Woodwinds

[Linos]

What are you all using for orchestral woodwinds these days? There are so many choices, and I am still not confident that I can mockup all the music I want with satisfactory results. I'll share my thoughts on the libraries I own and/or know something about. I'd be grateful if you'd share your thoughts, and perhaps even point me in the direction of a library or two I'm not familiar with.


Spitfire Audio

Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra: Very nice for lyrical writing. The bassoon stands out here. Overall, the woodwinds are a bit hit and miss for me. There are inconsistencies. Also, the large hall limits them to large orchestral pieces. Definitely not a library for chamber music, nor for lighter uptempo pieces.

Spitfire BBC Symphony Orchestra: I often use them in tutti passages. They are not detailed enough for extended solos, nor can they handle truly virtuoso passages. But they are good at providing natural background color and ambience to a mockup.

Orchestral Tools

Berlin Woodwinds Soloists: I have the flute and the oboe. Both are nice sounding and very limited. Good for lyrical solo passages.
They can't do brisk and sprightly. With an asking price of 250€, this library has 8 articulations. And two of them are mapped incorrectly. Portato short and long don't work as intended. Orchestral Tools never fixed this basic error. Stuff like that makes me wary of the company.

Berlin Woodwinds: This is a library I'm always tempted by, but haven't bought yet. Firstly, it is very expensive. Secondly, there are so many versions now, what with Legacy, Revive, Sine... When I was close to buying, I couldn't decide which version to get, as they all seem to have their own peculiarities. The Sine version is out of the question for me. Sine doesn't have the features I need for my workflow. That leaves Legacy and Revive. I don't know if you can still buy Legacy. But it is probably the version I would want. There was a Native Instrument sale where they offered the Kontakt version at 50% off. At 400€ after taxes it was still too expensive for me, given all the other libraries that I already own.


What do you think of Berlin Woodwinds? Do they offer something that the other offers absolutely can't do?

Vienna Symphonic Library

VI Woodwinds: I often use these for orchestral solo passages. It's difficult/impossible for me to get rid of the sound of close recordings, so I rarely use them for tutti writing. Of all the libraries I own, these are the most flexible. Lots of articulations, and they hold up to slow tempos or faster music. Because of the recordings, I find them easier to use for chamber music than for orchestral writing.

Synchron Woodwinds: Less detailed than VI Woodwinds, and I don't like the sound of the demos. I don't see this library as useful to me.

AcousticSamples

VWinds: I have the double reeds and like the library very much. Its uses are similar to VSL VI Woodwinds for me. A very musical library, perhaps a little lacking in convincing sound in some situations. A good choice for chamber music and solo passages. I don't use it much for orchestral writing.

Cinematic Studio Series

Cinematic Studio Woodwinds: It's a nice bread and butter library. The sound is somewhere between chamber music and big orchestra. It's not intimate and soloistic, nor is it an orchestral section player. So I don't use it as much as I thought I would. Still, it's a very nice and consistent library.

Eastwest

Hollywood Woodwinds: These don't have the best reputation. I own them, but on the few occasions I have tried them, I have always liked another library better for the cue. So I never really put the library through its paces.


I would like to see a detailed woodwind library recorded in a nice medium-sized orchestral hall, or equivalent recording studio. One with the amount of articulations of VI Woodwinds, but with a natural ambience. Most libraries don't have nearly enough short articulations for me. Ideally, the close mics would allow this library to be used for chamber music as well. But I would be happy if it could cover all kinds of orchestral music well. While typing this I wonder again if Berlin Woodwinds are at least close to that?

That's it for me. As you can see, most of the libraries are of some use to me. But none of them make me completely happy. I think that pretty much sums up the current state of woodwind sampling.

What's the outlook for you? What woodwinds do you all use? What libraries did I miss?

[Guy Rowland]

I still often plump for VSL out of habit - the close mic thing doesn't really bother me. I sometimes use the Embertone stuff which is really good, but again it's close mic'd. Some of the ProjectSAM legatos are good, especially the flute in Symphobia 2 which is basic but magical.

