Whilst the legato demos I've heard on the VSL website are very impressive I must just say that for cinematic grand orchestral realism QLSOplat pro is hard to beat. Out of the box and go it just works. Its all about that natural concert hall acoustic with the instruments in their right places and with the mic options you have the best of both worlds.

Dec 14, 2015. Johnson, the EASTWEST/QUANTUM LEAP SYMPHONIC ORCHESTRA is the most awarded orchestral collection ever, including winning Sound. Bbc World Service Lilliburlero Purcell. 'The huge quantity and variety of articulations with nuanced details, enhanced by the seamless integration with the Vienna Instruments sample player.

Call up 6 unison french horns with six dynamic layers with the surround mic samples - utterly awesome and perfect, no messing, No fx needed, less processor use and more time to score! The whole of VSL is recorded in a dry studio accoustic so you have to work extra hard to get the acoustic space right and believable on top of spending all that time constructing each line so that the phrases sound right ( and wow they do sound great once you've put the time and effort into programming it. Having written it ) Lets no forget that Eastwest's new PLAY sample playback engine is the only thing on the market that will be able to make maximum usage of your available RAM in 64bit. You could make full use of 32 GIGS All other players are stuck in 32bit with and restricted to 3Gig ram Platinum Pro is cheap now ( I ended up forking out £5K for my first copy now you can get it for $1K ) Ohhh and its the only library that works in Surround with a totally natural acoustic in the samples no screwing around! - I just have a new DVD of orchestral classics coming out this month that was recorded in Surround in realtime on three computers using QLSO If its film I think its the best answer. The whole of VSL is recorded in a dry studio accoustic so you have to work extra hard to get the acoustic space right and believable on top of spending all that time constructing each line so that the phrases sound right.I do not think that you have to work hard to get the acoustic space realistic at all, with VSL. In fact The fact that the samples were recorded on the specially built soundstage is a huge advantage because it allows for maximum flexibility.

The New VSL Instrument software is extremely impressive I saw a demo and was blown away by it's intuitive versatility. As for placing the instruments in their appropriate acoustic environment, just visit the VSL forums or check out some of Christian kardeis demos using Altiverb and the Todd AD Sounstage IR's. EW has some very nice stuff in it, but if you don't get the platinum, some of the samples are a bit too wet in Gold XP and below, I have heard some really lush sounding peices with platinum, and Gold for that matter, but when used right, platinum can sound amazing. The drawback is as mentioned, no real portomento and easy slurs, yet. That may change in the future as they devolop thier play software.

Vienna, is fantastic when it comes to performance tools. And their newer releases are starting to add in that sound that was lacking with vienna imo.

Its tough call, you will eventually need to get multiple libraries really, so its really a matter of what you need, EW sounds great out of the box, the sounds just fit together, a real time saver. I've got SE & Appasionata & I use them a bit for demos - they can sound pretty good, but they do require quite alot of work & fine tuning for critical ( upfront ) stuff. The transition sample switching ( for legato / portamento etc ) is great but again you have to tweak it a fair bit - slow stuff is easier to get sounding right than faster lines ( as with all programmed strings I guess) I havent used any of the others so I cant compare but I did an album a few months back & had a 20 piece string section replace the VSL stuff I'd done in preprod - I ended up using the VSL string parts instead of the real ones on one track & it doesnt stand out ( in a good way ). PS I'm in logic too - make sure you have a dedicated drive ( or preferably computer ) for VSL - it is extremely resource hungry. For film scoring work, for a small budget film (with a bigger budget look), which would you recommend more out of: Eastwest / Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra Platinum Edition or Vienna Instruments Vienna Instruments II Special Edition Sample Library?

I am mostly interested in ease of use, as I believe both will provide good sample quality. The East West offering is their top of the line product, the Vienna offering is their bottom of the line (for a full orchestral sample set). The flagship Vienna version is too pricey for me. I am using Logic. Thanks alot for your help narco ps.

If anyone is selling.I am also using Logic (recently from Nuendo) and to be honest, I have the EWQLSO Plat on PC, but have trouble getting any of their libraries to work on an intel mac and Logic 8. It simply DOES NOT show up as a AU instrument - it works as stand alone only. I have tried: • D/L the Content.plist • Made sure it was registered • Tried in Kontakt 2.2 Player (won't load) • Kontakt 3 Sampler (full), error is SAMPLES NOT REGISTERED I am leading toward the SE myself, especially since 1) With great reverb, you can get the BIG sound and 2) There is nothing close to the Legato tools like in SE, and 3) It seems EWQLSO is very old. They updated the player but not the library in a long time and Giga 4 is also due out soon and for MAC too. I too am on the fence between EW platinum and vienna SE bundle (inlcudes SE and SE+).

