Discussion in 'SAMPLE Talk' started by Zoot_Rollo, Feb 8, 2019.
Because some people see WW as an add on to their palette and SSW is 3x the price of SStWW core?
@Parsifal666 offers some helpful insight to more or less this question on this thread:
I'm finding the main reason I'm losing my interest in SSW because I just simply don't need another wet SA library. If I go wet I'm going for BWW.
SStW is also apparently terrific to mix and match with both BHCT and pretty much any one of the EWH and Chris Hein libraries...the dryness is second only to the excellent tone I'm hearing (in friend and members' demos) in solidifying my decision to purchase SStW.
vague terms like "dimension and direction" over his CHWW?
From what it sounds like, he appreciates his drier sound because of it's flexibility - but I can't see the purpose in buying another less flexible library than he has for terms like "dimension and direction". It might sound more like an acoustic instrument than CHWW at the sample level, but CH instruments are much more sophisticated than SFA's when it comes to programming/scripting.
If he wants a real orchestral sound with some flexibility - then SSW has a great tone.
If he wants flexibility AND a real orchestral sound - he's already planning on purchasing BWW, which comes with 2 different close microphones and a rather near sounding ORTF That gives him a lot more tonal options over SSW which sounds great, but only has 3 microphones to play with.
On one hand you could argue SStWW is cheap right now, but if you're going to replace it - it's not saving you any money. If you like the sound of the samples as is - by all means, get it. But the strategy of buying something for 3 digits to hold you over while you dump reverbs on it to make it sound like something you'd be almost halfway to if you just saved your money - seems like a decision I can't really suggest. Especially those on a budget.
Plus it's only a third of the price.
Accept this statement as a valid option for people to consider!
I think the terms I used are quite understandable, including by you.
However, out of respect I'll agree to disagree. I ultimately buy what I'm really liking for sound, and this library has that, all day money, for me.
Money is no problem on this end, my friend.
I stand by what I say.
This is honestly the most compelling reason I've heard anyone put forward. In your specific case - I know you have much love for BHTC, and the tone of SStWW would probably be a better pairing than paying for SSW just to use close mics
I think either spitfire winds are a better pair for the BH library than BWW.
I think you're completely right on that last...but I do have Ark 1 and 2 to mix and match with BWW, as I stated earlier.
And yes, I'm ridiculously cuckoo for BHCT, still!
Patronize me harder, daddy.
It sounds like you're dismissing SStW as a sub-par library. Also, saying SSW has a great tone may be less vague than saying dimension and direction, but it's not a more valid reason to buy a library.
Maybe I'll send you my wishlist
I don't understand why we feel personally attacked by someone saying that they like the sound of one library over another only because we might disagree. If they know what they want to get and they feel good about it just give them your blessings.
If it turns out differently you can always have that nice feeling of "told you so" (you don't have to say it though).
I have no problem if someone actually likes the sound. I've expressed that I don't - but that's not my criticism.
I only have to say something when people are literally playing on trying to douse it in reverb to make it an orchestral library - instead of just buying an orchestral library.
Parsiboi, this is a reminder of what the SSW close(with a tree actually blended in - believe it or not) sounds like
And even the tree for SSW sounds drier than you'd expect. That said - I only blended enough tree in to give it a 3d feel(instead of mono close mic) and if you're absolutely needing a version with just close I'm sure I can export it tomorrow when I get off work. Only posting this because despite the general hit/miss with the legatos(hence why some patches I prefer just using sustains) the library isn't untamable ambience - it's actually just a really good room for woodwinds(its actually the only SS series that I like the tone of)
that's clarinet, bass flute, bassoon.
What makes an "orchestral library" in your opinion?
Well I agree with you about the merits of SSW - it absolutely one of my favorite libraries of all times.
And yes, the concept of "dimension" is a bit vague. But I also think it captures a concept that I think I'm starting to just about get my head around from my experience with LCO, L&SCS and StSS. There's *some* kind of place that the dryness (and lots of other related engineering choices probably) lets you get to with these libraries (and SStW) that SWW and the other Air Lyndhurst libraries.
So I wasn't negating your point at all, just that I'm trying to understand myself why someone woulld either justify buying SStW either when they already have SSW (ie myself) or choose SStW over SSW, and the discussion on that thread has been helpful to me, so maybe its helpful to others.
But you're right a lot of this is vague - or maybe, abstract and subjective would be helpful words here also - so its good that there's lots of discussion on just what any of this might actually mean
Yes - this echoes the point I was trying to make, if rather more impressionistically, on that other thread. The close mics on SSW are, well pretty close, and I find them indispensable. Not like the close mics in, well the extreme case is Albion 5 where the close mics, on the strings at least, are no so much indistinguishable from the other mics as so equally beautiful as to be virtually irrelevant.
(Or, less hyperbolically, where the concept behind the library seems to have a very different idea of what a close mic needs to do.).
Me likey! \m/
Oh no! Now I want SSW lol!
Hmmm, Wish List day less than a week away....
Separate names with a comma.