tom1


Granted, I'm working for Kirk Hunter Studios, which makes orchestral libraries, on their current Group Buy (60% off on their top of line orchestral libraries at the moment), so you can take my views with a grain of salt, of course.
　
You can work the semantics anyway you like but it seems obvious you are promoting a sale by a company you work for.

So why are you so offended when I said 'you are having a sale'? I didn't mean you literally; A company you work for is having a sale and you are promoting that sale.

Maybe you are under the impression that I am questioning your integrity; I'm not;

You said I could take your views with a grain of salt. I did that (with a couple more grains)

Let's drop it. I wrote the remark about Kirk's sale almost in jest because I have a thread for the sale on this board. As far as your claiming I'm pushing the Kirk Hunter Studios Group Buy in this thread, I've even praised specific KHS competitor libraries, LASS, Project Sam's Symphobia, Cinebrass and some others and stated I thought EWQL HS was very good (I think the sound is very, very good).  I've never knocked EWQL, I'm just stating why I feel KONTAKT and KONTAKT developers are superior for a musician who wants both orchestral and rock libraries. It's abundantly clear that you're defending your purchase, and that's fine, but, personally, for both orchestral and rock libraries, as the OP indicated he does, I find KONTAKT to be a superior option than EWQL. If you're super happy with EWQL, that's great, as I stated before, it's a very good library and my opinion doesn't take that away from you, so there's no need for you to be so defensive. However, if one considers all of the options for various orchestral and rock libraries provided by KONTAKT and the quality of libraries for independent developers, which at least equal EWQL on the orchestral side and easily surpass EWQL on the rock side, in terms of sample quality, programming and the VST/sampler (really sample player) itself, KONTAKT is the clear winner (again, imo). I especially find, when it comes to rock libraries, like guitar and bass, KONTAKT developers are leaps and bounds ahead of EWQL. 

bitflipper



Don't be put off by 16-bit samples. They're going to become 32 bits when you render them, so you'll still have the extra resolution for subsequent DSP and mixing. This may sound like heresy, but there is very little value in 24-bit over 16-bit sample libraries.

Now..I'm a big fan of bitflipper and I respect his comments and opinions...But,in this case,I have to humbly disagree with his thoughts on there being very little value in 24 bit samples over 16 bit ones...
 
I hear a greater dynamic range and more clarity in the 24 bit versions when I compare them to their 16 bit cousins,so in almost all cases I prefer to use a higher bit rate if it is available...
 
I have some older,great sounding libraries that are 16 bit (SAM Brass comes to mind) but if they were available in 24 bit when Gigastudio was around,that's where I would have placed my bets...
 
So I don't believe that the extra 8 bits - a 50% increase in the equation - is just a theoretical experience...
 
There is an audible difference that is noticable,even when the final mix is rendered to a 16 bit CD Master...
 
Of course,having great sounding D/A convertors and an amp and speakers that can deliver as pure a signal as possible are also an important part of the overall equation...
 
 

methinks the poster doth protest too much.

Oops. I didn't mean to post. 

Now..I'm a big fan of bitflipper and I respect his comments and opinions...But,in this case,I have to humbly disagree with his thoughts on there being very little value in 24 bit samples over 16 bit ones... I hear a greater dynamic range and more clarity in the 24 bit versions when I compare them to their 16 bit cousins,so in almost all cases I prefer to use a higher bit rate if it is available...

Sorry I missed your reply until now, digitalboy. I wrote that expecting, hoping, that it would spark conversation, so thanks for calling me on it. Anybody else want to argue that the value of 24- versus 16-bit sample libraries isn't trivial? If anybody really cares, it may be a topic worthy of its own thread.