with a thousand different patches is a real drag on my productivity.

I'm right now working on mocking up Leroy Anderson's "Sleigh Ride" just for kicks, and I'm finding that other than some of the quick-moving melodies in the trumpets and clarinet, the library does a pretty good job. I'm still considering buying BBCSO during the holiday sales, though, for ease-of-use reasons.


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

alpacaroom said:


> Yeah. As a complete mockup beginner, I'm finding that I can get good sounds from HO, but fiddling with a thousand different patches is a real drag on my productivity.
> 
> I'm right now working on mocking up Leroy Anderson's "Sleigh Ride" just for kicks, and I'm finding that other than some of the quick-moving melodies in the trumpets and clarinet, the library does a pretty good job. I'm still considering buying BBCSO during the holiday sales, though, for ease-of-use reasons.



I agree, the hundreds of patches are a pain and I don't particularily want to work on an articulation per track basis. I prefer one track per instrument. It would be much better if their was a way to set up your own key switching in HO. Its a shame that East West haven't updated play to make it more easier to use.


----------



## Robert_G (Nov 19, 2019)

alpacaroom said:


> I'm finding that I can get good sounds from HO, but fiddling with a thousand different patches is a real drag on my productivity.



This. Great sounds that waste time


----------



## EgM (Nov 19, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> I agree, the hundreds of patches are a pain and I don't particularily want to work on an articulation per track basis. I prefer one track per instrument. It would be much better if their was a way to set up your own key switching in HO. Its a shame that East West haven't updated play to make it more easier to use.



You can just make a multi, separate patches per midi channel and then send notes you want to their channels. That's how most people use HO.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 19, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> The only negative I can see is the way the articulations are all laid out with far too many separate articulation patches. I've also been finding the playability of Hollywood orchestra better than a lot of other sample libraries. I'm now considering buying the full Hollywood orchestra diamond. What's everyone else's thought's on this? I've currently got the strings, brass and woodwinds gold so an update would actually cost me more than just buying the whole diamond pack for the sale price of $372. Also, what's everyone's thoughts on the negatives of the Hollywood orchestra vs other newer libraries like Berlins strings and SSO?



I am a fan of the strings and brass and agree -- they compare well against other libraries that cost a lot more. I don't have any problem with lots of articulations. However, for those who find the extensive choices daunting, they offer a "Quick Start" menu that is pretty comprehensive; one can default to that in order to get familiar with the library and not face all the folders and sub-folders.

I definitely prefer having the other mic positions in the Diamond edition. Otherwise you lose more than half the colour potential.

I don't have the percussion or winds.

[note: I have received free products from East West]


----------



## Illico (Nov 19, 2019)

EgM said:


> You can just make a multi, separate patches per midi channel and then send notes you want to their channels. That's how most people use HO.


... with Cubase Pro Expression Map, one track per instrument with Keyswitch & multi midi channels


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I am a fan of the strings and brass and agree -- they compare well against other libraries that cost a lot more. I don't have any problem with lots of articulations. However, for those who find the extensive choices daunting, they offer a "Quick Start" menu that is pretty comprehensive; one can default to that in order to get familiar with the library and not face all the folders and sub-folders.
> 
> I definitely prefer having the other mic positions in the Diamond edition. Otherwise you lose more than half the colour potential.
> 
> ...



The quick start menu does look like a good place to start. it seems to offer all the main articulations in one folder and wouldn't HO strings and Brass be just as easy as other libraries to use if it was set up using Keyswitching with Cubase pro expression maps and one track per instrument, or am i missing something here?


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 19, 2019)

hollywood orchestra diamond is quite alot better than gold because of the mic positions, but make sure your machine can handle it. sadly there isnt a real purge function in play like kontakt has it, so a complete HO template will eat ALOT of ram. thats the only thing to complain about.


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> hollywood orchestra diamond is quite alot better than gold because of the mic positions, but make sure your machine can handle it. sadly there isnt a real purge function in play like kontakt has it, so a complete HO template will eat ALOT of ram. thats the only thing to complain about.



So would the $372 be worth paying out for to get the diamond version? I've got 64 GB Ram, Im assuming this should be enough to create a full HO template?


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 19, 2019)

well, you got gold and you can do alot of very good things with gold. jdiggity (hope i spelled it right) uses gold only and posted some awesome mockups made with it.

besides that for 372$ there is nothing on the market coming close to hollywood orchestra diamond, but thats just my opinion. it also takes some time to learn and make it sound good while other librarys might sound a bit better out of the box. 

64gb ram are ok, but you wont be able to load all articulations. to be honest nobody does, because HO got alot of them and you will only use some of them anyway.


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> well, you got gold and you can do alot of very good things with gold. jdiggity (hope i spelled it right) uses gold only and posted some awesome mockups made with it.
> 
> besides that for 372$ there is nothing on the market coming close to hollywood orchestra diamond, but thats just my opinion. it also takes some time to learn and make it sound good while other librarys might sound a bit better out of the box.
> 
> 64gb ram are ok, but you wont be able to load all articulations. to be honest nobody does, because HO got alot of them and you will only use some of them anyway.



$372 does seem a brilliant price considering what you get. I just paid for BBCSO and in comparison HO diamond is £612 cheaper!! I think I don't want to head down the road of buying lots and lots of different libraries seeking the best mix of string, brass and percussion libraries as know I could end up spending way too much money seeking the best mix.


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> well, you got gold and you can do alot of very good things with gold. jdiggity (hope i spelled it right) uses gold only and posted some awesome mockups made with it.
> 
> besides that for 372$ there is nothing on the market coming close to hollywood orchestra diamond, but thats just my opinion. it also takes some time to learn and make it sound good while other librarys might sound a bit better out of the box.
> 
> 64gb ram are ok, but you wont be able to load all articulations. to be honest nobody does, because HO got alot of them and you will only use some of them anyway.



