This is my point right here. Vienna had library programming costs, not VI programming costs, like SI, which presumably borrows from Mach V. Vienna ran on EXS24 & Giga exclusively. It was programed for those platforms.yealf wrote:Nice to hear from you buddha Belly,
---------
Yeah? How do you account for the cost of EW GoldXP or Vienna? Neither of them had to pay for software development. Vienna only ran on EXS24 for a long time.
---------
I could be wrong but I believe Vienna was written for the giga and was giga only untill they made budget versions for software samplers.
Vienna has a massive amount of programming. It has Hundreds and hundreds of instruments and variations of instruments.
Don't confuse platform development with programming a library in terms of cost. I believe SI shares it's development platform with ethno and Mach5 v.2 (if we ever see it) by the way.
I can gaurantee one thing and that is if the Vienna library had used the SI players and original recordings nobody would be using it no matter how good the programming was.
One question, why would you accept the limitations of a bad sample and not get a better one to make your track as good as it can be?
$300 vs $1500 (and that's the current price, not the old, it used to cost almost $3000) = lots of extra $$$ for recording/programming. Why would you even compare the two? They're for completely different parts of the market.
If I could have afforded a better library, I would have bought it. If I could afford it, I'd just hire players instead.
Maybe it's rubbish to you, but it's better than no library for me.
PS: I particularly like the playability of the instrument itself, key switches, splits, building ensembles.