I don't believe that Hollywood Strings sounds better. It sounds different, but not necessarily better. However, there are things missing from the VSL range of String sounds that i feel I need.

FWIW I don't know of any bad sounding string libraries. None of them sound like a string section though. What differentiates them for me is the controllability of articulation and flexibility of use. I don't doubt that HS has some flexibility (although in many ways less than VSL) but PLAY is nothing when compared with VE Pro, and has a long way to go even when compared with version 1 of the VI player itself. I need VSL to come up with something revolutionary, not just a re-hash of other sample player techniques that have been around for a while.

DG

 The difference between EW and VSL, is that the Eastwest libaries sound nice, but VSL sounds real - that is the difference. And if the Play engine was anywhere near as good as VI Pro, I may even consider buying Hollywood strings, but the huge limitation of articulation control in Play still makes it a no for me.

In response to the suggestion that I shouldn't debate other products here, well it's just my intention to be honest about my opinions and help to push things forward by looking at how VSL can keep up, and stay ahead. I agree that the VI Pro interface is very advanced and helpful.

In response to the question about how the legato is more controllable in HS, it's simply that key velocity controls the speed of the portmento effect, so you have many gradations of slide rather than just 2. Also, you have separate control over many levels of vibrato, and many more round robins and dynamic layers.

Of course there's room for many different companies with different sounds, and I do like many aspects to VI and VIP. I just think HS has moved the technology further forward than VSL at the moment, by exploiting the potential of new fast SSDs and the large RAM now available.I think it's a fair point to mention this and hope that VSL have a new generation of amazing libraries around the corner.

Also, yes I admit that I just said HS sounds better as an assertion. I honestly thought that the difference in sound was enough for that to be beyond question, but I can see how in some ways and for some uses VI strings are still better, so fair enough that was overstated.

In response to DG's point about revolutions and evolutions, yes it would be great if a real revolution came along. I think this needs to build on the techniques of Sample Modeling's brass intruments, where individual components of sound are sampled and separated, and then the performance is put back in through modeling.  I would like to see a virtual orchestra where individual real players have their performance styles captured, and the library is built up through playback of multiple modeled performances, using 'look-ahead' software to find the right articulations based on score directions and markings.

But anyway. In the short term I'll keep layering a few players from the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra with VI and HS, which gets a great better-than-real sound :)

I agree that there needs to be more vibrato control, as none of the VI is really complete in this feature.

VSL has plenty of alternative samples. You just have to know where and how to use them.

There are reasons for needing SSD though:

1. Using multiple mike positions, where you are effectively playing the same sample in more than one recording at the same time. Obviously without SSD you would need multiple drives.
2. Where the sample start is changed dramatically through scripting, so that the pre-load is virtually nonexistent. In this case the fix is a longer pre-load.

 I think that HS sounds nice, but not better than any of the competition. I've only heard the demos, and whilst some of them sound musical, they sound like a keyboard player rather than a string section. Also I find them rather out of tune (even more so than LASS).

I like the idea of this, but so far there has been no proof that section building from individual players works. It may be that what's lost could be more than made up for by the random element, but the only example that I know of trying to do this (Audio Impressions) sounds pretty horrible to me.

I think that this will be the better way for a very long time.

DG

I haven't been paying much attention to EW lately so maybe things have changed but what I've never been able to understand about EW is why they insist upon recording samples with their own built in ambience.  Even the close mic position has too much ambience.  I like the dry samples offered by VSL which allows me to create a sonic world of my own.  Due to the ambience EW products have very limited uses.  If all you do are big Hollywood scores, so be it, but I like the flexibility that VSL's samples offer.  I think it's been about a year now but somebody on this forum once arrogantly demanded that VSL record a second set of samples with ambience like EW insisting that ambience was the holy grail missing in authentic sounding sampled orchestrations.  I could have sworn that guy was a troll sent by EW.  Why would VSL make the same mistake EW did?

dagmarpiano, have you checked out the Dimension Brass yet?  I'm quite certain that VSL is working on a string version with the same technology.  If the strings are as good as the brass then Dimension Strings coupled with MIR will most likely blow Hollywood Strings away. 

If hollywood offered the amount of articulations as Vienna, and VIenna recorded their samples @ Eastwest ....and if Hollywood used the Vienna Instrument Pro system........then one would have the best library ever....

SvK

One of the greatest things about Vienna is the very fact that it is not "Hollywood".  One can do so much more with it in so many different styles, compared to the orchestral offerings of the "noble competition".  From former experience (years ago) as an orchestral musician, to me, VSL, more than any other library sounds the closest to a real symphony.

+1 to DG's comments.  Pre-panning is a major problem when one is needing to use a wide variety of types and sizes of ensembles - ensembles that often require significantly different instrument placement.

 The demos of Hollywood Strings are a turnoff instantly to me.  The sound is not as good as the Appassionata right up front.  

But also the interface of Vienna Ensemble has become essential to me.  I hate having to use something else that is inevitably less elegant.

And the fact that all the VSL strings in general are not one library, but a whole combination of libraries that are diffferent and have been amassed over a long time - the Solo Strings, Chamber Strings, Orchestral Strings, Appassionata Strings - it is a huge variety of sound you don't get elsewhere.  And  Dimension Strings are probably the next step...

wow that's amazing news. yes I can see how much more could be made of the existing material with modeling and manipulation.

exciting times!

after reading all these responses I've modified my opinion now. I'm starting to think that the quality of the HS sound is in some ways a slight cheat - in that , it sounds great out of the box, without much work, but then, with VSL you can do a lot more, it just takes more work and knowledge. I have to admit, I've always felt too in a rush to properly look under the surface, beyond creating a few fairly straightforward custom patches in VI Pro.

Also, while HS does fill a real gap, creating a rich, expensive, lush American sound, if you were being unkind you could also say that the sound is a bit distant, unfocused, too chorusy, rich and fruity with its slightly out of tune moments.

Personally though, I'm very happy to have both!

I would also like for VSL to add the ability to increase vibrato on the fly like HS.  That is one nice feature that EW did.  Sadly, even with the update, I cannot use this library much.  It's just not working well for me.  VSL just works.  And at the end of the day, isn't that what we pay for?  

p.s. LASS works beautifully in tandem with VSL strings.