# Hollywood strings or Cinematic strings?



## TomMartin (Nov 23, 2012)

Ok this is probably an old topic but the recent sale puts a new twist on it I think.

At the 50% off sale price, hollywood strings diamond can be had for near as makes no difference to me, the same price, and I feel like splurging!

So given that price isn't an issue, which is the more attractive product?

Perhaps consider 2 scenarios.

In the first one, the hardware requirements and the issues with play din't exist, so just consider the sound.

Which one do you prefer?


And in the 2nd scenario, lets be realistic about the hardware requirements and the issues with play.

Does this change the choice from the first scenario?


----------



## Dan Stearn (Nov 23, 2012)

I've been considering this exact same purchase decision myself, so I'd be very interested in hearing what others think about this who have experience with the software.

After checking out both, from what I've seen, I think I'm slightly leaning towards CS2 at the moment, as I'm really impressed with their interface. I could still be tempted by Hollywood Strings, which sounds great too, but the sheer size of it might be a bit much for me, and combined with potential issues with Play leaves me leaning towards CS. 

Having said that, pretty sure I'm going to be tempted by HWB, especially with Cinesamples only offering $50 off Cinebrass. Now to decide between Gold & Platinum..!


----------



## playz123 (Nov 23, 2012)

I have both and my vote goes to .....CS 2. Yes, Play and performance are factors, but I can also get the sound I'm after faster with CS2.


----------



## mark812 (Nov 23, 2012)

playz123 @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> I have both and my vote goes to .....CS 2. Yes, Play and performance are factors, but I can also get the sound I'm after faster with CS2.



+1


----------



## encephalon (Nov 23, 2012)

I have and use HS Diamond and I'm seriously considering CS 2 after viewing the demos last night. Sure, HS is massive (I have an entire VEP 5 slave devoted to it) and offers a ton of options and sounds. But man, is it difficult to use. I guess it really depends on your workflow.

If I'm programming existing orchestrations I'll turn to HS for the gritty details, and it really sounds great. But I've found it to be cumbersome and de-inspiring to compose with it. I spend *way* too much time dealing with Play, finding a patch that is close to what I'm looking for only to discover an error in the scripting/sample that renders it unusable.

Honestly, I'm looking for a library that is easy to use out of the box and sounds really great. I've found I don't really need 40 different sustain patches. I usually stick to the 3 or 5 that I know well and can manage without breaking my creative flow.

CS 2 sounds really great and I think I'll take the plunge. Plus, it's on Kontakt.


----------



## encephalon (Nov 23, 2012)

I also have HB, and it's amazing. The trumpets are a little weak, but those horns. Oh my, those horns.


----------



## mdvirtual (Nov 23, 2012)

I've been wrestling with a similar decision so it's great to see posts from folks using both libs. I was set on CS until the EW holiday deals were announced (damn them!!). Now I'm wavering on HS Diamond, or maybe going with HS Gold + HB Gold for more variety. The complexity factor of HS definitely concerns me, as one of the big selling points of CS is the elegance and straightforwardness of the interface (aside from the gorgeous sound).

Any CS users feel like they're missing out on the extra articulations in HS? Is there enough variation achievable through the interface design to cover a full range of composing situations? I was hoping to use CS as my core string library and supplement/layer with articulations from EWQLSO if needed.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 23, 2012)

you'll find very quickly that you'll need both.

Nothing beats CS2.0 for bread and butter strings. When you need good sounding strings to do basic string lines. But, HS has some patches and can do some things well that no other library can touch.

Add LASS in there and you'll be set!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 23, 2012)

josejherring @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> you'll find very quickly that you'll need both.
> 
> Nothing beats CS2.0 for bread and butter strings. When you need good sounding strings to do basic string lines. But, HS has some patches and can do some things well that no other library can touch.
> 
> Add LASS in there and you'll be set!



Check out the reviews on both http://www.soniccontrol.tv (www.soniccontrol.tv) and www.professionalorchestration.com as many issues are covered.

I have HS and HB Gold. HS has about the most complete set of string bowings available giving you a lot of flexibility for effective string writing. HB for brass is simpler than HS and has brass recorded so that you van create very effective brass voicings.


----------



## Dan Stearn (Nov 23, 2012)

Hi Peter, on the topic of HB Gold, do you find the single mic position limiting? I will probably get the Gold edition (from your store ) but would be interested to hear your opinion on Gold vs. Platinum.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Nov 23, 2012)

Dan Stearn @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> Hi Peter, on the topic of HB Gold, do you find the single mic position limiting? I will probably get the Gold edition (from your store ) but would be interested to hear your opinion on Gold vs. Platinum.



My error. I have HB Diamond. But for now I use the same mic position as Gold so it blends with other libraries. In that sense, no I don't find it limiting because you have the same brass articulations - which is a lot to master. Mastering the library in one mic position FIRST is a faster way to learn then trying to learn the library AND three mic positions. My learning and teaching approach is this- orchestration first technology second.

Orchestration is about music, 3 mics is about production and mixing. Two separate skills. Multitasking and trying to learn both at once lengthens the learning curve/training time.


----------



## TomMartin (Nov 24, 2012)

josejherring @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> you'll find very quickly that you'll need both.
> 
> Nothing beats CS2.0 for bread and butter strings. When you need good sounding strings to do basic string lines. But, HS has some patches and can do some things well that no other library can touch.
> 
> Add LASS in there and you'll be set!



I can see this being true...I already have LASS, and hoped that would be me set for strings, but HS was always in the back of my mind...

I never considered CS2 but I listened to the demos a couple of days ago and well.... they couldn't possibly do a better job of selling it could they?

HS would have to be diamond for me, it's worth noting that in gold you get one mic position, and it isn't a pre mixed version of the other mics, it's just one position....I would be much happier going with gold if they offered a mix setting like CS2


----------



## Dan Stearn (Nov 24, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> Dan Stearn @ Fri Nov 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Peter, on the topic of HB Gold, do you find the single mic position limiting? I will probably get the Gold edition (from your store ) but would be interested to hear your opinion on Gold vs. Platinum.
> ...



Agreed, good point.. I have studied orchestration quite intensely and continue to do so, but even so I think Gold is probably a good place to start for me.. can always upgrade at another time. Back on topic, I think this is another reason why Cinematic Strings is so good, it allows you to focus much more on the writing side of things


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 24, 2012)

TomMartin @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> Ok this is probably an old topic but the recent sale puts a new twist on it I think.
> 
> At the 50% off sale price, hollywood strings diamond can be had for near as makes no difference to me, the same price, and I feel like splurging!
> 
> ...



What is your hardware?


----------



## TomMartin (Nov 24, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> TomMartin @ Fri Nov 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok this is probably an old topic but the recent sale puts a new twist on it I think.
> ...



i7 2700k @ 4.5 ghz
32gb ram
couple of ssd's 

so lets be realistic, if i cant run HS diamond, then who can?!

but the issue is (or may be) that i run a fairly large template, and not just 1 string section.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 24, 2012)

TomMartin @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Nov 24 said:
> 
> 
> > TomMartin @ Fri Nov 23 said:
> ...



On my less powerful PC with 24 GB from one SSD, I run HS, HB, and HOW, with 1 mic position of HS & HB, 2 of HOW with app 5 patches for each instrument.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 24, 2012)

TomMartin @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Nov 23 said:
> 
> 
> > you'll find very quickly that you'll need both.
> ...



I use HS Gold and HB Gold. For Brass you get the main mics, I've never missed other mic positions.

For HS you get the midtree mics. At first I thought that they were a little thin sounding. Most people I know prefer this mic position for HS. After researching the mics they used for mid tree I came the the conclusion that they needed to be raised in volume by about 2db and a little EQ in the lower mids around 500 to boost the room tone. Just a tad. Once I did that the strings filled out nicely and the tone is spectacular.

So I've opted to use CS and HS gold rather than get HS diamond.

I haven't gotten LASS yet. I've always felt bad about that fact. But, I'm hearing some stuff on TV that I know is LASS and it sounds really good, detailed, lighter string sound, would work well for so many things.


----------



## jcs88 (Nov 25, 2012)

CS2, for sure.

I love Hollywood Brass, but couldn't get started with HW S.


----------



## Mahlon (Nov 25, 2012)

Darnit. I was just about to order CS2 for a Chrimma present to myself. Then I see the 50% off. I go and listen again to HS again (which originally, I had not even considered due to the complexity everyone seems to talk about. I've got LASS and that's complex enough for me -- well interface and track wise.) and damn, HS sounds great in the demos.

Jose is probably right in that you will really want to have both in the end.

And then, I think... CS2 plus LASS....

Argh.

Mahlon


----------



## TomMartin (Nov 25, 2012)

I went with CS2. No regrets 

Although I'm sure I'll end up with Hollywood Strings too, but that's just how I am... 

I have LASS, EWQLSO, Albion and now CS2 for strings so it'll be a while before I make another strings purchase I think. I demo'd Symphobia and thankfully I'm convinced I wouldn't use it...so that's good for the bank account!


----------



## Ed (Nov 25, 2012)

Its not about what sounds better CS2 runs SO well, HS has to use Play. 

CS2 is gorgeous, doesnt contain as much stuff as HS though. BUT PLAY


----------



## Mahlon (Nov 25, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> Its not about what sounds better CS2 runs SO well, HS has to use Play.
> 
> CS2 is gorgeous, doesnt contain as much stuff as HS though. BUT PLAY



My only experience with Play is HB Gold and Silk. So, I'm no veteran there. With HS (Diamond), do the sheer number of articulation create half the problem?

I'm all about simplicity, and I love the simplicity and design of the CS2 interface and approach.

Best,
Mahlon


----------



## Ed (Nov 25, 2012)

Mahlon @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> My only experience with Play is HB Gold and Silk. So, I'm no veteran there. With HS (Diamond), do the sheer number of articulation create half the problem?



No idea I dont own it just head a LOT of people complaining. No other Play libs suffer quite as bad as HS it seems, probably because HS requires such a lot of arts as you say and some patches are just huge. 

Also, Play seems to be VERY inefficient, Daniel James in a screencast loaded a single small patch and he got clicks and pops whereas his other Kontakt libs were fine. Now, maybe you have a better PC than DJ but I sure wouldnt want to have such a resource hungry lib if I can manage. I could afford to buy it myself but then Im stuck with this pain in the ass library that may shut down my whole workflow. I mean if others are cool taking that risk thats their choice, but Im certainly not going to. I push my PC to the max already, something this inefficient would ruin it. Hell, even if you have a great system already with SSD's etc, if you're pushin that to the limit adding HS just seems like it could create a lot of problems.

On the plus side HS will only get cheaper, so next gen computers will probably finally be able to run HS on Play more easily, I dunno Im just guessing.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 25, 2012)

HS on a decent PC from an SSD is no problem.


----------



## Malo (Nov 25, 2012)

Hope I'm not hijacking the thread.

I'm considering buying Hollywood Strings Gold (Mac). I currently run Logic 9 on a Mac Pro 2x2.66GHz, no slaves. I realize this might not cut it for HS, but the sale price is now so low that it's worth trying. Besides, I could buy a Mac Mini server for it later on, if my Mac Pro chokes.

Now, what kind of hard drive(s) should I buy for HS Gold?
Is there a good SSD solution for it on the Mac, or would a fast (regular) internal drive work? My other (Kontakt) libraries run off several LaCie firewire HDs.
Would it play better if I split the library on two HDs?

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## Carles (Nov 25, 2012)

I'd say both.

With CS you can work quicker, it's very simple to use and even if the patches are big (got all articulations) loads very quickly.

HS patches are great but if you load several of them you get pops and clicks (are not that big patches but Play is not very efficient) also it takes quite long to load (and I'm talking about the Gold version).
But with HS you've got many patches so you always can find the convincing one. All of them are beautiful.

What I'm doing is to start with CS (to keep resources and loading time as low as possible) and as soon something not convincing arises then I replace the passage or the whole track with an HS instrument and 99% of the times I get what I've expected.

HS is an excellent library IMO (my favourite even with all Play inconveniences).
I still didn't find any library with such nice high register (violins) and cellos are to die for.
In general responds very well to your expression data, it's more like a flow of sound you can model as you want while CS casts often a repetitive pattern (attack-release) very obvious sometimes when playing a series of notes with equal length.
The vibrato in general sounds amazing for expressive passages (you have full control about vibrato in some patches).

Try to get both (they mix really well) and you'll have the best of two worlds 

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Oguz Sehiralti (Nov 25, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> HS on a decent PC from an SSD is no problem.



Hello. I'm considering these choices like everyone else, but I have a rather humble computer. It's a MacBook pro with dual-core i5 and 8 gigs of memory. I do consider getting an ssd but I don't have one yet (I have a 7200rpm drive, though). Like most other people, I'm impressed by the sound and design of HS but there are so many horror stories about PLAY and Mac, I'm not very comfortable with this purchase. (Being a composition student, even a $500 purchase comes with a lot of thinking unfortunately)

So my question is, what should I expect with HS in such a rig? I'm not running large templates; I compose mostly on the piano, or with a small template, then orchestrate, and only then start doing a mock up with samples. So I actually prefer going through the music choir by choir as it helps me focus on realism more. Thus, I'll be mostly working with the strings on their own and bouncing them before I start working with other choirs. Will I be able to run just the string section with reasonable articulations? 

Most things written on the forums about Play and Mac are not very recent, so I'm wondering if there was an update that addressed the problems with Macs. Although I don't have a very good computer, I think it's pretty decent for some sample work and I have been loading the memory with a lot of instruments using Kontakt, so I should expect to be able to do _something_ with Play, right?

By the way, should we add LASS to the equation? It's double price of HS now, but in all other comparisons I read, LASS used to be the cheap alternative whereas HS was the high end one. Is anyone considering purchasing LASS instead?


----------



## renochew (Nov 26, 2012)

Carles @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> I'd say both.
> 
> With CS you can work quicker, it's very simple to use and even if the patches are big (got all articulations) loads very quickly.
> 
> ...



Thanks for ther nice review Carles. 

What do you think about Gold vs Diamond? Do you think it would make blending with other library difficutl if I just the Gold edition?

Personally I have decided to go for HS, I believe this is the most economic way (with the current discount) to expand anyone's library to cover more articulation for more flexible composition. Just wondering if I should get Gold or Diamond.


----------



## Carles (Nov 26, 2012)

I didn't used the Platinum, but I can say that Gold mixes really well with other, specially with CS and is lighter for your CPU, hard drive, loading time and pocket.

Except for Play particulars I think you won't get disappointed. The library itself (Gold) is really good. Has all patches but only a single mic position being this really useful. Has the hall sound embedded but the release is dry and the hall sounds good so not an issue IMO.

I'd keep the difference in money for something else and will go for Gold (you always can upgrade it, but I think you'll probably see that's not necessary).

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Carles (Nov 26, 2012)

Btw, In HS using the keyswitches to change the string position and patches were you get control over vibrato makes a big difference.

Sounds really harsh sometimes when in the middle of your expressive phrase you get a string sounding too open, so you can choose the string position that sounds better in your phrase.

Same with vibrato, apart of use it for expressing, for instance a relatively quick passage (forte) in molto vibrato sounds very synthy (as it is unnatural) so you've got the ability to reduce the vibrato when is not physically possible or imprecise for a real violin player too.

Also bow direction (the patch with automatic bow change via round robin is very practical).

Reading the manual is important to don't miss its nice features.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## renochew (Nov 26, 2012)

Carles @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> I didn't used the Platinum, but I can say that Gold mixes really well with other, specially with CS and is lighter for your CPU, hard drive, loading time and pocket.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Thanks for helping me to make up my mind, Carles.

Cheers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2012)

> By the way, should we add LASS to the equation?



Of course you should!


----------



## Rob Elliott (Nov 26, 2012)

CS is my bread and butter. Fast, great results. HS vlns (especially high register - the best out there. Also love HS celli. Hate HS violas.

LASS is best for small divisi studio sound (think LOST).


Only wish I had a solo strings library that has the ease and tone of CS - that would be welcomed.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

Rob Elliott @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> CS is my bread and butter. Fast, great results. HS vlns (especially high register - the best out there. Also love HS celli. Hate HS violas.
> 
> LASS is best for small divisi studio sound (think LOST).
> 
> ...



Really Rob? I _love_ the violas. Lately I use them a lot instead of violins when the range of the part is appropriate.

Oh well, it is subjective.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Nov 26, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Rob Elliott @ Mon Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > CS is my bread and butter. Fast, great results. HS vlns (especially high register - the best out there. Also love HS celli. Hate HS violas.
> ...




Yea - no worries. Violas for me are a love/hate. Their voice is critical to proper string choir balance but I seem to be really picky about what I like with them. I am not crazy about LASS' va's either. Just nice to have options. o/~


----------



## Ed (Nov 26, 2012)

CS Violas are great, they have a SUPER warm sound to them especially at the low dynamics.


----------



## JT (Nov 26, 2012)

I was hoping that CS might have a black Friday sale. I would've picked it up in a heartbeat. I've got LASS and am fine for the time being. But Alex, if you're reading this, if you decide to do a Christmas sale of CS, you can count me in.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 26, 2012)

intersting how fr CS has come into the overall picture. 

and how hard headed the EW folks are with play. like every thread there is one potential customer saying they will not buy HS cause of PLAY, yet its always very defensive talk on the EW side. hope with play 4 things get better cause i am in the same boat, would like to get HS but not sure about play. and CS seems to have a nice tone and its easy to use.


----------



## Mahlon (Nov 26, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> HS on a decent PC from an SSD is no problem.



If I get into HS, I'll be building a new slave with (4) 6b SATA onboard ports (Asus Rampage V methinks). CS2, I think I could incorporate into the current slave.

