# Why do so many people dislike Spitfire Studio Orchestra while at the same time so many people love BHCT?



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

Having both SStO Pro and BHCT, I have been wondering why the general attitude seems to be so negative towards the former but so positive towards the latter. Both where recorded in the same room, same mics, same recording/mixing engineer (Simon Rhodes) and more or less same musicians (as far as I know).

Yes, BHCT has different patches/combinations and different articulations (e.g. chords) and I like it for all the reasons that others like it as well. But I found that a lot of people were complaining about the sound/room of SStO in general but I did not find a lot of people complaining about the sound of BHCT. Why is that? I do understand, that some people are not happy with the "bumps" in Studio Brass (although they are by far not as many as people make them seem and it's far from unusable in my opinion) but that doesn't seem to be the only reason (by far not).

Am I missing something? Was BHCT deeper or better sampled and I am just not hearing it?
The only reasonable explanation I could come up with was marketing and expectations. I think that many people were expecting this to be Spitfire's version of the Cinematic Studio Series (because of the name) but it turned out to be quite different (very neutral room, more articulations but not as deeply/detailed/carefully sampled as in the Cinematic Studio Series, etc.).

Any thoughts or explanations?


----------



## wilifordmusic (Dec 3, 2020)

The Studio Series is more challenging to use and get good results. It also requires more time to create a piece of orchestration that already exists in BHCT.

When you have small or solo patches in a drier enviornment, it requires you to have good orchestration skills as well as some mixing talent.

Also, you get more of a blend of the instruments and room in the BHCT pre-orchestrated patches.
i.e. use the trombones and low strings legato and then build the same orchestration with the Studio Series individual instruments.
It does sound different.

I use both libraries together as well as a couple of other libraries with a similar sound to get the impact I want. That is the whole point of having the smaller and solo instruments with access to ensemble patches as well.

I don't try to force something out of an instrument that isn't there.

And lastly, all libraries have warts here and there. I think they are more obvious in the Studio Series because of the drier recording space and the smaller sections exposing it's faults.

I think that one or all of these things combined caused the grumpiness or hostility you noticed.

I love them all.


----------



## Gerbil (Dec 3, 2020)

Agree ^

Combinations always sound immediately more impressive and SStO does need proper orchestration and mixing to bring to life.

I would add that BHCT is also a much loved library because it's been so well thought out and programmed. It doesn't just sound great; it plays great. SStO does have its warts, and I say that as someone who relies on it. It's a generous library with a wealth of content but quality control is not A+. BHCT is a step or three above.

Personally I really like SStO. I use it all the time because it's so useful for adding flavour to other libraries, but BHCT is a firm favourite because it's so much fun. Whenever I've had friends and colleagues round in my studio and I'm showing them various libraries, BHCT is _always_ the one the draws the biggest smile and eats up the time.


----------



## Casiquire (Dec 3, 2020)

I remember it differently, but i could be wrong. I thought the issue with SStO wasn't the room and the sound, but something in the way it was programmed. Personally I liked the sound of it from the demos I've heard


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

Thank you all for your thoughts/answers, so far. I think the argument that combined patches sound "better" in that room has a point. Regarding qualitiy control, I'm not completely convinced: Apart from the aforementioned "bumps" in the Studio Brass, I did not really have the feeling so far that the quality and consistency of BHCT is better then the rest of the Studio Orchestra (but maybe I will find more "bumps" in the future).


----------



## richhickey (Dec 3, 2020)

BHCT delivers what it says on the tin.

SStO is decidedly a mixed bag. The strings are decent but for lack of staccato (no, time stretching spiccato does not work). I would have preferred the full articulation set for the divisis, but ok.

The SStB brass are the worst samples I've ever gotten from Spitfire, and the SF purchase I most regret. At that point the whole SStO concept ran aground - it was never going to be a good complete ensemble.

And for some reason the same room, which flattered the BHCT library and the strings, sounds like a high school gym on the SStB and SStW. 🤷‍♂️ 

IMO, YMMV etc.


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

richhickey said:


> I would have preferred the full articulation set for the divisis, but ok.



Yes, that would be very nice. But it would take up way more harddrive space and for sure it would be way more expensive ... (but as an optional add-on it would make sense).


----------



## JonS (Dec 3, 2020)

mussnig said:


> Having both SStO Pro and BHCT, I have been wondering why the general attitude seems to be so negative towards the former but so positive towards the latter. Both where recorded in the same room, same mics, same recording/mixing engineer (Simon Rhodes) and more or less same musicians (as far as I know).
> 
> Yes, BHCT has different patches/combinations and different articulations (e.g. chords) and I like it for all the reasons that others like it as well. But I found that a lot of people were complaining about the sound/room of SStO in general but I did not find a lot of people complaining about the sound of BHCT. Why is that? I do understand, that some people are not happy with the "bumps" in Studio Brass (although they are by far not as many as people make them seem and it's far from unusable in my opinion) but that doesn't seem to be the only reason (by far not).
> 
> ...


SStO Professional is phenomenal!!


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

JonS said:


> SStO Professional is phenomenal!!



I also like it quite a lot. And with the recent sales I got some nice reverbs that work very well with it - to me it now feels like a completely new library.


----------



## JonS (Dec 3, 2020)

mussnig said:


> I also like it quite a lot. And with the recent sales I got some nice reverbs that work very well with it - to me it now feels like a completely new library.


SSO is terrific, but that assumes you want the beautiful wet sound of Air Lyndhurst. SStO Pro is incredibly versatile!!


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Dec 3, 2020)

All I have is Spitfire Studio Woodwinds Pro and I really like it. 

While I expect that CSW will be my go-to, I believe that Spitfire Studio Woodwinds Pro has instruments, articulations, and ensembles that CSW may not have. It's a stopgap while I wait for CSW, and a supplement after it's here.


