I just don't like that this wasn't disclosed. I mean this is supposed to be a library of "samples" not contortions. I feel a little bit jipped by it. Well actually, I don't feel jipped, but it makes me less trusting of what is found in this library.
For me there are now two large wastes of space/time in the VSL orchestral libraries. Because the repetitions are repeated, verbatim samples and all, the libraries are exactly 33% bigger than they need to be. So teh 222GB Pro Edition needed to only be 167GB. ... And now this. More duplicate data.
I guess you could say that 150GB of Pro Edition is easily worth the huge price tag, but it still doesn't sit well that we pay for around 40% of stuff that is nothing new , duplicative, and a waste of space.
Out of curiosity, could some kind of real-time time-stretching tool be innovated to create dynamics of many lengths during playback? Sounds pretty space age and CPU intensive, but that's probably what people would have said about having 200,000 samples of the orchestra a few years ago (ok, 10 years ago at least).
Evan Evans
For me there are now two large wastes of space/time in the VSL orchestral libraries. Because the repetitions are repeated, verbatim samples and all, the libraries are exactly 33% bigger than they need to be. So teh 222GB Pro Edition needed to only be 167GB. ... And now this. More duplicate data.
I guess you could say that 150GB of Pro Edition is easily worth the huge price tag, but it still doesn't sit well that we pay for around 40% of stuff that is nothing new , duplicative, and a waste of space.
Out of curiosity, could some kind of real-time time-stretching tool be innovated to create dynamics of many lengths during playback? Sounds pretty space age and CPU intensive, but that's probably what people would have said about having 200,000 samples of the orchestra a few years ago (ok, 10 years ago at least).
Evan Evans