@devastat said:

SSD disks are fast becoming industry standard in the computer world (and most likely in 2-years time most of hard disks are only SSD disks) so I wouldn't necessarily call it the "fastest tech available". All that HS requires is a fast hard drive and a quite decent computer (nothing fancy), altho I think it does work quite nicely even on a regular 7200rpm hard drive. Offcourse memory is another factor you might want to have 12GB of ram, but given the fact that memory is so cheap these days.. P.S The only difference between Gold and Diamond version of HS is that Gold only has mid mic positions and it's lacking bowchange legato patches, so you could have just copied the mid mic positions only from the Diamond installation disk and save the money spent on the separate Gold license..

I don't mean to appear argumentative, but let me clear up a few points.

First, the last one.  Gold is 16-bit.  Less data throughput.  Easier on a system.  Not the same as Diamond using only one mic position.

Second, the second to last.  I've never run HS on a system with less than 16GB RAM.  That's a good thought, of course.

Third, SSD's are an emerging standard.  But they are not the industry standard yet in our business.  Why?  Not inexpensive enough.  They'll be the standard when nobody's buying platters anymore - or when a library that really (come on, now, it really does) requires SSD actually ships on one and it doesn't increase the price by half or more.  So a library that really doesn't do everything it should without the fastest tech available was a bit of a shock to many people, I think - certainly based on lots of posts here and elsewhere.  Also, I'm guessing there may be a minor misunderstanding here - but within reason, a drive like the OWC top-of-the-line SSD could easily be considered the fastest tech available, standard or not.  Arguably faster and more suitable for sample streaming by virtue of its large numbers of iops than, say, fiber-channel 15k drives.

I suppose what I'm really getting at is this: I could be wrong, but to my memory, before HS was released there wasn't any (or much of any) mention of the fact that to really do a full contemporary arrangement with everything online, that you would really want to spend @$950 on an SSD system - and oddly enough, before Play 3 was released there wasn't any mention of the fact that to get the same functionality as Play 2 in certain instances, that you would have to upgrade your RAM.

Now, I don't have anything against upgrading hardware for software.  I built PC's to run Giga and later VSL.  I remember when MOTU seemed to code for computers that hadn't quite been built yet.  And the price I pay for being an early adopter of EW software and libraries is that I often don't find out until I install the stuff that my system is lacking in some way.  It's not EW's fault if I'm eager and willing to live on the bleeding edge (when I'm not in the middle of a project, anyway).  It is, however, worth noting that the FAQ that was just released is the first document that indicates that Play 3 might require an upgrade - and it was released after the beta cycle and after the product was released.  I don't know why that is, and I don't really care.  Someone else can go there (and has).  

Anyway, just clarifying my position.  

Also, even though VSL does a bit less in terms of things like modwheel crossfades in the stock library, I don't ever run into things I can't do with it because my system is choking.  And I like my Hollywood sound that I get from it...[:D]

@Another User said:

It is, however, worth noting that the FAQ that was just released is the first document that indicates that Play 3 might require an upgrade - and it was released after the beta cycle and after the product was released.

@devastat said:

I have to say that the fact is that there isn't anything even close to Hollywood Strings on the market right now when it comes down to a true "Hollywood" John Williams type sound.

What is that, exactly?  A Tchaikovsky type sound?   A Korngold type sound?   A Vaughn Williams type sound?   John Williams' "sound" is DIRECTLY derived from those composers, as well as other famous concert composers.  Your statement is absolutely false because the real reason for John Williams' "sound" is his use of strings in the style of those great composers, and the only way you can do that with sampling is not with some "Hollywood" sound out of a box - which does not exist at all and is an illusion you have bought into  - but with extreme, detailed sampling of all articulations of great players, which VSL has a huge advantage in with its methodical approach and highly varied ensembles.

@William said:

John Williams' "sound" is DIRECTLY derived from those composers, as well as other famous concert composers.  Your statement is absolutely false because the real reason for John Williams' "sound" is his use of strings in the style of those great composers, and the only way you can do that with sampling is not with some "Hollywood" sound out of a box

Thanks for taking the time to do the comparisons.  Maybe I missed it, did you say what verb you used for LASS?  Is it the same as the VSL versions?

For those who think that HS is locked into a particular sound and not as flexible, it would be interesting to hear how it sounds with the close mics and whatever verb was used on the others.  Does it still have that "hollywood" sound (whether that's a good thing or not) or does it take on different character with different reverbs?

The comparison cues are really interesting.  I have a question for Erik - are you using the same articulation types for HS and VSL?  I've always felt VSL to be a little bit more agile in terms of fast things, but there are faster articulations available in HS than may be represented in the comparisons... also, am I wrong or have the files been replaced with newer and perhaps more ambient versions?

As has been said, thanks very much for taking the time to do this!

This particular piece is mostly suited to the VSL Chamber Strings sound.

