EWQLSO

@Another User said:

sounds like great samples doing an imitation of an orchestra but in the right hands, the VSL really can sound make u think twice about whether you're hearing a real orchestra or not.

I own both libraries and have been making an effort to be unbiased about them (which has been hard) but I will share one little antecdote now that I've worked with both.
There is a musician who listens to all of my work when I'm done with various pieces. This person was unaware that I was using a new sample library on a new piece I had just finished (I guess this is kind of like the "Folger's Taste Test" for those who know what that is..."We secretly switched this coffee...") After listening to the piece that used solely EWQLSO, the reaction was first silence then "It sounds good, but it doesn't sound as realistic as it usually does. It's not as convincing."

Admitedly this is just one person's reaction to one piece that I wrote, but I thought it might be interesting to share.

@slaroussels said:

"It sounds good, but it doesn't sound as realistic as it usually does. It's not as convincing."

Slaroussels,

Now that we are backe to the subject:....: This statement makes 100 % sense to me. I mean -IMHO- QLSO sounds good but in no way real! It sounds like Hollywood cinema theater music and this is not real at all for someone who was at least once in a concert hearing a sinfony orchestra or did listen to a CD of a classical music.

Iwan
http://iwanroth-sax.com

@Iwan Roth said:

Before putting my homepage address for the first time under a post of this forum, I did ask to VSL if this was OK. And this is not propaganda,….. publicity sorry [[;)]], but just to make readers know who I am and take responsibility for my writings.

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

Iwan, like Herb, you're a gentleman. (a compliment in the US). The way we sign our names is set forth in an agreement called Netiquette (after etiquette).

Your Name
Your E-Mail Address
Your Web Address(es)
Your Phone Number (optional)
Your Mail Address (optional)

In your e-mail program, this is often labeled your "signature."

I'm glad to see some VSL owners who have the QLSO speaking up.

@herb said:

I just want to jump in to describe how VSL handles beta testing and NDA issues.

After releasing our First Edition the beta testers asked me what they are allowed to communicate to the public now. To be honest, I was surprised about this question, now I understand it a little bit better. It seems that different companies handle this in different ways.

I told our betateam that they should simply share their thoughts - without any restriction, that's all.

best wishes
Herb

As a follow up to this, Herb actually REVERSED the NDA agreement we were all required to sign. Basically, it was, "I don't care what you signed, I'm the President, and you can say what you want.." End of story.

What a guy!

@Another User said:

...Herb actually REVERSED the NDA agreement

peter, IIRC this was _after_ the library has been released and the question came up, if the NDA would still apply. and exactly this is the point i don't understand - if a product is released everybody can buy it, try it and share his opinion, but not the beta-testers? - hmm ....
imho during the beta or testing period a NDA makes much sense, because it can be decided to not release certain parts/functions/ect so talking publically about it could be very contraproductive
you know, just my two bit, christian

@Another User said:

...Herb actually REVERSED the NDA agreement

peter, IIRC this was _after_ the library has been released and the question came up, if the NDA would still apply. and exactly this is the point i don't understand - if a product is released everybody can buy it, try it and share his opinion, but not the beta-testers? - hmm ....
imho during the beta or testing period a NDA makes much sense, because it can be decided to not release certain parts/functions/ect so talking publically about it could be very contraproductive
you know, just my two bit, christian

1. Where you been? Is your e-mail not working?

2. What's IIRC?

3. FYI, there were actually two beta agreements sent to us. The first one was VERY legal and I knew that no one on our team would agree to it, especially being under the laws of Austria!. So I asked Martin to revise it.

The second draft we all agreed to, but not having read it in a while, I don't remember all the wording. I just remember being very surprised when Herb posted that we were free to say what we wanted. You'd have to read both.

4. Keep in mind that until we actually get the final version, we don't know what part of our advice or suggestions are used. Most of us in the US didn't get the final version of the First Edition until nearly Spring (late February/early March I believe). Almost no one on the beta team here in the US now even has the Pro Edition. So how can we really talk about it or do demos when most don't even have it?

If the beta team's comments are that important, we should be among the first to see the final versions. Otherwise, we're literally reading what everyone else who owns it is saying until we finally get it!

Peter

Wow! Nice thread. Thought I would share a thought or two.

I'm with King on this stuff.
These libraries are two different beasts and they each will appeal to people depending on what they need. (Both libraries on hand of course is the ideal deadly combination. Use the strengths of both if at all possible)
I think they are both recorded better and more consistantly (all in one room) than any libraries up to this point.

