What's new

BBC Discover Test (Short Speed-Writing Track)

Lionel Schmitt

Senior Member
Hi!

I'm often intrigued to work with highly limited libraries to see if I can make anything good with them, in this case the semi-free Discover edition of the BBC Orchestra. Judge for yourself it that worked in this case.



I'm not a fan of it at all, considering the price tag is 49$ (or free with Survey and thus time payment).
No Round Robins, Dynamic layers, one sample stretched across 6 keys (harp only has 1 every 12 keys which is nuts) and so on..
Good for absolute beginners with zero decent orchestral sounds but still not for 49$. I recommend anyone, beginner or not, not to drop the money and if there is any interested to get it via the survey.

I'm using the strengths of the library (long notes, shorts without same-not-repetitions to avoid machine gun effect). There is not much you can do and not go crazy, but this one worked decently. Also, the instruments are masking each others flaws. If I'd solo some of them it would be kinda cringey.

Since I'm a slow writer I'm also rather happy what I came up with in only about 45 minutes. :D

Everything is almost out of the box. A bit of panning here and there, some verb and the most tiny EQ cut and boost here and there.
Unmixed in my book, so please don't judge the production. ;)
 
Thanks! But that's the point - I explicitly used the strengths of the library (longs and non-repeating short notes). Many other pieces will be a cringe feast. ;)

Indeed! But there are strengths :P

Would be really interesting to hear what you do with libraries that you do rate highly.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.
Limitations aside, you've just clearly demonstrated that in the right hands, the library is very much worth $49. ;)
You have just disproven your own point. - "In the right hands".

The library is with the CRIPPLING limitations nothing a slightly experienced composer would touch since they'll have much better samples with RR and dynamics already.

The only people who will have significant value from this are beginners. And they will not have the "right hands". So, in the end it's clear that it just ain't of value for anybody. :P

And, all I have proven is that you can write a short piece *using the (tiny amount) of strengths of the library*. If I'd just compose freely without that in mind it would quickly end up in a cringe feast. ;)

If you feel like a company choosing not to provide a single round robin, dynamic layer or more than 1 sample per 6 keys, all of which they have plenty of - basically asking for 0,5% of the price for the full library while consciously providing 0,01% of the content then we just come from different planets. :rofl:
 
You have just disproven your own point. - "In the right hands".

The library is with the CRIPPLING limitations nothing a slightly experienced composer would touch since they'll have much better samples with RR and dynamics already.

The only people who will have significant value from this are beginners. And they will not have the "right hands". So, in the end it's clear that it just ain't of value for anybody. :P

And, all I have proven is that you can write a short piece *using the (tiny amount) of strengths of the library*. If I'd just compose freely without that in mind it would quickly end up in a cringe feast. ;)

If you feel like a company choosing not to provide a single round robin, dynamic layer or more than 1 sample per 6 keys, all of which they have plenty of - basically asking for 0,5% of the price for the full library while consciously providing 0,01% of the content then we just come from different planets. :rofl:
I was giving you a compliment - maybe take it in the way it was meant? ;)
 
What I can't understand is why it doesn’t respond to technique selection messages. Wouldn't this be the basis for interoperability with the other editions?

Paolo
 
Ehh.. no, it was a statement about the library being worth 49$.
FML, people on VIC sometimes... 😂

On the $49 thing. Look at it from a different perspective from your own. I write beats for a living. I don't need the detail of an expensive orchestral library. I'd get a ROI on $49 within hours, whereas to do the same with the full BBCSO for example would take a lot longer. Cost vs benefit etc.

So yes, the library is certainly worth $49 if what is offers matches one's use case for it. Actually, you've just given me an idea..
 
Last edited:
FML, people on VIC sometimes... 😂

On the $49 thing. Look at it from a different perspective from your own. I write beats for a living. I don't need the detail of an expensive orchestral library. I'd get a ROI on the library within hours and use it to make further income over the coming weeks. Actually, you've just given me an idea..
lol this is why I look at VI Control in the morning before I get down to work lol. I think you're both right.

I always say its about archer not the arrows. I've heard amazing music and sound design done with not always the latest tool.

I like @DarkestShadow 's work here. I hear BBCSO Discover samples and I'm put off. But then I hear you use it and I go, "he wrote to the strengths of the library.' Also, you made it work well! I think that maybe this is the alternative to beginning in the VI symphonic world instead of Amadeus, Composer cloud, or some other older library at a discount.

Then I see your comment @Alex Fraser, and I think, 'Hmmm another way of using the tool.' Production and library writing where you don't need a zillion mic positions from a symphonic library.

I think Spitfire has a winner in terms of a business model; BBCSO. You have an income stream from three tiers because you're targeting three audiences regardless of skill level. You give setup help for it in the form of templates for different DAW. Finally you make the tiers work across platforms. Don't hate the player; hate the game as it's a smart move on Spitfires part.
 
So $49 is STILL too expensive for you???

Fine then, pony up, spend a lot of money on Orchestral Tools' libraries and you will be happy.
 
Then I see your comment @Alex Fraser, and I think, 'Hmmm another way of using the tool.' Production and library writing where you don't need a zillion mic positions from a symphonic library.
Yeah, absolutely. I'm forever feeling guilty for not moving beyond the tree mics.

I find VIC has a one track mind sometimes; that mockups and orchestral works are the be and end all for library use. I've never once, for example, used Spitfire's Studio series for anything that didn't have a thundering kick drum rumbling underneath. :) 👍
 
Hi!

I'm often intrigued to work with highly limited libraries to see if I can make anything good with them, in this case the semi-free Discover edition of the BBC Orchestra. Judge for yourself it that worked in this case.



I'm not a fan of it at all, considering the price tag is 49$ (or free with Survey and thus time payment).
No Round Robins, Dynamic layers, one sample stretched across 6 keys (harp only has 1 every 12 keys which is nuts) and so on..
Good for absolute beginners with zero decent orchestral sounds but still not for 49$. I recommend anyone, beginner or not, not to drop the money and if there is any interested to get it via the survey.

I'm using the strengths of the library (long notes, shorts without same-not-repetitions to avoid machine gun effect). There is not much you can do and not go crazy, but this one worked decently. Also, the instruments are masking each others flaws. If I'd solo some of them it would be kinda cringey.

Since I'm a slow writer I'm also rather happy what I came up with in only about 45 minutes. :D

Everything is almost out of the box. A bit of panning here and there, some verb and the most tiny EQ cut and boost here and there.
Unmixed in my book, so please don't judge the production. ;)


It sounds pretty good!

I can understand your 'disdain' with the product or business model to a degree, but you're being way too harsh on this thing.
Look, I get it, you're pretty young and very talented in my opinion, and probably already have all the crazy OT stuff and whatnot, but I think you're only seeing your side of things.

I agree that even for $49 they could have invested a bit more into it, but even with all the flaws, I believe it can be useful even for more experienced users, who might not have the funds to go all in at the moment, or want a very light library that will do the job for a lot of things, as not everything has to have 20x RR's and 10 dynamic layers to be useful. Yes, it's VERY limited, and yes, it still can do some stuff pretty well.

Of course, take what I say as you will, this is coming from an older guy that probably has 1/10th of your talent and ability. :)
 
Given that you can get the Discover version for free by filling in a survey I don't expect Spitfire plan on "selling" that many copies of this version. The way I see it is that it serves too purposes: 1) Getting people interested in trying out orchestra programming 2) People who need something lightweight that they can use on the move in the full knowledge that they can switch over to the full Pro version once they get back to their studio. In this situation do you really care how realistic a 200MB product is?
 
I'll chime in here and say that this library is literally free (that's essentially what it is - they provided this option for a reason). Every library, and I mean every library, has constraints you must write within, and as a free library, Discover naturally has many limitations. That doesn't diminish the fact that the sample track posted above sounds pretty decent - I would even say good - for a free library with those limitations in mind. I've heard far, far worse compositions made with significantly more expensive libraries because the the composer didn't properly write to the strengths of the library in hand.

As somoene stated above, it's an introduction to orchestral writing and the other libraries on offer. Nobody is forced to buy those. I'm getting kind of sick of some of the criticisms I've seen elsewhere accusing Spitfire of 'greed' and that they're 'baiting' people into the sample library ecosystem to 'waste their hard-earned money.' It's such an asininely negative view to take of something that is pretty harmless (and you might argue is constructive).

I'm reasonably sure that next, people are going to demand that the BBC Symphony Orchestra itself plants its ass directly into their living rooms, free of charge, to record their next composition.

Ok /rantover
 
Last edited:
Look mommy, I turned members-composition into "Discover-discussion". Bad boy. :P

I've read all comments, but nothing there to convince me that a release with no RR (just 3 would do) despite plenty available and all the other cut downs for half a hundred $.

Now, YEA - you can get it FREE when leave some of your time at the door. But then, why even play the game and set the price point? To me it sets false expectations. When I listened to the first trailer I thought - "sounds decent except some of the shorts sound like they have no RR! But that's not possible! That must be an error in my hearing or bad programming"

If it was only free-with-survey with no price point I wouldn't have much, if anything, to say. But the 49$ set higher expectations than what's in the box IMO.

Basically, I can't say anything further than - if people find it fine to provide about 0,01% of the content while asking for 0,5% of the price of the full release then our views part to much for any discussion.

Since I made the library look unfairly good in my track I'm just gonna leave some random playing with some of the patches here. Made no effort to make it sound bad, it's really not necessary! :P https://clyp.it/443nlhsl
 
Darkest Shadow, I really enjoyed your piece and you certainly are quite skilled and talented. One of your points that I believe frustrated you was that you had to write towards the strengths of the samples and had to stay away from the weaknesses in Spitfire's $49 or Free Discover library. I would say and would you not agree that all of us have to do that with ANY library we use be it Free, $49, or $2000. I can't tell you how many times I have heard something in my head and had to try a zillion different patches in quite expensive libraries to find a sound that works. Sometimes sadly I had to alter the part or stay away from it as it destroyed the composition/idea/emotion. As a musical director I often find myself in the same boat with human beings and might have to alter parts to "set a musician up for success" or to get the piece to happen. Wish I had a nickel for everytime I have had to do that. :) I guess what I am trying to say is yes it would be great if what we hear in our head the tools we purchase or the musicians we employ would be able to do this everytime but it's not always the case no matter the price or dare I say the musician's abilities. Becker and Fagan of Steely Dan churned thru some very expensive and highly competent and talented session players to get what they wanted for a particular composition. I'll bet knowing those guys reputation they probably still were not happy with the finished take after the 8 players they brought in. :)

And to your point about "why the $49 charge" why not just give it away? I hear you however I saw that someone posted/mentioned this and I agree btw that Spitfire knows that most folks are going to hold on to the $49 dollars and opt for the free offer, but in one of their recent videos for Discover (I believe Paul or Christian of Spitfire) mentioned that the money collected (and may I add also did state clearly...."if you can afford it" was actually going directly to the musicians they sampled. In today's world now more than ever with most musicians who perform live being completely out of work during the Pandemic I actually think this is quite a beautiful thing to do on their part.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom