The Sound Board

LOL! So, if I don't get that blond chick by drinking that brand of beer, as suggested in the commercial, I can file a lawsuit? Ha, I wish, the world would work like that! :-)

FriFlo wrote:LOL! So, if I don't get that blond chick by drinking that brand of beer, as suggested in the commercial, I can file a lawsuit? Ha, I wish, the world would work like that! :-)

Actually, in the UK ads have been pulled for not much more than that. If you make a claim, you have to be able to prove it. That's one reason that they never compare their product to another one by name and when they make claims they have to show the sample set and results on screen.

Daryl, at first, I honestly thought that your comment about ‘false advertising’ was entered jokingly, but … you seem to be serious about it. And I really don’t get it.

The SSO isn’t a symphonic orchestra, yes. Quite right. But, even if percussion were included, it still wouldn’t be one, it seems to me. It is a collection of samples.

Spitfire needs no more to be reprimanded for false advertising, I believe, than every other developer who names his/her product based on what was sampled (or modelled) rather than on what it actually is.
EWQL Pianos isn’t a collection of pianos, Cinebrass is not brass, the Bohemian is not a violin and neither is the SM Violin, the Chocolate Audio Concert Harp is not a harp, the Fluffly Clarinet not a clarinet, Berlin Strings are not strings, the PremierSoundfactory bass is not a bass, Scarbee’s Rhodes is not a Rhodes, VSL Woodwinds are not woodwinds, … anyway, you get my drift, I suppose.

(A rare exception is Mixosaurus which carries the tag ‘expert virtual drums’ as part of its logo.)

_

Oh come on, Piet. If you buy a small box of a sample library with the words "grand piano" on it, good luck with the court case where you argue its not an actual real 8x5 foot concert grand squeezed into that dinky little box. However, if you buy a box with the word "harp" on it, and instead get recordings of a grand piano, you have an infinitely greater chance of success.

I'm definitely with Daryl on this - it's a ridiculous name, because it doesn't contain the recordings of a Symphony Orchestra, instead only 3/4 of one.

Personally I'm looking forward to the name contortions Spitifre will come up with when they release the next version - with percussion.

Well, I never suggested it was actionable or should be. I am just saying that it is poor form on Spitfire's part.

'Les trahisons des samples (Ceci n'est pas une orchestre).' - René De Ridder

I quite like the name Guy suggested: Spitfires three quarter of a Symphony Orchestra.

Well, excuse me, but I remain of the opinion that finding fault with Spitfire for ommitting the percussion section in a collection of samples that is sold under the name ‘Symphonic Orchestra’, is a bit silly.

The impotence of this particular collection of samples, with regard to simulating all that a ‘symphony orchestra’ can be, has many reasons and explanations — the absence of percussion being, in my view, a far less determining one than, for example, the simple fact that … samples are samples. In other words, if this product doesn’t quite live up to the potential and/or expectation its name suggests, I would think that there are plenty of other arguments — just as valid as there being no percussion — why that is the case.
Put even more simply: EastWest’s orchestra, even if it has the kitchen sink included, is no more an accurate approximation — let alone, a legally accurate one — of a real orchestra than Spitfire’s is.

_

About false advertising, as stated on the relevant SA product page :
"SSO is designed as a single, pro-level orchestral solution containing all three major families of the orchestra (woodwinds, brass, strings)"

Piet De Ridder wrote:Well, excuse me, but I remain of the opinion that finding fault with Spitfire for ommitting the percussion section in a collection of samples that is sold under the name ‘Symphonic Orchestra’, is a bit silly.

The impotence of this particular collection of samples, with regard to simulating all that a ‘symphony orchestra’ can be, has many reasons and explanations — the absence of percussion being, in my view, a far less determining one than, for example, the simple fact that … samples are samples. In other words, if this product doesn’t quite live up to the potential and/or expectation its name suggests, I would think that there are plenty of other arguments — just as valid as there being no percussion — why that is the case.
Put even more simply: EastWest’s orchestra, even if it has the kitchen sink included, is no more an accurate approximation — let alone, a legally accurate one — of a real orchestra than Spitfire’s is.

_

As Guy said, "Oh, come on, Piet!"

OF COURSE samples are a poor substitute for the real thing. But if you are going to sell a sample set that at least somewhat is meant to emulate a real symphony orchestra, (and you may think of them as a totally different beast and not relate it to the real thing when you compose with them, but 98% of the sample buying universe does not) then whether it has all the requisite instruments and sections of the orchestra matters if you are going to name it a Symphony Orchestra.

Just common sense, to me.

Erik wrote:About false advertising, as stated on the relevant SA product page :
"SSO is designed as a single, pro-level orchestral solution containing all three major families of the orchestra (woodwinds, brass, strings)"

Gee, how is that when I was at Boston Conservatory all those years ago, none of my teachers told me that percussion is not a "major family."

Good to know.

You should already have known that one learns something everyday Jay

If we are taking sides here, I'll just say I'm fully in agreement with Piet's assessment and, in addition, this whole thing isn't even an issue for me. Nor do I feel that Spitfire has engaged in "false advertising"...especially when one compares it with some of the examples I've seen elsewhere. I know what is included in the package...it's clear from their posts and their web site, so that's good enough for me. Just my own opinion of course; your opinion may differ.