# Which YT "Reviewers" Do You Trust?



## tressie5

Hi, all. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that, more and more, I can't trust the product "reviewers" on YouTube because, according to them, every music plugin and hardware they "review" is the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes I might field test a reverb only to find it is grainy, springy or wobbly, definitely not clear or pristine as was auditioned online. Or a synth, instead of sounding warm, smooth and analogue-y as portrayed was actually rough, brittle and unoriginal. I've also ran across the occasional supposed holy grail of compressors or EQ's that, in the end, was simply snake oil; thus, when a "reviewer" says, "Here is the best this and best that...", I simply ignore them.


----------



## Fidelity

I don't trust any of them, either. I only click on those reviews to watch / listen to the product in action and their explanations of how it works because we simply do not live in an altruistic world where nobody needs to make money - and also because objective media content is rarely a thing outside CSPAN (edit: with exception of what dcoscina mentioned below).


----------



## dcoscina

I just do play-throughs with no comments. I let the viewer decide based on what they hear.


----------



## babylonwaves

@tressie5 You're not paranoid


----------



## RogiervG

dcoscina said:


> I just do play-throughs with no comments. I let the viewer decide based on what they hear.
> 
> My FSMO reviews are more detailed but I don't rate the products. I focus on their strengths because, frankly, the world has already too much negativity. If I don't touch on something, it is likely because it's not a feature or sound that showcases the library in the best light. Besides, reviews are subjective. I've seen people hate on VSL horns and when I attended the Detroit Symphony John Williams concert, those damned horns sounded exactly like VSL, not EW or any other horn library. So it really is a matter of interpretation and the application by the end-user.


which vsl horns?


----------



## rrichard63

I feel the same way about YouTube reviews that I used to feel about reviews in print magazines (remember those?). Which products are selected for review, and which are ignored, is at least as informative as the reviews themselves. If you don't like a product, you don't review it at all, because your compensation comes -- directly or indirectly -- from the developers of the products you are reviewing.

Like @Fidelity (above), I look at reviews more for the factual content than the evaluations.

EDIT: Some of the posts below mention a few exceptions: Ann-Katherin Dern, Cory Pelizzari and Dan Worrall.


----------



## dcoscina

RogiervG said:


> which vsl horns?


Epic horns.


----------



## chocobitz825

does it bother anyone that youtube has basically become a monument to stuff? reviewing, buying, and reacting to stuff, and encouraging others to obsess over more of that stuff too. I think I broke my GAS sometime over this last year... I respect the skills youtubers have for their reviews and editing skills...but conceptually the youtube review market is starting to feel incredibly saturated and lacking in reward.


----------



## CT

The whole YouTube review/course trend rubs me the wrong way for the most part. Those who simply demonstrate sound and functionality with a minimum of commentary are best, and they don't often really offer more than can be gotten from official walkthroughs and demos. 

I don't think it's paranoia on your part to be skeptical. There's just only so much that can be gleaned from such videos, and the focus often seems to be less on that anyway, and more on the person making them and their status as some voice of authority (and preserving the sweet deal of getting free stuff in exchange for showing it off in pretty looking studios with high production value videos).


----------



## vancomposer

rrichard63 said:


> I feel the same way about YouTube reviews that I used to feel about reviews in print magazines (remember those?). Which products are selected for review, and which are ignored, is at least as informative as the reviews themselves. If you don't like a product, you don't review it at all, because your compensation comes -- directly or indirectly -- from the developers of the products you are reviewing.


I think that explains it very well with the difference there are way more outlets/ channels available today then for example print magazines in the day in one local market. But what you are describing there I remember very well when I worked a lot with companies like being a guitar endorser. A huge part of the magazine revenue stream came in through advertisement by brands and their distributors and therefore the magazines had to release overall positive reviews on gear to keep the manufacturer happy.


Michaelt said:


> The whole YouTube review/course trend rubs me the wrong way for the most part. Those who simply demonstrate sound and functionality with a minimum of commentary are best, and they don't often really offer more than can be gotten from official walkthroughs and demos.
> 
> I don't think it's paranoia on your part to be skeptical. There's just only so much that can be gleaned from such videos, and the focus often seems to be less on that anyway, and more on the person making them and their status as some voice of authority (and preserving the sweet deal of getting free stuff in exchange for showing it off in pretty looking studios with high production value videos).


It can generate some income for sure if the channel reaches a certain size.


----------



## ReelToLogic

I agree that many YouTube reviewers come across as paid advertisers and I'll listen to their demo's of a product but I don't trust their comments. That said, there are two YouTube folks who I think do a better job than most of giving their honest opinion. Those are:

https://www.youtube.com/c/AnneKathrinDernComposer

https://www.youtube.com/c/CoryPelizzari


----------



## MartinH.

tressie5 said:


> Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that, more and more, I can't trust the product "reviewers" on YouTube because, according to them, every music plugin and hardware they "review" is the best thing since sliced bread.


You can't trust them. Most are paid, and even if they aren't if they are primarily a review channel they don't have the time to test things properly to give a thorough review. It's not financially viable to work that long on a video and there is likely a bias to review only popular stuff to get more views over the search function. 

There is one guy though whom I trust when he says something is good: Dan Worrall. I think he has enough of a reputation to lose, that he'll think twice about ever hyping something up that doesn't deserve it.


----------



## cfodeebiedaddy

I really like the Merriam Pianos reviews, and there's a user over at Pianoworld (Gamma) whose playthroughs I find helpful.

I really *enjoy* Simeon's piano reviews but he makes *everything* sound good, so I don't rely on them as much for buying decisions.


----------



## ThomCSounds

It's great to read your opinions here guys, I started making reviews before having affiliate links and I've noticed how it directly influences people's opinion on your work, even if you make close to no money or if you spend dozens of hours on a review that in the end won't bring back a single cent. 

The good thing I'm reading here, and I guess this is something I should say to myself more, is : less talking, more playing (unless it really makes sense to do otherwise). 

A couple of questions I'd like to ask to you all is, do you prefer long in-depth videos with every single detail of a particular library? Or just the most interesting features and one or two contextual examples? When do you feel like the talking is really relevant in a product review?

Thanks for this thread everyone! And thank you @tressie5


----------



## dcoscina

My sense is anything over 20 minutes is a stretch. For the more elaborate products it might be worthwhile breaking them up into sections.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Stick to developer walkthroughs IMO. Most YouTube reviewers don't use the libraries to their full potential - or worse, don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual and showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light. The "reviews" are never that, in that they don't cover more than a walkthrough usually and there's no way the person making the video has spent a reasonable amount of time with the library majority of the time given how quickly the videos are released after launch (even if they got a pre-release copy, it still is only a few days in advance). Also, IMO, most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there (that aren't trying to shill for some developer either). Almost none of the familiar YouTubers (that have a constant barrage of "first looks" or reviews) bother writing a substantial piece with the library.


----------



## ThomCSounds

dcoscina said:


> My sense is anything over 20 minutes is a stretch. For the more elaborate products it might be worthwhile breaking them up into sections. I did a play through of Heirloom and I was genuinely surprised by how favourable the responses were. It’s a lovely library but I hadn’t anticipated that one to draw in as much feedback.


Good point! Reviews that go over 20 minutes (I've made a few of those) either have to bring a tremendous value or the product has to be something everyone's interested in.


----------



## dcoscina

I actually like watching various perspectives on the same library. There are several channels in tune into to see their feedback. Developer videos are all good and well but they can be best case scenario rather than real world useable. Seeing reviewers go through the sounds in real-time establishes some sense of how the library sounds without all the fancy editing or prescribed demos.


----------



## ThomCSounds

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Stick to developer walkthroughs IMO. Most YouTube reviewers don't use the libraries to their full potential - or worse, don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual and showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light. The "reviews" are never that, in that they don't cover more than a walkthrough usually and there's no way the person making the video has spent a reasonable amount of time with the library majority of the time given how quickly the videos are released after launch (even if they got a pre-release copy, it still is only a few days in advance). Also, IMO, most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there (that aren't trying to shill for some developer either). Almost none of the familiar YouTubers (that have a constant barrage of "first looks" or reviews) bother writing a substantial piece with the library.


I'll agree with the reading of manuals, I personally do it every time. And I do watch other people's reviews. I've seen reviews made by people overtly dissing the product (and swearing a lot as you can imagine) when in the end, the issue wasn't the product, but the reviewer that just didn't either found the right feature or had a copy that didn't work on their system.

I wouldn't say anything bad about the voices of authority that you're mentioning because, just like with the developers, I respect the work they put in their business. Just like positive reviews don't automatically make you a sellout, negative reviews don't necessarily make you a trustful or 'honest' person.


----------



## Futchibon

Daniel James
Jeff Manchester
Cory Pelizarri
Simeon

Always get a great idea of the product with these guys


----------



## ThomCSounds

dcoscina said:


> I actually like watching various perspectives on the same library. There are several channels in tune into to see their feedback. Developer videos are all good and well but they can be best case scenario rather than real world useable. Seeing reviewers go through the sounds in real-time establishes some sense of how the library sounds without all the fancy editing or prescribed demos.


To me, this also makes sense with mixing plugins. Developer videos very often showcase AMAZING audio content that's superbly recorded. It can be interesting to hear what the plugin actually sounds like on less flattering recordings.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

dcoscina said:


> I actually like watching various perspectives on the same library. There are several channels in tune into to see their feedback. Developer videos are all good and well but they can be best case scenario rather than real world useable. Seeing reviewers go through the sounds in real-time establishes some sense of how the library sounds without all the fancy editing or prescribed demos.


I think the developer should show how to use their product in the best way and as intended based on their intention when building it. Too often people will get a hold of a product and then try to make it do something it was never intended to do and then blame the developer - that’s not “real world usability” to me. That’s like buying a car and expecting it to float because you didn’t understand the purpose of it. A common trait amongst certain YouTubers I’ve found. Far more useful is using the library to do the thing it was built to do and offering some constructive criticism in regards to that, while also perhaps noting the things it wasn’t built to do well (without going off on a rant). But perhaps I expect too much of reviewers.


----------



## Braveheart

I trust Christian Henson from Spitfire Audio, especially after telling us that their plugin is award-winning…..


----------



## rrichard63

ThomCSounds said:


> ... do you prefer long in-depth videos with every single detail of a particular library? Or just the most interesting features and one or two contextual examples?


The reviews I find most useful cover aspects of the product that the developer's own walkthroughs and demo songs don't reveal. So I recommend paying attention to what the developer has and has not already told us.

On length, I rarely -- if ever -- stick with a walkthrough or review video for more than 12 to 15 minutes. It's not that I'm not interested. It's that I'm too busy.


----------



## Wunderhorn

A good and trustworthy review does not only highlight the strenghts of the the library at hand but puts it in context with similar offerings. Then the reviewer would also highlight what a specific library is not well suited for and points out competitor's products where applicable when comparing features.

What is often omitted are concerns about workflow, from integrating it in one's template, ease of auditioning patches and how quickly one can get familiar with the product without consulting a manual.


----------



## Trash Panda

For audio plugins, Dan Worral, White Sea Studio (Snake Oil) and Paul Third are who I usually trust. They’re not afraid to tear into a plugin that’s shit when all the usual shills are singing its praises.


----------



## Daniel James

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Stick to developer walkthroughs IMO. Most YouTube reviewers don't use the libraries to their full potential - or worse, don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual and showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light. The "reviews" are never that, in that they don't cover more than a walkthrough usually and there's no way the person making the video has spent a reasonable amount of time with the library majority of the time given how quickly the videos are released after launch (even if they got a pre-release copy, it still is only a few days in advance). Also, IMO, most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there (that aren't trying to shill for some developer either). Almost none of the familiar YouTubers (that have a constant barrage of "first looks" or reviews) bother writing a substantial piece with the library.


I feel like this one is aimed at me so I'll respond as if it is.

First of I don't really review things, I have a look at them I am not passing a score, I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can, that allows me to look at the library how many users will experience it, just diving in......

This is useful for a few reasons, It allows you point out any design flaws which the developer might not notice because they are so familiar they just inherently know how it all works. So if I can't find a cool new feature, or a controller is hidden, or I am fumbling around using something incorrectly that shows the developer that it might not be as clear or as intuitive as they thought. I have been messaged multiple times by multiple developers that my critique helped them improve something they overlooked and made the product better as a result. Everyone wins and there is a value to showing how a library works as raw as possible with no time to tweak it to be perfect. If its shit out the box people will hear its shit out the box. If it take lots of effort to get the most out of it I think its fair to compare that to competition that provides comparable results with less effort. Its also good to work out live if that extra effort is indeed worth it. These are all things you don't tend to get too into if you already know the ins and outs and I have always felt if you want to know how the fucking thing works, watch the developer walk you through it, No review or opinion video will do a better job than the people who make it, so to use it as a critique of why certain Youtubers are bad doesn't sit right with me. Why you would goto a review over a dev walkthrough to see how to actually use it may be more your issue than the reviewers.

And you also have to realize that doing a video or a live stream isn't really that similar to composing. If I get stuck with a library when working, I will figure it out. If I am live streaming to 100 people live and a button that wasn't well highlighted or explained meaning that the library isn't doing what it should, I will just move on to something that does, and mention that as it happens "This isn't working as I would expect."

And I know most of you here fucking hate me by this point, I have learned to accept that, but I think the way I conduct my videos is in line with me and the way I want to live my life. I think they hold value to people watching who want to see things as raw and out the box as possible. I think there is value in showing a developer where someone will get stuck or what isn't as obvious as they might think.

This was a thread to suggest cool Youtubers to the OP, there was no call to take a shit on people who do them not up to your personal standard.

But if you want it your way go do one yourself. Put yourself out there. Let the biggest names in the industry tear you apart for daring to critique them. Put yourself out there and lay your creative process bare, with mistakes and misunderstandings open for all to see and judge, or use as excuses to call you a shit composer. Spend a few hours out of your work schedule to share some cool tools you found recently and experience them live with a community of like minded people you have cultivated over a decade. Put yourself out there more to have people compare you to everyone else as a human being and express why you are worse than them or they are doing better. Put yourself out there a bit and dare to have a thought of your own.

Or you know, just sit there and judge others adding nothing of value to anyone.

I critique stuff, I am obnoxious to many. But I care, I try, I give effort, I provide value. I am improving, I am learning. All while other people try to tear me apart because I swear a lot, or I dared to speak against their particular favorite developer....all while ignoring the positive things I say about those same people.

I always say what I think, because of the brain I was born with its almost impossible for me to not say what I am thinking. I always show what I say with evidence and would never lie to keep getting NFR's I have said good and bad things about all of the devs out there. Most act like adults, some call you a shit composer who should be disregarded as a hater. So to just throw around shill without evidence is a bit brazen and I believe totally off the mark. Besides, I would much rather watch a passionate shill than give two fucks about those who jeer from the sidelines.

To the OP

Check out:

Chris Siu - Improves every video


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzM2CcAZ3kqT-y01ybxF0nw



Dirk Ehlert - Covers lots of libraries and has an awesome studio that seemingly moves country every few weeks 😂


https://www.youtube.com/c/ComposingTutorials



Alex Pfeffer - One of the OG Youtubers, has a more succinct approach which some of you seem to prefer.


https://www.youtube.com/c/AlexPfeffer



At the end of the day, you really just want to listen to the library and see if it gets you personally excited on sound alone, if it does you are then just browsing the other videos to see how others are using it, how it plays with other libraries, how playable it is and how intuitive the UI is. And at the end of the day its how you feel about it.

Also finally keep in context the people you watching and where their opinion comes from. When I give my opinion its coming from my experience as a working film/game composer who writes music everyday in cinematic, hybrid and filmic classical styles. So If I say something is good, its meaning in the context of the work I do for me as a working composer. Its not an objective statement. Like if a new library came out promising to be the next big thing in hybrid sound design, opened it and it sounds like 90's disco synths, I am going to say that is a bad library...but to someone making 90s disco or looking to do some specific fusion with it then they might say its a great library. Biggest issue is when I say the first part and someone says the second part but then tells me I am wrong or that I dont know what I am doing, or I'm doing it wrong, without considering why I say that. Not important for all but its worth thinking about if someone has a different opinion or one you might not agree with initially.

If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.

-DJ


----------



## ThomCSounds

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I think the developer should show how to use their product in the best way and as intended based on their intention when building it. Too often people will get a hold of a product and then try to make it do something it was never intended to do and then blame the developer - that’s not “real world usability” to me. That’s like buying a car and expecting it to float because you didn’t understand the purpose of it. A common trait amongst certain YouTubers I’ve found. Far more useful is using the library to do the thing it was built to do and offering some constructive criticism in regards to that, while also perhaps noting the things it wasn’t built to do well (without going off on a rant). But perhaps I expect too much of reviewers.


Couldn't agree more. That being said, it's a really fun thing to try and make a library do what it's not supposed to do for creative purposes, but yes the main idea should be to use a particular plugin for its intended purpose. 
Out of all the products I've bought, there's just maybe one or two that I was disappointed in. And generally, that's because of a performance issue.


----------



## Trash Panda

Daniel James said:


> I feel like this one is aimed at me so I'll respond as if it is.
> 
> First of I don't really review things, I have a look at them I am not passing a score, I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can, that allows me to look at the library how many users will experience it, just diving in......
> 
> This is useful for a few reasons, It allows you point out any design flaws which the developer might not notice because they are so familiar they just inherently know how it all works. So if I can't find a cool new feature, or a controller is hidden, or I am fumbling around using something incorrectly that shows the developer that it might not be as clear or as intuitive as they thought. I have been messaged multiple times by multiple developers that my critique helped them improve something they overlooked and made the product better as a result. Everyone wins and there is a value to showing how a library works as raw as possible with not time to tweak it to be perfect. If its shit out the box people will hear its shit out the box. If it take lots of effort to get the most out of it I think its fair to compare that to competition that provides comparable results with less effort. Its also good to live work out if that extra effort is indeed work it. These are all things you don't tend to get too into if you already know the ins and outs and I have always felt ff you want to know how the fucking thing works, watch the developer walk you through it, No review or opinion video will do a better job that the people who make it, so to use it as a critique of why certain Youtubers are bad doesn't sit right with me. Why you would goto a review over a dev walkthrough to see how to actually use it may be more your issue than the reviewers.
> 
> And you also have to realize that doing a video or a live stream isn't really that similar to composing. If I get stuck with a library when working, I will figure it out. If I am live streaming to 100 people live and a button that wasn't well highlighted or explained meaning that the library isn't doing what it should, I will just move on to something that does, and mention that as it happens "This isn't working as I would expect."
> 
> And I know most of you here fucking hate me by this point, I have learned to accept that, but I think the way I conduct my videos is in line with me and the way I want to live my life. I think they hold value to people watching who want to see things as raw and out the box as possible. I think there is value in showing a developer where someone will get stuck or what isn't as obvious as they might think.
> 
> This was a thread to suggest cool Youtubers to the OP, there was no call to take a shit on people who do them not up to your personal standard.
> 
> But if you want it your way go do one yourself. Put yourself out there. Let the biggest names in the industry tear you apart for daring to critique them. Put yourself out there and lay your creative process bare, with mistakes and misunderstandings open for all to see and judge, or use as excuses to call you a shit composer. Spend a few hours out of your work schedule to share some cool tools you found recently and experience them live with a community of like minded people you have cultivated over a decade. Put yourself out there more to have people compare you to everyone else as a human being and express why you are worse than them or they are doing better. Put yourself out there a bit and dare to have a thought of your own.
> 
> Or you know, just sit there and judge others adding nothing of value to anyone.
> 
> I critique stuff, I am obnoxious to many. But I care, I try, I give effort, I provide value. I am improving, I am learning. All while other people try to tear me apart because I swear a lot, or I dared to speak against their particular favorite developer....all while ignoring the positive things I say about those same people.
> 
> I always say what I think, because of the brain I was born with its almost impossible for me to not say what I am thinking. I always show what I say with evidence and would never lie to keep getting NFR's I have said good and bad things about all of the devs out there. Most act like adults, some call you a shit composer who should be disregarded as a hater. So to just throw around shill without evidence is a bit brazen and I believe totally off the mark. Besides, I would much rather watch a passionate shill than give two fucks about those who jeer from the sidelines.
> 
> To the OP
> 
> Check out:
> 
> Chris Siu - Improves every video
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzM2CcAZ3kqT-y01ybxF0nw
> 
> 
> 
> Dirk Ehlert - Covers lots of libraries and has an awesome studio that seemingly moves country every few weeks 😂
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/c/ComposingTutorials
> 
> 
> 
> Alex Pfeffer - One of the OG Youtubers, has a more succinct approach which some of you seem to prefer.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/c/AlexPfeffer
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you really just want to listen to the library and see if it gets you personally excited on sound alone, if it does you are then just browsing the other videos to see how others are using it, how it plays with other libraries, how playable it is and how intuitive the UI is. And at the end of the day its how you feel about it.
> 
> Also finally keep in context the people you watching and where their opinion comes from. When I give my opinion its coming from my experience as a working film/game composer who writes music everyday in cinematic, hybrid and filmic classical styles. So If I say something is good, its meaning in the context of the work I do for me as a working composer. Its not an objective statement. Like if a new library came out promising to be the next big thing in hybrid sound design, opened it and it sounds like 90's disco synths, I am going to say that is a bad library...but to someone making 90s disco or looking to do some specific fusion with it then they might say its a great library. Biggest issue is when I say the first part and someone says the second part but then tells me I am wrong or that I dont know what I am doing, or I'm doing it wrong, without considering why I say that. Not important for all but its worth thinking about if someone has a different opinion or one you might not agree with initially.
> 
> If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.
> 
> -DJ


I love you, Daniel. That should be enough. ❤️


----------



## Alex Niedt

"Trust" is a very strong word. And I rarely believe one person's opinion on creative tools much applies to anyone else, because no one's taste and creative path is the same. Plus, I've seen wayyy too many videos of very opinionated people with very little skill making amazing libraries and plug-ins sound awful. However, since some developers do a poor job showcasing their products, YouTube reviewers can be helpful to see the full breadth of content/features in certain stuff. So in that respect, I find them valuable.


