# Dear Spitfire: What Were You Thinking?



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 11, 2019)

Dear Spitfire

Why?

Why did you decide to move from Kontakt and make your own player such a disaster for organization?

Why would you organize your library in such a way that if you want all the available articulations of an instrument you need to create multiple tracks with multiple instances of your player and eat up MIDI channels and resources when Kontakt handled this beautifully as a multi with transform ksps and instrument banks?

This is kind of a nightmare for anyone who likes to keep as leaned out a template as possible or isn't using a server with 1TB of memory.

If Paul or Chris actually happen to be on here and read this:

For the love of god, please redesign the player so that it has patch banks where you can load or unload as many patches from that library for that instrument as you need-- needing two or three instances of HZ Violas so one can use pizz and strummed pizz is, to use a technical term, B A N A N A S. 

(And why these aren't coming pre-mapped to UACC after pushing this for years is kind of beyond me as well.)

/rant


----------



## Dr.Quest (Dec 11, 2019)

Someone needs to take a stress pill, sit down calmly and think things over.


----------



## Wunderhorn (Dec 11, 2019)

This is why people who have learned from the PLAY disaster will diligently ignore new releases that rely on new proprietary player software until it proved itself in the real world. When you find positive reviews about the player in 2 years you know it's safe. I love Spitfire libraries but for the next two years only Kontakt libraries will be on my shopping list.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 11, 2019)

Dr.Quest said:


> Someone needs to take a stress pill, sit down calmly and think things over.



calmer'n you are.


----------



## Michayl Asaph (Dec 11, 2019)

This...."please redesign the player so that it has patch banks where you can load or unload as many patches from that library for that instrument as you need". I agree that loading multiple instances to get the articulations you need for a project is not great.


----------



## tack (Dec 11, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> (And why these aren't coming pre-mapped to UACC after pushing this for years is kind of beyond me as well.)


Spitfire has a long history of handling UACC haphazardly. Even fairly new libraries were released with patches containing articulations with duplicate UACC numbers. It was a good idea, but they stopped evolving it and I don't see much evidence that they use it internally (or test it).


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 11, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Why would you organize your library in such a way that you if you want all the available articulations of an instrument you need to create multiple tracks with multiple instances of your player and eat up MIDI channels and resources when Kontakt handled this beautifully as a multi with transform ksps and instrument banks?



Is it really like that? That blows my mind. My only contact with the Spitfire Player was through that Epic Strings thingy they gave away for Albion owners recently. When I realized I couldn't actually keyswitch between articulations, nor unload them, I thought it was ridiculous, but assumed that this freebie ran in some bare bones version of the player and the "real thing" surely wouldn't suffer from such madness. Wow, seems I was wrong.

The discouraging thing about this is that maybe 2 years ago, there was talk of re-organizing the content of the symphonic range, since the articulations are all over the place and having all those different nkis is just a mess. I was having high hopes for that, dreaming of one master nki where you could load and unload any articulation according to your preference, seamlessly switching between them via UACC. When I heard that they were doing their own player, I assumed it would be an improvement, something like OT Capsule and the VSL players, where you have your slots and you can load any articulation in there and design your own multi articulation instrument.

But now I guess that ship has sailed and seeing how little thought was given to the subject, one can only hope that the older stuff just stays in Kontakt!


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 11, 2019)

tack said:


> I don't see much evidence that they use it internally (or test it).



I mean, I'm actually getting this impression about them with their plugins in general. I don't personally use keyswitches, but I'm installing HZ Strings for a client right now and the pre-mapped keyswitches are not remotely consistent; it makes no sense. 

Like: you have string library, and Short notes are F-1 on Violins and A-1 on Violas... do you seriously not preempt the composer deciding to move a Violin part to Violas or vice versa, and how dragging the part down and being done with it is a massive time-saver? 

(I know you can re-map it yourself, but this illustrates the notion that people aren't thinking practically about plugin design-- hey if you ARE reading this Paul or Chris and want to hire a consultant please slide into my DMs).


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 11, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Is it really like that? ... When I realized I couldn't actually keyswitch between articulations...



you can switch, it's just that you are stuck with whatever articulations were preloaded into that instrument-- can unload them but you can't add any. Which was fine in Kontakt because there are ways around this, but now... and also you can't purge and manage resources either. It's really just not great. And it's not like the scripting is massively improved, BBC French Horns have this ridiculous dynamics gap that makes you truly wonder if they sat and played their own instrument.


----------



## nolotrippen (Dec 11, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Dear Spitfire
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


Have to agree. Loved when they were on Kontakt. Their own player is not friendly ("let's try and fix this" message). It kept me from their new offerings.


----------



## AndyP (Dec 11, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> BBC French Horns have this ridiculous dynamics gap that makes you truly wonder if they sat and played their own instrument.


This. 
BBCSO is rarely used by me. It doesn't make work any easier even if the sound is good (I rarely use keyswitches either). 
I wait until the player has received improvements and hope for updates for some instruments.
Hopefully just a matter of time. A Kontakt version might solve many problems.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 11, 2019)

AndyP said:


> This...
> BBCSO is rarely used by me.... A Kontakt version might solve many problems.



I'm assuming they moved away from it because the overhead on paying NI for Kontakt encryption was eating into their profits-- which is fine, but just... do it right! haha


I agree, I have BBC Winds in my template and that's it, kind of a shame.


----------



## Ben H (Dec 11, 2019)

The Spitfire Player is the reason why I have not pulled the trigger on Eric Whitacre Choir.


----------



## Kruger (Dec 11, 2019)

Now for me, it's like the ilok effect, i check first if their new library uses this player...


----------



## mralmostpopular (Dec 11, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> I'm assuming they moved away from it because the overhead on paying NI for Kontakt encryption was eating into their profits-- which is fine, but just... do it right! haha
> 
> 
> I agree, I have BBC Winds in my template and that's it, kind of a shame.



I don’t think it had anything to do with paying NI, and more that NI made some risky business moves that has caused them some issues. If you’re a leader in sampling, you don’t want to rely so heavily on a company that’s making bad business decisions. I doubt they’re really saving that much money developing their own player. Orchestral Tools is doing the same thing, albeit a very different approach.

I think the player could use some improvement, but it’s working ok for me. With my template set up, I’m not even interacting with it much.


----------



## ManicMiner (Dec 11, 2019)

Getting an NI license is expensive, so it makes financial sense to move away from Kontakt, especially if they want to offer more budget libraries like the "Originals" $30 series. 
Spitfire's new player is relatively new, but I believe they'll perfect it as time goes on. Its now a mid-sized company and they probably have the personnel now to invest in their player project.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 11, 2019)

I don't have the library, but I'm pretty sure you can load a custom set of articulations and associated keyswitches in the BBCSO plugin.

I'm also surprised that anyone would be using old school key switching - using articulation maps in Logic for example would make Spitfire's chosen preset key switches kind of irrelevant.


----------



## mralmostpopular (Dec 11, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> I don't have the library, but I'm pretty sure you can load a custom set of articulations and associated keyswitches in the BBCSO plugin.
> 
> I'm also surprised that anyone would be using old school key switching - using articulation maps in Logic for example would make Spitfire's chosen preset key switches kind of irrelevant.



Articulation mapping works great after its been played in, but some people like to keyswitch live. I don’t do this personally, but some people do. I can never remember what key does what.


----------



## tack (Dec 11, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> I'm also surprised that anyone would be using old school key switching - using articulation maps in Logic for example would make Spitfire's chosen preset key switches kind of irrelevant.


Consistency is still beneficial in this case, so that you can more easily reuse articulation maps between the different instruments. So at least to the extent you're tweaking them, it's to accommodate different articulations, not because the common articulations ended up on different keyswitches.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 11, 2019)

mralmostpopular said:


> Articulation mapping works great after its been played in, but some people like to keyswitch live. I don’t do this personally, but some people do. I can never remember what key does what.


Live keyswitching is very much a thing with the Logic system. You also get a handy graphic, like this!








tack said:


> Consistency is still beneficial in this case, so that you can more easily reuse articulation maps between the different instruments. So at least to the extent you're tweaking them, it's to accommodate different articulations, not because the common articulations ended up on different keyswitches.


Fair enough, but multiple tools and methods are available to switch things as the composer sees fit. It's not a show stopper in the way the OP makes out. I understand that Kontakt offers more flexibility - I get it - but where there's a will etc etc. I guess the central discussion is: Should the composer have to do the extra work? Argue away..


----------



## John R Wilson (Dec 11, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> I'm assuming they moved away from it because the overhead on paying NI for Kontakt encryption was eating into their profits-- which is fine, but just... do it right! haha
> 
> 
> I agree, I have BBC Winds in my template and that's it, kind of a shame.



Same here. I quite like the woodwinds and the percussion in the BBCSO and I have these in my template. However, the brass especially the horns and trumpets are pretty terrible.


----------



## erica-grace (Dec 11, 2019)

Dr.Quest said:


> Someone needs to take a stress pill, sit down calmly and think things over.




