Spitfire Studio Woodwinds - Coming Soon
- Thread starter Zoot_Rollo
- Start date
Mark Schmieder
Senior Member
https://audioplugin.deals/rhapsody-orchestral-percussion-by-impact-soundworks/
Highly recommended library. Not the deepest compared to some smaller collections that don't try to do it all, but there are plenty of instruments in this collection that are now part of my regular palette due to the instruments chosen (vs. toys), correct technique, and good dry/wet balance.
I use its orchestral bass drum and castanets, off the top of my memory. I'd have to check my notes to see what else made the cut above the competition. For those who don't own 10 TB of samples like I do, the ratio of use would be higher.
Highly recommended library. Not the deepest compared to some smaller collections that don't try to do it all, but there are plenty of instruments in this collection that are now part of my regular palette due to the instruments chosen (vs. toys), correct technique, and good dry/wet balance.
I use its orchestral bass drum and castanets, off the top of my memory. I'd have to check my notes to see what else made the cut above the competition. For those who don't own 10 TB of samples like I do, the ratio of use would be higher.
Geoff Grace
Senior Member
Mark Schmieder
Senior Member
Thanks, Geoff. It's only because the Keyboard Corner and MOTUnation aren't very active anymore, that I finally had time to join and participate here, after lurking daily since the forum's inception. 
I do not think that I will ever honour GearSlutz with my presence though.
I do not think that I will ever honour GearSlutz with my presence though.
Last edited:
I don't have the winds yet, but I'm a little frustrated being restricted to Tree 1 with the strings and brass. I imagine most people would be, unless that is the one sound they're ever going to want.
Based on how much of a difference they make in BHCT, I'm very impatient to get the additional mic positions in the Pro collection, especially the Outriggers.
muziksculp
Senior Member
Hi,
SA Studio Woodwinds Pro is showing with a content of 432.0 GB UNCOMPRESSED .WAV
From the product page info.
* Download size : 102. GB
* 102.0 GB DISK SPACE REQUIRED DURING INSTALL
Wow...That's 1:4 ratio data compression. Can someone confirm that the library uncompressed size when installed is 432.0 GB ? or is their an error in this info.
I'm still trying to decide if I should buy this library, I passed on all other Studio Titles from Spitfire, but feel the Studio Woodwinds are done very well, would also like to hear more demos showing the Oboe, English Horn, and Flute in a more exposed, lyrical composition.
Thanks,
Muziksculp
SA Studio Woodwinds Pro is showing with a content of 432.0 GB UNCOMPRESSED .WAV
From the product page info.
* Download size : 102. GB
* 102.0 GB DISK SPACE REQUIRED DURING INSTALL
Wow...That's 1:4 ratio data compression. Can someone confirm that the library uncompressed size when installed is 432.0 GB ? or is their an error in this info.
I'm still trying to decide if I should buy this library, I passed on all other Studio Titles from Spitfire, but feel the Studio Woodwinds are done very well, would also like to hear more demos showing the Oboe, English Horn, and Flute in a more exposed, lyrical composition.
Thanks,
Muziksculp
Silentspace2000
Member
I second that. I'm also about ready to pull the trigger but this info would help me decide.
boxheadboy50
Active Member
Woah, 432GB is a lot. Are you worried about filling up a hard drive? 432 is uncompressed, but assuming all the files are in .ncw format they won't actually take up that much space.
I don't have it, but generally the compressed size is the one you need to care about, as the samples are encoded in the NI proprietary format, the rest is just marketing nonsense.
babylonwaves
Darth Fader
why? uncompressed indicates how much recording time the library features. more recording time = more RR, more detail etc - does it hurt to know?
Matt Riley
Active Member
I bought Studio Orchestra Pro and now would like to download from my MacBook Pro to my external SSD and then transfer the raw files to my PC to install there. Does anyone see any technical issues with that?
Mark Schmieder
Senior Member
It's funny, I misinterpreted that as well, and cleared out some disc space ahead of time, thinking I actually needed half a terabyte for the unzipped files! I was relieved when that turned out to just be the size of the original recorded WAV files.
Last edited:
muziksculp
Senior Member
Thanks for the feedback regarding the woodwinds Pro disc space requirement.
I'm glad it's not around half a terabyte
So, is it safe to say the library needs around 102. GB of disc space (after installation) ?
I'm glad it's not around half a terabyte
So, is it safe to say the library needs around 102. GB of disc space (after installation) ?
Mark Schmieder
Senior Member
I think someone else already confirmed the actual on-disc size, which should be roughly what you just said. I can't check from the office though. I was surprised how quickly it installed, after the download, as I thought it would take an hour to unzip etc.
Yes, but that's hardly meaningful. First of all, the same indication could be derived from the compressed size, it doesn't matter to know which is which. Then, perhaps some instruments have lots of RR some have less, some have detailed articulations some are cheaply constructed, you can't infer any meaningful information from the size of the uncompressed library alone. Also, since better compression happens usually means more redundant data in the file, a 75% reduction may indicate a lower quality of the recording, and if I were to judge from that alone I would probably be wrong. Also, in the pro version there are 8 microphone positions, so that's 8 times the same sample for each instrument. The truth is that we can't derive any of that from the file size alone, it's just not a measure that gives any valued information. Compressed is only meaningful because it tells you how much space is required for the library.
muziksculp
Senior Member
What's also fascinating, (I think), is how much data-compression has been improved lately, we are talking a 1:4 ratio here, without losing anything data wise. (at least that's what I'm expecting). The compression-decompression algorithms must be doing some logical magic.
I agree, I've been trying to find some details on the NI file format but I didn't (anyone with pointers to public info?). FLAC can do up to 70% and is one of the best compression methods, I guess the NI algorithm may derive from that in some ways. I'm sure their algorithms are fine tuned for samples, where you generally expect samples to be ordered by pitch but otherwise stable in timbre and length.
