thepianist53
... I'm thinking maybe Albion One would be a great library and a decent value. ...

Possibly. I have both AlbionOne and Hollywood Orchestra Diamond. At some point I wrote a comparison (I'll see if I can find it). Both are excellent, but in very different ways. I have to say that I find 90% of what's in Albion One to be of no use whatsoever. I only use the instruments, and none of the special effects.
 
Edited for clarity.

After extensive negotiation with a robot from Google, here is the thread I was thinking of. Not as good as I thought. It's the second post in particular, I thought might be of help to you.
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Review-of-installing-EWQL-HO-Diamond-with-iLok-Machine-License-m3323321.aspx
 
 

Possibly off topic: Another fairly flexible choice is the new Miroslav Philharmonics 2 from IK-Multimedia. It's different from the two you consider, but just so happens to be very keyboard-centric. Expression if often velocity triggered, which is something a pianist naturally finds playable. It's predecessors (MP1 and SampleTank 3) were my first instrumental libraries.
 

 I have both AlbionOne and Hollywood Orchestra Diamond. At some point I wrote a comparison (I'll see if I can find it). Both are excellent, but in very different ways

 
Allan -
 
That was very well put and the chef vs. ingredients analogy is appropriate. Which is precisely why I keep coming back to HO - I can make it do what I want to do (admittedly with effort). I also own Albion One but usually prefer HO for what I want to do. That doesn't mean Albion One is bad or inferior - it's different. It's a great library if it fits your needs.
 
- Dave

Thanks for the thread, I've read it, and it was very interesting. I remain rather partial to something other than EW's stuff. I keep experimenting with it, but if I have to work that hard just to get it right, it's probably not for me. I'm sure it gets easier and you can set up templates, etc., but I don't enjoy that type of tinkering, I prefer playing, and focusing on melody, harmony, etc. The engineering part of it is important, and I spend a great deal of time on it, but it's still the least enjoyable part of the whole project, But my philosophy is: garbage in, garbage out--if the song and the performance is no good, no software will cover it up. If there is great musicianship and a wonderful composition/song, even a lo-fi recording is memorable and worth a listen
That being said, I'm learning a lot through these various posts, and enjoy the thread. 

The engineering part of it is important, and I spend a great deal of time on it, but it's still the least enjoyable part of the whole project

 
I completely understand what you are saying. That's why it is good there are different kinds of libraries available for different people. Personally I don't think of the work needed to tweak an orchestral library to make it sound "alive" as engineering. In my thinking, I have divided the overall process up into 3 stages: Composition, Performance and Production. To me, working with CCs and using just the right articulations is part of the performance phase. There is no way I can mimic a section of violins just by playing notes on a keyboard - there are just too many nuances of performance to capture in real time. That means I need to spend serious time doing things like getting the length of a portamento just right or adding Expression (CC11) to create subtle swells when the string section holds long notes. Yeah it is a lot of work, but I find the rewards are great, too.
 
That said, I really do understand what you mean and where you are coming from. I had another thought too: Have you looked at any of Kirk Hunter's stuff? Maybe it would be something that would work better in your workflow.

I have Kirk Hunter's Spotlight Strings, not good for a full orchestra, but very good for smaller sounding ensembles or solo stuff, yes. 
I say if you can hear the nuances of the orchestra to that level than of course you should do everything you can to be satisfied and excited about the music you are creating. And I try to do the same. I'm not sure I could tell the difference in the samples we are discussing. For example, I played many a "real" Rhodes piano back in the day. And I sold Steinway Pianos, have played them many many times over. Yet the virtual ones I use now are terrific, I don't really hear or feel any appreciable from the originals--but others I know insist  "its not the same." Same with Hammonds, etc. I have standards, but I guess they are kind of low, ha ha...

I have Albion I in addition to my EW stuff. They are very different as others have said. I prefer EW to Albion but Albion may be what you are looking for. Great sound, simple keyswitches and all articulations in one patch. It doesn't do all the things that the EW stuff does but it can produce great results. I usually use it to layer with my EW instruments for a bigger sound. The only thing is IIRC it almost never goes on sale so you may be disappointed there.  

I do what David does a bit differently. I compose first, adding melodies and harmonies until I have the song more or less fleshed out. I do this by selecting some basic articulations, no more than 3 or 4, and using those to compose with. Once I am done, I go back and select the actual articulations I want to use for each element, moving parts around to get everything where it needs to be. This way I don't get distracted into trying to find the right articulation and moving notes around to get proper phrasing until after the "artistic" side of the project is done.
 
I'm sure everyone works differently, but once you've found what works for you, you'll be able to master more complex libraries and get the sound you want.
 
Regards,
Dan
 

I joined Composer Cloud over last Summer.But then I upgraded to Windows 10 and I cannot get the iLok software running AT ALL. I had to cancel my subscription.