duoartc, I don't understand exactly what you mean: Herb never said the solo viola and bass would be free to Pro Edition Orchestral Package users. And Opus 1 is an extraction ( :-] ) of this package, therefore no VIP pricing is needed. The Solo Strings are a package of its own and not included in Opus 1.

Hope this helps,
Hansi

Hi Hansi,

Well I'm also asking how much it will cost to get a solo viola and bass to complement those in the Pro Cube, or is the only way of getting these is buying the Solo Strings package?

Ah! Hansi, I just saw your posting on the other thread. Yes you are right - there are no solo instruments in Opus 1. My apologies everyone.

@Another User said:

Now let's say in the PRO EDITION, 90% of the sounds are duck calls.

You say this like it is a bad thing. [:D]

But seriously...

The problem I find with your analogy is that you have the vendor adding extraneous fringe material between upgrades. Quite frankly, the vendor has the ability to do that. We invest some implicit trust in the vendor by being lured by the promise of upgrade path. it is our choice to make. But let me suggest an alternate analogy which may illuminate my view of the core principles here:

Let's say I buy MS Office v 20.0 for $1000. In the course of researching this purchase, I see that MS Office v 21.0 will be $2000. If I buy v20.0, they offer upgrades to v21.0 for only $1000.

Okay, that is a good incentive to buy today. Nothing to lose in the future.

In addition to that, as a part of this program offer, you could upgrade an individual part for a proportionate marginal sum. So Word v20.0 to Word v21.0 will cost $250 instead of the $500 it will cost non-Word v20.0 owners. Same deal for Excel, PowerPoint, and Access(PC) | Entourage (MacOSX) -- the main sub-parts of the Office package.

Now, in order for this to be of value to me, I have to have some trust in the company that v21.0 may be of some value to me. For all I know, MS Word v21.0 might have Duck Calls as the only new feature! (Hey, it's MS, and it's Word. I wouldn't put it past them! [[;)]] )

But if on the heels of releasing MS Office v21.0, MS decides to release a 'WorkPack v21' which includes bits of Word and Excel but also the killer SpellChecker v21.0 and Graph v21.0 and Movie v21.0, some of which is new to Office v21.0, I don't necessarily expect my discount to apply. What I was promised was the capability to upgrade the main package (Complete), or its major components (Strings, Performance, etc.), but not necessarily the specific elements inside.

---
I grant you that it would be a very nice thing if First Edition owners were some kind of "charter members" with continuous, broad purchase discounts, even if minimally dictated by sample overlaps. I just don't think that this is what was promised, or could reasonably be *expected* given what I read about the "program" prior to purchase.

Duck calls for everyone!

Carlos

I am a First Edition owner. How do I obtain the DVD update? Is this automatically sent to me when it becomes available?

YES, absolutely there should be an downgrade price for VIPs.

It's great that VSL is releasing a free update for First Edition users. But the reward for being one of the early supporters of the company and products should be that you continue to get treated like a VIP, regardless of what new products come out, and that means extending those priviledges to Opus 1.

I've had extensive discussions by e-mail this week with VSL to clearly define the VIP program, which I think because of language issues isn't as clear they really feel it is (sorry for the criticism, Fellows).

1. As we've had it defined in writing for our customers, the VIP program is an upgrade path (now) from Opus One up to Symphonic - 1.

2. Supporter purchasers of the First Edition are getting an EXTENSIVE update DVD disk so there's no need to purchase Opus One or to have a VIP price DOWN to it.

3. The remaining Horizon packages do not qualify for VIP pricing.

4. Even with the update DVD disk, if you're a First Edition owner and you don't want to upgrade to the full Pro Edition, then you should consider the following packages -

a. Solo Strings
b. Glass and Stones
c. Mallets and Celeste (my title)
d. Saxophones - 1
e. Overdrive
f. Concert Guitar

5. If you now HAVE the Pro Edition -

a. an update disk to purchase for the solo viola and solo bass will be available in December
b. the new packages to consider are Glass & Stones, Saxophones 1, Overdrive and Concert Guitar.

I have this in writing. If anything has changed since it was sent to me so I could explain it to our Truespec customers. If anything has changed in the past three days since I got this info, then I don't know about it.

I've simply posted this in the interest of clarity

Happy Thanksgiving!

Peter Alexander
peter@truespec.com
www.truespec.com

Oh for the love of God...

You people are the WHINEST bunch of children I have ever seen. If you were all trumpet players you'd refuse to buy an F because you bought a C, and you believe you are entitled to it.

Grow. Up.

You are not entitled to anything. Herb has offered you the upgrade path to the Pro Edition (and future *bigger* editions) as well as given you a *FREE* DVD package of instruments. Contrary to what you think, you're not entitled the world simply because you bought one part of the library. You're lucky you're getting the DVD. I don't see Nick Phoenix or Doug Rogers giving away free DVDs of *NEW* material that's not in the current EWQLSO library. Even Gary Garritan doesn't do this as his updates are new toys, but they're nothing more than edited samples of *what you already have.* When Nick and Doug record the update for EWQLSO you can bet your arses that you'll have to pay for the new samples because they won't give them away.

The people that want MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE make me sick. I suppose you think that because you bought Windows 98, Adobe Acrobat, SONAR, Cubase, etc. that you're "entitled" to the new versions of the programs. The next thing we'll probably see is the *SAME* whiners over and over again trying to con Herb out of the entire Pro Edition if they can take it, piece by piece and complaint by complaint.

You have the First Edition, the best sounding and useable orchestral library so far in the world -- period. Either save up for the damn Pro Edition or go elsewhere, as this whining and 'con artist' guilt trips is pathetic.

@Russell Cox said:

You are not entitled to anything.

I didn't finish reading your post. I stopped after the above phrase which is an incorrect generality. I haven't heard someone speak like this in the VSL forum before, so I think I speak for my colleagues and fellow posters when I say that if you ever post anything like this again in any thread we are all going to do our best to make sure you are banned from our forum.

I welcome any sort of apology, and in the future, smaller less obtrusive and offensive posts as you start your posting history on the VSL forum. Perhaps with time and further postings you will get to a point where you can make your postings relevant and helpful, whilst still serving your need for soliloquy and self-reflection. You do have my best wishes for such a journey. You can do it, I know it.

Thank you,
Evan Evans
Senior Member

@Another User said:

do our best to make sure you are banned from our forum.

evan, _if_ someone even _considers_ to ban a forum member - publically or not - than it's herb, because it's the _VSL_ forum.
although russell's posting might not sound friendly in some ears i don't feel your answer is an appropriate reply or helpfull in keeping this place as civilized as - i'm sure - we all like it.
christian
ps: did i mention i'm a senior member? [;)]

"so I think I speak for my colleagues and fellow posters when I say that if you ever post anything like this again in any thread we are all going to do our best to make sure you are banned from our forum. "

Ok, let's please all be clear that you do NOT speak for me or anyone else!

Please go get some medication before you post again.

@evanevans said:

[...] from our forum. [...]

Ha-hum ...

... uhm ... Evan - actually, it is _our_ forum, and Russell is as welcome as you are.

Peace.

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Let's just recap what I think is unnecessary in Russel's posts which according to other posters is "welcome":

@Another User said:

Russell is as welcome as you are

Then I hope you don't mind this board becoming a bloodfest for lack of moderation. Russell has dispensed some rather offensive language. As I mention in my reply-post I am open to the guy coming around and speaking with an appropriate civil manner. But if the VSL team continues to allow him to use the kind of language he is using than I am sure you will soon see the entire forum have as low of a standard as it has high.

And I am sure you will see those who have high standards here will stop posting intellgient, insightful, thought-provoking replies/threads, thereby lowing the high standards of the board. I do not wish to subjugate myselve to the kinds of language and posts that Russell Cox is now becoming representative of. And there are others who feel the same.

Evan Evans

P.S. As a PRO EDITION owner I think the VSL team ought to have a VIP purchase price for the OPUS 1. I could care less. But I know it makes sense. It is right. It is good business. And many pople want it in the face of others ridiculing them, and even when members of the VSL team states their place as out-of-order. As much of a minority as those who want the VIP purchase price for OPUS 1 are, those who want it see so clearly that they are being ignored, cast-aside, and denied a democratic voice. The VSL team continues this by not announcing the official statement regarding a VIP purchase price for OPUS 1. Once this is announced than the disgruntled can at least know in abolsute certainty that the VSL team and policies do in fact leave some people orphaned, and that it's broad business strokes are not always "clean" (ie: VIP program established to prevent other's from purchasing same smaples twice).

evan, i understand english a little bit, at least enough to understand the word euphanism, because i learned latin - although it's a greek word [;)]
rereading his posts i can't find something that justifies you give him a dressing-down in such a way.
finally (and i mean finally) i'd like to empasize there is a price list, several discounts and upgrade paths - dot. do you tell emagic or apple which product they have to sell at which price?
take care, christian
ps: did i mention not to feed trolls?

Ok, Herb, can we ban Evan, PLEASE?

@Another User said:

I didn't finish reading your post. I stopped after the above phrase which is an incorrect generality. I haven't heard someone speak like this in the VSL forum before, so I think I speak for my colleagues and fellow posters when I say that if you ever post anything like this again in any thread we are all going to do our best to make sure you are banned from our forum.

I welcome any sort of apology, and in the future, smaller less obtrusive and offensive posts as you start your posting history on the VSL forum. Perhaps with time and further postings you will get to a point where you can make your postings relevant and helpful, whilst still serving your need for soliloquy and self-reflection. You do have my best wishes for such a journey. You can do it, I know it.

Thank you,
Evan Evans
Senior Member

I would apologise if I had something to apologise for. No offense, but your post reeks of more arrogance and self importance than a kitchen full of onions makes my eyes water. Step down from the high perch you've got youself on. "You can do it, I know it."

VSL's forums isn't Northernsounds and I really believe if I were out of line Herb or Dietz would have already sent me an email or private message saying as such. The people whining about the Opus 1 are just greedy little beggars that will see how much they can leech before they step too far and really piss Herb and Co. off.

@cm said:

ps: did i mention not to feed trolls?

Yes, this is something to consider. Maybe I have still to learn to let trolls live under their bridges instead of trying to talk intelligently and civially with them. I still have a few lifetimes left to learn this.

[:)]

Evan Evans

euphemism
n : an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive;

Later tonight I will post the long list of Euphemisms that Russell Cox* has used to perpetuate his hostilities on this board towards other members and how speaking in this manner is an ego-protective mechanism for looking at real things metaphorically so that you can think of them differently or on a different level than they really are. It is often done in patients who have a dissassociative disorder with reality, such as schizophrenics. It can be from growing up in an insulated envirnoment or having been subjected to certain abuses. My own contention is that the disorder is nothing more than living in an alternate reality, which in my opinion is not wrong, nor a disorder by the clinical terms. But when communicating outside of this reailty one should try to be prepared for unexpected social recourse as a result of the schizophrenia. In other words, you can be this way and there is nothing wrong with it, but knowing you are is part of the medicine needed to surivive in the reailty that is not your own.

Since we are going to go unmoderated here (as Dietz,Dot, and CM have proclaimed), I am going to go ahead with an analysis of Russell Cox and his use of uncivilized language and psycho-speak to berate others and other's ideas, later tonight. I did not look forward to wasting my time with this, but now I do as it seems I'm the only one able to understand Russell's disfunctional methods of communication. And as well, he asked me to explain. I look forward to it. It's not often that a musician, composer can also understand such complexities as the inner mind. I intend to be completely objective and in no way say anything towards Mr. Cox that might be considered anything other than unbiased objectivety. I still like the guy even. But the things he said were not nice/civil/respectful/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, even if he, CM, Dietz, Peter0302, and Dot don't understand why. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's right.