Best,
Mahon


----------



## José Herring (Nov 26, 2012)

Mahlon @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Nov 25 said:
> 
> 
> > HS on a decent PC from an SSD is no problem.
> ...



HS will work out just fine with this machine. 

With all the Play bashing going on, I think what fails to get mentioned as much is that at least on a good PC, Play is rock solid. With a SSD, it's flawless performance wise.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

gsilbers @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> intersting how fr CS has come into the overall picture.
> 
> and how hard headed the EW folks are with play. like every thread there is one potential customer saying they will not buy HS cause of PLAY, yet its always very defensive talk on the EW side. hope with play 4 things get better cause i am in the same boat, would like to get HS but not sure about play. and CS seems to have a nice tone and its easy to use.



i am not defensive but if I see a statement that I disagree with or think is at least partially untrue, I am going to say so.


----------



## muziksculp (Nov 26, 2012)

Talking about PLAY , So... When is PLAY 4 going to finally be released ? Any guesses if it will be showing up before 2013 ? 

Hopefully, PLAY 4 will offer a nice boost to PLAY's efficiency. 

Nothing exciting for quite some time from EW (No new libraries, and no PLAY 4) ~o) 

I wonder what's coming up ? and When ?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

muziksculp @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Talking about PLAY , So... When is PLAY 4 going to finally be released ? Any guesses if it will be showing up before 2013 ?
> 
> Hopefully, PLAY 4 will offer a nice boost to PLAY's efficiency.
> 
> ...



All I know is that they are working hard on Play 4.


----------



## muziksculp (Nov 26, 2012)

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I wanted to get this out on this forum, since this post will not last a few seconds on the EW-Forum :D 

imho. EW has wasted so much time, and money on PLAY. They would have been so much better off if they focused on sample development, rather than spending their valuable time, and money fixing a badly designed player, with very basic functionality, and editing capabilities. 

Given that there are so many well developed sample engines today, i.e. Kontakt 5, Mach 5 (v3), Independence Pro, Halion 4, and maybe some others options. EW would have been so much more ahead at this time offering great sample libraries, rather than fixing PLAY. 

Not saying that PLAY is not useable, it surely is, if you have the right machine to run it on, but compared to all other Sample Engines, it is the least developed, and has the poorest reputation due to its low efficiency, and lack of editing features for the end user. 

Sorry again for the distraction with this post, so ... back to topic. (CS vs EW-HS). Both are great strings libraries, and having both would be the best option, but if I had to pick one, it will be CS2 .


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

muziksculp @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> imho. EW has wasted so much time, and money on PLAY. They would have been so much better off if they focused on sample development, rather than spending their valuable time, and money fixing a badly designed player, with very basic functionality, and editing capabilities.



While you are entitled to hold that opinion, you were not looking at ALL the factors and figures EW was looking at at that given time. 

If you have been following the thread on Kontakt libraries being pirated, then you you are seeing just one big one of them, and there were several more.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 26, 2012)

i agree. 

but on their defense, having it be propetery , they can keep security risk at a minimun. 
everyone knows that any kontakt protected library is hacked like seconds its released no matter what it is. hackers have some sort of template or something. 
ilok2 is still new and secure. 

but not on their defense is the rest of what you said. defensive attitude towards an obvious issue. hopefully play 4 will address the lack in efficiency, editability etc. and finish its bad rep. 
having a custom sampler can be so good...


----------



## muziksculp (Nov 26, 2012)

Mach 5, Independence Pro, and Halion require dongles. 

So, not very likely they would have any piracy issues if they chose one of the above sample engines, and less headaches dealing with PLAY.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Nov 26, 2012)

I run HS and HB off of one computer. I have had ZERO problems with Play. Performs flawlessly. Yes it is a little slower on the load than some Kontakt libraries... but as they have stated before (Thomas Berg. I believe), the intention of the library was to be bigger than most libraries. So... I guess I just don't get all the Play bashing that goes on here. IMHO... too many people whining about a Sample engine. And the funny thing is, some of the ones complaining don't even own a Play library. Back to topic...

HS is great! I also own LASS 2 and use both on a regular basis. The 2 mix well together. I do not own CS2, but it does sound very nice! I don't think you would go wrong with any of those libraries.

Brad


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 26, 2012)

muziksculp @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Mach 5, Independence Pro, and Halion require dongles.
> 
> So, not very likely they would have any piracy issues if they chose one of the above sample engines, and less headaches dealing with PLAY.


interested. didnt know that about mach5.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 26, 2012)

guydoingmusic @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> I run HS and HB off of one computer. I have had ZERO problems with Play. Performs flawlessly. Yes it is a little slower on the load than some Kontakt libraries... but as they have stated before (Thomas Berg. I believe), the intention of the library was to be bigger than most libraries. So... I guess I just don't get all the Play bashing that goes on here. IMHO... too many people whining about a Sample engine. And the funny thing is, some of the ones complaining don't even own a Play library. Back to topic...
> 
> HS is great! I also own LASS 2 and use both on a regular basis. The 2 mix well together. I do not own CS2, but it does sound very nice! I don't think you would go wrong with any of those libraries.
> 
> Brad



most of us do have play. 


your argument would be sound except for QLSO libraries which is both on play and kontakt. there is plenty of threads about it. engine efficiency and load times are main issues. stability has gotten much better. i rarley have a crash 

play is not THAT bad. its fair but one the worst of the bunch. HS does sound great.
its like having a ferrari motor inside a LADA chassis 

i totally wished i could trade LASS for HS. but audiobro license agreement sucks and will not let you sell it. same as many sample libraries, they use the sound copyright as a loophole to not be able to re-sell their products when its really a software product which IS legal to sell. well, thats another beef enteriley. but i would totally trade LASS for HS. i did have the terapack and tried HS and liked the sound. took a while to load and no KS but oh well.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

muziksculp @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Mach 5, Independence Pro, and Halion require dongles.
> 
> So, not very likely they would have any piracy issues if they chose one of the above sample engines, and less headaches dealing with PLAY.



As I say it was not the _only_ issue, just one.

But at this point, Play has been EW's engine for a number of years, business has been robust, and in Doug's judgement far more has been gained than lost. If it keeps some from buying HS, so be it. You can't please everybody.


----------



## Dan Stearn (Nov 26, 2012)

So I just went out and bought CS2 and my first impressions are amazing, great sound out the box and very usable, as you'd expect. Obviously it doesn't have the depth or options you get with HS, so I don't really think it's fair to compare them directly as, whilst both being great string libraries, they're really at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms f what they offer. For me personally though, I couldn't be happier with CS2 for what I need right now.. Can't wait to use it with HB!


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 26, 2012)

I built 2 i7 2600 w/32 gig ram slaves to run my samples.

Without HS/HB my templates take about 7 minutes to load.
With them, around 25-30 mins. 
(I dont run SSDs)

That's with a lot of articulations per instrument, but I have roughly the same amount for other libraries as well (ie vsl lass 8dio etc).

Loading a powerful legato patch with 3 mic positions is just an absurd amount of loading/ram consumption and sound and performance doesn't even kind of justify the bloated resource usage. 

If you have deadlines I would look elsewhere.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> I built 2 i7 2600 w/32 gig ram slaves to run my samples.
> 
> Without HS/HB my templates take about 7 minutes to load.
> With them, around 25-30 mins.
> ...



IMHO there is no reason you need three mic positions loaded at once. Of course with patches as big as a powerful legato that will take forever.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 26, 2012)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> I built 2 i7 2600 w/32 gig ram slaves to run my samples.
> 
> Without HS/HB my templates take about 7 minutes to load.
> With them, around 25-30 mins.
> ...



Misuse is no reason to dissuade somebody from getting something. Why would you even attempt to use HS Diamond without an SSD? I couldn't even bear to use Gold without and SSD.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm selling my HS Diamond if anyone is interested. I rarely use it and could use the money to get other stuff I will use more.


----------



## Ed (Nov 26, 2012)

muziksculp @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> Sorry if this is off-topic, but I wanted to get this out on this forum, since this post will not last a few seconds on the EW-Forum :D
> 
> imho. EW has wasted so much time, and money on PLAY. They would have been so much better off if they focused on sample development, rather than spending their valuable time, and money fixing a badly designed player, with very basic functionality, and editing capabilities.



AND do they really think that loses from piracy are so pervasive that it is worth spending I wouldnt be surprised if it were close to a million or more on developing their own software. Sure would like to see some stats that prove its that bad, but hey!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 26, 2012)

dcoscina @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> I'm selling my HS Diamond if anyone is interested. I rarely use it and could use the money to get other stuff I will use more.



Sorry, but EW does not allow that.


----------



## Carles (Nov 26, 2012)

Here is a list (not fully complete so far but quite inclusive already) in case anyone is in doubt:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3657729

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## muziksculp (Nov 26, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Nov 26 said:


> muziksculp @ Mon Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if this is off-topic, but I wanted to get this out on this forum, since this post will not last a few seconds on the EW-Forum :D
> ...