----------



## Marsen (Dec 3, 2020)

The shorts on BHCT have more round robins. 
That was a dissapointment with the SStO (pro), just having 4.


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

Marsen said:


> The shorts on BHCT have more round robins.
> That was a dissapointment with the SStO (pro), just having 4.



Oh really? I didn't notice that - good to know!


----------



## VSriHarsha (Dec 3, 2020)

Seriously? I thought people love Studio Symphony Orchestra. Well people like Spitfires right?
That’s a little odd.


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Seriously? I thought people love Studio Symphony Orchestra. Well people like Spitfires right?
> That’s a little odd.



I think you are confusing Spitfire Symphony Orchestra with Spitfire Studio Orchestra. The former was recorded in Air Lyndhurst, the latter in Air Studio One.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Dec 3, 2020)

mussnig said:


> I think you are confusing Spitfire Symphony Orchestra with Spitfire Studio Orchestra. The former was recorded in Air Lyndhurst, the latter in Air Studio One.


Sorry my typos! I meant the Studio Orchestra, not the SSO.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 3, 2020)

I love both....


----------



## Rob (Dec 3, 2020)

I said this before, but SStS are my best purchase this year...


----------



## VSriHarsha (Dec 3, 2020)

Rob said:


> I said this before, but SStS are my best purchase this year...


Professional or the normal version?


----------



## Mornats (Dec 3, 2020)

mussnig said:


> I also like it quite a lot. And with the recent sales I got some nice reverbs that work very well with it - to me it now feels like a completely new library.


Which reverbs and settings do you find are working well for you? I'm always playing with various presets in Valhalla Room. 

I love the strings in this orchestra and I'm only on the core version. They speak the same language as the music in my head of that means sense I've not done too much with the brass and woods to say if I've got the same issues others have but I do like them. I just needed to learn then more.


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Which reverbs and settings do you find are working well for you? I'm always playing with various presets in Valhalla Room.
> 
> I love the strings in this orchestra and I'm only on the core version. They speak the same language as the music in my head of that means sense I've not done too much with the brass and woods to say if I've got the same issues others have but I do like them. I just needed to learn then more.



I got 7th Heaven and Exponential Audio R4. What I liked so far was taking one of the Hall presets from 7H (quite wet, - 6dB/0dB) with a tail that's not too long (roughly 1,5 seconds) and then R4 (I think the name of the preset was something like "Large Famous Hall (Dark)", no early reflections) for a bit of tail afterwards (mostly since I am having multiple sources and not all use the same reverb or the same amount of 7H).


----------



## CT (Dec 3, 2020)

I wonder if it's about the mics. BHCT comes with them all, but I'm sure many people opted for the core version of SStO and understandably were a bit put off by how Tree 1 sounds on its own in AIR 1. I never upgraded, but could easily tell that the other mics did a lot of favors for the sound as a whole.

That said, there are still a few programming clunkers that are presumably present in both versions. I haven't used any of it in a while, but I imagine if you like the particular character of it, it's still entirely usable. There were no dealbreaker problems that I remember.


----------



## jbuhler (Dec 3, 2020)

richhickey said:


> BHCT delivers what it says on the tin.
> 
> SStO is decidedly a mixed bag. The strings are decent but for lack of staccato (no, time stretching spiccato does not work). I would have preferred the full articulation set for the divisis, but ok.
> 
> ...


I find Studio Brass more uneven than horrible across the board. I very much like the muted articulations, especially the short trumpet, but also the stopped horns. The euphonium is also quite nice (but only available in pro, IIRC). But the main horn and trumpet patches are difficult to work with.


----------



## Sarah Mancuso (Dec 3, 2020)

Mike T said:


> I wonder if it's about the mics. BHCT comes with them all, but I'm sure many people opted for the core version of SStO and understandably were a bit put off by how Tree 1 sounds on its own in AIR 1. I never upgraded, but could easily tell that the other mics did a lot of favors for the sound as a whole.
> 
> That said, there are still a few programming clunkers that are presumably present in both versions. I haven't used any of it in a while, but I imagine if you like the particular character of it, it's still entirely usable. There were no dealbreaker problems that I remember.


That was my primary issue with it. The tree1 mic isn't dry enough for an upfront studio sound, but the studio means you're not getting a pleasantly lush sound from it, either. You can drown it in reverb to fake some of that lushness, but then you'd still be getting an inferior result to using something that was actually recorded in a larger space. To me it just sounds like things are lacking focus in a way that makes me want to clarify them more, which can't be done without the close mics. The strings suffer less from this than the brass or woodwinds. I feel like I'm hearing the woodwinds play from another room.

The legato performances are also pretty uninspiring compared with those in Spitfire Symphonic or elsewhere, they exist but it's hard to say much more about them.


----------



## Rob (Dec 3, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Professional or the normal version?


the layman version


----------



## Marsen (Dec 3, 2020)

VSriHarsha said:


> Sorry my typos! I meant the Studio Orchestra, not the SSO.


I really do love SStO. It's just a bit machine like with faster Ostinatos esp. In the Woodwinds. Which is hearable better with BHCT Shorts.


----------



## Marsen (Dec 3, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Which reverbs and settings do you find are working well for you? I'm always playing with various presets in Valhalla Room.
> 
> I love the strings in this orchestra and I'm only on the core version. They speak the same language as the music in my head of that means sense I've not done too much with the brass and woods to say if I've got the same issues others have but I do like them. I just needed to learn then more.



I use Cinematic Rooms 1.9 s with the Kontaktverb always off. Also experimenting with mic-positions.


----------



## Marsen (Dec 3, 2020)

Rob said:


> I said this before, but SStS are my best purchase this year...


