also look at your current situation and realize that these 2 libraries will probably not play on the same computer at the same time. There have been reports that computers when loaded have trouble playing the Kontact format and giga at the same time.

@Douglas Thornton said:

I own VSL first edition and am pondering the pro edition, but the QLSO is now a day from release i am looking for any comparisons..

thnx

Some thoughts for VSL

1. You have the full orchestra plus extras like celeste, vibes, excellent marimba, contrabass trombone, Wagner tubas, complete muted strings (same detail as "regular strings"), sul ponticello, fingered tremolo at the major and minor third, trills for other instruments at the major and minor third (plus major and minor seconds), etc.

2. All the sustains are now looped.

3. 240GB in the Pro Edition

4. VSL can be run effectively on two Giga systems.

Peter Alexander
peter@truespec.com
www.truespec.com
310-559-3779

@Another User said:

3. 240GB in the Pro Edition vs. 65GB in QLSO. So for less money with VSL Pro Edition you get nearly four times the samples.

I'm not sure if this is the best way to look at the equation. QLSO is about ambience. so much so that when dealing with a actual instument verus instrument, it comes down that VSL may have closer to 24 times the amount of musical material to choose from. The majority of memory in QLSO is used by the trails of room ambience. It's really apples and oranges in approach.

It will be difficult to get a good read on QLSO for a while as EW has bottled up the demo makers (many who have done some here) from talking without legal repercussions. They are the ones who have the most info and apparently are not allowed to talk FREELY. All the info you need to make a decision on VSL is here and elsewhere. You can find it. Be careful at this time on QLSO.

If you get an opinion on QLSO from someone who has it, make sure they also own VSL so you are getting a fair apprasial of the situation. My 2cents

@Another User said:

3. 240GB in the Pro Edition vs. 65GB in QLSO. So for less money with VSL Pro Edition you get nearly four times the samples.

I'm not sure if this is the best way to look at the equation.

Craig, my statement was SOME KEY DIFFERENCES, not THE key differences. I get this call at Truespec nearly once or twice a day. The only thing that I can fairly point to is that which is published, e.g., the quantifiable info.

The only way you can "fairly" (if you want to use that word) compare the two libraries is to compare the sound of QLSO with no ambience added to VSL as it is out of the box. Beyond this, the articulation list comparision, and the price, everything then becomes apples and oranges. The implementation system is totally different (VSTi vs. Giga). How polyphony is figured is totally different. How the software programs driving each library works is different.

Despite all this, the question still comes back from the customer, "How are they different?" In that case, you can only point to that which is published.

Peter

Where's the shoot yourself in the head emoticon when you need it?

[*-)]:

buy both, and dont say you cant because you dont have the money, jsut sell a kidney.

BTW, you can also compare, for yourself, with published quantifiable info, as a user on the internet [[:)]]

The articulation lists.

The recording techniques.

The available or not available tools.

The amount of mic positions/seperate samples.


you could compare the two till your intestines fall out, but in the end they're both different libraries and different approaches (that, for some strange reason, work extremely well together. Its up to what you want/need as a composer.

both libs have looped sustains.

Have I mentioned this is stupid yet? oh no I havent,... hmm [[:)]]

its up to whoever thats posting that will "edge" a user's purchase, the problem is, what the hell does the user want/need in the first place? And does that user even KNOW what he/she wants?

There's not overall bettter purchase IMO here. Pick the one that will be right for you. Based on what you need, and how you'll use the libs.

That said. from a user POV thats less factual based, and less likely to get me in trouble.

Evertime I sit to use VSL, I'm inspired by being reminded what instruments can do, and the music I write with it reflects that.

Everytime I sit with QLSO I'm inspired by hearing a recorded sound that I've grown accustomed to on CDs/soundtracks/etc, and the music I write reflects that.