Good point ! 

How much has EW Invested so far in developing PLAY ? I'm sure lots of $$$$

Which could have been better invested into Sample Library Development !


----------



## Dan Stearn (Nov 27, 2012)

For those criticising EWs decision to develop PLAY, bear in mind we don't know all the details that lead to the decision, and I'm sure it was carefully thought out and part of a long term plan for the company. In five years it might turn out that it was a great direction for EW to take, so even if it's not paying off at the moment (and whilst we can speculate, only EW knows if this is the case), there's no denying when they get it ironed out there'll be much more in control of their own future without having to rely on NI, and at least have it within their power to expand and control their own software. I don't think many people would argue VSL improved as a company when they transitioned to VI & VI-Pro, so the potential is certainly there once EW overcome the teething problems of PLAY (which, admittedly, may be taking longer than they expected).


----------



## Malo (Nov 27, 2012)

Good post, Dan! I agree 100% ! o-[][]-o


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 27, 2012)

josejherring @ Tue 27 Nov said:


> SimonCharlesHanna @ Mon Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I built 2 i7 2600 w/32 gig ram slaves to run my samples.
> ...



I once had HS on an SSD 120gig and the loading time difference was close to negligible. What else can I say? 

I have slaves so loading times don't bother me once my template is up - misuse? I wouldn't agree with that.

When you have something silky smooth like LASS and then try to wade through the bloated creature that is HS, you start to lose your patience with it. 

HS was built for a theoretical future computer that is not in existence yet.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2012)

As a user, I disagree. With my present computer, an i7 950 3.06 Quad Core, 24 GB RAM, Windows 7, from an SSD, with 25 patches (5 each for each instrument) I believe most users can accomplish 90% of what they ever need to do.

I would however, like more key switch patches, but both Nick and Thomas are not fans of them so there were not many created.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Nov 27, 2012)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> josejherring @ Tue 27 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > SimonCharlesHanna @ Mon Nov 26 said:
> ...



It's been recommended that your SSD have a read/write of at least 500MBs a second. I run HS and HB off of the same SSD and I have found a significant boost compared to loading off of a normal 7200rpm drive. Granted Play loads slower than some Kontakt libraries. But you also have to put into perspective the size of the patches you are loading. My LASS template takes up about 3.5gigs of ram. Whereas the HS template exceeds 8gigs. And I don't even load the big bow change patches. Even with those loaded, I still have no problems from that library.

I disagree with your statement about the whole "future composer". VSL did this with their release of their GigaStudio library. You needed 5 computers to run that thing at it's fullest potential. And you had to drop about $5-6,000 just to have all the articulations. Not to mention 4 licenses of GigaStudio. The cost of the 4 additional computers (1 for each orchestral section). Why wouldn't you applaud EW for thinking ahead and giving you a product that will last a long time? Like VSL did?

Brad


----------



## Carles (Nov 27, 2012)

Brad, we're talking about present time and I cannot speak for everyone but I can say myself that I love Hollywood Strings and I see reasonable to wait a few more seconds to load complex patches, but this is not the point.

The epic fail here is Play and not the library itself.

If you sum the library size plus Play's inefficiency it's when it becomes really a problem.

Look, you can load a 0.6Gb patch in Cinematic Strings almost instantly so I don't think the size of the patches is the issue but Play's inefficiency.

And I have not SSD but a WD BlackCaviar were there is not much benchmark difference with the slower SSD's and I don't think that replacing my drive with a fast SSD will be x10 faster and even in that hypothetical case still loading a half Gb patch in Play from a SSD will takes longer than the same size patch in Kontakt on a 7200RPM drive.

What this mean is that the EW decision (for n reasons which I don't care) forces you to get dedicated hardware at your own expense and not because the excellences of the product but because an imposed player which is not working well. 

If EW decision was to keep Player but (as a matter of decency) will provide the library within a free SSD kit to compensate -their own inefficiency- then we'll have no much to discuss here neither, but again it's not the case.

Many people get the library to discover later that current drives and processor has to be upgraded in order to use the product (while the same hardware is working fine with ALL non Play libraries), so again, is not the futuristic performance of the library but a Play issue what forces you to spend extra money, being Play libraries the most expensive ever (or just suffer their consequences if you don't want/can get new hardware).
EW policy at this regard lacks ethics in my opinion "we make sure we don't get pirated but only you pay for it".

Said that and using your own arguments, if Play was efficient as ViennaInstruments this discussion will be not happening but not the case.

This is why there are so many unhappy customers (or ex-customers as in my case until Play will be efficient or replaced I never will get any Play library any more).

Is not the fact that EW imposes a sample player what matters but the quality of that imposed player and its consequences, plus the EW policy ignoring systematically the users complaints about, censoring any related posts in their site, lying in other sites, etc, which shows EW as a non reliable company as they don't play the game clear and fairly.

Said that, I think these policies are deeply hurting EW but, hey, it's their own decision.
Fortunately as users we have many choices out there currently.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2012)

Once again, Carles, it is the demands of the Hollywood Series, NOT Play itself, that is the main culprit. i can run a full template of EWQLSO Platinum on my Mac or PC with no problem, and neither machine is the newest and most powerful by a long shot.

And EW measures "deeply hurt" by sales figures, and that is simply factually not even close to correct.


----------



## Carles (Nov 27, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Once again, Carles, it is the demands of the Hollywood Series, NOT Play itself, that is the main culprit. i can run a full template of EWQLSO Platinum on my Mac or PC with no problem, and neither machine is the newest and most powerful by a long shot.
> 
> And EW measures "deeply hurt" by sales figures, and that is simply factually not even close to correct.



So, if Play is working so well can you explain us why they are working so hard on Play4?

Since facts are what actually matter, please let wise words loaded of ambiguity apart.
I can load every day Kontakt patches 5 times bigger than a given Play patch in a fraction of the time than this 1/5 Play patch.
Apart of loading, my CPU (i7, 16Gb ram) can freshly handle dozens of Kontakt/Vienna instances while just a few Play ones causes pops and clicks all the time.
You can say whatever you want about your setup, but it's more than obvious that Play is not efficient.
Just enter EW Play in Google (no need to include keywords like issues, problems or similar, just EW Play. Words like "problems" or "issues" will pop up automatically) Those are facts.

The fact that EW has successful sales doesn't mean that could have even better sales, and I consider that as a loose.

Just read the posts about this Black Friday and only with the people who expressed that won't get EW libraries because of Play and try to estimate a percentage.
Later, consider that people willing to express something in public it's only the tip of the iceberg.
That's not hypothetical cases but again demonstrable facts.

Look, if Dough (or whoever) applied the wrong math -every pirated copy is a loss- and -if we loose 15% of our real customers compensates all those pirated "looses"- and he's happy with that, surely he never will realize about what he's actually loosing.

Additionally, EW success might be in great part caused because of its glories of the past and also in part due to misinformed new customers as I was a year ago (currently I handle a mix of feeling between if consider myself a customer or a victim, honestly).

But again, just Google about and you'll get an approximated idea about what's actually happening and how it can affect EW reputation and sales.

If EW is happy with selling less and gathering a growing bad reputation that's fine to me, it's not my company and nor my benefit but I think that's just stupid.

In all cases, I have no problems at all about their twisted plans and nor problems on using a proprietary sample player as far as it will works fine, but this is not the case, or at least not so far.

Play needs a deep review. Just by improving loading time for any patch from 2:45 minutes to 2:40 minutes doesn't makes any difference (same for CPU load).

Honestly as owner of many EW products I wish that Play4 will be as efficient as Kontakt or Vienna, and if the current team is unable to reach that target perhaps it's time to hire 3rd parts to make Play the product that supposedly should be but for real finally. But please, stop with lies, fake promises, censures, manipulated information, etc. Rather than spending the effort in covering a big lie please all these time, money and resources to make it working. It will be better for both sides, EW and us, the customers.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2012)

It's obvious that PLAY works differently, depending on the system.


Just so some of you know. If you are trying to run HS on a standard drive, then you most likely will get a bit of popping and clicking and sluggish playback.

Get an SSD and you will see a massive difference.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2012)

Dan-Jay is right, Play works differently.

Carles, you always seem to define a "fact" as "what I believe". It is not.

Play 3 is not perfect, just as Kontakt is not perfect. It would certainly be good for it to be made to be more efficient, especially on the Mac, and that is indeed why they are working hard on Play 4, just as N.I. continues to work on Kontakt, which did not start to be the Kontakt we all like IMHO until 3.5

EW's success is built on the fact that its libraries are well received, win awards, and most people who buy them like them. Not all, of course, but most. Most EW customers are repeat customers. People are not stupid. If they were unhappy with their purchases, they would not buy more and yet they do. This forum is not necessarily representative of the sample library buying universe.