On the vienna site appasionata strings are listed in the bundle. Does anyone know if this is the full appasionata library or just some samples, and one would still have to purchase appasionata I and II? Have not worked with either EW or Vienna, so learning curve wise which is easier? From comments here i gather EW sounds good right OTB with little tweaking, but we have Bricasti, 480L, TC5000 and others so no problem in that respect if Vienna needs a little verb. The time it would take to learn the product is a factor though.

So between these two, if you had start out with one which would it be? Thank you very much for your time. PT HD, Mac Intel dual core. The EastWest stuff is now only available with their own PLAY front end - this has proven to be near impossible for some users to get to work whilst others have had success. There's a lot of discussion on composer / MT forums about whether the interface is workable or just a bag of bolts; I'd strongly advise doing as much research as possible about their software before spending any cash.

That said, the sounds are fantastic - it can just be hell getting them to work. There are a few threads about this on GS which you can find with a search - here's an ongoing thread at SOS - I've been using the VSL stuff for a few years now and found their 'Vienna Instrument' interface to be pretty much fault free - easy learning curve and a lot of flexibility.

If you go to their forum or customer service I'm sure you'll get quick answers to any questions; they're usually very responsive to queries. I'm leaning toward the Vienna SE bundle, specially after your comment about the PLAY engine, and Vienna Instrument having an easy learnig curve, but will keep reading and look into the thread you mentioned above. Thank you very much reid.

After reading the SOS thread i doubt seriously i'll be going for EW. Thank you for the heads up. I'm on a mac and it seems there are fewer issues with macs, but being in the middle of a major label project i simply can't afford a nightmarish scenario like that. I'm leaning toward the Vienna SE bundle, specially after your comment about the PLAY engine, and Vienna Instrument having an easy learnig curve, but will keep reading and look into the thread you mentioned above. Thank you very much reid. After reading the SOS thread i doubt seriously i'll be going for EW. Thank you for the heads up.

I'm on a mac and it seems there are fewer issues with macs, but being in the middle of a major label project i simply can't afford a nightmarish scenario like that.I'm about to pull the trigger on a vienna instruments library. But am completely split between special edition, and chamber strings. Edition is a bit of everything, but without playing with it in my own music, it's impossible to know if it will work for my style as well as chamber. I feel like if I buy chamber, I'll miss out on the 'bigger' string section sounds for sweeping moments, but I might also in turn miss out on all of those close, warm articulate moments of 'chamber strings' if I go with SE. Trying to hold onto as much cash as possible these days, so 'both' is not an option.

I'm on a PPC G5. I'm about to pull the trigger on a vienna instruments library. But am completely split between special edition, and chamber strings. Edition is a bit of everything, but without playing with it in my own music, it's impossible to know if it will work for my style as well as chamber. I feel like if I buy chamber, I'll miss out on the 'bigger' string section sounds for sweeping moments, but I might also in turn miss out on all of those close, warm articulate moments of 'chamber strings' if I go with SE. Trying to hold onto as much cash as possible these days, so 'both' is not an option. I'm on a PPC G5.the demos they have on the website can probably give you a general idea of what to expect from each package.

At least i hope so, as that's what i went by + other peoples' recommendations. I think the special edition bundle with extended libraries is a good place to start and should cover a pretty wide range of things. After that i'd probably go for the full apassionata libraries. Just a gut feeling. I'll find out soon enough though, soon as i get a quote for the preinstalled glyph i think i'm going for it. I have used both for a while now, and these are my observations - Vienna sounds great for unprocessed, organic raw samples. I am not a fan at all of their interface - the learning curve is steep, it is not conducive in my opinion to playing, it is more so to programming.

I keep having problems with the timing on quantization - the samples almost unilaterally have their main attack well later than the beginning of the note, and even with significant adjusting I can't get most of the articulations to get anywhere near sounding on time when quantized, and the cross-fading is a PITA to try and get decays/attacks to sound natural. However, the samples are super-consistent, and sound really great.

EWQSL Platinum on the other hand plays great right away, the keyswitches are easy as hell to get around, and they sound processed right out of the box. However, I can't get around the feeling that with this library I am merely playing someone else's performance - unless I find an articulation that is exactly what I am looking for, I have to compromise, which with all of the flexibility of Vienna isn't an issue.

