# Hollywood Woodwinds East West



## ctsai89 (Feb 26, 2017)

I've heard that Hollywood Orchestra is generally very good except for the woodwinds. I'm too lazy to download and subscribe so can someone tell me why people keep saying it's worse than hollywood brass and strings? What is wrong with them?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 26, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> I've heard that Hollywood Orchestra is generally very good except for the woodwinds. I'm too lazy to download and subscribe so can someone tell me why people keep saying it's worse than hollywood brass and strings? What is wrong with them?



My theory is because on the initial release, there were a lot of problems with the legato transitions. Most were fixed in a later update. That said, I do think that particular studio worked less well for the woodwinds and that its chief virtue is that it blends really well with the other sections of the Hollywood Orchestra. Otherwise, there are other libraries you might prefer.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 26, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> My theory is because on the initial release, there were a lot of problems with the legato transitions. Most were fixed in a later update. That said, I do think that particular studio worked less well for the woodwinds and that its chief virtue is that it blends really well with the other sections of the Hollywood Orchestra. Otherwise, there are other libraries you might prefer.



cool thanks. I actually really like hollywood brass and i hate to have to be all OCD trying to mix different libraries to eachother with the correct level volume, i would even break a hair over 0.5 decibels! that's why i'm considering going all hollywood.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 26, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> cool thanks. I actually really like hollywood brass and i hate to have to be all OCD trying to mix different libraries to eachother with the correct level volume, i would even break a hair over 0.5 decibels! that's why i'm considering going all hollywood.



The four sections definitely do work well together, as does the harp. I am less pleased with the solo violin and solo cello.


----------



## Zookes (Feb 26, 2017)

Owning this library, I find this myself: I dislike it so strongly, even typing about it angers me.

So many problems exist still within Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds by East West and they are in the recordings and programming, never to be repaired even after *so long*.

Very bad phasing in clarinets dynamics, for example. Especially bass clarinet. Bad legato transitions still for all clarinets also and very inconsistent between all patches even the flutes. Nearly unusable contrabass clarinet patches being a silly FX novelty except for pads because all articulations other than sustaining is very inconsistent in quality.

Addressed tho these issues were, they exist still and have not been made usable let alone playable. Very very very disappointing, and such long-away promises as "PLAY Pro" not materializing means you cannot fix the issues yourself as you maybe could from Kontakt.

You will find also disappointing recording choices like the piccolo does not achieve desirable loudness and stress for soaring lines above strings or combined with brass. Why? It is very Hollywood to have it perform in such ways, tho it is not possible with this library without a significant noise floor and unrealistic mixing!

It is so bad! Makes me nit-pick so much the other Hollywood libraries also that I dislike using them! I say I wish better to have never bought it. It colors my thoughts on East West very negatively they let such poor quality things be released despite the history of good works.


----------



## trumpoz (Feb 26, 2017)

Woodwinds are certainly the weakest section of the Hollywood series. VSL has replaced them in my template.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 26, 2017)

Zookes said:


> Owning this library, I find this myself: I dislike it so strongly, even typing about it angers me.
> 
> So many problems exist still within Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds by East West and they are in the recordings and programming, never to be repaired even after *so long*.
> 
> ...



well then i'm only hoping spitfire would fix the brass issues because the rest of everything are pretty decent...(and for this i thought hollywood orchestra had it better overall) but brass is really important to me so it's like ... should i go all spitfire or go all east west? maybe i'll just mix the brass from hollywood to the rest of my spitfire template


----------



## Zookes (Feb 26, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> well then i'm only hoping spitfire would fix the brass issues because the rest of everything are pretty decent...(and for this i thought hollywood orchestra had it better overall) but brass is really important to me so it's like ... should i go all spitfire or go all east west? maybe i'll just mix the brass from hollywood to the rest of my spitfire template


Find a dry library and mix using compatible reverb. SampleModeling I think does good dry winds. I use this. Can use VSL also.

I recommend very much Spaces by East West for mixing using the Hollywood libraries, nevermind my sours with the woodwinds. Spaces is very simple and very good.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 27, 2017)

I feel the same way about HOW as I feel about Obamacare: repair, not replace 

Meaning I supplement it with other libraries.


----------



## Pablocrespo (Feb 27, 2017)

Hi Jay, I remember reading that there was some kind of update in the works?


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 27, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> well then i'm only hoping spitfire would fix the brass issues because the rest of everything are pretty decent...(and for this i thought hollywood orchestra had it better overall) but brass is really important to me so it's like ... should i go all spitfire or go all east west? maybe i'll just mix the brass from hollywood to the rest of my spitfire template


Don't go all in for any company. Pick and choose what you need. If I need beautiful full string lines I go with CSS, if I need an expressive cello solo slow legato line I am going with Cinesamples, if I need soft trombone chords I choose Spitfire a2 Bones, if I need the wrath of God I am choosing Cinesamples monster low brass patch mixed with trombone ensemble with 8th-note overlay+cimbassi/ bass trombone+tuba for added bass width, if I need warm saxophones I choose VSL, if I need LOTR's upfront flute solo I go CineWinds Core, if I need flute ensemble for blending I go Orchestral Tools, and if I need reverb I go East West Spaces. There is no magical company that's going to fit all your needs in a professional world no matter what developers say.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 27, 2017)

Pablocrespo said:


> Hi Jay, I remember reading that there was some kind of update in the works?




That came out quite a while ago, although with little fanfare.


----------



## John Busby (Feb 27, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> maybe i'll just mix the brass from hollywood to the rest of my spitfire template


This is what i'm doing and it's working quite well, especially using SF woods against HW Brass


----------



## afterlight82 (Feb 27, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> cool thanks. I actually really like hollywood brass and i hate to have to be all OCD trying to mix different libraries to eachother with the correct level volume, i would even break a hair over 0.5 decibels! that's why i'm considering going all hollywood.



Why do people worry so much about this? It's not realistic even in the reality of recording an orchestra specifically for a piece of music. Unless the mic preamp gains on say, the tree, were set _precisely_ the same between the series (I doubt it, given the relative dynamic range of the woods vs brass, but maybe they were) and the microphones in precisely the same place - and I mean precisely, if you're talking 0.5db differences, that's the only place where it "sort of" matters, and even then - it really doesn't. The spot mics are different. They were done on different days. The ambient temperature in the room may have been different. There's many hundreds of variables all of which can have half decibel effects. 

And even with a real orchestra where you do the sessions, balancing isn't done by adherence to some perfect ideal, it's done by ear...very much so when you split strings/brass say...the trees won't be at precisely the same level. They'll be balanced.