I think the Studio Strings are fantastic.


----------



## Marsen (Dec 3, 2020)

Sarah Mancuso said:


> That was my primary issue with it. The tree1 mic isn't dry enough for an upfront studio sound, but the studio means you're not getting a pleasantly lush sound from it, either. You can drown it in reverb to fake some of that lushness, but then you'd still be getting an inferior result to using something that was actually recorded in a larger space. To me it just sounds like things are lacking focus in a way that makes me want to clarify them more, which can't be done without the close mics. The strings suffer less from this than the brass or woodwinds. I feel like I'm hearing the woodwinds play from another room.
> 
> The legato performances are also pretty uninspiring compared with those in Spitfire Symphonic or elsewhere, they exist but it's hard to say much more about them.


Exactly, that's they I highly recommend the pro edition. Mixing one of the close mics with the tree, helps for definition. Also, there are the 2 Stereo mixes which already do this and are much lighter on cpu.

With a multi played live with 5 legato string sections ( one mic position!) in unison (oktaved), a i7 3ghz single unit breaks down.
Same multi with stereo mix, no problem at all (maybe 35% load).


----------



## VSriHarsha (Dec 3, 2020)

That's new?

Yeah I know what you mean but just curious coz these days libraries may even show up with weird titles.


----------



## VSriHarsha (Dec 3, 2020)

Marsen said:


> I really do love SStO. It's just a bit machine like with faster Ostinatos esp. In the Woodwinds. Which is hearable better with BHCT Shorts.


I didn't know that.


----------



## NoamL (Dec 3, 2020)

mussnig said:


> Having both SStO Pro and BHCT, I have been wondering why the general attitude seems to be so negative towards the former but so positive towards the latter. Both where recorded in the same room, same mics, same recording/mixing engineer (Simon Rhodes) and more or less same musicians (as far as I know).
> 
> Yes, BHCT has different patches/combinations and different articulations (e.g. chords) and I like it for all the reasons that others like it as well. But I found that a lot of people were complaining about the sound/room of SStO in general but I did not find a lot of people complaining about the sound of BHCT. Why is that? I do understand, that some people are not happy with the "bumps" in Studio Brass (although they are by far not as many as people make them seem and it's far from unusable in my opinion) but that doesn't seem to be the only reason (by far not).
> 
> ...



I bet their entry level marketing/sales plan kind of backfired a little in how people received the libraries. I got the Winds during a sale with the "Basic" sales plan that only has one mic, Tree1, believing that would not be a big disadvantage for the woodwinds. How many mics could you need for a 2' long metal tube that sits in the middle of the stage? - was my thinking... just add some verb and you're set... Later I got Spitfire Symphonic Woodwinds, and now use that all the time, _always_ with the full CTA mics turned up - I only use the SSTW winds for the cool "hollow tone" articulation and some other special effects, or sometimes as an alternate take on a legato passage. The Spitfire Symphonic winds outclass them IMO, especially the flutes and the low winds. The sound is just more enveloping - AIR is great for winds, as JW's _Harry Potter_ showed.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 3, 2020)

I dislike the strings in both SA Studio Strings, and BHCTK. 

Strings recorded in a small studio hall are not going to sound wonderful. They need acoustics !

Acoustics are part of the instruments, if you don't have them you can't inject the instruments natural characteristic sound back into them by adding reverb, the acoustics are an integral part of their rich timbre.

Great acoustics are key captured via multiple mics, with a close mic option to mix in detail.

This is why VSL Silent Stage recorded Strings sound flat, or lifeless. Adding MIR-Pro, or the best reverbs on the planet won't be able to perform any magical tricks.

I personally don't like the way Spitfire's Studio Strings sound, neither BHCTK's strings. They are missing lots of rich harmonics.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 3, 2020)

muziksculp said:


> I dislike the strings in both SA Studio Strings, and BHCTK.
> 
> Strings recorded in a small studio hall are not going to sound wonderful. They need acoustics !
> 
> ...



I own neither, but I have listened to pieces done with these that sound very good. And in my timbre comparison mp3 that you listened to, you heard 9 different libraries and you said they almost all sounded pretty good and you weren’t sure you could identify them in a listening test. And some of them were pretty dry, but all played through the same reverb I chose.

So while it is entirely possible that if you had these they would indeed not be your favorites, may I respectfully suggest you might want to make your statements just a smidge less black and white?


----------



## wilifordmusic (Dec 3, 2020)

Something to consider, I like and use the Studio series when I want a drier kind of sound.
Think 60's-70's Goldsmith films and even television work. Some of those early recordings didn't have super-stereo images and thumpin' bottom ends. 
I use SCS (spitfire chamber strings) and the like for a more lush (modern 2010-2424) type sound.

I don't try to force one to do the job of the other. That's why I use different libraries for different jobs.
It's easier to use the tool that fits the job description.
Multiple artics, easier "playability" and other features don't make any difference if the sound out of the box is wrong for your task and not what you hear in your head.
If I do bump into a problem with the instrument/patch, I find another. That's why we all own more than one library. Righ?

Quite frankly, it's easier to pick the tool that fits my need than to fuck around with a bunch of fx so I can hammer round pegs into square holes.

sorry for my use of expletives, but if you were sitting here it is exactly what I would say.


----------



## Instrugramm (Dec 3, 2020)

The SSTS PRO are nice to have and can substitute other libraries, the only problem is their footprint (I'm reinstalling them right now, I'm basically in a on/ off relationship with them.) and their dryness. You need to play around with the mics and get some decent reverb for them to sound their best, so most of the time other libraries are much handier and sound more natural.