Bottom line is - if you are working with pop/rock/non-classical stuff, EWQL Symphonic is the way to go unless you want to spend a lot of time adjusting paramaters and buying expansion packs. If you really want super-tight control over every aspect, Vienna is the way to go. Just be ready to put in your time. I have used both for a while now, and these are my observations - Vienna sounds great for unprocessed, organic raw samples.

I am not a fan at all of their interface - the learning curve is steep, it is not conducive in my opinion to playing, it is more so to programming. I keep having problems with the timing on quantization - the samples almost unilaterally have their main attack well later than the beginning of the note, and even with significant adjusting I can't get most of the articulations to get anywhere near sounding on time when quantized, and the cross-fading is a PITA to try and get decays/attacks to sound natural. However, the samples are super-consistent, and sound really great.

EWQSL Platinum on the other hand plays great right away, the keyswitches are easy as hell to get around, and they sound processed right out of the box. However, I can't get around the feeling that with this library I am merely playing someone else's performance - unless I find an articulation that is exactly what I am looking for, I have to compromise, which with all of the flexibility of Vienna isn't an issue. Bottom line is - if you are working with pop/rock/non-classical stuff, EWQL Symphonic is the way to go unless you want to spend a lot of time adjusting paramaters and buying expansion packs. If you really want super-tight control over every aspect, Vienna is the way to go. Just be ready to put in your time.Strange how everyone's experience differs with the same product.

Feck, were you using the new Vienna Instruments interface, or the old Performance Tool software? I found the Performance Tool to be the most unintuitive piece of crap ever released for music, but the Vienna Instruments interface (which now standard across the entire Vienna range) is the complete opposite - easy to learn, quick to implement and after a day or so, second nature to use whilst composing. If you can turn a mod wheel and press a keyswitch, then the VI interface is a piece of piss to use. I'm interested to find out why you're having to quantise your playing when using Vienna - to my mind that goes against the nature of trying to capture a 'human' performance, with all the nuance of timing and expression demanded by orchestral music, particularly when it comes to articulations; by their very nature each articulation is phrased a certain way, so it's down to pure luck hoping for quantise to place them with the correct timing - I find that kind of thing has to be done purely by hand and ear. I find it hard to get too excited with the EW libs - you're locked into that 'big' movie sound and I found the entire package to be a lot less flexible than Vienna. Still - horses for courses I suppose. U should look at the sonic implants strings.

I think they ar ebetter than the others. But still the eastwest is better sounding than vienna. The vienna legatos sound too ear scrathing to me. Its hard to have a long melody w vienna and make it sound nice. Better than stock stuff but not as good as SI and EW. Thats the reason vienna came up with the appasionata strings.

But i do like the stacc and short strings in vienna. I think there are more threads on this in composer forum.Listened to the demos.

VERY impressed with the legato of the full strings. Legato is hard to get right!

The EastWest stuff is now only available with their own PLAY front end - this has proven to be near impossible for some users to get to work whilst others have had success. There's a lot of discussion on composer / MT forums about whether the interface is workable or just a bag of bolts; I'd strongly advise doing as much research as possible about their software before spending any cash. That said, the sounds are fantastic - it can just be hell getting them to work.

There are a few threads about this on GS which you can find with a search - here's an ongoing thread at SOS - I've been using the VSL stuff for a few years now and found their 'Vienna Instrument' interface to be pretty much fault free - easy learning curve and a lot of flexibility. If you go to their forum or customer service I'm sure you'll get quick answers to any questions; they're usually very responsive to queries.Why didn't I find this thread BEFORE I pulled the trigger on EWQLSO Silver. Based solely on price, glowing reviews, and sample MP3s, I ordered Silver. Installed it, and was really happy with the sounds. But when I tried to load more than three or four instruments, it would crash and ruin the project. Additionally, when rendering, it would have errors ( like missed notes, notes not completing, random pitch bends ). Sweetwater won't accept a return, EW won't authorize a license transfer.

The problem isn't my PC, I just built it this month. Q6600, 4GB RAM, XP optimized for audio, Presonus Firestudio Project ASIO drivers, two 7200RPM HDD. So I just paid $320 ( library + ilok ) for software that a) you can't try before you buy, b) doesn't work, and c) is unreturnable/unresellable. Am I wrong to feel scammed?

