# Chris Hein Woodwinds disappointment



## dasbin (May 21, 2019)

I recently purchased the full Orchestra Woodwinds collection from another user here. Was quite excited about it. It's my first jump into Hein products.

Unfortunately I think it will be my last Hein product. I wanted to post this not to trash-talk them at all (they have a lot of good points) but just because I got them based mostly on what others have said about them (and demos/videos of course) but rarely if ever saw anyone mention their rather significant cons. So maybe this can help someone else struggling with decisions.

First, the big and obvious good points - they are meticulously edited, dynamics blend seamlessly, the legatos are nice, and the famous CH programming and interface (especially the "note-head" idea) is very powerful and unique indeed.

The problem I have with them is that the dry recorded samples just sound terrible. I wanted a dry library, and I am used to dry sounds (I am also a professional recording & mixing engineer). But if you turn off the built-in convolution reverbs, you get the naked samples, and the truth comes through. In many ranges the samples don't much sound like the instruments they're supposed to represent, but even when they do, the recordings lack huge amounts of detail (many sound like they have a low-pass filter applied or were miked with an SM57 or worse, and EQ which I thought would help is not able to bring out any more information).

Worst of all, they are all 100% mono. I think this should be marked clearly on the product webpages so people know what they are getting. When I heard the mono samples, I thought maybe I was doing something wrong. Scoured the web and found a single comment by Chris Hein saying that solo instruments don't need to be miked in stereo.

I very much disagree. Solo acoustic instruments have a physical size to them. They aren't one-dimensional theoretical points in space. They output different sounds in different directions. They interact with the space differently on their right and on their left. I would (almost) never record a featured solo instrument in mono.

This is partially alleviated by the built-in convolution reverbs, which bring back some much-needed dimension of course. But not a single one of the "Body" settings actually sounds natural or right to me. They all sound like a short slapback with a strong resonant peak applied on top of a poorly-recorded mono sample.

Most of the the demos online have a lot of reverb applied. Things generally sound quite OK if that's what you're going for. But as a dry sample set, I want to use them relatively dry, but the recordings are totally inappropriate for that. They sound cheap and one-dimensional unless covered with reverb.

So, sadly, I think I'll be selling them shortly and trying out VSL. I was previously strongly considering CH's solo string set as well, but think I will pass now. There is a very strong nasal quality to most of the solo violins and an unnatural mudiness to the lower ranges of the cellos. I thought this should be fixable with some EQ, and that the libraries have enough other strong points to make it worthwhile to do so, but I no longer think EQ will be of much help to the recordings.

I do think they could be truly great sample sets if they hired another recording engineer experienced in recording solo acoustic instruments, and maybe recorded in a space that was just slightly less anechoic to let the instruments breathe a little.


----------



## skythemusic (May 21, 2019)

I’ve never used the library so have no opinion there, but I did want to say that I and many others rarely record instruments in stereo. 

I love the focused flexibility of mono. I support LCR mixing and it is incredibly easy to run a mono signal into a mono to stereo output processor. I have at least a dozen wonderful pieces of outboard gear that can do that if necessary.

Too many stereo instruments makes your mix a jumbled mess. A mono featured instrument down the center is a traditional way of making a great sounding record. It can me multed out to a stereo spread if you need reverb/delay.

I have the opposite problem in the sample world of finding myself needing to collapse sounds to mono that were tracked stereo.


----------



## ChristianM (May 21, 2019)

VSL have also instrument in mono, no ?


----------



## dasbin (May 21, 2019)

When blending an instrument into a larger mix, I agree that mono can work quite well. But these are solo instruments. I assume that part of their use-case will be for... solo... work. Standing on their own from time to time. Rarely have I heard exposed cellos or pianos or violins recorded in mono, for example.
In any case, I find it a lot easier to collapse a (good) stereo recording to mono (or just a narrower stereo) than it is to get convincing stereo out of a mono recording. The Body convolution supplied in CH tries its best but doesn't succeed at this until also covered in general reverb, IMO.


----------



## dasbin (May 21, 2019)

ChristianM said:


> VSL have also instrument in mono, no ?



Are they?
Crap, my options are narrowing by the minute 
Still, I think they are recorded much better. Even the old VSL stuff in the Kontakt Factory Library sounds vastly superior in detail to the naked Hein samples to me, and those are also very very dry.


----------



## re-peat (May 21, 2019)

dasbin said:


> The problem I have with them is that the dry recorded samples just sound terrible.





dasbin said:


> Worst of all, they are all 100% mono.



Fully agree with both those points. (I wrote something similar *here* and, some years ago, did a more lengthy review of this library for TSB in which I arrived at much the same conclusion.) CH has some great ideas about how to get the most out of samples in Kontakt, but unfortunately, there is just not a lot that you can get out of his samples, not even with the cleverest Kontakt-tricks.
(This is also the reason why, in my view, his solo strings never qualified as a serious contender, despite their sophisticated Kontakt-shell: at source trapped in mono and hence that small, boxy sound, no matter what kind of reverb you add to it.)

Anyway, Pars will soon enough bring balance to this thread by telling us all how amazing the CH Woodwinds are.

(VSL's woodwinds aren't mono, by the way.)

_


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 21, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Fully agree with both those points. (I wrote something similar *here* and, some years ago, did a more lengthy review of this library for TSB in which I arrived at much the same conclusion.) CH has some great ideas about how to get the most out of samples in Kontakt, but unfortunately, there is just not a lot that you can get out of his samples, not even with the cleverest Kontakt-tricks.
> (This is also the reason why, in my view, his solo strings never qualified as a serious contender, despite their sophisticated Kontakt-shell: at source trapped in mono and hence that small, boxy sound, no matter what kind of reverb you add to it.)
> 
> Anyway, Pars will soon enough bring balance to this thread by telling us all how amazing the CH Woodwinds are.
> ...


Chris who?


----------



## pderbidge (May 21, 2019)

This is all very interesting to me since these winds have been at the top of my wishlist as a contender. The reason why is that there were not one but multiple times I would listen to other midi composers music in the background while I was finishing my basement and some really nice sounding woodwinds would pop up in some of the music that made my head turn. I would then look into the composers notes to see what they used, expecting to see Berlin WW and lo and behold each time they were actually Chris Hein. Like I said, this happened multiple times which convinced me that this was an underrated library. Most of the time, as most of us know it's usually the brass and strings that stand out because it seems that not as much focus seems to be on woodwinds in the sampling world. I attributed this toto fact that this must be a great woodwinds library. From what I'm reading it seems perhaps most the credit should go to those composers for doing a good job mixing the CH winds rather than credit to the CH winds? Or maybe it's a little of both and the CH winds work for those who like super dry recorded mono instruments where it is completely up to the user to make them sound good or bad. I tend to fall in that camp.
Anyways, this is all good and interesting for me to read about since I have been interested in these woodwinds for a while now.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 21, 2019)

I highly recommend audiomodelings woodwinds


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 21, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Anyway, Pars will soon enough bring balance to this thread by telling us all how amazing the CH Woodwinds are.
> _



LEAVE BRITTNEY ALOOOOONE

I do think it's funny that the last comment is someone suggesting audio modeling winds, which would literally just be all of the problems the OP has with CH but more playable?

there are definitely ways of creating a more stereo signal, but ultimately - I agree it's a pain. I don't even like center recorded instruments.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 21, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> LEAVE BRITTNEY ALOOOOONE
> 
> I do think it's funny that the last comment is someone suggesting audio modeling winds, which would literally just be all of the problems the OP has with CH but more playable?
> 
> there are definitely ways of creating a more stereo signal, but ultimately - I agree it's a pain. I don't even like center recorded instruments.