----------



## bill5 (Dec 3, 2020)

I give up: "BHCT?" Sounds like a drug kids do in college.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 3, 2020)

bill5 said:


> I give up: "BHCT?" Sounds like a drug kids do in college.



Bernard Herrman Toolkit.


----------



## ism (Dec 3, 2020)

muziksculp said:


> I dislike the strings in both SA Studio Strings, and BHCTK.
> 
> Strings recorded in a small studio hall are not going to sound wonderful. They need acoustics !
> 
> ...




Well, yes and no. I don’t much like the room sound on it’s own, and you’ll never get the kind of embodied sonority the you get with an AIR Lyndhurst library, but there are a lot of early reflections in SStS (very differnt from silent stage) which means that it takes external reverb quite well. For instance, I think you can hear that there’s quite gorgeous timbres captured in SStS in something like this:


----------



## wilifordmusic (Dec 3, 2020)

Only the cool kids.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 3, 2020)

ism said:


> Well, yes and no. I don’t much like the room sound on it’s own, and you’ll never get the kind of embodied sonority the you get with an AIR Lyndhurst library, but there are a lot of early reflections in SStS (very differnt from silent stage) which means that it takes external reverb quite well. For instance, I think you can hear that there’s quite gorgeous timbres captured in SStS in something like this:




Hi @ism ,

The demo track sounds very nice. Thanks for sharing.

You used a good quality reverb that gave the stings the right ambience, and nice reverb tails. 

But if you used SStStrings with a much less reverb, or one that has much shorter reverb tail, they won't sound that good, I think if the main goal is to get the sound of a small string section with an intimate detailed sound, they won't pull it through that well. For that type of sound, strings sampled in a nice sounding medium sized hall, with a selection of mics, including a close mono, and even stereo mics would be the way to get the strings to sound intimate, close, and with beautiful timbre. i.e. Berlin Strings with lots of close mic, and a bit of tree, and a dash or reverb would sound great. 

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## CT (Dec 3, 2020)

Here are a few bits from a project that I think was the best I ever got SStO (core) and BHCT percussion to sound. Totally wrote this theme myself, too.


----------



## mussnig (Dec 3, 2020)

Mike T said:


> Here are a few bits from a project that I think was the best I ever got SStO (core) and BHCT percussion to sound. Totally wrote this theme myself, too.




Wow, they should hire you for one those superhero movies


----------



## re-peat (Dec 4, 2020)

ism said:


> (...) For instance, I think you can hear that there’s quite gorgeous timbres captured in SStS in something like this:





Ism,

There are at least four or five libraries in Spitfire’s catalog — not to mention the many libraries from other developers — that can do that kind of thing A LOT better. It’s not for me to say of course what other people ought to be doing with their libraries, but I just don’t get why you would want to buy a library of _a studio orchestra, recorded in a smallish space_, only to then try to turn it into a spacious, washy, large-scale kind of thing. That’s fake double up, if you ask me.

I strongly disagree with you, you see, that because of its baked-in early reflections, the Spitfire Studio Series ‘takes to an external reverb quite well’. I believe, in fact, that the exact opposite is true, because those early reflections, which are indeed a distinct part of the sampled sound, _suggest confinement_ (as early reflections invariably do). Adding a hall reverb to these samples creates a spatial conflict between, on the one hand, the suggestion of confinement as imprinted in the samples and, on the other hand, the suggestion of large-scale spaciousness that comes from the reverb. And that simply doesn’t sound right to my ears.
(That conflict is least distracting with the strings, and in certain carefully judged situations, you can more or less work around it with several of the woods as well, but it becomes an unsolvable problem with the brass. You can hear all this in the official demo’s. And also in MikeT’s “Avenger” rendition, which, while well done, sounds both big and boxy at the same time.)

When the Studio Series was originally announced, I got quite excited actually. Finally, I thought, we would have an orchestral library, built with Spitfire’s incomparable experience and peerless craftsmanship, with which to render small-to-medium-sized orchestral music in not too big and not too wet a space. Something I’ve been dreaming of for, well, over 20 years. See, my favourite orchestral sound is not the big, lush, glossy, ultra-wide, pristine sound that, for example, the combination Williams-Murphy gives us, no, I prefer something on a more modest scale: an expanded chamber group in a mid-size recording studio. Or, as Wiliford (whose earlier post I agree with entirely) put it: the smaller, drier sound you often used to hear in scoring for television. I really like that.

To give you an idea, here’s *an excellent example of the sound I’m talking about*. That’s the cue “The Menu”, from the first “Jaws” (a soundtrack which, like a lot of Williams’ earlier work, sounds very much like an orchestral tv-score of its day). The sound in that example — both of the orchestra and of the space — is what I hoped and expected the Studio Series would allow me to emulate (insofar as samples are capable of such a thing, of course). And on paper it does. Which is why I bought the Pro version of the three volumes without thinking twice. After all, this is Spitfire we’re talking about, right?

Sadly, a number of things went wrong during the production of the Studio Series, in my opinion. I’ve said on a few occasions that, to my ears, it sounds as if Spitfire sent out their B-team to do the job, but apparently, that wasn’t the case. Still, I don’t think the sound engineering is up to Spitfire-scratch (also illustrated in the official demo’s), far from it even, I further believe that they sacrificed several essential articulations in favour of non-essential ones (the shorts department is frustratingly under-populated), moreover the concept of stacking smaller sections to suggest bigger ones also strikes me as a surprisingly un-Spitfire-ishly approach, and the programming is annoyingly slap-dash in places as well. Try, for example, to forge a coherent-sounding, musically expressive phrase combining various articulations, with any of the solo instruments, and you’re in for an extremely harrowing time with little if any outlook on a truly good result.