1. The op appears to have been calm while posting

2. It is apparent from the post , that the op thought things over prior to posting

3. The op raises points that are completely valid


----------



## CT (Dec 11, 2019)

Someone needs to see 2001: A Space Odyssey.


----------



## Dr.Quest (Dec 11, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> 1. The op appears to have been calm while posting
> 
> 2. It is apparent from the post , that the op thought things over prior to posting
> 
> 3. The op raises points that are completely valid


It’s a joke. I’m quoting HAL when Dave is going to unplug him. Dave was also very calm.


----------



## erica-grace (Dec 11, 2019)

Dr.Quest said:


> It’s a joke. I’m quoting HAL when Dave is going to unplug him. Dave was also very calm.



Oh! Well, then, I apologize - didnt know that!


----------



## sostenuto (Dec 11, 2019)

Not in Pro /Upper-Tier User category ..... extensive hours daily in home studio .....
No more SFA purchases other than older Kontakt Libs. My choices have virtually '0' impact on SFA in any way.
Don't care about SFA or OT reasons ... business, creative, whatever .....

In fact, not conservative .... career tech guy, but heavily hardware. 
Concerned as heck about alternatives to Kontakt 6.2., et al, Libs. Will go there until quality options are gone ..... 

OTH .... as always, this will sort itself as market forces choose.


----------



## jbuhler (Dec 11, 2019)

mralmostpopular said:


> I don’t think it had anything to do with paying NI, and more that NI made some risky business moves that has caused them some issues. If you’re a leader in sampling, you don’t want to rely so heavily on a company that’s making bad business decisions. I doubt they’re really saving that much money developing their own player. Orchestral Tools is doing the same thing, albeit a very different approach.
> 
> I think the player could use some improvement, but it’s working ok for me. With my template set up, I’m not even interacting with it much.


I think it had more to do with not wanting to be dependent on NI for priorities in how the sample player is developed, not wanting to share their sales data and customer base with NI, wanting a better solution to piracy, and wanting a way to distribute labs instruments for free.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 11, 2019)

Not everyone shares the OP’s concerns. I rarely use keyswitch patches, I actually avoid them whenever possible. I actually really dig the SF Player and Play.....even over Kontakt.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 11, 2019)

Dear Spitfire, I understand why you bail on this board every six months. Honestly I’m 
right there with you — the self-entitlement is stifling. You try to push the envelope of what’s possible and people want the same old thing you did before. God forbid someone abandons a sampler full of 10+ year old code for something new and it’s not perfect at version 1.000. Stop trying to make something better. Sincerely, forum lizard #3405.


----------



## CT (Dec 11, 2019)

Fanboy alert!


----------



## sostenuto (Dec 11, 2019)

SFA Player, OT SINE Player, EW-Play, HALion, VSL Synchron Player, UVI Workstation ..... in the realm of 'something better'. 
Dunno the answer if Kontakt fails to grow and improve, but for now, it's cool to work everyday with something capable and what I'm accustomed to.


----------



## dpasdernick (Dec 11, 2019)

When Kontakt first came out there were issues but NI was blazing very new trails at that time. It seems hard to believe that the competition can't come up with a more friendly design considering the shoulders they are standing upon.


----------



## NickDorito (Dec 11, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> 1. The op appears to have been calm while posting
> 
> 2. It is apparent from the post , that the op thought things over prior to posting
> 
> 3. The op raises points that are completely valid



Whoa!! Calm down bro


----------



## IdealSequenceG (Dec 11, 2019)

I absolutely hate Rompler.


----------



## dzilizzi (Dec 11, 2019)

I don't think I've every actually gotten it to load properly. But I only have the free libraries. And I just got apurature, though I haven't had time to download it yet. (left on a business trip right after I got it) I just think how Play only became usable at version 5. Hopefully, this doesn't take so long. 

But even if it does become really great, they still may not have all that fixed if it works for most of the people out there. There's a point at which there's diminishing returns to keeping customers happy.


----------



## zimm83 (Dec 11, 2019)

Spitfire and Orchestral Tools are dead for me since they left Kontakt.
That's all.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 11, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Not everyone shares the OP’s concerns. I rarely use keyswitch patches, I actually avoid them whenever possible.



But that's irrelevant. Kontakt also never stopped you from _not_ using a particular functionality. Obviously the design philosophy can't be "let's omit important functionality because some people don't use every function."


----------



## GtrString (Dec 11, 2019)

The thing in question is about compatibility, which is a valid concern in all branches of software. Are you saying that Spitfire libraries are not compatible with other formats anymore, like NI Kontakt? I was under the impression that you had a choice? (I dont own any Spitfire libs, but ofc they have been on my radar).

I remember the old EWQLSO Gold started out in Kontakt, and then they did the same thing doing the self-contained thing (Play). Is this about company rivalry, not wanting to cooperate?


----------



## Sugar Free (Dec 11, 2019)

You can program Metagrid to switch and record articulations from an iPad. You don't have to remember anything. Works with Cubase expression maps too.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

There's a lot of misinformation flowing through this thread and there needs to be a bit of balance.

Yes, the Spitfire player isn't perfect but it _is _capable of slotting into pro workflows. It has keyswitching options that can be changed or intergrated into an articulation switching system. It's lack of memory purging can be offset using things like DAW dynamic plugin loading and the like.

I could go on, but in short, there are ways to work with it.

The OP's central argument is that Spitfire have "messed up" by not designing a player around his specific needs and workflow. It's a weird argument framing that's too prevalent around these parts. If a tool or library doesn't quite work in the way you want, the "professional" way is to find a solution to _make it work. _Not to hit the forums demanding changes.

Yes, we should always encourage and help developers to improve. But this "calling developers out" thing, deliberately pushing the extreme ends of the argument for views and clicks helps no-one. There are ways of engaging productively with devs and threads like this 'aint it.

(edited for clarity.)


----------



## gamma-ut (Dec 12, 2019)

"There are ways to work with it" is hardly a ringing endorsement for the approach Spitfire has taken.

The OP's argument is not solely about making Spitfire's player work for them. The approach they described is broadly in line with VSL's, which I've seen few complain about. Whereas Play attracts a lot of criticism for its organisation which is broadly patch-per-track. Spitfire seems to have followed in EastWest's footsteps rather than VSL's. I don't think it should be a surprise as to why people are critical of Spitfire's approach in this.

It probably wasn't deliberate poor design, but the best you can say for Spitfire is that they underestimated the difficulty of introducing their own playback engine. Workarounds are all very well but at some point professional users are going to consider what works for them and what doesn't. And other users want to see what those issues are so they can make an informed choice.


----------



## CT (Dec 12, 2019)

staypuft said:


> Always the same trolls trying shut down legitimate discussions by going on a moral crusade about things they don't use or understand. OPs concerns are very real from a working composer´s perspective. Spitfire´s player is form over function and will never improve if we don´t openly talk about it. Good for you OP!



You're another brave one! Thanks for standing up for the little guy!!!!

EDIT: Hope none of you "liking" this think I'm serious....


----------



## Jaap (Dec 12, 2019)

Though I am very fond of a lot of things of BBC SO I think it is good to have this discussion. A lot of things could be improved and the OP makes some good suggestions. I also find it a bit tedious that you cannot load for example only the sustains or pizz etc. I do use keyswitching and have setup some expression maps, but still in a lot occassions I like to load a few single patches. Specially with the percussion it was quite a pain to set it all up in different tracks with unloading all the articulations. Would have loved just to have them as single instruments.

Also in my personal opinion the design could be improved to have much more articulations on one page, same as with the mics.

I personally also face some technical issues with the memory usage and for some reason the reverb is constantly triggered to full when I use my transport buttons on my keyboard.

And I love a lot of the instruments, but that horn...

Hopefully this all gets sorted in due time though, but that is a risk with a new player. Had the same things when EW launched with PLAY, but never regretted though and hopefully I can say the same in a while about this.
The library itself is finding good use in a current project though.


----------



## Pier (Dec 12, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Why did you decide to move from Kontakt and make your own player such a disaster for organization?



I'm not from Spitfire but I think it all boils down to making a better product.

Depending on another company like NI for your survival is a really bad long term strategy. For example Kontakt has been pretty much abandoned by NI. The engine and UI have barely changed in like 10 years?

Smaller companies do not really have a choice than to depend on a third party, but once you get to a certain size it's the logical path to take to build your own tech infrastructure like VSL or EW did in their day.