Evan Evans

P.S. Maybe Mr. Cox could heed CM's words, and "not feed the trolls" (which by the way CM, is a euphemism).

*(I understand how to spell Russell Cox, but perhaps the keyboard did not echo my more responsive command; and perhaps a name with so many double letters has harbored extra sensitivites to an otherwise harmless mistake that often occurs with such a spelling, let alone other words)

Alright, so here it is. First of all ... Do I care? No. Do I have the time? No. Is it worth it? No. Can I think of at least one reason why not to? Yes. Does that change anything? No. Do I dislike Russell Cox? No.

Second, even if Russell Cox did not direct his comments at me nor my fellow poster's it is still required to defend the peace.

Finally, anyone not interested in this discussion needn't read on. It's just a few people trying to clear something up amongst themselves.

Euphemism's that Russell Cox has used in his 1st posting on this particular thread:[list:66d9e634fe]"You people are the whiniest bunch of children I have ever seen." Of course we are not children. Of course we are not whining. And of course he hasn't seen us. Note that through the use of you people he has directed this comment to everyone previous to his postings whether they know themselves to be included or not.
"If you were all trumpet players you'd refuse to buy an F because you bought a C, and you believe you are entitled to it" Here he attempts to rationalize his idea by making everyone into trumpet players. Furthermore, his use of directed commands show that he is saying that everyone, as a trumpet player, would do as he said. He is not letting there be the possibility that even if everyone were trumpet players that some of them might not do as he explains. Using Euphemisms can be dangerous. It is a way of sterilizing the subject so that it conforms to one's own rules and then putting it to a test that works only by those other set of rules.
"Grow. Up."This is likely a dissassociated reference to his Euphemism that "you people" are children. This is a method of concreting an Euphemism subtly in a disconnected manner than that with the first instance so as to sneek it by and try to get it in subconsciously. Honestly it works very well and is done often by those with many layers of encrypted history. And in some cases there is nothing destructive about it. But here I find his continued persistant analogy that "you people"are children who are whining and must grow up, to be the kind of comments one should reserve for no one. Not even professionals use such terminology to help others. In this case it is simply a further example of beratement.
"you're not entitled the world"Of course I don't think anyone thinks that. However, Russell's subconsience is likely resounding some fortified previous conversations with others, and of family, in which this Euphemism was used whenever a person desired something not within the realm of what the offerer is/was willing to give. However, the use of this Euphemism continues to be a disrespectful way to treat others who understand clearly this is not true. Such Euphemisms can be picked up very early on in life. Children learn to use them as a method of connecting and explaining something that they do not understand. At such an early and impressionable age these expressions can grow unmonitored into adult-hood and wind up being used in general sociative communication. It is liekly better for one to dispense with analogous speech in order to not appear cryptic. Euphemism-laiden speech makes the other person on the other end of the communicating have the burden of deciphering the underlying meaning of what a person is saying.
"The people that want MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE make me sick"Of course we do not make him sick. I doubt he is perched on his stomache over a bed with a bucket under his mouth. here we have the use of Euphemism to try to communicate an internal feeling/thought which might have been harder and less obstinate to explain otherwise. The connection here with how society decrypts this Euphemism is more common and as such is more excuseable. In other words it is not necessary really to understand the person much further to decrypt this one because it is a highly common part of speech. But, none-the-less it is another example of the frequence in which Russell Cox depends on Euphemisms to communicate, thereby obligating the particpant into decrypting his speech. I do not see anythign wrong with this Euphamism except that it illuminates others to the fact that Russell Cox uses language sonsisting of gross refenrences in his speech. It is only reflective of his mind, not of his character. And this one is tolerable as most people have used it once before and quicly, almost fluently, understand it's meaning. But I must reiterate, that Russell Cox is burdening the participant with needing to adhere to his own set of rules in order to speak with him. It is an unconscious demand, and in some cases a result of a possible superiority complex, a condition that I'll save for another discussion in another century.
"The next thing we'll probably see is the *SAME* whiners over and over again trying to con Herb"Again a subtle attempt at fortifying a previous Euphemism regarding "you people"being children. Also, here we find some very complex psycho-jargon which once decrypted reveals some interesting thigns about Russell Cox. Specifically the use of teh phrasesame whiners...trying to con Herb. Forget that here he is even contradicting his own rules. He has setup one set of rules for the decryption of one meaning and than encased another inside the original. It's actually quite interesting. On the one hand he is referring now directly to the whiners, but he is using a Euphemism which indirectly calls the whiners "con-artists", or perhaps he meant us to decrypt it as "theives" (only he can know this). But what we have here is, if you try to decrypt the word con, you must fundamentally accept the decrypted meaning of whiners. Very clever. A kind of auto sub-encryption-encapsulation. And all the while, only an indirect reference to calling you peoplethieves or criminals. And of course children are not con-artists. It is nice to make the Euphemism to try to understand how they like to try to get you to do things you do not want them to. But con-artist are relaly adults or teens ready to be thrown in jail. Would you throw a child in jail? Of course not. So this Euphemism is very obviously askew. But this tells me something about Russell Cox's subconscious... When you roll those two specific Euphemism's up into one Euphemism it describes someone who's own reality suggests a dislike of children. The encapsulation process itself and what Russell Cox already accepts as his reality without decryption shows this. Ergo Russell Cox does not like children, if only slightly. It is only lightly suggested through decryption, but the process of encapsulation itself shows how his subconscious tells us this quite directly. So we see, another reason not to use Euphemism's is to not unconsciously give away your subconscious. Of course our subconscious is always there able to be read like a book by a professional. This is one of the modern marvels of a post-freudian society, and it has proven very helpful to society to attempt to read the subconscious. But, I digress...
and the final Euphemism, or more specifically psycho-trick worth noting:
Either save up for the damn Pro Edition or go elsewhere, as this whining and 'con artist' guilt trips is pathetic.Let's just ignore the use of escalted uncivil language inthis one, as well as it's underlying accusatory manner. here we have a 5th attempt at indirect fortification of the original Euphemism that you people[/] are a [b]bunch of children.[/list:u:66d9e634fe]