In regards to making it sound good. It seems the main thing it really need is just a good reverb. Spaces 2 seems to make it sound really nice.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 19, 2019)

64 GB is not bad; you can do quite a bit with that. There is some ability to adjust PLAY's RAM footprint, too. 

I do this full time and, for what it's worth, I have a main Mac Pro with 64, two satellites each with 64, and another one with 32. Not all fully loaded all the time, but still. If you want to use multiple mic positions, 64 GB will be tough for a full palette.

And I"m not confining the capacity debate to Hollywood series -- same issue with all of them.


----------



## BassClef (Nov 19, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> I agree, the hundreds of patches are a pain and I don't particularily want to work on an articulation per track basis. I prefer one track per instrument. It would be much better if their was a way to set up your own key switching in HO. Its a shame that East West haven't updated play to make it more easier to use.


You can!


----------



## widekeys (Nov 19, 2019)

HWO is a great library, I used it on a lot of music. However a big drawback to the diamond version is that you can not activate/deactivate microphones via MIDI or even for every loaded articulation in one single Play instance. If you're producing a fully orchestrated piece, good luck changing the mic setup if you are not able to have every mic position loaded.

If you would like this feature implemented, please report it to East West. I did and they wrote back that they are aware of this feature and noted that "one more customer has asked for it"


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 19, 2019)

$372 is still $372 - and if you don’t get along with Play and their approach to patches, that’s $372 you’ve wasted and that could’ve been used to buy something more recently produced with a more usable UI. That’s why I encourage folks to try it first via one month of Composer Cloud. EW has sales every other week.

Now EW did say on another thread they know they need to revise their patch structure and Play’s articulation management. It’s anybody’s guess when this will be done though.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 19, 2019)

widekeys said:


> HWO is a great library, I used it on a lot of music. However a big drawback to the diamond version is that you can not activate/deactivate microphones via MIDI or even for every loaded articulation in one single Play instance. If you're producing a fully orchestrated piece, good luck changing the mic setup if you are not able to have every mic position loaded.
> 
> If you would like this feature implemented, please report it to East West. I did and they wrote back that they are aware of this feature and noted that "one more customer has asked for it"


Their player is so beyond primitive I wouldn't even bother.


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

5Lives said:


> $372 is still $372 - and if you don’t get along with Play and their approach to patches, that’s $372 you’ve wasted and that could’ve been used to buy something more recently produced with a more usable UI. That’s why I encourage folks to try it first via one month of Composer Cloud. EW has sales every other week.
> 
> Now EW did say on another thread they know they need to revise their patch structure and Play’s articulation management. It’s anybody’s guess when this will be done though.



What would you advice instead of EWHO? I do currently have the EWHO strings, brass and woodwinds gold and I do really like the sound of EWHO, however, as you say their patch structure and large list of articulations is not greatly managed.


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 19, 2019)

the question what OP really is missing. i mean what are you looking for what you cannot do with the stuff you currently have?

one thing is sure, the other mic positions wont increase your composer/mixing skills. hope you get what i mean. its not an offense


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

hbjdk said:


> An inviting, intuitive and well-thought out GUI is extremely important.
> 
> I tried Play via Composer Cloud for a month and that was enough for me.



I agree, but couldn't a lot of the issues with the amount of articulations and GUI be improved upon by creating your own key switch patches with the main articulations used with Cubase expression maps and midi channels? So in effect you could make a single track using key switching for violins 1 using all the main articulations you want to use and key switch between them, wouldn't this end up being just as usable as something like Spitfires libraries or Cinematic studio Strings?


----------



## cqd (Nov 19, 2019)

The keyswitch patches that they have for the longs with the strings, and everything for the brass and winds are grand I reckon..yeah, it would be nice to be able to do your own, but the ones there are ok..


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> the question what OP really is missing. i mean what are you looking for what you cannot do with the stuff you currently have?
> 
> one thing is sure, the other mic positions wont increase your composer/mixing skills. hope you get what i mean. its not an offense



I think I'm looking for a library that I can use and stick too that can offer a reasonable basis too compose with, without getting caught up in buying loads of different libraries and trying to seek the best of all the different types of library out their. A strong foundation that I can create orchestral music on without worrying about having to purchase lots of different orchestral libraries, that's why I loved the idea of the BBCSO and hence have purchased it. however, I am finding quite a few things lacking on the BBCSO, especially the brass section. 

Also, I completely agree with you that more mic positions won't increase my composing skills or mixing skills which is why I've been considering sticking to just using HO gold. However, if this is going to be a main library used alongside the BBCSO I was thinking that it might be nice to have all the samples in 24 bit and the extra mic positions if needed. Also, I haven't currently got the percussion library just the EWHO strings, brass and woodwinds gold. But not sure its worth paying the $372 price to upgrade it when I have just paid out for the BBCSO library.


In regards to SSO. I do really like the sound of it and I have mainly been using this (I don't own it), a friend let me play around with it and put it on my computer. However, I have since found out he put a pirated copy of Kontakt and the SSO on my computer so I decided to stop using it and have now been trying to deliberate on what best to do (I cannot currently afford the full SSO package). Thats why I'm quite interested to hear how the EWHO compares to other newer libraries such as the SSO and Berlin strings.


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 19, 2019)

hbjdk said:


> I meant the GUI as a whole, not just the amount of articulations.
> After trying out Vienna Instruments, the difference in appeal is huge IMO.
> VI makes me think “this is fun, I’m gonna get started”.
> Play made me think “this is a hassle, but perhaps I can get used to it”.
> ...



Yeah I can see what you mean, it is always nice to have a good and effective GUI. However, as long as you can get it quite usable via key-switches on singular track then I'm not sure that would bother me too much.