----------



## ThomCSounds

Daniel James said:


> I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can
> 
> If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.


There's no issue in doing "first look" videos and trying things around to see how intuitive something is, but I think there is an issue in saying a product is shit when you don't know how to use it (it's an impersonal "you" here, I'm not targetting you specifically). I've seen videos of people using compressors they didn't know how to use and say they were shit. I don't personally think that's the dev's fault in that case even if your argument makes sense, saying that criticism about the ease-of-use can be an eye-opener for devs.

When you take the ARP2600 for example, it's not the easiest synth to use for anyone who doesn't know how it works. Yet you see people criticize products for that one reason. Just like you see other people spending 10 minutes talking about how fancy the UI looks and how bad a thing it is. 

In the end, your last statement is true. It's a subjective thing, always will be. Unless the thing is broken and doesn't work at all / is impossible to use in a musical context, the rest is all left to interpretation.


----------



## Dave Connor

I’m always a bit bemused when a reviewer says something sounds really good when I find it particularly bad. So you really have to ignore that kind of input and use your own ears. (Is it actually possible _not _to do that?)

_Features_ are another story since that’s an objective category concerned with function. If one is attracted to the sound of a library it’s nice to see how it works and if there’s practicality and/or innovation in its operation.

Working professionals are generally inured to hype and know what they may be lacking or can be improved in there arsenal. So if a new offering indeed has a particular sound quality, you can bet it’s because their own ears told them that.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

tressie5 said:


> Hi, all. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that, more and more, I can't trust the product "reviewers" on YouTube because, according to them, every music plugin and hardware they "review" is the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes I might field test a reverb only to find it is grainy, springy or wobbly, definitely not clear or pristine as was auditioned online. Or a synth, instead of sounding warm, smooth and analogue-y as portrayed was actually rough, brittle and unoriginal. I've also ran across the occasional supposed holy grail of compressors or EQ's that, in the end, was simply snake oil; thus, when a "reviewer" says, "Here is the best this and best that...", I simply ignore them.


If with "which reviewers do you trust" you mean "which reviewers do you trust is being genuine and honestly believe what they say about the product they are reviewing", then I trust quite a few reviewers. That's not the same as saying I eat their words raw though


----------



## tressie5

@Futchibon - Too funny! I checked out the reviewers you recommended. Wonder of wonders, Jeff Manchester has a video entry where he talks about affiliate marketing called "Building Trust On YouTube." I guess I'm not the only one concerned with this issue.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Daniel James said:


> I feel like this one is aimed at me so I'll respond as if it is.


You were not close to being on my mind when I wrote that so maybe check your ego?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Alex Niedt said:


> "Trust" is a very strong word. And I rarely believe one person's opinion on creative tools much applies to anyone else, because no one's taste and creative path is the same. Plus, I've seen wayyy too many videos of very opinionated people with very little skill making amazing libraries and plug-ins sound awful. However, since some developers do a poor job showcasing their products, YouTube reviewers can be helpful to see the full breadth of content/features in certain stuff. So in that respect, I find them valuable.


I thought your live composing videos with OT Time Macro / Micro were great by the way! Similar to what Homay and co. do at Spitfire and Stephen and Guy do at VSL. Much more useful IMO seeing a library used in real time by somebody who knows how to get the best out of it - after all, when I buy a library, that’s what I’m aiming to achieve.


----------



## tressie5

To everyone who had suggestions on trustworthy reviewers, thanks for the tips.


----------



## Arbee

I came to the conclusion some time ago that the days of truly honest, unsponsored and non-aspirational reviews on the Internet are sadly now relegated to history. By non-aspirational I mean "without any attention seeking agenda intended to convert into income or commercial favor". 

There are of course a few reviewers or "knowledge sharers" who I find to be very worthwhile and enjoyable despite the above context, but they are very few in my humble opinion.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

ALittleNightMusic said:


> You were not close to being on my mind when I wrote that so maybe check your ego?


I think @Daniel James responds the way he does, because when people criticise him, it's usually with similar words to these from your initial post:

- don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual

- showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light

- [haven’t] spent a reasonable amount of time with the library

- most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there

So it's not so strange he thought it was about him


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

tressie5 said:


> To everyone who had suggestions on trustworthy reviewers, thanks for the tips.


Check out Anne-Kathrin Dern’s channel too. She occasionally does a review but does it extremely well - writes a full piece using the library, shows how she programmed it, and covers both pros and cons in a really professional way.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> I think @Daniel James responds the way he does, because when people criticise him, it's usually with similar words to these from your initial post:
> 
> - don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual
> 
> - showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light
> 
> - [haven’t] spent a reasonable amount of time with the library
> 
> - most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there
> 
> So it's not so strange he thought it was about him


If that’s how some of the audience feels, perhaps better to take it onboard as feedback then. After all, YouTubers post videos to attract an audience (and earn something from them - money or influence that can be exchanged for money). And the audience ultimately will gauge the value.


----------



## PeterTomlinson

tressie5 said:


> Hi, all. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that, more and more, I can't trust the product "reviewers" on YouTube because, according to them, every music plugin and hardware they "review" is the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes I might field test a reverb only to find it is grainy, springy or wobbly, definitely not clear or pristine as was auditioned online. Or a synth, instead of sounding warm, smooth and analogue-y as portrayed was actually rough, brittle and unoriginal. I've also ran across the occasional supposed holy grail of compressors or EQ's that, in the end, was simply snake oil; thus, when a "reviewer" says, "Here is the best this and best that...", I simply ignore them.


I trust anyone who's not afraid to say if something's crap or not, even if I personally disagree. Daniel James is a great example here. Cory Pelizarri is another one as I feel like he's honest in all of his vids.


----------



## Jett Hitt

There often seems to be a conflict of interest with these reviewers. They are getting free libraries for doing the reviews. If they are too critical, the sample company will cut them off. A lot of them seem to be too flattering in my estimation. I have a great deal of appreciation for @dcoscina who just plays the samples and lets you make up your own mind. I also have a great deal of appreciation for @Daniel James who tells you what he thinks without sugarcoating it. Just because he thinks something doesn't mean I think it, though often I find that I agree with his assessment. I'll take the honesty over the hyperbole any day.


----------



## jonathanwright

When I fire up YouTube and try to search for a review on a product, more often than not I’m presented with hundreds of thumbnails of a person pulling a shocked face, with a title in huge capitals saying something clickbaity like ‘IS THIS THE BEST STRING LIBRARY EVER?!’.

I get that it’s done to try and get views, but it’s like being shouted at by 100 people, and only one of them has anything worthwhile to say. If you can be bothered to trawl through the crap to find them that is.

I tend to stick to the official videos now, and a couple of reviewers I respect. Even then I just listen to the library itself and try to ignore the marketing speak that comes with it.


----------



## Nimrod7

The snake oil guy:


https://www.youtube.com/c/Whiteseastudio/videos



It's fun to watch, ditching everything! :D


----------



## Saxer

As always it's not only important what is said but also who said it.

In other words: you have to know the YouTuber you are listening to. Some do only "Epic" and some do only "Hollywood", others jazzy stuff or hybrid, some are live performers and others score writers or piano roll editors, or they are focussed on mixing... whatever. And also important: some are related to companies. They all look at products from a different angle and I trust most of them in the way they do that.

For me it's important that a reviewed sample library is really used in a way I would like to use it. I don't watch library reviews where someone plays single lines only (and especially not without moving the mod wheel). At least some arranged bars or demos in context can convince me that the reviewer is able to evaluate the possibilities and flaws of a library.

Keeping the context in mind I trust most of the reviews. But only a few of them have an influence on my decisions. And some are simply entertaining.


----------



## emulator

All without much talking and to speak the plugin itself.
And of course when the presenter is able to play the instrument.


----------



## BigMal

Has anyone noticed Spitfire's attempt to counter the YouTube 'First Look'? I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that if you type into YouTube, "Spitfire First Look" the hits are increasingly from Spitfire themselves! I think it's hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate effort to reduce the views on those reviewers who refer to their own reviewers in this way, which may not be so complementary as their own. Developers' videos used to be called 'walkthroughs', but Spitfire is increasingly using the term "First Look". I think I would have to grant the original use of this to @Daniel James, because he was using it to differentiate from a review (I've looked into this product deeply, and I'm going to give you my considered opinion), to a 'first look' (I've specifically not looked into this, and am going to give you my first impressions). If you accept this definition, and you don't have to, it is bizarre that the developer has a 'first look' at their own product, and would seem to be a blatant attempt by Spitfire to undermine and sabotage the views and thereby impact of such reviewers on YouTube. Spitfire never used to call their walkthroughs 'first look', but after a certain 'Hans Zimmer Strings First Look - Live Stream', they clearly realised the need to try to drown out such voices. I love Spitfire's products - they comprise most of my template; but I won't be alone in finding some of their marketing to be ever increasingly annoying over a long period now.

As for YouTubers I'd recommend, I agree with some of those already stated, especially Cori Pelizarri, and since they haven't been mentioned yet, I would have to add Guy Michelmore and Kevin Kuschel - completely different styles, but both very entertaining. I also like Alex Moukala's videos, but that's assuming you want to buy Metropolis Ark, and you want FFF!! Ashton Gleckman doesn't review products, but when he makes recommendations, they're to be taken note of.


----------



## TomislavEP

I usually stick with the official presentation and try to make a judgment based on my needs and preferences. For some products that I'm particularly interested in and will likely purchase, I sometimes watch reviews by Don Bodin and Cory Pelizarri. They tend to be very objective without succumbing to that "hype" factor.


----------



## doctoremmet

There are reviews and there are what I call presentations that demo a library. There are also composers with a YT channel. Both have their uses. I do NOT typically regard any of the videos as completely objective reviews though, in my humble opinion none of them really are. I consider the videos to be mostly entertainment, like a presentation about a subject I’m interested in. Because of course the presenters put in a lot of time and effort and expect to get something ‘out of it’. That’s completely fine with me, and to be expected.

Some great people on Youtube are:

- Simeon. Lovely guy, fantastic musician. Does a million first looks each year, and I’ve learned a lot from him - just in terms of usually the second video that’s gonna be available other than the vendor’s. Gives an excellent overview of stuff, and mostly is just fun to watch. Bringer of positivity, and that’s how he approaches any new instrument.

- ThomC. That’s right! Composes beautiful folky indierock and has a voice like an angel. And also the best British sounding accent a Belgian bloke has ever developed (but I think he did live in the UK for a while). Unique approach to reviews. I like the fact that Thom is not afraid to occassionally have and express positive opinions on stuff most VI-C members wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Do even more singing Thom, I love it.

- Daniel James. Brilliant composer in my eyes. Knows what he’s talking about. Isn’t afraid to express opinions about stuff he dislikes, that most other presenters wouldn’t address or maybe (too) mildly. Maybe that’s what he’s now known for. And although I do get a laugh out of his rants every now and then, it is his music, his approach to composing and his way of rigorous testing that had me mesmerized. Put in some quick runs, see how agile a string library is. Copy and paste this MIDI and let’s compare to Areia or CSS shall we? And his absolute perfect and fast execution of quick tests like that have taught me a LOT. Plus, his noodling - take a pad sound, press down that sustain pedal, load in that native American flute or whatever, and play a bloody brilliant bunch of melodies for the next quarter of an hour. If that’s your thing, you’ll love James. I know I do.

- Dirk Ehlert. Another streamer with skills. Just the other day I was watching his Oceanea II stream (again), for obvious reasons. The man plays Beethoven’s 9th off the top of his head. Nails it. Chuckles and cracks a joke and then goes on to compose some brilliant sounding little cue in an hour, that sounds better than anything I have ever done and will ever do. While chatting and doing give-aways. And planning his next move (literally by the way, the stream gets interrupted when he learns some flight to Spain got canceled). Does he make reviews? Maybe not. Does one get to listen to the use of a new library in context of the very activity one is supposed to undertake with it (composing)? Absolutely. Invaluable. And fun.

And there are many others. Chris Siu. Of course Cory Pelizarri. Blakus. 

For plugins: Michael White (mixing with Mike). For synths: Starsky Carr, Alex Ball.

And there are a lot of excellent videos done by fellow forum members. Geniuses like Luke @jononotbono - Nathan @Soundbed - Dave @dcoscina - Nico @Akarin and many others who put in a lot of work to share their experiences and opinions. Edit: not forgetting @Alex Niedt - maker of the best demo in ‘22 so far


----------



## Braveheart

Dave Connor said:


> Working professionals are generally inured to hype


This forum is a constant reminder that it’s not true.


----------



## doctoremmet

Because hype can also be part of the fun. Anticipation. Speculation. Taking the piss and yet secretly being hyped yourself. The jokes. The disappointment. The drama. All entertaining stuff most forum members (well maybe just a certain demographic -myself included-) seem to enjoy. And still I think most of us can clearly make the distinction between mere hype and actual musically useful stuff.


----------



## Crowe

How much I like and trust plugin and sample-library reviewers is proportional to the amount of developers that really don't like them in turn.

Daniel and Cory are therefore my favorites, of course.


----------



## Sirocco

Avin´ a look...,mmmmm......Interesting.

Yeah...Daniel James for me is great, and btw Simeon, is soo different and sooo talented that is far away from others for thousand miles (is out of fashions, like, dislikes, youtubers style...no way). Totally agree with doctoremmet in his description.

Salute!


----------



## doctoremmet

I read that first line in Daniel’s accent and then went on for the last bit in Simeon’s Kentucky tongue “innah-resting” - lol

Simeon should make t-shirt merch with him portrayed as Bob Ross and “Interesting” on the back.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

BigMal said:


> Has anyone noticed Spitfire's attempt to counter the YouTube 'First Look'? I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that if you type into YouTube, "Spitfire First Look" the hits are increasingly from Spitfire themselves! I think it's hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate effort to reduce the views on those reviewers who refer to their own reviewers in this way, which may not be so complementary as their own. Developers' videos used to be called 'walkthroughs', but Spitfire is increasingly using the term "First Look". I think I would have to grant the original use of this to @Daniel James


I think using the words First look is just a natural expression which can be used with or instead of the word Walkthrough.

A search for "First look Spitfire" resulted in these videos (in that order):

1. Daniel James
2. Spitfire
3. Christopher Siu
4. Daniel James
5. Daniel James
6. Ashton Gleckman
7. Spitfire
8. Spitfire (an 8 years (!) old video)
9. Guy Michelmore
10. Spitfire (another 8 years old video which btw. have Walkthrough in the title but use the words "First look at blabla" in the description.






I doubt we should read a whole lot into the use of one of these words or the other


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva

I rarely look at them. My point of view is that *the proof of their pudding is in my eating*... 

If I feel that I might need a library for a given project either it's cheap and then I take a chance, not risking much, or if it's expensive then the library maker should offer me some way (timed demo, missing notes demo, etc) of checking if it fits _my_ need. There's also the playability, the level of control, the little GUI details hidden deep down, etc. These things only I can check for myself.

Open-box type of "reviews" have little or no value to me. Walkthroughs are better but still not very useful to me. Would you buy a real violon after listening to someone playing every note and articulations?


----------



## AceAudioHQ

I rarely get to see actual reviews on youtube, only a few people seem to be making them since they’re probably worried about not getting free plugins or they just don’t want to say anything negative about anything. Many won’t review a bad product or mention the not so great things about a product that is otherwise fine. They don’t need to bash the products but even saying ”the x could be a bit better” would help. Most videos labeled as reviews aren’t even reviews, they’re just playing with the plugins for five minutes, often for the first time, not having read the manual or trying all the features. I do appreciate the opinions of the snake oil guy and Daniel James, and I do enjoy, for example, Simeon’s videos but I think it’s hard to find him saying anything but positive things about anything.


----------



## chocobitz825

doctoremmet said:


> Because hype can also be part of the fun. Anticipation. Speculation. Taking the piss and yet secretly being hyped yourself. The jokes. The disappointment. The drama. All entertaining stuff most forum members (well maybe just a certain demographic -myself included-) seem to enjoy. And still I think most of us can clearly make the distinction between mere hype and actual musically useful stuff.


Hype meet train.

All aboard!


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

This is a great discussion, and I appreciate the shoutouts. As for me personally, I tend to do videos on products that I think I would enjoy, and therefore my audience would enjoy as well. That being said, no library is perfect, and I try to make sure to mention any niggles or improvements that I think can be made in order to make the developer aware of any issues and also let the viewer know, in case it doesn't come across through the video. 

Of course, all third party reviews/first looks are simply alternative voices to the official demos/walkthroughs, so you should definitely take them all with a grain of salt. The beautiful thing is that you can really pick and choose what and who you watch, so there's plenty of choice! In my opinion, the more people that demonstrate products in a way that adds value to the viewer and informs them of what's included and how it functions, the better.