Although studying is considered a legitimate scientific nowadays, it is still a very young one. In the early 1970s, a psychologist named J. Guilford was one of the first academic researchers who dared to conduct a study of creativity.

One of Guilford’s most famous studies was the nine-dot puzzle. He challenged research subjects to connect all nine dots using just four straight lines without lifting their pencils from the page. Today many people are familiar with this puzzle and its solution. In the 1970s, however, very few were even aware of its existence, even though it had been around for almost a century. If you have tried solving this puzzle, you can confirm that your first attempts usually involve sketching lines inside the imaginary square. The correct solution, however, requires you to draw lines that extend beyond the area defined by the dots.

At the first stages, all the participants in Guilford’s original study censored their own thinking by limiting the possible solutions to those within the imaginary square (even those who eventually solved the puzzle). Even though they weren’t instructed to restrain themselves from considering such a solution, they were unable to “see” the white space beyond the square’s boundaries. Only 20 percent managed to break out of the illusory confinement and continue their lines in the white space surrounding the dots. The symmetry, the beautiful simplicity of the solution, and the fact that 80 percent of the participants were effectively blinded by the boundaries of the square led Guilford and the readers of his books to leap to the sweeping conclusion that creativity requires you to go outside the box. The idea went viral (via 1970s-era media and word of mouth, of course). Overnight, it seemed that creativity gurus everywhere were teaching managers how to think outside the box.

Consultants in the 1970s and 1980s even used this puzzle when making sales pitches to prospective clients. Because the solution is, in hindsight, deceptively simple, clients tended to admit they should have thought of it themselves. Because they hadn’t, they were obviously not as creative or smart as they had previously thought, and needed to call in creative experts. Or so their consultants would have them believe. The nine-dot puzzle and the phrase “thinking outside the box” became metaphors for creativity and spread like wildfire in, management, psychology, the creative arts, engineering, and personal improvement circles.

There seemed to be no end to the insights that could be offered under the banner of thinking outside the box. Speakers, trainers, training program developers, organizational consultants, and university professors all had much to say about the vast benefits of outside-the-box thinking. It was an appealing and apparently convincing message. Indeed, the concept enjoyed such strong popularity and intuitive appeal that no one bothered to check the facts. No one, that is, before two different research —Clarke Burnham with Kenneth Davis, and Joseph Alba with Robert Weisberg—ran another experiment using the same puzzle but a different research procedure.

Both teams followed the same protocol of dividing participants into two groups. The first group was given the same instructions as the participants in Guilford’s experiment. The second group was told that the solution required the lines to be drawn outside the imaginary box bordering the dot array. In other words, the “trick” was revealed in advance. Would you like to guess the percentage of the participants in the second group who solved the puzzle correctly? Most people assume that 60 percent to 90 percent of the group given the clue would solve the puzzle easily.

In fact, only a meager 25 percent did. What’s more, in statistical terms, this 5 percent improvement over the subjects of Guilford’s original study is insignificant. In other words, the difference could easily be due to what statisticians call sampling error. Let’s look a little more closely at these surprising results. Solving this problem requires people to literally think outside the box. Yet participants’ performance was not improved even when they were given specific instructions to do so.

That is, direct and explicit instructions to think outside the box did not help. That this advice is useless when actually trying to solve a problem involving a real box should effectively have killed off the much widely disseminated—and therefore, much more dangerous—metaphor that out-of-the-box thinking spurs creativity. After all, with one simple yet brilliant experiment, researchers had proven that the conceptual link between thinking outside the box and creativity was a myth. Of course, in real life you won’t find boxes. But you will find numerous situations where a creative breakthrough is staring you in the face. They are much more common than you probably think. *From Copyright 2014 Drew Boyd.

There are many theories of creativity. What the latest experiment proves is not that creativity lacks any association to thinking outside-the-box, but that such is not conditioned by acquired knowledge, i.e., environmental concerns. For example, there have been some theories such as those of Schopenhauer (see his remarks about Genius) and Freud (see his remarks about Sublimation) that propose creativity is something more like a capacity provided by nature rather than one acquired or learned from the environment. Rather than disproving the myth, in other words, the experiment might instead offer evidence that creativity is an ability that one is born with, or born lacking, hence why information from the environment didn't impact the results at all. It's an interesting experiment, but the author's conclusion cannot possibly follow from the results of it. I conduct soft skills training and outbound training for Corporates and individuals. To enhance creativity we motivate the participants to approach the problems from variety of vantage points.

