Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Berlin Woodwinds Legacy vs Revive - Hear the Difference!

tmhuud said:
Yeah, I’m sorry, dynamics are so very important. That’s why I dislike sample libraries. I needed to get a Tom part right for a scene and somehow (don't ask me how?) we ended up with Tom’s from Albion 2? I think and I kept trying to get a nice smooth rise in dynamics. But what was I thinking? I think they were only like two dynamic levels. I don't know what we ended up with but you can never have enough dynamics when you really need them. And no please just raising or lowering the volume is not the same. But you guys both have a great points.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on more sample layers, some of my instruments/articulations that have 3 almost make you jump when the next one kicks in, lol. That's OT and Spitfire in my world.

At this point you'd think 5 dynamic layers (as in AROOF) would be the standard. We have access to 2TB and 4TB drives now that don't need a mortgage, a PCIe 4.0 2TB drive is about $159, so if "drive space" is holding back library makers from doing that, then release a light version for those who will need a little time or an upgrade to get huge drives, and then give the big kahuna to us who will jump at more dynamic layers. I realize this applies to new sample recordings going forward, but let's up the game. I didn't even realize AROOF had 5 (in some, maybe not all) until I saw Blakus do a review on the main library, and he pointed that out. You'd think that Spitfire would have shouted that from the rooftop. Do the sample creators not understand how big of a feature that is? Maybe I'm just not understanding all this, if I'm off the mark, feel free to whack me with a Nerf Bat.
 
PaulieDC said:
At this point you'd think 5 dynamic layers (as in AROOF) would be the standard. We have access to 2TB and 4TB drives now that don't need a mortgage, a PCIe 4.0 2TB drive is about $159, so if "drive space" is holding back library makers from doing that, then release a light version for those who will need a little time or an upgrade to get huge drives, and then give the big kahuna to us who will jump at more dynamic layers. I realize this applies to new sample recordings going forward, but let's up the game. I didn't even realize AROOF had 5 (in some, maybe not all) until I saw Blakus do a review on the main library, and he pointed that out. You'd think that Spitfire would have shouted that from the rooftop. Maybe I'm just not understanding all this, if I'm off the mark, feel free to whack me with a Nerf Bat.
Click to expand...
You've still got to cross those dynamic layers, the more dynamic layers there are the more you have to cross, and crossing is not always tidy, especially with solo instruments.

The main AROOF instruments are mostly five dynamic layers for the sustains, but the scoring selections generally have fewer, usually 3.
 
jbuhler said:
You've still got to cross those dynamic layers, the more dynamic layers there are the more you have to cross, and crossing is not always tidy, especially with solo instruments.

The main AROOF instruments are mostly five dynamic layers for the sustains, but the scoring selections generally have fewer, usually 3.
Click to expand...
I am using spitfire studio brass right now and they have some super hard jumps, for the trombones staccatisimo (CC control instead of velocity) at value 89cc1 and 91 cc1 it sounds like two diffrent patches. So basically there are no crosfades there instead. I have learned to use just the 3-4 dynamic layers static and then use cc11 (expression) to control volume .

The samples sounds good but since there are basically no crossfades one have to work around it.

Blending with Infinite brass which has no crossfade issues is a nice combo
 
Ricgus3 said:
I am using spitfire studio brass right now and they have some super hard jumps, for the trombones staccatisimo (CC control instead of velocity) at value 89cc1 and 91 cc1 it sounds like two diffrent patches. So basically there are no crosfades there instead. I have learned to use just the 3-4 dynamic layers static and then use cc11 (expression) to control volume .
Click to expand...
Crossfades will be most apparent and a problem in longs (and legatos). Yes, I always like more dynamic layers on shorts as it's very hard to get a crossfade to work with them and matching with volume is almost always less than ideal. I have much the same issue you describe here with SSO, where it seems like the figure of shorts I'm trying to write always hits up again the change in timbre that comes along with the difference in dynamic layer.
 
jbuhler said:
have much the same issue you describe here with SSO
Click to expand...
Damn, I was thinking of maybe investing in SSB but if it the same issue as with the spitfire studio serie then it would not fix that. I was thinking that they must have more dynamic layers. Maybe I just pick up the Berlin trombone a la carte then. Infinite is great but the trombone tone is not my favourite to taste so I want something to blend it that sound as “real” as possible
 
Ricgus3 said:
Damn, I was thinking of maybe investing in SSB
Click to expand...
Totally jumpy and all over the place, I consider it personally the absolute worst programming of all the SSO- series. The sound is nice though, but it takes a lot of time and guts to make it sound right. It also lacks heavily on the attacks, and it's impossible to do any (sustain) marcato attacks without layering staccatos underneath.
 
Henu said:
Totally jumpy and all over the place, I consider it personally the absolute worst programming of all the SSO- series. The sound is nice though, but it takes a lot of time and guts to make it sound right. It also lacks heavily on the attacks, and it's impossible to do any (sustain) marcato attacks without layering staccatos underneath.
Click to expand...
Who ever records spitfire's instruments is a god of their field. It's such a shame that the scripting can be hot trash (and planning and implementation of artics).
 