Any comparisons of sample libraries are nonsensical anyway because you could give a piece of music to 1000 users all using the same library and it would come out sounding different every time. What really counts is what you originally write yourself and then how you want to make it sound in your own way - not how it sounds the way others do it. 

A sample library is NOT a real orchestra and one of the advantages forgotten about sample libraries is the choices it gives you regarding sound. Conversely, you could have the same piece of music played by many real orchestras and it would sound different every time.

@Another User said:

A sample library is NOT a real orchestra and one of the advantages forgotten about sample libraries is the choices it gives you regarding sound. Conversely, you could have the same piece of music played by many real orchestras and it would sound different every time.

If what you like so much is, "the sound" then you aren't too particular if you hold EW over VSL.

If all you want is to 'make Hollywood sounds' then EW is easier if you are lucky enough to have it work. If not, VSL is the way to go because the sounds are more useful, there's no need to create a room artificially, and VSL has a far, far superior support team. EW thinks of support as "bagggage from a dumbass", even when theirproducts blow up, which one of mine did at day one and 4 others followed.

I can't imagine needing EW products to work in the middle of a big production. VSL, on the other hand, never fails, EW is infiorior, because of all these limitations.

Have any papparrazi taken pics of Doug or Nick lately? They probably need it to get through the next stage of development...

Shawn

@shawngibson said:

If all you want is to 'make Hollywood sounds' then EW is easier if you are lucky enough to have it work. 

Shawn

Hollywood sounds don't mean anything and straight off the bat that's the whole point of sales language. You've all fallen for sales techniques. There is no Hollywood sound. That's the whole point. The classical Hollywood string sound is made up of orchestration. If you can't orchestrate  to show off that style and string writing,how on earth is a sample library going to do that for anyone.

Bernard Herrmann wrote numerous Hollywood film scores. That would not be regarded as the Hollywood sound. There is no Hollywood sound. Thomas Newman writies great string parts. Is that the Hollywood sound? Max Steiner's score to Key Largo?

@devastat said:

Hey Paul, what about Hollywood Brass then that's coming out tomorrow, I am really interested to know what do think about that - no Hollywood sound?

I haven't heard it but it's a load of fucking sales nonsense. Hollywood Brass? It's bollocks although it may sound great. Hey, what do I know.[:^)]

@PaulR said:

Hollywood Brass? It's bollocks although it may sound great. Hey, what do I know.

If the name of the product is really that annoying, then ignore it.  It's just a sample library, judge it on how good it is, not whether you like the name or not.

I don't agree.  I think they sound better than EWQLSO to be sure but they still sound like samples.  And as a very long time EW enthusiast, I'm not buying this now although I won't rule out later on.  I have Dimension Brass and CineBrass which are fine for my needs.  

I still like Dimension Brass' way of tackling divisi, something neither CB nor HB has approached with the same elegance (although Mike from CS says CB PRO will have a nice divisi).  

Yeah, Dimension Brass are awesome and together with the other solo and ensemble VSL brass create a hugely powerful library.  For example - with the Cube you have - 6 trumpets, 3 trumpets, solo trumpets (many variations including totally redundant vibrato-/non-vibrato/progressive vibrato legato, sustain, staccato, etc. which effectively form completely separate instruments), cornet, bass trumpet, and then added on to that the Dimension trumpets with each player alone or any combination - it is unbelievable the amount of sound and power that depth of sampling gives.  And that's just trumpets.  The same thing is true of horns and trombones, and ad on tuba, contrabass tuba, cimbasso, Euphonium, Wagner horn -  you name it - it is a fabulous profusion of sounds. So that is why I still am enthusiastic about the Vienna brass beyond all the others.

@mike connelly said:

If the name of the product is really that annoying, then ignore it.  It's just a sample library, judge it on how good it is, not whether you like the name or not.

I have something called Special Brass and Epic Horns. For some reason neither of those descrpitive names bother me in the same way that "Hollywood" brass does. If you were to say hollywood brass to somone in England who had no idea or interest in sample libraries, they would think you were talking about prostitutes wandering around the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Or if indeed they were into making noises with sample libraries, they may be stupid enough to think that this will somehow make them into wonderous orchestrators and writers of hollywood genre music overnight at the cost of a few hundred dollars. OK?

On a different note, I watched and listened to the 4 videos, not that I am in anyway interested or sure that anyone else cares about personal conclusions of other so-called musicians around the net, but some of the sounds were good, especially the tuba which to me was quite strong, Some of the portato trombone sounds were very Hermannesque sounding if that's what you want and so on. I don't see how much better any of this sounds compared to what is already available. Also, am I right in concluding these sections are pre-panned? That's not great if that's correct.

Hollywood is a location in california, it's where the library was recorded.

Vienna is the location where the VSL library was recorded.

I don't see why one is any more bothersome than the other.

HB comes with multiple mic positions.  The far ones are recorded with the musicians in place so they're pre panned, and the close mics are not pre panned.

@PaulR said:

Also, am I right in concluding these sections are pre-panned?