EW is indeed happy with its sales figures but always would like more and they continue to work hard to achieve that. But Play is here to stay and all the "they made a mistake", or "I won't buy another Play library" posts here are flogging the proverbial dead horse.

People can make their choices but frankly these kind of "EW should use another engine" posts are a waste of everyone's time, cyberspace, and just a colossal bore at this point.


----------



## Carles (Nov 27, 2012)

Jay, I agree that EW products are really good, that's why I've defended HS in this thread and why believe it or not I'm concerned about the future of EW.

But Play is not OK and any attempt of masking that reality sounds fake and dirty. And I'm not talking about what I think but about what hundreds of people think (seriously the Net is infested with negativity about Play and that's not subjective but factual).

I'm not saying that replacing Play is the single solution. I think it just can be fixed, but seriously fixed.

Nothing to complain neither about "they did a mistake". I think nobody can say that never did a mistake. As much as they will demonstrate strong interest in fixing the mistake I'll be happy waiting for the solution (a true solution rather than subtle fixes plus the introduction of new mistakes).

I don't think that the guys of NI or Vienna are so lucky to have the two or three single existing brilliant programmers in the entire world capable to do the appropriate job, so why EW cannot hire the proper people to solve a real problem rather than spending so many resources in the useless effort of covering the truth.
That's what make no sense to me and the subject of my criticism. Please don't cover the problem but just fix it! Play clean and play fear!

Also if a SSD is practically a requirement then the Hollywood series should be delivered in this format (with some extra charge). If EW is a massive SSD consumer can get discounts that we as individuals never will get so that's a considerable extra price each of us have to pay to be able to use the libraries properly.

Also, imagine for a moment how cool your job could be getting compliments rather than complaints 

In all cases, my apologies Jay for making your job complicated by exposing all above but factual or not, more wrong or more certain, the true is that something is not working fine (call it as you wish) and that the users are suffering consequences because an inefficient sample player and we have to express our disappointment as it's the single way to make EW understand that they have something to get fixed, and we're demanding that. And as said, a solution would be highly convenient for both sides.
We could enjoy more those amazing libraries and surely they will increase the sales as soon as the Play issues will be just something past.

Mostly for making things easier to you Jay, I go to stop here with my comments at this regard.

I just hope that anyone can see my comments as an attempt of bringing my 2 cents rather than casting myself as the EW #1 enemy (it's not that case).

But please, EW should bring up some solutions because the issue is not subjective but for real.

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2012)

Carles

Perhaps you could post the clicking and popping sounds you get here?

Also - EW recommends an SSD for HS, it says it in the requirements.

I had the exact same frustrations as you, but I went and got an SSD. HS struggles to run on a normal drive, depending on what patches you use. Using the powerful patches on a normal drive won't get you very far, which what happened to me.

I think your popping and clicking will go away if you get an SSD. If you love the library that much, like I do, you should invest in one.


----------



## synapse21 (Nov 27, 2012)

What about cranking the PLAY Engine buffers up to High - does this help with regular mechanical HDDs and Hollywood Strings?


----------



## guydoingmusic (Nov 27, 2012)

I guess EW should provide a new computer along with the SSD. And an assistant for getting coffee, organising, etc. And while we are at it... a course in orchestration/composition to make it fair for every composer that buys anything from the EW Hollywood libraries. Actually... they could even include one of those pre-recorded phrase libraries so all you have to do is have your assistant, that EW has provided, push a key and your job is done!! 

Jay, do you think Doug and all the higher ups will go for my idea? ~o) 

Brad


----------



## Carles (Nov 27, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Carles
> 
> Perhaps you could post the clicking and popping sounds you get here?
> 
> ...



Yes, I love it. And it's sad when I have to apply restrictions and load as less patches as possible.

I've been thinking a lot on that.
The problem is that while my PC is quite decent it's designed for domestic use and I have no more bays for another HD (only two in total, system plus just one more).
So, to add another internal HD I should replace my computer which is quite new :(

Perhaps I should run a test moving my current samples HD into an external case and try how the non Play libraries perform (maybe still quite well as these are now loading instantly) and keep the current internal bay for the SSD.

I was so hesitant because I've read reviews about performance (SSD's vs fast non SSD's) and the improvement is always around a small percent (which could mean just a few seconds less when loading) but if you say that there is a considerable difference (also helping with pops and clicks) then it deserves to be reconsidered.

Any specific specs to consider when looking for an SSD? Which transfer rate is yours?

Thanks in advance,
Carles


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 27, 2012)

guydoingmusic @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> I guess EW should provide a new computer along with the SSD. And an assistant for getting coffee, organising, etc. And while we are at it... a course in orchestration/composition to make it fair for every composer that buys anything from the EW Hollywood libraries. Actually... they could even include one of those pre-recorded phrase libraries so all you have to do is have your assistant, that EW has provided, push a key and your job is done!!
> 
> Jay, do you think Doug and all the higher ups will go for my idea? ~o)
> 
> Brad



Sounds great, Brad, i'll shoot it right over to him!


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2012)

Carles @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Dan-Jay @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Carles
> ...



The improvement is not a small percentage.


I'd suggest a Crucial 512GB for your HS drive and perhaps copy your other samples to another drive, so that you can replace an existing drive with HS. Perhaps there are samples libraries you don't ever touch, or just random stuff laying around you can clear out.

I bought an SSD for my C drive too. As soon as I boot it, the Windows blue loading screen doesn't even come up. It goes straight to my desktop with everything loaded in seconds. Before I'd have to wait.

A big legato patch in HS takes about 6 seconds to load. Not long really, compared to about a whole minute when I didn't have an SSD.

I'm just saying, in my experience, it's helped a lot and I still have the very first i7 920 QUAD. So your PC is better than mine. I'm sure you have SATA 3 aswell. I only have SATA 2, so I am not getting the full speeds out of my SSDs, but it's still fast enough.


----------



## Carles (Nov 27, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Carles @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Dan-Jay @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> ...



Much appreciated Dan.
A legato patch in 6 seconds? surely that will be my next investment then 

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Carles (Nov 27, 2012)

guydoingmusic @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> I guess EW should provide a new computer along with the SSD. And an assistant for getting coffee, organising, etc. And while we are at it... a course in orchestration/composition to make it fair for every composer that buys anything from the EW Hollywood libraries. Actually... they could even include one of those pre-recorded phrase libraries so all you have to do is have your assistant, that EW has provided, push a key and your job is done!!
> 
> Jay, do you think Doug and all the higher ups will go for my idea? ~o)
> 
> Brad



Sorry man, I don't catch your irony.

Some EW products are already delivered loaded on hardware (just not the appropriate one for certain libraries) so I don't think it's so weird idea.

I'm CG Artist and in my field is not unusual (specially in the past) to find integrated hardware-software solutions due its high requirements.

It has advantages such as price (as said, a major buyer can negotiate amazing discounts) and also it's granted that the software you're buying runs smooth on the provided hardware.

So?

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2012)

Carles @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Dan-Jay @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Carles @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> ...




No prob.

I will actually test the time it takes, when I am on music PC. I wish I actually timed it on my old drive, but I know it took pretty damn long. I'd just go get a coffee while I wait.


----------



## Mahlon (Nov 28, 2012)

Carles @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> I was so hesitant because I've read reviews about performance (SSD's vs fast non SSD's) and the improvement is always around a small percent (which could mean just a few seconds less when loading) but if you say that there is a considerable difference (also helping with pops and clicks) then it deserves to be reconsidered.



But the important improvement would be in faster streaming.

Best,
Mahlon


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 28, 2012)

i fail to understand why do we need an SSD drive for HS while other libraires run in regular HDs. 

anyone care to engliten me and fyi - im not deeminng HS i just see so much talk about SSD and HS but not for LASS, CS etc


----------



## mark812 (Nov 28, 2012)

gsilbers @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> anyone care to engliten me and fyi - im not deeminng HS i just see so much talk about SSD and HS but not for LASS, CS etc



PLAY / Kontakt?


----------



## IFM (Nov 28, 2012)

I run all my Cinesample libraries off a SSD just because it will be a lot faster no matter how you slice it.


----------



## FriFlo (Nov 28, 2012)

What all of you east west defenders seem to be missing here: Every sample player benefits from the faster streaming by SSDs! Nobody would complain about that fact. And I wouldn't complain either, if was required to use an SSD for a cool library. However, the reason, that HS requires an SSD is, that the same amount of voices being streamed DOES cost way more Computer recousrces in Play, than in Kontakt or VSL. EW always said, that was due to their long, natural release samples. They could tell this fairy tale in time, where barely anything orchestral than VSL and EW were available. But now, with all these libraries for Kontakt, I urge you to just compare at how many voices you get problems with play and with Kontakt. I am not talking about how many key you hit at the same time! I mean voices being in use, that Kontakt displays!
See for yourself ... Then, on a Mac it gets really ugly ...
I really don't get, how anyone could defend EWs refusal over many years to really make a sample player happen, that is even close to the same league as Kontakt. The sounds may be good! But the lack of decent software (leaving Kontakt was their choice!) is simply unforgivable ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 28, 2012)

[quote="FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:16 pm
I really don't get, how anyone could defend EWs refusal over many years to really make a sample player happen, that is even close to the same league as Kontakt. The sounds may be good! But the lack of decent software (leaving Kontakt was their choice!) is simply unforgivable ...[/quote]

Then don't forgive us. We'll just have to manage without you somehow.


