What's new

When everybody is using the same libraries...

...do you think that's a problem?

How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...

Do you know how many clients have complained to me that I'm using libraries that are too popular?

None. Don't worry about it and use what sounds best.
 
I rented Trilogy of Terror on VHS back when you could do that. I was a teenager. When that little cannibal monster guy appeared my little brother and I just about hyperventilated laughing.

Nice posts from SP. Brown shoes don’t make it/Don’t eat the yellow snow/etc
 
But also none of my sample-based mockups play identically every time.
I don't quite get your point - are you talking about round robins? Don't they usually reset themselves after a few seconds, so it IS the identically same thing every time you play it? Despite most libraries only have like, let's say 5 per note, in comparison to "unlimited RRs" of a real orchestra
 
I don't quite get your point - are you talking about round robins? Don't they usually reset themselves after a few seconds, so it IS the identically same thing every time you play it? Despite most libraries only have like, let's say 5 per note, in comparison to "unlimited RRs" of a real orchestra

Some libraries have ability to randomly choose from a pool of round robins. That would count as "not the same every time" but ultimately that's not very relevant. Also you use modeled or semi modeled stuff, SWAM, Sample Modeling, MODO BASS, MODO DRUM, PianoteQ, OrganteQ etc. Different play every time.

Anyway, I find it funny, when I talked to studio engineer few years ago when I was recording demo with my band, and he told me about drums, when he started in the 80-90' everyone tried to rule out drummer as a person. People would devote their studio time to make sound drums as much consistent as possible. Gating, quantizing etc. Basically "what can I do to make it sound perfect as it was played by machine". And now everyone goes "what can I do to make my drum library sound like real drummer" and people passionately humanize every note doing all the stuff that they desperately tried to get rid of years before. Some relevance to topic here :)
 
Last edited:
Live players don't play the same every time, but in a sense, sample libraries aren't identical every time either. Sure maybe the note G4 played by itself on one instrument at a particular dynamic will be the same sample. How many different pieces of yours play just that one single note by the same instrument at the same dynamic on its own? There will be other instruments. Other dynamics. And your pieces will (should) be EQd and compressed differently. And the listeners' ears will hear it differently depending on the context of the music directly before it. Everything around that sample changes the listener's perception of it.

And that's just within YOUR body of work. Now factor in a different person who layered it with another library and EQs it differently and it's in a different room with different panning and a different style and different arrangement, etc. Now multiply that times dozens of libraries of every type. I consider this a non-issue
 
As a developer who occasionally also produces music, I have access to sounds the rest of the world doesn't, when they're working but not quite yet ready for release. Beta testers also get that, so their opinions on this question should be worth a lot.

The way I see it, it's an advantage if the sounds are a better fit for something than what I had before, and fill a specific need that a specific track has. The advantage that they're unique and different and nobody else has them - that's not big enough to be important IME. If I make a small private library, it's because sampling something didn't really work out but there are still a few usable sounds, or because I'm making it using a specific singer's voice for use in that singer's music only. Definitely not to have a competitive advantage.
 
I'm old enough to think things really haven't changed much to be honest. I can date music by hearing a DX7, Oberheim, gated snares etc. And a strat is a strat, a tele is a tele and a les paul is a les paul. The listening public are oblivious, only we know we're using the same tools in the same era.
You have hit on a solid point there. The technology used eventually reveals itself as it is added to or replaced. Today's sample based sounds are evolving into less static, evolving textures and expressions, requiring many more layers and controls, while modeled instruments are also progressing, albeit more slowly. In 30 years, most of us won't care so much about CSS versus Berlin or Spitfire or Sam, we'll notice the general sound that they had and how they reflect these times.
 
How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...

...do you think that's a problem?


No.
 
Top Bottom