----------



## Nils Neumann

Daniel James said:


> I feel like this one is aimed at me so I'll respond as if it is.
> 
> First of I don't really review things, I have a look at them I am not passing a score, I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can, that allows me to look at the library how many users will experience it, just diving in......
> 
> This is useful for a few reasons, It allows you point out any design flaws which the developer might not notice because they are so familiar they just inherently know how it all works. So if I can't find a cool new feature, or a controller is hidden, or I am fumbling around using something incorrectly that shows the developer that it might not be as clear or as intuitive as they thought. I have been messaged multiple times by multiple developers that my critique helped them improve something they overlooked and made the product better as a result. Everyone wins and there is a value to showing how a library works as raw as possible with not time to tweak it to be perfect. If its shit out the box people will hear its shit out the box. If it take lots of effort to get the most out of it I think its fair to compare that to competition that provides comparable results with less effort. Its also good to live work out if that extra effort is indeed work it. These are all things you don't tend to get too into if you already know the ins and outs and I have always felt ff you want to know how the fucking thing works, watch the developer walk you through it, No review or opinion video will do a better job that the people who make it, so to use it as a critique of why certain Youtubers are bad doesn't sit right with me. Why you would goto a review over a dev walkthrough to see how to actually use it may be more your issue than the reviewers.
> 
> And you also have to realize that doing a video or a live stream isn't really that similar to composing. If I get stuck with a library when working, I will figure it out. If I am live streaming to 100 people live and a button that wasn't well highlighted or explained meaning that the library isn't doing what it should, I will just move on to something that does, and mention that as it happens "This isn't working as I would expect."
> 
> And I know most of you here fucking hate me by this point, I have learned to accept that, but I think the way I conduct my videos is in line with me and the way I want to live my life. I think they hold value to people watching who want to see things as raw and out the box as possible. I think there is value in showing a developer where someone will get stuck or what isn't as obvious as they might think.
> 
> This was a thread to suggest cool Youtubers to the OP, there was no call to take a shit on people who do them not up to your personal standard.
> 
> But if you want it your way go do one yourself. Put yourself out there. Let the biggest names in the industry tear you apart for daring to critique them. Put yourself out there and lay your creative process bare, with mistakes and misunderstandings open for all to see and judge, or use as excuses to call you a shit composer. Spend a few hours out of your work schedule to share some cool tools you found recently and experience them live with a community of like minded people you have cultivated over a decade. Put yourself out there more to have people compare you to everyone else as a human being and express why you are worse than them or they are doing better. Put yourself out there a bit and dare to have a thought of your own.
> 
> Or you know, just sit there and judge others adding nothing of value to anyone.
> 
> I critique stuff, I am obnoxious to many. But I care, I try, I give effort, I provide value. I am improving, I am learning. All while other people try to tear me apart because I swear a lot, or I dared to speak against their particular favorite developer....all while ignoring the positive things I say about those same people.
> 
> I always say what I think, because of the brain I was born with its almost impossible for me to not say what I am thinking. I always show what I say with evidence and would never lie to keep getting NFR's I have said good and bad things about all of the devs out there. Most act like adults, some call you a shit composer who should be disregarded as a hater. So to just throw around shill without evidence is a bit brazen and I believe totally off the mark. Besides, I would much rather watch a passionate shill than give two fucks about those who jeer from the sidelines.
> 
> To the OP
> 
> Check out:
> 
> Chris Siu - Improves every video
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzM2CcAZ3kqT-y01ybxF0nw
> 
> 
> 
> Dirk Ehlert - Covers lots of libraries and has an awesome studio that seemingly moves country every few weeks 😂
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/c/ComposingTutorials
> 
> 
> 
> Alex Pfeffer - One of the OG Youtubers, has a more succinct approach which some of you seem to prefer.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/c/AlexPfeffer
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, you really just want to listen to the library and see if it gets you personally excited on sound alone, if it does you are then just browsing the other videos to see how others are using it, how it plays with other libraries, how playable it is and how intuitive the UI is. And at the end of the day its how you feel about it.
> 
> Also finally keep in context the people you watching and where their opinion comes from. When I give my opinion its coming from my experience as a working film/game composer who writes music everyday in cinematic, hybrid and filmic classical styles. So If I say something is good, its meaning in the context of the work I do for me as a working composer. Its not an objective statement. Like if a new library came out promising to be the next big thing in hybrid sound design, opened it and it sounds like 90's disco synths, I am going to say that is a bad library...but to someone making 90s disco or looking to do some specific fusion with it then they might say its a great library. Biggest issue is when I say the first part and someone says the second part but then tells me I am wrong or that I dont know what I am doing, or I'm doing it wrong, without considering why I say that. Not important for all but its worth thinking about if someone has a different opinion or one you might not agree with initially.
> 
> If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.
> 
> -DJ


Actually, when I started out composing with VI's, your "reviews" helped me a lot on how to actually write music with midi. Your live approach gave me a lot of insight on how to arrange, structure, and use all these tools in the digital environment, always learned something from you. Never saw or used the videos as a review. Also helped that you are an entertaining guy. 

For composers starting out this type of content is pure gold.


----------



## Zanshin

My first line of defense is the thumbnail, if someone is making a stupid face - I skip


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

Zanshin said:


> My first line of defense is the thumbnail, if someone is making a stupid face - I skip


Same here  It indicates "unseriousness" to me. Wrongly, maybe, but nevertheless.


----------



## Evans

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Stick to developer walkthroughs IMO. Most YouTube reviewers don't use the libraries to their full potential


This is why I actually think it's _important _to balance out developer videos with user videos. I've been in sales, marketing, and product management at software companies.

There are times that I knew my products so well that I was able to show users things they never imagined these products could do.
There are times I was so focused on showing what we were good at that I accidentally (or even _purposefully_) hid major flaws.
There are times I was "so close to the product" (as Daniel James noted) that I simply didn't see some major flaws.
There are times I was so comfortable and capable with the product that it set unrealistic expectations on the users (that is, while the use cases were practical, the level of effort or knowledge needed to get there wasn't reasonable for the average buyer).
This why I like developer videos, videos of people just messing around (auditioning patches), and Daniel James-style "this is how _I'd_ use it" videos for different reasons.

I point to Daniel James's videos on Action Strings 2 and Rhodope 2 as fantastic examples that present practical use while addressing the lift required to get there.

Many of these VI developers are so small that they're sales, marketing, product management, and engineering all in one person. I need to see more than that one person.


----------



## ThomCSounds

doctoremmet said:


> - ThomC. That’s right! Composes beautiful folky indierock and has a voice like an angel. And also the best British sounding accent a Belgian bloke has ever developed (but I think he did live in the UK for a while). Unique approach to reviews. I like the fact that Thom is not afraid to occassionally have and express positive opinions on stuff most VI-C members wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Do even more singing Thom, I love it.


Thanks so much man! I love libraries everybody hates :D Reverse pshycology at its best haha!


----------



## gamma-ut

Evans said:


> This why I like developer videos, videos of people just messing around (auditioning patches), and Daniel James-style "this is how _I'd_ use it" videos for different reasons.


For me, Daniel's kind of approach works best (and people like Guy Michelmore as well). Even if I don't work that way, it's easy to see how something works or doesn't work in that context. And it's either "yeah, that's not going to work, that looks cool or I don't think that's going to be a problem". I try to tune out the value judgments.

Cory Pelizzari's is a good no-nonsense approach for showing what a library does but I'd prefer a little more on how the sausage is made in those, even if it's just a slightly clearer view of the MIDI CCs.

Even the "best bread slicer EVAH!!" videos can work for that as sometimes the reviewer is extolling the virtues of Product X and it just doesn't sound right – just as long as they've shown what they've done it often isn't too tricky


----------



## doctoremmet

Nimrod7 said:


> The snake oil guy:
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/c/Whiteseastudio/videos
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun to watch, ditching everything! :D


Fun to watch for sure. But he is mainly just a joker and only every once in a while actually points out something that is remotely useful. You know, as in: an actual informed opinion 😂 

By now it’s mainly the Sandstorm by Darude running gag, and rants about skeumorphic design. All for laughs.

Which is fine, but I’m not sure if I’d trust his judgment, because he is kind of dismissive by design.


----------



## dcoscina

I love Guy Michelmore's videos. He's one of the few channels I've subscribed to for product reviews.


----------



## Evans

gamma-ut said:


> Even the "best bread slicer EVAH!!" videos can work for that as sometimes the reviewer is extolling the virtues of Product X and it just doesn't sound right – just as long as they've shown what they've done it often isn't too tricky


This is why I appreciate Chris Siu's videos. When he doesn't like a library that he's been provided, he doesn't try to push it on viewers.

He's really nice and soft-handed about his criticisms, sure, but you can always tell when he's just sorta lukewarm on a product versus when he has a genuinely positive reaction (I occasionally think about his "whoa" when playing through a Time Micro patch).


----------



## pawelmorytko

ALittleNightMusic said:


> You were not close to being on my mind when I wrote that so maybe check your ego?


Seems a bit harsh considering the lengthy and understandable explanation from Daniel which added constructive discussion to the topic. Even if it was not aimed at him specifically, it seems reasonable for him to defend the generalised group of people which you were having a go at that he obviously identified with.

(This next bit is not aimed at anyone in specific but just the music community/VI Control/real life experiences in general)

Anyways, it always saddens me to see the music community bring others down and point out their faults and mistakes that they _don't_ like, instead of lifting up and praising those who they _do _agree with and whose content they enjoy. It just can create a bit of a toxic environment, elitism, gatekeeping, and other things such as anxiety and impostor syndrome, so I always think it's best to focus on the positives rather than jumping straight to pointing out the bad.

Don't get me wrong though I'm not saying you should never ever criticise anything or anyone. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and just having a go at people you don't agree with.

_Don't like someone's content?_ - Just don't watch it, surely if it's actually bad and not helpful then other people won't watch it either, but if a lot of people still do watch it and find it helpful, then maybe you just have different opinions/taste and that's okay you know.

_Wish a reviewer would cover something specific you wanted to see or want them to improve in an area so their reviews are better and more helpful?_ - Let them know with a comment under their video on what you liked/didn't like and how they can improve. (Don't have time/patience/can't be bothered to help the reviewer make better reviews? Again... don't watch it, just don't shit on it instead if you don't bother to give constructive criticism)

It's just simple things like this that can create a much better, more wholesome and less toxic community between us all, but I'm just rambling on here wishing for something impossible sadly I think.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Evans said:


> This is why I appreciate Chris Siu's videos. When he doesn't like a library that he's been provided, he doesn't try to push it on viewers.
> 
> He's really nice and soft-handed about his criticisms, sure, but you can always tell when he's just sorta lukewarm on a product versus when he has a genuinely positive reaction (I occasionally think about his "whoa" when playing through a Time Micro patch).


Thank you, truly. I appreciate that.


----------



## Dave Connor

Braveheart said:


> This forum is a constant reminder that it’s not true.


I probably should have said, _Working composers I know…_

Definition-wise, I mean people who earn their living exclusively from music production.

Virtually none of them care about the hype surrounding a product release. They all know their toolbox and what they may not be entirely satisfied with (or something they have and wish would be improved upon.) So, it’s not a matter of being enticed by a _review,_ but if a professional need has been met or a superior version of what they already have has shown up.

For example: I’m not interested in ensemble libraries because I can’t orchestrate properly with them. So reviews or massive hype don’t even register with me. But, if individual instrument libraries are released, I check them out. Again, glowing reviews aren’t going to sell me - my ears will or won’t.


----------



## Vik

First, thanks for sharing all those reviews and walkthoughs, girls (Dern!) and guys. My impression so far is that females potentially are better than guys at creating sample library oriented stuff I'm interested in.


Short version: I prefer reviews that are edited, not way too long and which clearly contain more music/audio than talking – and still go in depth.

Longer version:

I appreciate that there are many YT-reviewers out there, and have subscribed to some of them. I still check out a number of reviews, but I happen to be interested in stuff that usually aren't covered in most reviews (except maybe those that are unedited and several hours long, I never check these out).

In general, wether the reviews are about sample libraries, how to make better curries or music, I prefer those who go in depth. Rick Beato is a good example of such a YouTuber, but he doesn't review sample libraries. 

I like to hear reviewers who have spent time on making small pieces with the libraries they review (Cory Pelizzari = good example of that), and I'm also interested in those that just are fooling around and play random stuff the same way I would have done if I jad 20 minutes with a library. But if they work in a very different way than I do, I'll soon look for anotgher review. For instance, there are numerous reviews that play through sustained notes using chords only, and that's a method I prett much never would use if attempting making a proper mockup – but I'm also interested in how the ensemble presets, if any, sound. These are useful for generating new ideas.

YT-videos that compare different libraries usually also interest me more than most other videos


Here's the perfect way to get rid of me as a visitor: 

– Spend most of the time checking out violas outside that range that's special for the violas (the 7 lowest notes),

– Spend most of the cello time avoiding the the lowest octave and a half. For cellos, the lowest notes are very important.

– Create quick walkthroughs where some of the presets only are exposed in a few seconds, or by playing a few notes.

– Treat all sustains as if they were ensemble presets (playing chords).

– Consider bass pizzicatos as short notes only. Most reviewers seem to ignore that many pieces require bass pizzicatos that are loooong. I generally prefer bass and cello reviewing that focus most on the lower register.

– Talk more than you present audio/music. In some reviews (and some walkthroughs/presentations from manufacturers), most of the time is spend on talking. In many cases I just want to hear the played or composed examples, so a written rewiew with inserted, playable audio files would be perfect – but there are few such reviews.

– Never show us how good a library is at emulating vibrato changes. Does it offer 'appassionata' playing also in. the low dynamic range? Does the most soaring level have enough vibrato?

– In general, how believable/satisfying is the vibrato control (if there are any)?

– Finally (sorry, guys): Use CC11/Expression whenever you use CC1/Dynamics, even in libraries that have 4-5 dynamic layers. _Real string players alter dynamics, they never alter volume._


----------



## Nimrod7

doctoremmet said:


> Fun to watch for sure. But he is mainly just a joker and only every once in a while actually points out something that is remotely useful. You know, as in: an actual informed opinion 😂
> 
> By now it’s mainly the Sandstorm by Darude running gag, and rants about skeumorphic design. All for laughs.
> 
> Which is fine, but I’m not sure if I’d trust his judgment, because he is kind of dismissive by design.


He comes up with a few good things from time to time that no one else points out. For example the quality issues with smooth operator that led the dev team to improve it.

He doesn’t afraid to speak his mind neither cares for sponsorships, that’s something you don’t see enough out there.


----------



## doctoremmet

Nimrod7 said:


> He comes up with a few good things from time to time that no one else points out. For example the quality issues with smooth operator that led the dev team to improve it.
> 
> He doesn’t afraid to speak his mind neither cares for sponsorships, that’s something you don’t see brought out there.


Oh for sure. I do like my fellow Dutchman. His series on the studio rebuild was cool as well. No disrespect. But many of his videos seem to be made rather quickly and some of them are kind of sloppy too, in terms of information transfer


----------



## KEM

I only watch YouTube reviews for confirmation bias, if they don’t agree with me they’re wrong


----------



## dcoscina

KEM said:


> I only watch YouTube reviews for confirmation bias, if they don’t agree with me they’re wrong


Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.


----------



## doctoremmet

Kenneth basically just watches the same rerun of Paul walking through HZ Strings and a bunch of Dark Zebra tutorials. But mostly just Dark Knight.


----------



## aeliron

Braveheart said:


> I trust Christian Henson from Spitfire Audio, especially after telling us that their plugin is award-winning…..


AND CURATED


----------



## GtrString

Often I find that the companies’ own presentations represent their products better than many YT reviewers, but I must say that I’ve rarely been dissapointed tbh


----------



## KEM

dcoscina said:


> Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.





doctoremmet said:


> Kenneth basically just watches the same rerun of Paul walking through HZ Strings and a bunch of Dark Zebra tutorials. But mostly just Dark Knight.



I mean, you’re not wrong, I like to watch BT go through Stutter Edit 2, it’s a pretty good plugin and he knows it


----------



## dcoscina

I bought Appassionata Strings after watching Paul's walk through. And I'm not disappointed! Love them!


----------



## SupremeFist

For synths I really like Loopop. He learns every one inside out and shows what it can (and can't) do, without really aiming for a clickbaity "judgment".


----------



## Martin S

Vik said:


> _Real string players alter dynamics, they never alter volume._


For real players (of any kind of instrument) dynamics = volume, so your statement seems quite contradictory.

If expression + modulation gives you the desired result you’re aiming for with a given library, what’s the problem? Until we have sample libraries with 127 dynamic layers, expression is an additional tool to help you achieve your desired dynamic (i.e volume)


----------



## davidson

SupremeFist said:


> For synths I really like Loopop. He learns every one inside out and shows what it can (and can't) do, without really aiming for a clickbaity "judgment".


Loopop's great, especially with his helpful timestamps. Starskys another good synth youtuber.



https://www.youtube.com/c/StarskyCarr



As far as software? @Cory Pelizzari, and only Cory.


----------



## Mike Fox

Reviewers are damned either way.

We say something nice about a library, and we’re accused of being a shill.

We say something bad about a library and we’re accused of not knowing what we’re doing.

The problem is that people are quick to judge.

I personally know some legit reviewers (including myself) who have been wrongly accused of being a shill or wrongly accused of not know what they’re talking about, but it honestly just goes with the territory when you put yourself out there (did i mention that people are quick to judge?).

The saddest thing is that most people bitching about reviewers will never have any idea how much time and work we put into our videos: hours, days, and even weeks.

But trust me, the amount of work we put into our videos, and the amount of shit we get from people isn’t worth the free libraries. I also don’t get paid for what i do. I do this because i love it.

In the end, I’ve pissed off both developers and viewers for my honesty, but that certainly isn’t going to change the way i do things.

End rant.


----------



## dcoscina

Mike Fox said:


> Reviewers are damned either way.
> 
> We say something nice about a library, and we’re accused of being a shill.
> 
> We say something bad about a library and we’re accused of not knowing what we’re doing.
> 
> The problem is that people are quick to judge.
> 
> I personally know some legit reviewers (including myself) who have been wrongly accused of being a shill or wrongly accused of not know what they’re talking about, but it honestly just goes with the territory when you put yourself out there (did i mention that people are quick to judge?).
> 
> The saddest thing is that most people bitching about reviewers will never have any idea how much time and work we put into our videos: hours, days, and even weeks.
> 
> But trust me, the amount of work we put into our videos, and the amount of shit we get from people usually isn’t worth the free libraries. I also don’t get paid for what i do. I do this because i love it.
> 
> In the end, I’ve pissed off both developers and viewers for my honesty, but that certainly isn’t going to change the way i do things.
> 
> End rant.


Amen brother.


----------



## zwhita

I've enjoyed videos from Alex Heppelmann lately, although those are more often educational than reviews.


----------



## Evans

Mike Fox said:


> I personally know some legit reviewers (including myself) who have been wrongly accused of being a shill


That's pretty odd for your videos, which to me follow a format pretty similar to Cory's. A musical example, another example, perhaps yet another, and oh a few more. And then eventually some commentary that plays after I've already finished the payment process.


----------



## Mike Fox

Evans said:


> That's pretty odd for your videos, which to me follow a format pretty similar to Cory's. A musical example, another example, perhaps yet another, and oh a few more. And then eventually some commentary that plays after I've already finished the payment process.


I agree, it is odd. But Cory is also one of the most honest reviewers who I’ve seen get shit from both viewers and developers alike. Opinions hurt other people’s opinions, i guess. 

Thanks for watching, btw. 🙂


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

For a non-traditional way to get a sense of libraries, look for folks that have the library incorporated into their templates and then are just writing lots of music with it - like Mattia Chiappa (tends to use BBCSO, CSS, Sample Modeling) or Ashton Gleckman or Daniel Beijbom. I think that really shows you what you can achieve with the library, once you get to proper grips with it.