Both have limitations at the current moment. (lets live in the now, not one year from now when MIR releases, or when SI comes out, or when the world blows up)

Well said King - but the intestines comment has ruined my plans for an egg and links sasuage sandwich. Now thanks to you I have to eat cornflakes!

Rob [:D]

@KingIdiot said:

(that, for some strange reason, work extremely well together. Its up to what you want/need as a composer.

Hmmm...Very interesting and a little surprising of course. Do you made some samples with both libraries mixed which we can hear on the net?

Thanks

Iwan

I've done some personal demos, but I cant be sure I can share due to legal restrictions. Possibly in the future.

I'll be sharing music as I make some. They wont be specifically promoting libraries (well maybe I'll make sperate ones for VSL and QLSO, as my new machines are almost fully built).

As of right now I've been writing rock music since its been theraputic. Mostly laid back rock. quite nice. Tomorrow I'll be working on a nice nu skool rock tune. Taht should also be helpful [:)]

Thanks again King for your unbiassed opinion.

Can I ask though, how QLSO deals with repetitions compared to Vienna (strings in particular)? It obviously doesn't have the repetition performances that VSL does, but does have according to EW, auto sample switching to get over the machine gun. As you have both libraries, can you elaborate on this aspect and maybe comment on its effectiveness compared to the alternating tool in VSL with the variation samples in the Cube. My main interest is with the strings.

It would be an attractive option to buy VSL in complete orchestral sections which included the repetition and legato tools and the articulations to go with them, with the standard samples as in the cube/pro editions. Maybe that's a future option - it would certainly appeal to many more buyers IMHO.

Any comment would be much appreciated.

Craig

You can ask, but I cant answer

there should be some very obvious points tho, if you think about it.

At least you can talk freely about the Vienna Symphonic Library here, King. - Fill the spaces with "XXX", if you have to be afraid of the Dark Forces ... 8-]

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Since I can talk freely [[;)]] I will: I have the complete VSL, I do not have QlSO, but I did listen very carefully to all QLSO demos and here is my opinion. Both libraries sound very good, but for my personal needs VSL is very, very superior.

Here only a few reasons:

1. Many instruments are simply missing in QLSO. The list would be to long, but there are some which are very important to me.

2. To few articulations

3. Very big hardware an Ram needs.

4. Right now it is unknown if the Quantum leap will, ore will be able to develop the library

5. The demos are good, but they all sound the same, same effects and more ore less same style of music.

6. The impression I have while reading the Northern sound forum is that the business philsophy followed by this company does not really attracts me. Of course this is very personal.

I am completely independant, do not follow any interest or ambition with any sampling or software company whatever. My only goal is the support of the products I like and do believe in.

Iwan Roth
http://www.iwanroth-sax.com

eeehhm - did i miss something? i thought EW**** is out already? everybody who has it can talk about pros and cons - no? well, probably even not everyone is allowed to _hear_ it [8o|]
ok, so let's stay with our *little* library ...
christian

I resemble that remark. [6]

I'll leave it at that for now, please don't get me going.

@Craig Sharmat said:

I resemble that remark. [6]

I'll leave it at that for now, please don't get me going.

Me, too.

@duoartc said:

Thanks again King for your unbiassed opinion.

Can I ask though, how QLSO deals with repetitions compared to Vienna (strings in particular)? It obviously doesn't have the repetition performances that VSL does, but does have according to EW, auto sample switching to get over the machine gun. As you have both libraries, can you elaborate on this aspect and maybe comment on its effectiveness compared to the alternating tool in VSL with the variation samples in the Cube. My main interest is with the strings.

It would be an attractive option to buy VSL in complete orchestral sections which included the repetition and legato tools and the articulations to go with them, with the standard samples as in the cube/pro editions. Maybe that's a future option - it would certainly appeal to many more buyers IMHO.

Any comment would be much appreciated.

Craig

Since this is the VSL forum, your question would be more appropriately addressed at Northern Sounds in the EastWest Forum. You could also post this question in the main sample libraries forum.