Now, if you're trying to match a room to another room in terms of reverb, that's totally normal, but even then, people obsess _way_ too much over even that, without really listening to what they're doing (like "I can't possibly use Spitfire flute with Berlin strings because they are in different spaces). Put them together. Add an algorithmic verb that's the same to the two. Use the close mic of the spitfire more than the room mics and push it more into the "glue" verb. Balance it so it sounds good. Job done. 

The vast majority of film scores - in fact the vast majority of commercial recordings period - have multiple "rooms" or acoustic spaces utilized in them (eg. drums in booth, other things in different spaces, DI...etc. and then artificial verb)...and even with a film score, this is not a classical recording and it's "enhanced" reality. Some mic channels will be bussed to an artificial reverb and the proximity of the player to those microphones are different and the interaction with the reverb will be different.


----------



## JonSolo (Feb 27, 2017)

I agree about the phasing in Hollywood Woodwinds. In a mix it is not as noticeable. Still irritating. If they were to fix it...wow. I use both Spitfire and EastWest. For Spitfire I only have Albion 1 and One, and the new LCO. But I was considering what would really add to my setup (I have considered Albion II and V). But especially with woods...I have the Chris Hein Woodwinds complete and have been quite happy though it feels more solo oriented than section oriented.

Jay what do you stack it with? (And I agree repair...ha).


----------



## afterlight82 (Feb 27, 2017)

Or to put it another way - any time you make a sound, programming, or mix decision based on _brand_ and not _sound_, you're asking for trouble.


----------



## Matt Riley (Feb 27, 2017)

I had to switch to BWW. Just too many problems with HOW.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 27, 2017)

JonSolo said:


> I agree about the phasing in Hollywood Woodwinds. In a mix it is not as noticeable. Still irritating. If they were to fix it...wow. I use both Spitfire and EastWest. For Spitfire I only have Albion 1 and One, and the new LCO. But I was considering what would really add to my setup (I have considered Albion II and V). But especially with woods...I have the Chris Hein Woodwinds complete and have been quite happy though it feels more solo oriented than section oriented.
> 
> Jay what do you stack it with? (And I agree repair...ha).




I decline to state.


----------



## bill45 (Feb 27, 2017)

One of the developers said they were not going to update HOW
because they sell it so cheap,it's not worth there time.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 27, 2017)

bill45 said:


> One of the developers said they were not going to update HOW
> because they sell it so cheap,it's not worth there time.



Are you sure about that? I worked for them for six years and I never heard that from Nick, Thomas, or Doug.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 27, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> Don't go all in for any company. Pick and choose what you need. If I need beautiful full string lines I go with CSS, if I need an expressive cello solo slow legato line I am going with Cinesamples, if I need soft trombone chords I choose Spitfire a2 Bones, if I need the wrath of God I am choosing Cinesamples monster low brass patch mixed with trombone ensemble with 8th-note overlay+cimbassi/ bass trombone+tuba for added bass width, if I need warm saxophones I choose VSL, if I need LOTR's upfront flute solo I go CineWinds Core, if I need flute ensemble for blending I go Orchestral Tools, and if I need reverb I go East West Spaces. There is no magical company that's going to fit all your needs in a professional world no matter what developers say.



In a full orchestral setting though, I can say I'm getting pretty close to the real thing by mixing Chris hein brass to the rest of SSO/ some albions. Though I know it has worked for many, I'm not a big believer of using too many different halls in 1 template. Spitfire's a2 trombone is missing higher dynamics on the sustains by the way but solo trombone seems to be doing fine. I think you have quite a different work flow than I do. Anyways, after hearing so many bad things about Hollywood woods, I'm not considering it anymore, will just deal with spitfire's imperfections


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 27, 2017)

Allow me to say once again, if HS and HB are your primary choices, at the low prices they now go for, I can't imagine you will not be glad to have HOW and HOP.

If not, you may want to pass.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 27, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Or to put it another way - any time you make a sound, programming, or mix decision based on _brand_ and not _sound_, you're asking for trouble.





Ashermusic said:


> Allow me to say once again, if HS and HB are your primary choices, at the low prices they now go for, I can't imagine you will not be glad to have HOW and HOP.
> 
> If not, you may want to pass.



Well SSS is my primary choice, with HS not much behind SSS. HB honestly is my first choice with CH brass not so much behind it too lol.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 27, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Why do people worry so much about this? It's not realistic even in the reality of recording an orchestra specifically for a piece of music. Unless the mic preamp gains on say, the tree, were set _precisely_ the same between the series (I doubt it, given the relative dynamic range of the woods vs brass, but maybe they were) and the microphones in precisely the same place - and I mean precisely, if you're talking 0.5db differences, that's the only place where it "sort of" matters, and even then - it really doesn't. The spot mics are different. They were done on different days. The ambient temperature in the room may have been different. There's many hundreds of variables all of which can have half decibel effects.
> 
> And even with a real orchestra where you do the sessions, balancing isn't done by adherence to some perfect ideal, it's done by ear...very much so when you split strings/brass say...the trees won't be at precisely the same level. They'll be balanced.
> 
> ...



I can agree with you on everything here but theree's a lot of things that worry me when a template gets big. I'm actually using a decent mac pro and am not running out of CPU or memory from my template but when a template gets big, there's always risk in bugs appearing here and there, especially when diff libraries have to be matched together with many instances of reverbs. Plus, some sample libraries makes some cc# unavailable, so sometimes it's impossible have vibratoes of all the different libraries from diff developers edited to the same CC# (though i hope i am wrong about it)

And honestly, if we're only talking about film scores here, i can live with a 100% spitfire template. But i also love doing midi mockups of late romantic classical music. And SSB is just no good at that.


----------



## Zookes (Feb 27, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Or to put it another way - any time you make a sound, programming, or mix decision based on _brand_ and not _sound_, you're asking for trouble.


Tho unfortunate for this to bite as it does, because East West was not so terrible with Strings and Brass production. Easy to assume the winds would not be bad. 

There was tho this hinting of trouble from the woodwinds during production, I remember rumors of Nick Phoenix or Thomas Bergersen or someone having disagreements with Doug Rogers, and the usual team did not work on the project. I have even the product box here with the names missing. There is no "Quantum Leap" there, no big names besides a Shawn Murphy in flavor text.

It is too bad for me the rumors did not reach my ears until after the purchase and realization it was such a bad product! Makes me dislike very strongly the "no refunds" policy so many developers keep, and I have become now very very cautious and critical because of such things.