There are issues that OP brings up that I doubt many libraries remedy. So if realism and flexibility of the samples is the goal, I only recommend AM because it has many subtle details like breath noise and movement that help it to sound more natural than other samples might. I don’t think there is any way to avoid convolution reverb and EQ to get any libraries to sound right but at least AM might give a more flexible starting point than others. Or maybe not, if you’re not committed to programming all the detail in, it could sounds like a synth. Woodwinds are always the section that never tends to shine in any library. Something is always lacking.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 21, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> There are issues that OP brings up that I doubt many libraries remedy. So if realism and flexibility of the samples is the goal, I only recommend AM because it has many subtle details like breath noise and movement that help it to sound more natural than other samples might. I don’t think there is any way to avoid convolution reverb and EQ to get any libraries to sound right but at least AM might give a more flexible starting point than others. Or maybe not, if you’re not committed to programming all the detail in, it could sounds like a synth. Woodwinds are always the section that never tends to shine in any library. Something is always lacking.



It's just more or less that the specific complaint is due to the actual sound, not as much the flexibility. Infact his only complaint is just the sound, and that it's recorded in mono. 

audio modeling isn't even "recorded" it uses samples as building blocks and some fancy phase alignment stuff - but you don't actually get a recording of an instrument, it's all deconstructed and then re-constructed to model the instruments. 

Those instruments are great for playability - but it comes at a cost.


----------



## BezO (May 21, 2019)

Interesting! I've been patiently waiting for CH to NKS Horns Pro. Vids convinced me it's the sound I've been looking for to supplement/replace Session Horns Pro for higher velocity samples. I took advantage of the Spitfire sale & picked up Studio Brass (& Winds) in the meantime. Haven't used them yet, but testing them out, they'll get the job done.

Still looking for saxes. I'll have to listen more closely and maybe seek out some drier demos of CHHP, though now I'm hoping to find just a "Studio Sax" library to avoid too much duplication.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 21, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> It's just more or less that the specific complaint is due to the actual sound, not as much the flexibility. Infact his only complaint is just the sound, and that it's recorded in mono.
> 
> audio modeling isn't even "recorded" it uses samples as building blocks and some fancy phase alignment stuff - but you don't actually get a recording of an instrument, it's all deconstructed and then re-constructed to model the instruments.
> 
> Those instruments are great for playability - but it comes at a cost.



Of course, and this is where it’s a no win situation. I don’t know any library that satisfies OP’s conditions of dry samples in stereo that satisfy the need for a spacial presence without consequentially sounding wet. The expressive versatility of AM is what often impressed me because you can add in little sounds and imperfections that might sound more natural than some samples provide but AM won’t solve the other issues, and again I can’t think of many others that will. Maybe Aaron Century Infinite woodwinds might when they come out. I don’t know.

I honestly don’t know any libraries that put out woodwind libraries with any real enthusiasm. More-so an obligation to complete the orchestra. None of them ever seem to hit it completely on the nose with as much precision and quality as we find in the more competitive brass and strings sections.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 21, 2019)

Dry samples make grown (?) men scurry around like chicken.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 22, 2019)

I'm tempted to mention Studio WW Professional just to see @re-peat pipe in...

wait, get it? Pipe in? Winds? 

*BWA...…!*
*





*
(sorry)


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 22, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I honestly don’t know any libraries that put out woodwind libraries with any real enthusiasm. More-so an obligation to complete the orchestra. None of them ever seem to hit it completely on the nose with as much precision and quality as we find in the more competitive brass and strings sections.



Certainly the opposite is true of the VSL Woodwinds, but these again tend to induce uncontrollable terror in the hearts of men due to their bone-chilling dryness.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 22, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Certainly the opposite is true of the VSL Woodwinds, but these again tend to induce uncontrollable terror in the hearts of men due to their bone-chilling dryness.



Sounds like the Hein.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 22, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Sounds like the Hein.



And full circle lol


----------



## Raindog (May 22, 2019)

I believe there is a misunderstanding of the different concepts of sample libraries here, leading to false expectations.
You can do a perfect (stereo) recording of a solo instrument leading to a perfect sound when playing back the recording but giving you much less or no flexibility. Best example ist the Tina Guo Cello. Wonderful lyric sound but definitely a one trick pony which makes it impossible to play the library in any other than the intended context. If you want to apply techniques like phase alignment you seem to be (for technical reasons) forced to record dry mono samples which sound quite boring on their own.
Best example (though it´s a hybrid sample/modelling instrument) is The Trumpet from SM. Wonderful instrument but listen to it naked without modulation or reverb. A pure nightmare....
Same applies for Chris´ woodwind instruments. They do sound a bit boring when playing them strip naked but why would you do this? You almost always apply some sort of room and/or reverb and you constantly modulate just like a real player does (at least in musical not technical context).
So I agree and disagree with the OP as mono samples indeed do sound boring but they enable a lot more flexibility in terms of applying modulation and room variability than stereo samples where the room is already embedded. Same problem with modelling instruments but that´s another Topic.
Best regards
Raindog


----------



## Jerry Growl (May 22, 2019)

> And full circle lol



The problem with mono is that it's only a slice of the 'pizza'. When you' re recording e.g. a Quatro Staggioni like a piano you're always at loss, missing out on interesting bits  (sorry for the silly comparison)

But... Mono is easy to mix for old-fashioned recording and panning reasons. Wherever you place something mono in the mix or wherever the listener's ears are about in his/her room, the mono signal always comes out predictably more or less the same. While stereo sources have (interesting) phase issues, which makes them troublesome to shape and place.

Now, to get a mono source 'sit' in the mix you'll need to dress the mono signal up again. It will need some serious stage positioning , an experienced hand in EQ, ER and compression and finally enough adequate (probably multiple layers of) reverb.... in order to reconstruct something that will probably resemble more of a calzone than the original pizza...


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 22, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Sounds like the Hein.



As an undaunted stirrer of dry sampled witches' brew, I've been eyeing the concoctions of Chris Heinous for a while now.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 22, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> As an undaunted stirrer of dry sampled witches' brew, I've been eyeing the concoctions of Chris Heinous for a while now.



I got tired of being the Hein flag-waver, personally. I use them a lot, but now I use even more another (of the multitudinous) libraries that @re-peat conscientiously loathes: Studio WWs Professional. It could just be my honeymoon with a new library, though. Yet another dry library, to boot.

It seems to me the library that gets the most raves (and is great out of the box) is Berlin Woodwinds, and it's my next WW purchase (mostly for the ensembles).

We get negative topics regularly from newcomers not liking their newly bought dry libraries because of the modicum of work it takes to get the full benefits _*from*_ the library. Most of these newbies (not pointing out the current poster in particular at all) barely even give their libraries a chance.

As far as mono samples...they can be the most malleable. But I personally recommend beginners to simply grab a wet library, because the automatic sound can be very inspiring to newbie composers and get them started writing more ...something I doubt many members do enough of around here (too many are inordinately concerned with little peccadilloes in their libraries and pick, pick, pick. Mostly so they can continue to shop, shop, shop. All pf which proves my theory.)

Before selling anything and taking a significant loss (on what might amount to an already abused credit card) start reading the manual and spending more time with whatever library you don't like.

When it comes to dry libs, if you don't at least learn how to use reverb to help with your sound then you deserve to lose money selling it.

Again, not pinpointing any specific library or member. It's just the truth...the ole AA saw works here:

(Tommy Lee Jones voice): "it works if you _*work *_it, people."