An even more non-traditional way is Orchestration Recipes - Phillip has listed out which libraries he has used for each recipe. What's nice about it is you can see how the library fits into a particular style - it was through his examples that I decided to buy Oceania because I didn't have anything else that fit that style as well.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

pawelmorytko said:


> Seems a bit harsh considering the lengthy and understandable explanation from Daniel which added constructive discussion to the topic. Even if it was not aimed at him specifically, it seems reasonable for him to defend the generalised group of people which you were having a go at that he obviously identified with.
> 
> (This next bit is not aimed at anyone in specific but just the music community/VI Control/real life experiences in general)
> 
> Anyways, it always saddens me to see the music community bring others down and point out their faults and mistakes that they _don't_ like, instead of lifting up and praising those who they _do _agree with and whose content they enjoy. It just can create a bit of a toxic environment, elitism, gatekeeping, and other things such as anxiety and impostor syndrome, so I always think it's best to focus on the positives rather than jumping straight to pointing out the bad.
> 
> Don't get me wrong though I'm not saying you should never ever criticise anything or anyone. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and just having a go at people you don't agree with.
> 
> _Don't like someone's content?_ - Just don't watch it, surely if it's actually bad and not helpful then other people won't watch it either, but if a lot of people still do watch it and find it helpful, then maybe you just have different opinions/taste and that's okay you know.
> 
> _Wish a reviewer would cover something specific you wanted to see or want them to improve in an area so their reviews are better and more helpful?_ - Let them know with a comment under their video on what you liked/didn't like and how they can improve. (Don't have time/patience/can't be bothered to help the reviewer make better reviews? Again... don't watch it, just don't shit on it instead if you don't bother to give constructive criticism)
> 
> It's just simple things like this that can create a much better, more wholesome and less toxic community between us all, but I'm just rambling on here wishing for something impossible sadly I think.


(Leaving aside that I never mentioned anybody specifically, but was then quoted and within that post, told that people like me who don't make videos offer no value, because apparently that's the only way to add value to a community.)

I've made a few videos in the past, comparing 4 DAWs across audio and MIDI capabilities. It was a lot of work, got tens of thousands of views, and the comments can get rowdy. So, I do appreciate the effort that goes into it. However, an audience is not there to judge the effort - they are focused on the output. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours on a video if ultimately it isn't good. Or should we pat you on the back for that? 

And by not good, I mean like blatantly using the library incorrectly (not talking about DJ) or not playing the instrument idiomatically and making it sound horrible (once again, not talking about DJ) or doing a comparison where you don't adjust the MIDI at all (how many times must I say, not talking about DJ). But these are all real examples of what you'll find on YouTube. And the worst part is, they'll be in the top 5-10 results - or sometimes the only result for a particular library. Now, to me, that's doing more harm than good - not only to the developer but also to new composers who might think that's how you're supposed to write for that instrument.

And there _is_ no gatekeeper on YouTube - anybody can post pretty much anything, including misinformation. But in a community meant to be helping musicians, should we stay silent about it and not call it out? I've learned a lot from folks here - and been able to TRUST it because it is publicly posted and thus "checked" by other folks. If somebody were to tell me I can play a High C with a cello (for example), somebody else would be sure to correct that - and the whole community benefits.

If you're going to applaud a "reviewer" for telling it how it is, you have to allow the audience to do the same.


----------



## Vik

Martin S said:


> For real players (of any kind of instrument) dynamics = volume, so your statement seems quite contradictory.


Sorry for being unclear. What I meant with "Real string players alter dynamics, they never alter volume_" _is this:

When a string player will play louder or softer, s/he will do it in a way that we best can achieved by crossfading between dynamic layers, not by using CC7 or CC11 – because the two latter does the same as if you would change volume – and only the volume – with a fader in a mixer or on a hifi system.

The result of what string players do when playing sifter/louder is to both change the volume (of course) and the timbre/color/sound of the instrument. 

So, when listening to someone demonstrating SF Appassionata, Synchron Strings or other libraries with five or more dynamic layers, the less loud notes will also sound the way less sound sounds in real life. I should have written "they never change Volume", with a capital V, because I was referring to what Volume/"Expression" (CC7/11) is in he MIDI world: a very primitive way to emulate the sound of someone who plays louder or softer, unlike dynamics (as in Dynamics) which alters the volume in a way that sounds a lot more real believable manner. 

"If expression + modulation gives you the desired result you’re aiming for with a given library, what’s the problem?"
No problem at all, but if it sounds believable, it's partially because that instrument (at that low level) can't be heard with the loudness needed in order to hear that it's only a faded down sample of someone who plays eg. louder. 

"Until we have sample libraries with 127 dynamic layers, expression is an additional tool to help you achieve your desired dynamic (i.e volume)"

IMO it's a massive difference between using CC7/11 vs crossfading between dynamic layers already when a library has much fewer than 127 levels. 

When sample libraries with, say, 5 dynamic layers are being demoed, they are IMO best demonstrated while using crossfade between dyn. layers as much as possible, and then using eg. CC11 to fix what needs to be fixed only when needed. My guess is that most/many who consider investing in a library with more dynamic layers (= more $) are probably curious about how that library sounds when changing dynamics 'without cheating'; without trying to emulate the sound of softer/louder playing using a more primitive method than relying on actual recordings of someone who plays louder/softer.


----------



## Vik

ALittleNightMusic said:


> For a non-traditional way to get a sense of libraries, look for folks that have the library incorporated into their templates and then are just writing lots of music with it - like Mattia Chiappa (tends to use BBCSO, CSS, Sample Modeling) or Ashton Gleckman or Daniel Beijbom.


I haven't heard all these, but +1 for Daniel Beijbom!


----------



## Montisquirrel

I am happy for all the people who upload stuff to Youtube and showcase the sound of a library or plugin. Thanks everyone who is doing this.
I don't care if they are paid or have a stupid thumbnail, as long as I can hear the instrument and see the interface at the same time. After some years of experience with virtual instruments I am able to judge by myself and I know if I really need it or not, no matter what the Youtuber will say.


----------



## Vik

Also, we shouldn't forget that some of those composers used for making additional YT clips for sample library makers sometimes do a great job in showing the libraries strengths' (more than usually is shown in the first, few official presentations), like eg. Fabio Amurry (VSL) and Sascha Knorr (OT).


----------



## Polkasound

jonathanwright said:


> more often than not I’m presented with hundreds of thumbnails of a person pulling a shocked face, with a title in huge capitals saying something clickbaity like ‘IS THIS THE BEST STRING LIBRARY EVER?!’.


Whenever I see a video thumbnail of someone with a mouth agape/shocked face and a needlessly clickbaity title, I assume them to be someone who is not using theirself to promote content, but rather using content to promote theirself. I usually pass these videos over and look for the ones with normal titles and unassuming thumbnails, because I'm assured the prospect of fame is not influencing the quality of the content.


----------



## dcoscina

Polkasound said:


> Whenever I see a video thumbnail of someone with a mouth agape/shocked face and a needlessly clickbaity title, I assume them to be someone who is not using theirself to promote content, but rather using content to promote theirself. I usually pass these videos over and look for the ones with normal titles and unassuming thumbnails, because I'm assured the prospect of fame is not influencing the quality of the content.


it is indeed a task to sort through who is doing these videos out of personal gain (monetizing their channel, notoriety, free product) and who is interested in sharing their experience with other users. I'm sure the really good YT channels strive to do both.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

(Not to toot my own horn...pun intended) but I hope we have more of this kind of exercise here because, to me, it really helped showcase what forum members could do with a variety of different libraries, all tackling a particular piece. Regardless of all the YouTube videos, I still look to the opinions from Vi-C members about many libraries. The Member Music section is another great place here to find more examples of libraries in use for particular (especially original) pieces.






Community Brass Programming Exercise - Olympic Fanfare


Now that our gluttonous Black Friday purchasing has come to a close, it is time to use what we've bought. I thought it might be interesting to try our hands at programming a short snippet of a piece, starting from the same point (same MIDI notes) - but then seeing where each of us takes it in...




vi-control.net


----------



## gsilbers

tressie5 said:


> Hi, all. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that, more and more, I can't trust the product "reviewers" on YouTube because, according to them, every music plugin and hardware they "review" is the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes I might field test a reverb only to find it is grainy, springy or wobbly, definitely not clear or pristine as was auditioned online. Or a synth, instead of sounding warm, smooth and analogue-y as portrayed was actually rough, brittle and unoriginal. I've also ran across the occasional supposed holy grail of compressors or EQ's that, in the end, was simply snake oil; thus, when a "reviewer" says, "Here is the best this and best that...", I simply ignore them.



These sort of thumbails are the reviews i just avoid


----------



## Polkasound

dcoscina said:


> I'm sure the really good YT channels strive to do both.


Yes, there are exceptions to my rule, but it's my personal belief in general that when someone spends the time to create the perfectly photoshopped thumbnail and clickbaity title, their _ultimate_ goal is popularity. In other words, they're not not just using YouTube as a personal vlogging platform... they're ultimately attempting to make YouTube a viable source of income. That in itself doesn't mean their content is untrustworthy, but I prefer to watch videos by the unassuming musicians who share opinions now and then, and don't keep generating new, clickbaity content in hopes of building a following.


----------



## dcoscina

Polkasound said:


> Yes, there are exceptions to my rule, but it's my personal belief in general that when someone spends the time to create the perfectly photoshopped thumbnail and clickbaity title, their _ultimate_ goal is popularity. In other words, they're not not just using YouTube as a personal vlogging platform... they're ultimately attempting to make YouTube a viable source of income. That in itself doesn't mean their content is untrustworthy, but I prefer to watch videos by the unassuming musicians who share opinions now and then, and don't keep generating new, clickbaity content in hopes of building a following.


Totally agree. I can pretty quickly ascertain the level of music knowledge of a YT when they mispronounce an instrument or music term. I value the opinions of people who have had real-world experience with orchestras because that is the area I'm interested in. Not dismissing those who like to write trailer music or epic music but it's not my genre of interest or expertise, so I pass those and stick with channels I can relate to and hence, respect their feedback. 

The music channels I follow intently are 

Chris Siddall Music
Omni Music Publishing
Alex Pfeffer
Anne-Kathrin Dern
Christopher Siu
David Bruce Composer (not sample reviews but a damned brilliant composer)
Guy Michelmore
Tantacrul (also not sample reviews but another smart music guy)
OrchestrationOnline (Thomas Goss is the best!)


----------



## b_elliott

My 2 cents: I look over a wide variety of Youtubers and don't stick to one too long. TBH (like most humans) I am mainly in it for the entertainment.

I recently ran across two mixing dudes in Canada who put out hilarious but informative shows featuring Acustica Audio plugins which I recently got curious about (Paul Third is another Acustica reviewer). From the episode Mixorcist on Opal I came away with two things:

1. The guy called Eric B mentioned a Russian Netflix production "_To the Lake_". He mentioned this b4 showcasing Opal. The Opal plugin he demo'd I was digging.

2. I looked up _To the Lake_ on Netflix. Watched Ep 1. Sure enough its audio is about the best I've heard (not Opal IIRC). I then got hooked on the rest of the series (a Russian production about things going wrong during an epidemic ...anarchy ...Chinese troops inside Russia...). Wild stuff.

As far as Opal goes, no, I won't buy it. I will learn the vsts I have before heading down that route.

Another off-the-beaten-path Youtuber who is worth a look:

IDDQD Sound: an Iranian-Canadian who is as hilarious as he is deeply knowledgeable (strictly on Reaper). Love this dude.

YMMV.

PS When I first encountered DJ I was shocked that someone owned more than one library -- a new library each show! That's how little I knew 5 years ago. He was wild to watch + immensely enjoyable. Still is.


----------



## Mike Greene

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Most YouTube reviewers don't use the libraries to their full potential - or worse, don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual and showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light.


I've had that happen a number of times, especially with Realivox Blue, where the "reviewers" won't even know the basics, like that step 1 is to turn on "Phrase Mode" if you want her to sing a phrase. They'll leave it turned off, so the transition samples (which we spent a ton of time on!) are bypassed and the phrases don't sound smooth at all. At least half the Blue reviews make that mistake.

With Hip Hop Creator, a couple reviewers played all the beats at their DAW default of 120BPM. Luckily it still sounded good ... but it wasn't hip hop.


----------



## Quasar

Psychological observation that I found interesting:

This morning I was looking at YT reviews for mini 25 key controllers, and checking out the Novation Launchkey. I found one review entitled: _Launch Key 25 Honest Review_, and immediately clicked on it, because my initial, spontaneous reaction was "Yes, this is the kind of review I'm looking for, an _honest_ one, cool!"

It took a couple of milliseconds or so before the higher, critical faculties kicked-in. We may like to think we're immune to the impressions created by advertising claims, but this doesn't mean that we are.


----------



## gsilbers

Quasar said:


> Psychological observation that I found interesting:
> 
> This morning I was looking at YT reviews for mini 25 key controllers, and checking out the Novation Launchkey. I found one review entitled: _Launch Key 25 Honest Review_, and immediately clicked on it, because my initial, spontaneous reaction was "Yes, this is the kind of review I'm looking for, an _honest_ one, cool!"
> 
> It took a couple of milliseconds or so before the higher, critical faculties kicked-in. We may like to think we're immune to the impressions created by advertising claims, but this doesn't mean that we are.


that video looked like an ad lol. 

yep.. we fall for those.


----------



## dcoscina

Quasar said:


> Psychological observation that I found interesting:
> 
> This morning I was looking at YT reviews for mini 25 key controllers, and checking out the Novation Launchkey. I found one review entitled: _Launch Key 25 Honest Review_, and immediately clicked on it, because my initial, spontaneous reaction was "Yes, this is the kind of review I'm looking for, an _honest_ one, cool!"
> 
> It took a couple of milliseconds or so before the higher, critical faculties kicked-in. We may like to think we're immune to the impressions created by advertising claims, but this doesn't mean that we are.


I trust John Mike. He always mentions the key action which I find few other YT keyboard reviewers mention. Of course, when I worked in retail keyboard sales, I never had to rely on YT since I had access to everything from Nord, Roland, Korg, Maudio, Kurzweil, Studiologic etc etc.


----------



## gsilbers

I think its whole culture of sponsored ads, paid contend (PC), and affiliates.

Some reviewers for apple get free merch or reviewers get a hold of equipment where even if they return it later, its still would a good idea to say nice stuff about it so they can get more stuff from them and other manufacturers.

The best descirption of all this new culture of "reviewers" and whats happening with ads etc is best explained in season 19 of south park. the whole season is amazing and totally spot on about all this. even if its related to reviewing a sample library




And then theres others that do good reviews.

I have to admit, in this market of sample libraries and gear i havent seen much negative or untrustworthy. Its very small and doesnt really make that much money as say, those reviewing apple or baby products. Where shilling, wierd sketchy tactics are easy to spot.. or even hard to see.

At most... its those cringey thumbnails. Thats the only thing. Almost all reviews ive seen in these film/media music context has been very nie in general and im always looking to see who else is out there that youtube algo didnt get yet.


Its also not hard to see how things sway.. like for example Rick Beato has some videos up in his channels where its spot on the same thing i learned at berklee paying way too fukin much and barely has no views... 
then you see his most viewed and its him trashing apple computers for dongles etc whhere its very true, but overall everyone just went and said its just some old man ranting about apple. well... that video got soooooo many views. 
And demand moves the economy right? 
So the same way, reviewers might feel they gotta do something for more views. 
but overall in this little corner of ours.. so far.. reviewers have been great. except for those thumnails... (gosh why!?)


----------



## gsilbers

Polkasound said:


> Yes, there are exceptions to my rule, but it's my personal belief in general that when someone spends the time to create the perfectly photoshopped thumbnail and clickbaity title, their _ultimate_ goal is popularity. In other words, they're not not just using YouTube as a personal vlogging platform... they're ultimately attempting to make YouTube a viable source of income. That in itself doesn't mean their content is untrustworthy, but I prefer to watch videos by the unassuming musicians who share opinions now and then, and don't keep generating new, clickbaity content in hopes of building a following.



Maybe we should do a vote for the reviewer with the best (most cringe) thumbnail.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

One of the YouTubers recommended earlier in this thread by somebody has their recent thumbnail as a photo of Hans Zimmer and the title "A Trick for Writing Orchestral Music like the Pros"  There's only one reason for that type of clickbait - to increase views of the channel. There's no altruistic / doing it for the love of it motivation here. Increase views so you can sell your audience something (as evident by the numerous affiliate or purchase links in the descriptions of these videos).


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

By the way, I'm not saying YouTubers shouldn't be able to pursue it as a revenue stream. There's a number of them that I think are providing immense value to the musician community - without getting all clickbait-y. And they happen to have the talent and professional experience to back up what they're saying.

Go check out whittymusic or Nahre Sol or Ryan Leach for example.


----------



## jbuhler

ALittleNightMusic said:


> (Not to toot my own horn...pun intended) but I hope we have more of this kind of exercise here because, to me, it really helped showcase what forum members could do with a variety of different libraries, all tackling a particular piece. Regardless of all the YouTube videos, I still look to the opinions from Vi-C members about many libraries. The Member Music section is another great place here to find more examples of libraries in use for particular (especially original) pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Community Brass Programming Exercise - Olympic Fanfare
> 
> 
> Now that our gluttonous Black Friday purchasing has come to a close, it is time to use what we've bought. I thought it might be interesting to try our hands at programming a short snippet of a piece, starting from the same point (same MIDI notes) - but then seeing where each of us takes it in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vi-control.net


I found that to be a great thread! You should organize another!


----------



## dcoscina

ALittleNightMusic said:


> By the way, I'm not saying YouTubers shouldn't be able to pursue it as a revenue stream. There's a number of them that I think are providing immense value to the musician community - without getting all clickbait-y. And they happen to have the talent and professional experience to back up what they're saying.
> 
> Go check out whittymusic or Nahre Sol or Ryan Leach for example.


Nahre Sol is amazing. I was lucky to meet up with her in Toronto a few years back and talk music, technology, etc. Super smart, and just plain nice.


----------



## StefanoM

Interesting question. I personally prefer 2 things. Both from the point of view of the developer and from the point of view of the user. I believe that as a developer I love making videos where I show the real potential of the library, in real-time. The how to use it, which often only those who know it very well are able to show. This is not because there are secrets, but simply because you know the product well, it shows how the developer thought the library should be used to make it better. Even without talking too much, but simply playing and using the library in a live demo in a context, or isolated. At the same time, however, I love to see how "'others"' I admire can use it, and many of these were nominated before.. In This way, I am able to see everything from a different perspective, and I can learn new things. In general, The thing that I find less useful, perhaps, is listening to DEMOs ready and closed, without being able to see a video of the making-off to understand what the library does and what it does not do.


----------



## vancomposer

Great conversation here!


Polkasound said:


> Yes, there are exceptions to my rule, but it's my personal belief in general that when someone spends the time to create the perfectly photoshopped thumbnail and clickbaity title, their _ultimate_ goal is popularity. In other words, they're not not just using YouTube as a personal vlogging platform... they're ultimately attempting to make YouTube a viable source of income. (...)


Opinion accepted of course.

But to me most of all of those YouTubers are SMART! Trying to make it a source of income with more or less "compromise" content is what most of us composers are doing with our music as well. Of course NOT all, some are lucky and can create the most deep honest content and some composers can write the most artistically pure music for their projects. Applause if you can.

At least I have to life with the reality that beside some highlights of course I have placements in a lot of TERRIBLE TV shows and movies that I wouldn't like to show to anyone. But I rather live with that compromise then doing anything else. Me personally I don't watch that many review channels anyways but I am often very IMPRESSED when I see the SOLO companies those guys build around them self with the content, merchandise, courses, patreon and so on. Yesterday I watched Christopher Siu interview with Anne-Kathrin Dern and how she explained how she found him online through his channel and his extensive content made her hire him for a writer job on a film. BRILLIANT! I heard stories like that from other YTubers as well. I also like thought out thumbnails even with funny faces.

