I disagree with that statement. "Other libraries" are inferior to VSL in quality of recording, player performance, methodical sampling structure and on top of that they have nearly non-existent interfaces - crudely and lazily using Kontakt - or clumsy ones like Play - compared to the supreme elegance of VI, VE and MIR. Don't imply that VSL is behind "other libraries."
Secondly, while "other libaries" are doing their "complete" string sections consisting of mediocre (but different) 2nd violins, VSL has been doing a few little things LIKE DIMENSION STRINGS - ever heard of that one?
So instead of getting more stretched out samplings of few articulations with different players like "other libraries" - you can get EVERY SAMPLE of every VSL library, no phasing, different sound because of the transposition to different samples, complexities of articulations, Dimension Strings, layering of Solo, Orchestral, Chamber, Appassionata - all with one button.
Also - while more samples are always good, instantaneous sampling of every possibility doesn't happen on this dimensional plain. So the question is - which is more advantageous to do now? More sampled articulations and the ability to create instantly a whole new set for 2nd players, or fewer articulations stretched over more recorded players?
Jason, I agree on the importance of that particular German. 🍺