----------



## Shredoverdrive (May 22, 2019)

I'm no bigwig so my opinion's worth what it's worth but I use both VSL and Chris Hein's WW and I see no point in buying anything else. Love the dry samples, love my sketchy reverb home-cooking.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 22, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> I honestly don’t know any libraries that put out woodwind libraries with any real enthusiasm.



idk VSL woodwinds were pretty legendary for their time, and same with BWW. That was like THE library for a long time(and in my opinion still is)


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]


chocobitz825 said:


> The expressive versatility of AM is what often impressed me



Again, as far as I know - this isn't even the OP's complaint - and it very much sounds like whatever realism is achieved by the scripting of that library is completely undermined by physically not sounding like the instruments. So far I haven't seen the OP ask for the playability of AM recorded on MGM sony - the OP seems reasonable about this, and I haven't actually seen him complain about playability(quote him for me if you see where he says this)[/COLOR]​

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]


chocobitz825 said:


> Of course, and this is where it’s a no win situation. I don’t know any library that satisfies OP’s conditions of dry samples in stereo that satisfy the need for a spacial presence without consequentially sounding wet.


[/COLOR]​
I dont think the goal is to sound like it's recorded in an anechoic chamber - I'm 90% sure even a dryness of what I'm about to link is sufficient for most people. Even real soloists recorded probably around going to make it to the final mix without hitting some form of reverb. These two instruments are unquestionably oboe and bassoon - and I'm barely using any close mic(mainly just the ORTF) from berlin woodwinds.

And in this case, instead of reverb I simply used a mic with some room in it.

and in a previous thread I had shared an example of mostly close mics from SSW with a little tree blended in(instead of reverb)

This is honestly the best way to do it, because no reverb is going to capture how these instruments actually behave in a room.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/dryishrose-mp3.20246/][/AUDIOPLUS]

and this is one of those times when you really regret not using a metronome, try to add a 3rd instrument to cover it up, and then end up making it worse - but here it is.


----------



## pderbidge (May 22, 2019)

Jerry Growl said:


> Now, to get a mono source 'sit' in the mix you'll need to dress the mono signal up again. It will need some serious stage positioning , an experienced hand in EQ, ER and compression and finally enough adequate (probably multiple layers of) reverb.... in order to reconstruct something that will probably resemble more of a calzone than the original pizza...


It might still be a pizza, perhaps a new and improved version of the Pizza depending on your skills. I would argue that these skills are necessary to today's serious composers unless you have unlimited access to your own personal mix engineer and even if you do, these skills will still improve ones compositions. These skills are less necessary if you are still composing on paper with access to live players but for anyone doing music on a computer then eq, reverb, compression, phase alignment etc.. these all become the basic building blocks to gluing your instruments together.


----------



## pderbidge (May 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> This is honestly the best way to do it, because no reverb is going to capture how these instruments actually behave in a room.


I agree to a point, however the plugins today are getting better and better. There was, and still are, many mix engineers who swear by outboard gear as irreplaceable when yet there are newcomers everyday who do it all "in the box" and no one seems to notice.

I do agree with you that in the recording stage there is a balance between getting it "too dry" and capturing the ambience of the room so that natural sound (which is really the instrument plus the room) we are used to hearing is still there in the tone of the instrument. Nevertheless from what I hear from Chris Hein and Audiobro seems to have that balance, IMHO. Others will feel differently and that's ok. It's all personal preference really. In the end I've heard great music made with both dry and wet samples.


----------



## dasbin (May 22, 2019)

Thanks everyone for chiming in.

Some of the posts here caused me to want to dig a little deeper and see if there's anything I can do to improve my experience with CHW a little more, seeing as there seems to be no other real options for what I'm looking for save VSL, which I agree are a bit thin. Berlin WW is just too wet for my taste and usage.

One thing I learned from playing around is that the Body convolutions work a lot better when mixed in much lower than the stock settings. I've been choosing longer IR's (typically the 0.6-1.1s ones) but turning them down to -12 or so. That sounds more like being recorded in a real dry room without sounding too artificial, and the mono-ness starts to bug me less as well.

The one thing I can't seem to fix at all -- and the one thing that no one has addressed in this thread so far -- is just all the missing detail in the recorded samples. I don't know what it is but, for example, the Flute 1 instrument seems to have no content at all above 8Khz or so. Yes, there is an "Air" slider, but it doesn't do what I expect air to sound like on a flute... it is much lower in frequency and doesn't sound like detail coming back into the recording. I like to hear a little bit of spit and air and reed (on reeds) across the the instrument and it seems to be very lacking in every single instrument. And EQ is of no help, even with really big boosts in the air band - there is just NOTHING useful up there in most of these recordings. It sounds like either poor mics or poor mic positions were used, or some poor post-processing that just bandpassed the instrument.

I think I can live with it in the context of a larger ensemble, especially in classical music, because the typical listening distances in such cases mean air-absorption makes that kind of sound normal, and it can also help blend into a large ensemble without anything popping out. But for small and dry pieces, or for use in experimental chamber-pop pieces (a big chunk of what I write) it sounds very lacking in detail. Which is unfortunate given the dry solo nature of the library, which seems like it would otherwise be great for that use-case. VSL seems to kick the snot of CH in top-end detail.


----------



## MA-Simon (May 22, 2019)

Personally the mono-ness is why i stopped getting the tarilonte libraries.

They are a fantastic idea and are well produced, love the thematic settings etc.

But I most likely would want to use single instruments and feature them prominently because of their uniqueness. That is just not possible to do satisfactory because they will sound flat compared to all the other backing stuff. So I found I have to either dumb down all other instruments, only use them as background pads ore just for thematic sparkles.


----------



## pderbidge (May 22, 2019)

dasbin said:


> The one thing I can't seem to fix at all -- and the one thing that no one has addressed in this thread so far -- is just all the missing detail in the recorded samples. I don't know what it is but, for example, the Flute 1 instrument seems to have no content at all above 8Khz or so. Yes, there is an "Air" slider, but it doesn't do what I expect air to sound like on a flute... it is much lower in frequency and doesn't sound like detail coming back into the recording. I like to hear a little bit of spit and air and reed (on reeds) across the the instrument and it seems to be very lacking in every single instrument. And EQ is of no help, even with really big boosts in the air band - there is just NOTHING useful up there in most of these recordings. It sounds like either poor mics or poor mic positions were used, or some poor post-processing that just bandpassed the instrument.
> 
> I think I can live with it in the context of a larger ensemble, especially in classical music, because the typical listening distances in such cases mean air-absorption makes that kind of sound normal. But for small and dry pieces, or for use in experimental pop pieces (a big chunk of what I write) it sounds very lacking in detail.



Without being an owner of the library I can only speculate on what you are hearing in regards to "detail" but I think this might be a case where what you are really looking for is a solo instrument. For example, in my Lass 2 string library I have "first chair" patches and while I've gotten good results out of the FC cello as a solo instrument, the violin just doens't work for me, however in the context that it was intended to be (a first chair instrument and not a solo) it works very well. Therefore, I've had to turn to solo focused libraries to get that extra detail and expressiveness that I want out of a solo string instrument.
VSL is still a good choice though (once again another library I don't own yet but on my wish list) because despite it being very dry it's seems to be the one series that people who normally don't like dry libraries give this one a good review on expressiveness and play ability.
Beyond VSL, I think you should be looking at 8dio Claire series, Fluffy Audio, and Embertone, to name a few. You might find those are more of what you want since their focus is solo playing and uber expressiveness.
Unfortunately sample libraries are only so many snapshots of a performance and there are still mountains of snapshots needed to cover all of our musicall wants which is why I believe the future will belong to instrument modeling or a hybrid of some sort.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 22, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Fully agree with both those points. (I wrote something similar *here* and, some years ago, did a more lengthy review of this library for TSB in which I arrived at much the same conclusion.) CH has some great ideas about how to get the most out of samples in Kontakt, but unfortunately, there is just not a lot that you can get out of his samples, not even with the cleverest Kontakt-tricks.
> (This is also the reason why, in my view, his solo strings never qualified as a serious contender, despite their sophisticated Kontakt-shell: at source trapped in mono and hence that small, boxy sound, no matter what kind of reverb you add to it.)
> 
> Anyway, Pars will soon enough bring balance to this thread by telling us all how amazing the CH Woodwinds are.
> ...