I think it's unfortunate that Spitfire decided to launch their own player with the BCCSO instead of waiting a year or two but I would cut them some slack and be patient. They were probably overly ambitious, as is often the case with software development, and Spitfire's transition from recording samples and configuring Kontakt instruments to developing commercial software is not an easy one to make. I'm sure they know more than anyone the limitations of their player and are working on that.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

gamma-ut said:


> "There are ways to work with it" is hardly a ringing endorsement for the approach Spitfire has taken.
> 
> The OP's argument is not solely about making Spitfire's player work for them. The approach they described is broadly in line with VSL's, which I've seen few complain about. Whereas Play attracts a lot of criticism for its organisation which is broadly patch-per-track. Spitfire seems to have followed in EastWest's footsteps rather than VSL's. I don't think it should be a surprise as to why people are critical of Spitfire's approach in this.
> 
> It probably wasn't deliberate poor design, but the best you can say for Spitfire is that they underestimated the difficulty of introducing their own playback engine. Workarounds are all very well but at some point professional users are going to consider what works for them and what doesn't. And other users want to see what those issues are so they can make an informed choice.


Fair points, but again you're talking about personal preferences. That the Spitfire player doesn't have certain features and skews towards a simplified workflow is a deliberate design choice, not a failing. 

Like you say, individual users can decide for themselves if it's something they can work with. But let's not confuse a lack of features with somehow Spitfire making an error in judgment.


----------



## Bear Market (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> a deliberate design choice, not a failing.



Sure, but that design choice should in my opinion not be immune to scrutiny and criticism (within reason of course). My takeaway from the SF player is also that it to a large extent is "form over function", and I believe it is beneficial for Spitfire to receive that feedback, as I'm sure their intention is to market a product that a majority of users are happy with. 

The design choice to obfuscate many controllers behind the one single "big knob", for example, is quite vexing to me. How is that an improvement on their previous Kontakt GUIs? The same goes for the design choice to not display all articulations or mics on a single page.


----------



## VinRice (Dec 12, 2019)

As any company matures it needs to reduce its reliance on third party components. Spitfire and OT are the largest players in this game and it's no surprise that they have both moved towards 'verticality'.

Unfortunately with Spitfire, although the instinct was strategically correct, the execution is flawed. The design of the player was centred on a particular aesthetic/UX that Paul and Christian were fixated on rather than a set of base functionality requirements and a strategic functionality roadmap. They then chose a company to design and implement that had only ever created mobile/web applications, never a desktop application, never mind a DAW plug-in. I imagine it was a lot harder and more expensive than they envisaged. I believe development has now moved in-house.

Orchestral Tools an the other hand have created their Sine player with a clear set of functionality requirements based on professional and aspiring-professional use cases. It also embodies a clear strategic roadmap for the future (in-app purchasing). 

No doubt the Spitfire app will develop and improve over time and no doubt there will problems and hurdles to overcome with OT Sine player. However, the contrasts in philosophy and strategic thinking are stark. The Spitfire player is arguably the more aesthetically pleasing but we are not selling toasters here. In the 'domain' of pro/semi-pro tools, functionality and efficiency of user interface are paramount and in this respect the Sine player looks more promising.

I continue to support and purchase from both companies to the detriment of my bank balance.


----------



## Loïc D (Dec 12, 2019)

Jaap said:


> And I love a lot of the instruments, but that horn...


Hmmm, strange, I don't own BBSSO but I own Studio Brass and the Solo Horns are meh too.
When I need them, I often support them with EW Horn.

I think SA player is very fine for single/simple instruments, but it seems not designed to cope with big multitimbral / keyswitches needs. Which some of us are comfortable with. 
I don't feel 100% safe with it. I'm a bit control freak and find it disturbing to have one visible param on the big wheel while the others are not shown.

Yet, smarter guys than me are producing fine music with it


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 12, 2019)

There is nothing wrong with a company developing its own player and deciding what to include and what not to include.

There is nothing wrong with a forum member liking it or disliking it and saying so, as long as what they post is accurate and is not done in a hostile manner.

You vote with your wallet in the end because actions speak louder than words.


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 12, 2019)

Big fan of UACC! Haven't bought a SF Player library yet, but plan to buy lots of upcoming BBC stuff, HZ, EW. I was disappointed to see the "group" function disappear when going from Kontakt to their still un-named player. That opened-up lots of possibilities.

I'll bet anyone a beer though that 6 months from now we'll all be wishing our Kontakt libraries were available in the new player. Things develope fast. 

And don't forget that libraries can be cheaper now since SF's work is copy protected. BBC's price seems to already reflect that reality!


----------



## jbuhler (Dec 12, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> I'm not from Spitfire but I think it all boils down to making a better product.
> 
> Depending on another company like NI for your survival is a really bad long term strategy. For example Kontakt has been pretty much abandoned by NI. The engine and UI have barely changed in like 10 years?
> 
> ...


They launched it with HZS and have a lot of libraries that use it. That’s one reason i found it a bit surprising they had as many technical issues as they did: the player is not that new. Many of the usability issues were been pointed out when the player first came out. Some were addressed, but many of the most glaring, like the way the articulations and mics are laid out across pages, have not.

I’m agnostic on the player. It hasn’t caused me technical problems—I have both HZS and EWC that use it as well as the Labs. But I also don’t find the player especially well designed. As we see in BBCSO, management of articulations in particular remains a mess. And it is something that should have been solved long ago since it’s a mess in HZS and EWC as well. The player is another piece of software that has to be learned and mastered. 

But having had to deal with NI on several issues recently that was not a pleasant experience. I imagine developers for Kontakt are experiencing similar issues, even if not at the same level of indifference to their customers. NI is also a competitor and I can’t imagine any company wanting to be dependent on a competitor and allowing the competitor to see a good way into their accounting ledger. (NI knows exactly how many licenses a company purchased for their libraries but also how many of those licenses have been activated.)


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

VinRice said:


> As any company matures it needs to reduce its reliance on third party components. Spitfire and OT are the largest players in this game and it's no surprise that they have both moved towards 'verticality'.
> 
> Unfortunately with Spitfire, although the instinct was strategically correct, the execution is flawed. The design of the player was centred on a particular aesthetic/UX that Paul and Christian were fixated on rather than a set of base functionality requirements and a strategic functionality roadmap. They then chose a company to design and implement that had only ever created mobile/web applications, never a desktop application, never mind a DAW plug-in. I imagine it was a lot harder and more expensive than they envisaged. I believe development has now moved in-house.
> 
> ...


Some good points, but I think comparing the SF player with Sine is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

The Spitfire player is very much designed along the "Apple Logic" way of thinking: One track, one instrument. It (appears to be) designed to play back the samples and get them into the DAW with a minimum of fuss and not much else.

The Sine player has much loftier goals and seems to be crafted for those composers who like the plugin to do the heavy lifting: Loading with multiple instruments and pre-mixing before hitting the DAW and so forth.

Neither approach is the "correct" one and no doubt will be the seed of many upcoming VIC battles, but IMO it would be pointless. We're looking at two completely different philosophies.


----------



## Loïc D (Dec 12, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> They launched it with HZS and have a lot of libraries that use it. That’s one reason i found it a bit surprising they had as many technical issues as they did: the player is not that new. Many of the usability issues were been pointed out when the player first came out. Some were addressed, but many of the most glaring, like the way the articulations and mics are laid out across pages, have not.
> 
> I’m agnostic on the player. It hasn’t caused me technical problems—I have both HZS and EWC that use it as well as the Labs. But I also don’t find the player especially well designed. As we see in BBCSO, management of articulations in particular remains a mess. And it is something that should have been solved long ago since it’s a mess in HZS and EWC as well. The player is another piece of software that has to be learned and mastered.
> 
> But having had to deal with NI on several issues recently that was not a pleasant experience. I imagine developers for Kontakt are experiencing similar issues, even if not at the same level of indifference to their customers. NI is also a competitor and I can’t imagine any company wanting to be dependent on a competitor and allowing the competitor to see a good way into their accounting ledger. (NI knows exactly how many licenses a company purchased for their libraries but also how many of those licenses have been activated.)


I can guess that's a strong reason to develop your own player, besides technical limitations.
Having your sales figures so open to your competitor is a risk.
NI have all the cards in their pocket for deep market analysis.


----------



## Pier (Dec 12, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> They launched it with HZS and have a lot of libraries that use it. That’s one reason i found it a bit surprising they had as many technical issues as they did: the player is not that new. Many of the usability issues were been pointed out when the player first came out. Some were addressed, but many of the most glaring, like the way the articulations and mics are laid out across pages, have not.



Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out.

As a software developer myself I totally think the fundamental problem is that Spitfire is facing the difficult task of transitioning to a software company which presents its own set of challenges. Not only technical challenges but also dealing with QA, user experience, etc. These things are always more complicated than they seem at first.

Anyway, I'm certain in a couple of years this move will be seen as positive for Spitfire.


----------



## rocking.xmas.man (Dec 12, 2019)

jamwerks said:


> when going from Kontakt to their still un-named player.


I think they announced it back then as Merlin


----------



## Pier (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> The Spitfire player is very much designed along the "Apple Logic" way of thinking: One track, one instrument. It (appears to be) designed to play back the samples and get them into the DAW with a minimum of fuss and not much else.
> 
> The Sine player has much loftier goals and seems to be crafted for those composers who like the plugin to do the heavy lifting: Loading with multiple instruments and pre-mixing before hitting the DAW and so forth.
> 
> Neither approach is the "correct" one and no doubt will be the seed of many upcoming VIC battles, but IMO it would be pointless. We're looking at two completely different philosophies.



