I recently purchased the full Orchestra Woodwinds collection from another user here. Was quite excited about it. It's my first jump into Hein products.
Unfortunately I think it will be my last Hein product. I wanted to post this not to trash-talk them at all (they have a lot of good points) but just because I got them based mostly on what others have said about them (and demos/videos of course) but rarely if ever saw anyone mention their rather significant cons. So maybe this can help someone else struggling with decisions.
First, the big and obvious good points - they are meticulously edited, dynamics blend seamlessly, the legatos are nice, and the famous CH programming and interface (especially the "note-head" idea) is very powerful and unique indeed.
The problem I have with them is that the dry recorded samples just sound terrible. I wanted a dry library, and I am used to dry sounds (I am also a professional recording & mixing engineer). But if you turn off the built-in convolution reverbs, you get the naked samples, and the truth comes through. In many ranges the samples don't much sound like the instruments they're supposed to represent, but even when they do, the recordings lack huge amounts of detail (many sound like they have a low-pass filter applied or were miked with an SM57 or worse, and EQ which I thought would help is not able to bring out any more information).
Worst of all, they are all 100% mono. I think this should be marked clearly on the product webpages so people know what they are getting. When I heard the mono samples, I thought maybe I was doing something wrong. Scoured the web and found a single comment by Chris Hein saying that solo instruments don't need to be miked in stereo.
I very much disagree. Solo acoustic instruments have a physical size to them. They aren't one-dimensional theoretical points in space. They output different sounds in different directions. They interact with the space differently on their right and on their left. I would (almost) never record a featured solo instrument in mono.
This is partially alleviated by the built-in convolution reverbs, which bring back some much-needed dimension of course. But not a single one of the "Body" settings actually sounds natural or right to me. They all sound like a short slapback with a strong resonant peak applied on top of a poorly-recorded mono sample.
Most of the the demos online have a lot of reverb applied. Things generally sound quite OK if that's what you're going for. But as a dry sample set, I want to use them relatively dry, but the recordings are totally inappropriate for that. They sound cheap and one-dimensional unless covered with reverb.
So, sadly, I think I'll be selling them shortly and trying out VSL. I was previously strongly considering CH's solo string set as well, but think I will pass now. There is a very strong nasal quality to most of the solo violins and an unnatural mudiness to the lower ranges of the cellos. I thought this should be fixable with some EQ, and that the libraries have enough other strong points to make it worthwhile to do so, but I no longer think EQ will be of much help to the recordings.
I do think they could be truly great sample sets if they hired another recording engineer experienced in recording solo acoustic instruments, and maybe recorded in a space that was just slightly less anechoic to let the instruments breathe a little.
Unfortunately I think it will be my last Hein product. I wanted to post this not to trash-talk them at all (they have a lot of good points) but just because I got them based mostly on what others have said about them (and demos/videos of course) but rarely if ever saw anyone mention their rather significant cons. So maybe this can help someone else struggling with decisions.
First, the big and obvious good points - they are meticulously edited, dynamics blend seamlessly, the legatos are nice, and the famous CH programming and interface (especially the "note-head" idea) is very powerful and unique indeed.
The problem I have with them is that the dry recorded samples just sound terrible. I wanted a dry library, and I am used to dry sounds (I am also a professional recording & mixing engineer). But if you turn off the built-in convolution reverbs, you get the naked samples, and the truth comes through. In many ranges the samples don't much sound like the instruments they're supposed to represent, but even when they do, the recordings lack huge amounts of detail (many sound like they have a low-pass filter applied or were miked with an SM57 or worse, and EQ which I thought would help is not able to bring out any more information).
Worst of all, they are all 100% mono. I think this should be marked clearly on the product webpages so people know what they are getting. When I heard the mono samples, I thought maybe I was doing something wrong. Scoured the web and found a single comment by Chris Hein saying that solo instruments don't need to be miked in stereo.
I very much disagree. Solo acoustic instruments have a physical size to them. They aren't one-dimensional theoretical points in space. They output different sounds in different directions. They interact with the space differently on their right and on their left. I would (almost) never record a featured solo instrument in mono.
This is partially alleviated by the built-in convolution reverbs, which bring back some much-needed dimension of course. But not a single one of the "Body" settings actually sounds natural or right to me. They all sound like a short slapback with a strong resonant peak applied on top of a poorly-recorded mono sample.
Most of the the demos online have a lot of reverb applied. Things generally sound quite OK if that's what you're going for. But as a dry sample set, I want to use them relatively dry, but the recordings are totally inappropriate for that. They sound cheap and one-dimensional unless covered with reverb.
So, sadly, I think I'll be selling them shortly and trying out VSL. I was previously strongly considering CH's solo string set as well, but think I will pass now. There is a very strong nasal quality to most of the solo violins and an unnatural mudiness to the lower ranges of the cellos. I thought this should be fixable with some EQ, and that the libraries have enough other strong points to make it worthwhile to do so, but I no longer think EQ will be of much help to the recordings.
I do think they could be truly great sample sets if they hired another recording engineer experienced in recording solo acoustic instruments, and maybe recorded in a space that was just slightly less anechoic to let the instruments breathe a little.
Last edited: