TAXI.com

I don't own either, but am considering one. Anyone want to list some pros and cons of each of these. So far the main things I'm seeing about LASS, besides a slightly lower price and not using Play (which is about to go 64 bit so I'm not sure how much this matters) is the A.R.T scripts and the Auto Arrange scripts. Both of which seem like pretty incredible selling points.

I don't have both, I only have LASS. I committed to LASS prior to HS being introduced, but I'd already started the move away from relying on Play. It seems HS is oriented toward that big Hollywood sound, whereas LASS is more "scaleable" with the Divisi sections, which are truly Divisi in that they are smaller ensembles sampled separately. I don't think HS derives it's Divisis this way. The only other Divisi library that I know of is DVZ by Audio Impressions but when it first came out it was WAY expensive so I never considered it. They just lowered the price nearer to LASS and HS so it might be a viable option. But DVZ also pretty much needs a dedicated computer because of the heavy scripting it utilizes to create it's Divisi implementation.

Personally I'm not enamored of Play. I am a fan of Kontakt more and more and because of it's open nature (more or less), there are some fabulous scripts being written for it out there by different developers and they keep getting better and better as time goes by. On the other hand, Play is a closed system and so far East West are the only ones developing anything for it, so you are completely reliant on them. It's a mixed bag, some companies don't like being in bed with NI, but Kontakt is really becoming an industry standard application for sample libraries.

I'm sure Hollywood Strings sounds wonderful, I just wonder if it's a one trick pony and not able to "downsize" when the piece calls for a smaller ensemble. I don't write all that much big bombastic music right now and LASS has a nice warm sound that can be small and intimate if the music requires, or can go all the way up to a full sized symphonic string section when the time comes to pull out all the stops.

I think you can order a hard drive from EW with everything they make on it and try before you buy. It might be worth the 100.00 or whatever to at least have tried Hollywood strings to see if it will fit your needs now and in the future, and just how much CPU that dog Play is going to chew up. Maybe it'll be better in 64 bit, but EW has had a history of releasing things not quite up to snuff, at least in my experience and it takes them a while to shake out the bugs. My experience with Kontakt has been rock solid for the most part, particularly from 3.5 on. It's up to 4.2 now, I believe.

Due to the type of music I've been doing lately, I haven't dug into the Auto Arrange functions of LASS, but I can see how that would be a big time saver. I'll need to dig into it more as time goes on. I do like the ART script and I'm sure they'll continue to improve on it as time goes by. A nice thing about LASS is that the developer is constantly monitoring the user forum and is very receptive to suggestions.

IMO, LASS sounds like strings, not a hyper-realistic, hyped up version of strings. I think in the right hands it can be made to sound pretty much any way it needs to sound, I'm just not sure if HS can be as flexible. I'm interested in hearing from folks that have it as well.

I just recently purchased Hollywood Strings. The price was actually a few dollars less than LASS, plus I got in on a 2-for-1 sale so I also picked up QL Pianos. I'm still at the installation and configuring stage as well as learning how to use it, so I can't give you an evaluation on how difficult or easy it is to use. I did spend a lot of time listening to not only "corporate" demos, but user demos as well. User demos are important because it shows you how well a piece of software works in the real world.

I compared HS to LASS and ultimately chose HS. I have no particular loyalty to EW, although I do own several of their libraries. I've been using the 64-bit version of Play (v2.0.2) for a couple of months now and have had no problems with it. I'm on a PC, not a Mac. I know there can be differences between the two operating systems and Play.

I found LASS to be a bit brighter and more biting, whereas HS seemed more mellower and lush. Obviously, how they're used and what genre they're being used in makes a ton of difference. For me, HS suited my needs. I did have have to purchase a slave computer which is dedicated to HS, plus a 128 GB SSD drive, Vienna Ensemble Pro, an iLok key, and two Vienna keys. Yes, this was a large investment so I didn't make this purchase lightly and without a lot of consideration.

LASS recorded their divisi sections with smaller groups. HS recorded everything at the same time, but placed microphones all over the place. Their version of divisi is to place mics on the sides of the sections. It's more akin to close-micing. You probably wouldn't use the HS divisi mics for a chamber ensemble setting. LASS is more flexible in that way, and HS - not unlike their EWQLSO library - is really designed for film scoring, and in particular, big bombastic scores.

I'm coming from a world where I had a single 4 GB 32-bit PC where I could only load a single orchestral section at a time, then render it as audio, then load in another section. Now I have two 64-bit machines and hopefully I'll be able to accomplish much, much more in a shorter amount of time. I'll let you know as I progress.

Thanks guys.

I agree Mazz. LASS does seem more flexible for the more intimate type stuff and I can see that it gets pretty big sounding also. I'm pretty much only into the more Hollywood type sound as far as things I want to write. I have to admit though, if it wasn't for those scripts I think I'd be going with HS. So far from what I've heard I like the sound of HS a bit better. And I'm sure it blends in effortlessly with the Platinum Orchestra. More so than LASS I'd imagine without having to work at it that much. And I'm already so familiar with Play and the way their libraries operate, seems like the learning curve would be a little less.

I'm still a bit on the fence here. But those scripts might just be the deal sealer for me.

Steve, I'm dying to hear what you think about it. And how are you liking your new computer setup? Are you finding you can load up an entire orchestra and just go now? Post up some samples when you can, let's hear that thing in action.

Keep in mind that LASS has built in EQ curves that can be changed to taste and there's also outboard EQ that can be utilized. I think HS is more big and "Hollywood" sounding on purpose, of course, and LASS is designed to be more versatile in that respect, it seems. I think you'll have to decide based on what you think you'll be writing and what your composition and career goals are.

At the ASCAP Expo, most of the "big guys" I talked to had both, of course!! Obviously they also have "staff" to help them realize their mockups and learn how to use all the new stuff the minute it comes out.

I don't think you could go wrong with either, honestly, it's really a matter of taste and which software you like. Kontakt is not much of a learning curve just to use it to load up sounds and play, all the other stuff takes place in the background, but if you're used to Play, then that might be a selling point. You can make music with either!

Bryan,

4 reasons I picked LASS over Hollywood Strings:

1-Sound
To my ears, LASS sounds more like real strings, especially in an exposed setting. HS sounds gorgeous (especially as demoed by Thomas Bergersen...but of course that's not exactly fair considering he's not only one of the developers but possibly the best "orchestral mock-up artist" there is), but LASS sounds more like real strings to me, as opposed to a high end sample library. If you listen to Andrew play his little live solo line demos on the LASS website I think you'll hear what I'm talking about. A very realistic sound right out of the box.
I'm not sure if this is due to the true divisi recording or the amount of scripting, but it's what I'm hearing...and of course that is subjective...

2-Flexibility
As Steve pointed out, HS doesn't have true divisi recording, they just miked different parts of the sections separately to emphasize the sound of the players closest to the mics, but everybody is still playing. While this should be fine for divisi writing within a score, it really doesn't give you the flexibility to "scale your string section" to whatever size you may require. I write in a lot of different styles and there is no telling what I may be called on to do next. Whether I need a studio size section a la Coldplay's Viva La Vida, a chamber ensemble, a combo for dramedy or a period schmaltzy TV theme, or full-on soaring orchestral strings, LASS delivers on all counts.
And of course there is layering too...I've had great results layering LASS with the S mic strings from EW Platinum for example, you get that big hall sound from Benaroya with the articulate nature and bite of LASS. And of course you can layer smaller sections with much more flexibility.
Everybody loves doing the "Big Hollywood Sound", and I certainly do some of it, but because everybody loves doing it it's a really crowded field. There are few guys that could live off that stuff exclusively...so for me as a working composer, flexibility is paramount. Maybe the two products are quite appropriately named, actually...

3-Platform
Let's be honest, Kontakt is a far more advanced platform than PLAY. It's not just that it's more stable and gentler on computer resources, it's also that it's way ahead in the scripting department which ultimately makes libraries more playable, more like instruments, and less like an "articulation assembly line".
Now hopefully PLAY 3 will be a big step forward but the truth is EW has a lot of ground to make up. Especially since the numerous developers on the Kontakt platform keep pushing each other to new heights.
The Auto arranger script in LASS is pretty incredible, and so are the scripts from Samplemodeling or Orange Tree's guitar libraries, to mention just a few. PLAY is really nowhere near that currently.

4-Company
I certainly have nothing against EW, I own tons of their products and the original Gold/XP orchestral library is definitely in my top three bang for the buck libraries as far as what I made from it in upfront money and royalties when compared to the purchase price. It may even be number one, as a matter of fact.
However, generally speaking EW's philosophy is to spend a lot of time and money making great libraries (and they are great), but when they are released, that's pretty much it. Sure, if there are bugs they will fix them, but then it's on to the next thing. That's probably the only way to go if you have as big of a product line as EW does.
By contrast, Audiobro (really though, what kind of name is that... ) only has one product, LASS, and it's quite clear that it is a labor of love for Andrew. The amount of development this library has seen since its release is staggering, and most of it has been free to the registered user. The just released sordini addition is the first thing they are charging for AFAIK. It's really more of a "living library" than a finished WYSIWYG product.
And the stuff they are still planning, such as convolution presets to emulate the string sound of famous recordings, made it clear to me that I wanted to be a part of this product and company.

I'm not saying I would never buy HS, there certainly is a possibility I might get it in the future, but for the reasons above LASS was my first choice in a high end string library, and the more I use it the happier I am with my decision.

HTH,

matto

Well,
I think that matto and mazz covered ALL the bases for me here. As some people at the forum already
know, I use LASS quite a lot and I am a huge fan. In fact I was sold when I heard Mazz's compositions
and the sound he was getting. His music was pivotal in my decision.

I will give my 2 cents on one issue, VERSATILITY: I tried HS (purchased the hard drive with all the EW stuff) and
I realized that even though it had a fantastic sound, I couldn't effectively customize the sections into smaller units.
LASS could handle it beautifully. My writing is SO varied these days and I get called to pull off so many different genres
that I NEED to be flexible. My setup can give me a huge sound (if the need arises) or be more intimate.
The huge hollywood sound is a big selling point for EW, but the field of trailer music and music for blockbuster movies
is already taken by many individuals and companies who own EVERY library in existence. It's unbelievably hard to break into
that ballgame and score.

HTH
Adonis

Excellent, excellent, excellent answers!! Lass it is. You guys are awesome!!

+1000 on the flexibility. On the dramedy stuff I use a drier sound which brings the strings more forward in the mix for that small group close mic'd sound or I can add in Todd-AO or Disney Hall from Altiverb for that big sound soaked in reverb. In the near term, I don't see doing a ton of huge symphonic sounding scoring, and LASS will do that and I have other libs I can combine in to make it bigger than life if necessary, but I also need to scale down and LASS gives that flexibility.

I also love using the FC instrument and all the Divisi sections together. Talk about a lovely warm sound when they are all playing together. And strings do get screechy from time to time, that's life! As in anything, it's what one does with it as much as anything.

This horse has been beaten to death, sounds like you will be getting LASS.

Does anyone have the sordino expansion?

Chuck