I'm guessing Spitfire plans to make it multitimbral at some point but it was too much to chew in 2019.


----------



## Mike Fox (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Some good points, but I think comparing the SF player with Sine is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> The Spitfire player is very much designed along the "Apple Logic" way of thinking: One track, one instrument. It (appears to be) designed to play back the samples and get them into the DAW with a minimum of fuss and not much else.
> 
> ...


From a business standpoint I would think that the "correct one" is the one that satisfies _most_ customers. Has Spitfire done that with their new player? 

@donnyluvd2bowl 

How about making a poll for the thread? I would love to see what most people think of Spitfire's player. I don't own any of their products that require it, so i don't have a dog in the fight. Nevertheless, I'm curious.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 12, 2019)

staypuft said:


> Always the same trolls trying shut down legitimate discussions by going on a moral crusade about things they don't use or understand. OPs concerns are very real from a working composer´s perspective. Spitfire´s player is form over function and will never improve if we don´t openly talk about it. Good for you OP!



Sure, but saying things like it's a "disaster for organization" is purely a personal perspective, not sure why you always call those with opposing opinions trolls?? I am also a working composer, and I chose to give my $$ to SF for their product...and it delivers exactly as advertised. It's one thing to diplomatically suggest improvement and features (which is always a good thing), but it's another thing to chastise a developer for apparently screwing up their own intended diesign just to alleviate the needs a handful of users. We all know you're never going to be pleased with the SF player, and I doubt there will ever be things like adjustments to the ADSR envelopes, etc. Like @Ashermusic mentioned, we can simply vote with our wallets...plain and simple.


----------



## AndyP (Dec 12, 2019)

Bear Market said:


> The design choice to obfuscate many controllers behind the one single "big knob", for example, is quite vexing to me. How is that an improvement on their previous Kontakt GUIs? The same goes for the design choice to not display all articulations or mics on a single page.


To be fair, in the fx menu you can set the big knob parameters with your own CCs und you can see them all (if activated). Some parameters are shown there, but you can't use them. Or not yet, so I suspect that they might work at a later time via update.

I can handle the player itself even if I miss some important features and the GUI is fancy, but I would have preferred functionality rather than a cool design.

I'm more bothered by the limitations in some patches and missing parameters. This is also true for Nucleus, by the way. But I'm less critical because my demand on the library was different!

BBCSO lives and breathes from marketing and a good sound. But that alone doesn't make it a good library or a gamechanger for me!

Criticism is justified, but it should be fair and objective.


----------



## AEF (Dec 12, 2019)

i mostly like the player, but there are a few issues for me:

a) a universal mic mix option would be so useful, whereby changing the mix in one plugin changes it in all. its extremely tedious to open each plugin to go from mix 1 to mix 2 to the tree close ambient setup etc.

b) the inability to create multis with other libraries. for example, id love to blend some of the instruments with other like instruments from different libraries, but i have to use a dedicated new track and pair them via a group in logic. it sucks compared to simply adding instruments to a kontakt multi.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

AEF said:


> but i have to use a dedicated new track and pair them via a group in logic. it sucks compared to simply adding instruments to a kontakt multi.


Try popping them in a track stack (and saving the patch for another day.)


----------



## erica-grace (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> That the Spitfire player doesn't have certain features and skews towards a simplified workflow is a deliberate design choice, not a failing.



No. The design choices ARE failings.

The lack of features IS an error in judgment. 

Just because someone chooses to design a piece of software a certain way, doesn't mean that software has been designed correctly.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 12, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Just because someone chooses to design a piece of software a certain way, doesn't mean that software has been designed correctly.



According to you, anyways. No one is forcing you to buy or use it.


----------



## erica-grace (Dec 12, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> According to you, anyways.



According to ALOT of people.



Wolfie2112 said:


> No one is forcing you to buy or use it.



And, what's the point? That is just an immature thing to say.


----------



## AEF (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Try popping them in a track stack (and saving the patch for another day.)



its a good solution but you cant nest track stacks within summing stacks. i use a track stack per instrument but i separate my legato, longs, shorts, and fx. so in order to record I need to have the stack expanded and thus one BBC plugin with its related kontakt instrument. id much prefer having it all in kontakt.


----------



## 2chris (Dec 12, 2019)

Stop thinking like content creators for a second. Put yourself in their shoes. I work on an executive board for my main line of work, and you would be surprised how much strategy is constantly discussed to ensure the survival of a company. I can guess how some of their discussions went. Also, this player is done. It's not like customers complaining will stop them using it unless they take a huge sales hit, and there are no indications that has happened or will happen.

Spitfire as a company is sinking a HUGE amount of money into content creation and overhead to support the company. The libraries are getting bigger, they are taking on partners on libraries, and their goals are becoming more expensive to execute on. On the NI platform, they have very little control of new features, what NI will charge for licensing, how they choose to support the product, and the copy protection scheme on Kontakt which is certainly not an elegant solution. For small and middle sized devs, all this is acceptable to avoid supporting a whole platform. When you get to the Spitfire Audio, Orchestral Tools, etc level - it's just too large of a risk to put your entire business model in the hands of a company that just laid off 30% of their entire company while also NOT heavily reinvesting back in that platform. If anything, I would see NI as a company spending more money as a competitor in that space, than as a developer making a better application ecosystem. Sharing their sales numbers gives away another competitive advantage to NI. At some point the trade for risk associated with moving away from Kontakt as your main platform is smaller than the risk of developing your own.

East West's play engine while being much worse than Kontakt, allowed the company to move forward with a cloud based product that is providing sustainable and predictable monthly revenues for the company. That's what they felt had to be done to be a modern company that could thrive, and it's worked out well for them. They have a competitive advantage despite the play engine not being great.

Orchestral Tools from the looks of it, already have some novel features in Sine that will allow features Kontakt has been too lazy to add because it would appear they are mistakenly not working with developers to find out what they and their customers need. From what I've seen, we want easily downloadable libraries we aren't worried about losing after a drive crashes, something managed in the cloud with easy updates, the flexibility to not download every part of a library, the ability to make our own mixes to save resources, a UI that gets out of the way while allowing for expression and organization, decent under the hood features like good filters/envelopes/FX/extensible scripting if possible, and the overall respect for system resources that the platform is purpose built for the way composers work that takes into account some level of portability.

It will be interesting to see how Spitfire Audio choose to handle the customer reactions of their sampler platform. Criticism doesn't mean it's bad platform. What they are trying to do is hard, and making moves like that are complex no matter how well planned and intentioned. I think there is also a loud minority of people who take to the internet to complain. Give them time, and I think they will improve the UI, performance, and add features customers want. Just be realistic, because while I am a huge fan of NI, look how long it took them to get to where they are while missing some features Spitfire has already addressed, like library management and content delivery.


----------



## robgb (Dec 12, 2019)

With the new JXL Brass, isn't Orchestral Tools promising to also offer a Kontakt version? It seems to me that Spitfire might benefit by adopting this philosophy.


----------



## CT (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> There's a lot of misinformation flowing through this thread and there needs to be a bit of balance.



Stop right there, fanboy scum. You are clearly a $hill for the evil Spitfire empire. Thankfully there are noble heroes here to temper your LIES.


----------



## zimm83 (Dec 12, 2019)

robgb said:


> With the new JXL Brass, isn't Orchestral Tools promising to also offer a Kontakt version? It seems to me that Spitfire might benefit by adopting this philosophy.


No no and NO . They told everyone this is a Sine player only library.
Would be so cool, but ...


----------



## staypuft (Dec 12, 2019)

zimm83 said:


> No no and NO . They told everyone this is a Sine player only library.
> Would be so cool, but ...


I was about to drop Tobias @OrchestralTools a message when I saw Rob´s message. Just check the specs page and it says ´´Works with Orchestral Tools' SINE Player``. No mention of Kontakt.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 12, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> According to ALOT of people.
> 
> 
> 
> And, what's the point? That is just an immature thing to say.



The point is....use it or don't, it's that simple. The SF Player is fully functioning, works exactly as it's designed to, and gets the job done for "simpletons" like myself (I admit I love the simple, no nonsense design, so I can just get shit done without fiddling). There are other options out there, this one's obviously not for certain users. I don't prefer Kontakt, but it's a personal preference. I absolutely hate Native Access, but it is what it is, and it doesn't stop me from meeting deadlines and being creative. 

I'm all for input from users, but it's very counter productive to tell a developer their product is crap just because it doesn't suit their needs, and that's pretty much what's been happening. There are probably thousands of satisfied users, it can't be THAT bad.


----------



## brenneisen (Dec 12, 2019)

miket said:


> EDIT: Hope none of you "liking" this think I'm serious....



don't ruin it


----------



## staypuft (Dec 12, 2019)

For the sake of comparison. Sine is a new player that not only embraces what´s best about Kontakt but takes it to a whole new level of usability. Function over form.