----------



## TomMartin (Nov 28, 2012)

OK well, back to my original post...

I ended up buying CS2.

So far I like to use it as the main string sound.

If a line has some faster legato parts in it, and I need more note definition, I like to layer in some LASS FC, A section, or both, instead of using the CS2 staccato overlay.

LASS spiccatos layered with CS2 staccatissimo using CS2 for more room sound.

And then Albion gets used either for a softer less up front sound, or whenever I want hi's or low's playing in octaves, which sound really nice in Albion. Or if I want something like a flute and violins unision, I would proabably use Albion seems as they were both recorded in the same space. Probably layerd in with CS2 as well........AHHHHH the possibilities!



SO...

Can anyone tell me what exactly I'm missing out on by not having Hollywood Strings? I know there are lots of articulations, but what exactly do I not have covered already? OR is it just another flavour of all the above?

As I may have mentioned earlier, I'm sure I will get it to see what all the fuss is about, but I would like another slave PC first as I am pretty much certain it wouldn't play nice in my template on one machine!


----------



## FriFlo (Nov 28, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> [quote="FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:16 pm
> I really don't get, how anyone could defend EWs refusal over many years to really make a sample player happen, that is even close to the same league as Kontakt. The sounds may be good! But the lack of decent software (leaving Kontakt was their choice!) is simply unforgivable ...
> 
> Then don't forgive us. We'll just have to manage without you somehow.



Not only does EW have the worst sample player on the market ... they also seem to have the most unprofessional PR-stuff. 
o-[][]-o o=< o=? o[])


----------



## FriFlo (Nov 28, 2012)

TomMartin @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> OK well, back to my original post...
> SO...
> 
> Can anyone tell me what exactly I'm missing out on by not having Hollywood Strings? I know there are lots of articulations, but what exactly do I not have covered already? OR is it just another flavour of all the above?
> ...



You are sure are better off with a slave machine with HS, especially if you DAW is a mac. Don't forget about the SSD! 

Aside from the obvious different flavour: What you get with HS you may see foyourself buy watching the EW-Videos. There is e.g. a playable runs patch. Something like that could be replaced by OSR2 or clever use of LASS patches. There is bow change legato, differnet playing ranges (like sul g) are coverd, different microphone positions ... basically, there is much more choice of playing styles.
As I was trying to say before, I don't have HS or any of the Hollywood series (only earlier EW products). So I am not sure, if all of these patches are as great, as tey appear to be in the demo.
I am sure as hell very tempted by the current sale! However, I won't buy a single EW library - however great it might sound - before they get their player right. This is not hate towards them! I simply don't want to have great samples, I don't use, because they screw my computer performance ...
Now, you seem to be another lost potential customer to them, as there are probably many more. That is why I don't understand, why they won't listen (and even be sarcastic about it).


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 28, 2012)

FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:16 pm
> ...



I am not a "PR person" I am the Online Coordinator and my job is to help people get the help they need and communicate from EW to you guys ,which I do a sincere job of, as you can see by the many thank yous I received over the last couple of days. But you are not looking for help, you are just venting your opinions, all of which have been expressed here countless times by you and others.

At a certain point, enough is enough and if you are willing to let it go, we are willing to let you go.


----------



## FriFlo (Nov 28, 2012)

> Then don't forgive us. We'll just have to manage without you somehow.


I am sorry, Jay. Online coordinator or PR-person - that reply is just poor ... You may choose to ignore complaints about Play! But if you answer, the answer must be as polite, as the complaint was formulated. Trying to wipe every fact-based argument away just by some smart-ass comment and a smiley simply doesn't work. And wether you ignore it or not: you simply won't get away from the fact that people will keep noticing the inferiority of EWs sample player. It will cost you customers. That is not what I want! At this point it doesn't even matter any more, if someone writes a negative note about Play, because this place (and others) is filled with those kinds of remarks. Instead of listening to the feedback, you choose to talk it pretty ...
I'd like to buy HS or any other new library from EW ... If you cannot see that in spite of what I wrote here, I am really sorry for you ...


----------



## guydoingmusic (Nov 28, 2012)

FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> > Then don't forgive us. We'll just have to manage without you somehow.
> 
> 
> I am sorry, Jay. Online coordinator or PR-person - that reply is just poor ... You may choose to ignore complaints about Play! But if you answer, the answer must be as polite, as the complaint was formulated. Trying to wipe every fact-based argument away just by some smart-ass comment and a smiley simply doesn't work. And wether you ignore it or not: you simply won't get away from the fact that people will keep noticing the inferiority of EWs sample player. It will cost you customers. That is not what I want! At this point it doesn't even matter any more, if someone writes a negative note about Play, because this place (and others) is filled with those kinds of remarks. Instead of listening to the feedback, you choose to talk it pretty ...
> I'd like to buy HS or any other new library from EW ... If you cannot see that in spite of what I wrote here, I am really sorry for you ...



FriFlo: No one is going to beg you to buy their library, nor or they going to change their whole operation around to fit people like you who A. don't own the library, and B. say they will never buy the library. I think what Jay is saying is that they have enough happy users that you not buying HS... isn't going to keep him from getting a paycheck.

Also... I'll mention this again... Did you ever own VSL's Giga library? That thing sounded amazing back in the day! Still does! But was impossible to use on one computer because of the resources. You needed 4 for just the library to load at it's fullest capability. Talk about a memory hog!

YES...Play is more resource hungry than some others. But apparently they are working on it(Play 4) and are trying to make it where people like you and the other whiners will finally stop doing this ----> ;/c] 

So PLEASE!!... back to the topic...

Brad


----------



## Ed (Nov 28, 2012)

The problem is the denial that Play is inefficient when compared to something like Kontakt. When you can load a simple patch in Play and it has problems but load a very large complex patch in Kontakt but it doesn't, this suggests its the software rather than the library itself just being more resource intensive due to how big it is. Getting an SSD may well help, but thats working around inefficiency by overcompensating. If there wasnt a denial of this I think people wouldnt keep bringing it up.


----------



## david robinson (Nov 28, 2012)

i've got the cash to buy any and all libraries, and yes, i've got some EW-QL stuff.
the sound is stellar - but it taxes my system much more than any other, and the "others" sound just as good in their own ways.........
j.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 28, 2012)

TomMartin @ Thu 29 Nov said:


> SO...
> 
> Can anyone tell me what exactly I'm missing out on by not having Hollywood Strings?!



Hours of headaches.


----------



## FriFlo (Nov 28, 2012)

guydoingmusic @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > YES...Play is more resource hungry than some others. But apparently they are working on it(Play 4) and are trying to make it where people like you and the other whiners will finally stop doing this ----> ;/c]
> > Brad


Back to the same old song: Stop whining ...
Hell, NO! I will not stop saying Play is bad, as long as it has not become at least slose to the standard today. All your arguments - I won't even go into details - are pure nonsense. As I already said: Recource-hungry is ok, as long as there is a reason for qualities sake. I perfectly accept, that e.g. sample modeling stuff ist CPU intensive, as I understand, a lot of calculation is needed to make the modeling happen in real time (convolution etc.). But EW is about streaming samples. Doesn't matter, what samples or how they sound. Efficiency sucks compared to Kontakt ...
And, of course: EW may well give up on me as a customer. But not on a quarter to half of there target group. I am definitively NOT the only one, that doesn't like the play engine. Nor will I let anyone silence me. I will continue to post, when I like or dislike something.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 28, 2012)

FriFlo @ Thu Nov 29 said:


> guydoingmusic @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > FriFlo @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> ...




Can you tell me how many voices does it take for you to make PLAY crap out?

What libraries are you having problems with?

What type of issues are you getting?

What are your system specs?


----------



## José Herring (Nov 28, 2012)

Mean while, back at the ranch. Been using Play all day today. Workin' fine!!


----------



## guydoingmusic (Nov 28, 2012)

josejherring @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> Mean while, back at the ranch. Been using Play all day today. Workin' fine!!



Ditto!! 17 instances as a matter of fact. Not one click/pop. 

Brad

EDIT: P.S. And not one single headache.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 28, 2012)

mark812 @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> gsilbers @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > anyone care to engliten me and fyi - im not deeminng HS i just see so much talk about SSD and HS but not for LASS, CS etc
> ...



so its related to player inefficiency?>

a good comparison could be made with EWQL which is available for both players. which i heard that it taxes more system resources on Play but it sounds better. which wouldn't know how. 

so play will need faster drives to playback HS? how many patches before it craps out in an HHD. ?

im also trying to understand why would anyone have to change their system spec if the competing libraries are not asking so. 
maybe EW thinks you need more patches loaded on a template so its more of a bigger picture approach?