----------



## Zookes (Feb 27, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> when a template gets big, there's always risk in bugs appearing here and there, especially when diff libraries have to be matched together with many instances of reverbs. Plus, some sample libraries makes some cc# unavailable, so sometimes it's impossible have vibratoes of all the different libraries from diff developers edited to the same CC# (though i hope i am wrong about it)


You are not required to have such problems. It is maybe some problem you can solve?

Such inconveniences I do not experience from my setup, I say happily. Cubase has nice real-time input transformation, the very nice "expression maps" for custom key switching and CC lanes, and all plugins live inside Vienna Ensemble Pro. The template is only so big as the moment requires and I dictate this by switching between server instances inside the VEP. Very convenient, and all crashing happens outside of Cubase and my project so I do not lose work.

You maybe should try this!


----------



## Bryan (Feb 28, 2017)

Zookes said:


> .
> 
> There was tho this hinting of trouble from the woodwinds during production, I remember rumors of Nick Phoenix or Thomas Bergersen or someone having disagreements with Doug Rogers, and the usual team did not work on the project. I have even the product box here with the names missing. There is no "Quantum Leap" there, no big names besides a Shawn Murphy in flavor text.
> 
> It is too bad for me the rumors did not reach my ears until after the purchase and realization it was such a bad product! Makes me dislike very strongly the "no refunds" policy so many developers keep, and I have become now very very cautious and critical because of such things.



Nick Phoenix and Doug Rogers ended up in a dispute which went to court and that was the major factor in HOW not being as good as the rest of the series. There were big problems in house during that time and it shows but thankfully it appears they got things worked out and I do hope they continue to work together in the future. To me even at the low price I bought HOW for... well, it just sucks. I never use it except for a few patches that I don't have elsewhere.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 28, 2017)

Wow, Bryan, while i don't think it is the best woodwinds collection in he marketplace, I just don't get the "it sucks" feeling when I am composing with it.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 28, 2017)

I like Hollywood Woodwinds (they DEFINITELY don't suck), but there are times I prefer the Hein stuff. I think they did a fine job with the English Horn and Basson. The rest can be used in a variety of contexts, I simply defer to the Hein just as often now when utilizing those instruments.

But again, that's just for my music. When I sketch it's almost always the Albions for woodwinds.


----------



## Morodiene (Feb 28, 2017)

You know, I've heard some great stuff from very cheap, poorly made libraries. HOW is not one of those, by a long shot. And while I agree, not as strong as the strings or brass, it can sound nice if you're willing to put in the work.

And once you get a system down for obtaining the sound you want, the extra work ends up not being that big of a deal. It's not like the issues randomly change to something else, and I don't think it's _that_ far off. Certainly EQ'ing and mixing helps.

After all, if you figure this out, then your money will not have gone to waste, right?


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 28, 2017)

Morodiene said:


> You know, I've heard some great stuff from very cheap, poorly made libraries. HOW is not one of those, by a long shot. And while I agree, not as strong as the strings or brass, it can sound nice if you're willing to put in the work.
> 
> And once you get a system down for obtaining the sound you want, the extra work ends up not being that big of a deal. It's not like the issues randomly change to something else, and I don't think it's _that_ far off. Certainly EQ'ing and mixing helps.
> 
> After all, if you figure this out, then your money will not have gone to waste, right?



It's funny, I fell in love with the sound of the Hein clarinet and purchased the whole WW set from him...then went back, listened to EW clarinet and had to remind myself why I spent more money (turned out to be the vibrato control, the Hein has it in spades).

EWHW is not the first library I'd recommend from East West. But if that's all you have for now, you could do SO much worse. As in, cataclysmically worse.


----------



## eqcollector (Feb 28, 2017)

Composed with HOW roughly 100 tracks (together with the rest of Hollywood series).
Its not the best woodwinds library out there, but as many here said, if you're willing to invest some time and effort in it, it can sound maybe even better than other libraries sometimes. 
You won't find instant satisfaction with it (as it might happen with other libraries), however, after putting hours in it, you'll be definitively able to get the result you want to. 
The main thing I found more than useful, in comparisson with other libraries, is that you can edit everything, from legato transitions, staccatos, longs etc. and when combined with the rest of the series (as in your case), it can sound reaaally good, I would dare to say even awesome. haha
All in all, if on tight budget, its a no-brainer.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 28, 2017)

EWHW is one of those libraries that, if there will ever be an update, would be welcomed with wide open arms. I think an update (perhaps even a reboot) would make it comparable to anything out there....kinda the way HS and HB are.


----------



## bill45 (Feb 28, 2017)

Yes I am.I have and like a lot of their stuff.
The wood winds gold library is good. The silver needs an update.


----------



## wcreed51 (Feb 28, 2017)

I'm curious how people create WW ensembles of 2s or 3s, since all HOW instruments are solo


----------



## Morodiene (Feb 28, 2017)

wcreed51 said:


> I'm curious how people create WW ensembles of 2s or 3s, since all HOW instruments are solo



Well, you do have 2 flutes. For oboes, I used english horn where I could, otherwise I had the same oboe patch play two notes if it was out of range. For Clarinet, there's the E-flat, and bassoon, I used contrabassoon where possible.


----------



## JonSolo (Feb 28, 2017)

I really am neutral with HOW (see earlier comment). But I do wish it were better. Like I mentioned, I have the Chris Hein stuff but was looking for more ensembles. Spitfire is interesting, but I have 1 and One and they DO sound a bit "organish". Has anyone tried Sonokinetic Woodwind Ensembles? That is one I have been eyeing closely but do not know how well they work in a mix of other libraries.


----------



## ModalRealist (Feb 28, 2017)

It's been a while since I used HOW (never enough HDD space...) but to be honest I find phasing to be pretty annoying in BWW as well. So much so that I made my own custom patches with the dynamic layers pulled out and a filter applied. It may well be the case that HOW is worse—I just can't remember.

It's funny that, when I started, I felt that strings were the hardest thing to do right. But nowadays I feel that they're quite easy: because they're easy—or at least, easier—to blend with (both multiple libraries, and multiple articulations, and fading between dynamics). It's hard, IMO, to do that with woodwind and brass. I've been considering both SM and CH just for that reason (the phase-lock).

Given I do all this for the fun of it—at the moment, anyway—I sometimes think I should "pull out" of buying samples, load up Sibelius for the long-haul, and plough the samples money into $99 orchestra sessions. And yet... there's also something satisfying on its own about making a good mockup...


----------



## Sonically Real (Feb 28, 2017)

Zookes said:


> Owning this library, I find this myself: I dislike it so strongly, even typing about it angers me.
> 
> So many problems exist still within Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds by East West and they are in the recordings and programming, never to be repaired even after *so long*.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that honest reply i was considering to purchase it but i'll pass for now


----------



## Parsifal666 (Feb 28, 2017)

Sonically Real said:


> Thank you for that honest reply i was considering to purchase it but i'll pass for now



I honestly have had _*none*_ of the problems Zookes mentioned.

I would _definitely_ listen to all the opinions here, and not just that one.


----------



## JohnBMears (Feb 28, 2017)

If it matters, while I surely wish the legato transitions could be reworked, I have found much use for the long patches in using the LEGATO SIMULATION button. While I wouldn't count it as a "#1 product" for exposed solos, it has proved to be very useful in ensemble writing when the 'TRUE' legato patches don't work for my ears. 

I posted about it last year. http://vi-control.net/community/threads/eastwest-hww-tip.51159/#post-3930298


----------



## Geoff Grace (Feb 28, 2017)

How do they stack up to the woodwinds of EWQLSO? I presume the legato on HOW is at least better. How about the rest? If you had both, when would you use EWQLSO winds and when would you use HOW?

Best,

Geoff


----------



## dariusofwest (Feb 28, 2017)

Geoff Grace said:


> How do they stack up to the woodwinds of EWQLSO? I presume the legato on HOW is at least better. How about the rest? If you had both, when would you use EWQLSO winds and when would you use HOW?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff



Hi there! I have both EWQLSO and HOW and don't really use either too much as I like VSL's woodwinds a bit better. However, I prefer HOW for sustanin & legato lines (bassoon and oboe), and EWQLSO's woods for FX when I do use them .


----------



## Geoff Grace (Feb 28, 2017)

Thanks, *Darius*!

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Zookes (Feb 28, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> I honestly have had _*none*_ of the problems Zookes mentioned.
> 
> I would _definitely_ listen to all the opinions here, and not just that one.


It is good to read many opinions before purchasing or leaving, yes.

Tho there are very few reviews from users have used libraries from other developers and have also used the Hollywood strings and brass from East West before, expecting same similar quality and consistency. The perspective is somehow rare.

What I see mostly is from users buying the Hollywood collection and thinking nothing or not using of the woodwinds, new users having their first "big" orchestral library and so anything can be good for them, or users who review for a living and receive the product free and so are not wanting to scrutinize. This, I think, is not so good for shopping. The marketing demos are good always, tho they are not created by composers with difficult deadlines, and so could spend very much time massaging MIDI and splicing edits after tracking to sound perfect as the client wishes. Working composers I know do not have such luxury. 

I share my opinion as a person who works with such libraries under unkind deadlines, who has used the products of other developers, and has used the previous Hollywood entries strings and brass. This is not relevant for the shopper? OK. Then I maybe do not have the opinion that will benefit the shopping.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 28, 2017)

For exposed intimate work, I do love the Fluffy Audio woodwinds.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Feb 28, 2017)

Zookes said:


> I share my opinion as a person who works with such libraries under unkind deadlines, who has used the products of other developers, and has used the previous Hollywood entries strings and brass. This is not relevant for the shopper? OK. Then I maybe do not have the opinion that will benefit the shopping.


I find it very helpful to know the context under which opinions are formed. 

Personally, I'm just getting back into orchestral libraries, after having given up using them because it took too much time to get a believable sound. My deadlines aren't always tight; but I typically get paid by the project and therefore like to work quickly so as to maximize my hourly pay. As a result, I'm not going to want to take much time to massage the best sound out of HOW and will probably mostly use patches that already sound good, rather than those that might sound good with a little work. 

For me, your experience is more relevant than it may be for other users. Thanks for sharing it. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Bryan (Mar 1, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Wow, Bryan, while i don't think it is the best woodwinds collection in he marketplace, I just don't get the "it sucks" feeling when I am composing with it.


Well that is simply my opinion. I bought HOW for the Legato instruments as an upgrade over EWQL which at the time had been my main woodwind library. What I found was that the lower winds have funny sounding abrupt transitions on almost all legatos (even after the update). So again that is my take just as you expressed your opinion on some music in another thread when you said "the music is totally vapid with its simplistic melodies and harmonies, and I just hate it!" That was your opinion and that's fine. HOW sucking is mine. I think HOW sucks because the very thing I bought it for, HOW doesn't do well. Perhaps I should have expressed that in my earlier statement. I also should have listened to those who pointed this out in multiple threads on various sites but I thought to myself, "It's EW Hollywood series. HB and HS are great, how bad can it be?" Well, I found that I agreed with those who were unhappy with it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 1, 2017)

Bryan said:


> Well that is simply my opinion. I bought HOW for the Legato instruments as an upgrade over EWQL which at the time had been my main woodwind library. What I found was that the lower winds have funny sounding abrupt transitions on almost all legatos (even after the update). So again that is my take just as you expressed your opinion on some music in another thread when you said "the music is totally vapid with its simplistic melodies and harmonies, and I just hate it!" That was your opinion and that's fine. HOW sucking is mine. I think HOW sucks because the very thing I bought it for, HOW doesn't do well. Perhaps I should have expressed that in my earlier statement. I also should have listened to those who pointed this out in multiple threads on various sites but I thought to myself, "It's EW Hollywood series. HB and HS are great, how bad can it be?" Well, I found that I agreed with those who were unhappy with it.



Fine, I wasn't criticizing you. We all hear things differently, it just surprises me.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 1, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Fine, I wasn't criticizing you. We all hear things differently, it just surprises me.


Didn't really think you were criticizing me. As I said I should have clarified why I was disappointed in HOW. And yes we all hear things differently and it's why these types of discussions can be so difficult. What one person loves another one hates. On a side note, I went back last night and played around with HOW while I had some free time. TBH- the tone of the instruments are not as bad as I remember them being and that may be because even after the update I was soured on it as a whole. But the lower legato transitions are every bit as bad as I remember them being. For me, there is just not enough time to mess with them to get them to sound right. For others it may fit the way they work marvelously.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 1, 2017)

I hear some add chorus or phasing in the solonclarinet leg but the oboe is quite lovely and i use it a lot. I just bought HW orchestra platinum because I think the mic options for brass would be especially helpful


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 1, 2017)

dcoscina said:


> I hear some add chorus or phasing in the solonclarinet leg but the oboe is quite lovely and i use it a lot. I just bought HW orchestra platinum because I think the mic options for brass would be especially helpful




There you go, I like the single reeds and I _don't_ like the Oboe and English Horn


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> For exposed intimate work, I do love the Fluffy Audio woodwinds.



how versatile are they? do they have full dynamic range and can they play fast lines similar to the stuff done in firebird by stravinsky? i listen to some of their demoes but im wondering about the playability


----------



## Parsifal666 (Mar 1, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> There you go, I like the single reeds and I _don't_ like the Oboe and English Horn



The Fluffy stuff is EXTREMELY enticing to me, the demos sound pretty darn good, plus they are great for out-of-this- world sales from time to time. I believe I might hop on board for a woodwind or two next time.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 1, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> how versatile are they? do they have full dynamic range and can they play fast lines similar to the stuff done in firebird by stravinsky? i listen to some of their demoes but im wondering about the playability



Fast lines would not be their strength. They are best for plaintive, emotional passages.