Legato maps to change the attack and release of articulations, custom dynamic and envelope editors and much more. Basic stuff that everyone that writes for MIDI should be invested in. This is not rocket science... ´´The Sine player is created to serve the needs of professionals as well as being accessible to beginners´´


----------



## Vashi (Dec 12, 2019)

zimm83 said:


> Spitfire and Orchestral Tools are dead for me since they left Kontakt.
> That's all.



Are there problems with the Sine Player?
I did a search about Sine Player here in VI Control but very little came up on it.

*** Silly me, it hasn't even been released yet.


----------



## brenneisen (Dec 12, 2019)

Vashi said:


> Are there problems with the Sine Player?



December, 16


----------



## zimm83 (Dec 12, 2019)

Vashi said:


> Are there problems with the Sine Player?
> I did a search about Sine Player here in VI Control but very little came up on it.


Nothing wrong with SIne player or Spitfire's one.
It is just the fact that i can't follow them with their new player.
I have invested so many years in Kontakt to be able to learn it and tweak it to my taste that i just won't follow them with their new players.
No need and desire to move to new players....no time to learn. No time to adapt....
It is just me.
I regret those choices, i LOVE their products so much, but i won't follow them now.

But as i said, it's just me....
Nothing agains the new players...
They are for the next generation !!!


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

miket said:


> Stop right there, fanboy scum. You are clearly a $hill for the evil Spitfire empire. Thankfully there are noble heroes here to temper your LIES.


S**t, busted. But I was so careful not to use the words "very" and "excited." How did you know?

_<Removes mask to reveal the face of Paul Thomson.>_


----------



## Vashi (Dec 12, 2019)

brenneisen said:


> December, 16



Just found out when I went over to the OT site.
The feature set looks good though. The volume normalisation being done by the Sine Player would definitely a step up. I was mulling about this auto gain plugin.








AutoGain Pro advanced volume automation


The HoRNet AutoGain Pro is an advanced volume automation and leveling utility



www.hornetplugins.com


----------



## BezO (Dec 12, 2019)

Help for a new Spitfire user, please. And pardon if this is documented or obvious, but I'm having trouble finding it, if it's a feature. And this is for the Studio series in the Kontakt / Komplete Kontrol player.

Is it possible to swap available keyswitches? For example, can I swap out a basic for a decorative articulation in the basic patch?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

BezO said:


> Help for a new Spitfire user, please. And pardon if this is documented or obvious, but I'm having trouble finding it, if it's a feature. And this is for the Studio series in the Kontakt / Komplete Kontrol player.
> 
> Is it possible to swap available keyswitches? For example, can I swap out a basic for a decorative articulation in the basic patch?


I can't remember there ever being a way to do that - but quite happy for someone to correct me.

You could unload the articulation you don't want (the microchip underneath) and in the next Kontakt slot, load the individual articulation you want to replace it with. Set both slots to the same midi channel. Using UACC switches correctly between the slots.


----------



## BezO (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> I can't remember there ever being a way to do that - but quite happy for someone to correct me.
> 
> You could unload the articulation you don't want (the microchip underneath) and in the next Kontakt slot, load the individual articulation you want to replace it with. Set both slots to the same midi channel. Using UACC switches correctly between the slots.


Thanks. I may have to rely on something similar at some point, but I'm trying desperately to avoid multiple tracks per instrument. Keyswitching is so much more convenient for me. I've been meaning to watch some vids specifically looking for how the track-per-articulation folks work with this.

I'm curious about the limitation. Maybe it's my experience that's limited, but lesser libraries allow for this. Symphony Series, for example.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

BezO said:


> Thanks. I may have to rely on something similar at some point, but I'm trying desperately to avoid multiple tracks per instrument. I'm a keyswitcher.
> 
> I'm curious about the limitation. Maybe it's my experience that's limited, but lesser libraries allow for this. Symphony Series, for example.


Ah, sorry I should have been clearer. Summit like this:






Back on topic: Spitfire sucks boo hiss etc etc.


----------



## 5Lives (Dec 12, 2019)

BezO said:


> Help for a new Spitfire user, please. And pardon if this is documented or obvious, but I'm having trouble finding it, if it's a feature. And this is for the Studio series in the Kontakt / Komplete Kontrol player.
> 
> Is it possible to swap available keyswitches? For example, can I swap out a basic for a decorative articulation in the basic patch?



Don’t believe their Kontakt interface allows for that (though check the manual) but ironically their new player does.


----------



## ridgero (Dec 12, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Dear Spitfire
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



I think the SF Player doesn’t suits you and thats okay.

There are a ton of companies, who are still using Kontakt as their primary player.


----------



## BezO (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Ah, sorry I should have been clearer. Summit like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe "track" was the wrong word. With this method, the MIDI would still be separate for the additional articulation(s), no?




5Lives said:


> Don’t believe their Kontakt interface allows for that (though check the manual) but ironically their new player does.


I can't find anything in the manual regarding this, probably because it's not possible.

Spitfire's player would probably suffice if I didn't rely on the Komplete Kontrol Keyboard.


----------



## ism (Dec 12, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> There's a lot of misinformation flowing through this thread and there needs to be a bit of balance.
> 
> Yes, the Spitfire player isn't perfect but it _is _capable of slotting into pro workflows. It has keyswitching options that can be changed or intergrated into an articulation switching system. It's lack of memory purging can be offset using things like DAW dynamic plugin loading and the like.
> 
> ...



To amplify this, it’s worth noting that , I think, the reason these threads are so at risk of becoming acrimonious is the Implicit projection of an individuals taste or preferences or workflow as the gold standard of what is ‘professional’.

For instance, a certain reviewer’s take on a recent library from a certain developer noted that he just couldn’t see it appeaIing to professionals.

It clearly wasn’t the best library for himself, it was perfectly legitimate for him to point out. But he didn;t seem to recognize that this choice of words, combined with various other instances of similar textual sleight of hand, was easily, read as an (implicit) insult to the (many) professionals to whom who the library was genuinely suited to. 


That this is happening implicitly, and probably not even consciously, makes the cycle of conflict all the more pernicious and unnecessary.


----------



## brenneisen (Dec 12, 2019)

BezO said:


> Is it possible to swap available keyswitches? For example, can I swap out a basic for a decorative articulation in the basic patch?



It is



5Lives said:


> Don’t believe their Kontakt interface allows for that (though check the manual) but ironically their new player does.



It does


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 12, 2019)

BezO said:


> Maybe "track" was the wrong word. With this method, the MIDI would still be separate for the additional articulation(s), no?
> 
> 
> I can't find anything in the manual regarding this, probably because it's not possible.
> ...


No, the midi could exist on the one track for both slots.


----------



## BezO (Dec 12, 2019)

brenneisen said:


> It is...


Thanks! Care to share some instructions? I left/right clicked, +command/option/controled my way to nowhere, after searching the manual.



Alex Fraser said:


> No, the midi could exist on the one track for both slots.


Ahh, not as inconvenient as I thought. @brenneisen introduced a twist, but if my preferred method is not possible, that will work. Thanks!

Edit: The last I looked at a similar method, it was with all keyswtich slots filled. Deleting the unneeded articulation is key.


----------



## AGMediaNL (Dec 12, 2019)

Not so happy with these new players (Spitfire, OT) aswell.
If I can't dive under the hood to fix problems (sample starts, loops, x-fades, exclude/replace bad samples, etc), it's a no go for me. 
I already completely side-lined too many (high-end) libraries with problems I couldn't really work around (having no access to the back-end).

Even if the day ever comes, where sample developers launch libraries that are a 100% perfect, I would still prefer to have access from time to time to adjust certain patches to the track I'm working on at that specific moment.


----------



## brenneisen (Dec 12, 2019)

ctrl+click on the articulation

not perfect, though:

- it's not a swap but an alias/shortcut instead

- you can't get rid of the original ones

- the pressed key state isn't shown (not a biggie, you have the UI)


----------



## BezO (Dec 12, 2019)

brenneisen said:


> ctrl+click on the articulation
> 
> not perfect, though:
> 
> ...


Genius! Thanks! If I'm understanding what I'm seeing, this is better than swapping. I can create a super patch.

One more step please. Your example shows aliasing an articulation from within the patch. Maybe this will make more sense while at my computer, but how do I alias an articulation not in the loaded patch? I'm specifically trying to alias an articulation from the decorative patch to the basic patch.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Dec 12, 2019)

In answer to the "What Were You Thinking?" question, I recall *Christian* saying on more than one occasion that he wanted to democratize the process of writing for an orchestra, making it both easy to access and easy to use. The current interface design seems to stem from that goal.

Ultimately, I think an approach similar to Apple's with Logic Pro X—in which the user can choose between a simple interface or a more full-featured one—would satisfy the widest range of users. One can only hope that will come as Spitfire's player evolves over time.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## robgb (Dec 12, 2019)

zimm83 said:


> No no and NO . They told everyone this is a Sine player only library.
> Would be so cool, but ...


Hmm. Then where did I hear they would be supporting both platforms with future libraries?


----------



## dzilizzi (Dec 12, 2019)

robgb said:


> Hmm. Then where did I hear they would be supporting both platforms with future libraries?


I heard that also. Sometime when they were first talking about it.


----------



## dflood (Dec 12, 2019)

Spitfire and Orchestral Tools libraries are among the most expensive and complex. There are undoubtedly good business reasons why they would prefer not to use a competitor’s sample player. However, unless their new players are superior to Kontakt, then the value proposition is solely for the company, not for the customer. From what I have seen in their walkthroughs, OT at least, does seem to be trying to make a superior player.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 12, 2019)

robgb said:


> Hmm. Then where did I hear they would be supporting both platforms with future libraries?



In your dreams?


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 12, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> According to ALOT of people.



Means nothing, 63 million people voted for Trump.


----------



## babylonwaves (Dec 13, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> I don't personally use keyswitches, but I'm installing HZ Strings for a client right now and the pre-mapped keyswitches are not remotely consistent; it makes no sense.


Key switch consistency is an issue not only SF faces. In many situations, consistency would require a fairly huge range for the switches. At least if you want to make everything consistent with a library such as HZS where the different patches have different articulation choices. Look at the 20 Celli left vs right patches for instance.
The player is made for key switching. Not so much for an articulation per track layout.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> I don't have the library, but I'm pretty sure you can load a custom set of articulations and associated keyswitches in the BBCSO plugin.
> 
> I'm also surprised that anyone would be using old school key switching - using articulation maps in Logic for example would make Spitfire's chosen preset key switches kind of irrelevant.




you can only unload the patches that are associated with that instrument, you can't add

i don't use keyswitches either, UACC is also CC32 mappings


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Not everyone shares the OP’s concerns. I rarely use keyswitch patches, I actually avoid them whenever possible. I actually really dig the SF Player and Play.....even over Kontakt.


 

post had little to nothing to do with keyswitches tho, and everything to do with logical streamlined organization for a fast workflow and system resources


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

babylonwaves said:


> Key switch consistency is an issue not only SF faces. In many situations, consistency would require a fairly huge range for the switches. At least if you want to make everything consistent with a library such as HZS where the different patches have different articulation choices. Look at the 20 Celli left vs right patches for instance.
> The player is made for key switching. Not so much for an articulation per track layout.




well sure, but if you read the rest of that post my point was about illustrating the seemingly lacking planning-- e.g., the tremolo keyswitch should OBVIOUSLY be the same from Violin to Viola. It's really truly obvious if you've ever made a professional mockup under a deadline why that should be the default (the Royal "you")


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> The OP's central argument is that Spitfire have "messed up" by not designing a player around his specific needs and workflow...



No it's actually not at all, you are-- ironically-- myopically ignoring that a lot of people like to work organized and resource efficient, as evidenced by the agreement in this thread that there are some advantages of Kontakt that have not been translated to their player. 

And yes taking to a popular forum where the developers sometimes participate to provide and aggregate feedback is not only valuable to us as users but endlessly valuable FREE user testing for the developers.


----------



## AndyP (Dec 13, 2019)

What bothers me a lot is how it behaves dynamically in the new player. Maybe it's because they've integrated less dynamic layer for it, but both BBCSO and Epic Strings have jumps that are hard to control.
If I compare that to BHCT, which is my only full Kontakt library from SA, it's disappointing.
As long as that's the case, I'll keep away from libraries that are only offered in the new player.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 13, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> No it's actually not at all, you are-- ironically-- myopically ignoring that a lot of people like to work organized and resource efficient, as evidenced by the agreement in this thread that there are some advantages of Kontakt that have not been translated to their player.


But it's also possible to work "organized and resource efficiently" with the Spitfire player. It depends on the composers workflow and you're framing it only from your personal perspective. Not everyone works in the same way.



donnyluvd2bowl said:


> And yes taking to a popular forum where the developers sometimes participate to provide and aggregate feedback is not only valuable to us as users but endlessly valuable FREE user testing for the developers.


Sure, but your thread title doesn't exactly invite a friendly discussion. It's basically criticism. Big difference.


----------



## babylonwaves (Dec 13, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> well sure, but if you read the rest of that post my point was about illustrating the seemingly lacking planning-- e.g., the tremolo keyswitch should OBVIOUSLY be the same from Violin to Viola.


the BBCSO is totally consistent in this regard. So either SF learned something already or they had reasons for the layout decisions in e.g HZS.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> But it's also possible to work "organized and resource efficiently" with the Spitfire player. It depends on the composers workflow and you're framing it only from your personal perspective. Not everyone works in the same way.



hmmm i'm not really sure how many times I can say "I'm not though," but perhaps I haven't given enough of a direct repose so i hope this helps. I've said already that this was instigated while I was setting this library up in another composer's template, one that is actually not my workflow-- do you not believe me? haha. it would actually be even WORSE for me, which is why I haven't bought HZ strings despite some lovely and useful patches. the app is rigid, it can literally only be set up and routed one way. there is no way around it Alex, even with external patch management apps; and track stacks do not actually get around this issue though they can sweep it under the rug so to speak (and by the way, speaking of framing things through narrow personal experience, not everyone uses Logic). That the flexibility as compared to Kontakt is lost is not really debatable, though I'm (against all hope) guessing we'll be circling back to this again but hey I'm willing to repeat myself because it's not only an important point, it is the entire point of the thread.

To, again, flip this around: Have you considered that you are only thinking of this from *your* perspective and what you consider organized? Have you considered that maybe your workflow might be messier than it could be? I mean it's kind of a-- pardon me-- dumb point to make that I'm giving my perspective; that much is obvious. The idea that it's ONLY my perspective is (again) clearly wrong considering that, at a minimum, a number of people in this thread agree with this assessment, as well as several reviews which echo similar thoughts even if not all at once by the same author (which mirrors the multiple kinds of workflow disruption this presents). 



Alex Fraser said:


> Sure, but your thread title doesn't exactly invite a friendly discussion. It's basically criticism. Big difference.



Well you edited this "Read your thread title back to yourself. Are you sure Spitfire found your lecture valuable?" to say the above, but regardless my title is very clearly tongue-in-cheek (though apparently the tone was lost for you, I was banking on it playing to their British humor; but maybe it doesn't). Spitfire is a very successful company and a major player in the sampling industry, they don't need me to send roses with a card that says "Hey P+C, can we talk? Yours, Donnyluvd2bowl"

Yes I'm being critical, and that's OK, I'm not insulting them. You're acting like I wrote "Wow Paul and Chris you must really be a bunch of dumb a**holes to design this pos. I'd say take another look but someone must have doused your eyes with hydrochloric acid leaving you too stupefied and in pain to design this plugin MY WAY."

I don't think the discussion has been unfriendly at all-- however it is arguably unfriendly to tell someone they're being narrow-minded repeatedly as an argument when it's just not the case. Again, I'd ask you to flip your thoughts around towards yourself.


----------



## CT (Dec 13, 2019)

Donny was a good bowler, and a good man. He was one of us. He was a man who loved the outdoors… and bowling, and as a surfer he explored the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and… up to… Pismo. He died... like so many young men of his generation, he died before his time. In your wisdom, Lord, you took him, as you took so many bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, at Langdok, at Hill 364. These young men gave their lives. And so would Donny. Donny, who loved bowling. And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well. Goodnight, sweet prince.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

babylonwaves said:


> the BBCSO is totally consistent in this regard. So either SF learned something already or they had reasons for the layout decisions in e.g HZS.



true, to an extent fore sure, within the instrument family iirc-- but if you move a staccato part from say violins to flute to be doubled, you would need to revisit your programming (unless you've custom mapped) which yeah isn't water torture but come on. 

the keyswitching was really not the major point, I was just lamenting the abandonment of pre-mapped CC


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 13, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> hmmm i'm not really sure how many times I can say "I'm not though," but perhaps I haven't given enough of a direct repose so i hope this helps. I've said already that this was instigated while I was setting this library up in another composer's template, one that is actually not my workflow-- do you not believe me? haha. it would actually be even WORSE for me, which is why I haven't bought HZ strings despite some lovely and useful patches. the app is rigid, it can literally only be set up and routed one way. there is no way around it Alex, even with external patch management apps; and track stacks do not actually get around this issue though they can sweep it under the rug so to speak (and by the way, speaking of framing things through narrow personal experience, not everyone uses Logic). That the flexibility as compared to Kontakt is lost is not really debatable, though I'm (against all hope) guessing we'll be circling back to this again but hey I'm willing to repeat myself because it's not only an important point, it is the entire point of the thread.
> 
> To, again, flip this around: Have you considered that you are only thinking of this from *your* perspective and what you consider organized? Have you considered that maybe your workflow might be messier than it could be? I mean it's kind of a-- pardon me-- dumb point to make that I'm giving my perspective; that much is obvious. The idea that it's ONLY my perspective is (again) clearly wrong considering that, at a minimum, a number of people in this thread agree with this assessment, as well as several reviews which echo similar thoughts even if not all at once by the same author (which mirrors the multiple kinds of workflow disruption this presents).
> 
> ...