SimonCharlesHanna said:
Who ever records spitfire's instruments is a god of their field. It's such a shame that the scripting can be hot trash (and planning and implementation of artics).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, on the latter, the way they handle things is probably not changing since it’s all done the same way in their new and old instruments. Oh well.
 
SimonCharlesHanna said:
Who ever records spitfire's instruments is a god of their field. It's such a shame that the scripting can be hot trash (and planning and implementation of artics).
Click to expand...
Agreed. I only own an organ from Spitfire but pretty much ever since they started releasing Sable I've thought Spitfire has a serious knack for good tone and good sound. Like you can just bask in the tone of a single note. They and Performance Samples are the two MVPs for me in that department.

jbuhler said:
I only just got the Berlin main woodwinds and have not yet had an opportunity to give them even a cursory play though, much less seat them in an orchestra. The latter will be the real test for me. Is orchestral scoring easier or more difficult than with SSW? Are there compensating improvements in sound over SSW for any new difficulties Berlin Woodwinds introduce? In general I’ll say that this has been a mixed bag with Berlin Strings, which I love, but the main library remains slower to work with than other string libraries I have including many other OT string libraries. We’ll see but I’m looking forward to it.
Click to expand...
I hope you're enjoying the winds. I had the same experience with the strings but it did get better as I learned them. I also wish we had a smoother and warmer close mic option because I find the tree and close mics to be bright and a bit brittle. But the range of expression out of that library is really unmatched, in my opinion. And yes the winds nestle themselves right in with the strings and the rest of the series without much effort
 
Late to the party on this!

For me the Revive legatos are smoother (less bumpy) than legacy but the articulations are not as well balanced in terms of volume (i.e. it sticks out when you change articulation). Legacy definitely has a wider dynamic range.

PaulieDC said:
the legacy English Horn sounds like a tone generator or something
Click to expand...
Yep, the 'mix' (mic perspective) is far to close
 
Rudianos said:
Interesting what is going on with Oboe 1 revive sounds like 3 players or something... ?

I prefer Legacy. Are these the same samples and redone or what? What did they do?
Click to expand...
Other way round for me; I find the higher dynamics of the legacy oboe 1 sounds like multiple players, however the legato of the revive Oboe 1 is laggy
 
Casiquire said:
The Sequel

English Horn 1 Legacy
View attachment BWWLVREH1L.mp3

English Horn 1 Revive. Notice how much better those crossfades are! Also I like the tone of Revive MUCH more, and it sounds like it has a wider dynamic range
View attachment BWWLVREH1R.mp3

Bassoon 1 Legacy
View attachment BWWLVRBSN1L.mp3

Bassoon 1 Revive
View attachment BWWLVRBSN2R.mp3

So overall they both sound great, but Revive is much more flexible because it can do the upfront soloist sound *and* the pushed back ensemble sound *and* there are more instruments and clearly the extra mics add a ton of flexibility. Plus I've also learned to love SINE more than Capsule.

And for anyone interested:

BWWLVRMics.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you soo much for posting the mic layout you used.
 
TintoL said:
Thank you soo much for posting the mic layout you used.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to help! I did it pretty rough and quick so there's no particular reason I went with any specific level, but I believe I used the same mix for all the examples
 
Casiquire said:
I'm glad to help! I did it pretty rough and quick so there's no particular reason I went with any specific level, but I believe I used the same mix for all the examples
Click to expand...
It did help.

I didn't know there was a berlin woodwinds update from about a year ago lol. I updated it and started to compare with legacy which is what I was using. I am glad to hear that the issues I heard with the legato seem to be gone (at least for me). But the room now is more flexible and wetter. You were able to get clarity with not so much soupy reverb.

I wanted to switch to sine because I like that player soo much more than the tiny, small window UI of the capsule box in kontakt. Hate that thing!!

Now I can move to sine completely.

Thanks again.
 
Since this thread has been revived anyway ( 😉 ) I took a second listen to the great examples posted by @Casiquire as well as the original video this thread is about.

I was surprised at how the video makes them sound extremely different, but the examples in the thread sound close to me. In particular, the flute sounds very close between Legacy and Revive in the examples, but the video makes it sound distant and blurry in the Revive version (check out 0:38 in the video).

Why is there such a big discrepancy? I'm guessing mic positions are to blame here along with the fact that the video uses the Kontakt version.
 
QuiteAlright said:
Since this thread has been revived anyway ( 😉 ) I took a second listen to the great examples posted by @Casiquire as well as the original video this thread is about.

I was surprised at how the video makes them sound extremely different, but the examples in the thread sound close to me. In particular, the flute sounds very close between Legacy and Revive in the examples, but the video makes it sound distant and blurry in the Revive version (check out 0:38 in the video).

Why is there such a big discrepancy? I'm guessing mic positions are to blame here along with the fact that the video uses the Kontakt version.
Click to expand...
The difference seems to be mic positions. That's why I was saying at the end of my post that Revive is more flexible than Legacy with regard to mics. Basically Legacy only has two mics, "close" and "far". They're an unknown blend of the multiple mic positions we get with Revive. Legacy loads with a close clear sound, but Revive loads with (if memory serves) just a tree mic which is quite wet. You can see in my screenshot how much i reduced the tree mic volume to get that close sound. You're barely hearing the tree at all in my examples, but I'd bet that you're hearing mostly tree in the video of the original post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom