Spitfire BBC Symphony Orchestra

[Guy Rowland]

I'm not sure my opinion has changed much / at all. Unless you are attracted by the one-plugin-for-all compatibility thing, the primary appeal is the particular sound, which of course is arguably just how it should be. To my ears, brass and percussion sound very nice indeed, strings sound okish, woodwinds sound stellar. That's a pretty nice combo overall, but both the cash and real estate required - along with Spitfire's notorious QC history - don't hit the buy-threshold for me.

To be fair to the mic positions, I usually figure 3 is plenty but here I can see a use for a fourth, the combined spill. That's still 5x less than what you get of course.

I think its highly unlikely, but in the fullness of time that would be an appealing product to sell each section in this stripped-down form.

[Pablo Crespo]

Yes. I am still torn between this and continue with my cinematic studio investment (haven’t got brass yet)
I think that cinematic brass, winds and perc should cost more or less the same, but WW have been posponed to next year. Will wait for user opinions on BBCSO.

[Killiard]

Here's the Brass walk through

[Linos]

Everything that’s been sampled, sounds quite gorgeous. The question is: have they sampled enough? Because I also agree with the above posts that express some concern over the lack of dynamic differentiation. During several moments in the Strings walkthrough for example, it sounded as if the big dynamic range — of which Spitfire seems so proud — is created more by mere volume than by actual dynamic timbre changes.

According to Spitfire support it can be 2 or 3 dynamic layers for long articulations. That doesn't work for me on the strings, as I noticed from the walkthrough and demo pieces. I am waiting for the woodwinds walkthrough. But I am getting less and less of the impression that I'd be missing out if I didn't buy this library.

[lofi]

The Woods video is out.
/Anders

[The Saxer]

Very nice demo! Doesn't sound like missing dynamic for me. Legatos are fine too.

[Lawrence]

Did you listen to the walkthrough, Saxer?

[The Saxer]

Did you listen to the walkthrough, Saxer?

Yepp. But I can‘t say that the short noodling in the videos is telling me a lot about the possibilities and usefulness of the library. But when I compare the demos of Andy, Homay and Luke I hear a lot of dynamic variety. I think it‘s a good allrounder for tutti work that doesn’t need three computers. For the few bars of needed ffff parts it‘s always possible to add some ARK1 tracks. And for specials like featured solo instruments there are a lot of special libraries out there too. My hope is a good standard library with depth but without endless reverb tails.
In a few weeks we will know more.

[Lawrence]

Sorry-I only meant the winds walkthrough. I’m interested in your opinion.

[Guy Rowland]

Hmm, I know what you mean Larry. I loved the winds in the demos (and that shouldn't be swept away because it shows in context they can shine), but they lack some of the character I expected. I think maybe its just not able to really step forward for the lyrical solos, but they sound just great if pushed back a bit. In general things sounded better the more room he'd dial in to the mix.

Its a bit of a relief to be honest, since it was primarily the winds that caught my ear in the first place I don't feel the need to shell out £750 and make room for 750gb just to have them. If they ever released a slimmed down version with a sensible number of mic options (3 or 4 tops), it might convince me, but it seems too bloated for casual interest.

[Linos]

In the first overview-video, the few bits of the woodwinds sounded fantastic to my ears. In this woodwind-overview, they only sound ok to good. I have not heard anything where I would say that it would be my go-to instrument. And the woodwinds had been a key-point that had kept me interested in this library. Thus, my interest has gradually sunk from ‘I will probably buy this library’ after the announcement, to ‘I almost certainly won’t buy’ after the woodwinds-walkthrough.

If I were starting out today, I would pick this package as entry point into orchestral samples. With the libraries I already have, however, I don’t see the BBC SO library adding anything new. When completed, the Cinematic Studio Series have more appeal for me as an all-in-one package.

Trying to cut through the marketing-talk and hype, what sets this library apart from the rest is this, in my opinion: 20 mic positions, BBC SO branding, affordable price for a resource friendly, complete orchestral package. Nothing else is new. I don’t know if anybody really needs 20 mic positions. Certainly not me. The BBC SO branding is irrelevant, as all you hear in the end is a mockup. The sound counts, not the name of the players. And I am not hearing anything that could not be achieved with the same or better quality with other libraries. That leaves us with the last point.
With that, I see two specific use-cases for the BBC SO-library: 1) as a starting point and first complete sampled orchestra package. 2) As a resource-friendly all-in-one orchestral template, if your computer is not the most powerful, or for usage on a laptop or similar. Both don’t apply to me.

Given these specific target groups, I’m surprised how many people on Vi-C pre-ordered. That’s my take on an assessment of the library at this point.

[kony]

I thought the jury was still out on whether it will be resource-friendly?

I'm in the same boat with continuing down the Cinematic Studio Series path, notwithstanding all the other orchestral libraries I already own makes this library seem a tad superfluous.

[Scoredog]

I'm on the fence, the contrabass Tuba was warm and fat, I thought the low end instruments in general sounded quite good (the whole thing sounds good but especially the low end). I A/B'd against my other libs and BBC won in that area. There are lots of unexpected instruments like the contrabassoon, bass clarinet, contrabass tuba, full woodwind sections besides just the singular woodwinds, first chairs in strings...etc. The many mic positions are an asset or a curse depending on how you like to work (normally I don't like a ton but I was hearing interesting detail in the walk throughs). All of this makes the library a bargain, especially if one does not have a lot of this stuff already which of course many of us do.

The one orchestra thing I find to be a turnoff. When I started making custom libraries yrs ago with TJ, Marten, Troels, Andrew K (even Andy Blaney did some editing) and the like there was a joy in creating something that no one else had and even though those libraries are now antiquated they don't sound like everyone else because just simply, they are different (so i still use them mostly because of that and a few secret articulations). To have a homogenous melting pot orchestra is to me the antithesis of being a creative modern musician. If SF could open up the architecture and allow 3rd parties in to create content or abuse their content with maybe even have a commission based selling of 3rd partiy products or roll your own, then it might open it up to being less homogenous. In the end though it is really can a library pull off what you hear in your head or inspire you and that is the bottom line.

[Jack Weaver]

On the fence, too.

I like a lot of the strings. The Vln1 section is terrible, especially the legato. Tone and note linking is distasteful to me. On the other hand, I really like the Vln 2's section. I love the section leaders for Vln1, Vln2, VA, VC. I also like the VA and VC sections. DB's overall are quite unexciting compared to other Spitfire libs.

Brass is kinda OK but all sections are pretty much duplicated (and occasionally exceeded) throughout my sample collection.

I enjoyed the flute, clarinet, and oboe generally. The rest were serviceable.

Percussion seems like an afterthought. Why did they even bother.
I hope they offer the sections individually in the future.

.

[Tanuj Tiku]

It is hard to tell with focused section videos because in general writing scenarios, woodwinds are supporting the composition, adding colour etc. This library is not designed to create wonderful woodwind solos.

So, once we start thinking about it from that perspective, it will work much better - my guess. As is standard with many libraries. This is why they sound good in the demos but not so good when exposed.

However, I don't know why all the videos start with that horrible 'all in one' patch. It is just uninspiring, to me. I think the patches are probably better than that, once skillfully programmed. I think Paul can do much better on the keyboard (just a bit more musical, not in terms of performance only). I know, it is probably more realistic to showcase just any odd noodling. But, hey, we are musicians - it is about emotions and possibilities.

One thing is clear - This is a new sound, a new aesthetic but there is not much innovation in the manner discussed many times here and elsewhere. Fine with me. It is a standard orchestral library which has a somewhat, 'Classic' sound. This is a welcome change but I am not sure this will land in the mock-up hall of fame in terms of programming and realism.

Like I have said before, smaller companies like Performance samples are doing better in this area. Though, better can be troublesome as well at times because even those new techniques are problematic. It is all a compromise at the end of the day but, we select the best acceptable compromise in a given situation.

As for mic positions - Well, I am not even sure anymore what these are for. If you have a film paying for an Atmos mix and you have the budget to take all that time to mix all these mics, you would definitely have a budget to record a small section, at the very least. You can mic it all up at the recording for Atmos etc. An Atmos mix can be created from much less mic sections. It is nice to have - but probably a nightmare to compose with all of it set-up and manage everything.

I have been playing with surround a little bit - my room is up to very high spec for surround and it does sound very nice but I don't know - I want those samples to sing! But, they won't! Atmos is secondary.

So much of the videos is focused on mic positions and the blooming sound - We want more emotion and performance - not mic positions!

I think, Spitfire sometimes gets too much criticism recently. Nobody likes marketing....

Here is Fleetwood Mac - Dreams (Original)



And here is the 2004 remaster



Listen to them level matched - as much as you can.