----------



## mcalis (Mar 1, 2017)

HW certainly wasn't as impressive as HS or HB right out of the gate. The biggest issue I found is that the default volumes between the instruments seems really off. I personally can't hear any of the phasing that people described. Not saying it isn't there, but to me it's not immediately audible. I'm curious to hear on which patches exactly people hear phasing, just to test my own hearing 

Having said all that, I've been using HW for a while now and am beginning to warm up to it. Since I am subscribed to Composer cloud X, I also have access to the close mics, which really add a lot to the sound, in my opinion. I quite like the flutes (1, 2, and alto), also the oboe, english horn and bassoon. One of my favorites must be the bass clarniet, it has a very rich sound.

Are there better woodwind libraries out there? Probably, but that doesn't make HW worthless.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

mcalis said:


> HW certainly wasn't as impressive as HS or HB right out of the gate. The biggest issue I found is that the default volumes between the instruments seems really off. I personally can't hear any of the phasing that people described. Not saying it isn't there, but to me it's not immediately audible. I'm curious to hear on which patches exactly people hear phasing, just to test my own hearing
> 
> Having said all that, I've been using HW for a while now and am beginning to warm up to it. Since I am subscribed to Composer cloud X, I also have access to the close mics, which really add a lot to the sound, in my opinion. I quite like the flutes (1, 2, and alto), also the oboe, english horn and bassoon. One of my favorites must be the bass clarniet, it has a very rich sound.
> 
> Are there better woodwind libraries out there? Probably, but that doesn't make HW worthless.



default volume is off? that's a huge deal breaker for me. I thought spitfire had all their stuff recorded without volume adjustments (as if they've been pre-mixed correctly) but some of their instruments in brass and woodwinds especially oboe and bassoon is extremely off. Everytime I mention this, somebody forum would tell me "you have to adjust the volume as you compose" or "just move the fader up or down no big deal" but no one is willing to tell me how many decibel values they are adjusting the instrument with the incorrect level to. And it's not like I can't mix, but I would like to see what values other people find correct instead of just relying on my own perception.

That was the primary reason i was seeking hollywood orchestra package: to have an out of the box template ready to use but it happens that it has the same issue. It's quite unprofessional to me when developers record some instruments at a different distance or with mic preamp set at different level on accident.

That really sucks.


----------



## Lotias (Mar 1, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> default volume is off? that's a huge deal breaker for me. I thought spitfire had all their stuff recorded without volume adjustments (as if they've been pre-mixed correctly) but some of their instruments in brass and woodwinds especially oboe and bassoon is extremely off. Everytime I mention this, somebody forum would tell me "you have to adjust the volume as you compose" or "just move the fader up or down no big deal" but no one is willing to tell me how many decibel values they are adjusting the instrument with the incorrect level to. And it's not like I can't mix, but I would like to see what values other people find correct instead of just relying on my own perception.
> 
> That was the primary reason i was seeking hollywood orchestra package: to have an out of the box template ready to use but it happens that it has the same issue. It's quite unprofessional to me when developers record some instruments at a different distance or with mic preamp set at different level on accident.
> 
> That really sucks.


The problem is that _there is no correct value_. It depends entirely on the piece you're composing, so you end up, yes, relying on your own perception.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

Lotias said:


> The problem is that _there is no correct value_. It depends entirely on the piece you're composing, so you end up, yes, relying on your own perception.



i compose the piece with the same purpose that an "orchestral" libraries seems to promise to be able to do. Yes there is a correct value. You go to a concert hall and ask a flute to play the loudest they can, and the oboe also to play the loudest they can, then you go home and do the same thing using your DAW and sample library and set up the correct volume relative to each other based on what you heard at the concert hall, and relative to everything else. If wwhat i play on computer matches around what i heard at concert hall, then it's correcct. If i had to adjust an instrument and vary it more than 3 decibels out of the box then it's unlikely that it was recorded using the same pre amp setting, or the volume has been "accidently or unprofessionally" mixed.


----------



## Lotias (Mar 1, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> i compose the piece with the same purpose that an "orchestral" libraries seems to promise to be able to do. Yes there is a correct value they cannot vary greater than 3 decibels from each other. You go to a concert hall and ask a flute to play the loudest they can, and the oboe also to play the loudest they can, then you go home and do the same thing using your DAW and sample library and set up the correct volume relative to each other based on what you heard at the concert hall, and relative to everything else.


Okay, then do that. But remember that perceived volume can be entirely dependent on seating, the hall itself, the player, the microphone position, and a very long list of other factors. Also remember that the piccolo is considered far louder than the other instruments - more than "3 decibels," since its piercing tone allows it to be heard over an entire orchestra. I don't think they're as similar in volume as you say they are.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

Lotias said:


> Okay, then do that. But remember that perceived volume can be entirely dependent on seating, the hall itself, the player, the microphone position, and a very long list of other factors. Also remember that the piccolo is considered far louder than the other instruments - more than "3 decibels," since its piercing tone allows it to be heard over an entire orchestra.



yea but that's what i don't like. They should position their players at the right spot of the hall in teh first place. IT shouldn't deviate from the standard way of it. Also, i just editted my last post in case you misunderstood what i was saying (sorry i wasn't clear what i meant by the 3 dbs).


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 1, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> default volume is off? that's a huge deal breaker for me. I thought spitfire had all their stuff recorded without volume adjustments (as if they've been pre-mixed correctly) but some of their instruments in brass and woodwinds especially oboe and bassoon is extremely off. Everytime I mention this, somebody forum would tell me "you have to adjust the volume as you compose" or "just move the fader up or down no big deal" but no one is willing to tell me how many decibel values they are adjusting the instrument with the incorrect level to. And it's not like I can't mix, but I would like to see what values other people find correct instead of just relying on my own perception.
> 
> That was the primary reason i was seeking hollywood orchestra package: to have an out of the box template ready to use but it happens that it has the same issue. It's quite unprofessional to me when developers record some instruments at a different distance or with mic preamp set at different level on accident.
> 
> That really sucks.