Often overlooked are the woods from Fluffy Audio. These are recorded with 3 mics in a room with a short tail, so you can get rid of the close mic'd effect easily and add a longer tail to taste. I've often found clarinets a bit disappointing for whatever reason, but I really like this one. Currently on sale to the end of the month.

I've only recently put the CineSamples winds into the template, so I've not used them in anger yet. They seemed pretty good though from my template fumblings with the occasional lumpy moment. They're recorded in Sony. Might be worth trialing Musio to see if you gel with them - free for 30 days IIRC.

[Daryl]

On the rare occasion that i have to do demos I use the SWAM Woods, as they are the easiest and quickest to use, and there is nothing they can't do. However, I can understand that some people wouldn't like the sound, and that the recording studio sound is more important than the musicality or content. As I would always replace samples away, performance is everything to me.

[Tanuj Tiku]

Between CSS, SWAM and now V-winds - there is hardly any situation that cannot be covered suitably for most mock-ups. Different sound perspectives are a different matter and in that line of thinking, you may need multiple libraries because a hardcore programmer may even purchase a library for just a couple of good patches. Anything outside of a couple of libraries is more of a specialist sample library which I usually add when a project demands it but it is very rare.

I have also tried to focus more on live recordings for the past 5 years and so far it has worked out well with various projects. I hope I can continue to work with real musicians so that I don't have to rely too much on samples and it also informs the mock-ups.

[Ashermusic]

No SWAM for me but yes, CSW and V-Winds saxes and brass. And I am only really doing original songs and cues these days, which I don't think of a mock ups since they will be the final version for most of the parts. I also still use and enjoy the Fluffy Audio woodwinds a lot. They are very soulful.

[Linos]

Fluffy Woodwinda sound nice. Another package for lyrical writing as it seems. For short articulations I only see staccato. Not enough for my needs.
Cinesamples is a good idea. I should check them out. I have Cineperc and the solo strings, and both are useful.

The SWAM Woodwinds look good. Similar to VWinds. Very playable, very musical. But soundwise not 100% there. If I didn't have VWinds they would be tempting.

[Guy Rowland]

Fluffy Woodwinda sound nice. Another package for lyrical writing as it seems. For short articulations I only see staccato.

There is also staccato tight for the flute, which is notably shorter and sharper. The clarinet has tight and soft staccato options - here the regular is the most aggressive, tight is shorter and soft is both softer and a little longer.

[ZeeCount]

A mixture of Berlin Woodwinds (both revive and the original), acoustic samples WW, and cinematic studio woodwind. Berlin does a full woodwind section all in situ playing together the best, acoustic samples for highly detailed and expressive stuff, and cinematic when I need WW to just work with minimal effort.

[Linos]

Thank you for pointing that out Guy. It's still on the basic side for short articulations. Four or five variations are the minimum for scherzo-esque music. Most libraries have the very short duration covered with staccatissimo/staccato, and then the sustain. But there are so many variations in between. Ideally, I am looking for staccatissimo, staccato, and three lengths of portato/non legato to fill in the gap.
I do like that there are more than one type of attack to the notes. Most libraries don't have that, and it makes a difference for woodwinds.

@ZeeCount how are Berlin Woodwinds to work with? Are they consistent, or are you constantly working around issues? The fact that you use two versions of the library (Original and Revive) at the same time sounds complicated...

[Thomas Mavian]

I just purchased the SYNCHRON-ized Woodwinds (which have a nice discounted upgrade path from the VI-series).

It has quite a few nice mix presets as well. So if you like the VI maybe this could work for you?

[ZeeCount]

@ZeeCount how are Berlin Woodwinds to work with? Are they consistent, or are you constantly working around issues? The fact that you use two versions of the library (Original and Revive) at the same time sounds complicated...

I've been using Berlin WW for years so I know their quirks by now. It's probably my favorite complete woodwind library for the number of instruments, they way everything blends together in place, and the flexibility of the microphones recorded. The biggest thing that annoys me is articulations aren't fully consistent across all the instruments (Flute 1 has portatos but no marcatos, while Flute 2 has both etc). Not all instruments have repetition samples, not all have doubles etc.

To clarify, I don't use both revive and original at the same time. The original has a more strident in your face tone and only two mics, while revive is more restrained with the full set. If I am using all Berlin libraries I use revive, and if I am blending with other libraries, I tend to use the original. Revive works better as an entire section than the original did.

[Linos]

How do you like the Synchron-ized version Thomas? I prefer the VI player over the Synchron player. And I am not a fan of the Synchron Stage sound. Using dry samples pre-processed with reverb makes no sense to me. The advantage of dry samples is the flexibility you have to add the reverb that you need. The Synchron-ized version takes that flexibility away. Unless you use it without the reverb. But then you can just as well use the VI version and don't need Synchron-ized at all.

That being said, Guy Bacos' demo 'Autumn Portrait' sounds very good. If there is a deep discount on the updgrade maybe I will buy it. At the moment, Synchron-ized Woodwinds cost 290€ new. Owning the full VI library, my upgrade price is 230€. That's one huge incentive not to upgrade right there.

Thank you for the details ZeeCount! The articulation list looks pretty good to me. Two lengths of staccato and portato each is more than most libraries offer. And I do like that they have two players for each section, not just soloists plus section patches.
Inconsistencies across the articulations are annoying. I don't understand why you'd plan a library that way. But I can live with that. I find it more difficult if velocities are inconsistent between articulations, or the timbres don't match. Stuff that makes you tweak midi data forever.
It sounds like you get more flexibility with Revive if it has more mic positions. I'll keep that in mind if another sale comes up.

[Thomas Mavian]

I really, really like the Synchron player. Perhaps not as "deep" as the VI player but the awesome integration with Studio One is worth it. Any. Time. Period.

I got a good price upgrading from the Special Editions and thought the ongoing "Goodbye VI" had better discounts on the Woodwinds but I was wrong, sorry. I bought quite a few of their drums and percussion libraries in VI this month and instantly upgraded to the Synchronized versions quite a bit cheaper than going directly to Synchronized versions.

It's more than reverb on the Synchronized version, each instrument is run through a MIR- created impulse, if you don't want it just disable it. The extra reverb is off in all my instances and going through one of my own reverbs.

That's why I prefer the Synchronized versions to the Synchron versions, you always have the dry samples to fall back to and build whatever room/setting you wish.

Although, the Synchron Elite Strings can get pretty dry as well.

Sorry if I misled you...

[Linos]

All good, Thomas. I appreciate the help! You did not mislead in any way. It's good that the sound of the VI libraries is preserved in the Synchron-ized version. It's basically a port to the new player plus the instrument specific MIR IRs. As I prefer the VI player and don't need the MIR IRs I am in no hurry to upgrade. Eventually I will probably upgrade on a good sale, just for the ongoing support of the Synchron player. I'm not looking forward to rebuild my VI setup with Synchron-ized to keep my template running though.

[scherzo]

What do you think of Berlin Woodwinds? Do they offer something that the other offers absolutely can't do?

'Absolutely' is a strong word, but yes, kinda

I still get good mileage out of Berlin Woodwinds, much for the same reasons as ZeeCount. It's a reasonably detailed collection and it all just blends together very nicely to form a cohesive and fairly convincing ensemble sound in a way that most libraries struggle with. I also really appreciate having the individual players for better flexibility in chord voicings and part writing and such. It's also just good to have options - if a line isn't working with Flute 1, maybe Flute 2 or 3 or some combination can do it.

I have BWW Legacy and Revive and use them together. There's some differences in terms of sound, mics and articulations, but I generally find they can coexist pretty well. I use expression maps for evertyhing and move midi data between instruments (or between differend libraries) all the time - it works for me, but there will always be some tweaking needed to accomodate differences in articulations, dynamics, crossover points etc. I don't mind so much though, but can see why others would be annoyed. Something like Synchron Woodwinds is certainly more consistent and faster to work with in that regard.

I don't think Legacy is available for purchase anymore though (or is it?). Not sure I would be quite as happy with Revive alone - was really disappointed with it at first, although I have warmed up to it over time. It still has some questionable design choices though. Notably the decision to use only two dynamic layers on most patches, meaning you'll spend much of your time at some midway point between two layers, which I think contributes to the blurrier sound. It's not as bad as it sounds, but I wish we had been given three layers - a loud, a medium and a soft - just like in Legacy. But BWW is still often the first I reach for.

That said... I'm hesitant to recommend them in your case, based on what you wrote above, your dislike of Sine, and previous less-than-stellar experiences with OT libraries. It's a pretty pricey thing to gamble on too. But I also can't really think of anything that comes closer to matching what you're looking for (detailed library, medium hall).

And of course, BWW can't do everything. Realistically I often end up mixing and matching depending on what the moment needs and what's going on around it. A fairly typical combination might be something like:
- Piccolo from Spitfire Symphonic Woods
- Flutes from BWW Legacy
- Oboes/EH from BWW Revive
- Clarinets from Synchron Woodwinds
- Bassoons from BWW Revive or Synchron Woodwinds
- Exposed solo parts: BWW Soloists or Synchron-ized Woodwinds
- Runs and nimble parts: Synchron-ized Woodwinds
- In Spitfire-heavy pieces: Spitfire Symphonic Woodwinds

Can write more comments on the others later if I have time.

[Linos]

Wait, what? BWW Revive has only two dynamic layers? So you can either have all the dynamic layers (Legacy) or all mic positions (Revive), but not both? Who dreams up this stuff? That's the sort of inconsistencies that I've come to associate with Orchestral Tools. Why would they do that? It just makes no sense to me. With the libraries that I have, it would probably be a luxury to add Berlin Woodwinds. Though as you write, having two players on each instrument recorded in a medium hall is indeed something no other library provides.

What are your thoughts on Synchron Woodwinds, scherzo?

[scherzo]

image.png (11.76 KiB) Viewed 7017 times

This is what most of the patches for the newly recorded instruments look like, yes. Some have p and ff, some mp and ff, some mf and ff - but yeah, you're stuck with two layers for the most part. A quiet and a loud. There may be exceptions, I haven't checked every instrument and patch. Well, some of the specialty articulations (like trills sfz) have only one layer. Questionable choice, if you ask me.

Do note though that some of the instruments are repurposed from the old Legacy recordings (if I remember correctly: one of the flutes, one of the clarinets and both bassoons). These have the same dynamic layers as the original Legacy patches - typically three or four, I think.

Synchron Woodwinds is a frustrating one for me, because on paper it sounds like it would be perfect. A detailed library with both soloists and ensembles with VSL's commitment to quality control and consistency. And it is all of those things, but somehow the end result just feels kinda... meh okay-ish? I don't think it's a bad library at all, but as with many things VSL, there's just something about the quality of the recordings that I don't quite vibe with. Can't put my finger on what it is. Some of the instruments just don't sound all that nice to my ears (oboes esp.), and it doesn't have that cohesive-ensemble-in-a-room feeling that I get from Berlin (or Spitfire Symphonic Winds for that matter, though that has other issues instead). I don't like the legato very much. There are good things in there though - I quite like the flutes and clarinets, and the shorts and repetitions sound great. I appreciate the consistency between the instruments.

It's always the same story with VSL for me actually. Good sampling depth and consistency, but not always loving the sound. I still use what I have from the Synchron range quite frequently though and when they work, I think they're a joy to work with. But I've kinda resigned myself to mixing and matching from various libraries and developers and trying to play to their respective strengths. I generally think we're pretty well served for strings and brass these days, but I'm still waiting for a really good and comprehensive woodwind package.

This reminds me, Synchron Woodwinds received an update with some new legato patches at some point. I haven't gotten around to actually playing with those, so maybe that changes the equation somewhat.