For me, I'm unwatching this and all other HZS-related threads, as it has now for some time been cycling. For those whose interest and patience with the ad hominem stuff has run out,, like mine, I can summarise below. So, here's (
my own personal view of) what we learned (if it doesn't match yours that's ok, it doesn't mean I called your mum a whore):
Pros about the library:
- Some great sounds, new articulations not available in other libraries (particularly the quiet ones, where 60 cellists, or 344 players total give you artifact sounds not otherwise possible); lush, smooth sounds, and great low end.
- Unparalled amount of mic positions, gives exceptional control over the sound
- GUI looks beautiful; larger than Kontakt and resizable.
- Already some great demos about what this library can do (eg Ashton Gleckman)
- Represents where Hans feels his legacy is: diverse and eclectic
- Not your average library: needs time to learn how to get the best from it, but repays patience.
- Exactly what some people have been waiting for: lots of highly satisfied customers
Cons about the library (and suggested/ongoing fixes):
- Legatos need fixing (fix promised from SA imminently)
- Small percentage experiencing show-stopper problems (can't run more than a few notes, if at all), particularly it seems on Win10 machines (SA support aware and working with individual customers)
- Not enough shorts (possible expansion set in early discussion between Paul & Hans)
- Not enough differentiation to other libraries: direct comparison suggests to some that combination of Albion One/Tundra, and a few other libraries (eg Ark1 or LASS) typically already on people's hard drives come VERY close to reproducing the sound (more direct comparisons needed by reviewers, not just rubber-stamping overviews)
- Won't meet your expectations if you were hoping for loud, epic, bombastic; look to other libraries for this
- Lots of dead space on the GUI: requires lots of scrolling through mic positions & articulations (suggested to have a basic/advanced view as with other Spitfire products)
- Inconsistent articulations across sections
- Differentiation in function of new engine from Kontakt seems insufficient to warrant the change in workflow that moving away from Kontakt involves (for some): what else does it bring that justifies the departure (SA may reasonably justify this in terms of licensing to NI - fair enough)
To me, I've learned about as much as I'm going to learn from these threads about the library, and I'm grateful to all who shared the knowledge, and helped me and others, make our decision, whatever that may be.
What is a complete turn-off is the tribalism I see on here: some people seem hell bent on opposing either Spitfire, or Daniel, based presumably on prior grudges which now seemingly clouds their every discussion. Spitfire are clearly a genuine, honest company, trying to make a world-class business out of making the best tools available to the community, based on what they, as composers, feel will most suit their needs. They have engaged the best talent in the industry to help them do so, and they use clever, entertaining and effective marketing strategies to generate maximum interest in their products. They are fully engaged with their customers, and seem to be doing their best to fix the problems as soon as possible.
Daniel is one guy, whose video was useful, entertaining and informative, who seems to have had the intention of providing an honest first look, which was highly requested and anticipated by many who value his opinion prior to launch. Obviously there's some history between Daniel and Spitfire, and this getting aired in public is a little unseemly, but my own personal opinion was despite any history, he set out to give it an honest review, was genuinely positive about the things he liked, and courageously critical about the things he didn't. If you don't agree with him, he will happily debate it with you; there is no need to question his intentions.
For me, part of the problem is that people are forced to weight such opinions more than they would otherwise need to, because Spitfire do not allow trial demo periods (in which case everyone could have reviewed it themselves) or license transfers (in which case a high-priced product was less of a risk without relying on the reviews of early-adopters like Daniel). I have confidence that Spitfire will address the initial bugs (and Daniel was right to point them out), and hope they consider the larger point about trial demos/license transfers, to offset the risk that result following negative publicity when neither of these mitigating factors are allowed.
Ok, so again, I think personally I've learned everything I can from these threads, and am now checking out.
Who want's my popcorn?