However, as I've stated on both forums, and in this thread, the implementation of both libraries is totally different. If these were two GigaStudio libraries, then we could really evaluate them on an equal plane. But, one library operates through the Kompakt engine with a proprietary "effects" implementation, while VSL operates largely with GigaStudio and a separate version for Logic/EXS24 and has effects applied with non-proprietary methods.. Neither implementation is directly comparable to the other.

Peter Alexander
peter@truespec.com
www.truespec.com
310-559-3779

I have both libraries and have spent a lot of time this week comparing them. I really like both of them and they each provide what the other is missing in my opinion. Together just about anything is possible. For example, as King mentioned, the best sound I've ever heard for strings is the Vienna pleg samples layered with QLSO. The Vienna performance set for me is unmatched, but QLSO has absolutely captured how instruments can soar. The hall itself is an instrument, and it is outstanding. Like the rest of you here, I'm waiting for MIR. What will be benefical now is for all of us to start posting music. This is all very subjective. I will do that soon.

Colin

to clarify

Kompakt is a VST,

audio plug in FX can be proprietary or third party.

MIDI tools however are a different story. This does NOT mean that 3rd party Tools cant be developed or used.

Its similar to the was VSL can be imported into Kontakt and the performance tool can be used that way. Or if someone were to develop a MFX tool set, or Maple Tool FX.

As well Kompakt can run standalone, and can be routed simarly to gigastudio.

I cant directly state things about VSL when asked about comparing them. Even if I dont mention anything about QLSO. If its in reply it will look like I'm promoting VSL in favor of QLSO no matter which I prefer for the specific task in question.

All I can say is look at the specifics in terms of technical nature and there are some obvious points that come through, accross both libraries. Some in favor of one some in favor of the other.

Its stupid anyway, listen to the demos, and ask the companies to show you specific things you're looking for in short or new demos. They both have access to creating these for you, if they dont (give it time, and hope for atleast a response), then take it as either, they aren't interested in showing you, or the library cant do it, or cant do it well. ask for specifics and point to recordings that show what you're looking for.

Peter Alexander wrote:

@Another User said:

[...] Since this is the VSL forum, your question would be more appropriately addressed at Northern Sounds in the EastWest Forum. You could also post this question in the main sample libraries forum. [...]

.. or better _not_ post your question on the Northern Sounds forum ... they don't seem to like topics like this these days over there ... 8-] ... for some reason someone at EW seems to hunt down anxiuosly any demured opinion about his product ... go figure.

***

My completely biased and unbalanced opinion: the QLSO seems to be a well recorded, quite big, conventional, "old school" sampling library, which gives you a certain amount of possibilities, tells you how you have to sound and what you will be able to do musically. - The Vienna Symphonic Library is the Next Generation of sampling, in respect of quality, size, playability (!), flexibilty, organization, and update policy - the whole underlying concept is new, or different at least. The user decides how he/she will sound, while pushing the limits of musical options far beyond the know possibilities of virtual orchestration.

In a nutshell: As far as we know, QLSO has nothing to offer which comes even close to the creative and sonic possibilites of our real-time Performance Tools. Sample switching is just a faint idea of the complex patterns you may achieve by using the Repetition Tool, for example. - And we still have to see how they compare on a pure technical level.

Apart from all that: Our Library is just a part of a much bigger, comprehensive project, so expect more to come during the next months and years [6]


/Dietz (expressing his private opinion in a politically incorrect mood - but I'm fed up with the lukewarm "oh, they are both great"-postings. I leave that for more settled characters [;)] ..)

@KingIdiot said:

[...] I cant directly state things about VSL when asked about comparing them. Even if I dont mention anything about QLSO. [...]

Pretty sad situation for an adult, professional man in a free country, isn't it? For me, these politics say more about a company than any of the negative opinions they're obviously trying to supress.

/Dietz (still private)