It is astonishing that they released this in 1977 - with the mics, converters and techniques from back then (it was all great!). We have much better technology today, but often results are not as good. The new master sounds nice, louder, more bottom end and more focus but it is made from the same recordings.

[Lawrence]

“So much of the videos is focused on mic positions and the blooming sound - We want more emotion and performance - not mic positions! “

I agree with you about mic positions, Tanuj, but “performance” can be tricky. Take 8Dio’s approach with their “arcs”. Suddenly, you have every note fading in, blooming and dying out. Useful for some things, of less use overall.

[NoamL]

Especially after Luke's demo, the main selling point of the library for me is that it all sounds so TOGETHER. It really is an orchestra-in-a-room with no compromises to that aspect of the sound.

The issue is, to get the most out of this library and justify its cost, I think you really have to use it as your main or only sound. I still just can't see myself doing that. I'll get frustrated with the string legatos or the attitude of the brass shorts, and out comes CS2 or CSB, and then I''ll have mooted the main reason to use the library in the first place.

[Geoff Grace]

I clicked on the video below just now and realized that it displays the words, "PHONY ORCH," at the 22 second mark:



It reminded me that, yes, all sampled orchestras are indeed phony. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that's not the message Spitfire intended to drive home.

Best,

Geoff

[Tanuj Tiku]

Larry - Agreed about performance. But, what I was trying to convey was, a new direction and true innovation in sampling. Something on the lines of samplemodeling. This is more of the same, in many ways.

And this is not a criticism of Spitfire as such. It seems to me that many developers have hit some kind of road block. Research may be on going. I am always hoping for a company that does more scientific research and develops very innovative tools.

I am not really interested in beautiful looking GUI (functional, yes!) or 20 mic positions, the gift wrapping etc. Granted these are all important but I am really talking about new thinking.

Spitfire is already behind in legato programming and few other things. So, I hope that with their cash flow that some truly 'next generation' scientific exploration will take place. UK has a mass of talent in audio research. I studied there and I can tell you that there are some brilliant programs over there. I am hoping that they will set up some kind of R&D division.

As for cost - it is really a cheap library (relatively speaking), even at full price.

I think most libraries that are good are competitively priced. For professionals, this is a somewhat easier decision. For people who are saving up, there are already some fantastic libraries out there. I mean, isn't CSS a strings killer in many ways? When I first heard it, I immediately recommended my assistant to stop thinking of Berlin strings and just get CSS. I mean, for the price it is really dirt cheap.

Most of these libraries are cheaper than an iPhone!

[kony]

It looks like Spitfire are too focused on branding and mass market appeal - and shareholders - to be concerned about innovation. Spending money on R&D won't get much traction if there's no imminent ROI - which there wouldn't be. It would be great if they could focus on R&D though as they certainly have the resources.

[Lawrence]

@Tanuj-I agree on all fronts, especially about pushing the expressive side of VI production via new technologies.

I’ve become tiresome about it, but I just can’t keep my hands off the SampleModeling Trumpet. It’s the most expressive instrument I own.

[Pablo Crespo]

I think Cinematic series are more of a sweet spot in terms of legato (with rebowed), mics, quality control and less hype. I will wait to hear the woodwinds to make a decision, because I think that will be a better orchestra as a whole

[FriFlo]

I clicked on the video below just now and realized that it displays the words, "PHONY ORCH," at the 22 second mark:



It reminded me that, yes, all sampled orchestras are indeed phony. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that's not the message Spitfire intended to drive home.

Best,

Geoff

Oh my ... I think I had to throw up in my mouth just a little bit watching that video! :-) Is it just me or do they pretend to be something else than a successful company selling you products for coin? But they present themselves as rather a social people who want to help you out. That is indeed pretty phony! Good catch ...

When I bought their Albion with all of the prerecorded FX, I asked, if they would share the sheet music of the recording session, as I always want to learn about how these things are written. Well, they did not want me to learn with that request ...

[riffwraith]

It looks like Spitfire are too focused on branding and mass market appeal - and shareholders - to be concerned about innovation. Spending money on R&D won't get much traction if there's no imminent ROI - which there wouldn't be. It would be great if they could focus on R&D though as they certainly have the resources.

Does SFA actually have shareholders? I thought P&C owned the co. outright.

[stonzthro]

(edited to stop a flame war)

Looks like a great product! I like Spitfire and other developers and hope they can innovate in the future.