So I salute ALL YouTubers and them having the courage to put themselves out there! Sometimes sure I get it, trying to be nice to the algorithm. Other then that all cool for me but I do enjoy reading this discussion and why others have their opinions, just my 2 cents.

🙋‍♂️


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

vancomposer said:


> Great conversation here!
> 
> Opinion accepted of course.
> 
> But to me most of all of those YouTubers are SMART! Trying to make it a source of income with more or less "compromise" content is what most of us composers are doing with our music as well. Of course NOT all, some are lucky and can create the most deep honest content and some composers can write the most artistically pure music for their projects. Applause if you can.
> 
> At least I have to life with the reality that beside some highlights of course I have placements in a lot of TERRIBLE TV shows and movies that I wouldn't like to show to anyone. But I rather live with that compromise then doing anything else. Me personally I don't watch that many review channels anyways but I am often very IMPRESSED when I see the SOLO companies those guys build around them self with the content, merchandise, courses, patreon and so on. Yesterday I watched Christopher Siu interview with Anne-Kathrin Dern and how she explained how she found him online through his channel and his extensive content made her hire him for a writer job on a film. I heard stories like that from other YTubers as well. I also like thought out thumbnails even with funny faces.
> 
> So I salute ALL YouTubers and them having the courage to put themselves out there! Sometimes sure I get it, trying to be nice to the algorithm. Other then that all cool for me but I do enjoy reading this discussion and why others have their opinions, just my 2 cents.
> 
> 🙋‍♂️


Appreciate you checking out that interview! She's always insightful


----------



## gyprock

What annoys me are the YouTubers that originally started with a quality post once per month, then bi-weekly, then weekly and now daily. With this frequency they are trying to find things to say that are not part of their core skill. Suddenly they are now business entrepreneurs, digital marketing experts, affiliate marketers and influencers but no longer composers because they are selling a dream to other composers that will eventually start a quality post one a month on YouTube … and so on.


----------



## toomanynotes

It's all so false, happy go lucky-drugged up faces who barely can contain their 'excitement'..most reviewers make me wanna throw up. Better than robbing a bank though..bless their souls.🤢
And those damn YouTube ads....drugged up kids with half closed eyes talking about making beats?? Where's my shotgun? Oh and that 'i got you' guy sitting at his bs piano selling his midi packs ....'do you need some sad chords cos ya wife phuked ur brother?' I got you!


----------



## aeliron

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> Same here  It indicates "unseriousness" to me. Wrongly, maybe, but nevertheless.


I find it annoying since it screams "fakeness", but I get why they do it - something about a human face that draws attention. And ... even some greats do it, like Rick Beato.

Unfortunately it's things like that that have been found to work, and even the "good guys" have to do it to compete and make a living. And, they actually provide so much knowledge and value.


----------



## Jackal_King

I kind of prefer playthroughs and livestream composing over the reviews the majority of the time. I believe a review should always point out not only the pros and strengths of the product but also the cons and what could make it better. Probably the ones YouTube that I like following the most is Christopher Siu, Daniel James, Alex Pfeffer and Nico Schuele. I've only watched maybe three videos that Anne-Kathrin Dern did, but I did like her review on Afflatus.


----------



## aeliron

Quasar said:


> Psychological observation that I found interesting:
> 
> This morning I was looking at YT reviews for mini 25 key controllers, and checking out the Novation Launchkey. I found one review entitled: _Launch Key 25 Honest Review_, and immediately clicked on it, because my initial, spontaneous reaction was "Yes, this is the kind of review I'm looking for, an _honest_ one, cool!"
> 
> It took a couple of milliseconds or so before the higher, critical faculties kicked-in. We may like to think we're immune to the impressions created by advertising claims, but this doesn't mean that we are.


I wish we would all boycott any YouTube titled "HONEST OPINION", "HONEST REVIEW" ...


----------



## ThomCSounds

zwhita said:


> I've enjoyed videos from Alex Heppelmann lately, although those are more often educational than reviews.


@A.Heppelmann 's videos are absolutely fantastic. His educational videos are gold and his channel deserves a lot more recognition. Keep up the great work Alex, I love your stuff!


----------



## chocobitz825

gyprock said:


> What annoys me are the YouTubers that originally started with a quality post once per month, then bi-weekly, then weekly and now daily. With this frequency they are trying to find things to say that are not part of their core skill. Suddenly they are now business entrepreneurs, digital marketing experts, affiliate marketers and influencers but no longer composers because they are selling a dream to other composers that will eventually start a quality post one a month on YouTube … and so on.


this is the exact problem with youtube. I think a lot of people joined initially thinking they were going to be the honest true voices outside of big time mass media....and instead the algorithms have turned most creators into a one-person version of network TV. ads, clickbaity hooks, oversaturation to secure viewers at the expense of quality, etc.

still, I will fall back on the old saying "don't hate the player, hate the game". People are out there doing some good work or trying to at least. It's not their fault that social media has turned us all into the marketing teams of an endless line of products.


----------



## Daniel James

Mike Greene said:


> At least half the Blue reviews make that mistake.


Did you take in that fact and make the feature more obvious, or did you just leave it that way?

-DJ


----------



## ThomCSounds

Daniel James said:


> Did you take in that fact and make the feature more obvious, or did you just leave it that way?
> 
> -DJ


Not every feature is meant to be obvious. That's what manuals were made for and why a modulation matrix can be a complex thing to comprehend in a synth.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

chocobitz825 said:


> I will fall back on the old saying "don't hate the player, hate the game". People are out there doing some good work or trying to at least. It's not their fault that social media has turned us all into the marketing teams of an endless line of products.


You can blame the game, sure. But nobody’s forcing a Youtuber to play along. If you want, you can keep uploading videos only when you have some important news, an important new product you want to share a review of etc.

Yet most Youtubers upload crap all the time.

Heaven forbid a week should pass where no videos were uploaded.


----------



## Daniel James

ThomCSounds said:


> Not every feature is meant to be obvious. That's what manuals were made for and why a modulation matrix can be a complex thing to comprehend in a synth.


Right but if multiple people were demonstratively making the same mistake, one could argue its down to the design. And if its important to your library sounding good or broken it might be in your interest to make its more obvious. The more users who miss it, means more people hear it sounding shit meaning less people want it, meaning less people buy, it meaning less money for you.

Or you can update to make it more obvious, then when people hear it it sounds good, more people want it, more people buy it, more money for you.

And sure not every feature needs to be obvious. But if its something that separates your library sounding good or bad it might be in your interest to make sure more people are thinking its good.

You are unfortunately naive if you think everyone reads the manual before making their opinion on something. We all know this. And because we do, you can plan for it. Like Mike ALREADY said, at least half of the people reviewing it didn't even spot it. I imagine that ratio translates to the real world too. And would you rather people spread word of mouth about your library being amazing or sounding broken (even if it is their fault). You can't be that flippant with product design. There are too many people doing it better to just resign yourself to people thinking your stuff is shit, just because you think its their problem that they don't know there is a button to make it sound better. Its still your product sounding shit. Why make your life harder for something you know to be true, regardless of how much you wish it was different.


----------



## A.Heppelmann

ThomCSounds said:


> @A.Heppelmann 's videos are absolutely fantastic. His educational videos are gold and his channel deserves a lot more recognition. Keep up the great work Alex, I love your stuff!


Thanks @ThomCSounds!


----------



## Mike Greene

Daniel James said:


> Did you take in that fact and make the feature more obvious, or did you just leave it that way?
> 
> -DJ


Seems pretty obvious to me:






I get your theory that I should act on reviewers' mistakes, and in many cases, that makes sense. But my theory is that reviewers don't use a library like Blue in the same way an actual customer would. (Or Hip Hop Creator, where for starters, a customer won't be at 120BPM.)

Customers spend the necessary time to actually _use_ a complex library and especially with Blue, feedback has been great, while the reviewers in question (not all reviewers, just the ones I'm referring to) simply loaded the library for the first time, hit record on their screen record app, and started poking around, seeing what words they could make. With mixed results, since Realivox Blue, like any complex library, is not a _"Get great results in your first 20 seconds!"_ library.

Ultimately, I don't think the reviewers in this case (not you, by the way) really care that much about how useful the "review" actually is. They wanted to make a review, and they did. In under a half hour, no editing, no muss, no fuss. Done. Another video for their page. Or in some cases, a justification for the ad dollars they're charging me.

To be clear, I'm not slamming reviewers in general. There are lots of good ones, including you and the many others people have listed here. But there are also a bunch who are in this game for their own benefit (YT revenue, fame, or whatever) and not really for the sincere benefit of their viewers. They're a totally different animal than my customers, so I don't spend that much time catering to them.


----------



## Daniel James

Mike Greene said:


> Seems pretty obvious to me:


Because you put it there. Its extremely obvious to me where my keys are right now but I bet you might struggle.

You can't assume people will know they need to do it. As you mention yourself half of the reviews didn't notice so perhaps it isn't as obvious as you think. And there in lies the problem. 

You know people are going to dive in without reading a manual, you have seen it in your own reviews, So how does it being obvious to _you_ help _them_? when its clearly demonstrated by your reviewers that is isn't.

And yeah man at the end of the day its your prerogative to ignore or take on board what you want. I guess we just see it differently.


----------



## CT

Mike Greene said:


> Seems pretty obvious to me:


Here's a rough draft of how you could do it if you _actually_ want it to be obvious.


----------



## chocobitz825

Mike Greene said:


> Seems pretty obvious to me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get your theory that I should act on reviewers' mistakes, and in many cases, that makes sense. But my theory is that reviewers don't use a library like Blue in the same way an actual customer would. (Or Hip Hop Creator, where for starters, a customer won't be at 120BPM.)
> 
> Customers spend the necessary time to actually _use_ a complex library and especially with Blue, feedback has been great, while the reviewers in question (not all reviewers, just the ones I'm referring to) simply loaded the library for the first time, hit record on their screen record app, and started poking around, seeing what words they could make. With mixed results, since Realivox Blue, like any complex library, is not a _"Get great results in your first 20 seconds!"_ library.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't think the reviewers in this case (not you, by the way) really care that much about how useful the "review" actually is. They wanted to make a review, and they did. In under a half hour, no editing, no muss, no fuss. Done. Another video for their page. Or in some cases, a justification for the ad dollars they're charging me.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not slamming reviewers in general. There are lots of good ones, including you and the many others people have listed here. But there are also a bunch who are in this game for their own benefit (YT revenue, fame, or whatever) and not really for the sincere benefit of their viewers. They're a totally different animal than my customers, so I don't spend that much time catering to them.


i never had a problem with this interface....though i should check out the manual soon...


----------



## Trash Panda

Mike Greene said:


> Seems pretty obvious to me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get your theory that I should act on reviewers' mistakes, and in many cases, that makes sense. But my theory is that reviewers don't use a library like Blue in the same way an actual customer would. (Or Hip Hop Creator, where for starters, a customer won't be at 120BPM.)
> 
> Customers spend the necessary time to actually _use_ a complex library and especially with Blue, feedback has been great, while the reviewers in question (not all reviewers, just the ones I'm referring to) simply loaded the library for the first time, hit record on their screen record app, and started poking around, seeing what words they could make. With mixed results, since Realivox Blue, like any complex library, is not a _"Get great results in your first 20 seconds!"_ library.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't think the reviewers in this case (not you, by the way) really care that much about how useful the "review" actually is. They wanted to make a review, and they did. In under a half hour, no editing, no muss, no fuss. Done. Another video for their page. Or in some cases, a justification for the ad dollars they're charging me.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not slamming reviewers in general. There are lots of good ones, including you and the many others people have listed here. But there are also a bunch who are in this game for their own benefit (YT revenue, fame, or whatever) and not really for the sincere benefit of their viewers. They're a totally different animal than my customers, so I don't spend that much time catering to them.


Sorry, Mike. It’s not very obvious. The buttons blend into the background and aren’t very legible until they’re activated.


----------



## Paj

Definitely enjoying the twists and turns in this thread. I personally find nothing more validating for a YT video than a unison MIDI-pack ad. I haven't decided whether or not I trust the ones that prevent the start of the review or the ones that interrupt the video, but the fact that I'm getting ads indicates that I'm not a paid YT subscriber and reminds me that I am probably getting more than I paid for.

Caveat Voyeur.

Paj
8^)

P.S.: What think you: YT Shorts reviews lack the utility of, and are about as consumable as, your own shorts?


----------



## jononotbono

doctoremmet said:


> There are reviews and there are what I call presentations that demo a library. There are also composers with a YT channel. Both have their uses. I do NOT typically regard any of the videos as completely objective reviews though, in my humble opinion none of them really are. I consider the videos to be mostly entertainment, like a presentation about a subject I’m interested in. Because of course the presenters put in a lot of time and effort and expect to get something ‘out of it’. That’s completely fine with me, and to be expected.
> 
> Some great people on Youtube are:
> 
> - Simeon. Lovely guy, fantastic musician. Does a million first looks each year, and I’ve learned a lot from him - just in terms of usually the second video that’s gonna be available other than the vendor’s. Gives an excellent overview of stuff, and mostly is just fun to watch. Bringer of positivity, and that’s how he approaches any new instrument.
> 
> - ThomC. That’s right! Composes beautiful folky indierock and has a voice like an angel. And also the best British sounding accent a Belgian bloke has ever developed (but I think he did live in the UK for a while). Unique approach to reviews. I like the fact that Thom is not afraid to occassionally have and express positive opinions on stuff most VI-C members wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Do even more singing Thom, I love it.
> 
> - Daniel James. Brilliant composer in my eyes. Knows what he’s talking about. Isn’t afraid to express opinions about stuff he dislikes, that most other presenters wouldn’t address or maybe (too) mildly. Maybe that’s what he’s now known for. And although I do get a laugh out of his rants every now and then, it is his music, his approach to composing and his way of rigorous testing that had me mesmerized. Put in some quick runs, see how agile a string library is. Copy and paste this MIDI and let’s compare to Areia or CSS shall we? And his absolute perfect and fast execution of quick tests like that have taught me a LOT. Plus, his noodling - take a pad sound, press down that sustain pedal, load in that native American flute or whatever, and play a bloody brilliant bunch of melodies for the next quarter of an hour. If that’s your thing, you’ll love James. I know I do.
> 
> - Dirk Ehlert. Another streamer with skills. Just the other day I was watching his Oceanea II stream (again), for obvious reasons. The man plays Beethoven’s 9th off the top of his head. Nails it. Chuckles and cracks a joke and then goes on to compose some brilliant sounding little cue in an hour, that sounds better than anything I have ever done and will ever do. While chatting and doing give-aways. And planning his next move (literally by the way, the stream gets interrupted when he learns some flight to Spain got canceled). Does he make reviews? Maybe not. Does one get to listen to the use of a new library in context of the very activity one is supposed to undertake with it (composing)? Absolutely. Invaluable. And fun.
> 
> And there are many others. Chris Siu. Of course Cory Pelizarri. Blakus.
> 
> For plugins: Michael White (mixing with Mike). For synths: Starsky Carr, Alex Ball.
> 
> And there are a lot of excellent videos done by fellow forum members. Geniuses like Luke @jononotbono - Nathan @Soundbed - Dave @dcoscina - Nico @Akarin and many others who put in a lot of work to share their experiences and opinions. Edit: not forgetting @Alex Niedt - maker of the best demo in ‘22 so far


Ah you're too kind man. I'm about to start making more videos. It all came to a standstill as I've been working on a Touch Screen Controller which has sucked away my life.

Also, I need to move all my studio gear forward by 9 inches to make room for some green screen action and I've been putting that off forever!


----------



## KEM

gsilbers said:


> These sort of thumbails are the reviews i just avoid



Let’s be honest though, a LOT of YouTubers have absolutely childish, cringey thumbnails/titles like this, reviewers, gamers, vloggers, etc. it was annoying from the beginning and it’s even more annoying now


----------



## Alex Niedt

Trash Panda said:


> Sorry, Mike. It’s not very obvious. The buttons blend into the background and aren’t very legible until they’re activated.


If someone doesn't look closely enough to see that, they have no business reviewing products like this. If 20 people miss that type of thing, it could mean the product design is flawed, *OR* it means a lot of people aren't qualified to be making these videos. That GUI is relatively simple. Everything is clearly labeled. It's not some Phobos type of design. 

As for comments about manuals, while it's true the general public doesn't default to them, reviewers should be more informed. How can you make a quality review of something if you don't know what half the features are because you couldn't be bothered to read a PDF? This thread is about trust, and people who can't put in bare minimum effort shouldn't be trusted as arbiters of quality music/audio products.


----------



## KEM

Mike Greene said:


> (Or Hip Hop Creator, where for starters, a customer won't be at 120BPM.)



Wait what’s wrong with 120bpm?!


----------



## Daniel James

Michaelt said:


> Here's a rough draft of how you could do it if you _actually_ want it to be obvious.


I appreciate the facetiousness of this but I wasn’t saying people couldn’t see the fucking buttons you plum, I am saying people didn’t seem to understand their significance. At least not enough to be immediately understood both in importance and in function. Perhaps an info tab that tells you what they do when hovering over, or when you try to play a phrase without phrase mode you get a message saying ‘this would be more fluid in x mode’ for example. I’m not saying it’s a poor layout, but mike observed multiple people not ‘get it’. He can choose to make it so that they understand it better or he can leave it and be ok with a section of his user base thinking the library is bad because it’s not immediately obvious why.

But again y’all do what you want. I’m just pointing out something you didn’t know, or did and don’t care about. It’s up to you if you care or not. I’m just basing this off of evidence and offering solutions that could help.


----------



## Jdiggity1

Daniel's got a valid point about if enough people are having trouble with usability, there's probably an alternative design that could make it easier for those people.

As Mike points out, it's specifically about *reviewers *who are using the product, and not the general customers. It's two different mindsets, and the usability of the instrument has been designed around one more than the other.
It's about whether you've loaded a library with a goal in mind - the intention to make a piece of music - or you just want to "review" it. The brain isn't saying "I wanna make a legato phrase", the brain is saying "ok i've loaded it up, now I'm gonna press some keys and see what happens".

To use the Hip Hop Creator example, if the reviewer was going to use the product *in a musical context*, the result would have been much more informative, and engaging. They'd switch up the tempo, realise that _this_ beat works much better at 90bpm, maybe try out some different sub-genres of hiphop, etc. Nope... I'ma just leave it as is and keep clicking the 'next' button.

There's obviously libraries that are _also_ designed for 'instant inspiration', which succeed at impressing the no-goals users. Load it up, sounds great, have some fun. But the tools that try to do more than just one trick are always going to benefit from taking a little bit of time to learn and understand how it works before diving in.

To that end, I suspect it's why channels like Daniel's and Cory's are so well-loved. They both produce some actual music with it and incorporate it into a workflow. One of the most valuable aspects of a library, and yet so often overlooked by those just aiming for "more content".


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

A while back I started putting (most) people who post Reviews here on the forum on Ignore.

Helps getting less spam here.

I wish there was a Review subforum which I could just put on Ignore.


----------



## StefanoM

If it is true that some things are more obvious to the developer, it is also true that those who have a review channel should study the product before reviewing it.

Because if a developer can do high-quality things in real-time, it's not like he's lying or he's a genius. He just knows the library and knows how to use it.

Too often I have seen reviews, not only of my libraries but of many others and in general on youtube, done superficially. Where great libraries become Shit, in that case where is the True?
The True is that then I buy the library and I say, How the heck did that guy sound so bad?

I have seen library review videos where a LEGATO patch was played without triggering the LEGATO. How to review an ice cream and eat only the cone. Absurd things.