My initial grave desillusionment with the library has abated a little, but I still think it’s a very weak set. (Not just in the subjective light of my personal expectations, but also in the more objective light of what the product is claimed and sold as to be.) Time and again, I’ve tried to make it work, but apart from the occasional satisfying string part (and a single use of the bassclarinet in a non-orchestral setting), I’ve always given up and turned away pretty disappointed to look for a solution elsewhere. So far, I haven’t heard anyone else either do anything with it that I find enjoyably convincing, sonically or musically.
(And again: the idea of somehow circumnavigating the baked-in studio ambience of this library and make it appear as if the included instruments and sections were captured in a sizeable hall, simply doesn’t make any sense to me at all. If I’d want that, I’d use a different library. If you want the sound of a church organ, you don’t start with a Farfisa either.)

Were one, on a particularly intrepid day, to try and mock-up “The Menu” with the Studio Series, you would barely get past the opening horn staccato’s, and then you would already be stuck as there is simply no content available in the library to progress successfully. That, I find, shouldn’t be the case with a so-called _professional_ studio orchestra library from one of the top developers.
I’m not saying (as, during the first days of my disappointment, I used to say) that this library is completely without value or potential, but I do firmly believe it isn’t fully capable of being what its developer describes it to be, and I’m also of the opinion that, strictly technically speaking, it falls well below the standard set by Spitfire’s best work.

_


----------



## mussnig (Dec 4, 2020)

re-peat said:


> (And again: the idea of somehow circumnavigating the baked-in studio ambience of this library and make it appear as if the included instruments and sections were captured in a sizeable hall, simply doesn’t make any sense to me at all. If I’d want that, I’d use a different library. If you want the sound of a church organ, you don’t start with a Farfisa either.)



While I agree in general with your statement (ala "if you want a hall sound, use something that was recorded there"), not everyone can afford several libraries that were recorded in different rooms. So if you can only afford one library in this price range, it makes sense if you want it to be versatile (and therefore rather dry).

Regarding the "boxy" sound: I think it depends on the Reverbs that you are using and how much time you want to invest in it. I made some tests recently, using Spitfire’s Epic Strings (which comes from the old Albion 1, afaik) as a reference. In the end, I had at least some of the Strings Articulations from Studio Strings matching the Hall Sound (but still, they retained their own character). But I needed to play around a lot with Mic Positons, EQ and different Reverbs (some of them just didn't deliver a convincing result). And probably it would be much harder with the Brass (I didn't really try that yet). Of course the question is, if one wants to invest so much time in something like that (but once found, you can of course save your presets).


----------



## re-peat (Dec 4, 2020)

mussnig said:


> (...) versatile (and therefore rather dry) (...)



See, that’s precisely where I think people are, or have been led, a little astray. The persistent idea that the Studio Series (especially the core version) is a dry library, is, in my opinion, really quite wrong and misleading. To my ears, it is nowhere near dry enough to be ‘spatially versatile’. (I find BML Sable, or BBCSO, actually a lot more versatile in this respect than the Studio Series.)

This very subject came up earlier this year, when I wrote:

“The Studio Series, particularly the core version, is NOT a dry library. It is in fact pretty wet. It’s not because the room it was recorded in doesn’t generate a lush 3 sec. reverb, that it is a dry library. Dry or wet has got nothing to do with the kind of reverb or its length, it refers to the balance between the direct source sound and the presence of the room’s response. The more that balance favours the room (even if that room generates only a 0,5 sec. response), the wetter a library, and the Tree recordings with which the core version of the Studio Series is assembled, definitely have plenty of room in them. Wet, alors.

You can hear the consequences of that baked-in wetness quite well [in the video that was posted]: even if you add a longish reverb to these samples, they still have that characteristic confined sound of samples recorded in a smaller space. There’s no getting rid of that. 

In my opinion/experience, the Studio Strings (and the two other libraries that make up the Studio Series) are at their singular best either without any additional reverb or, if you really must, with a tasteful bit of nice chamber reverb. But as soon as you cross into ‘hall’-territory with the core versions of these libraries, the mismatch between the small baked-in space of the samples, on the one hand, and the suggestion of largeness from the added reverb, on the other, becomes rather off-putting, I find.”

_


----------



## wilifordmusic (Dec 4, 2020)

re-peat, have you found any libraries that meet the "70's tv" esthetic?

I have had some luck with LASS 2.5/LS with Spitfire's LCO in certain cases. Think Lalo Schifrin's Dirty Harry score.


----------



## prodigalson (Dec 4, 2020)

wilifordmusic said:


> re-peat, have you found any libraries that meet the "70's tv" esthetic?
> 
> I have had some luck with LASS 2.5/LS with Spitfire's LCO in certain cases. Think Lalo Schifrin's Dirty Harry score.



It is one of the greatest regrets in my sample life that the LCO strings don't have legatos. fantastic, dry, studio strings.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Dec 4, 2020)

re-peat said:


> See, that’s precisely where I think people are, or have been led, a little astray. The persistent idea that the Studio Series (especially the core version) is a dry library, is, in my opinion, really quite wrong and misleading. To my ears, it is nowhere near dry enough to be ‘spatially versatile’. (I find BML Sable, or BBCSO, actually a lot more versatile in this respect than the Studio Series.)
> 
> This very subject came up earlier this year, when I wrote:
> 
> ...


Yep, I agree. I eventually brought it and after experimenting came to the same conclusion: It’s best as it’s own thing with a smidge of reverb added. 

Possibly why it doesn’t get the forum love: It’s neither the best for Hollywood or trailer and is difficult to put in a box. I use it for all sorts of things, rarely a straight up orchestra.

I’ll concur with others on the brass though. It’s the one that “got away.”