I believe with expression maps in cubase your able to make your own keyswitches for EWHO using midi channels. Im not sure if you can do something similar with other DAWS.


----------



## cqd (Nov 19, 2019)

@Johnrwilsonmusic have you tried the KS patches that are there?


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 19, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> I think I'm looking for a library that I can use and stick too that can offer a reasonable basis too compose with, without getting caught up in buying loads of different libraries and trying to seek the best of all the different types of library out their. A strong foundation that I can create orchestral music on without worrying about having to purchase lots of different orchestral libraries, that's why I loved the idea of the BBCSO and hence have purchased it. however, I am finding quite a few things lacking on the BBCSO, especially the brass section.
> 
> Also, I completely agree with you that more mic positions won't increase my composing skills or mixing skills which is why I've been considering sticking to just using HO gold. However, if this is going to be a main library used alongside the BBCSO I was thinking that it might be nice to have all the samples in 24 bit and the extra mic positions if needed. Also, I haven't currently got the percussion library just the EWHO strings, brass and woodwinds gold. But not sure its worth paying the $372 price to upgrade it when I have just paid out for the BBCSO library.
> 
> ...



yah, i get the point. fact is, HO is not that easy to mix so you will have to put some work into it. if you do it will just sound fantastic. i cant say much about spitfire bbcso, but the examples i heard here in the members section sounded very good to me.

also it what are you going to write? if its mainly for strings for example id pickup cinematic studio strings for examples which sounds gorgeous out of the box and you will have quick and good results with it.

another option would be to try the iconica trial from steinberg. it requires very little mixing and is balanced out of the box over all sections,

well last suggestion. buy what sounds best to you and have fun making music


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 19, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> yah, i get the point. fact is, HO is not that easy to mix so you will have to put some work into it. if you do it will just sound fantastic. i cant say much about spitfire bbcso, but the examples i heard here in the members section sounded very good to me.
> 
> also it what are you going to write? if its mainly for strings for example id pickup cinematic studio strings for examples which sounds gorgeous out of the box and you will have quick and good results with it.
> 
> ...



I was tempted to get CSS, Ive heard the legato is brilliant on it and that its really nice to use, love the GUI on it. However, what is detracting me from buying this is that i'll then need a brass library as I'm not too happy with the BBCSO horns and trumpets. Then it all starts to add up and I can imagine ill end up spending way more than I can afford on sample libraries :-D Also, I've been so tempted to get the SCS so I'm trying to limit myself or ill end up spending every last penny I got on sample libraries.

Why do you find EWHO hard to mix? Is it the levels between sections are not consistent or panning issues?

Edit: I think Im really just looking for something to supplement the weak areas of the BBCSO like the weak brass section and also some issues with the strings such as a lack of RR on the longs making repeated notes sound quite unrealistic and also something that has good playable string runs. I thought that the EWHO might cover these extra areas that are lacking in the BBCSO quite well without having to spend loads of extra money on lots of separate libraries.


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 19, 2019)

levels are not consistent between sections. not even inside sections. you will need some time to balance the template.

css does indeed found fantastic and its more playable and easier to use imho. besides that, you will end up buying more and more over time. we all do, and we all didnt want it in the first place


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 20, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> levels are not consistent between sections. not even inside sections. you will need some time to balance the template.
> 
> css does indeed found fantastic and its more playable and easier to use imho. besides that, you will end up buying more and more over time. we all do, and we all didnt want it in the first place



That a bit of a pain regarding the levels not being consistent between the sections. In regards to buying more and more over time, im trying to stop myself from doing that. I have said to myself that I'm going to spend a certain amount now on a good set up and then not upgrade/ look at it again for another 3 years. Just paid out for the komplete 12 ultimate and s88 mk2 as well, just want to suppliment the BBCSO weak areas the est I can. Now im considering CCS and CSB alongside it or SCS. Too many choices!! haha


----------



## handz (Nov 20, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> Yep, Hollywood Strings/Brass are still some of the best sounding samples to date.
> 
> The perc and woodwinds are good, but nothing to write home about.
> 
> It is kinda crazy how much you get with HO for the price, especially when you compare it to something like BBC. I honestly think HS and HB raised the bar so high that it's been difficult for developers to surpass.




I have recently played with the WW and they are better than I have remembered. Nice timbre. But yes, they are the "weakest" part of the lib, or were before the updates, still, they have tons of articulations and instruments which many libs lacks (at least in their basic package) and the price is super low. 


I still stand by my opinion for the money (when it is on sale - and it almost always is) there is no better alternative.


----------



## BassClef (Nov 20, 2019)

I have EW composer cloud now but dropping it in February when my yearly subscription ends. I’m buying EW Hollywood Orchestra Gold for $224 now. This will supplement (woodwinds and percussion) the complete Cinematic Studio Series that I am also buying. Their woodwinds will be out in a few months and percussion later next year. As a Logic user with no 3rd party reverbs, I’ll be experimenting with Chromaverb and Space Designer to see how closely I can get the Hollywood instruments to sound like they are in the same recording studio as Cinematic Studio Series.


----------



## Fleer (Nov 20, 2019)

Love their Strings and Brass. And the second flute in Woodwinds. Got both Gold (for my laptop) and Orchestra Diamond. Wouldn’t want to be without them. But wouldn’t want to be without BBCSO either. Very different sound.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 20, 2019)

MarcelM said:


> one thing is sure, the other mic positions wont increase your composer/mixing skills. hope you get what i mean. its not an offense



I disagree. In my experience, extra mic positions 100% will improve your ability to mix. Many of the bigger libraries offer it and it's a huge help.


----------



## cqd (Nov 20, 2019)

I don't think the winds are as bad as people make out either.. with a reverb, and keeping the modwheel low, I like them..