That is what I have found in his first post to be of obvious significance. However I was able to find 7 other small Euphemistic remarks, which were not worth mentioning.

Interestingly, I have found his reply post to contain a near 3 fold increase in the frequency of the use of Euphemism. This may suggest that in confrontation he becomes more cryptic so as to necessitate the particpant in further and elevatated decryption which is likely an ego-protective mechanism whereby the other perons must think harder to understand even the simplist underlying meaning. A kind of maze. By doing this he has set a trap, whereby if the participant cannot decrypt or sufficiently respond, the encrypter gains a self-gratification and a fortification of a possibly already existant superiority complex.

Russell if you wish to apologize for your indirect beratement as well as the chastizing that you have put me through attempting to simply initially explain that your post was fairly uncivil and unacceptable, then I would gladly return the favor witha detailed apology as well as an abondonment of my Phase II analysis of your second posting/response.

Evan Evans

@Another User said:

do our best to make sure you are banned from our forum.

evan, _if_ someone even _considers_ to ban a forum member - publically or not - than it's herb, because it's the _VSL_ forum.
although russell's posting might not sound friendly in some ears i don't feel your answer is an appropriate reply or helpfull in keeping this place as civilized as - i'm sure - we all like it.
christian
ps: did i mention i'm a senior member? [;)]CM, Thanks. This is fine and acceptable of course. Herb is the man. But ought we not set thresholds for moderation of the board? If not, I think that's really cool of you guys, but it may simultaneously lower and raise the standards by which VSL accepts in it's public discussion forum.

In any event, my 1st possting reply to Russell Cox was indeed inappropriate. I only felt it necessary to defend other posters and friends who he berates in his post.

So, I apologize for inappropriately including others in a ban threat. I take back that threat as I see it to only be something that would escalate the uncivilized post made by Russell Cox.

Evan Evans