The Sound Board

I don’t know. I am not buying it because I don’t need it.
But I strongly suspect the following:
1. The more skilled you are with it, the less it’s flaws will be evident. Just opening it, booting a sound up and playing says nothing of value abut it’s potential to sound good.
2. The better the composition and the better the MIDI orchestration, the better it will sound.
3. Like every other sample library on the planet, it’s still just an f’ing sample library.

I think the concept is brilliant, and probably much needed. I think the execution - based solely on demos and walk-throughs - has not hit the mark. Which is too bad, and certainly does not mean they can't bump it up a notch or two, or someone else will.

Especially odd - to me - because this is exactly the kind of thing I'd love to have at my fingertips. You'd think I'd cut them a little more slack.

Perhaps we simply are not there yet in terms of tech? I find that difficult to fathom.

My wallet is safe enough for now<G> (well, there is that BH library sitting in my wish list - it'll probably sit there for another year<G>)

Very good points Jason, Jay, and Bill. The concept fills a gap in the sample market, but the execution is probably just not good enough. I feel they aimed at a largest possible market, and for that cut the quality here and there. It had a lot of potential, but it doesn't seem to really deliver. On with the piecemeal approach then.

Warts and all, I still remain content with my purchase. My own ‘discomfort’ is not the library itself, rather the Spitfire player...I just don’t like it yet, even after improvements have been made. I do understand why they chose to move in that direction, but at this stage, it still seems like a work in progress....as is the library in some instances. But the library does have its good points as well. Just my opinion of course.

After quite some intensive use I am pleased with the library. I gave my initial thoughts already in an earlier post and I stand by them, but as I posted on the other forum as well is that this library shines so much better when you are making good and realistic orchestrations. Due to the instruments working and blending so well together it really works for me. Where for example some of the strings sound a bit "mwehh...." and feeling that I lack dynamic layers, it then works again good when it is placed in a full orchestration as it just blends so nicely.
With the use of cc1 and cc11 and for the winds and strings also the vibrato control, it gives a lot. The brass is a big downer and it needs much more tweaking to make that sound good.

But there are a lot of things that can be improved though, both on the sampler (a lot of "grrrrrr" moments there) and the sampling.

Now the dust has settled - and seems to have settled rather quickly, given the panache with which Spitfire introduced the library and their plans to use it as a vehicle for community sharing and learning - are others using it apart from playz and Jaap? What are your impressions? Mostly happy, or disapointed?

I am considering it as a replacement for my VSL Special Edition. It served me well to fill out the gaps. But I am not happy with the timbre of its brass and percussion anymore. Is BBC SO a good choice to fill in the background? The quality of the recordings suggest so. It's about as comprehensive a package as VSL SE 1, so I hope it can serve the same role. Only with a sound that I like a lot better.

Linos, you may be interested in this - not all BBCSO, but a significant chunk for brs/winds -

Thanks Noam. A similar usecase to what I have in mind.

Did you end up buying BBC SO?

NoamL wrote: ↑Apr 10, 2020 8:06 pm Linos, you may be interested in this - not all BBCSO, but a significant chunk for brs/winds -

Pretty darn good I'd say! Fabulous score, that.

Are there really only two users of BBC SO on this board who are willing to share their impressions? I would have thought that Spitfire sold large quantities of the library.

I still think the recordings in this library sound outstandingly good. I like the sonic qualities. The question that remains is, apart from the problems with the player, how useable is this library?

(1) A few too many reports of things not yet being 100% solid and reliable on the software side, (2) certain sections of the orchestra apparently not having received all the lovingly nursing and attention they ought to have been given, plus (3) on my side, an old computer the limitations of which become more evident by the day, are the chief reasons why I haven't purchased BBC SO.
And I must also confess that, while having heard several moments that sound pretty good, I haven't really heard anything yet that blows me away and convinces me that this library raises the bar to a "I *must* have this"-level.

_

Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2020 5:05 am I haven't really heard anything yet that blows me away and convinces me that this library raises the bar to a "I *must* have this"-level.

Agree. I have heard some very nice mockups created with this library (from Andy Blaney of course, Luke Olney, and Mattia Chiappa for instance). None of them were on a level where I would have thought: I know no other library that could have done this.