I could never understand that either. It's almost as if the developer gets burnt out after recording all the samples but then releases an unfinished product, like a beta version. I just spent the last 2 weeks tweaking all the Hollywood patches I use in my template because the volume levels were way off within each library then I had to balance each instrument in relation to each other instrument then do section to section. It takes a lot of tiiiiiiiiimeuhhhhhhhhh. Good thing I have a lot of patience. But it is frustrating and the consumer should not have to bear the burden of doing this.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 1, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> There you go, I like the single reeds and I _don't_ like the Oboe and English Horn


Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> I could never understand that either. It's almost as if the developer gets burnt out after recording all the samples but then releases an unfinished product, like a beta version. I just spent the last 2 weeks tweaking all the Hollywood patches I use in my template because the volume levels were way off within each library then I had to balance each instrument in relation to the each other instrument then do section to section. It takes a lot of tiiiiiiiiimeuhhhhhhhhh. Good thing I have a lot of patience. But it is frustrating and the consumer should not have to bear the burden of doing this.



Finally someone says what I'm thinking


----------



## Lee Blaske (Mar 1, 2017)

They might be able to make some minor improvements, but I think major improvements would take a fresh piece of paper and new sampling sessions (and perhaps a rewrite of Play). Woodwinds are required to play in a very agile fashion, with a wide breadth of dynamics. Very difficult to get it right (and, have something that's relatively responsive to play).


----------



## mcalis (Mar 1, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> default volume is off? that's a huge deal breaker for me. I thought spitfire had all their stuff recorded without volume adjustments (as if they've been pre-mixed correctly) but some of their instruments in brass and woodwinds especially oboe and bassoon is extremely off. Everytime I mention this, somebody forum would tell me "you have to adjust the volume as you compose" or "just move the fader up or down no big deal" but no one is willing to tell me how many decibel values they are adjusting the instrument with the incorrect level to. And it's not like I can't mix, but I would like to see what values other people find correct instead of just relying on my own perception.
> 
> That was the primary reason i was seeking hollywood orchestra package: to have an out of the box template ready to use but it happens that it has the same issue. It's quite unprofessional to me when developers record some instruments at a different distance or with mic preamp set at different level on accident.
> 
> That really sucks.



Yeah, well, I can live with the burden of having to adjust it, but if it's a dealbreaker for you, then that's up to you 

Perhaps a more succint way for me to have described the problem would be to say that the instruments aren't balanced against each other. The contrabassoon, for example, sounds quite a bit more distant and soft than the oboe. It's actually the distance of the sound that bothers me the most. You can bring it in closer with the close mics and lower the general volume on the oboe a bit to get it right of course, but yes, it's a bit of work.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Mar 1, 2017)

I think the EWHW Contrabassoon is the best I've ever heard for virtual. Rugged, ballsy, terrific for combining with the Low Brass. It is also a seriously creepy instrument when put in the right context.

Lately I've been using EWHW clarinets, EH, and bassoons with the Hein Piccolo, oboe, and Flute. They sound great together imo. Both at base are dry libraries, but there's SO much you can do with them.


----------



## JonSolo (Mar 1, 2017)

And they just posted an updated video on YouTube showing off HOW. I like your idea Parsifal666, splitting the responsibilities between HOW and CHW. I will try that and see where it gets me.


----------



## Leon Portelance (Mar 1, 2017)

Matt Riley said:


> I had to switch to BWW. Just too many problems with HOW.


I recently bought Berlin Woodwinds. A great library, full of life and very realistic. It replaced Hollywood Woodwinds in my template.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

mcalis said:


> Yeah, well, I can live with the burden of having to adjust it, but if it's a dealbreaker for you, then that's up to you
> 
> Perhaps a more succint way for me to have described the problem would be to say that the instruments aren't balanced against each other. The contrabassoon, for example, sounds quite a bit more distant and soft than the oboe. It's actually the distance of the sound that bothers me the most. You can bring it in closer with the close mics and lower the general volume on the oboe a bit to get it right of course, but yes, it's a bit of work.



well i am already living with spitfire's volume level/distance problems. I try to live with it. But it's not the burden of having to adjust it that's the deal breaker to me. It's the developer's unprofessionalism/unperfectionism that bothers me.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> I think the EWHW Contrabassoon is the best I've ever heard for virtual. Rugged, ballsy, terrific for combining with the Low Brass. It is also a seriously creepy instrument when put in the right context.
> 
> Lately I've been using EWHW clarinets, EH, and bassoons with the Hein Piccolo, oboe, and Flute. They sound great together imo. Both at base are dry libraries, but there's SO much you can do with them.



wagner can't be wrong on orchestration.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 1, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> wagner can't be wrong on orchestration.



He made a few mistakes. Not many, but a few. 

eg. the infamous pianistic harp parts in Rheingold which are horrifically hard to play and don't begin to achieve the effect he clearly desired...


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> He made a few mistakes. Not many, but a few.
> 
> eg. the infamous pianistic harp parts in Rheingold which are horrifically hard to play and don't begin to achieve the effect he clearly desired...



lolol haha


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 1, 2017)

I have a lot of EW stuff. I bought HWW Silver. It was awful. I wiped it from my drive.

I get far better results from VSL SE winds. The legato is smooth, and though limited, they're a pleasure to play.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 1, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> I have a lot of EW stuff. I bought HWW Silver. It was awful. I wiped it from my drive.
> 
> I get far better results from VSL SE winds. The legato is smooth, and though limited, they're a pleasure to play.



what were their limits?


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 1, 2017)

Articulations. Staccato, portato, sustain and legato-that's it. However, it's not hard to do realistic fingered trills, and the price is about the same as HWW Silver.


----------



## Leon Portelance (Mar 2, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> I have a lot of EW stuff. I bought HWW Silver. It was awful. I wiped it from my drive.
> 
> I get far better results from VSL SE winds. The legato is smooth, and though limited, they're a pleasure to play.



I own a lot of EWQL stuff, but always the dimond or plaritnun. I don't think the silver libraries are anywhere as good. I'm really enjoying the new Berlins Woodwinds library I just bought. I still use LASS 2.5 and LASS Legato Sordino as my main string library with Evertone Solo Strings for Solo.
I use the Hollywood Brass and the Sample Modeling Brass.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 2, 2017)

EWQL is a different beast. I own the Platinum, but I don't think that's what you meant.


----------



## Leon Portelance (Mar 2, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> EWQL is a different beast. I own the Platinum, but I don't think that's what you meant.



I own the EWQL Symphony Orchestra Platinum and the Hollywood Orchestra Diamond,


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 2, 2017)

Ah. Ok.