If it is true that some features of a library or a product may not be immediately evident (after all it seems normal to me, otherwise we use plugins like: https://freevstplugins.net/delay-lama/ ), it is also true that it would be enough to interface with the developer first or simply watch the official videos to understand certain things.

There are libraries that are simple to understand, and others that have a "vision" - a concept of use that must be understood and explored before reviewing.

Because, '' the first impression '', I find it not interesting and it lakes of many aspects.

A product is not judged as having just been discarded, and just play with it for 2 minutes...and Ok...I know it now I record the Video...or I Go Online.

Otherwise, they are only reviewed for views, and it's not "'professional"' in my opinion.

For this reason, I've my preferred "' reviewers'', not because they are not Honest, but because they Study the product before. And they are able to show the strengths and weaknesses that each library or product has.


----------



## chocobitz825

Jdiggity1 said:


> Daniel's got a valid point about if enough people are having trouble with usability, there's probably an alternative design that could make it easier for those people.
> 
> As Mike points out, it's specifically about *reviewers *who are using the product, and not the general customers. It's two different mindsets, and the usability of the instrument has been designed around one more than the other.
> It's about whether you've loaded a library with a goal in mind - the intention to make a piece of music - or you just want to "review" it. The brain isn't saying "I wanna make a legato phrase", the brain is saying "ok i've loaded it up, now I'm gonna press some keys and see what happens".
> 
> To use the Hip Hop Creator example, if the reviewer was going to use the product *in a musical context*, the result would have been much more informative, and engaging. They'd switch up the tempo, realise that _this_ beat works much better at 90bpm, maybe try out some different sub-genres of hiphop, etc. Nope... I'ma just leave it as is and keep clicking the 'next' button.
> 
> There's obviously libraries that are _also_ designed for 'instant inspiration', which succeed at impressing the no-goals users. Load it up, sounds great, have some fun. But the tools that try to do more than just one trick are always going to benefit from taking a little bit of time to learn and understand how it works before diving in.
> 
> To that end, I suspect it's why channels like Daniel's and Cory's are so well-loved. They both produce some actual music with it and incorporate it into a workflow. One of the most valuable aspects of a library, and yet so often overlooked by those just aiming for "more content".


this is the problem with reviewers and the burden to critique. A sense of inconvenience or hope for better design is valid, but without knowledge of how something is designed or if those changes are practical, its poses ideas with no burden to consider the plausibility of them. It also tends to lead to reviewers posing their gripes as a universal fact instead of opinion.

I never found the design of Realivox Blue to be confusing, and anything I didn't understand was described in the manual, which I only read in part. It is imperative that if one wants to make an accurate review that is not biased toward clickbait and algorithm-fueled hot takes, they should read the manual and get to know the instrument before talking about what it does and does not do well. That hot-take is a far worse misrepresentation of the software than a user not immediately getting the full functionality without reading the manual. If there was an aspect of the software that isn't clear in initial use AND is also not documented well, that's a valid complaint.

I, personally, have never expected more from Realivox because it's not a proprietary engine plugin. It has to work within the design confines of Kontakt. I think given that consideration, a lot of really great features were put into a clean and easy-to-use package. The lack of many other Kontakt instruments that do the same only show how difficult it must be to do this as well in Kontakt. IMO critiquing kontakt libraries for poor design is pointless because the platform itself is a limitation. While we're all used to how it looks and operates, its a limited design structure trying to handle too many potential use cases.


----------



## EvilDragon

Trash Panda said:


> For audio plugins, Dan Worral, White Sea Studio (Snake Oil) and Paul Third are who I usually trust. They’re not afraid to tear into a plugin that’s shit when all the usual shills are singing its praises.


Yes!

For synths, I always turn to loopop's videos. Guy is awesome, does a great rundown, lists pros and cons in his own opinion, and often sprinkles very useful sound design tidbits along the way. Hard recommend!


----------



## CT

Daniel James said:


> I appreciate the facetiousness of this but I wasn’t saying people couldn’t see the fucking buttons you plum


Oh my god dude I don't give a shit wHaT yOu wErE sAyInG it's just a dumbass joke. Jesus H. Christ.


----------



## Evans

Should I comment on poor accessibility practices in product development? Nah...

Should I comment that some users are just making silly jokes that others think were directed at them because it's hard to not take things personally when you're already frequently attacked? Nah...

Should I comment that you shouldn't actually "trust" anyone and instead mindfully observe and judge? Nah...

Should I comment that _some _"reviewers" aren't actually trying to be reviewers and are doing first-look demonstrations and that's it's probably okay that they haven't RTFM? Nah...

Should I be annoying and create several, half-efforted responses in the form of questions? No way. Definitely not.


----------



## EvilDragon

vancomposer said:


> Yesterday I watched Christopher Siu interview with Anne-Kathrin Dern


Care to link to that vid please?


----------



## Evans

EvilDragon said:


> Care to link to that vid please?


----------



## BigMal

Audio Modeling instruments simply won't play unless you have a controller connected for CC11 - a popup informs you of that if you try - because it would sound shit if you did that, so they don't allow you to, because idiots would review them and say how crap Audio Modelling's instruments are.

Spitfire have those popup menus that are useful when you're first learning their software, and you can switch off when they get annoying. Seems like a good balance between obtrusive and informative.

These are good UI design principles, that are in the interest of the user AND the developer. 

What is it with the YT thumbnails by the way - cheesy perhaps, but they're giving some people a coronary!


----------



## Evans

BigMal said:


> What is it with the YT thumbnails by the way



There's a lot of "noise" out there, so an easy way to rise above it is to simply be visually "louder." 
Many people actually find it funny. Not me, but... people.


----------



## Mike Fox

I get the whole thumbnail thing. I mean, someone does it first, it catches on, and the next thing you know, everyone is doing it.

So really I think it’s about staying relevant by keeping up with current trends, which is actually what successful YouTubers recommend to other YouTubers trying to grow their channel. 

I personally think it’s kind of amusing, but I’m sure something else will eventually come along to replace it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

My five trusted fav's are...

@Simeon (simple playthrough's, very calming and relaxing)
@amadeus1 (no-bones walkthtrough's. Libraries are played raw, right out of the box, warts and all)
@donbodin (thorough walkthrough's, helpful tips and honest thoughts)
@Cory Pelizzari (well planned walkthrough's, pre-sequenced examples, honest thoughts)
@Akarin (detailed, honest reviews. Love the humour!)


----------



## ism

I think that some of the Strum and Drang and general angst around "trust" and "reviews" is that there's a sense of universal truth being placed on YouTube videos as reviews.

But trust comes from understanding the context. Over time, I've gained a sense of what Chris is about musically, and his videos reflect that, and similarly Daniel (to choose just two examples).

I completely trust Daniel's videos, for instance, because as Daniel himself has been *constantly* reminding everyone for years, they're not reviews, and were never meant to be reviews. Their over-the-shoulder coalface composition in action, they're " 'Having and Look" live streams, they're "Daniel meets Library X" and you can always trust them to exactly, authentically, to be just this.

Which is very helpful (his Vista video is probably what pushed me over the edge on that library, for instance). A composer at the coalface encountering a new library. It's a wonderful thing.

Similarly Chris' videos. I do think he attempts to keep his videos more "neutral", but still, his musical sensibilities still enter his videos, in the end probably as much as Daniels.

Neither are professional "sample library critics", and neither should be taken as an ultimate source of truth on sample libraries.

If someone like Chris, for instance, and someone like Geoff Manchester, were to review something like, say, LCO, I would trust Chris to make a video bringing his musical sensibilities to the library, and Geoff to bring his musical sensibilities to the library. My own tastes probably are probably more similar to Geoff's, so in terms of making purchasing decision, I'm going take that into account. But both perspectives ares still valuable - suitably contextualized.

Similarly, Daniel and Ben both made fascinating videos on Tallinn. Ben was being paid by OT to make the underlying demo of course, but this mean that he was looking to connect with the underlying Estonian Liturgical aesthetics of the library - so it's a kind of "musicality spleunking". Wheres Daniel made track that was beautiful, but not especially Estonian or Liturgical, and very much written from the perspective of a composer writing his own music (and not being paid by OT).

Both of these were fascinating videos, both of them gave me ideas for my own writing (and on very different planes of musical existence). And both of which I trusted to authentically do exactly what they were doing.

I didn't, of course, in these videos "trust" Daniel to provide a comprehensive treatises on Tallinn's potential for Estonian Liturgy, nor Ben to exhaustive interrogate every note of every patch to find every possible flaw or limitation no matter how inconsequential.

Where we run into trouble is when we demand these videos to speak an absolute and universal truth beyond the context in which they are created.

A proper "review" of Tallinn (should such a thing even exist) would absolutely require, I feel, a certain depth of engagement in the Estonian liturgical tradition upon with the library draws. And I'm deeply grateful for all of the official OT videos and demos that explore its grounding in Estonian Liturgical music, including Ben's expedition into this musicality in his demo. But of course the reason Daniel's Tallinn video adds value to the community is precisely because it speaks to the library's use beyond this space.

But if someone, for instance, maybe on vi-c (and I'm just idly speculating here), were to demand that Ben's video be taken as the gospel truth on OT QA, or that Daniel's video be taken as the last work on writing Estonian Liturgical music, well that would be stupid, wouldn't it. (Though it would probably wouldn't prevent such a thread from descending into a toxic death spiral.)

Another equally stupid and toxic variant of this death spiral would be to mistake these videos for "reviews" and to then attack Daniel for failing to talk enough about the Estonian Liturgical tradition, or Ben as a shill for failing to adequate savage OT for a tiny glitch subsequently discovering in the 7th RR of the 2nd viola A7 spic, as if this was somehow a betrayal to trust.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

ism said:


> I think that some of the Strum and Drang and general angst around "trust" and "reviews" is that there's a sense of universal truth being placed on YouTube videos as reviews.


The reason I've come to trust the reviewers I mentioned, is because I find their videos to be pretty much identical to what I would experience from a first playthrough. I've watched a ton, and these are the reviewers that resonate with me. No smoke and mirrors, just pre, naked walk throughs. I also like Daniel James' videos, but I can't sit through them Lol. But again, he shows real-world scenarios and don't hold back from his thoughts. So yes, it's all subjective.


----------



## ism

Jeremy Spencer said:


> No smoke and mirrors, just pre, naked walk throughs.



I guess I'm trying to say that I don't really believe there's any purely neutral, objective form to be found here. Every video is going to bring a certain musical sensibility to it. 

You can sometimes see then, for instance, when piano players review string libraries. 

Our Chris' review of Berlin Strings, in retrospect, he's trying to make it sound like CSS. In fairness, hindsight has 20/20 vision, and there's certainly an element of BS that is, in retrospect, trying to go to where CSS (later) goes to much more effectively. 

So it's no surprise that in a later video Chris says he's largely shifted to CSS - which makes perfect sense for the kind of music he writes. But the depths of musicality that I love about BS is very, very different from it's CSS-wannabe capabilities. 

Again, this is all in retrospect, and this isn't a critique of Chris (or BS) at all, just that all approaches to playing a sample library involve some kind of musical sensibility. 

Cory's videos are perhaps an extreme. He works very hard to be neutral and objective, to give patch by patch demos. And there's lots and lots of value to his (I've written elsewhere about just how much I appreciate his contribution to the genre). 

But ultimately, I think still, inevitably, always already brings his own musical sensibilities to his videos. And I think that a danger to be guarded against is getting a false sense of objectivity and transparency, even in videos so meticulous as Corey's. 

Even the most neutral playthough requires some form of musical sensibility, the minute you touch the keys. The way I like to craft string arcs, for instance, is just very different form what a lot of reviews do with demoing patches - even in their most neutral walkthrough videos. (Especially piano players, it sometimes seems). 

So I think learning to trust YT videos is not about finding someone who's "trustworthy" in the sense of being transparent and naked and objective in their speaking of universals and absolute truths of a library, but more about learning to discern who's self aware about the musicalities they're bringing to their demos.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

ism said:


> So I think learning to trust YT videos is not about finding someone who's "trustworthy" in the sense of being transparent and naked and objective in their speaking of universals and absolute truths of a library, but more about learning to discern who's self aware about the musicalities they're bringing to their demos.


For me, it's about knowing what to expect. I find those certain reviewers consistent in their approach, and I know what I'm getting for the most part (again, my personal taste). However, there's the odd time I go against my better judgment and fall for a "fantasy". A perfect example is my recent purchase of Spitfire Symphonic Strings. Despite all of the videos I watched, and all of the technical flaws, I bought it anyways. 50%, why not? t can't be _that_ bad. Well, I was only kidding myself. Please take a moment of silence to pay our respects to SSS, which will forever Rest In Peace on my backup drive. Amen.


----------



## vancomposer

BigMal said:


> (...)
> What is it with the YT thumbnails by the way - cheesy perhaps, but they're giving some people a coronary!


Right!! STOP looking funny, be more like rock & metal dudes!! 











I love self-deprecating humor! 😁🙋‍♂️


----------



## ism

Jeremy Spencer said:


> For me, it's about knowing what to expect. I find those certain reviewers consistent in their approach, and I know what I'm getting for the most part (again, my personal taste). However, there's the odd time I go against my better judgment and fall for a "fantasy". A perfect example is my recent purchase of Spitfire Symphonic Strings. Despite all of the videos I watched, and all of the technical flaws, I bought it anyways. 50%, why not? t can't be _that_ bad. Well, I was only kidding myself. Please take a moment of silence to pay our respects to SSS, which will forever Rest In Peace on my backup drive. Amen.



Yes, so I’d phrase that it’s about know how to translate from the musical sensibilities of the reviewer to your own. And there’s a certain art to making a library appear as is it can do anything, when of course, it simply can’t.

So there’s an element of trust and contextualization involved in working out how to make that translation. And in the end, there’s always at least a bit of a leap of faith, and therefore risk.


----------



## BigMal

Although, it can't be considered an unbiased review, because it comes from the developer, the series by Ryan Thomas, 'Scoring with Opus' is really excellent: different genres, with a short piece that he goes through meticulously, and it really shows off the value of the whole EastWest catalogue. This is what convinced me to get the subscription. Here's a link to the playlist:

This one, on emotional drama, was my favourite:



Another one that I think is worthy of mention, for 2 reasons, is SecondTierSound: he does some really in depth reviews (his one on Opus is excellent), and I highly recommend. However, he also deserves a mention for cheesy thumbnails, if we're on that subject!!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

BigMal said:


> Although, it can't be considered an unbiased review, because it comes from the developer, the series by Ryan Thomas, 'Scoring with Opus' is really excellent: different genres, with a short piece that he goes through meticulously, and it really shows off the value of the whole EastWest catalogue. This is what convinced me to get the subscription. Here's a link to the playlist:
> 
> This one, on emotional drama, was my favourite:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one that I think is worthy of mention, for 2 reasons, is SecondTierSound: he does some really in depth reviews (his one on Opus is excellent), and I highly recommend. However, he also deserves a mention for cheesy thumbnails, if we're on that subject!!



I always take those with a grain of salt. Since it's from he developer, they don't reveal all of the things that are wrong with OPUS and Orchestrator. Edited to death.


----------



## Mike Fox

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I always take those with a grain of salt. Since it's from he developer, they don't reveal all of the things that are wrong with OPUS and Orchestrator. Edited to death.


This is EXACTLY why i don’t just stick to developer videos. They have a product to sell, and very rarely (if ever) do they point out the faults of their own library. 

This is what gives honest and legit reviewers their value.


----------



## Mike Fox

ism said:


> I think that some of the Strum and Drang and general angst around "trust" and "reviews" is that there's a sense of universal truth being placed on YouTube videos as reviews.
> 
> But trust comes from understanding the context. Over time, I've gained a sense of what Chris is about musically, and his videos reflect that, and similarly Daniel (to choose just two examples).
> 
> I completely trust Daniel's videos, for instance, because as Daniel himself has been *constantly* reminding everyone for years, they're not reviews, and were never meant to be reviews. Their over-the-shoulder coalface composition in action, they're " 'Having and Look" live streams, they're "Daniel meets Library X" and you can always trust them to exactly, authentically, to be just this.
> 
> Which is very helpful (his Vista video is probably what pushed me over the edge on that library, for instance). A composer at the coalface encountering a new library. It's a wonderful thing.
> 
> Similarly Chris' videos. I do think he attempts to keep his videos more "neutral", but still, his musical sensibilities still enter his videos, in the end probably as much as Daniels.
> 
> Neither are professional "sample library critics", and neither should be taken as an ultimate source of truth on sample libraries.
> 
> If someone like Chris, for instance, and someone like Geoff Manchester, were to review something like, say, LCO, I would trust Chris to make a video bringing his musical sensibilities to the library, and Geoff to bring his musical sensibilities to the library. My own tastes probably are probably more similar to Geoff's, so in terms of making purchasing decision, I'm going take that into account. But both perspectives ares still valuable - suitably contextualized.
> 
> Similarly, Daniel and Ben both made fascinating videos on Tallinn. Ben was being paid by OT to make the underlying demo of course, but this mean that he was looking to connect with the underlying Estonian Liturgical aesthetics of the library - so it's a kind of "musicality spleunking". Wheres Daniel made track that was beautiful, but not especially Estonian or Liturgical, and very much written from the perspective of a composer writing his own music (and not being paid by OT).
> 
> Both of these were fascinating videos, both of them gave me ideas for my own writing (and on very different planes of musical existence). And both of which I trusted to authentically do exactly what they were doing.
> 
> I didn't, of course, in these videos "trust" Daniel to provide a comprehensive treatises on Tallinn's potential for Estonian Liturgy, nor Ben to exhaustive interrogate every note of every patch to find every possible flaw or limitation no matter how inconsequential.
> 
> Where we run into trouble is when we demand these videos to speak an absolute and universal truth beyond the context in which they are created.
> 
> A proper "review" of Tallinn (should such a thing even exist) would absolutely require, I feel, a certain depth of engagement in the Estonian liturgical tradition upon with the library draws. And I'm deeply grateful for all of the official OT videos and demos that explore its grounding in Estonian Liturgical music, including Ben's expedition into this musicality in his demo. But of course the reason Daniel's Tallinn video adds value to the community is precisely because it speaks to the library's use beyond this space.
> 
> But if someone, for instance, maybe on vi-c (and I'm just idly speculating here), were to demand that Ben's video be taken as the gospel truth on OT QA, or that Daniel's video be taken as the last work on writing Estonian Liturgical music, well that would be stupid, wouldn't it. (Though it would probably wouldn't prevent such a thread from descending into a toxic death spiral.)
> 
> Another equally stupid and toxic variant of this death spiral would be to mistake these videos for "reviews" and to then attack Daniel for failing to talk enough about the Estonian Liturgical tradition, or Ben as a shill for failing to adequate savage OT for a tiny glitch subsequently discovering in the 7th RR of the 2nd viola A7 spic, as if this was somehow a betrayal to trust.


Some excellent points here.


----------



## ThomCSounds

BigMal said:


> Although, it can't be considered an unbiased review, because it comes from the developer, the series by Ryan Thomas, 'Scoring with Opus' is really excellent


Love what Ryan Thomas does, his chilled-out way of going through the tracks and detailed explanations make his walkthroughs great to watch!


----------



## Evans

BigMal said:


> Another one that I think is worthy of mention, for 2 reasons, is SecondTierSound: he does some really in depth reviews (his one on Opus is excellent), and I highly recommend. However, he also deserves a mention for cheesy thumbnails, if we're on that subject!!


