SupremeFist
Senior Member
AFAIK it was sent to a mixing engineer first.
Most Disappointing Library Purchase?
- Thread starter tsk
- Start date
Paul Cardon
Ninja Otter Music
Fancy mixing hardware and software is less about going from bad to good mixes and more about getting that final 5-10% of the way, if even. Most stock plugins are wonderfully capable with smart usage, and most of the "better" plugins excel because they're quicker/easier to get good sound from out of the box. Built-in character that you can arrive to with very little tweaking, they're optimized for that, but often, you can get super close with many other things if you spend a bit of time with them.
There are a few recent producers that have been doing walkthroughs of their work lately, and they'll often show off the pre-mix/master versions of their sessions, and more often than not, they already sound pretty good. Obviously, the dedicated mixing and mastering engineers bring it up a notch, but who says even they are using all the fanciest most expensive plugins and hardware out there for every step of the process? (Though most would like you to believe they are to help justify their prices. Expensive gear is good at dazzling clients, no problem with that)
Hell, when I'm mixing (and I do professional mixing/mastering work outside of my composing career), 80-90% of my EQ work is just the stock channel EQ in Cubase which is hardly innovative or special and even has some frustrating limitations in a few areas, but normally, I don't need the functionality those limitations wall me off from. I just need to do some quick tone shaping or stamp out a problem.
The tiny little details and characteristics of our gear and software is fun stuff to learn, but that knowledge has to be employed with restraint. We're better when we sit back and use our ears to realize most of the minutiae does not matter 95% of the time and would bog us down otherwise.
For example, Dan Worrall has some great videos about a handful of the stock plugins in Reaper and how versatile and usable they are:
Last edited:
Paul Cardon
Ninja Otter Music
Also worth adding I think a lot of this applies to virtual instruments as well. A lot of us on this forum are both drawn to the minutiae, the tiny details, to try and highlight strengths or explain problems we have with libraries, but we're also in an endless pursuit of VIs that sound and do great things right out of the box. Tempering our expectations on both sides of the equation is really important, because often, through understanding the tiny details (truly understanding them through hands-on work and experimentation), we can do great things with libraries that could be labeled "sub-par" by others, but libraries that have great character and sound right out of the box, that work with the style of the project we're creating, that we don't need to think too hard about, are massively helpful!
But as I've said before around here: every library is full of trade-offs and compromises. Every library is a photo of a moment in time. Every library is programmed with wins and losses informed by the picture that came out of the recording session, players and space and engineering and etc., so we have to be open to the idea that no library is perfect for everything, and almost every library CAN find a place.
Obviously, there's some shoddy stuff out there, but most other libraries will have a place in a piece of work at some moment in time, which is why it's really easy to disagree about this stuff. I've used AROOF in varying amounts on every single project I've worked on since I got it, but I also get why others don't like it, and that's all normal.
Last edited:
ControlCentral
Member
I agree. I barely do any orchestral stuff but EWQLSO was a real workhorse. The only reason I wanted to level-up was that after a while the reverb just seemed excessive-- I had made my peace with the workflow. But the libraries I've heard since then make me realize what a great engineer Shawn Murphy is. Love 'em or hate 'em, we're all standing on the shoulders of the EastWest Doug Rogers crew. And 8Dio and Spitfire are on my blacklist.
Any particular reason why?
Tralen
Senior Member
I would say what sets people up for disappointment is exactly the marketing.
I'd say it's much more like crows drawn to shiny objects and people kidding themselves. Anyone who buys into marketing without a huge grain of salt at the very least is IMO being very naive. We're bombarded with marketing and advertising schleck for just about every product on the market, all claiming to be wonderous in this or that way, from sports cars to frozen foods. We don't buy into it for most of that stuff, why buy it for plugins?
Tralen
Senior Member
Well, as said previously in this thread, with other stuff we usually have a full refund policy. The marketing for plugins could lead to disproportional disappointment, in comparison to other products.
I get you, i.e. the only way to know if it lives up to the hype is to get it, and if it doesn't, your S.O.L...I guess I'm just saying that's why people should be even more skeptical/cautious of advertising, not less.
Of course GAS never plays a part
zwhita
He who knows nothing
I was surprised how expensive they normally are considering the legatos in Cinestrings Solo, Cinebrass Pro and Cinewinds Pro mostly appear to have sloppy and unpredictable timing, but that could be something I haven't configured correctly or I just can't play well.
More disappointing was how not-so-short the shorts are(both attack and release). Saw it suggested to lower tempo, print the audio and time-stretch back to your project tempo, but this is a cumbersome workaround that may not always sound natural. Just messing with the envelopes after selecting all groups doesn't do anything.
Nothing to really adjust that would be worth your time to do. Some sections in Cinebrass are just way, way way slower reacting. For example, the a2 horns vs the a6 horns. The a2 horns all around are extremely slow reacting, while the a6 horns are very fast reacting, especially in the higher register. Cinesamples generally has okay timing, but there are some things that are just completely wrong in the performances themselves.
becolossal
Active Member
I feel this. I wouldn't say there are any libraries I've bought that I'm utterly disappointed in, but I have spent a lot of time (and money) finding what works best for me over the last 20-odd years. From the earliest EW stuff to the most recent Spitfire stuff and everything in between, I've bought a lot of stuff I just flat out don't use all that often, but all of them have taught me something along the way.I get you, i.e. the only way to know if it lives up to the hype is to get it, and if it doesn't, your S.O.L...I guess I'm just saying that's why people should be even more skeptical/cautious of advertising, not less.
Of course GAS never plays a part
proxima
Senior Member
While I very slowly get use of them over the years, spending ~$800 on an EW composer bundle feels like a waste. I got HS Gold, HB Gold, EWQL Gold, Spaces, Silk and Ra. I just didn't use enough of it early enough. Even after HO Diamond got so cheap, I didn't go for it because I had a bit of a bad taste in my mouth that the full version was routinely cheaper than the upgrades.
I ended up buying and using CS2 more than HS, and now I use CSS as well. I do like HB, but I see myself completely the CS series eventually.
I've been far more inspired by individual instruments like Efimov's Duduk and even the free NI Yangqin than most of Silk and Ra.
I ended up buying and using CS2 more than HS, and now I use CSS as well. I do like HB, but I see myself completely the CS series eventually.
I've been far more inspired by individual instruments like Efimov's Duduk and even the free NI Yangqin than most of Silk and Ra.
VSriHarsha
Senior Member
That is right!The drama wasn't really too bad this time. No real name calling or anything.....
Edit: Just one question - how do you know it is everything you buy from now on that you are disappointed in and not everything you own now? Because, of course, everything in the future will be better. It always is. Right?!?!?!?
VSriHarsha
Senior Member
Well, I actually like their libraries. I don’t have any of theirs but I will buy it even a thousand people say it won’t live up to the expectations coz I know how to work those things out & if I don’t, I’ll literally take their help in every damn step of creating a track. But yea, I realize that not all will ever say & or hear it will not live up to the expectations.
Well, I believe nothing, no damn thing IS perfect in the world. Not even bots these days lol so having the privilege of owning the entire symphonic collection of CineSample is quite a deal. And let’s face it! It has this “Hollywood Sound”.
NKAudio
New Member
Late to the party here, but +1 for Phobos as well. Maybe I just haven't found the right musical/sonic application, but it's been the only purchase I've truly regretted. Which is sad, because I really respect BT's work.
easyrider
Embracing the Absurd
That’s the exact reason why I didn’t jump on the bundle for 65%off
DrSgtShock
New Member
Palette's Orchestral FX has been a disappointment for me. Not only did I buy it a couple weeks before it went on sale, I've just really been having trouble fitting it into my compositions. The stuff not already covered by Metropolis Arks I/II (which have plenty of cluster stabs and glissandos) are the huge risers and cacophonous swells that sounded really cool at the time of purchase but now feel limited to either cartoons or horror -- neither of which are styles I'm currently writing for. I mean this is probably a limitation fueled more by my own ignorance of what sounds like that can be applied to, so I'm sure if I find the right scores I can get some inspiration and really get some use out of those dollars I spent.