However, I'm wondering whether BBC SO could make a lot of sense as a replacement for VSL Special Edition 1. I'm relying quite a bit on VSL SE, and have grown tired of its timbral qualities. No matter how I mix them, the dry recordings sound never quite right in my mockups (especially the brass and percussion), even if used for background tasks only. The BBC SO recordings sound natural and with an aesthetic that I like.

I'm trying to evaluate how it would work for the task that I have conscribed VSL SE to: covering background parts of my orchestra in a way that sounds natural, and doesn't draw attention to itself. I just need the instruments to sound organic for supportive parts. For the exposed parts I have other tools I am reaching for. BBC SO caught my ear with the sonic quality of the recordings, the natural depth (I haven't heard any other samples that have quite that depth), and the aesthetic of the recordings that, at least for some of the many mic options, goes towards 'classical', rather than heavy romantic film music like most other libraries*.

Would a BBC SO orchestral tutti sound more organic than a VSL SE one? I suspect it would, and that's what is drawing me to this library. The question is, do its shortcomings make it frustrating to use even for the only moderately demanding background parts I have in mind for it. That's difficult to find out as, unfortunately, it is not possible to test a few patches before buying the whole thing.



*That the rest of the concept, aka the decisions what they sampled (from articulations to dynamics and number of dynamic layers), the editing and programming, seems to be undeniably Spitfirean, i. e. purely tv/film music oriented, doesn't matter as much for the background tasks I would use the library for.

Linos wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2020 6:35 am(...) Would a BBC SO orchestral tutti sound more organic than a VSL SE one? (...)

Unquestionably, Linos. If the choice is between VSL SE or BBC SO, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second and embrace the latter.

I know there’s only very few people who agree with this, but I’m firmly, strongly and unshakeably of the opinion that it is impossible to make good-sounding mock-ups with nothing but VSL libraries. Can’t be done. Hasn’t been done yet, and is unlikely to be done in the foreseeable future.

Even the best work by the masters of VSL — Bacal and Bacos are two names that spring to mind — can’t avoid that flat, dead, generic and sterile sound which, to my ears, is so typical of VSL libraries.

I have always felt (and my Synchron purchases affirm the feeling) that, in order to begin sounding acceptable and musical, VSL material has to rely far too much on programming and production. And you can always hear that, even in the best mock-ups made with these libraries. There’s always that all-pervasive “this was meticulously key-switched, carefully automated, painstakingly filtered, diligently balanced and scrupulously spatialized”-artificiality in anything that’s done with VSL exclusively.
(I’m not suggesting that there’s no good use for isolated VSL instruments or sections, certainly not, I’m only saying that with nothing but VSL libraries, a really good-sounding mock-up that has something approaching a ‘natural sound’ and a pleasant degree of believability, is completely, utterly and totally out of the question.)

Spitfire’s stuff on the other hand — at least the stuff that was honoured with some quality control — sounds the best it can possibly sound straight out of the box. No processing needed. In fact: processing best avoided. (The mistake way too many users make is in thinking they can, or need to improve that sound, and so they bring in EQ’s, saturators, tape emulators, addditional reverbs, panners … only to end up with something that sounds infinitely worse than the default sound of these libraries.)

So yes, not a shred of doubt about it, as far as I’m concerned: the BBC SO at its best sounds immeasurably superior to VSL at its best.

_

The only thing I'd add to the above is that what applies to Spitfire sort of holds true for many of the other developers too. We could likely name half a dozen big names and a couple of dozen more smaller ones that all have an essentially great out of the box sound, each with their own foibles, pros and cons, but all making life much more effortless than VSL on its own. (That said I do like a lot of VSL in particular places as Piet suggests too).

Incidentally, having just bought Sample Modelling's brass section, I feel similarly about that as I do to VSL - not quite the same, but in terms of the sheer work to get passable ensemble sounds its shares some DNA. I doubt it will replace CineBrass, Modern Scoring Brass or ProjectSAM as my main ensemble meat, and they're hardly the warmest solo performances either, but for some solo uses will be stellar.

Linos, are there other libraries you are using at the moment aside from VSL?

Thanks a lot Piet. You strongly confirm my conclusion that the in terms of the raw recordings, Spitfire BBC SO samples sound superior to VSL SE. The question that remains is there enough content (looking at you, dynamic layers...), and has the quality control been thorough enough to make it suitable for background use? playz and Jaaps feedbacks suggest that it should work, despite the problems and flaws.

Guy, for strings I mostly use Cinematic Studio Strings or Light & Sound Chamber strings, depending on the music I want to mock up. I also have Spitfire Chamber Strings, but use them rarely. I mainly use the short articulations from SCS only (reason see below). For brass and percussion I have Hollywood Brass and Percussion Diamond. When that doesn't work, I fall back to VSL SE. Unfortunately about half of the time the timbre of the Hollywood libraries is not what I am looking for. For woodwinds I use VSL. it's the section of the orchestra I have the least reservations about using VSL.


***********************************
Off topic

About Spitfire sounding best out of the box, I generally agree. With the one exception being Spitfire Chamber Strings. The long notes have a nasal, dark timbre that I find unattractive. I've read the argument that that's just how small section sizes sound. I don't buy it. The small string groups that I have heard play live - and I have heard a few - never sounded like this. Light & Sound Chamber Strings, which have only slightly larger section sizes for the violins and the same for viola and celli (6-5-3-3-1 vs 4-3-3-3-3) don't sund like this. Just play one long note with L&S and then with Sable and you'll hear it immediately.
I have the suspicion that this nasal timbre is a product of small sections playing in a hall that is too large for them. Not something you hear live very often, so I don't know if that's really the reason. You can't get rid of that sound, but feel that Sable's longs benefit from judiciously applied processing to alleviate the problem a little. Clariphonic comes to mind, or a bit of eq. Certainly not tape emulation and the likes though. And I also agree that if overdone (which it is very quickly), or not done with utmost care and knowledge, it will sound worse than the untreated signal.

Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2020 8:06 am

Linos wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2020 6:35 am(...) Would a BBC SO orchestral tutti sound more organic than a VSL SE one? (...)

Unquestionably, Linos. If the choice is between VSL SE or BBC SO, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second and embrace the latter.

I know there’s only very few people who agree with this, but I’m firmly, strongly and unshakeably of the opinion that it is impossible to make good-sounding mock-ups with nothing but VSL libraries. Can’t be done. Hasn’t been done yet, and is unlikely to be done in the foreseeable future.

Even the best work by the masters of VSL — Bacal and Bacos are two names that spring to mind — can’t avoid that flat, dead, generic and sterile sound which, to my ears, is so typical of VSL libraries.

I have always felt (and my Synchron purchases affirm the feeling) that, in order to begin sounding acceptable and musical, VSL material has to rely far too much on programming and production. And you can always hear that, even in the best mock-ups made with these libraries. There’s always that all-pervasive “this was meticulously key-switched, carefully automated, painstakingly filtered, diligently balanced and scrupulously spatialized”-artificiality in anything that’s done with VSL exclusively.
(I’m not suggesting that there’s no good use for isolated VSL instruments or sections, certainly not, I’m only saying that with nothing but VSL libraries, a really good-sounding mock-up that has something approaching a ‘natural sound’ and a pleasant degree of believability, is completely, utterly and totally out of the question.)

Spitfire’s stuff on the other hand — at least the stuff that was honoured with some quality control — sounds the best it can possibly sound straight out of the box. No processing needed. In fact: processing best avoided. (The mistake way too many users make is in thinking they can, or need to improve that sound, and so they bring in EQ’s, saturators, tape emulators, addditional reverbs, panners … only to end up with something that sounds infinitely worse than the default sound of these libraries.)

So yes, not a shred of doubt about it, as far as I’m concerned: the BBC SO at its best sounds immeasurably superior to VSL at its best.

_

I agree with every word of this.

Linos wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2020 9:54 am Thanks a lot Piet. You strongly confirm my conclusion that the in terms of the raw recordings, Spitfire BBC SO samples sound superior to VSL SE. The question that remains is there enough content (looking at you, dynamic layers...), and has the quality control been thorough enough to make it suitable for background use? playz and Jaaps feedbacks suggest that it should work, despite the problems and flaws.

Guy, for strings I mostly use Cinematic Studio Strings or Light & Sound Chamber strings, depending on the music I want to mock up. I also have Spitfire Chamber Strings, but use them rarely. I mainly use the short articulations from SCS only (reason see below). For brass and percussion I have Hollywood Brass and Percussion Diamond. When that doesn't work, I fall back to VSL SE. Unfortunately about half of the time the timbre of the Hollywood libraries is not what I am looking for. For woodwinds I use VSL. it's the section of the orchestra I have the least reservations about using VSL.


***********************************
Off topic

About Spitfire sounding best out of the box, I generally agree. With the one exception being Spitfire Chamber Strings. The long notes have a nasal, dark timbre that I find unattractive. I've read the argument that that's just how small section sizes sound. I don't buy it. The small string groups that I have heard play live - and I have heard a few - never sounded like this. Light & Sound Chamber Strings, which have only slightly larger section sizes for the violins and the same for viola and celli (6-5-3-3-1 vs 4-3-3-3-3) don't sund like this. Just play one long note with L&S and then with Sable and you'll hear it immediately.
I have the suspicion that this nasal timbre is a product of small sections playing in a hall that is too large for them. Not something you hear live very often, so I don't know if that's really the reason. You can't get rid of that sound, but feel that Sable's longs benefit from judiciously applied processing to alleviate the problem a little. Clariphonic comes to mind, or a bit of eq. Certainly not tape emulation and the likes though. And I also agree that if overdone (which it is very quickly), or not done with utmost care and knowledge, it will sound worse than the untreated signal.

I still adore the tone of Sable, despite all the QC issues.

It's a guess because I don't have it, but I think you'd get value out of BBC SO given your other libraries - maybe not so much the strings.

I wasn't going to reply on this since I don't have much that would (I'm assuming) be of value, but I do have the thing, and you're looking for other opinions, so: here I go.

I don't know if I'd say that BBCSO is better, across the board, than VSL - SE even. In the same way that VSL has a 'sterile' quality that's hard to avoid, Spitfire tends toward, and BBCSO especially, certain...to be kind I'll call them quirks. The legato patch 'oomph' at the end of phrases is one of them. I don't know what in their programming makes them do it, but a number of Spitfire legato patches end with a noticeable kind of 'clunk' at the end that's difficult to avoid with mod-wheel automation. And the shorts are all over the place, quality-wise. Pity the fool who would try to mock up something like the audition passagework in Midsummer Night's Dream with those samples. In editing especially the QC is a bit lax, but also in tone color, particularly in the brass where there's a lot that's not terribly great.

To get on that: yeah, the brass isn't great. VSL's brass isn't exactly knocking it out of the park either, but BBCSO's brass is especially meh. The horn players particularly sound like they just got back from playing a bumper session of Schumann - the tone and performance is not terribly pleasant. It also feels like the bulk of the samples recorded are just kind of 'in the middle' - the soft samples aren't terribly glowing, the 'loud' patches (in quotation marks there because most of the 'forte' samples for things which aren't sfz or fp or the like never quite reach a forte) have very little oomph to them. The brass feels like none of the players really cared very much.

The winds are probably the best part of the library, since the recording quality, the room, and the players' performances are all well suited. But still - there's the strange emphasis that the programming gives to the ends of notes, and the synthetic quality of whatever they've grafted into the performance legato patches to make them move faster, that takes something away from the actual performance quality.

Finally, on the much-acclaimed blend: I don't think they blend all that well, either. Or, to be more precise: they blend TOO well. Not to make too much of it, but when you blend 'typical' groups together - something very wheelhouse like Horns, Violas and Clarinets - then there's very little added by the addition of the strings or Clarinets. The 'meh' quality of the horns is hard to get around, with it much easier to get the woodiness of the Clarinets or the rosiny 'yearn' of the violas into the tone from just about any other set of libraries. BBCSO's Horns and Violas together sound like a 'kind-of-louder horn section' while CSS and CSB together sound like...well, like a blend of Horns and Violas. I don't know how to describe it much beyond that the sameness of sound in BBCSO makes blending sections together feel reductive.

All of which is to say: maybe you'd love BBCSO, because lots of people seem to. I have it filed away on a mechanical hard drive now, because it gets no use at all. If I were in your situation, I'd probably stick with VSL's winds, and get CSB instead. My two cents, anyway.

Linos wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2020 9:54 am Thanks a lot Piet. You strongly confirm my conclusion that the in terms of the raw recordings, Spitfire BBC SO samples sound superior to VSL SE. The question that remains is there enough content (looking at you, dynamic layers...), and has the quality control been thorough enough to make it suitable for background use? playz and Jaaps feedbacks suggest that it should work, despite the problems and flaws.

Guy, for strings I mostly use Cinematic Studio Strings or Light & Sound Chamber strings, depending on the music I want to mock up. I also have Spitfire Chamber Strings, but use them rarely. I mainly use the short articulations from SCS only (reason see below). For brass and percussion I have Hollywood Brass and Percussion Diamond. When that doesn't work, I fall back to VSL SE. Unfortunately about half of the time the timbre of the Hollywood libraries is not what I am looking for. For woodwinds I use VSL. it's the section of the orchestra I have the least reservations about using VSL.