Funny enough, his video on EastWest's Ra is making me consider... well... EastWest's Silk. Something I tinkered with in an old CC sub (back when CC first came out) but I never properly acquired.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Agree - I think Ryan's videos are great! And I don't think they hide anything re. OPUS - everything he does you can do in OPUS (and I have). SecondTierSound is good too - has some nice walkthroughs of OPUS content, but I still find Ryan's videos more inspiring - showcases what you can DO with the library (not just playing all of the patches).


----------



## BigMal

Mike Fox said:


> This is EXACTLY why i don’t just stick to developer videos. They have a product to sell, and very rarely (if ever) do they point out the faults of their own library.
> 
> This is what gives honest and legit reviewers their value.


Yeah, sure, if that's the ONLY thing you rely on, then you'll get stung, but I'm assuming no one is dumb enough for that. I was just pointing out that his in depth reviews are informative and enjoyable. 

For what it's worth, I was able to recreate some of his mockups, and they were not only a great insight into his process, and very educational, but a good insight into the strengths of the libraries, so in retrospect, yes, reliable. But if you're expecting the developer to highlight the flaws, yup, you may be disappointed, and will need to look elsewhere! But it's a big internet, and there's some other options!


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

BigMal said:


> But if you're expecting the developer to highlight the flaws, yup, you may be disappointed, and will need to look elsewhere! But it's a big internet, and there's some other options!


I rely on the forums for that - I don't think most reviewers are going to be that good at revealing all the true shortcomings - at least while also evaluating the library fairly. Lot of talk in this thread about UI (not sure if we have a lot of design professionals here or what) but much of that is subjective (what's unintuitive to one may be perfectly intuitive to another) and isn't a real flaw unless it is blocking functionality for 100% of users. Trying to use Damage to do percussion for a nursery rhyme is about as useful in highlighting the shortcomings of the library as using Tundra to do epic action music.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

BigMal said:


> Yeah, sure, if that's the ONLY thing you rely on, then you'll get stung, but I'm assuming no one is dumb enough for that. I was just pointing out that his in depth reviews are informative and enjoyable.
> 
> For what it's worth, I was able to recreate some of his mockups, and they were not only a great insight into his process, and very educational, but a good insight into the strengths of the libraries, so in retrospect, yes, reliable. But if you're expecting the developer to highlight the flaws, yup, you may be disappointed, and will need to look elsewhere! But it's a big internet, and there's some other options!


Are you getting any of the known release sample spikes when using any of those same string patches at lower CC values?


----------



## BigMal

Not that I’ve noticed, but don’t rely on my ears!

Hey, maybe I’ve got a career in honest YouTube reviews! Just need to go craft me some thumbnails! 🤘


----------



## CT

I dunno, maybe I'm looking for other "flaws" than like outright broken patches or whatever but even a developer walkthrough tends to show me everything I need. How many of them do I switch off after hearing a second of the first note played... well, it happens! You can hear the recording and performance, the programming, you can look at voice counts to determine sampling depth of long articulations etc. They can't really hide this stuff. 

Anyway people have asked me about doing videos here and there. I don't think I have the right pedagogical nature to do that justice, plus my cynicism about it all sure would make me a hypocrite, so I guess I am fated to be a second class citizen with no YouTube presence.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Michaelt said:


> I guess I am fated to be a second class citizen with no YouTube presence.


Welcome to the club, you pineapple.


----------



## LudovicVDP

I get your points. And indeed, some videos/reviews are just awful.
But I think there are enough videos of every products out there to be able to have an idea of what a product is about. And in the end, you should should always link them to what you need.

I personally love DJ's videos. But I know that's how HE uses the libraries. He says it a lot btw. If you're not composing like he does, you have to know it. If you don't acknolwledge that, it's on you. (btw: "you" doesn't mean "you the OP". It's a general "you". Gotta be careful with what you write on a forum, right?  ) 

I also love Chris Siu's video. But his musical tastes are so obvious (that's meant with no negative intend at all. Au contraire.) that again, you have to acknowledge that his demos are to be understood in HIS context.

I also follow Alex Pfeiffer. But again again, I KNOW he writes trailer music.

I also know some clickbaity thumbnails are just nothing more than clickbaits.

And so on.

It's on you to know that. To sort it out based on what you like, what you will use it for, which composer/style you feel closer to. 
I watch some videos. I skip the ones I don't like. I don't blame them for existing.
I make my own opinion from all this. I check what I need (want  ).


And in the end, I don't buy the library anyway since I'm broke... (at least, that's what I tell my wife...)


----------



## b_elliott

tl;dr This thread started on about Youtubers and trust. Somehow trusting oneself to just read the user manual has been lost along the way. 

=======

One takeaway from this thread which came early on was "reading the manual". 

My process: 1, Download new vst and its pdf manual. 2. File then ignore the pdf; instead, rely on presets or for the real daring times-- watch an online tutorial.

I am literate, so I am not sure why I simply do not chose to open a pdf and learn that way. 
I have personally watched a senior engineer sit in a studio with a thick manual for a Lexicon reverb, read it, then go through its features in front of the hardware unit = a sign of a pro. Nowhere was YouTube to be found. 

Fast Fwd to now-->I am cramming in a crazy amount of Groove3 tuts in order to have max gain from my 4-week free trial courtesy of Eventide. Result == No composing getting done.

More and more I am thinking, wouldn't it be simpler to read the damn manuals, get on with composing, and relegate Y-tube to an afterthought vs my go-to?

Interesting thread. The bigger issue is how come me no trust myself? 

Best, Bill


----------



## Evans

b_elliott said:


> I am literate, so I am not sure why I simply do not chose to open a pdf and learn that way.


For me, I think it's sometimes casual hubris mixed with enthusiasm. "I can figure this out, let's gooooo!" 

That said, in some cases manuals are nonexistent or at least poorly conceptualized or lacking in detail.


----------



## reutunes

Clickbait thumbnails?

I dunno what you're talking about...


----------



## Saxer

reutunes said:


>


Not clickable


----------



## b_elliott

Evans said:


> For me, I think it's sometimes casual hubris mixed with enthusiasm. "I can figure this out, let's gooooo!"
> 
> That said, in some cases manuals are nonexistent or at least poorly conceptualized or lacking in detail.


FWIW I just cracked open two NI user manuals (_Reaktor Blocks + Reaktor 6: Getting Started_) no evidence of back translation from Japanese (no offense intended). NI's stuff seems explicitly clear. 
Two out of 120 pdfs stored in my Tutes_pdf folder.


----------



## chocobitz825

b_elliott said:


> Interesting thread. The bigger issue is how come me no trust myself?


THIS is really the problem with YT reviewers and the culture of reviews. It really doesn't matter how good the walkthroughs and reviews are. It doesn't matter if they're clickbait, or just slow grinds through the patches...Nothing they do will matter unless we trust our own ability to decide what we want regardless of outside opinions. 

Like the constant trends here with new releases, pre-orders, and demanding walkthroughs, and then post-release holding out for a trusted review from a YouTuber. If we can't trust ourselves to look at the information provided and know "I can use this", or buy the library, read the manual and figure out "how does this work, and where does it fit in my toolbox?" then really YT reviews are nothing more than GAS validation. 

I will say that Groove3 is the manual alternative for me. I learned A LOT about some soft synths and my DAW that just changed how I engaged with them. Time well spent. Kontakt library manuals are a gold mine of info that helped me understand the positives and clearly stated shortcomings so that I could organize and adjust. Now I have an organizational structure based on the knowledge from those manuals. It's not even that time-consuming. Highly recommend manuals over YT reviews.


----------



## dcoscina

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> A while back I started putting (most) people who post Reviews here on the forum on Ignore.
> 
> Helps getting less spam here.
> 
> I wish there was a Review subforum which I could just put on Ignore.


you know, as someone who occasionally does play throughs (no talking, just playing, under 15 minutes normally) I think you have given me the idea to have a single thread that I will update if or when I add a video.. that way it's not contributing to the congestion on the site. Thanks!


----------



## creativeforge

Not a professional musician, but listening to many reviews before buying (usually). 

Some of those I go back to:

- SoundsAndGear (Saint Joe?)
- Robin Vincent (Molten Music Technology )(also writes for _Sound On Sound_ magazine)
- Venus Theory
- White Sea
- Akarin
- Don Bodin


----------



## gyprock

Here are some annoying things that I've come across in reviewers (and educators) videos. Next time you watch any YouTube video, see how many you can spot - a bit like playing "spot the yellow VW Beetle" when on the freeway. (Note: If I created a review or educational video, I'd probably be guilty of many of them).

Choppy edits - cutting out phrases or words that were wrong and re-inserting without any transitions.

Reminding us to subscribe and hit that bell - as if we didn't know how YouTube works

Greeting viewers in a Livestream - Hi Sally, Hi Fred, Glad to see you Joe, Nice One Harry.

Videos spliced together from segments recorded in the car, on the train, on the toilet, walking the dog, opening the back gate etc.

Background music while reviewing a sample library and have it still going while demoing the library.

Lengthy doodling when demoing a patch. Ok, we already know you're a composer.

Leaving an introductory splash screen for minutes rather than cutting it out after a livestream is uploaded.

Sitting through recordings where the host has not tested the audio - Can everyone hear me? Can everyone see me? Why isn't my keyboard working?

Watching the entire software install or DAW render progress bar rather doing a fast forward edit.

Poorly balanced audio. Usually voice is too loud and you can't hear the music (or vice versa).

A self deprecating host or one that gaslights the audience (Maybe this one is ok!)

Slipping in some sponsorship at the wrong places - leave it to the end.

Creating videos on banal topics - 10 things you can do with middle C.

Having to sit through a first look, a preview, a review and a "one year after" postview. If any blame is cast on the review, its status is suddenly changed to "first look".

Sitting through piano roll play-throughs (a bunch of horizontal lines travelling in time) rather than a score.

Unboxing videos - here is the warranty card, here is a bumper sticker, here is my credit card statement (Did I really spend that much?).

Reviewers/developers telling you how great their new library sounds but if you close your eyes it just sounds like a barrel organ with a bit of reverb and delay.

The presenters face too close to the camera. Even worse if they are wearing beer bottle strength glasses.

Spending more time and effort on the clickbait thumbnail than the video itself.

Any others?


----------



## b_elliott

chocobitz825 said:


> ...
> 
> I will say that Groove3 is the manual alternative for me. ...


So cool. I may have just done the proverbial sea change today on my study approach as a result of you all. 

On Groove3's +30 Kontakt vids now underway, instead of stressing out on "Will I remember the steps to handle the sample editor functions within the wave editor?" -- I now have the relevant user manual open and simply jot down "see Ch 19.8" . Next.

I forsee rapidly completing tuts on Reaktor, Blocks, Kontakt, Ozone and some others in short order, unstressed, oriented and settled on locating shit in a jiffy. Nice,
Bill


----------



## Trash Panda

I find it humorous that the very things that drive conversion and engagement on YouTube are so highly despised. 

They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.


----------



## creativeforge

gyprock said:


> Choppy edits - cutting out phrases or words that were wrong and re-inserting without any transitions.


+1! Listening to someone speak for 10 minutes who never breathes... NOPE! It is a ridiculous trend and why do it? It makes no sense. Only machines could do this. I leave on purpose when I see that happening on purpose.

Also - turning a sponsorship spot into a 3 minutes review of the sponsor... Just... don't. Big turn-off for me.


----------



## Zanshin

Trash Panda said:


> I find it humorous that the very things that drive conversion and engagement on YouTube are so highly despised.
> 
> They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.


Justin Bieber has a lot fans too. That don't make it right


----------



## Mike Fox

creativeforge said:


> Not a professional musician, but listening to many reviews before buying (usually).
> 
> Some of those I go back to:
> 
> - SoundsAndGear (Saint Joe?)
> - Robin Vincent (Molten Music Technology )(also writes for _Sound On Sound_ magazine)
> - Venus Theory
> - White Sea
> - Akarin
> - Don Bodin


Saint Joe! Been watching him for years.


----------



## creativeforge

Mike Fox said:


> Saint Joe! Been watching him for years.


I like him.  

Also, for EVERYTHING MODULAR (and also Surface Pro), Molten Music Technology is a deep and rich channel. Has reviews about a lot of things too.


----------



## Trash Panda

Zanshin said:


> Justin Bieber has a lot fans too. That don't make it right


Has nothing to do with right and wrong. If you’re trying to grow a channel, especially if you’re monetizing, you do what generates views and engagement.


----------



## Mike Fox

Another youtuber i used to watch all the time was Torley. He was one of the OG reviewers.


----------



## Zanshin

Trash Panda said:


> Has nothing to do with right and wrong. If you’re trying to grow a channel, especially if you’re monetizing, you do what generates views and engagement.


The thread is about youtubers and trust. Youtubers that are focused on generating views and engagement rather than the content itself - that doesn't build trust with me.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen

dcoscina said:


> you know, as someone who occasionally does play throughs (no talking, just playing, under 15 minutes normally) I think you have given me the idea to have a single thread that I will update if or when I add a video.. that way it's not contributing to the congestion on the site. Thanks!


That’s a good idea. But I’m just fed up with people trying to “grow their channel” by posting their “reviews” here on the forum. It seems that everyone and their dog are starting a Youtube channel these days.

Edit: I’m talking generally, not specifically about you and your channel.


----------



## vancomposer

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> That’s a good idea. But I’m just fed up with people trying to “grow their channel” by posting their “reviews” here on the forum. It seems that everyone and their dog are starting a Youtube channel these days.
> 
> Edit: I’m talking generally, not specifically about you and your channel.


I am not using this forum long enough yet to be able to judge how congested it can get here by the amount of posts, so I will note your observation and might eventually agree it would be nice to have some sort of organization. Other then that more POWER to anyone who wishes to start a channel. As frustrating it can get at some point trying to browse through all this noise to find the ones that you like I do believe that there will be more good talent to rise out of it. And also they will keep pushing the bar and not just necessarily for review channels but for anything that people can come up with creatively.


----------



## Trash Panda

Zanshin said:


> The thread is about youtubers and trust. Youtubers that are focused on generating views and engagement rather than the content itself - that doesn't build trust with me.


They’re not mutually exclusive though. You can focus on creating quality content AND maximizing your reach. 🙂


----------



## chocobitz825

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> That’s a good idea. But I’m just fed up with people trying to “grow their channel” by posting their “reviews” here on the forum. It seems that everyone and their dog are starting a Youtube channel these days.
> 
> Edit: I’m talking generally, not specifically about you and your channel.


*quickly deletes my sample library review channel featuring my dog as a co-writer* 😱


----------



## Zanshin

Trash Panda said:


> They’re not mutually exclusive though. You can focus on creating quality content AND maximizing your reach. 🙂


I get it. I agree even. But I'm expressing my personal content consumer perspective, not how to hustle big on youtube, I have no expertise in that!  The stupid thumbnails look vulgar and tasteless to me, I personally have a hard time looking past them. I'm probably an outlier though.


----------



## Trash Panda

Zanshin said:


> The stupid thumbnails look vulgar and tasteless to me, I personally have a hard time looking past them. I'm probably an outlier though.


Never underestimate how low the lowest common denominator can be! 😂


----------



## Zanshin

Trash Panda said:


> Never underestimate how low the lowest common denominator can be! 😂


I just had flashbacks from Idiocracy!


----------



## Nico5

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> It seems that everyone and their dog are starting a Youtube channel these days.


it seems that everyone and their dog is starting to a YouTube channel striving to be a film composer these days

fixed that for you


----------



## chocobitz825

Nico5 said:


> it seems that everyone and their dog is starting to a YouTube channel striving to be a film composer these days
> 
> fixed that for you


I can’t help it if my dog has dreams…Just trying to be a supportive pet parent for little “Woof Zimmer”


----------



## Nico5

chocobitz825 said:


> trying to be a supportive pet parent for little “Woof Zimmer”


you may wish to consider introducing him to the work of Erich "Woofgang" Korngold


----------



## MaxOctane

ism said:


> A proper "review" of Tallinn (should such a thing even exist) would absolutely require, I feel, a certain depth of engagement in the Estonian liturgical tradition upon with the library draws.


Sorry, ism, but which aspect of Tallinn possibly retains the Estonian liturgical tradition in its collection of samples? The choirs have soft "oohs" and other lovely sounds. The strings have a nice collection of soft articulations -- but there is no regionality present in the individually-sampled notes. The organ patch are the most distinct, but they capture the pipes of one specific church -- I have to imagine that if you went to any other church in Estonia that housed an organ, you'd find very different sonorities.


----------



## MaxOctane

This whole thread actually has me confused. To me it's simple:

I "trust" all YouTube reviewers.
I don't trust any written reviews (MusicTech, etc)
Isn't as simple as that? I don't care if a YT reviewer was given a copy for free or if they were paid to review it or even paid to say good things. I don't really pay all that much attention to what the reviewer is saying... because I can hear it myself and I'll form my own opinion. I can see from the keyboard overlay what keys are being pressed. I can't tell how hard they're being pressed, or the CC's, but that's usually fine. If the reviewer didn't read the manual, well, I usually don't read it either. Maybe the reviewer is paying more attention to their CCs than me, or maybe less, but in the end it's usually a wash.

On the other hand, written online-magazine reviews are absolutely pointless.


----------



## chocobitz825

MaxOctane said:


> On the other hand, written online-magazine reviews are absolutely pointless.


I find this to be the opposite for hardware like preamps, mics, compressors, etc. almost every shootout and comparison video is pretty much worthless when I’m looking for information on hardware gear. The sound quality of YouTube doesn’t adequately convey the differences and quality. The methods of comparison are often not too scientific or accurate. In those cases, where I’m looking at gear that can’t easily be sampled in a store, written reviews tend to be more in-depth and touch on positives and negatives that can help me decide if it fits my criteria.

I would agree that written reviews of libraries don’t tend to do well at conveying what’s important.


----------



## MaxOctane

chocobitz825 said:


> I find this to be the opposite for hardware like preamps, mics, compressors, etc. almost every shootout and comparison video is pretty much worthless when I’m looking for information on hardware gear. The sound quality of YouTube doesn’t adequately convey the differences and quality. The methods of comparison are often not too scientific or accurate. In those cases, where I’m looking at gear that can’t easily be sampled in a store, written reviews tend to be more in-depth and touch on positives and negatives that can help me decide if it fits my criteria.
> 
> I would agree that written reviews of libraries don’t tend to do well at conveying what’s important.


Agree on this. Also, for guitars and such, YT reviews are fun but not very useful, at least until you really learn how to decipher. A "comfortable" neck can mean opposite things to people, in terms in thickness. And the guitar's sound is completely determined by the amp and pedal selection. On the other hand, when you see that there's 25 YouTubers all happy with a guitar, there's a good chance it's not a dog -- but you still need to try it out in person yourself to know if you connect.


----------



## wahey73

That's an interesting thread for someone like me who is on both sides 
Wrote the music for some short movies and commercials back in the 90's had a major break then and came back to music during Covid. The first lockdown in 2020 gave me enough time to learn about actual gear and i started to document that journey on Youtube. Whenever a library surprised or inspired me I made a short video about it (calling it review). Of course these videos have been positive as I made them out of my free will about products I bought and I really liked. Funny enough some companies spotted those videos and I received the first requests of reviewing some of their libraries in exchange of NFR copies. Of course I saw no reason to change my style, I continued that positive vibe. And things get complicated: do viewers find positive what I like or not? If I spot negative facts, would those facts bother other people too? My machine handles that library easily, so is it heavy on CPU on someone elses machine maybe? ... you get the point. So I changed the concept a little bit from review to "First impression" just writing some short cues to hear how that library can sound out of the box in a musical context. That's it. For all the tech specs there are manuals and descriptions on the product websites. 
Can you tell from my videos which libraries I received NFR's for and which ones I bought? I don't think so as the approach is always the same. If someone doesn't like it or has questions or wants to see different sides, there are the comments which rarely are used.