----------



## Gerbil (Dec 4, 2020)

I'vs only ever needed to use the built-in verb. The idea of using SStO as _the_ orchestra and drenched in concert hall verbs is very unappealing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 4, 2020)

If you truly are in to a specific kind of sound and have a limited budget, of course it makes sense to buy a library that suits it and buy a second much less expensive one that sounds very different as an alternative when you need it.

if you are not and simply want versatility, a medium sized, in terms of number of players, dry library is just going to be the most versatile choice. Otherwise, you are frequently fitting the square peg into the round hole, as Piet pretty much said. (But bear in mind, he has very specific standards and what would sound fine to many simply doesn’t to him. That’s not a criticism, just IMO, factually accurate.)

I am fortunate to have several as well as sections because I either worked with the company or reviewed them. But if I was starting from scratch, because I am a musical chameleon, I would definitely be thinking in those terms.


----------



## CT (Dec 4, 2020)

re-peat said:


> And also in MikeT’s “Avenger” rendition, which, while well done, sounds both big and boxy at the same time.)



I do agree. Studio Orchestra exists in a strange middle ground, which isn't without its virtues, but is largely unrelated to what I initially hoped it was going to be (and tried to use it as for some time).


----------



## JohannesR (Dec 4, 2020)

I was very excited about the studio orchestra, and bought all 3 (professional edition) thinking it would be so cool to have a tight, dare I say vintage sounding studio orchestra.

The first thing I did was voicing a simple triad with the solo horn patch. The lowest note stuck out like a soar thumb - it was louder, and considerably longer than upper two. Even if this was the staccatissimo patch. I just gave up after a short while!

This sums up the studio series for me; the quality control was so horrible that there are major inconsistencies - not just between instruments, not just between articulations, but even between the notes in one single articulation.

Given how many excellent libraries Spitfire has put out over the years, I think they just dropped the ball on this one. There is nothing “professional” about this library.

Bernard Herrmann is a really cool library, and doesn’t have these problems.


----------



## galactic orange (Dec 4, 2020)

JohannesR said:


> The first thing I did was voicing a simple triad with the solo horn patch.


One reason I got BHCT was that the horn and trombone sections sounded so good. I was expecting a similar sound and more flexibility with SStB. When I played the Horn Solo 1 patch it broke my heart. The worst patch of the collection and maybe the worst Solo Horn I’ve ever heard. Horn Solo 2 was better, and Spitfire improved some things with updates.

All sample libraries have their good points and some not so good, but I was a bit burned by that. I’ve been reluctant to purchase anything from them for a while. It wasn’t a conscious decision. I started with SCS, LCOS, and BHCT which are all fabulous! I actually like the boxy studio sound of SStO, but something happened with the sampling or programming (in some of the brass, mainly).

Since then I’ve been steadily building my template with brass from other vendors, but still wait for a close, no compromises studio library sound that will impress me. Abbey Road or whatever OT is coming up with could be the key.


----------



## JohannesR (Dec 4, 2020)

galactic orange said:


> When I played the Horn Solo 1 patch it broke my heart. The worst patch of the collection and maybe the worst Solo Horn I’ve ever heard.


So maybe I hit the worst part of the library right from the get go.

On the other hand, it shouldn’t be necessary to use an auxiliary library (Bernard Herrmann) for something simple as a horn triad. Also, I can’t for my life understand why Spitfire can’t be more generous with the short notes. Just spiccato doesn’t quite cut it, and I can’t for my life understand why they don’t get it right from the start. I mean, short articulations are cheap to record compared to legato patches. Having one short note doesn’t qualify for a “professional” tag.

Abbey Road One is truly excellent and one of my favorites this year, but I’m still holding my breath hoping they will record a useable set of short notes to go with it.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 4, 2020)




----------



## ism (Dec 5, 2020)

Hi Peat,




re-peat said:


> There are at least four or five libraries in Spitfire’s catalog — not to mention the many libraries from other developers — that can do that kind of thing A LOT better


 
Well, sure ... except, what is it that I'm trying to do here that they can do better? 

If I was writing, for instance, a particular lyrical piece I'm working on, then even if I was playing exactly the same notes as the above sketch, SCS would undoubtedly be a lot better. If I was looking for drippingly high-romantic, there's no question that CSS would be a better choice.

But I wasn't. And I find that SStS has a very lovely combination of texure and ... I'm never quite sure how to describe it, "crunchiness" maybe? There's a piece I'm working on at the moment that's quite close to my heat that really needs the true sense of spatiality and embodiment or whatever it is that you get in the full AIR Lynduhurst libraries ... and I'll admit that I've banged my head into a few walls before realizing that SStS just isn't going to deliver this. 

In fact I actually quite like your description here.





re-peat said:


> I strongly disagree with you, you see, that because of its baked-in early reflections, the Spitfire Studio Series ‘takes to an external reverb quite well’. I believe, in fact, that the exact opposite is true, because those early reflections, which are indeed a distinct part of the sampled sound, _suggest confinement_ (as early reflections invariably do). Adding a hall reverb to these samples creates a spatial conflict between, on the one hand, the suggestion of confinement as imprinted in the samples and, on the other hand, the suggestion of large-scale spaciousness that comes from the reverb. And that simply doesn’t sound right to my ears.
> (That conflict is least distracting with the strings, and in certain carefully judged situations, you can more or less work around it with several of the woods as well, but it becomes an unsolvable problem with the brass. You can hear all this in the official demo’s. And also in MikeT’s “Avenger” rendition, which, while well done, sounds both big and boxy at the same time.)




It's quite helpful. 

But there's another aesthetic I'm going for here that SStS just somehow really works for - for some thing, typically less lyrical, less introspective, more narrative pieces. Maybe SCS, with lots of close mic would work for this aesthetic also, but ... not sure ... but I really find the SStS is both very often a perfectly adequate $150 "SCS lite", but beyond that has it's own aesthetic in it's right. 