----------



## MauroPantin (Nov 20, 2019)

I love it and use it every single day. I have been with it for a couple of years now, and I'm still learning new stuff about how to handle it. It's very powerful and very comprehensive but has a steep learning curve, no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## omc_29 (Nov 20, 2019)

Fleer said:


> Love their Strings and Brass. And the second flute in Woodwinds. Got both Gold (for my laptop) and Orchestra Diamond. Wouldn’t want to be without them. But wouldn’t want to be without BBCSO either. Very different sound.



Does the EWHO supplement and layer well with the BBCSO?


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Nov 20, 2019)

To cover some more ground in the WWs, I have Aaron Venture Infinite Woodwinds and I love them 
So they go well with my EWHO Diamond through Composer Cloud Plus


----------



## Fleer (Nov 20, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> Does the EWHO supplement and layer well with the BBCSO?


Haven’t tried yet. Actually, HO is definitely more “Hollywood” than BBCSO. They each run on their own dedicated app, of course.


----------



## ZenFaced (Nov 21, 2019)

omc_29 said:


> I agree, the hundreds of patches are a pain and I don't particularily want to work on an articulation per track basis. I prefer one track per instrument. It would be much better if their was a way to set up your own key switching in HO. Its a shame that East West haven't updated play to make it more easier to use.



Yep. There is no excuse for that.


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 21, 2019)

Fleer said:


> Haven’t tried yet. Actually, HO is definitely more “Hollywood” than BBCSO. They each run on their own dedicated app, of course.



Yeah BBCSO and EWHO offer quite a different sound. BBCSO more a classical orchestral sound and EWHO more Hollywood. It would be quite interesting to see how EWHO and BBCSO blend together. Maybe with the Brass from EWHO used in place of BBCSO brass.


----------



## mcalis (Nov 21, 2019)

As a long time HWO user (many years), I can attest to the quality of the strings and brass. The percussion is pretty great too imo, I like the timpani in it a lot.

One thing that often gets overlooked (you'll have to decide for yourself if you find this important or not) is that all of the Hollywood Orchestra is fully sampled. Most modern developers sample every whole tone, meaning there's one sample spread over two keys. Not so with HO. HO is very deeply sampled, even by today's standards.

BBCSO will likely give you more of an instant gratification sound and might give you some more esoteric articulations and instruments. HO can be a lot of work in this regard and you'll have to deal with their naming convention. The PLAY engine is not a problem anymore however. It's rock solid and imo loads pretty darn fast nowadays.

For excellent use of HO, look up Andrew Barraclough on Youtube. Here's one of his videos, it's all HO:



--

Still, if you're starting out and want to make every dollar count, I'd highly recommend you go with the Cinematic Studio Series. It'll give you the biggest bang for the buck by far. There are only three possible reasons not to buy CSS:

1. You want control over vibrato
2. You don't like the hall sound
3. You don't like the delay in the legato (which can be overcome by using the provided classic legato patches, the delay is optional)

For CSB consensus seems to be that not everyone is a fan of the default mix mics, but that's about all the criticism I've ever seen of it. You can just make your own blend with the main, room and close mics, which seems to work out fine for everyone else.

Yeah, you'll miss some of the more esoteric articulations, but for bread and butter stuff, Cinematic Studio is utterly unbeatable. The GUI is great, the sound is top-notch, the QC is flawless, their support is very responsive, they offer great customer loyalty discounts, and they don't do any BS marketing hype whatsoever. They're great people running a great company selling a great product, simple as that.

I'd recommend you shoot the cinematic studio guys a message and ask them what the best deal would be for you. The black friday sale (25% off) is around the corner, but if you get one product with 25% off, you might also get the customer loyalty discount for your second product, which is 30% off.

I've yet to see anyone having regretted their CSS or CSB purchase.

For CSS/CSB, this review of CSB has some great demos in it (the one timestamped here is the LOTR demo):


----------



## handz (Nov 21, 2019)

ZenFaced said:


> Yep. There is no excuse for that.


Having each articulation on separate track is the only way I would like to work, KS are insanely confusing (you will never have the same articulations at each instruments - so how do you know what is mapped where? ) Like I get that


mcalis said:


> As a long time HWO user (many years), I can attest to the quality of the strings and brass. The percussion is pretty great too imo, I like the timpani in it a lot.
> 
> One thing that often gets overlooked (you'll have to decide for yourself if you find this important or not) is that all of the Hollywood Orchestra is fully sampled. Most modern developers sample every whole tone, meaning there's one sample spread over two keys. Not so with HO. HO is very deeply sampled, even by today's standards.
> 
> ...




WOW, love his SW mockups - this simply proves that this old lib is still capable of an awesome sound


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 21, 2019)

Is it just me or were those HO Diamond demos way better than even that great CSB demo? Incredible what he was able to get out of HO. Maybe I need to reconsider it.


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 21, 2019)

5Lives said:


> Is it just me or were those HO Diamond demos way better than even that great CSB demo? Incredible what he was able to get out of HO. Maybe I need to reconsider it.



That EWHO demo sound amazing, they sound better that CSB demo to me.


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 21, 2019)

I’m contemplating getting HO Diamond...but have also been thinking of BBCSO. Hard choice - pros and cons to both (and different sound).


----------



## HardyP (Nov 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I don't have the percussion or winds.
> 
> [note: I have received free products from East West]



With a little rephrasing, one could read it like this


> Note: I don’t have the percussion or winds.
> 
> [even I have received free products from East West]



Sorry John ... Hope you can bear with me


Ok, but now as a serious side note:
Why didn‘t EW hear us all these years, and provided templates for at least the major 2-3 DAWs with HO Gold, ready balanced, at least the „quick start folder“, everything purged. Or maybe not purged, but with a short demo inside. It needs again SF to prove, that it IS in fact possible, and obviously helps tremendously to attract more people to buy a not-quite-entry-Level product...