----------



## Stiltzkin (Nov 28, 2012)

To be honest (while I understand that there can be frustration in the player) the level of detail and the incredible sound you get from HS should be enough reason to deal with it.

Surely when you finish writing and it's time to turn it into something and get it to sound as good as you can, the added effort is worth it? All that really matters to all of us in the end is that we can create the product we WANT to make?

I don't own HS but I was looking to get it in January to help beef up my library a bit - and I think it would be hard to find someone who thinks HS doesn't sound incredible... Surely it's worth it?


----------



## alligatorlizard (Nov 29, 2012)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu 29 Nov said:


> TomMartin @ Thu 29 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > SO...
> ...



Haha, beat me to it!! I actually have no problem with PLAY, love the vast majority of EW products, but can't recommend HS - yes it sounds great, but wait till you start using it in a situation which requires any degree of complexity, and you'll find yourself doing battle with the sloppy programming at every step. There are better libraries now for the expressive stuff (Adagio) and LASS or CS far easier to work with for the meat and potatoes.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 29, 2012)

hhmm. i actually heard bad stuff about adagio. 
seems is taboo saying something bad about it since 8dio is so loved in this forum. 

to me its a bit pricey. HS on the other hand is lowering its proce way too much. to me its cheapeing their product. its ok for older stuff to keep selling but HS is fairly new and deep discounts are great for us but now i dont see it as the mercedez of libraries - recorded by top engineers etc - more like a used lexus with not a good engine  
still same library so its more of a marketing/biz thing. if ew sells more and then better for them.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 29, 2012)

alligatorlizard @ Fri 30 Nov said:


> SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu 29 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > TomMartin @ Thu 29 Nov said:
> ...



Well that's the thing - we can debate for hours about PLAY but the simple fact is HS is not well designed at all.


----------



## TomMartin (Nov 29, 2012)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu Nov 29 said:


> alligatorlizard @ Fri 30 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu 29 Nov said:
> ...



Yes, that's quite a morr interesting debate than the issues with PLAY....how does the actual library function, in a perfect world without PLAY problems?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 29, 2012)

TomMartin @ Thu Nov 29 said:


> Yes, that's quite a morr interesting debate than the issues with PLAY....how does the actual library function, in a perfect world without PLAY problems?



IMHO as a USER:

The good news is that there are a boatload of patches, designed for everything you could want to do.

The bad news is that there are a boatload of patches, designed for everything you could want to do.

And there are SO many patches that some do not work as they should. But you can easily pick out about 5 or 6 for each instrument that work quite well and will allow you to do 90% of what you ever want to do. I think even T.J. said that he did most of his work with a handful.


----------



## TomMartin (Nov 29, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Nov 29 said:


> TomMartin @ Thu Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that's quite a morr interesting debate than the issues with PLAY....how does the actual library function, in a perfect world without PLAY problems?
> ...




I see.... I agree with that being both good and bad! Coming from someone who spends more time re arranging his template than actually composing... (and I bet I'm not the only one!!!)


I look forward to trying it in the future, but at the moment my template is really pushing my one machine, I have a slave but it is PITIFUL and just about handles my albion patches. BUT in the future I would like to have a slave powerful enough to hand a pretty extensive Hollywood Strings and Hollywood Brass layout, running up to 3 mic positions and enough articulations that once I have them all picked out and loaded, I never have to go looking through them again.

Is this possible on one slave? What kind of spec do you think might be required?


----------



## Oguz Sehiralti (Nov 30, 2012)

My post went up unnoticed up there, so I'm trying again, with more detail.

I've tried Play version of EWQLSO gold on a Mac and it was ok, so I'd like to try HS with this discount, but these discussions on the engine AND the approach to their customers from East West scares me. It might be cheap now, but even $500 is a lot if I won't be able to use it properly.

So my question about performance is; as I posted above, I have a rather humble machine which I'm working with actually a great performance so far. It's a MBpro with dual core i5 , 8gigs of memory and a 7200 rpm Hdd (I do plan to upgrade to an ssd in the future). What I want to be able to do with this library is, run all the strings (so at most 5 instances of Play), with the minimum articulations ( legato, stacc, pizz, trem, and maybe 1-2 more depending on the piece) with ONLY one mic position (I'll "render" one by one for each mic). I think that this should be possible to do with 8gigs of memory as I'm not looking for running huge templates. Can somebody comment on whether this is possible or not? I'll appreciate it a lot.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 30, 2012)

Oguz Sehiralti @ Fri Nov 30 said:


> My post went up unnoticed up there, so I'm trying again, with more detail.
> 
> I've tried Play version of EWQLSO gold on a Mac and it was ok, so I'd like to try HS with this discount, but these discussions on the engine AND the approach to their customers from East West scares me. It might be cheap now, but even $500 is a lot if I won't be able to use it properly.
> 
> So my question about performance is; as I posted above, I have a rather humble machine which I'm working with actually a great performance so far. It's a MBpro with dual core i5 , 8gigs of memory and a 7200 rpm Hdd (I do plan to upgrade to an ssd in the future). What I want to be able to do with this library is, run all the strings (so at most 5 instances of Play), with the minimum articulations ( legato, stacc, pizz, trem, and maybe 1-2 more depending on the piece) with ONLY one mic position (I'll "render" one by one for each mic). I think that this should be possible to do with 8gigs of memory as I'm not looking for running huge templates. Can somebody comment on whether this is possible or not? I'll appreciate it a lot.



I don't think your machine is up to much of HS, in all candor. But let me run a test with my i7 Mac Mini from a 7200 HD and see what I can run and that may help give you at lest some idea.

As you may or may not know, HS has the "powerful system" patches, which are the best sounding but most demanding. But then it has lighter LT 12, LT 6, and LT 3, which have fewer layers but still sound darned good. I think on your machine LT 6 may be possible or LT 3, so let me see what I come up with.


----------



## Oguz Sehiralti (Nov 30, 2012)

Thanks for your answer Jay. A test would be great, so let me clarify what I hope to achieve.

As far as I know, powerful system patches have a lot of xfading possibilities, so lt12 has 3 vibratos * 4 dynamics, and when I press a key, all of them are played so I can xfade between them, right? In my scenario above, with the string template I mentioned, I will only be looking for 4 dyanmic layer xfade with long notes, (so vibrato will be more in forte and less in piano, if I understood the library correctly) and just one finger position, and as I said, I wont be working with more that one mic now. When I need more realism, I'm thinking of having a session just for that instrument group.

If I can make this work, I'm willing to bite the bullet and buy it, because I don't think this library will get old, so it's possible that I'll go on using it when I'll br able to afford more powerful machines. But I've seen someone do this and more with LASS with a machine that's the same as mine, so I'm hoping to be able to run just strings, without the fancy patches yet (and it really sounds very good!).



EastWest Lurker @ Fri Nov 30 said:


> Oguz Sehiralti @ Fri Nov 30 said:
> 
> 
> > My post went up unnoticed up there, so I'm trying again, with more detail.
> ...


----------



## Christian F. Perucchi (Nov 30, 2012)

Thanks Jay for the tests!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 30, 2012)

OK, this was interesting, I had not done this since I sold my aging 1st gen 2.66 Quad Core and bought the Mac Mini server 2.0 i7 Quad Core and it is a world of difference.
First of all, I am not going to sugar coat it (or apologize for it) but to load the same patches in Play on a Mac uses more RAM than to do so on a PC. It just does.

The OP has only 8 GBs and the OS itself on boot up uses almost 3, so we have 5 to play with, assuming we close everything else other than the DAW (in this case, Logic Pro) and Activity Monitor, which does not use much RAM, abd Safari, so that I can write this post  

So for each instrument (1st Vln, 2nd Vln, Vla, Vlc, and DB) I loaded 4 patches for each that I would consider the most necessary: Leg Slur LT3, Spiccato-Marcato Mod, Tremolo, and Pizz. Those 20 patches require a little less than 5 GB of RAM

So at that point, the OP will have to freeze or bounce.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 30, 2012)

> The OP has only 8 GBs and the OS itself on boot up uses almost 3



Plus it uses considerably more than that for caching if it's available.


----------



## Malo (Nov 30, 2012)

Hi,

I'm on a Mac Pro 2x2.66 with 24gb ram, running Logic 9 and VE Pro 5. Would it be pointless to try to run EastWest Lurker's patch list on HS GOLD from an internal SSD on this computer?

I really like the sound of HS, but obviously there's no point in wasting my time and money if my computer can't keep up.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Dec 1, 2012)

Ed @ Thu Nov 29 said:


> The problem is the denial that Play is inefficient when compared to something like Kontakt. When you can load a simple patch in Play and it has problems but load a very large complex patch in Kontakt but it doesn't, this suggests its the software rather than the library itself just being more resource intensive due to how big it is. Getting an SSD may well help, but thats working around inefficiency by overcompensating. If there wasnt a denial of this I think people wouldnt keep bringing it up.