I was given them to review and since my policy is not to give negative reviews but just to decline to review when I don't like a library as it is so subjective, that is what I did.


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> idk VSL woodwinds were pretty legendary for their time, and same with BWW. That was like THE library for a long time(and in my opinion still is)
> 
> 
> [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]
> ...




I appreciate your thorough rebuttal but I think you misrepresent why I brought up SWAM in the first place. of all the issues brought up, I could not recall another library that has solo flutes that are not too wet by default, or one that was done in stereo, or one that has what the OP later requests 



dasbin said:


> I like to hear a little bit of spit and air and reed (on reeds) across the the instrument and it seems to be very lacking in every single instrument.


]

this was my takeaway for an instrument sounding like the instrument its supposed to be when you strip away the IRs and have to deal with the detail left in the samples. I dont have VSL, so I cant speak to that, but I have OT Berlin woodwinds and expansions and they're super wet. Spitfire woodwind sounds fine, but also still pretty wet. 8Dio Claire, fine, but maybe too wet. with all of them when they're striped down to close mics and no IR, they're either still too wet, or their crossfades sound terrible. None of those libraries address what I also find more important in a woodwind library, and thats performances that dont sound too clean and sterile. So many libraries with woodwinds sound just too pretty. Unoffensive playing that never pushes too hard and tries not to get the players pushing too much air into the sample. The only time I ever find that airyness is in ambience based recordings that want to sound imperfect on purpose. 

As a former Flute, Clarinet and Oboe player, whats always caught me about SWAM's woodwinds (and pretty much only them) is that it simulates the air and spit better than any other library I've heard. It's possible to overblow the instrument whenever you want them too, and not just when the sample library can successfully crossfade dynamic layers fast enough. You can do a totally clean sound, or the entire thing with a breathy airy performance. The options needed to for a non-sterile versatile sound in a real solo player is surprisingly there in SWAM. My point wasn't about playability it was about detail. Now it doesnt solve the stereo issue, and fitting it in a room is another issue, but when you break it down to its core, you can get enough "natural" playing sounds to potentially fool the ear better than I've heard from other sampled libraries (again VSL and Heins excluded as I dont own those two). 

Maybe not the best balance for OP's needs, but just a consideration for a dry player that can actually sound pretty natural and as dirty or clean as necessary to be more convincing.


----------



## re-peat (May 22, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> but I have OT Berlin woodwinds and expansions and they're super wet.




That's not true _at all_, Chocobitz. The original Core library may be nowhere near as dry as VSL, but it's far — very far — from 'super wet' and if you give the Close mic prominence over the others, the results are what I would call medium dry at most. And MUCHO MUCHO MUCHO drier still are the Expansions which were recorded in the Teldex Solo Booth. In order to hear that, _you have to turn down the 'Wet' knob of course_ (which adds a Teldex IR-based reverberation to the instrument).

Here's *http://users.telenet.be/re-peat/BerlinFlutes.mp3 (a little example)* of, first, the ExpB Flute (with the 'Wet' knob all the way down) followed by the Flute from the Core library (mostly Close Mic, with a tiny bit of Room).

I also really don't understand your enthusiasm for the SWAM Flute, I must say, especially with you being a former flute player and all. Doesn't sound anywhere close to a flute, if you ask me. Really quite useless for conventional flute-simulating purposes. The attack is all wrong, the mid and low registers are virtually unrecognizable as 'flute' — the lower you go, the closer it sounds to something Godley & Creme might have invented —, the high register isn't much better, and the dynamics are totally unconvincing as well. And its weird vibrato will surely kill off the last trace of whatever believability you might have achieved with it.

_


----------



## chocobitz825 (May 22, 2019)

re-peat said:


> That's not true _at all_, Chocobitz. The original Core library may be nowhere near as dry as VSL, but it's far — very far — from 'super wet' and if you give the Close mic prominence over the others, the results are what I would call medium dry at most. And MUCHO MUCHO MUCHO drier still are the Expansions which were recorded in the Teldex Solo Booth. In order to hear that, _you have to turn down the 'Wet' knob of course_ (which adds a Teldex IR-based reverberation to the instrument).
> 
> Here's *http://users.telenet.be/re-peat/BerlinFlutes.mp3 (a little example)* of, first, the ExpB Flute (with the 'Wet' knob all the way down) followed by the Flute from the Core library (mostly Close Mic, with a tiny bit of Room).
> 
> ...




This is why there are so many libraries, no doubt. We all use our ears and pick out different things that speak to us. I don't know what is too dry or too wet for the OP, and to me personally, I generally like Berlin's sound for most things. However, when you strip them down, particularly the solos, the transitions, and the releases are just not right to my ear. If you cant mask them a bit with reverb, they stand out as off, and also a bit harsh. 

I don't claim that SWAM is perfection, and oddly enough their default settings are always the worst, but after picking the right combination of instrument tone type, style, and then automating the other parameters, it can be very good and convincing. It will never sound that way when playing it real-time because you have to do a lot of CC work after to get the tiny details and changes to make it sound right, but having that ability works to its favor I think. I'd also recommend using its vibrato sparingly. Better if you have a breath controller. That's the better way to get a Woodwinds vibrato is to use your breath to simulate the same in and out breath players use. 

Again, not great for everyone, maybe not even precisely what the OP wanted, but for solo woodwinds, I still have yet to find more versatile solos. Perhaps they exist in CH or VSL, but to each their own I guess.


----------



## dasbin (May 22, 2019)

re-peat said:


> Here's *http://users.telenet.be/re-peat/BerlinFlutes.mp3 (a little example)* of, first, the ExpB Flute (with the 'Wet' knob all the way down) followed by the Flute from the Core library (mostly Close Mic, with a tiny bit of Room).



That Berlin WW ExpB sounds *exactly* how I want a dry flute to sound. I didn't realize the expansions we so dry! Very well-recorded. There's still a tiny amount of early reflections in there to breathe, as opposed to the Chris Hein samples which sound like they are literally in an anechoic chamber (and poorly recorded with far less detail).

Now I have some digging around to do to see just how much money I need to drop on a bunch of Expansions...
I guess the good news is you don't need the main library.

Too bad the Strings and Brass Expansions weren't also recorded in the dry booth!


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 22, 2019)

dasbin said:


> That Berlin WW ExpB sounds *exactly* how I want a dry flute to sound. I didn't realize the expansions we so dry! Very well-recorded. There's still a tiny amount of early reflections in there to breathe, as opposed to the Chris Hein samples which sound like they are literally in an anechoic chamber (and poorly recorded with far less detail).
> 
> Now I have some digging around to do to see just how much money I need to drop on a bunch of Expansions...
> I guess the good news is you don't need the main library.
> ...


Re-peat might want to think about selling woodwind sample libraries lol.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (May 22, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Re-peat might want to think about selling woodwind sample libraries lol.


Just be glad you didn't hear is SM trumpet demo with spat.


----------



## Mark Schmieder (May 22, 2019)

I have not tried hard enough yet with Chris Hein Woodwinds, but my initial audition met with some of the same observations as reported by dasbin at the top of this page. But I haven't really given them a fair shake yet. I will be doing so this weekend when I make final decisions about woodwind ensemble parts vs. VSL and Spitfire, for my Doctor Who album. Likely Spitfire will win just because it's British. 

I don't use ensemble woodwinds much though; I usually prefer solo woodwinds, unlike with brass where I might go half-and-half on ensembles vs. solo instruments. And it is the ensembles where so far I am finding it quicker for me to get really pleasing results with Spitfire strings and brass vs. either VSL or Chris Hein. But compared to most on this forum, I am no whiz at this (as compared to someone like Beat Kaufmann, for instance).