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 2, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> Articulations. Staccato, portato, sustain and legato-that's it. However, it's not hard to do realistic fingered trills, and the price is about





NYC Composer said:


> Articulations. Staccato, portato, sustain and legato-that's it. However, it's not hard to do realistic fingered trills, and the price is about the same as HWW Silver.



i would have no complaints if they can do only those articulations but do it very well. Some libraries out there focus on too much trivial things and forget that legato/staccato is actually more important than anything else usually.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 2, 2017)

I believe that SE winds are one of the great bargains in the sample world. They do what they do very well.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Mar 2, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> eg. the infamous pianistic harp parts in Rheingold which are horrifically hard to play and don't begin to achieve the effect he clearly desired...



Hilarious. So, what effect was Wagner aiming at? Keep in mind, I've spent my _whole *life*_ studying Wagner's life and music and have never heard anything about what you just said. Give your sources, please.

The Rheingold has been used in manifold orchestration textbooks over the decades. So, perhaps the scholars who wrote those books never really knew anything about orchestration.

This is entertaining.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 2, 2017)

I no longer work for EW so I have no dog in this hunt, but I just spent 15 minutes composing this drivel with Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds Diamond with my favorite mics for it, the close mics, no MIDI cc manipulation at all, not a lick, which of course I would need to do. If you think it sounds "awful" or "unusable" I will only say I disagree.


----------



## PeterBaumann (Mar 2, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> I no longer work for EW so I have no dog in this hunt, but I just spent 15 minutes composing this drivel with Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds Diamond with my favorite mics for it, the close mics, no MIDI cc manipulation at all, not a lick, which of course I would need to do. If you think it sounds "awful" or "unusable" I will only say I disagree.



Is that with legatos, sustains or both?


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 2, 2017)

PeterBaumann said:


> Is that with legatos, sustains or both?



All Legato Slur patches.


----------



## mcalis (Mar 2, 2017)

I took about 4x more than 15 minutes to slap this together, mainly using shorts and only the mid and close mics. Reverb is QL spaces. Hope this is useful to someone!



And here is a slightly more dressed version with some added strings (with the only change in the woodwinds being a trill on the piccolo that wasn't there before):


----------



## Parsifal666 (Mar 2, 2017)

Jay and mcalis have made excellent illustrations of the HW library imo. Loved hearing Spaces, my default reverb for anything orchestral and chamber.


----------



## Zookes (Mar 2, 2017)

I hear not so much for sustained dynamics. Do we play to the samples now and fear the phasing and flaws within the middle range of expression? 

No one will complain the shorts sound good, and legato writing for quarter and half notes using not any dynamics is something easy to do from any library.

The library suffers tho for what the name is: Hollywood style. You want quick runs? You want widely varying dynamics? This library does not work so well.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 2, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> Hilarious. So, what effect was Wagner aiming at? Keep in mind, I've spent my _whole *life*_ studying Wagner's life and music and have never heard anything about what you just said. Give your sources, please.
> 
> The Rheingold has been used in manifold orchestration textbooks over the decades. So, perhaps the scholars who wrote those books never really knew anything about orchestration.
> 
> This is entertaining.



Well then, I'm very surprised you don't know about this particular passage (attached) from the end of Rheingold. It is more or less not playable...technically impossible to achieve with musical results and no unintended side effects, and with six harps called for, it's not controversial that this could have been better done another way to hear exactly the same results.

One could perhaps fairly call it a mistake of instrumental technique versus orchestration technique - were it playable, it would undoubtedly sound beautiful. Unfortunately, it is basically not playable - the repeated shifts of position back and forth at the speed marked would cause it to be remarkably lumpy and leave no chance whatsoever of the six parts being in sync.

Sources - (amongst many, plus every single serious orchestral excerpts book ever published for the harp, because it's an infamous passage of "what to do when the composer doesn't know what the harp is and is not capable of doing but you want to be faithful to what they had in mind").

1) Every professional harpist ever since it was written (seriously, ask a few)

Some contemporary sources (there are many more);

2) Berlioz/Strauss, Treatise on Instrumentation, 1904 edition, page 144, "The Harp"
3) Corder - "The Orchestra and How To Write For It" - 1896
4) Cobbé, How To Appreciate Music, pg. 188, 1906
5) Carlos Salzedo - widely appreciated as one of the greatest harpists_ ever_ - "[Wagner] wrote many harp parts that are just as unplayable as they are useless from the viewpoint of sound."

...and finally Wagner himself, when the principal harpist at the first Munich performance complained about the passage; "You cannot expect me to be able to play the harp...arrange your part however you like!". It was basically a mea culpa - I want it to sound something like this, change it to what you need.

Which is what every harpist (those without the benefit of two extra hands!) has done in the many years since, the passage is generally never played as written, and there are quite a number of other passages for which that is true. And whether one considers it an orchestration "mistake" is a subject for fair debate, but it's unquestionable that the effect he desired - whatever it was, and it's reasonably clear here - could be better achieved if orchestrated differently, as I specifically stated, because _Wagner himself said so. 
_
And you will not see this in any orchestration textbook from henceforth until the end of time except as an example of harp writing that on paper...is great or even good. It's already in the above mentioned as "not so hot". But if you don't believe me, write something similar for a session sometime and watch the brows of your harpists furrow.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 2, 2017)

That's not to say the rest of Rheingold isn't almost unparalleled genius, a masterwork....but what I said stands. Wagner made the occasional mistake. They are scarce, remarkably scarce, incredibly scarce amongst the ton of incredible orchestration he did, and it's without dispute that he's probably amongst if not the greatest orchestrator of all time, but he wasn't beyond writing something utterly unplayable once or twice. You'll note I didn't say anything disparaging about it beyond this, because what is there to be said? It's not a case of the scholars of the world being wrong or not knowing anything about the subject, don't be so touchy!  Amongst even the greatest orchestrators you'll hear instrumentalists moan about certain passages. And for most of us, harp is a particular stumbling block, given the only real way to know what is possible is to take lessons or sit by a harpist for a good long time.

And it's a fair question - where does the line between virtuosity and impossibility run? Islamey springs to mind, once thought unplayable and now a set work at many competitions. Is it bad to write within the boundaries of current technique, and good orchestration to try and push them? I don't know. A big question, someone could write a great PhD on that topic.

(One harpist I know said she thought this passage was left in even after it was brought to his attention, because he might have figured that maybe in the future it could become playable by virtue of some technological change, or some technical breakthrough, which is an interesting point, but entirely speculative.)


