The moral of the two stories I related here (three if you add Hitchcock's initial wish for the shower scene to have been scoreless, and his subsequent relenting when the unbridleable Herrmann presented him with a cue anyway), is that a creative man should never take the path of least resistance. Or, if you prefer, that a composer worth his salt, will always rise to the occasion (instead of becoming a dead weight to that occasion, thereby sinking it). Those scores would not have existed if a) the executives were artistic simpletons, and b) the composers were unable to meet those high standards. How many composers can do this today? I have said on another post, that in many of today's flagship expensive A-grade films, the most incompetent, deficient, inept professional to be hired, by far, both in the creative and the technical crews combined, the whole production in fact, is the composer; unequivocally! The worst 'extra' comes a distant second.

Speaking as an owner of the Vienna Instruments Cube, I agree with Daryl that the Appassionata Strings 1 and 2 needs the additional articulations and, from my perspective, the "creation" of a Violins 2.

The next aspect is one of sales and price point. This L1 and L2 business makes Vienna into an expensive library. I would get rid of that, bundle AP 1 and 2, together, and come up with a price point that competes in the US market, even if it means setting up VSL USA and duplicating in the US and shipping accordingly to reduce fees.

The MIR technology is a fabulous thing and I'm looking forward to MIR Pro. But the whole concept is having what Silicon Valley used to refer to as a closed system.

A far more open system approach would be to insert aspects of MIR into the VI player as has been done similarly with the 1.9 release of LASS, and dragging on stage as with WIVI. This act alone would "clobber" the criticism that VSL is hard to mix with, which is why other libraries with pre-positioned seating/panning sell so well.

Power Pan moves stage left and right. Ernest Cholakis' TILT filters move stage front and back. Somewhere a marriage...

@Errikos said:

Those scores would not have existed if a) the executives were artistic simpletons, and b) the composers were unable to meet those high standards. How many composers can do this today? I have said on another post, that in many of today's flagship expensive A-grade films, the most incompetent, deficient, inept professional to be hired, by far, both in the creative and the technical crews combined, the whole production in fact, is the composer; unequivocally! The worst 'extra' comes a distant second.

I wonder how much longer will it take until the audiences finally get fed up with the chugga-chugga garbage they were force-fed the last decade or so and start punishing the producers (and composers) by starting to avoid their offerings?

+1

Peter said this much better than I could have.

@Another User said:

VSL is hard to mix with, which is why other libraries with pre-positioned seating/panning sell so well.

This is contrary to the entire basis of VSL, which was to allow maximum versatility in different audio uses instead of  one TRULY closed system of permanent embedded seating/panning and hall which is the limitation of EWQL.  This may demand a little more mixing skiil.  However, the entire concept of MIR is to address that, and provide a totally integrated mixing system that is simple and intuitive  to use.  And they actually did it!  No hype.  It is the easiest out of the box mixing I have EVER done, with the best results.   

I really don't understand when people say they don't like the VSL strings (or other instruments) .. what's not to like about them. They have the most controllable, and realistic playback you're ever likely to get in a sample library. Over the last several years there's one immutable thing I've learned.

My Virtual instruments performance is only as good as how I write it to be.

Okay .. in some cases that means you've got a lot of hard work if you want something to sound good .. but when've you've learned how to use your tools properly that's hardly a big deal. Personally I LOVE the sound of the VSL. The strings are expressive, realistic and extremely controllable. Between Velocity xfading and cell x-fading you can achieve almost anything.

I've heard demos with Hollywood strings and with LASS and frankly I've been unimpressed by the realism when compared with VSL. Of course I will concede that it may simply have been the composers fault for not doing a better job with the LASS and HS. I've heard just as many bad renderings with VSL .. Hell I've recorded plenty myself :P ... But my point is that any tool take time to learn to use properly.

Take reverb for instance. Man I have spent so many frickin' man hours trying to master this beast. And only nowadays ..after years of experiments .. do I feel like I start to get somewhere with it.

Here's a good analogy. Take the CGI program 'Poser'. It lets you simulate people in 3D .. gets used a lot for fantasy .. (and porn :P), and anyone can buy it. I've seen lots of poser generated pics that look exactly like a CGI character .. absolutely nothing like a true photo real flesh and blood person. But now and again I see a Poser image that is exceptional. And I can usually tell which artist did them because you know these few people have spent years learning how to texture, light, and shade their creations. They know the things to avoid, they know what doesn't look real and what does .. because of experience.

And it's the same with a decent mock-up in virtual orchestra. So many people want a complete out-of-the-box, press the button and everything is perfect straight away, kind of experience. I'm not saying that working with a sample library should be hard ... but I personally like the fact that if I have a recording that sounds really good .. it's because it reflects years of learning and understanding that went into producing it in the first place, and the library was versatile enough to let me do whatever I wanted.

With such a versatile library like VSL it amazes me that there can be negative reactions to it .. you can do anything with it .. if you know how!

I agree.  Demos from Guy Bacos and Alex Temple, both who extensively use VSL, are strikingly realistic, AND musically very solid.  So much stuff I have heard from other companies sounds just like a demo for a new piece of gear- flashy but with little substance.  I find VSL very real sounding and while I would love it if the Appassionata Strings allowed one to control vibrato depth like HS, it's not going to prevent me from using them MORE than HS because it doesn't take 2 years to load or crash because the PLAY engine is finicky....

@Another User said:

I really don't understand when people say they don't like the VSL strings (or other instruments) .. what's not to like about them.

It's pretty simple for me.  I just haven't been impressed enough with the sound quality I've heard from material done with vienna.  No question the range of articulations is phenomenal.  MIR seems to get it the closest but that requires a ton of power and is expensive to get sound quality closer to how other libraries can sound with minimal tweaking.

Again, it all depends on the sound one is after.  If one is after a "real" traditional orchestral and/or especially a chamber music sound, IMO, VSL is as good as, or better than, anything else that is out there.  If one is after a "Hollywood" sound, a sound that remains "in vogue" that is arguably a different question.

The number of articulations VSL provides is vital to achieve realism.  For all its excellent qualities, IMO, the lack of articulations in LASS is a critical weakness for my purposes, and it is therefore not a good choice for me.  Does that mean LASS is a "bad" library?  Obviously, no. 

For me, as a strings player, the number of articulations in VSL comes the closest of any library to reproducing what I actually can do with a bow.  Is it "perfect"?  No.  The way certain articulations end I find less than ideal.  But, nevertheless, an intimacy of sound is possible in VSL that HS, etc., cannot produce  - one is left awash in the "Hollywood" sound.  OTOH, if one is after a strictly "Hollywood" sound HS could be - and has proven to be - of great use.  The point is simply that one needs to use sounds that are designed for one's purpose.

It seems to me that often these types of threads degenerate into "If I like it = good, if I don't like it = bad".  What is easy to forget is that the musical world extends far beyond one's own personal taste and needs.

For example, personally, I have no need or desire to use synth sounds.  Does that mean I will start bashing, to cite one case, Omnisphere, as a useless library, because it doesn't do what I need?  No. 

Anyway, just my $.02.

@noldar12 said:

But, nevertheless, an intimacy of sound is possible in VSL that HS, etc., cannot produce  - one is left awash in the "Hollywood" sound.

Even with the close mics?  Most of the newer libraries aren't that wet even with the "surround" mics, and I can't imagine how anyone would describe the close mics as "awash" with anything.  Have you actually used any of these other libraries or heard examples of the close mics without reverb added?

I'm not disagreeing with your choice of sample libraries, I agree with you that different people have different priorities and taste.  I'm just a bit puzzled by the impression some seem to have that VSL is the only library that includes closer/drier mics and that all the other ones are swamped in big wet giant halls.

What exactly do people define as the "Hollywood" sound? TRON 2? Benjamin Button? Inception? If that's it then almost any library with the right engineering can produce acceptable, or good results. However, if we include - as we should - Harry Potter I, II, III, Star Wars Prequel Saga, How to Train Your Dragon, Lord of the Rings I, II, III, etc., then I haven't heard anywhere near in breadth demos from any library that can cover the scope that the VSL can. Of course ideally one will take the best from all worlds, but only VSL from what I've heard has had the range to do Blue Danube, La Mer, String Quartet Op.59, Fanfare for the Common Man, Pictures, and I'd like to hear Berg's Three Pieces for Orchestra by some other developer. And I mean that; if someone else can do all those as/more convincingly I want to know!

If the discussion is which is the best library to do arpeggiators and pads, it has really taken too long already...

@Errikos said:

What exactly do people define as the "Hollywood" sound? TRON 2? Benjamin Button? Inception? If that's it then almost any library with the right engineering can produce acceptable, or good results. However, if we include - as we should - Harry Potter I, II, III, Star Wars Prequel Saga, How to Train Your Dragon, Lord of the Rings I, II, III, etc., then I haven't heard anywhere near in breadth demos from any library that can cover the scope that the VSL can. 

Sure, but my point was that before you get to the 'production' stage of a soundtrack where positioning, tails, and even the company's original recordings matter, you first have to be able to sequence the actual music; and I'm saying, is there another library out there that can accommodate the variety needed for the scores I mentioned, and sound as/more convincing? The reason I put those up there is because a lot of people don't even consider them. They are probably just thinking of Inception and TRON 2, and perhaps those sound better on LASS or HS (the chugga-chaggas), because that's the "music" they wish to make, looking forward to scoring TRON 3 on their iPhones. That's personal choice, but I wouldn't compare these products based on such a limited use of their potential.

@hetoreyn said:

I really don't understand when people say they don't like the VSL strings (or other instruments) .. what's not to like about them. They have the most controllable, and realistic playback you're ever likely to get in a sample library. Over the last several years there's one immutable thing I've learned.