Nicely pointed out, but I actually edited my original post as I thought it came across as a bit douchey. 

TBH, I've only scanned your reply. It looks like too much hard work (at 2am in the morning) and I think we'll only disagree and go around in circles. Best of luck.
A


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 13, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Nicely pointed out, but I actually edited my original post as I thought it came across as a bit douchey.
> 
> TBH, I've only scanned your reply. It looks like too much hard work (at 2am in the morning) and I think we'll only disagree and go around in circles. Best of luck.
> A



eh-- you'll read it.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> eh-- you'll read it.


Correct! Out of respect, I've just read it - at a far more agreeable time on a Sunday morning with coffee. Couple of thoughts:

I did understand it was your client's machine, but you still presented it as your opinion nonetheless. All I was suggesting is that there are multiple ways to work with the plugin outside of those you listed. If you've already considered them and come to the conclusion that they don't work for you, that's entirely your call to make. I'm not arguing with that.

I agree, Kontakt is better and more flexible - already stated.

Speaking as a British bloke myself, it's unlikely that Spitfire saw the "humour" in your original post. Actually, British humour is really difficult to get across on a written forum and often comes across dry and sarcastic. Something that's bitten me on the a**e more than once..
And let's be honest Donny, you were having a rant. You said so yourself. 

Also, I know you're disagreeing with @babylonwaves on the subject of keyswitching, but seriously, no-one knows more about them than Marc. (See his sig.) He might be able to help you bring order to the perilous world of Spitfire keyswitching.

Best - A


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 15, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Also, I know you're disagreeing with @babylonwaves on the subject of keyswitching, but seriously, no-one knows more about them than Marc. (See his sig.) He might be able to help you bring order to the perilous world of Spitfire keyswitching.
> 
> Best - A



I am? Where is that now? I haven’t disagreed with him on the “subject” of key switching anywhere— were in agreement that they’ve been inconsistent. He said he feels they learned from that a bit with BBCSO, I agree except they didn’t take it a step further and keep it consistent between instrument families. you really don’t seem to be actually reading my posts at all with any depth, as I’ve also said multiple times I don’t use key switches.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> I am? Where is that now? I haven’t disagreed with him on the “subject” of key switching anywhere— were in agreement that they’ve been inconsistent. He said he feels they learned from that a bit with BBCSO, I agree except they didn’t take it a step further and keep it consistent between instrument families. you really don’t seem to be actually reading my posts at all with any depth, as I’ve also said multiple times I don’t use key switches.


Trying to help mate, but I feel it’s a waste of my time. You crack on.


----------



## EvilDragon (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> I'm assuming they moved away from it because the overhead on paying NI for Kontakt encryption was eating into their profits



Not really, no. Recording for a few hours at AIR studios is much more expensive than encoding a Kontakt Player library. 



mralmostpopular said:


> and more that NI made some risky business moves that has caused them some issues.



Personally I don't think that's the reason. Regardless of what NI as a business did, Kontakt is still extremely solid. To me it just reads that they wanted to be fully in control. For better or for worse.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Dec 15, 2019)

Some aspects of Kontakt are a good bit easier to configure, like how it acts like a rack, and changing MIDI channels or primary outputs of individual loaded instruments is easy to do from one view. A lot of us know how to get around that ecosystem, but we can totally learn new interfaces, right?

In the Spitfire player (in the most recent versions), you can still configure exactly how articulations are triggered, whether it be custom keyswitches/custom MIDI CCs/custom MIDI channels for every single articulation. You can also create custom mic configurations and mic channel outputs for every single articulation uniquely. And you can make custom presets with your own articulations and trigger behaviors and mic mixes! Can't do that easily in the Spitfire Kontakt instruments.

I'd love to make a good unified tutorial going over all of that if there isn't one already, but otherwise, it seems like a lot of people don't yet know how to get to that stuff (which is a failure on the part of the plugin to educate its functions well, takes a little bit of digging, but *RTFM*)

I agree that it's a little trickier to just open up the Spitfire player and get going with it, but it's truly fully customizable if you have the time to sit down and build a template. Definitely isn't as quick and effortless as Kontakt, but I attribute some of that to me having used Kontakt for so long. Obviously we can't go into the folds and tweak everything. Kontakt is for creating instruments as well as playing them, so there's a ton of work put into the editing side. Custom players just aren't going to have that. And there's the issue of Kontakt-style sample memory purging, but keep requesting that one and they might get to it.

In addition, with all the functionality already there, revealing them to the user better is only a matter of interface improvements over time, yeah? It's not perfect, obviously, but it has potential.

Please let me know if I'm missing something! (I'm going to be doing a BBCSO review soon and want to cover the bases)


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 15, 2019)

Alex Fraser said:


> Trying to help mate, but I feel it’s a waste of my time. You crack on.



Not really, though. You’re in a thread about plugins you don’t own pearl-clutching a sidebar about keyswitches (that wasn’t actually about keyswitches), and your central (incorrect) point was “OP thinks plugins should be designed around his workflow.” 

I mean— yeah you are wasting your time... but it’s not because of me.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Not really, though. You’re in a thread about plugins you don’t own pearl-clutching a sidebar about keyswitches (that wasn’t actually about keyswitches), and your central (incorrect) point was “OP thinks plugins should be designed around his workflow.”
> 
> I mean— yeah you are wasting your time... but it’s not because of me.


Nope. My only mistake is not realising you only wanted a fight. Take care, Donny.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> post had little to nothing to do with keyswitches tho, and everything to do with logical streamlined organization for a fast workflow and system resources



Thanks for correcting me, sorry about that


----------



## Paul Cardon (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Why would you organize your library in such a way that if you want all the available articulations of an instrument you need to create multiple tracks with multiple instances of your player and eat up MIDI channels and resources when Kontakt handled this beautifully as a multi with transform ksps and instrument banks?



Haven't read the whole thread so someone probably addressed it, but pointing at my post above: this is actually just inaccurate. You can do all of this in one instance.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 15, 2019)

Paul Cardon said:


> Haven't read the whole thread so someone probably addressed it, but pointing at my post above: this is actually just inaccurate. You can do all of this in one instance.



In HZ strings? Show me.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> In HZ strings? Show me.











All these per-articulation triggers have been in there since the first release of HZ Strings. And all the articulation specific multi-out mic config that were added in BBCSO are now also in HZ Strings with the most recent update.

EDIT: and this is with BBCSO, but here are several MIDI channels pointing to a single instance of the plugin but on separate MIDI channels. You might want to spend some more time playing with the plugin and reading the manual because all that functionality is totally there.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 15, 2019)

Paul Cardon said:


> All these per-articulation triggers have been in there since first release. And all the articulation specific multi-out mic configs that were added in BBCSO are now in HZ Strings with the most recent update.



Paul, those are not all the articulations, they are split oddly among the different instruments. If you look at Violins wide and Violins Center they have different articulations. Violins: All In One - Wide doesn't even have regular tremolo. So, if you want all the Violin articulations, you would need to have both instances open.

This was in my OP and repeated a few times in the thread. For some reason nobody is reading what I'm writing so I'll let this reviewer do the talking for me.

_"Another sampling and programming decision that I have trouble getting my head around, is the distribution of patches across the different ensembles. While recording different articulations for the big 60-string ensembles and the smaller 20-string sections is something I’m able to relate to, having different sets of patches for the same set of players doesn’t make any sense at all."_

source: http://epicomposer.com/spitfire-audio-hans-zimmer-strings-review/

better yet let's take a look in the manual:






Notice how the only instrument with regular trem is Violins Center? So if you like the Col Legno Tratto patch and want to alternate between that and tremolo, you need to load up an instance of Violins Center and Violins Wide-- i.e., you will need multiple instances (double the resources), and since the Spitfire Player isn't a multi like Kontakt, you will need multiple tracks (which means for HZ Strings, you might need double (or more) the number of tracks than another string library).

My suggestion for a fix is in the OP.


----------



## Paul Cardon (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> Paul, those are not all the articulations, they are split oddly among the different instruments. If you look at Violins wide and Violins Center they have different articulations. Violins: All In One - Wide doesn't even have regular tremolo. So, if you want all the Violin articulations, you would need to have both instances open.
> 
> This was in my OP and repeated a few times in the thread. For some reason nobody is reading what I'm writing so I'll let this reviewer do the talking for me.
> 
> ...


Ah my bad then! I read that post like you were opening tons of instances for every articulation (again, haven't read the entire thread, so glad to engage properly now). I guess I'm not entirely bothered because it really doesn't add any "channels" in the arrangement view, easy enough to link or group-route channels if you want to process them all together, etc. I think you're getting into the weeds.

And if you're doing multiple audio outs for every single one of those, Kontakt has an output limit as well, so you'd have to split them anyway. But I digress.