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 21, 2019)

I found somebody has created Cubase templates for HO Gold and Diamond - seems quite extensive. If you have the libraries, this saves a lot of time for a nominal fee https://poundsound.co.uk/collection...llywood-orchestra-gold-template-for-cubase-10


----------



## cqd (Nov 21, 2019)

Has anyone any thoughts on the solo instruments?


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 21, 2019)

5Lives said:


> I’m contemplating getting HO Diamond...but have also been thinking of BBCSO. Hard choice - pros and cons to both (and different sound).



I've already got HO gold except the percussion and just purchased BBCSO, however, I'm still considering buying EWHO diamond at the sale price instead of buying CSS and CSB. I played around with EWHO gold today and I think that some of the samples in EWHO are the best available.


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 21, 2019)

5Lives said:


> I found somebody has created Cubase templates for HO Gold and Diamond - seems quite extensive. If you have the libraries, this saves a lot of time for a nominal fee https://poundsound.co.uk/collection...llywood-orchestra-gold-template-for-cubase-10



This looks great!!


----------



## Bollen (Nov 21, 2019)

cqd said:


> Has anyone any thoughts on the solo instruments?


Yes... They are utterly awful! One thing I hate to do is badmouth a sampling company, but I have never understood why anyone would buy anything by EW (except maybe their choirs) nowadays. To me every demo I've ever heard, including the one above, sounds like sample libraries from 15 years ago. Their legatos are horrendous, the interface is inflexible and uncustomisable, you can't control almost anything via CC, a lot of their instruments can't decide whether they're controlled via velocity or modulation... I could go on, but the main issue of them all is they sound really fake. One thing that has really improved in the last few years is how you sample real instruments is that you make the musician tune realistically. EW is too in tune and hence sounds like a synth. Also, legato sampling has improved vastly!

I have a few of their products and besides the choir I have never, ever used them for anything... Waste of money!


----------



## EgM (Nov 21, 2019)

Bollen said:


> Yes... They are utterly awful! One thing I hate to do is badmouth a sampling company, but I have never understood why anyone would buy anything by EW (except maybe their choirs) nowadays. To me every demo I've ever heard, including the one above, sounds like sample libraries from 15 years ago. Their legatos are horrendous, the interface is inflexible and uncustomisable, you can't control almost anything via CC, a lot of their instruments can't decide whether they're controlled via velocity or modulation... I could go on, but the main issue of them all is they sound really fake. One thing that has really improved in the last few years is how you sample real instruments is that you make the musician tune realistically. EW is too in tune and hence sounds like a synth. Also, legato sampling has improved vastly!
> 
> I have a few of their products and besides the choir I have never, ever used them for anything... Waste of money!



My opinion, but I hate their choirs and love Hollywood Orchestra. It most certainly does not sound fake.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 21, 2019)

Bollen said:


> Yes... They are utterly awful! One thing I hate to do is badmouth a sampling company, but I have never understood why anyone would buy anything by EW (except maybe their choirs) nowadays. To me every demo I've ever heard, including the one above, sounds like sample libraries from 15 years ago. Their legatos are horrendous, the interface is inflexible and uncustomisable, you can't control almost anything via CC, a lot of their instruments can't decide whether they're controlled via velocity or modulation... I could go on, but the main issue of them all is they sound really fake. One thing that has really improved in the last few years is how you sample real instruments is that you make the musician tune realistically. EW is too in tune and hence sounds like a synth. Also, legato sampling has improved vastly!
> 
> I have a few of their products and besides the choir I have never, ever used them for anything... Waste of money!



Legatos are horrendous?? I own a lot of libraries, and they are STILL one of the best around. I think you also underestimate the Play engine. Pretty much any CC is controllable, just right click on a parameter and assign it to a controller...it's that simple. And regarding how they're controlled via velocity or modulation, it's all right there in the manual. Have you read it? Sorry, but comments like these are simply ridiculous.


----------



## cqd (Nov 21, 2019)

In fairness, he was replying to a question on the solo instruments..they don't seem to get much love..


----------



## Bollen (Nov 21, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Legatos are horrendous?? I own a lot of libraries, and they are STILL one of the best around. I think you also underestimate the Play engine. Pretty much any CC is controllable, just right click on a parameter and assign it to a controller...it's that simple. And regarding how they're controlled via velocity or modulation, it's all right there in the manual. Have you read it? Sorry, but comments like these are simply ridiculous.


Well my friend, this is precisely the reason why I prefer not to badmouth pretty much anything nor anyone. I felt compelled because nobody had given that view yet and I felt that the OP deserved another point of view.
As for the specifics: Mute, Solo, Reverb On/Off, Portamento/Legato Sim On/Off, any of the Mixer, etc. cannot be controlled via automation nor MIDI CC. Which is quite necessary to get around their lack of keyswitch possibilities i.e. being able to combine all patches in one player.
Regarding Velocity vs Mod, there's nothing in my manual about it nor any other settings on any other window. I have looked everywhere but please enlighten me if I have somehow missed it.
The legato I suppose can be subjective, but since I have worked with real instruments most of my life maybe I'm biased. I find that many other companies have gotten to a realistic stage in that department, not so EW.
Ridiculous is a bit of a stretch, perhaps I am just mistaken


----------



## 5Lives (Nov 21, 2019)

Here is BBCSO doing the Star Wars theme (programmed by Paul Thompson so likely as good as it gets)  (starts at 40 seconds in)

Here is HO Diamond doing the same 

Thoughts? Neither sound exactly like the recording but can’t say I prefer the recording either. HO’s trumpets are brighter certainly. I was surprised BBCSO could even pull this off - probably far easier to program as well I would bet.


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 21, 2019)

Bollen said:


> Well my friend, this is precisely the reason why I prefer not to badmouth pretty much anything nor anyone. I felt compelled because nobody had given that view yet and I felt that the OP deserved another point of view.
> As for the specifics: Mute, Solo, Reverb On/Off, Portamento/Legato Sim On/Off, any of the Mixer, etc. cannot be controlled via automation nor MIDI CC. Which is quite necessary to get around their lack of keyswitch possibilities i.e. being able to combine all patches in one player.
> Regarding Velocity vs Mod, there's nothing in my manual about it nor any other settings on any other window. I have looked everywhere but please enlighten me if I have somehow missed it.
> The legato I suppose can be subjective, but since I have worked with real instruments most of my life maybe I'm biased. I find that many other companies have gotten to a realistic stage in that department, not so EW.
> Ridiculous is a bit of a stretch, perhaps I am just mistaken



Aren't you able to set up keyswitches by using Cubase articulation maps and midi channels for EWHO allowing for single tracks per instrument and keyswitching? In regards to the legatos in EW, I find them quite good.


----------



## Bollen (Nov 21, 2019)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> Aren't you able to set up keyswitches by using Cubase articulation maps and midi channels for EWHO allowing for single tracks per instrument and keyswitching? In regards to the legatos in EW, I find them quite good.


I don't use Cubase for composing (only for mixing/mastering), I use notation software. In any case it's not important, I don't use them...
I don't know what people expect me to say... "Yes they are wonderful, great, I definitely recommend them!". Is that better than being honest and giving my professional opinion of 25 years of working with orchestras, real instruments and musicians and sample libraries?
I am so willing to give everything and everyone the benefit of the doubt that after the latest post I asked my flatmate (whose an orchestral player) to judge for herself, I didn't say anything at all, just "listen to this". And she said it sounds like an organ trying to be an orchestra... She also said several things about note attack, transitions between notes, sense of depth, the fake tightness of the ensembles... I just think someone that is asking in VI-Control whether a certain library is worth it should hear these opinions too.


----------



## John R Wilson (Nov 21, 2019)

Bollen said:


> I don't use Cubase for composing (only for mixing/mastering), I use notation software. In any case it's not important, I don't use them...
> I don't know what people expect me to say... "Yes they are wonderful, great, I definitely recommend them!". Is that better than being honest and giving my professional opinion of 25 years of working with orchestras, real instruments and musicians and sample libraries?
> I am so willing to give everything and everyone the benefit of the doubt that after the latest post I asked my flatmate (whose an orchestral player) to judge for herself, I didn't say anything at all, just "listen to this". And she said it sounds like an organ trying to be an orchestra... She also said several things about note attack, transitions between notes, sense of depth, the fake tightness of the ensembles... I just think someone that is asking in VI-Control whether a certain library is worth it should hear these opinions too.



I wouldn't quite agree with you in regards to EWHO as I do think it offers a lot and issues regarding key switching can be mitigated via setting up things with articulations maps and midi channels (If you have Cubase that is). I do agree with you in regards to expressing your opinion on here and no one said for you not too. It is good for the OP to hear everyone's views on EWHO. Mine and yours. In my view their doesn't seem to be anything that provides as much as the EWHO does for the price it is currently at.

What sample libraries do you think are the best to use and the most realistic? Also, what would you advice the OP do?


----------



## Bollen (Nov 21, 2019)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> What sample libraries do you think are the best to use and the most realistic? Also, what would you advice the OP do?


Oooo! That's a very tricky question and it depends on lots and lots of factors: budget, what kind of music he/she wants to write, etc. I suppose my advice is read through these posts and make an informed decision.... Also some YouTube walkthroughs can be quite enlightening.

In terms of realism it's even harder, because you can't rely on just one company (unfortunately), you have to really hunt around for what instruments are better where. Just to give you an example, for a trumpet there's nothing better than SampleModelling, but their Horns are mmmh... Well not that good and I'm very unconvinced about their strings. VSL is one of the best in terms of consistency, but it's not bullet proof. Some of their legato transitions just sound obnoxious, many of their velocity layers are just off by a lot (radical change of timber). I could go on... This is why VI-Control is such a great place, it really helps find the perfect thing you need!


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 21, 2019)

As has been alluded to, Hollywood Orchestra is quite thoroughly sampled. With regards to articulations and note variations, I'm still not sure if it has been surpassed (thinking particularly about Hollywood Strings). The huge number of articulations and patches is daunting to begin with, but over time you will appreciate the flexibility that it provides. If one note attack doesn't work, there's a number of other options. If the sustain isn't expressive enough, there are options for that too. Most libraries are easier to use these days, especially in the "load a patch and just play!" sense, and for many users, that approach helps them achieve a better result.
I personally use patches and libraries from almost all developers, but if I had to pick one full orchestra package to cover all of my needs, it would be the Hollywood Orch (I haven't tried BBCSO, but it doesn't look as flexible from what I've seen).
Most of the complaints about PLAY these days just feel like parroting of forum posts and opinions that were made a number of years ago. I shared those opinions at the time, but I honestly find it more efficient than other samplers now. My Hollywood Orch template is the quickest to load and leanest template that I have. Hoolywood Orch Gold is still the best value package in my opinion, and some of the official demos are still the best demos for a sample library I've heard.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 21, 2019)

Ok I am going to toot my own horn. A forum member who has been very frustrated with HOW Gold contacted me to buy a Logic Pro X HOW Gold template.

He wrote me , “OMG, I was not ready for how much better this would sound!”

i post this not to self-aggrandize (not that I am above that) but to re-enforce what I have been writing here for years. There are so many articulations in HOW that differ in behavior, and yes, quality, that choosing the best ones for what you wish to achieve, understanding how they work best and adapting rather than trying t to make them work the way you want them to work, is the key to success.