My Virtual instruments performance is only as good as how I write it to be.

Okay .. in some cases that means you've got a lot of hard work if you want something to sound good .. but when've you've learned how to use your tools properly that's hardly a big deal. Personally I LOVE the sound of the VSL. The strings are expressive, realistic and extremely controllable. Between Velocity xfading and cell x-fading you can achieve almost anything.

I've heard demos with Hollywood strings and with LASS and frankly I've been unimpressed by the realism when compared with VSL. Of course I will concede that it may simply have been the composers fault for not doing a better job with the LASS and HS. I've heard just as many bad renderings with VSL .. Hell I've recorded plenty myself 😛 ... But my point is that any tool take time to learn to use properly.

Take reverb for instance. Man I have spent so many frickin' man hours trying to master this beast. And only nowadays ..after years of experiments .. do I feel like I start to get somewhere with it.

Here's a good analogy. Take the CGI program 'Poser'. It lets you simulate people in 3D .. gets used a lot for fantasy .. (and porn :P), and anyone can buy it. I've seen lots of poser generated pics that look exactly like a CGI character .. absolutely nothing like a true photo real flesh and blood person. But now and again I see a Poser image that is exceptional. And I can usually tell which artist did them because you know these few people have spent years learning how to texture, light, and shade their creations. They know the things to avoid, they know what doesn't look real and what does .. because of experience.

And it's the same with a decent mock-up in virtual orchestra. So many people want a complete out-of-the-box, press the button and everything is perfect straight away, kind of experience. I'm not saying that working with a sample library should be hard ... but I personally like the fact that if I have a recording that sounds really good .. it's because it reflects years of learning and understanding that went into producing it in the first place, and the library was versatile enough to let me do whatever I wanted.

With such a versatile library like VSL it amazes me that there can be negative reactions to it .. you can do anything with it .. if you know how!

I didn't want to post anything more on this overdone thread, but  this is a great statement and I totally agree with all the points hetoreyn makes.   The sound of the VSL strings is something I truly love and am inspired by.

In order to represent the strings, which have always been called "the backbone of the orchestra" - you have to do what real strings do which is a huge, wide-ranging number of different articulations and styles, NOT JUST ONE KIND OF SOUND.   Other libraries are focuisng on one type of sound -  "Hollywood" or L.A. or "Session" or whatever.  This is actually very misleading, because a real studio string ensemble consists of  players who may do studio work but also play in chamber or symphony orchestras.  They are in other words the kind of ensemble that VSL has created.  They can play any of the huge number of expressive articulations and styles that strings have at their command.  VSL has focused on doing an exhaustive, methodically organized recording of every type of string sound  from solo to small tight chamber to medium sized orchestral to huge "Hollywood" style Appassionata strings ("Hollywood" really ought to be called "Berlioz Strings" though nobody would buy it.)  In essence, VSL strings are actually many libraries, not one,  rolled into a single unified interface that is really intuitive, playable and logical in its design.  

Mike, your point is well taken.  I am going off of demos, as I absolutely do not have the $$$ to buy every string library out there, nor the computer power to run them.

Going from the HS demos, large and lush is what is being pushed.  Can one do RVW's Fantasia with that?  Sure.  Would I want to do a Vivaldi chamber sound with that?  No.  Even if it was not awash with reverb, it would still be far too big.  Does HS sound like a traditional orchestra?  Again, no (at least not from the demos).  IMO, the poster who suggested "Berlioz Strings" had it about right.  The Hollywood sound is simply one version of an orchestra.  Sometimes traditional fits better, sometimes something along the lines of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment or chamber is better, and sometimes, solo strings.

Within VSL one has four very different string libraries: solo, chamber, orchestral, and AP.  The sound of the attacks in each library is quite different, as is the overall sound.  Comparing HS to AP?  IMO, that is a fair comparison.  Comparing HS to all of VSL's strings?  That is another matter entirely.

@William said:

VSL has focused on doing an exhaustive, methodically organized recording of every type of string sound  from solo to small tight chamber to medium sized orchestral to huge "Hollywood" style Appassionata strings ("Hollywood" really ought to be called "Berlioz Strings" though nobody would buy it.)   

I would. Immediately. Nothing against Berlioz Strings in my book 😉

@domcicchetti said:

I just purchased Vienna to run on an IMac with PT9. Is there a website to access and download instrument set ups that are playable and realistic? DC

You should visit Beat Kaufmann's sites:

www.beat-kaufmann.com (Tutorials, etc.)
www.orchester.beat-kaufmann.com (Musik mit Samples)

 Well I see you brought back this assinine thread from the cybernetic abyss it richly deserves. 

With that Berlioz Strings crack I meant that he was the original Hollywood sound, conducting thousands of musicians with a sword. Now that is one of the rare conductors I would respect.