----------



## devonmyles (May 23, 2019)

chocobitz825 said:


> And full circle lol



Or, maybe circular?


----------



## ism (May 23, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> We get negative topics regularly from newcomers not liking their newly bought dry libraries because of the modicum of work it takes to get the full benefits _*from*_ the library. Most of these newbies (not pointing out the current poster in particular at all) barely even give their libraries a chance.
> 
> As far as mono samples...they can be the most malleable. But I personally recommend beginners to simply grab a wet library, because the automatic sound can be very inspiring to newbie composers and get them started writing more ...something I doubt many members do enough of around here (too many are inordinately concerned with little peccadilloes in their libraries and pick, pick, pick. Mostly so they can continue to shop, shop, shop. All pf which proves my theory.)



Your absolutely right (and I’m certainly guilty of this).

But it’s also worthwhile to not conflate the beginner’s impatience for instant gratification with a more subtle effect.

The Hein cello vs the spitfire solo cello are to me emblematic, and both maligned, often unfairly.

In terms of fine control of the expressiveness, Hein is orders of magnitude ahead. Simulated vibrato, phase alignment. You get such superb control over expressiveness, and can craft very smooth phrasings.

But in term of the sound, Spitfire is orders of magnitude ahead.

By which I don’t just mean how nice the tone is, but there’s a fundamental musicality that lives in and arises from the sheer sonority of the spitfire cello, which suffice to say is not a musicality born of creamy smoothness in the expressiveness, but it’s a very powerful musicality, that captures something of the power and momentum of the cello, that the Hein simple can’t match.

For conversely, in the sheer smoothness of the expression of the Hein, there’s a kind of expressiveness wherein lives another form of equally fundamental musicality - a musicality of grace and elegance, might be one way to put it.

Try to squeeze the wrong kind of musicality out of the wrong instrument, and no amount of reading the manual or studying reverb settings is going to make you anything but miserable.

And somewhere in this lies an explanation of why some people like SM so much, but I don’t yet fully grasp it.


----------



## Gingham Jones (Oct 20, 2020)

I want to chime in for anyone who comes across this like I did. I bought the compact Chris Hein woodwinds mainly due to the price compared to buying full Kontakt then Aaron Venture woodwinds or SWAM or any of the other libraries at double, even triple, the price. I'm not really doing orchestral music but using orchestral instruments in rock-ish songs so I too wanted a more dry sound. All I had prior to this is the Amadeus Symphonic Orchestra which actually I think the woodwinds sound pretty okay in that. This library, however, adds multiply dynamic layers which that in itself is worth the upgrade. Anyway, as a dumb rock guy I'm really impressed by the sound of these instruments. I just bought it today and I have no issues or regrets so far after playing around with it all day. I also compiled a quick demo of the raw sounds along with the sounds combined with a less grand reverb which is posted below. I personally would have no problems featuring these instruments by themselves in a mix. So far the only issue I have is that it sounds like the samples were played with some vibrato so it's impossible to do without it. But maybe I'm just not as picky as y'all ;].


----------



## Lee Blaske (Oct 20, 2020)

Woodwinds are tough. I have a LOT of libraries, and I can find strengths and deficiencies in all of them. Context is really important. BTW, I do love the AudioModeling woodwinds in certain situations (single and double reeds more than the flutes), but I find I really HAVE to use them with a wind controller to make them work well. Night and day difference from any other way to dynamically control them. My favorite controller for use with AM instruments these days is the Hornberg. If you haven't experience AM instruments with a really good wind controller, you haven't yet seen what they can do. A wind controller makes a dramatic difference.


----------



## Gingham Jones (Oct 20, 2020)

I think the SWAM woodwinds look and sound really cool but the $750 price is astronomically more than CH and I can't see any way to justify such a purchase. And then to buy a wind controller on top of that is almost insulting to us measly peasants! I don't yet make money off of music.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 21, 2020)

Gingham Jones said:


> I want to chime in for anyone who comes across this like I did. I bought the compact Chris Hein woodwinds mainly due to the price compared to buying full Kontakt then Aaron Venture woodwinds or SWAM or any of the other libraries at double, even triple, the price. I'm not really doing orchestral music but using orchestral instruments in rock-ish songs so I too wanted a more dry sound. All I had prior to this is the Amadeus Symphonic Orchestra which actually I think the woodwinds sound pretty okay in that. This library, however, adds multiply dynamic layers which that in itself is worth the upgrade. Anyway, as a dumb rock guy I'm really impressed by the sound of these instruments. I just bought it today and I have no issues or regrets so far after playing around with it all day. I also compiled a quick demo of the raw sounds along with the sounds combined with a less grand reverb which is posted below. I personally would have no problems featuring these instruments by themselves in a mix. So far the only issue I have is that it sounds like the samples were played with some vibrato so it's impossible to do without it. But maybe I'm just not as picky as y'all ;].




I’m looking to grab these even though I don’t need them.
Big fan of Chris Hein’s Instruments.
I like naked samples because I want them treated by me in a mix.

His Brass is recorded dry and makes my Live section work a breeze.
It only lacked a high intensity lead Trumpet aka Maynard Ferguson/Adolf Herseth so Realitones Screaming Trumpet gives me that Salsa/Stage Band quality without bathing everything in reverb.

Don't do Orchestral yet but often learned parts of various scores over the years just to learn what the Masters before us perfected without the luxury of having a PC or 50 musicians nearby to check parts with.

Woodwinds will be my new rabbit hole, but Chris Hein will be my first dive.
Hope it has that fantastic articulations engine his Horn Sections have.


----------



## Gingham Jones (Oct 21, 2020)

Yeah man, I was a bit skeptical after reading this thread and watching some YT demos that were geared towards orchestral pieces smothered in reverb but it would take me so long to save up for any of the other libraries that I was looking at so I had a "why not?" moment and bought the whole compact orchestra bundle. I'm super glad I did now, I think it all fits perfectly for what I'm doing. I even like the tone of the strings more than that of Sample Modeling's strings which cost as much as the brass/woodwinds/strings in the CH compact bundle. But I do still like the Sample Modeling strings, I don't think this will outright replace them. Anyway, I still have much playing around to do and I haven't done a whole song with them yet but I still wanted to root for the Chris Hein stuff a little bit just in case any one else is put off by the other comments in this post. It works for me so far, it may not for others.


----------



## Mikro93 (Oct 21, 2020)

Gingham Jones said:


> So far the only issue I have is that it sounds like the samples were played with some vibrato so it's impossible to do without it.


I am pretty sure the vibrato is simulated. Based on your video, you can just drag the Amount slider in the Vibrato section down to zero


----------



## Casiquire (Oct 21, 2020)

I've always thought the winds were the weakest of the Hein instruments. They sound nice enough but some of them are missing detail and clarity. I've learned over time that there are many situations where they're the perfect fit though, and their versatility and ability to sculpt a smooth, convincing performance is sometimes more important than the clarity of other libraries. Also just because I was disappointed by the flutes, I missed out on the very nice sound of some of the other instruments like the English Horn, etc. Also the shorts are fantastic all around. All in all this library is very good at playing as part of an orchestra or where they don't need to be directly in your ear drum but still need to be expressive.

I find it a bit humorous that part of the OP's issue with Hein is that when you strip back the reverb the recording is bone dry, and people commented suggesting Audiomodeling lol. But it's important to use a library as intended and Hein wasn't intended to be used without any reverb or effects


----------



## Gingham Jones (Oct 21, 2020)

I thought the vibrato was simulated too. In my demo the slider is at zero though and still has a touch of vibrato. I don't think I adjusted the mod wheel though so maybe there's a small default value that shows up as zero but isn't when you first open an instrument.