In any event i've written on (what I see as) the aesthetic merits of the SStS in it's own right on various thread, like these: 






Cinematic Studio Strings vs. Spitfire Studio Strings Pro: My observations


Scroll to the bottom of this post for a side-by-side comparison Hi everyone, earlier this week I purchased Cinematic Studio Strings, and boy.. am I glad I did :) As a newbie to the sample scene, I bought the entire Spitfire Studio suite last year: Woodwinds, Brass and Strings. All Pro...




vi-control.net











On Spitfire Studio Strings vs Light and Sound Chamber Strings : A tale of two musicalities.


This is something I wrote in response to post on this thread: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/who-composes-in-notation-programs-and-why.89505/ Which is discussing the process of writing in notation vs directly in a DAW. But my attempt to describe why I’ve found it necessary to...




vi-control.net






So yes, I quite like the effect of the crunchiness arising from the dryness mixed with the disembodied (ie fake) spatiality that comes from the large reverb. Clearly the shimmering of those early reflections aren't entirely real, you'd never mistake this for something recored in the main hall at AIR. 

But I really like them, as I said, for a particularly type of, typically more narrative, and less lyrical pieces, with a particular quality of intensity that's invokes a multivalence of beautiful texture meets crunchiness of the SStS sound, and particular way that legato has a certain flowing intensity. It's certainly not technically superior to SCS or CSS in depth of sampling or sophistication of scripting. But I find if I let SStS be SStS, it can really be very unique and beautiful.

Incidentally, I'd argue that a much more extreme example of the same phenomenon of "beautiful crunchiness" can be found with LCO (recorded in a space with even worse room tone). LCO has very beautiful textures, but it somehow achieves this very particular, beautiful sharpness through (I conjecture) a combination of the dryness of the room, the craziness of the articulations, and the craziness of the micro tuning - which you would think would sound terrible, except it doesn't. 

There's a thread here somewhere where someone suggests that the micro tuning in LCO might be understood something like detune in a synth - when you add a bit of reverb what might other be harshness (and can be, for instance, if you're writing for horror), somehow becomes transmogrified into richness and beauty.


So yes, by the time I add the cathedral reverb to SStS - and particularly all the extra short reflections this entails - it's a bit stylized. But all recordings are at least a bit stylized. And that said, I think it's also very beautiful, carries it's own aesthics and semiotics, and I do think that the early reflections from the room are important in achieving this aesthetic, and preserving a a deeper sense of realism - even if it's a slightly stylized realism.



Conversely, my go-to example (besides the OACE waves) that really shows the sonorous qualities of the AIR Lyndhurst space is this stupid little cello noodle:




Some people find that the bumpiness in the cross fades spoils the illusion for them. But I find that in avoiding phase alignment and other processing techniques that you would need to use to avoid the bumpiness, you really preserve the sonority of the samples and the space they're recorded in. And I'll take the deeply lyrical, "emotional realism" that flows from these sample in this space over a pristinely smooth modelled instrument any day. 

The size and reverberance of AIR Lyndhurst surely can work to give SSO it's capacity for the epic. But to me, this noodle embodies the truly lyrical qualities of sonority the SF draw out of AIR Lundhurst samples. And you're obviously never going to this with the Studio series. 

And yet, to get this sound, I'm using 100% close mic, and 45% tree. Which isn't especially "realistic". So even this is a bit stylized. 


And thanks for the Williams example. It's helpful in understand the kind of sound are aspiring to with dryer libraries. Though my sympathies if you're trying to achieve that sound with ... well pretty much anything. I can't think of anything that would let a mock up capture that intimacy while preserving the sonority.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 5, 2020)

I always liked it to read *re-peat`s *posts, because I know that he has so good working ears. He is able to hear a grass halm growing. And this is good meant from my point! *re-peat* has no qualms about calling facts by their names. And you know what? I don't think he has any bad intentions at all, absolutely none. He's just being honest and talking about what his ears are telling him.


----------



## JonS (Dec 28, 2020)

mussnig said:


> Having both SStO Pro and BHCT, I have been wondering why the general attitude seems to be so negative towards the former but so positive towards the latter. Both where recorded in the same room, same mics, same recording/mixing engineer (Simon Rhodes) and more or less same musicians (as far as I know).
> 
> Yes, BHCT has different patches/combinations and different articulations (e.g. chords) and I like it for all the reasons that others like it as well. But I found that a lot of people were complaining about the sound/room of SStO in general but I did not find a lot of people complaining about the sound of BHCT. Why is that? I do understand, that some people are not happy with the "bumps" in Studio Brass (although they are by far not as many as people make them seem and it's far from unusable in my opinion) but that doesn't seem to be the only reason (by far not).
> 
> ...


BHCT and SStO Pro are both excellent!! I also really love Spitfire Masse too!!


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Dec 29, 2020)

Seven more hours to go before SStO Pro finishes downloading. I can’t wait to try it with BHCT. Just curious what other libraries play well with this combination. I read in the past that LCO Strings worked well with BHCT. Any others?


----------



## mussnig (Dec 29, 2020)

DimensionsTomorrow said:


> Seven more hours to go before SStO Pro finishes downloading. I can’t wait to try it with BHCT. Just curious what other libraries play well with this combination. I read in the past that LCO Strings worked well with BHCT. Any others?


Probably Kepler (same room) but I think also BDT. But I think Dan Keen had a nice video where he combines it with BBCSO.


----------



## Mornats (Dec 30, 2020)

I mix Studio Strings (core) with Heavyocity's Intimate and Rhythmic Textures with good effect. So I guess it would go well with the rest of the Novo series.