It isn’t an instant gratification choice and yes, it is resource intensive and it has a lot of inconsistency, but it is still as capable of achieving good results in a variety of genres as anything in the marketplace and at its present pricing, a real bargain.


----------



## cqd (Nov 21, 2019)

Any chance you could give us a rundown of the template?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 21, 2019)

Bollen said:


> Portamento/Legato Sim On/Off, any of the Mixer, etc. cannot be controlled via automation nor MIDI CC.



Many parameters can be controlled via CC, including these. For example, see page 26-27 of the HS manual.



Bollen said:


> Regarding Velocity vs Mod, there's nothing in my manual about it nor any other settings on any other window.



Explained on pages 34-35

Anyways, the sound of HO comes down to personal taste, but the legatos are up there with any current library IMO. Nothing will be replace the real thing, but HO can sound pretty darn good when one learns the library.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Nov 22, 2019)

Bollen said:


> I don't use Cubase for composing (only for mixing/mastering), I use notation software. In any case it's not important, I don't use them...


But nobody would expect HO to sound very realistic out of a notation program I suppose. It has to be massaged within a daw in a lot of ways which you cannot do in a notation program AFAIK. Not just mixing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 22, 2019)

cqd said:


> Any chance you could give us a rundown of the template?



It would take 3 pages Suffice to say 5-7 articulations per instrument, with Articulation ID Sets so that you do each instrument with 1 track, articulations visible in Smart Controls, with some volume balancing between sections and articulations within an instrument, and Dewdman’s free CC closer script so that MIDI ccs apply to all MIDI channels.

EDIT: my choices were somewhat necessitated by the fact that he only has 16 GB.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 22, 2019)

I also think it's worth mentioning that the wealth of mic positions in the strings and brass (don't have the rest) make an enormous difference in the composer's ability to sculpt the sound.

Same is true for Spitfire -- those additional mic positions make much more of a difference than I would have expected when I was starting all this.

I used to be quite skeptical, even scornful, of production skills, thinking that "it's all about the notes." It is, sort of, but the production / mixing / blending stuff is now an inescapable part of the job, for many reasons.

Certainly for the price the HO stuff is mind-bogglingly rich. I also like and use a lot of Spitfire and samples from other companies, but the Hollywood Brass and strings are strong.

[note: I have received free products from East West]


----------



## AndyP (Nov 22, 2019)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> This looks great!!


Definitely a good offer. It took me a few days to finish my template. If I started again I would buy it immediately. The time you save is priceless.


----------



## AndyP (Nov 22, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Many parameters can be controlled via CC, including these. For example, see page 26-27 of the HS manual.



I used this as a cheat sheet.

_Hollywood Strings

For example, there are at least 10 MIDI CCs being used in Hollywood Strings:

CC1 = Vibrato/transition/etc.
CC5 = Portamento/legato time
CC7 = Volume
CC11 = Expression
CC14 (slur/bow change patches) = 0-63 for slur, 64-127 for bow change while the Other button turned off
CC14 (runs) = 0-64 for upward, 65 for RR, 66-127 for downward while the Other button turned off
CC15 = Con sordino On/Off
CC22 = Poly/mono
CC22 is an important controller in HS and allows you to bypass the monophonic legato behavior and actually play polyphonic legato.
CC65 = Portamento On/Off, CC68 = Legato On/Off, CC69 = Repetition On/Off, CC70 = Finger pos.

I was just wrecking my brain on how to manually switch between Slur and BC in Hollywood Strings.
So, after an additional lookup in the manual, the way to do it is this:
1. Load up the combined BC + Slur patch
2. Disable the "Other" button in the scripts section
3. Use CC14 (as outlined in the post above) to switch between BC and Slur._

I can't remember exactly where I found it on the internet, but it helped me a lot.


----------



## Bollen (Nov 22, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Many parameters can be controlled via CC, including these. For example, see page 26-27 of the HS manual.
> 
> Explained on pages 34-35
> 
> Anyways, the sound of HO comes down to personal taste, but the legatos are up there with any current library IMO. Nothing will be replace the real thing, but HO can sound pretty darn good when one learns the library.


My manuals don't even have a page 26, remember we were talking about Solo instruments. I have Google it to death and I never found any information that said you could control those parameters via CC. I have the latest update with the latest manual. Maybe it's different for Ensembles?



Markus Kohlprath said:


> But nobody would expect HO to sound very realistic out of a notation program I suppose. It has to be massaged within a daw in a lot of ways which you cannot do in a notation program AFAIK. Not just mixing.



No, no, of course not. But I use Dorico that allows me to massage things just like in Cubase... And yes, I can get incredibly realistic results. Anyway off topic, but thank you for your input!



JohnG said:


> I used to be quite skeptical, even scornful, of production skills, thinking that "it's all about the notes." It is, sort of, but the production / mixing / blending stuff is now an inescapable part of the job, for many reasons.


Me too, ha! But in time I have learned that both are true, it really comes down to the type of music you're making. Epic or film music or even simple (as in minimalist or sparse) music really needs a good production to enhance and make the musical statement come across... Overly-complex music or things like jazz can survive without it...


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 22, 2019)

Bollen said:


> My manuals don't even have a page 26, remember we were talking about Solo instruments. I have Google it to death and I never found any information that said you could control those parameters via CC. I have the latest update with the latest manual. Maybe it's different for Ensembles?



My bad!


----------



## Bollen (Nov 22, 2019)

AndyP said:


> I used this as a cheat sheet.
> 
> _Hollywood Strings
> 
> ...


Well several of these work on the solo instruments! Not all, but @Wolfie2112 was right! Now why are these not in the manual??? In any case it hasn't changed my mind about the quality, but it has certainly made them useful again, at least hidden away as instrument 2 or 3 at the back of the hall...