As for the dryness, that's mainly why I posted; I really don't think the dry sounds are bad. If you play with no reverb at all then that doesn't sound too good but anything with no reverb probably won't sound too good. However if you bring the reverb down from the heavens and into a bedroom or something along with using a shorter "body" setting, the sound is suddenly perfectly usable in a non-orchestral setting. I do get the gripe about the lack of detail though. Maybe there could be more breathiness or whatever. In the full version I think there is a parameter that gives more control over that but I can't comment on whether it adds anything or not. There are 2 flutes though, the second one being brighter than the first. But let's keep in mind that I've never played a woodwind, I haven't heard many played, and I just got into this whole VI world at the beginning of the year, so perhaps I don't know what I'm missing. It's just such a significant upgrade over Amadeus Symphonic.


----------



## jaketanner (Oct 21, 2020)

skythemusic said:


> I’ve never used the library so have no opinion there, but I did want to say that I and many others rarely record instruments in stereo.
> 
> I love the focused flexibility of mono. I support LCR mixing and it is incredibly easy to run a mono signal into a mono to stereo output processor. I have at least a dozen wonderful pieces of outboard gear that can do that if necessary.
> 
> ...


only reason to track stereo is to capture the ambience of the room properly...but spot mics are usually mono mics...at least should be.


----------



## jaketanner (Oct 21, 2020)

Parsifal666 said:


> I'm tempted to mention Studio WW Professional just to see @re-peat pipe in...
> 
> wait, get it? Pipe in? Winds?
> 
> ...


Those are actually quite useful with the proper mic blend...at least for me. And each instrument might require a different mic blend to get the most out of the tone, but definitely useful.


----------



## Casiquire (Oct 21, 2020)

I'm of the impression that the vibrato is recorded in Hein, but you have an artificial vibrato option


----------



## Mikro93 (Oct 21, 2020)

Gingham Jones said:


> I thought the vibrato was simulated too. In my demo the slider is at zero though and still has a touch of vibrato. I don't think I adjusted the mod wheel though so maybe there's a small default value that shows up as zero but isn't when you first open an instrument.


I could see a non-zero value for the amount in many of your examples, but it is true that your oboes and bassoons were playing with vibrato despite the Amount slider being at 0... But the bass clarinet had no vibrato... Go figure.

I would be astonished if the clarinets were recorded with vibrato. That is definitely not the standard way of playing the clarinet 

I'm talking about this slider, screenshot from your video


----------



## ChristianM (Oct 21, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I was given them to review and since my policy is not to give negative reviews but just to decline to review when I don't like a library as it is so subjective, that is what I did.


you do it here


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 21, 2020)

ChristianM said:


> you do it here




Yes, and I should not have.


----------



## robgb (Oct 21, 2020)

dasbin said:


> So, sadly, I think I'll be selling them shortly and trying out VSL. I was previously strongly considering CH's solo string set as well, but think I will pass now. There is a very strong nasal quality to most of the solo violins and an unnatural mudiness to the lower ranges of the cellos. I thought this should be fixable with some EQ, and that the libraries have enough other strong points to make it worthwhile to do so, but I no longer think EQ will be of much help to the recordings.


Do you have full Kontakt? If so, go in the Kontakt Factory Library, go to the LEGACY orchestral library, and you'll find all the beautiful crossfading woodwinds you could want that are both dry and beautifully recorded.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 21, 2020)

robgb said:


> Do you have full Kontakt? If so, go in the Kontakt Factory Library, go to the LEGACY orchestral library, and you'll find all the beautiful crossfading woodwinds you could want that are both dry and beautifully recorded.



Old VSL stuff. But no ”true legatos “ and as we all know, thanks to the many learned members here who have told us so, that makes them as extinct as the dinosaurs


----------



## ChristianM (Oct 22, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Old VSL stuff. But no ”true legatos “ and as we all know, thanks to the many learned members here who have told us so, that makes them as extinct as the dinosaurs


that's done


----------



## Ben (Oct 22, 2020)

The VI instruments, with the exception of the Dimension Series, are all recorded and available as stereo samples.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 22, 2020)

And here I thought my ancient Westgate Oboe was still viable.


----------



## Mikro93 (Oct 22, 2020)

chimuelo said:


> And here I thought my ancient Westgate Oboe was still viable.


It is still viable! In fact, Cory Pelizzari made a really nice video about these, he loves them!


----------



## robgb (Oct 22, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Old VSL stuff. But no ”true legatos “ and as we all know, thanks to the many learned members here who have told us so, that makes them as extinct as the dinosaurs


The flute has true legato and on the other instruments you can use the WIPS scripts for scripted legato that sounds excellent. So, no, not as extinct as dinosaurs at all. Not even close. You just have to know what you're doing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 22, 2020)

robgb said:


> The flute has true legato and on the other instruments you can use the WIPS scripts for scripted legato that sounds excellent. So, no, not as extinct as dinosaurs at all. Not even close. You just have to know what you're doing.




OK, I need to get educated on the WIPS scripts.

Anyway, I just loaded it up and you are right, if people need them these will do nicely. I just have so many others that don't sound as sterile as these that I prefer.


----------



## robgb (Oct 22, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> OK, I need to get educated on the WIPS scripts.


I "refurbished" all the KFL VSL legacy woodwinds with SIPS and WIPS scripts. Big Bob did an amazing job with them and I use them on a lot of my older libraries to spruce them up. Most of those libraries were beautifully recorded, so there's no reason to see them go to waste.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 22, 2020)

robgb said:


> I "refurbished" all the KFL VSL legacy woodwinds with SIPS and WIPS scripts. Big Bob did an amazing job with them and I use them on a lot of my older libraries to spruce them up. Most of those libraries were beautifully recorded, so there's no reason to see them go to waste.



Late to the party, but how does one get the SIPS / WIPS scripts and are there instructions for how to install them?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 22, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Late to the party, but how does one get the SIPS / WIPS scripts and are there instructions for how to install them?
> 
> Thanks in advance!



+1


----------



## robgb (Oct 22, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Late to the party, but how does one get the SIPS / WIPS scripts and are there instructions for how to install them?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


You can find the editable versions of WIPS here: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/big-bobs-wips-scripts.58855/

The SIPS scripts are here: https://nilsliberg.se/ksp/scripts/sips/sips.htm

I believe the SIPS scripts have instructions about how to use them included in the Zip file. As for the WIPS scripts, unfortunately Big Bob's website is no longer functioning, so the link to the instructions isn't working. There are bound to be tutorials somewhere on the web, but the process is similar to the SIPS scripts.


----------



## Gingham Jones (Oct 23, 2020)

Mikro93 said:


> I could see a non-zero value for the amount in many of your examples, but it is true that your oboes and bassoons were playing with vibrato despite the Amount slider being at 0... But the bass clarinet had no vibrato... Go figure.
> 
> I would be astonished if the clarinets were recorded with vibrato. That is definitely not the standard way of playing the clarinet
> 
> I'm talking about this slider, screenshot from your video


Oops! Shows how quick I threw the thing together... Yes, the clarinets don't have vibrato in the samples though I wasn't aware that they don't normally play with it.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Oct 23, 2020)

robgb said:


> You can find the editable versions of WIPS here: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/big-bobs-wips-scripts.58855/
> 
> The SIPS scripts are here: https://nilsliberg.se/ksp/scripts/sips/sips.htm
> 
> I believe the SIPS scripts have instructions about how to use them included in the Zip file. As for the WIPS scripts, unfortunately Big Bob's website is no longer functioning, so the link to the instructions isn't working. There are bound to be tutorials somewhere on the web, but the process is similar to the SIPS scripts.