***********************************
Off topic

About Spitfire sounding best out of the box, I generally agree. With the one exception being Spitfire Chamber Strings. The long notes have a nasal, dark timbre that I find unattractive. I've read the argument that that's just how small section sizes sound. I don't buy it. The small string groups that I have heard play live - and I have heard a few - never sounded like this. Light & Sound Chamber Strings, which have only slightly larger section sizes for the violins and the same for viola and celli (6-5-3-3-1 vs 4-3-3-3-3) don't sund like this. Just play one long note with L&S and then with Sable and you'll hear it immediately.
I have the suspicion that this nasal timbre is a product of small sections playing in a hall that is too large for them. Not something you hear live very often, so I don't know if that's really the reason. You can't get rid of that sound, but feel that Sable's longs benefit from judiciously applied processing to alleviate the problem a little. Clariphonic comes to mind, or a bit of eq. Certainly not tape emulation and the likes though. And I also agree that if overdone (which it is very quickly), or not done with utmost care and knowledge, it will sound worse than the untreated signal.

Linos, you may want to look into Performance Samples. If you already have your bread and butter libraries for every section of the orchestra then what you may need is more add-on type libraries.

I have it but I’m not one for lengthy replies. To me it’s a beautiful library and has become my go to and main starting point. I don’t have an issue blending it yet. Granted I also never had any of the issues others reported with the player so I’m very fortunate there.

Thank you all for your thoughts, much appreciated!

@bbunker that's though. I'm glad you chimed in. Do you have a short audio example of the little bump at the end of legato phrases? Most commenters agreed that the brass has issues. Is that true only for the horns, or the other instruments as well? What is weird is that in the official brass walkthrough, most patches actually sound fine. Maybe it was a cherrypicked selection only?
What do you make of the percussion? In the walkthrough it sounds very good in my opinion. Much better than the VSL SE percussion, that much is clear.
Special thanks for the heads up about blending various sections. That's news to me. I'll listen to some user demos with specific attention to this.

@Guy thanks. I thought so too. It's user opinions like bbunker's that make me hesitant, though. I really like the recordings, I think they are very well done. So I should get value out of it. On the other hand I know that I can get frustrated with inconsistencies, and if a library can not do what I want it to.

@Tanuj Thanks, that's something to consider. Not Performance Samples specifically (personally I don't like to work with specialty patches too much. I prefer full blown sections). But adding a flagship brass and percussion library instead of BBC SO could be an option.

@IFM Thanks. It's odd that some users say it's a lovely and useful library. And for others it's not something they can get much use out of. If only I knew why that is the case, and in which camp I would belong...

Linos, it’s not at all surprising to me that people have strong disagreements about libraries. After all some of them are foolish enough to prefer European symphony orchestras to American. (Jay ducks for cover)

And aren't we lucky that we can listen to both, European and American orchestras!

What are the options for brass and percussion if I wasn't going for BBC SO? I am specifically looking for libraries with a classical sound.

I know that Cinematic Studio Brass is good. It has that signature dark sound though. Not very classical. Then there's the Sample Modeling Bundle. I fear it has some of the same drawbacks as VSL SE for orchestral use, as it's based on very dry samples too. Cinebrass Core has only one articulation for soloists, which makes it unuseable for me. Together with Cinebrass Core it's expensive. Anything else I should consider for a classical sound?

For percussion I don't even know where to start investigating. I have looked at True Strike 1, as I like Project Sam's sound signature. The lack of round robins is a concern. I've read that Spitfire's Joby Burgess percussion is good.

In the end, if I don't find individual brass and percussion sections with a classical sound signature (or at least not too late romantic film/tv sound) I'll probably take the gamble with BBC SO.

Linos wrote: ↑Apr 13, 2020 4:29 pm(...) I'll probably take the gamble with BBC SO.

Linos, someone made a mock-up of the opening of "The Sacre" with the BBC SO. Might help you with your decision.

(If I were on the fence, this video would have me jump right off it. Although it has to be added that, given the very poor production of this effort, I'm 100% sure the library is capable of much better results than what's delivered here.)




_

Gee Piet. I don't doubt you could do better, but "very poor"??!!!