I’ve been wondering this myself. But the cost - and risk - of developing and supporting and maintaining a new sampler surely can’t compare to a $15 player fee on $600 libraries.? It’s curious that Spitfire hasn’t really talked much about the new engine on a technical level. But we do know is: i. It’s based on Han’s proprietary sampling technology. which I think means that we can assume that it’s focus is exclusively on orchestral sampling. NI is 90% about electronic music, so much, probably most, of the focus for Kontakt is on non-orchestral functionality. The choir is only the second library build using it (excepting labs), and as Spitfire apparently don’t like to go into all the techie details, it’s hard to say what the full bennefits of this is. But you have to think that if Han’s could have just used Kontakt instead of building his own sampler, he probably would have. And Spitfire as a company is (by some accounts) practically built on learning from whatever is is that Han’s does when records samples. So there has to be something interesting going on in Hans’ proprietary sampler right? ii. Kontakt has massive legacy code, and a massive number of legacy libraries, which makes innovating without breaking older libraries immensely expensive. Even if there were no immediate bennefits of the new sampler over Kontakt, if it’s the intention of Spitfire (or Hans) is to really push innovation in specifically orchestral sampling forward, being free from this kind of legacy complexities is a huge advantage benefit. iii. It’s been a long time between Kontakt 5 and 6. And it’s not even clear to me how orchestrally focused the innovations in Kontakt 6 are, a lot of the look kind of synth-focused, on the surface at least. So if we’re at a point that innovation in orchestral libraries needs innovation at the sample level, waiting on Kontakt may or may not be a great idea. And how much better could a library like SCS be with existing Kontakt technology? iv. I also have a sense that the critical thing limiting sample libraries in recent years has been disk speed RAM. But there a a few hints that going forward it’s going to be processing power. In the coming years people are going to have a lot more processing power available (in the form of many cores, maybe GPUs, maybe even ‘neuromorphic’ chips which are basically a form of hardware accelerated mostly-linear algebra). As modeling techniques become more important (the progressive vibrato on the new virtuoso violin is maybe a hint of the direction of innovations to come), being able to push a sampler forward quickly becomes even more important. I did see one video on HZS that compared it to SCS and a few other libs, which made the interesting observation that dynamic crossfade on HZS was very different. Otherwise the reviews were all preoccupied by responding to ... other things ... and didn’t seem to pay much attention to this kind if thing. But maybe this is a hint of the benefits of the new sampler? Just my impressions, of course. if anyone has thoughts on what the Spitfire engine brings to the choir. I’d love to hear them.