Thanks, @robgb!


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 23, 2020)

What is the difference between WIPS and SIPS?


----------



## Ben (Oct 23, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> What is the difference between WIPS and SIPS?


WIPS is for woodwinds and SIPS for strings if I'm not mistaken. Have used it a few years back. 
Can also be used to fix bad sounding or broken legato on a lot of Kontakt libraries.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 23, 2020)

Ben said:


> WIPS is for woodwinds and SIPS for strings if I'm not mistaken. Have used it a few years back.
> Can also be used to fix bad sounding or broken legato on a lot of Kontakt libraries.




Thanks, but you know what, I already have libraries with good legato, so I don't know why I am putting any energy into this.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 23, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Thanks, but you know what, I already have libraries with good legato, so I don't know why I am putting any energy into this.


SIPS was great in its time for breathing new life into old libraries like Sonic Implants, EWQLSO, Kontakt VSL, ect... Lots of stuck midi notes though. 

WIPS I never heard of. I think I had moved on and was happy with other libraries that had legato by the time it came out. 

Also, on the NIls sight is Theodore Kruger's TKT. That was a great script for adding round robins to any library. I still have some of those patches in my old version of EWQLSO Gold Kontat version. Though sadly with my recent purchases most of the EWQLSO is now out of my template.


----------



## VivianaSings (Oct 23, 2020)

I remember using the SIPS / WIPS scripts on the french horn for the Kontakt factory library and being really impressed with the result.


----------



## purple (Oct 23, 2020)

robgb said:


> The flute has true legato and on the other instruments you can use the WIPS scripts for scripted legato that sounds excellent. So, no, not as extinct as dinosaurs at all. Not even close. You just have to know what you're doing.


While the tone of that collection is passable, the fake legato is almost never good enough compared to all the stuff we have these days. Better than nothing, but it's not a substitute for true legato at all.


----------



## robgb (Oct 23, 2020)

purple said:


> While the tone of that collection is passable, the fake legato is almost never good enough compared to all the stuff we have these days. Better than nothing, but it's not a substitute for true legato at all.


It's better than passible. And while I agree that true legato is great, the WIPS legato sounds damn good on wind instruments.


----------



## purple (Oct 23, 2020)

robgb said:


> It's better than passible. And while I agree that true legato is great, the WIPS legato sounds damn good on wind instruments.



I mean, there's a reason no major library releases without _true_ legato these days, despite the fact that it dramatically increases complexity, cost, and time to do so...


----------



## robgb (Oct 24, 2020)

purple said:


> I mean, there's a reason no major library releases without _true_ legato these days, despite the fact that it dramatically increases complexity, cost, and time to do so...


Okay. I'm not sure what your point is in relation to my last post, but okay.


----------



## IdealSequenceG (Nov 1, 2020)

Chris Hein Woodwinds - Oboe 1 Test


----------



## Gingham Jones (Nov 20, 2020)

I thought I'd update my opinion now that I've had a while to play around more and have used these winds in a few songs. I'm a little less ecstatic about them and share the complaint of the OP more in that they're not bright enough for my songs. Also, they have an overwhelming amount of muddy sound when added to a full mix (i.e. guitars, drums, bass, and strings). Of course this can be eq'ed. Maybe for an orchestral piece they'd work really well, I don't know because I don't make orchestral music, but for modern music styles it takes some work. I still really like these sounds though; the 6 dynamic layers are a major upgrade from the Amadeus library; the reverb impulses are great and plenty; legato is great imo; the controllable vibrato has been useless for me because either the samples already have vibrato or I just don't need to use it. So, I don't mean to dismiss CHW because I do like the sounds, but I'll be looking for another library (Black Friday sales please :]]) to complement it perhaps.


----------



## robgb (Aug 1, 2021)

Gingham Jones said:


> I thought I'd update my opinion now that I've had a while to play around more and have used these winds in a few songs. I'm a little less ecstatic about them and share the complaint of the OP more in that they're not bright enough for my songs. Also, they have an overwhelming amount of muddy sound when added to a full mix (i.e. guitars, drums, bass, and strings).


I'm very late in returning to this party, but brightness and muddiness are things that can be fixed with EQ. If a library isn't bright enough for you, make it brighter. I'll never really understand these types of complaints. EQ is pretty much mandatory on every track in a mix for exactly these reasons.


----------



## ism (Aug 1, 2021)

robgb said:


> brightness and muddiness are things that can be fixed with EQ


I'd say "tweaked" more than "fixed". EQ only takes you so far, and and some point you're absolutely dependent on the qualities of the mics, the signal chain engineering & the room.


----------



## robgb (Aug 1, 2021)

ism said:


> I'd say "tweaked" more than "fixed". EQ only takes you so far, and and some point you're absolutely dependent on the qualities of the mics, the signal chain engineering & the room.


I say this in the context of a well-recorded sample library. Most of them are.


----------



## ism (Aug 1, 2021)

robgb said:


> I say this in the context of a well-recorded sample library. Most of them are.


 
True, but there are also natural qualities that samples are imbued with that, I believe, never be fixed in post. Unless you’re really taking control of the sonority yourself, in which case you can get a very excellent, but necessarily stylized, sound. Which is in effect to abandon a certain set of natural qualities in the raw recordings.


----------



## robgb (Aug 1, 2021)

ism said:


> True, but there are also natural qualities that samples are imbued with that, I believe, never be fixed in post. Unless you’re really taking control of the sonority yourself, in which case you can get a very excellent, but necessarily stylized, sound. Which is in effect to abandon a certain set of natural qualities in the raw recordings.


Absolutely. But "muddy" is problem that can be fixed. "Bright" is a problem that can be fixed. I do it all the time, in every mix where called for.


----------



## Gingham Jones (Aug 1, 2021)

Have you used the CH WWs? It's been many months since my last post, and I was much dumber then (still am now :D). I don't think it's a bad set of instruments but I do think it's unnecessary. I think one could do better to buy the Amadeus Symphonic Orchestra and use that until you could afford a better set of instruments. I've picked up Aaron Venture's stuff and the Audio Modeling stuff since then and am much happier with those. There's just a weird timbre to some of the CH WWs and I don't like the vibrato. I think my problem with CH goes deeper than needing a brighter or less muddy sound like I last said. 

The CH horns, however... I really like those still.


----------



## Casiquire (Aug 2, 2021)

Gingham Jones said:


> Have you used the CH WWs? It's been many months since my last post, and I was much dumber then (still am now :D). I don't think it's a bad set of instruments but I do think it's unnecessary. I think one could do better to buy the Amadeus Symphonic Orchestra and use that until you could afford a better set of instruments. I've picked up Aaron Venture's stuff and the Audio Modeling stuff since then and am much happier with those. There's just a weird timbre to some of the CH WWs and I don't like the vibrato. I think my problem with CH goes deeper than needing a brighter or less muddy sound like I last said.
> 
> The CH horns, however... I really like those still.


I agree that the winds are their weak point. The brass and strings aren't bad imo.


----------



## Shredoverdrive (Oct 13, 2022)

Casiquire said:


> I agree that the winds are their weak point. The brass and strings aren't bad imo.


I've always been quite satisfied with all of the CH instruments although since I have a lot of VSL stuff now, I only really use the CH solo strings these days. For non-orchestral uses, for instance, they are still my go-to.


----------



## IdealSequenceG (Oct 13, 2022)

DreymaMusic said:


> This sounds amazing, just curious, did you fiddle with the legato settings?
> By default the legato sounds meh IMO on CH Winds but yours sounds very beautiful, did you change anything here and there ?


I corrected through izotope & spectralayer to naturally connect legato and short, legato and run.


----------



## Casiquire (Oct 13, 2022)

Shredoverdrive said:


> I've always been quite satisfied with all of the CH instruments although since I have a lot of VSL stuff now, I only really use the CH solo strings these days. For non-orchestral uses, for instance, they are still my go-to.


I only have Winds Compact, but I'm not crazy about the tone, vibrato, things like that. And to be fair, some of them do sound good to me, it just isn't the same knockout as the other instruments. I'm a big Hein fan overall. The solo strings and brass are really cool (I have the full versions of those)


----------



## RogiervG (Oct 13, 2022)

IdealSequenceG said:


> I corrected through izotope & spectralayer to naturally connect legato and short, legato and run.


that's not how you are supposed to use the library (afterwards audio correction: izotope/spectralayer)  since it disguises the raw deal, sonically (or shortcomings)


----------



## doctoremmet (Oct 13, 2022)

RogiervG said:


> that's not how you are supposed to use the library (afterwards audio correction: izotope/spectralayer)  since it disguises the raw deal, sonically (or shortcomings)


Call the cops


----------



## lychee (Oct 13, 2022)

So even if the woodwinds are the ugly duckling of Chris Hein's range of instruments, their capacity should not be underestimated.
I did a big search to find the thread where Przemek K.'s demos had particularly impressed me.

Here they are ! :

"Solo Bb Clarinet"

"Flute Ensemble"


----------



## lychee (Oct 13, 2022)

Maybe if we kindly ask for his customization by making cute eyes at Przemek K., he will give it to us?

Let's try!

​


----------



## peterharket (Oct 17, 2022)

BezO said:


> Interesting! I've been patiently waiting for CH to NKS Horns Pro. Vids convinced me it's the sound I've been looking for to supplement/replace Session Horns Pro for higher velocity samples. I took advantage of the Spitfire sale & picked up Studio Brass (& Winds) in the meantime. Haven't used them yet, but testing them out, they'll get the job done.
> 
> Still looking for saxes. I'll have to listen more closely and maybe seek out some drier demos of CHHP, though now I'm hoping to find just a "Studio Sax" library to avoid too much duplication.


I got CHHP, and I was really disappointed. Sounds like a synth, so you might want to pass on this one if you haven't already bought it.


----------



## BezO (Oct 18, 2022)

peterharket said:


> I got CHHP, and I was really disappointed. Sounds like a synth, so you might want to pass on this one if you haven't already bought it.


I was patient and ended up with Straight Ahead Sample's Atomic Big Band.


----------



## Loerpert (Oct 18, 2022)

dasbin said:


> I recently purchased the full Orchestra Woodwinds collection from another user here. Was quite excited about it. It's my first jump into Hein products.
> 
> Unfortunately I think it will be my last Hein product. I wanted to post this not to trash-talk them at all (they have a lot of good points) but just because I got them based mostly on what others have said about them (and demos/videos of course) but rarely if ever saw anyone mention their rather significant cons. So maybe this can help someone else struggling with decisions.
> 
> ...


I always heard that the SM57 was one of the best mics for recording instruments. Why do you think otherwise? Just interested if I should buy something else.


----------



## chopin4525 (Oct 19, 2022)

Loerpert said:


> I always heard that the SM57 was one of the best mics for recording instruments. Why do you think otherwise? Just interested if I should buy something else.


Where? 
It's a very peculiar mic to be used only for specific things.


----------



## Loerpert (Oct 19, 2022)

chopin4525 said:


> Where?
> It's a very peculiar mic to be used only for specific things.


What would your recommend for accoustic guitars (and mandolines etc) and for wind instruments like clarinets and flutes?

And to answer your question everywhere I look the SM57 is praised as an alrounder.


----------



## gamma-ut (Oct 19, 2022)

Loerpert said:


> What would your recommend for accoustic guitars (and mandolines etc) and for wind instruments like clarinets and flutes?
> 
> And to answer your question everywhere I look the SM57 is praised as an alrounder.



Some people write the maddest nonsense on forums at times, I wouldn’t worry about it. It sounds like some snobbery because the Shure isn’t a high-end mic and can be fussy about positioning. It has a solid rep for a reason.


----------



## chopin4525 (Oct 19, 2022)

It has a solid reputation for what it is supposed to do. Feel free to mic a grand piano, a violin, an organ, a choir or even just voice and guitar with a simple SM57 and post your results. Then will see how many squares can we check out of the "best mic for recording instruments" and "all rounder" categories.


----------



## Loerpert (Oct 19, 2022)

chopin4525 said:


> It has a solid reputation for what it is supposed to do. Feel free to mic a grand piano, a violin, an organ, a choir or even just voice and guitar with a simple SM57 and post your results. Then will see how many squares can we check out of the "best mic for recording instruments" and "all rounder" categories.


Can you back this up with some concrete information? I'm genuinely interested, but it seems you're rather on a rant telling just how bad it is 😅. Makes it hard to tell if you actually know what you're talking about.


----------



## chopin4525 (Oct 19, 2022)

Loerpert said:


> Can you back this up with some concrete information? I'm genuinely interested, but it seems you're rather on a rant telling just how bad it is 😅. Makes it hard to tell if you actually know what you're talking about.


I never used the word bad in a single sentence of mines quite the contrary. You need to mic a snare or a guitar amp? Provided you know how and where to put it, the sm57 will deliver like a workhorse but anything like the examples provided above where the focus on a single spot is undesirable and you need to capture the sound as it evolves on the space you're recording in and that mic is undesirable because it is not what it is build for. What is there that is it so complex to understand?


----------



## Loerpert (Oct 19, 2022)

chopin4525 said:


> I never used the word bad in a single sentence of mines quite the contrary. You need to mic a snare or a guitar amp? Provided you know how and where to put it, the sm57 will deliver like a workhorse but anything like the examples provided above where the focus on a single spot is undesirable and you need to capture the sound as it evolves on the space you're recording in and that mic is undesirable because it is not what it is build for. What is there that is it so complex to understand?


Thats actually good information for a recording noob like me. Thanks! I should still point out that I find your tone quite a bit aggresive. Hopefully you'll receive that as feedback and not as an attack .


----------



## chopin4525 (Oct 19, 2022)

Loerpert said:


> Thats actually good information for a recording noob like me. Thanks. I should still point out that I find your tone quite negative. Hopefully you'll receive that as feedback and not as an attack .


Sorry, if you felt that way. It wasn't meant to.


----------



## Loerpert (Oct 19, 2022)

chopin4525 said:


> Sorry, if you felt that way. It wasn't meant to.


Appreciate that. Thanks for taking the time to teach me something. I think I'll look into getting something other than SM57's for recording my acoustic instruments that captures the sound of the room a bit more.


----------



## Trash Panda (Oct 19, 2022)

Loerpert said:


> Can you back this up with some concrete information? I'm genuinely interested, but it seems you're rather on a rant telling just how bad it is 😅. Makes it hard to tell if you actually know what you're talking about.


SM57 is great at capturing the direct signal with minimal amounts of ambience. Typically it shines the most on really loud sources, such as drums and guitar amps. 

When you want to get the character of the room on acoustic sources and capture boatloads of Sonic details, condenser microphones are generally a better fit.


----------



## RogiervG (Oct 19, 2022)

so we went from CH woodwinds to SM57, mumbles something about a derail of a topic..


----------



## Casiquire (Oct 19, 2022)

It makes me happy every time a conversation turns from "is it good or bad, best or worst" to "it worked really well for me in this situation" because that's the truth of music. There's literally no such thing as a "bad" microphone if it's a working microphone. Even one with a high noise floor that sounds like a telephone can be fantastic for lo-fi vibes and it's ALWAYS better to organically capture the music that way than it is to try to fake a vibe in post. So don't let anyone make you think that something is bad, instead I think it's better to listen carefully to people telling you "it shines here but not there for this reason"


----------