----------



## StillLife (Dec 30, 2020)

Anyone uses the Studio series with Albion NEO?


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Dec 30, 2020)

I finally got SStO Pro downloaded and had an evening and morning to play with it. First impressions are that I love the strings and woodwinds for my purposes, and that I can also see why people have complained about the brass. Some of the default brass sounds are not very inspiring.

I’m going to withhold judgment on the brass though as I want to see what everything sounds like in a mix. At the very least, I think it will require time learning the various mics and some processing to dial in what I’m after with some of the brass (some of it sounds good to me with little to no tweaking though and I’ve yet to go into the extended patches!). All in all, I’m really glad I got the full package and I’m pretty confident that SStO Pro and BHCT will be a great fit for my needs! I’m excited to start writing some pieces with this combination.


----------



## JonS (Dec 31, 2020)

DimensionsTomorrow said:


> I finally got SStO Pro downloaded and had an evening and morning to play with it. First impressions are that I love the strings and woodwinds for my purposes, and that I can also see why people have complained about the brass. Some of the default brass sounds are not very inspiring.
> 
> I’m going to withhold judgment on the brass though as I want to see what everything sounds like in a mix. At the very least, I think it will require time learning the various mics and some processing to dial in what I’m after with some of the brass (some of it sounds good to me with little to no tweaking though and I’ve yet to go into the extended patches!). All in all, I’m really glad I got the full package and I’m pretty confident that SStO Pro and BHCT will be a great fit for my needs! I’m excited to start writing some pieces with this combination.


BHCT and SStO Pro are terrific together. For some reason many people don't love SStO Pro, but I think it's fantastic!!


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Mar 27, 2021)

Because my taste is for smaller, closer sounds (like old TV scores), my first thought when using SStO Pro was to try to use the close mics to achieve this, but it turns out that for the sound I’m after, the best results seem to be from Stereo Mix 2, particularly for the woodwinds and brass. I cut the reverb completely, and add my own (and also hike the volume a bit in Kontakt as I find the libraries a bit quiet).

I’d be curious to know if anyone has found a combination of mics on the non-stereo patches that get a similar sound. 

I also find it interesting that Stereo Mix 2 doesn’t sound the same for BHCT. You can’t really dial out the room sound with it, except for certain patches like the harps.


----------



## CT (Mar 27, 2021)

I would think Tree 2 with a bit of Close would give you that sort of small, close, "old TV" sound. Not sure off the top of my head what Simon put into the mixes, but that might be similar to what Mix 2 is based on. The second tree is a more directional setup than the usual omni tree, so it'll be a tighter sound and keep the room at bay.


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Mar 27, 2021)

Mike T said:


> I would think Tree 2 with a bit of Close would give you that sort of small, close, "old TV" sound. Not sure off the top of my head what Simon put into the mixes, but that might be similar to what Mix 2 is based on. The second tree is a more directional setup than the usual omni tree, so it'll be a tighter sound and keep the room at bay.


Thanks very much, Mike. I’ll give that a try. Great info about Tree 2. I wasn’t aware of the difference in the Trees, particularly in practical mixing terms. This is my first proper orchestral library so I’m still learning my way around the mics. I have found that the close mics on their own can be a bit thin and sometimes harsh, so something else is needed to bring back a bit of fullness.

Also, while I like most of the Stereo 2 mixes, there are a handful of patches, mostly A2s, where I’m not that keen on the mix, so it will be good to experiment on some alternate mixes for those. It will also be interesting to see if I can achieve something similar to the Stereo 2 mixes in BHCT with those mic combinations.

BTW, does Spitfire disclose details about the stereo mixes?


----------



## mussnig (Mar 27, 2021)

DimensionsTomorrow said:


> Thanks very much, Mike. I’ll give that a try. Great info about Tree 2. I wasn’t aware of the difference in the Trees, particularly in practical mixing terms. This is my first proper orchestral library so I’m still learning my way around the mics. I have found that the close mics on their own can be a bit thin and sometimes harsh, so something else is needed to bring back a bit of fullness.
> 
> Also, while I like most of the Stereo 2 mixes, there are a handful of patches, mostly A2s, where I’m not that keen on the mix, so it will be good to experiment on some alternate mixes for those. It will also be interesting to see if I can achieve something similar to the Stereo 2 mixes in BHCT with those mic combinations.
> 
> BTW, does Spitfire disclose details about the stereo mixes?



Well, there is some general info on the mics and mixes in the manual but afaik there are no details as to how the mixes were created. I also found that it's sometimes easier to hear certain differences between mics and mixes once you send the signal through some nice reverb.

Also, try to play around a bit with some distance plugin as well as EQ. In general, when I want to create a larger soundstage I find that I need to tame the high-ends a bit because they seem to resonate with the room.


----------



## companyofquail (Mar 27, 2021)

@DimensionsTomorrow also make sure you check out "alternative solo strings". i really like the mic setup in that set.


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Mar 27, 2021)

companyofquail said:


> @DimensionsTomorrow also make sure you check out "alternative solo strings". i really like the mic setup in that set.


@companyofquail Thanks! I grabbed those and LCO Strings when they were on sale, and really dig the sound. That’s sort of what I’m going for and find Stereo Mix 2 in SStO Pro the closest fit.


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Mar 28, 2021)

Mike T said:


> I would think Tree 2 with a bit of Close would give you that sort of small, close, "old TV" sound. Not sure off the top of my head what Simon put into the mixes, but that might be similar to what Mix 2 is based on. The second tree is a more directional setup than the usual omni tree, so it'll be a tighter sound and keep the room at bay.


Tree 2 and a bit of close mic is the answer! Thanks a bunch! I’m so glad I asked.

Now I need to go through and get all the patches dialed in.


----------