Even repeatedly checking the boundary conditions we are able to come up with variety of ways of solving the problem. This is akin to checking the walls of the box. Looking inside the box for additional information, additional resources also helps. Looking at the box from bird's eye view triggers some different creative solutions. Let us not get tied down to the mechanics but free ourselves to find the solution. I will give an example.

You are playing football with family and friends at a distant ground and someone gets bruised badly. No first aid kit is available. Your priority is to get the person to a hospital ( at a distance of 2 hours ). The wound is bleeding and needs to be kept clean and bacteria free till the person reaches the hospital. Drivers Hp D2360 Windows Xp more. What will you do? Think of a solution. It is quite close to you.

With all due respect, Professor Boyd, your argument is not at all compelling. It seems that you are taking the 'thinking outside the box' (TOTB) metaphor much more literally than it is intended (or, at least, as I and may others infer). Let me point out a few false and/or negligent statements that you make: 1. To refer to TOTB as 'dangerous' is naive, at best. I, personally, have seen the positive, tranformative effects of not only the 9-dots exercise, but also the occasional use of the term to remind individuals after-the-fact about the value of thinking differently. The experiment you refer to doesn't even come close to proving what you suggest that it does.

To use the term 'proving' in an argument like this is laughable. In real life, you absolutely WILL find boxes.that is, if you understand what the term 'box' refers to. Here, the term is not literal; rather, it refers to a mindset, a perspective, a belief, or an assumption. It is precisely how the human mind works. We all think in boxes all the time. The 'sin,' if you will, is not in thinking inside of a box.but the neglect to readily switch from one box to another, nimbly (see Alan Iny's new book, 'Thinking in New Boxes'). A different -- and very healthy, positive, and productive -- way to think about TOTB is to understand that it merely represents an insight that can remind an individual to consciously become aware of limiting assumptions.

And, upon such awareness, to open ones mind and imagination to actively explore new possibilities beyond the obvious or initial answer. If you don't regard this as valid contribution to creativity, then I suggest you consider spending a bit more time outside of that 'box' that you've presented here. I couldn't have said it any better. TOTB is a beautiful skill to have. We are born into multiple boxes that are created upon social agreements (e.g. Illustrated by the hermeneutic circle) but the ones who dare to think outside of what is considered as social or scientific correct (all the boxes together) are the minds whom are absolute free and open towards new moralities, paradigms, innovations and creativity in general.

Saying that TOTB is a negative thing is a very conservative statement and someone who has such a belief is scared of change, scared of diversity and scared of anything that is abstract and out of order. I'm all about TOTB and the best way to TOTB is to fully understand the box in the first place and why some people are scared of TOTB hence also lacking the ability to do so. Fold the paper so all the dots ovelap.

Use four lines to connect four dots. Hold the folded paper up to the light.all dots connected; Thinking outside The Box. For that matter, you could fold the paper until all the dots overlapped and you would not need to waste any pencil lead; Thinking outside The Box. Use a very wide pencil lead or charcoal block for that matter, connect all the dots in one fell swoop; Thinking outside The Box. Forego a pencil altogether and use a bucket of paint to create a huge blot over all the dots; Thinking outside The Box. Question the dots and why they need to be connected in the first place; Thinking outside The Box.

Erase the dots; they are a distraction to Thinking outside The Box. Create your own dots and lines in any fashion you desire; Thinking outside The Box.

People that say, it's a misguided idea,, do not know how to think outside the box, I can look /listen/ at anything an tell you how to fix it. I play chess with my pc, an beat it all the time, and the reasoning is I do not think logically, like the pc does.

It has a set of rules that it was programed with an you were in college, I do not play by the rules, I can play without the queen.Also when you go the a school that teaches how to think about something, that is all you know how to do.I have had engineers come to my deck, hand me a set of blueprints, because that was the way they were taught. They are never taught to look at it, in there mind to see it working. What I do is show them how wrong they are, an ask them what tool in the world can cut a square hole inside the middle of two long tubes. They can not think outside the box, that they were taught to do. If was going to tell you about an airplane the TR-3B, it travels a little bit under light speed, an it uses nuclear fusion, which turns into plasma an powers the craft, that was built outside the box. An if you do not believe me type it into your search engine, you can also look it up at the library of congress under new patients. You my brother, do not have the inkling of understanding to think outside the box.

That's why you are a psychologist an nothing more.