QLSO has a big edge for me in sound (out of the box I should add) of course due to the actuall hall ambience and the grammy engineer etc..
The sound is very lush and I'm certainly crazy about it. The simplicity of set and forget is great if your in a hurry or your mixing chops are a bit weak. (there is no way I am going to create a mix as good as Keith Johnson can record) You don't have to emulate the delay of the backwards facing horns hitting you in the middle of the hall or put the timpani toward the back somehow. That is built in and creates a very fat 3-D sound. That is a big selling point. That and the speed of working with it to get a finished sound.

I love VSL as well. The legato tool (if not overused) is to die for. It needs a drier room to accomplish the feat (from what i hear) because a large hall will keep reverberating during the legato transition and mess the sound up so this tool might not work as well with a hall library like QLSO. I also like it when the musicians of the library play as many of the techniques, especially runs. VSL is very good for realism on some hard to play techiques.

Each library is litterally doing the absolute best that any humans could do with their way of recording. If I could go back in time, there is NOTHING THAT I WOULD ASK EITHER OF THEM TO CHANGE AT ALL in the way they created their libraries. They are each as good as they can get for what is humanly possible.

VSL needs their own custom full time studio to record as many articulations as they are doing and they need a fairly small room decay in order for the legato mode to work properly. They also decided to let the library be dry and have the users add the ambience, Panning, EQ etc and of course there is the room modeling technology that will help in this. It offers a lot of flexibility but does require some work on the mixing end and learning the tools.

QLSO wanted to go for the audiophile angle with the real hall for that big lush hollywood sound. To do that, they wanted a U.S. orchestra this time, a good hall and a top notch recording engineer. To do all this, there is no way to get hold of the musicans, the Hall and the Engineer with his custom mics & pre-amps 24/7 for months or years at a time. It would simply be prohibitive to say the least. The result is excellent but of course there was no time to capture every possible articulation. They went for the ones that are most usable and went for some built in expression in the samples.

I'm glad to be blessed with both of them. These are the only orchestral sounds on my hard drive at this point. Right now, I lean pretty heavy on QLSO for the speed and ambience and use the VSL for the legato phrasing and runs and any instruments not included with QLSO. I'm still getting to know many of the VSL sounds as well. Eventually, I'll have them all up and running with more computer power.

If you already have one of the other, here is what I would advise. Just my own opinion for what its worth. (remember the ideal of course is both collections)

If you have a little budget and you already have VSL but no means to invest in another entire library, I would reccomend the QLSO percussion. Its simply huge and the timpani (I'm a Timpanist) are on target. It would help punch up the sound.

On the other hand, if you have the QLSO collection but also can't get a whole other library, try to get the VSL performance set.

My basic input anyway. Hope it doesn't piss anyone off.
Cheers
Dave

David,

Thanks for sharing your expertise which is second to none. I'm arrogant to criitcize anything you say because I honestly think you know far more than I do about these topics, but I can't help having these reactions...

I totally disagree with what you say about room ambiance hurting the VSL legato. There is NO EFFECT whatsoever of that kind, if you use any reverb or convolution - which everyone does. You have to. Why do you say that? I don't get it.

QLSO has a big edge in sound - bullshit. The VSL recording is absolutely beautiful, state of the art, and captures with precision the exact timber of all the instruments recorded. How does that give someone else a "big edge?" I think it is far more flexible because it is incredibly dry due to their silent stage. You can use it any way you want. I was turned off by the hall ambiance of the EWQL. There was one demo with glockenspiel that actually had ECHOES, not reverb, of the strikes - sickening, and totally useless to me.

I love Keith Johnson's recordings - they are awesome. He did among many great works the most spectacular recording of symphonic band ever captured (that I've heard) with Frederick Fennell and the Nelhybel "Trittico." But this is not live recording. It is sampling which is mainly a musical - not recording - operation. That is why having a musician and composer in charge of the VSL is so great.

"QLSO wanted to go for the audiophile angle with the real hall for that big lush hollywood sound. To do that, they wanted a U.S. orchestra this time..." What the hell are you talking about? Have you heard the Berlin Philharmonic? What about the Vienna Symphony? They define the nature of huge lush symphonic sound.

But the thing that hurts most the QL is the lack of the performance elements especially legato, which as I've said over and over is something so important to true musical expression you HAVE TO HAVE IT!!!! It's not an option! And they have nothing for it except the same old Miraslav type quickly attacked samples that you have to do a short crossfade to get a "legato effect."

Of course I agree that it would be nice to have all sample libraries ever recorded. But who can? (At least not me.) Sorry to be vehement but I am so obsessed with this topic I can't help it. I am not insulted or anything - just revved up by a really interesting post by an expert that I respect immensely but I'm arrogant enough to question.

William

"I totally disagree with what you say about room ambiance hurting the VSL legato. There is NO EFFECT whatsoever of that kind, if you use any reverb or convolution - which everyone does. You have to. Why do you say that? I don't get it."

