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)

@KingIdiot said:

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.

Hmmm.....again For what are demos good in this case [*-)]: Good sounding demos with relative poor libraries did already exist years ago. Sorry, I may be wrong, but if I am considering buying a library, before making the step , I listen to demos and read the instrument-, articulation list, because to I want to know if I will be able to use it. But probably I am stupid..... [:D]

VSL has a whole list of demos in very different music styles and sounding all different. EQ....has hired some of the same composers and all demos sound the same and are the same kind of music. with identical effects. I do understand that some poeple wants, probably for some commercial reasons, to stay in good terms with everybody, but since this is not the case for me [8-)] I do write exactly what I do think, and is it is only worth what you want to consider it [:P]

Iwan

well what I'm talking about are specific demos.

If YOU ask for them, then you'll get to hear exactly what you want to hear. Some people wont ever use the waterphone in VSL so having the 8 billion gigabytes of samples wont matter to them. To me its a great thing to have because its inspiring on a compositional level. To others it's wasted space and wasted time.

Demos are the only way for people who dont ahve the library to actually HEAR these articulations and realize if they'll be useful for their own particular needs. Listening to demo compositions is one thing, but listening to specific compositions showing particular articulations/sounds/concepts/etc is another. And THATS what I'm telling user's to ask for. 7 quick demos against the multitude of VSL demos really doesn't show how QLSO can be used. There will most likely be more shared, by both users and possibly more by the company. Its stupid right now to compare demo for demo. In fact its ignorant. These libraries are two different animals. There's no "better" one because they really shouldn't be compared.

If I split myself into two different people with distinct needs, each one of those people will prefer one library over the other. Its fact. It depends on your need as a composer. Some need Hollywood sound out of the box and dont need endless amounts of choices for articulations performance aspects, some need the choices of articulations and want to be inspired by the suite of exotic playing styles, some dont care for the Hollywood sound, some need bombastic and "huge".

The above points are blatent generalizations, since we all know that specific cues will sound different with different libs, some better some worse, then you factor in the skill of the particular MIDI mockup artist and the equation goes on and on until every nuance is created from the mesh of things that make up the equation, not just one aspect.

So yah its stupid to compare. Use what you got, and get what you "need", dont get something based on other peoples impressions, since its going to be based on what they need as a composer.

Written facts will only take you so far, so defintiely ask for specific demos and specific styles. If you dont get them, dont buy the damn thing, something else will come down the pike or be updated, or advanced, or whatever. Push these companies to work more on showing us what the libs can/can't do, instead of just speaking about them. Words are useless here, its music and performance we're talking about.

and Dietz, you're going to get me into trouble here [;)] Its more of a self imposed silence BTW, yes I'm under NDA, and there is public information I could discuss, its just that too many developers and distributers (not just EW) seem to think that my opinion matters much more than a user's own, so that I have some sort of influence..... welcome to the dark side, its quite frustrating that they dont care when I say something nice (well competing developers do). Anyhow, its gotten me to give up on this crap.

Any company thats invested much $$$ into a product will be overly paranoid about things. Its honestly stupid, too many developers seem to have a divide and conquer mentality, or struggle to be "the best". I invloved myself with developers for the sole fact of helping end users (well, and getting free stuff). Many developers believe "their way" is the "right way". When in all honesty there is no "right way" for everyone in the world.

anyhow, this has been hashed out to ends on NS, lets leave it alone. We should all go back to using AO [:P] or better yet the roland Orch board 1

[We should all go back to using AO or better yet the roland Orch board 1/quote]

sorry, quoting is a skill I still have to learn, but:

"We should all go back to using AO or better yet the roland Orch board 1"

Yep - as it happened, my FW drive with most of my samples disappeared from the Desktop this week, and as i had a deadline I was really happy to power up my E4, S760, Proteus 2 and JV2080....I had fun and it all sounded pretty good to me!


Nigel