I get it but I don't see it as being a huge limitation right now. Some of the patches are designed with shared sample sets in mind, like the advanced legatos using pieces from multiple articulations, so it makes sense that each instance acts like a contained instrument. It... really doesn't add a huge amount of extra work.

Either way, check out this thread @NoamL is putting together on the non-sample RAM usage used whenever a new SSS instrument is loaded into Kontakt. It's not necessarily leaner (other than the overall usage from Kontakt being open, empty), but further testing could show that it's not that far off.





Investigating Logic + VEP ideal setup


Hi, To enable divisi partwriting, I need to load multiple copies of an instrument in my template. For the sake of example let's take the Spitfire Symphonic Strings Vln1 Legato CTA, which takes 1.36GB of RAM to load. I believed that loading copies inside the same Kontakt instance would save...




vi-control.net





I think it could be interesting to show the RAM usage differences between 4 instances of the Spitfire player with a big multi-articulation patch open but all the samples unloaded vs. the same thing in a single instance of Kontakt.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 15, 2019)

Paul Cardon said:


> Ah my bad then!
> 
> And if you're doing multiple audio outs for every single one of those, Kontakt has an output limit as well, so you'd have to split them anyway. But I digress.
> 
> ...




nw!

kontakt has an output limit, BUT! If you're sending all Violins (of a library) to one track, that's one output, and in kontakt you can use one MIDI track for all of them as well (and either use an instrument bank or a cc transformer ksp to change which instrument in the multi with the patch you need is being triggered)

BBCSO was definitely better executed than HZ Strings, ALTHOUGH it would be nice to be able to have one track for, say, flutes, and be able to use that one track for both solo and a3, again a feature that could be implemented by allowing us to add patches to that instrument, kind of like VSL's matrix as someone pointed out earlier. 

RAM usage comparison would be good-- again I think the purge samples function of Kontakt was keeping musicians without beast rigs in mind, where this doesn't work quite as efficiently. And you have more flexibility to distribute your RAM/CPU load with Kontakt as iirc the rule of thumb is one instance of Kontakt uses less RAM but one core at a time, vs more RAM but better core distribution (I saw EvilDragon in here, he can correct me if I'm wrong). With this system you just don't get that... but that NoamL thread has some cool info, thanks for linking.


----------



## EvilDragon (Dec 15, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> iirc the rule of thumb is one instance of Kontakt uses less RAM but one core at a time, vs more RAM but better core distribution (I saw EvilDragon in here, he can correct me if I'm wrong)



Kontakt can use multiple cores from a single instance, there's an option for that. However it'll depend on your DAW how well this will work in your case. But overall yes, there is some RAM overhead for each additional Kontakt instance loaded.


----------



## babylonwaves (Dec 16, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> it would be nice to be able to have one track for, say, flutes, and be able to use that one track for both solo and a3,


I think that wouldn’t work for me. You’d end up having e.g. two sustain articulations in one patch. As a result you couldn’t move a region from one instrument to the other easily anymore while maintaining the articulation assignments (either by using universal KS or midi channels for instance).
But I give you that the HZS are not very consistent. It’s a library where I tend to write for the samples I have in one instrument. and yes, that’s kind of limiting. As a result HZS was always a library for more special occasions, similar to what the LCO strings are.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Dec 16, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> I agree, I have BBC Winds in my template and that's it, kind of a shame.


Same here. The winds are my favorite from the library and I really love the tone, which is why they stayed in my main template. However, I would have prefered them to be in Kontakt due to various reasons, most of which have been named here before several times.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Dec 16, 2019)

Kruger said:


> Now for me, it's like the ilok effect, i check first if their new library uses this player...


What's the ilok effect? Don't you buy plugins that have to be registred in iLok?


----------



## dzilizzi (Dec 16, 2019)

Bluemount Score said:


> What's the ilok effect? Don't you buy plugins that have to be registred in iLok?


Some people hate having a dongle. I, myself, prefer it. After having to setup a DAW machine multiple times, you find it is so much easier with an iLok. No authorizing every single frickin plugin. Sorry, just got a new computer that I'm slowly loading.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 16, 2019)

I sometimes wonder if the design of the player is a result of Spitfire being primarily a Logic house.

Logic has long made the "multi-timbral" via midi approach more difficult than it could be. The DAW seems to be designed around a one track > one instrument workflow. Since the SF crew are Logic Heads, maybe this had a bearing on the design of the plugin?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 16, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> Some people hate having a dongle. I, myself, prefer it. After having to setup a DAW machine multiple times, you find it is so much easier with an iLok. No authorizing every single frickin plugin. Sorry, just got a new computer that I'm slowly loading.


I hate dongles. But I'm completely aware it's a nonsensical ideological thing on my part. Necessary evil I guess.

Also, you've knocked me out of the top ten again.. 😀


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 16, 2019)

babylonwaves said:


> I think that wouldn’t work for me. You’d end up having e.g. two sustain articulations in one patch. As a result you couldn’t move a region from one instrument to the other easily anymore while maintaining the articulation assignments (either by using universal KS or midi channels for instance).
> But I give you that the HZS are not very consistent. It’s a library where I tend to write for the samples I have in one instrument. and yes, that’s kind of limiting. As a result HZS was always a library for more special occasions, similar to what the LCO strings are.



true, it cause intralibrary moves to require you to have to change the switch when you move the region although that creeps in already for libraries where you can't customize the switches. Inter-BBCSO (and actually all of Spitfire) what you could possibly do though is have flutes solo sus as, say, CC 32 1 and a3 as CC 32 2 (and follow suit for any other library that has solo and section), and then any instrument that doesn't need to swap between solo and section for sus as a range, so horn sus would be CC 32 1-2.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 16, 2019)

Paul Cardon said:


> Haven't read the whole thread so someone probably addressed it, but pointing at my post above: this is actually just inaccurate. You can do all of this in one instance.


Yeah I also don't get what the original poster is referring to. The ability to disarm some loaded arts would be nice however and I figure an update will address this.


----------



## Mike Fox (Dec 16, 2019)

dcoscina said:


> Yeah I also don't get what the original poster is referring to. The ability to disarm some loaded arts would be nice however and I figure an update will address this.


So you actually can't disable articulations?


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 16, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> So you actually can't disable articulations?




you can, he didn't read through the thread, this was covered.


----------



## kimgaboury (Dec 16, 2019)

I had annoying problems with it last week. The way it deals with content placement on the hard drives is unnecessarily convoluted, imo. So yeah, there is certainly room for improvement, and hopefully they are monitoring threads such as this one.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 16, 2019)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> you can, he didn't read through the thread, this was covered.


Hmm, must have missed that. Between my day job and finishing up a brass quintet in Dorico, I only check in once in a while here. I have played with BBCSO since I got it a couple weeks ago but not in depth and from what I tried, I couldn't unload arts. I must go back over this thread now. But hey, I'm in Spitfire's corner here. I like their player and I really like BBCSO. It' blends so beautifully together. Lots of libraries sound awesome with their individual instruments but blending them together sometimes yields issues. That's my experience thus far. And damn if Christian doesn't get a chuck on the shoulder from me and other Logic users for putting together that massive template. Props.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 17, 2019)

dcoscina said:


> I have played with BBCSO since I got it a couple weeks ago but not in depth and from what I tried, I couldn't unload arts.



Do you mean from within an instance? If so, just click on the little edit icon (right above the articulations), and you can then trash any (or all) of them by simply clicking on the little trash cans.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 17, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Do you mean from within an instance? If so, just click on the little edit icon (right above the articulations), and you can then trash any (or all) of them by simply clicking on the little trash cans.


Nice! Thanks man!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 17, 2019)

dcoscina said:


> Nice! Thanks man!



I only have a single articulation loaded in each instance, allowing me to load the entire orchestra if needed...saves a HUGE amount of Ram.


----------



## donnyluvd2bowl (Dec 17, 2019)

dcoscina said:


> I really like BBCSO. And damn if Christian doesn't get a chuck on the shoulder from me and other Logic users for putting together that massive template. Props.



I don't not like BBCSO, I just wish I could manage the resources more flexibly. Although, they really truly have to fix that weird horn gap. (And I kind of wish they recorded more intervals for trills).


----------



## MOMA (May 22, 2020)

donnyluvd2bowl said:


> ... and also you can't purge and manage resources either. It's really just not great.



I have now updated my Reaper DAW to run faster and more efficient than ever – it took me a while, but it runs like a dream. 
And when uploading the BBC Template of mine (that do take quite some time normally, as you can´t purge) I have a set up that runs perfectly. The template is complete with every track in Freeze – with a single key stroke I open the tracks - one by one if I like, or a set of them in one go. 
The template opens in seconds, and I simply use the tracks needed for the piece Im working on. 
I´m mostly working with the BBC Core right now, as the mix is a really good one, and fairly dry – adding my own reverb in different amount on different instrument fot depth and presence. 

So the purge issue is no more

Best to you form Stockholm, Sweden

MOMA


----------