Perhaps you misread what I said. I think VSL legato works great with the legato. The lack of built in hall reverb may even help it to work better. Hall ambience (Like in QLSO) could hamper the effect (from what I hear). So, I meant to say the exact opposite of what you think I said. Legato rocks. We are in agreement on that.


"The VSL recording is absolutely beautiful, state of the art, and captures with precision the exact timber of all the instruments recorded."

I agree. Like I said, these two libraries are the best recorded and most consistent yet. Out of the box, QLSO has the edge for me. Room modeling reverbs and good engineering could close the gap a bit.


"That is why having a musician and composer in charge of the VSL is so great."

Very true. On the QLSO side, Nick is also a composer and musican with alot of film & trailer experience. His library reflects that. In fact, both libraries reflect their creators very well.


"QLSO wanted to go for the audiophile angle with the real hall for that big lush hollywood sound. To do that, they wanted a U.S. orchestra this time..." What the hell are you talking about? Have you heard the Berlin Philharmonic? What about the Vienna Symphony? They define the nature of huge lush symphonic sound. "


Sorry about that. No disagreement there. But U.S. symphonies seem to have a different (not better or worse, just different) style and character that many people have gotten use to in Hollywood Film sound tracks. (A little more aggressive for instances) Don't get me wrong, Herb is doing nicely along this line and even doing new sessions with Horns & Oboe to accomodate the film score folks.

Audiophile angle=Keith Johnson
Lush=Recorded in Hall vs dry
Hollywood Sound=aggressive U.S. orchestra.

Hope that makes more sense.

"Of course I agree that it would be nice to have all sample libraries ever recorded. But who can?"

Even if you can have them, you don't want to have to keep up with all of them and try to make them fit together. That is why I like having everything I could ever want covered by these two great libraries.

"Sorry to be vehement but I am so obsessed with this topic I can't help it."

Nothing to be sorry for, you go! That is what these forums are for.

"just revved up by a really interesting post by an expert that I respect immensely but I'm arrogant enough to question. "

Your too kind. I'm touched. Thank you!

Take care.
Dave

This is saying nothing about EWQLSO, which I've only heard in demos, just a couple of comments.

@Another User said:

U.S. symphonies seem to have a different (not better or worse, just different) style and character that many people have gotten use to in Hollywood Film sound tracks.

The irony is that more and more "Hollywood" soundtracks are being recorded in Europe!

@David Govett said:

"QLSO wanted to go for the audiophile angle with the real hall for that big lush hollywood sound. To do that, they wanted a U.S. orchestra this time..." What the hell are you talking about? Have you heard the Berlin Philharmonic? What about the Vienna Symphony? They define the nature of huge lush symphonic sound. "


Sorry about that. No disagreement there. But U.S. symphonies seem to have a different (not better or worse, just different) style and character that many people have gotten use to in Hollywood Film sound tracks. (A little more aggressive for instances) Don't get me wrong, Herb is doing nicely along this line and even doing new sessions with Horns & Oboe to accomodate the film score folks.

Dave

Dave,

I would like to add something: American symphony orchestras do not sound Hollywood in real. Not even the Los Angeles Phil. It is the recording and post processing (Dolby surround, EQ- etc.) made up specially for the purpose of movies which give this very particular Hollywood sound. I did hear major USA Symphonys live in their own Hall ( Chicago under Solti, in Chicago Michigan Avenue, Los Angeles under Giulini, Minneapolis under Skrowacewski, New-York under Boulez and some others. For my ears the sound this orchestra do produce has not much to do with what I do hear in movie sound tracks and also not in EQlSO demos, sorry. Do understand: It is not my intention to devaluate Hollywood sound, but just to say that I think it is different. On a certain point is necessary to define what one calls real: It is the sound you hear in a movie or the sound you hear in concert or a recording which reproduces the real sound as close as possible. IMHO, the advantage of VSL ist that you can achieve both.

Your right on the recording techniques. There can also be regional differences in instruments and style as well that will give you a different sound. (remember, I mean different, not better or worse)

Anyway, my intention was not to start a Northern Sound style debate. I just wanted to share the things I like about both of these libraries. I have had the honor of beta testing and working on both of them and like I said, there is nothing I would have either Herb or Nick change based on the routes they took.

Thanks for the lively feedback. This is fun!

Off to sleep.
Goodnight
Dave

Dave, I think it's fair to establish this with everyone on this thread to understand the source of your comments, especially if your compositional time with VSL is less than with QLSO.

Thanks Peter. I guess I diddn't make that clear when I mentioned I had the honor of beta testing "and" working on both of them etc...

Working for pay will not change my opinion on a product but you have a point about spending time with a library. Thats a good and fair thing to point out.

Don't forget, I'm a huge fan of BOTH of these libraries. Again, there is nothing I would change in either of them.

Thanks Bro.
Dave