A good way to showcase a library are live streams noodling around with them and doing some live composing as people in the chat will tell you what they would like to know or to hear.

I do watch a lot of reviews from others too, to see the way they do it and to learn about new products. Thumbnails are a funny topic, some make the most stupid faces (guilty myself, but it helps), personally I hate those clickbait titles (THE BEST...., THE LAST ONE YOU'LL EVER NEED, IS THIS FOR REAL....) BUT comparing videos done at the same time, same number of subs, same length of the video....those videos with clickbait thumbs perform a lot better, so you can't blame Youtubers making those thumbs as it works for them. I made one clickbait thumb myself recently, the first one ever, and what to say, it really works 

One thing to keep in mind are affilate links. As soon as there is an affilate link the video has one purpose: to sell the product through the affilate link (nothing bad here, we all need to make money, I do have affilate links myself). So personally i listen to those reviews very carefully.

Reviewers I like:
Daniel James
Guy Michelmore
Cory Pelizzari
Mike Fox (has some really cool videos)
ThomC (for his voice and the alternative products)


----------



## wahey73

gyprock said:


> Any others?


Pratically every video about music gear on Youtube annoys you


----------



## gyprock

wahey73 said:


> Pratically every video about music gear on Youtube annoys you


This is one of my favourites...


----------



## chocobitz825

number 1 turn-off youtube title/hotword...

"Is X the Y killer!?"

just saw a video that tried to compare a windows pc to a MacBook pro, and asked a very stupid question for the easily influenced. "Is this windows PC the Macbook killer!?" 

I've seen the same with "Is Vital the Omnisphere killer!?" or "Is Slate Infinity EQ the FabFilter killer!?!?!?!?!?" 

if the release of something new kills one's perspective of an otherwise still functional and satisfactory product, the GAS is too far gone in you to be cured. 

as for that macbook v. pc video..I immediately closed my browser once he said it, so I'll never find out if that PC murdered that poor innocent macbook...


----------



## doctoremmet

chocobitz825 said:


> number 1 turn-off youtube title/hotword...
> 
> "Is X the Y killer!?"


Truth


----------



## ThomCSounds

I was just watching a YouTube vid and got the usual ad before it, so I'll share it with you : 

"I got that email from that super professional company called Dissonance and they said very professionally : "Wattup sugartits, get yo fat azz and all yo b*tches on my website and checkout my midi chordz packz yall yall yall" and I was like "yall nah yall I do not play with midi chord packs" and they were like "common yall" and I said "aight yall". Best thing I ever did... yall."


----------



## wahey73

ThomCSounds said:


> "I got that email from that super professional company called Dissonance and they said very professionally : "Wattup sugartits, get yo fat azz and all yo b*tches on my website and checkout my midi chordz packz yall yall yall" and I was like "yall nah yall I do not play with midi chord packs" and they were like "common yall" and I said "aight yall". Best thing I ever did... yall."


And? Did you get that Midi chord pack? Can I have an autograph now that you will be famous?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

ThomCSounds said:


> I was just watching a YouTube vid and got the usual ad before it, so I'll share it with you :
> 
> "I got that email from that super professional company called Dissonance and they said very professionally : "Wattup sugartits, get yo fat azz and all yo b*tches on my website and checkout my midi chordz packz yall yall yall" and I was like "yall nah yall I do not play with midi chord packs" and they were like "common yall" and I said "aight yall". Best thing I ever did... yall."


Lol! How about that one where the guy says "If I had this like 20 years ago, I'd prolly be a billionaire by now". 

Guess what? Your music still sucks, even with the MIDI chord packs.


----------



## ThomCSounds

wahey73 said:


> And? Did you get that Midi chord pack? Can I have an autograph now that you will be famous?


No but the guy in the video did and it changed his life, so I might wanna do it too! :D


----------



## dcoscina

MaxOctane said:


> On the other hand, written online-magazine reviews are absolutely pointless.


This is very true. In this age of YT and all that, written reviews about a sample library aren't terribly helpful even with sound examples.


----------



## ThomCSounds

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Lol! How about that one where the guy says "If I had this like 20 years ago, I'd prolly be a billionaire by now".
> 
> Guess what? Your music still sucks, even with the MIDI chord packs.


There's also the one that goes "I give you this melody, and this one and this one". :D


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

ThomCSounds said:


> There's also the one that goes "I give you this melody, and this one and this one". :D


Yeah, that's dope!


----------



## chocobitz825

ThomCSounds said:


> No but the guy in the video did and it changed his life, so I might wanna do it too! :D


Be careful. I knew a guy who bought those midi chord packs once. He said they made his beatz FIRE!

Then his whole house burned down because the beatz was too hot. Had no hot beatz insurance. Lost everything. Now he sells midi chord packs to unsuspecting aspiring teenage beatmakers.

Damn shame.


----------



## doctoremmet

chocobitz825 said:


> Be careful. I knew a guy who bought those midi chord packs once. He said they made his beatz FIRE!
> 
> Then his whole house burned down because the beatz was too hot. Had no hot beatz insurance. Lost everything. Now he sells midi chord packs to unsuspecting aspiring teenage beatmakers.
> 
> Damn shame.


Yo fam thx 4 da headzup bro


----------



## Michael Antrum

Any YouTube video that begins with the word (if indeed it is one) ”Whassup” immediately causes me mental anguish and spiritual pain. I am not normally a violent man, but I can only take so much…..


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK

@DJames and nobody else 

Sorry end of the work day that resulted in a 3 1/2hr support session so could not resist the urge to say that.

He was the first one I checked out though, so credit where credit is due 

I often use YT for reviews on music products, especially updates to software example being:
Guy Michelmore is another one I really like and 2nd Teir Sound and Ryan Thomas who mostly does EW walkthroughs now!


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK

chocobitz825 said:


> Be careful. I knew a guy who bought those midi chord packs once. He said they made his beatz FIRE!
> 
> Then his whole house burned down because the beatz was too hot. Had no hot beatz insurance. Lost everything. Now he sells midi chord packs to unsuspecting aspiring teenage beatmakers.
> 
> Damn shame.


Damn shame indeed brudda

Shout out to my bredrin, from the South

Gosh, the real humour here is that I live in South East London (Croydon) and here those phrases every single day of my life


----------



## chocobitz825

doctoremmet said:


> Yo fam thx 4 da headzup bro


Word 😎


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK

doctoremmet said:


> Truth


Me after buying MIDI CHords Packs


----------



## ThomCSounds

Sorry for hijacking the thread guys :D I think these ads deserve their own topic haha! 

Back to the topic with a question, do you guys prefer reviews that show the YouTuber or just the DAW / screen capture? I love Cory Pelizzari's stuff but it seems like the algorithm pushes thumbnails with people's shocked faces on them more. There's a balance to be found between what works, what people want and the creative / artistic approach.


----------



## ism

MaxOctane said:


> Sorry, ism, but which aspect of Tallinn possibly retains the Estonian liturgical tradition in its collection of samples? The choirs have soft "oohs" and other lovely sounds. The strings have a nice collection of soft articulations -- but there is no regionality present in the individually-sampled notes. The organ patch are the most distinct, but they capture the pipes of one specific church -- I have to imagine that if you went to any other church in Estonia that housed an organ, you'd find very different sonorities.



Sorry, I’m genuinely not sure what you’re asking - are you saying Tallinn is just another generic choir?


----------



## MaxOctane

ism said:


> Sorry, I’m genuinely not sure what you’re asking - are you saying Tallinn is just another generic choir?


It's lovely and not at all generic. But I'm saying that I don't see how a full review and appreciation of Tallinn would require an understanding of Estonian liturgical tradition (as you commented earlier). The samples don't retain the Estonian liturgicality of the singers, as they're reduced to individual notes.

I have a number of soft choir libs which I just compared with Tallinn. They're all lovely and different, some a little wetter or drier, some sung a bit more softly or forcefully -- but for example, I wouldn't say the "mmh sustain" patch in Tallinn is somehow "Estonian", any more than Eric Whitacre Choir's "Long mmm" patch is somehow British (or wherever EWC's singers are from).


----------



## gsilbers

ThomCSounds said:


> Sorry for hijacking the thread guys :D I think these ads deserve their own topic haha!
> 
> Back to the topic with a question, do you guys prefer reviews that show the YouTuber or just the DAW / screen capture? I love Cory Pelizzari's stuff but it seems like the algorithm pushes thumbnails with people's shocked faces on them more. There's a balance to be found between what works, what people want and the creative / artistic approach.



I knew there was something behind those thumbnails, i was thinking it was some sort of conpsiracy thoery that somehow AI knows you will react more to poeples faces than some letters or pretty picture when at the end is just google prefers that in their algorithm. oh wait... dman you robots!


I really dont know for sure. it varies depending on the focus of the channel.
Some youtubers create a track in realtime and talk showing a library or a few like daniel james and those are cool. Other times its a guy on camera talking more with some cool studio edison lighting background and some color correction and its also nice.
And other times just showing the product and its review in a more fast approach also works.

The more production value you add itll have more views and itll be cooler but at the same time is a balancing act of providing consistent content so youtube keeps you up there relevant from 200+ subscribers any user might have.

but i guess now its a very new type of entertainment that everyone is trying their own thing. if you need to show something in your daw then obvously that. having a little PIP screen with a face might help relate more to people,


----------



## Nico5

ThomCSounds said:


> but it seems like the algorithm pushes thumbnails with people's shocked faces on them more


assuming it works, the algorithm just reflects what viewers are more likely to click on - so in reality any complaints would need to be directed at viewers. 

However, I would find it really interesting, if a regular YouTube creator ran a thumbnail a/b test between

using crazy face and regular face - and/or 
using a face vs a good logo


----------



## CATDAD

Doesn't everyone just obsessively pore over every single review for a single product for days on end late in to the night, carefully cross-section what all of them agree on to come up with a single viewpoint, only to finally try it and instantly form your own completely different opinion? Then fall in to the same time-wasting pattern, again and again?

...Just me?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

CATDAD said:


> Doesn't everyone just obsessively pore over every single review for a single product for days on end late in to the night, carefully cross-section what all of them agree on to come up with a single viewpoint, only to finally try it and instantly form your own completely different opinion? Then fall in to the same time-wasting pattern, again and again?
> 
> ...Just me?


Guilty as charged! And that’s exactly why I’m not wasting money on pricey Spitfire libraries any more (among others). Demos only from now on (unless I can try a desired library on a colleagues system). VSL has it right.


----------



## BenBotkin

Aside from the products I receive prior to release as a demo composer (OT's mostly--and to be fair these make up a good proportion of my total new library acquisitions) I rarely buy a library during the release window. This may sound ironic coming from a demo composer and occasional reviewer, but I don't watch product reviews that often and mostly don't rely on these videos for my decisions.

This is not because I don't trust reviewers or developers, it's more because the long-term value of a library can be hard to gauge at first. There have been some libraries that frustrated me at first (like CSS), which now I can't live without (is there a better long-term sample library investment for $400?). And some libraries that have really excited me at first, but I haven't used much since.

Typically, I wait to hear what the general consensus on a library is before purchase, and put particular weight on the opinion of working composers I know who've been using it for a while. Yeah, I potentially miss out on using the library for a while if it's a great one, but I also have less library overwhelm and, well, more $ for toilet paper, gas, and groceries. When I'm not reviewing, I let other people be the guinea pigs. 

Case in point: I don't think I bought CSS until maybe 2 years after release. I JUST picked up Vista during the last sale, after holding off for a really long time.

I can do this in part because, like I said, I have a decent influx of libraries as a demo composer, and I already have a pretty solid, full template. I really do not need another string library until there is something about it that is ACTUALLY really special and not simply hype-y, and usually that's harder to know during the release window/intro sales/review videos flurry.


----------



## davidson

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Gosh, the real humour here is that I live in South East London (Croydon) and here those phrases every single day of my life


What's Croydon like? I'm going to watch the prodigy in June and was ready to book a hotel in Croydon and a friend told me he "aint staying in fkn Croydon!". It's a bit 'stabby' apparently. Is he being dramatic?


----------



## chocobitz825

gsilbers said:


> I knew there was something behind those thumbnails, i was thinking it was some sort of conpsiracy thoery that somehow AI knows you will react more to poeples faces than some letters or pretty picture when at the end is just google prefers that in their algorithm. oh wait... dman you robots!


bias reinforcement. The thumbnails generally imply a positive or negative reaction to the topic...so if you wanted a review for something you think is going to be bad, the thumbnail with a frown will likely incentivize you to engage in that video more than just a title with no implication of what the final verduct is.

White Sea Studio pretty much mastered that. He has a thumbnail for everything. "I don't know" "what the hell is this?" "this is BS!" "I love this" "not what I expected".....and then in the end, no matter what the thumbnail, you'll get a 5 minute rant about UI design pointlessly copying analog gear design.

*chefs kiss*


----------



## Nico5

chocobitz825 said:


> White Sea Studio ... you'll get a 5 minute rant about UI design pointlessly copying analog gear design.


I have to (sheepishly) admit, that I've rarely (never?) used any of his videos for a purchasing decision, but have watched many of his videos for the entertainment value of the rants


----------



## chocobitz825

Nico5 said:


> I have to (sheepishly) admit, that I've rarely (never?) used any of his videos for a purchasing decision, but have watched many of his videos for the entertainment value of the rants


same. that's perhaps the point. It's entertainment more than anything actually helpful as product reviews go. Especially since he refuses to read the manuals and skips over some well-documented features. As entertainment though, its a bit of a guilty pleasure.


----------



## ThomCSounds

Nico5 said:


> assuming it works, the algorithm just reflects what viewers are more likely to click on - so in reality any complaints would need to be directed at viewers.
> 
> However, I would find it really interesting, if a regular YouTube creator ran a thumbnail a/b test between
> 
> using crazy face and regular face - and/or
> using a face vs a good logo


I've done both on my channel, and I don't think there's any way to tell. I mean, there could be if very strict rules were applied on a chosen group I suppose (you know, like doing things in a real scientific way and a proper study). I'm pretty sure it's already been done and that we tend to react in a more emotional way to a face we see than to an object. That's why we mirror smiles when we see someone smile. 

But doing this on my channel wouldn't really prove anything. As there are many other things at play (time of the day, topic, video length, lighting and colours of the thumbnail and more...).


----------



## ThomCSounds

This thread reminds me of a video Paul Third made not long ago about trusting YouTubers and the way things work in the audio community.


----------



## jononotbono

ThomCSounds said:


> This thread reminds me of a video Paul Third made not long ago about trusting YouTubers and the way things work in the audio community.



Clever guy. Obviously knows how things work with the majority of YouTubers. Definitely never watching his stuff then! 😂


----------



## gamma-ut

davidson said:


> What's Croydon like? I'm going to watch the prodigy in June and was ready to book a hotel in Croydon and a friend told me he "aint staying in fkn Croydon!". It's a bit 'stabby' apparently. Is he being dramatic?


Yes. He is being dramatic. It looks a bit grim in the centre and there are run-down bits you might want to avoid but it's not that bad - and the hotels mostly cluster around East Croydon station IIRC.

However, if this is for a gig at the Academy, it's not necessarily a convenient option as the train service from Croydon doesn't connect all that well with Brixton, though the night buses back from there do tend to wind up in Croydon. You might find it more convenient and no more expensive to get a hotel around Colliers Wood or Wimbledon/South Wimbledon as they are on the Northern Line, with a reasonable walk from Stockwell to the Academy, or change to the Victoria for Brixton.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK

davidson said:


> What's Croydon like? I'm going to watch the prodigy in June and was ready to book a hotel in Croydon and a friend told me he "aint staying in fkn Croydon!". It's a bit 'stabby' apparently. Is he being dramatic?


I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of 'said' statement. They might come for me otherwise...

No further questions your honor


----------



## davidson

gamma-ut said:


> Yes. He is being dramatic. It looks a bit grim in the centre and there are run-down bits you might want to avoid but it's not that bad - and the hotels mostly cluster around East Croydon station IIRC.
> 
> However, if this is for a gig at the Academy, it's not necessarily a convenient option as the train service from Croydon doesn't connect all that well with Brixton, though the night buses back from there do tend to wind up in Croydon. You might find it more convenient and no more expensive to get a hotel around Colliers Wood or Wimbledon/South Wimbledon as they are on the Northern Line, with a reasonable walk from Stockwell to the Academy, or change to the Victoria for Brixton.


That's helpful, cheers!


----------



## JonChr

My favorite channels in order are:

Simeon Amburgey ( Some of the best)
Daniel James
Christopher Siu
Venus Theory

I have a real problem with the proliferation of paid promo across the YouTube review community. The more a website advertises and features the same products in all of their reviews the more suspect it becomes and there are some that really stand out like SLR.

in contrast somebody like Daniel James may be controversial but he contrasts the products and provides the good and the bad along with stating the obvious usefulness of the product without just doing a twinkly walk-through out of the box.

White Sea is another tell it like it is Guy. Trust worthy opinions.


----------



## vitocorleone123

Going to throw one out there that isn't orchestral, but if you deal with mixing electronic music, especially heavy or bleak sounding music, elements, and processes, then Ken "Hiwatt" Marshall is worth watching. Over the last year he's been showing mixing sessions and has all sorts of useful information, albeit more targeted at professional mixers.

Talented, and VERY enthusiastic (the first video you watch may leave you wondering if it's an act, from watching most every video, as well as just reading about him over the years before I ever saw a video of him, it's not an act).



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjLd6862BxCe7Dd6ukj3zEw


----------



## vitocorleone123

jononotbono said:


> Clever guy. Obviously knows how things work with the majority of YouTubers. Definitely never watching his stuff then! 😂


I cannot vouch for this, but I've read in several places that Paul Third is ALSO biased toward, for example, Acoustica, and this can come through in his videos. That said, that's pure rumor and conjecture. In the one video I've watched from him, sure enough, Acoustica won out. Rumor plus one confirmation of said rumor isn't enough to make a general conclusion yet.


----------



## AlbertSmithers

I love Second Tier Sound as he goes in depth on each plugin he looks at and shows you how to make music with them using what makes them unique.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

AlbertSmithers said:


> I love Second Tier Sound as he goes in depth on each plugin he looks at and shows you how to make music with them using what makes them unique.


Love Sam as well!


----------



## JohnG

I listen to Junkie XL, JNH, or HZ's views about gear and plugins more than anyone else. And you can infer a lot from Marco Beltrami's scores about how he thinks, creatively. Alan Meyerson too -- and a few other engineers -- have in some cases extensive interviews available.

All of them have video online from which you can glean specific "how to" advice, which I've found enormously helpful.

Some companies also have very good user tutorials, of course, but that's usually after one has already purchased.


----------



## JonChr

Jeremy Spencer said:


> My five trusted fav's are...
> 
> @Simeon (simple playthrough's, very calming and relaxing)
> @amadeus1 (no-bones walkthtrough's. Libraries are played raw, right out of the box, warts and all)
> @donbodin (thorough walkthrough's, helpful tips and honest thoughts)
> @Cory Pelizzari (well planned walkthrough's, pre-sequenced examples, honest thoughts)
> @Akarin (detailed, honest reviews. Love the humour!)


I would agree with your list for the most part and I would add @Daniel James @Simeon for me is the absolute top of the worst for really getting the soul of an instrument across and demonstrating its capabilities. The problem I have as a whole with @donbodin Channel is the advertising feel and that everything is sponsored by someone. I just discovered that the other day. Every video is sponsored and every show is sponsored and I assume that somebody is paying for that so I find it less trustworthy.

I tend to like the individual reviewer‘s who do not appear to be running a business and at least area independent operators like @Chris Siu.


----------