----------



## Muzicpro (Jan 7, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> It would take 3 pages Suffice to say 5-7 articulations per instrument, with Articulation ID Sets so that you do each instrument with 1 track, articulations visible in Smart Controls, with some volume balancing between sections and articulations within an instrument, and Dewdman’s free CC closer script so that MIDI ccs apply to all MIDI channels.
> 
> EDIT: my choices were somewhat necessitated by the fact that he only has 16 GB.


Hey Jay, where can one find this script?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 7, 2020)

Dewdman posted a link to it here in a thread.


----------



## John Longley (Jan 7, 2020)

I suspect a lot of us (me) actually hide from HO because some elements hold up so we'll it makes you wonder why you just spent thousands more  I think if the articulations were easier to wrangle it would still get more love...


----------



## MauroPantin (Jan 7, 2020)

John Longley said:


> I suspect a lot of us (me) actually hide from HO because some elements hold up so well it makes you wonder why you just spent thousands more  I think if the articulations were easier to wrangle it would still get more love...



This is so true. It's cumbersome to work with, but it is very flexible. If you get it down in a template and know it well enough, I think it's just as good as any other current library, sonically speaking (particularly the strings and the brass). It's just that the learning curve is such a PITA. 

Playability is also tough but I think that is not an exclusive trait of HO, most libraries are not great in that department. A lot of key switching and massaging is required to get them to play ball. The ultimate library sounds like the modern library but reacts with ease and intelligence to the playing. Some form of AI is going to solve that for us in the near future, hopefully.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 7, 2020)

MauroPantin said:


> This is so true. It's cumbersome to work with, but it is very flexible. If you get it down in a template and know it well enough, I think it's just as good as any other current library, sonically speaking (particularly the strings and the brass). It's just that the learning curve is such a PITA.



I simply don’t agree with _any_ of that except the learning curve. I find it very playable and if you set it up well, not at all cumbersome.


----------



## John Longley (Jan 7, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I simply don’t agree with _any_ of that except the learning curve. I find it very playable and if you set it up well, not at all cumbersome.


I think once you argue something isn't complicated on the other side of the learning curve (vs the alternative(s)), you may have acknowledged the "problem". It isn't bad, and if you like track per articulation or generally don't mind setting up large PLAY multis, it's fine. I think vs more recent offerings, the handling is a little texty and switching isn't its forte. 


Many of us choose tools that are actually a little finicky in many ways because they are worth it to us for their utility. I think we can still say they are harder to work with on many levels. Still a Grade A Library at any rate.


----------



## MauroPantin (Jan 8, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I simply don’t agree with _any_ of that except the learning curve. I find it very playable and if you set it up well, not at all cumbersome.



It's subjective but if I compare with the playability of Sample Modeling or Adventure Brass, I think it falls short (like most other libraries, mind you). It doesn't make it bad, though. Even with what I said, HO is still the core of my template, because it sounds stellar. But there's something to be said with ease of use. And I'm not talking about the learning curve, I appreciate the complexity and number of recorded articulations. Is the overall UI, organization of the library and sometimes behaviour of Play that I would love to have a better option for.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 8, 2020)

MauroPantin said:


> It's subjective but if I compare with the playability of Sample Modeling or Adventure Brass, I think it falls short (like most other libraries, mind you). It doesn't make it bad, though. Even with what I said, HO is still the core of my template, because it sounds stellar. But there's something to be said with ease of use. And I'm not talking about the learning curve, I appreciate the complexity and number of recorded articulations. Is the overall UI, organization of the library and sometimes behaviour of Play that I would love to have a better option for.



I owned the Samplemodling trumpet, French horn, and trombone and ended up selling them. I did not get on with them at all. They were playable in that there was practically no keyswitching, etc. but as I was playing the sound was so uninspiring, it just sucked the joy out of the process for me. But I don’t play a wind controller. 

And unlike most people probably, once the articulations are loaded, the only thing I look a5 in Play usually is its mixer, which is a gazillion times better than the tiny Kontakt mixer.

But yes, if EW would hire me to do it, I could clean out those directories massively.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 8, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I simply don’t agree with _any_ of that except the learning curve. I find it very playable and if you set it up well, not at all cumbersome.



I agree with Jay.

Play is not any more cumbersome than a lot of other stuff out there. Just because many people are accustomed to Kontakt they will write "it makes more sense." I just don't agree -- Kontakt makes more sense to many users because they've been using it for 15 years. Some things in Kontakt can be better, but it still has its own learning curve.

If you are a big tweaker, PLAY may not be for you. I hate tweaking. For me, if the sound is good, I use the sound, however unfamiliar I am with the interface and no matter what it takes to get it to speak the way I want.

*Interfaces Galore *

The new Spitfire interface is a good example. I have seen a lot of carping and even anger about the GUI, including from some people claiming a scientific basis for their opinions --

-- I mean, who cares?

When I think of the miles-over-broken-glass I've walked to get a good live performance from an orchestra, having to poke around a little to familiarise myself with a new sample player is nothing.

If you want to work with the easiest-to-play sounds, that's up to you. I am focused on the end result. Spitfire, Hollywood, Soundiron, 8dio, Zebra, Omni -- whatever sounds cool goes in there, no matter how much of a pain it is to get it lined up and sounding its best.


----------



## robgb (Jan 8, 2020)

I tried it on Composer Cloud and just felt it didn't give me enough control. Sounds great, tho.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 9, 2020)

JohnG said:


> he new Spitfire interface is a good example. I have seen a lot of carping and even anger about the GUI, including from some people claiming a scientific basis for their opinions --
> 
> -- I mean, who cares?



Exactly. The SF Player, best Service Engine, and PLAY since it's introduction, etc, are all no-nonsense easy-to-use players. I remember using the old NI Kompakt Player with EW libraries. You practically needed a microscope to use it!


----------