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 2, 2017)

mcalis said:


> I took about 4x more than 15 minutes to slap this together, mainly using shorts and only the mid and close mics. Reverb is QL spaces. Hope this is useful to someone!
> 
> 
> 
> And here is a slightly more dressed version with some added strings (with the only change in the woodwinds being a trill on the piccolo that wasn't there before):



I would love to be a fly on the wall to learn your mixing skills. Well Done!


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 2, 2017)

Zookes said:


> Do we play to the samples now .



Yes, I do, ALWAYS, no matter which library or when writing or real players I write to the players. But I am a commercial composer for hire, not someone trying to compose "music for the ages" that I hear in my head.


----------



## JonSolo (Mar 2, 2017)

Playing to the samples...isn't that how Tony Banks wrote the intro to Watcher of the Skies? He played the notes that weren't broken on his Mellotron tapes. I guess it works sometimes. Heh.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Mar 2, 2017)

Zookes said:


> I hear not so much for sustained dynamics. Do we play to the samples now and fear the phasing and flaws within the middle range of expression?
> 
> No one will complain the shorts sound good, and legato writing for quarter and half notes using not any dynamics is something easy to do from any library.
> 
> The library suffers tho for what the name is: Hollywood style. You want quick runs? You want widely varying dynamics? This library does not work so well.



There are plenty of ways to achieve a wide dynamic range with that library. I'm actually boggled by that statement. I agree the fast runs can sound unsatisfying, especially with the highest ranges. In fact, that last might be the major thing wrong with HW.

But HW is fine for dynamics. Unless you meant something else by that word. It can be a tricky one.

As far as playing to the samples, I think that depends on what your vision. I disregard the rules when I get onto something that just plain sounds good.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 2, 2017)

ps nor is this to imply you aren't considerably more knowledgeable about Wagner's music than I, given your avatar and name I'm sure, nay certain, you are!! But there's interest from the practical perspective that sometimes get missed from study from certain angles. I only got familiar with this excerpt after trying something similar with harp and having a harpist sit down and explain why five finger passages are a nightmare and how remarkably prevalent they are in the repertoire. It's part of the fun of being a harpist apparently, reworking the great masters


----------



## Parsifal666 (Mar 3, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> ps nor is this to imply you aren't considerably more knowledgeable about Wagner's music than I, given your avatar and name I'm sure, nay certain, you are!! But there's interest from the practical perspective that sometimes get missed from study from certain angles. I only got familiar with this excerpt after trying something similar with harp and having a harpist sit down and explain why five finger passages are a nightmare and how remarkably prevalent they are in the repertoire. It's part of the fun of being a harpist apparently, reworking the great masters



No, you made your point well, and I agree with a lot of what you wrote. You and me are totally good, my friend.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 3, 2017)

I just got HO diamond uprgade last night and I think the added mics do help the ww in particular. I love the extra dimension they have. 

But I will say that EWHO has its own sound. It's very clear and up front even with SPACES added on. I like that detail for some pieces or cues I write. In other cases I will lean on Spitfire more because it's more vacuous and organic. But I do think the legato in HO is honestly better responding than most of my Kontakt based libraries. Aside from VSL which is still flawless imo, EW legato is very responsive and not sluggish.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 3, 2017)

dcoscina said:


> I just got HO diamond uprgade last night and I think the added mics do help the ww in particular. I love the extra dimension they have.
> 
> But I will say that EWHO has its own sound. It's very clear and up front even with SPACES added on. I like that detail for some pieces or cues I write. In other cases I will lean on Spitfire more because it's more vacuous and organic. But I do think the legato in HO is honestly better responding than most of my Kontakt based libraries. Aside from VSL which is still flawless imo, EW legato is very responsive and not sluggish.




Yep, especially with thee close mic.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 30, 2017)

JonSolo said:


> splitting the responsibilities between HOW and CHW. I will try that and see where it gets me.



The contrabassoon is one of the most relatively overlooked instruments for thick, rugged power. I realize most here probably are aware of how incredible that instrument is when paired with, say, bad ass brass (pardon my language, please). Combining the HOW and CHW in particular can be devastating, especially if you've not ventured there before (Iceni is an easier, more ensemble way to achieve it, or heck put Ohmicide on yer fave CB samples).

Give combining contrabassoons and brass a try with ANY good sample library, and you'll find a way to get epic in a rasping, gloriously ugly way. You can get some seriously abrasive textures with the contrabassoon that work at any volume level, which can open up possibilities for ambient pieces as well.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 30, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> Don't listen to them about contrabassoon... he's clearly a scheming villain attempting to sabotage your tuba players




Ah-HA! Now I'm POSITIVE you jest! Just one look at tricky Dicky in my avatar banishes all such presumptions.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 30, 2017)

anthraxsnax said:


> I do, and also would note I'm addicted to low winds now...
> 
> They work with strings, work either brass, and it good on its own or with guacamole



Try that dip with a hefty helping of Low 'n Cheezy Brass chips, while watching the most morally bankrupt episode of *It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia*. It might change your life.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 30, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> The contrabassoon is one of the most relatively overlooked instruments for thick, rugged power. I realize most here probably are aware of how incredible that instrument is when paired with, say, bad ass brass (pardon my language, please). Combining the HOW and CHW in particular can be devastating, especially if you've not ventured there before (Iceni is an easier, more ensemble way to achieve it, or heck put Ohmicide on yer fave CB samples).
> 
> Give combining contrabassoons and brass a try with ANY good sample library, and you'll find a way to get epic in a rasping, gloriously ugly way. You can get some seriously abrasive textures with the contrabassoon that work at any volume level, which can open up possibilities for ambient pieces as well.



oh yea? they double really well with bass trombone and tuba. You can hear a lot of that going on in Scriabin's symphony no. 3


----------



## Parsifal666 (Apr 30, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> oh yea? they double really well with bass trombone and tuba. You can hear a lot of that going on in Scriabin's symphony no. 3



And trust me folks, that Symphony is an excellent example in ways beyond the use of brass and woodwinds. Quite good for the ears.


----------



## ctsai89 (Apr 30, 2017)

Parsifal666 said:


> And trust me folks, that Symphony is an excellent example in ways beyond the use of brass and woodwinds. Quite good for the ears.



nothing beats Wagner approving of Scriabin's music.

By the way I double my spitfire contrabassoon with spitfire bass trombone. It sounds huge.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 5, 2018)

OT, but it's interesting to me is how Met Ark 1 doesn't have, say, flutes. Want epic flutes?





That said, I'm now learning how great a tool Ark 1 is (and that Bernard's writing could probably have made an oboe d'amore sound epic), so I'll shut up now.


----------