Right. There has always been complete denial about PLAY's ancient GUI and lacking performance. Seems it's never going to change, and development is EXTREMELY slow. I am not buying anymore EW libraries that's for sure. Thankfully there are some players on the market now that create just as good (or better) libraries, like Spitfire, Cinesamples, Hendrik (Berlin Woodwinds), Samplemodelling etc etc. There is plenty of good libraries go go around without the need for PLAY libraries. I still use the choir with wordbuilder, the pianos and a little of the brass but that's pretty much it.


----------



## playz123 (Dec 1, 2012)

Simon Ravn @ Sat Dec 01 said:


> Ed @ Thu Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is the denial that Play is inefficient when compared to something like Kontakt. When you can load a simple patch in Play and it has problems but load a very large complex patch in Kontakt but it doesn't, this suggests its the software rather than the library itself just being more resource intensive due to how big it is. Getting an SSD may well help, but thats working around inefficiency by overcompensating. If there wasnt a denial of this I think people wouldnt keep bringing it up.
> ...



As an owner and user of most EW libraries, I would agree that most of those comments are fair, and I suggest too that they certainly don't necessarily fit into the category of negative EW "bashing". Play may be "solid" on many systems, but that doesn't mean either that it isn't long overdue for improvement...for the reasons many of us have mentioned. I really don't know why even the beta version of Play 4 hasn't gone public yet, why it's taking so long or why there's no sign of Play Pro after three years, but that's really not my problem to solve. Improve Play and the rest may follow. But right now there are simply too many people who are dissatisfied to even pretend that somewhere in all that problems don't exist or that something doesn't need to change before confidence in Play is restored. All I know is that I've been waiting patiently for a long time for improvements.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 1, 2012)

EWQLSO Gold strings are pretty much a mess. HS and CS2.0 are much better balanced across articulations.

José


----------



## TomMartin (Dec 1, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 01 said:


> EWQLSO Gold strings are pretty much a mess. HS and CS2.0 are much better balanced across articulations.
> 
> José



I especially appreciate how much louder the vioala's are in EWQLSO....said nobody ever....


----------



## Caedwallon (Dec 10, 2012)

Cinematic Strings 2, it is truly excellent for it's price. Very consistent, if somewhat tame, sounds. They market honestly and have great customer support. I'd recommend it any day. It does not have an extensive list of articulations, but it'll definitely get you started. Mr. Wallbank hinted at Brass and Wind libraries following suit; quite honestly, after what they've done with CS2, I'd buy their future creations in a heartbeat.

EW's PLAY is too much trouble. I own HS, but it cripples my workflow because it does not work properly for me. Such a shame, it does have beautiful sounds and an interesting line-up of articulations. The patches are not very consistent, though (especially in Gold). I've encountered a lot of annoying bugs and seen a lot of bug reports over at their forums too and in many cases - yes, the reports are true. What truly makes this questionable is that I've yet to see any of the issues being fixed or even acknowledged.


----------



## Adamich (Dec 11, 2012)

I think I'm losing my mind. Are there any demo's out there of CS2 string runs?

Cheers


----------



## mark812 (Dec 11, 2012)

Adamich @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> I think I'm losing my mind. Are there any demo's out there of CS2 string runs?
> 
> Cheers


----------



## JohnG (Dec 11, 2012)

I'm a happy user of HS; I love the beautiful sound and finally, for the first time EVER, I feel comfortable writing fast runs for sampled strings. I don't have any trouble with PLAY on my Mac or my PC slaves. I run HS on a powerful PC slave (along with LASS and a few other string goodies).

I don't have CS.




(Note: I have received free products from East West)


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 11, 2012)

cosmodos @ Sun Dec 02 said:


> For those of who have used both HS and CS, how would you compare the balance within each library? As in, when going from one articulation to another, are the patches well balanced in terms of expression? Any adjusting of CC7 or 11 just to get dynamics to match up? Or can you just go from one to the next and have it transition smoothly with no volume jumps?
> 
> I've been using SO Gold for years and the patches are in no way balanced with eachother (play 18V Sus DXF at minimum CC1, and then play 18V QLeg DXF and see what I mean). It's a hassle to constantly adjust my template to get dynamics to match up smoothly.



You will need to do some adjusting.

I find the legato patches to be lower in volume, so you might want to bump them up a bit.

Also, the sensitivity on each patch is different, at least for me.


I use SUS 13 DB for all sections and the legato LT 12 RR. Don't really see much point in using the big legato patches.


----------



## Vision (Dec 11, 2012)

Malo @ Fri Nov 30 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm on a Mac Pro 2x2.66 with 24gb ram, running Logic 9 and VE Pro 5. Would it be pointless to try to run EastWest Lurker's patch list on HS GOLD from an internal SSD on this computer?
> 
> I really like the sound of HS, but obviously there's no point in wasting my time and money if my computer can't keep up.



If you don't have a pc, or a pc slave you'll be disappointed with the performance of HS on a lone Mac. An SSD will not remedy PLAY's issues on a Mac platform either unfortunately.


----------



## synapse21 (Dec 11, 2012)

Hopefully Apple steps it up soon!


----------



## Vision (Dec 11, 2012)

synapse21 @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Hopefully Apple steps it up soon!



Don't know if your joking.. so I'll just assume you're new here. This topic has been beaten to death, and then some. It's actually PLAY's coding on Mac that is the problem, not the Mac platform. It's not even worth arguing about at this point.


----------



## brubru (Dec 11, 2012)

Vision @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> If you don't have a pc, or a pc slave you'll be disappointed with the performance of HS on a lone Mac. An SSD will not remedy PLAY's issues on a Mac platform either unfortunately.



I have to disagree with this. I am running Hollywood Strings and Brass on both mac and pc, both with SSD's. Load time for both is the same on mac and PC. My brass setup in Play used to take 8 minutes to load on the mac with a SATA drive. With an SSD it now takes under 2 minutes. (SSD on the mac pro is in the 2nd optical drive slot) 

Yes, it is true that you should have an SSD to run the Hollywood series and that it sucks a lot of ram, but, I can think of several Kontakt libraries that are similar. 

omar


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 11, 2012)

> i have HS and don't use it because i cant get into PLAY and it overloads my system. i'll just say that no other libraries i have, and i have almost all of them, nothing else overloads my system like PLAY does.



WHAT'S your system? This is so utterly generic how can anyone really put your critique into any kind of perspective! 

Here's the system EW tests on:
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/show ... hp?t=34228

Where's yours by comparison? And what other stuff do you have running on it? Is it dedicated to sequencing? Or do you do other stuff on it too? 

And which HS version do you have? And what types of patches are you loading?

In short, please, source your criticism!


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 12, 2012)

brubru @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Vision @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't have a pc, or a pc slave you'll be disappointed with the performance of HS on a lone Mac. An SSD will not remedy PLAY's issues on a Mac platform either unfortunately.
> ...



And you get a decent amount of polyphony on the Mac without crackles and such? If so, congratulations- you are the first to report that, afaik.


----------



## FredrikJonasson (Dec 12, 2012)

My opinion on CS is that it sounds absolutely wonderful. Absolutely one of my best purchases, even if the basses are a bit... I don't know, clumsy? The workflow suits me fine, with one single patch for each instrument. Wish they could release woodwinds too.. However I imagine you could perhaps miss spiccato.


----------



## Ed (Dec 12, 2012)

What do you find clumsy about the basses?


----------



## brubru (Dec 12, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> And you get a decent amount of polyphony on the Mac without crackles and such? If so, congratulations- you are the first to report that, afaik.



Yes. no cracks or pops. Play is hosted in VE pro on mac and pc.


----------



## synapse21 (Dec 12, 2012)

Did you set the PLAY engine's buffers to High? Uses more memory, but I'm sure that helps.


----------



## FredrikJonasson (Dec 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> What do you find clumsy about the basses?



I think it comes down to that it doesn't just sound good when I play it on my keyboard. They don't feel as musical as for example the cellos, the transitions perhaps not as perfected (I would gladly be corrected by Alex or anyone else). However I also imagine this is the case with a majority of the libraries out there..?


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 14, 2012)

brubru @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > And you get a decent amount of polyphony on the Mac without crackles and such? If so, congratulations- you are the first to report that, afaik.
> ...



Interesting. How many voices are you streaming from the Mac alone?


----------



## brubru (Dec 15, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> Interesting. How many voices are you streaming from the Mac alone?


Good question. Where would I find this out?


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 15, 2012)

brubru @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Dec 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. How many voices are you streaming from the Mac alone?
> ...



That's probably a better question for Jay. I think it's on the Play GUI, but I'm not sure if it's single instrument or total.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 15, 2012)

FredrikJonasson @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> Ed @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you find clumsy about the basses?
> ...



There are a few bumpy loops in the Basses. I'd love Alex to chime in about those, actually.....


----------

