# Spitfire Chamber Strings vs Studio Strings PRO



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

In your opinion which one, and why?

I will be using this for film/game/tv scoring.

As far as I understand from what I've read so far, SSS is recorded in a drier environment so I would have to add reverb in post. I would love if I could get the SCS PRO but it is so much more than SSS PRO that it's really not an option any more, hence why I am comparing the regular SCS against the SSS Pro, as they are much closer in price.

With all of that in mind which one of the two would you pick as your main orchestral string library?

Thank you for taking time to respond


----------



## ysnyvz (May 27, 2019)

As an owner of SCS, Studio Strings Core, a few other libraries from Spitfire, a lot more from other developers including CSS, I like SCS most. It's not perfect, but its sound, playability, articulation list and upfront character are great for me.


----------



## jneebz (May 27, 2019)

I was going to give @Wolfie2112 a thumbs up for the advice, but his post disappeared.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 27, 2019)

jneebz said:


> I was going to give @Wolfie2112 a thumbs up for the advice, but his post disappeared.



LOL! I hit the delete button by accident!

Here's my 2 cents. Spitfire Chamber Strings or Studio Strings as a MAIN orchestral string library? Neither. Too dry, and the ensembles are too small. Each have a good place in a template (I love Studio Strings), but I use them more for intimate pieces. And you mentioned film/game/tv scoring....that is very vague, there are so many genres. Do you have any projects coming up that require a specific sound or genre? As a good, all round main string library, I would look more at CSS, Spitfire Symphonic Strings, etc. I personally use Hollywood Strings and CS2 but that's just what works for me.


----------



## jneebz (May 27, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I personally use Hollywood Strings and CS2 but that's just what works for me.


Me too. I've been SO close to grabbing CSS but I just have to see what LASS 3 is going to offer...


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

SCS has long been my main string library. I have many others (including SStS Pro) but none of them come close to SCS in terms of breadth of content and ease of use. For instance, you get a greater variety of longs, shorts, and legatos with SCS compared to SStS. That said, yes, there are many great string libraries, and some of them excel at things SCS does not. You will get a drier sound out of SStS than SCS, and many prefer that.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 27, 2019)

jneebz said:


> Me too. I've been SO close to grabbing CSS but I just have to see what LASS 3 is going to offer...



Actually, I'm in the same boat! I might pick up both CSS and CSB if LASS 3 doesn't pan out.


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Too dry, and the ensembles are too small. Each have a good place in a template (I love Studio Strings), but I use them more for intimate pieces. And you mentioned film/game/tv scoring....that is very vague, there are so many genres. Do you have any projects coming up that require a specific sound or genre? As a good, all round main string library, I would look more at CSS, Spitfire Symphonic Strings, etc. I personally use Hollywood Strings and CS2 but that's just what works for me.


SCS too dry? I'm also the opposite in terms of basic ensemble. I reach for SCS first and then supplement when needed to get a bigger ensemble.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> you get a greater variety of longs, shorts, and legatos with SCS compared to SStS.


Is this with the regular SCS version or the more expensive pro version of SCS?


----------



## CT (May 27, 2019)

Studio Strings has a lot going for it, but unless you specifically need the tighter sound, I don't think there's any question that Chamber Strings is the better library.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

miket said:


> unless you specifically need the tighter sound, I don't think there's any question that Chamber Strings is the better library.


What about using post editing to add reverb to the drier libraries? As I can only imagine that it would be more difficult/ impossible to remove the natural reverb from the SCS?


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Is this with the regular SCS version or the more expensive pro version of SCS?


Pro version of SCS is just additional mics. (SCS core comes with CTA mics.) Pro version of Studio Strings has additional ensemble sizes and so forth and a bunch of microphones (core only has a single tree mic). So the pro version of Studio Strings adds a lot more to the package than does the pro version of SCS.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

Also as a side


jbuhler said:


> Pro version of SCS is just additional mics


I see, thank you


----------



## CT (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> What about using post editing to add reverb to the drier libraries? As I can only imagine that it would be more difficult/ impossible to remove the natural reverb from the SCS?



Well, you can find many lengthy discussions here about real ambience vs. adding reverb to drier sounds. Personally, I will take the former over the latter every time, but that's a choice you'll have to make yourself, based on what you want/need more often. If that's a dry sound, then it certainly makes more sense to get the dry library and fake a larger space when necessary.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

Also as a side note, What do you guys think about Spitfire Studio Brass and Woodwinds? Are they a better choice over the symphony brass and woodwind series? As there isn't a chamber version of them like the strings library.


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

If I'm honest, I'll also say that I don't love the sound of the shorts in Studio Strings, whereas the shorts in SCS has some of the loveliest string shorts I know.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Also as a side note, What do you guys think about Spitfire Studio Brass and Woodwinds? Are they a better choice over the symphony brass and woodwind series? As there isn't a chamber version of them like the strings library.



I'm personally a big fan, but those libraries have some generally knowledgeable detractors. I finished four compositions since I bought them during the last Wish List sale, so obviously they were very inspiring.

To be fair to the abovementioned detractors, there are things about those libraries that have to be worked around and/or simply substituted with other libraries. And I seem in the minority of people whom use them for solo lines and find the legato quite good. But hey, there it is.

When it comes to the woodwinds it's possible to go with the cheaper Core library and get away with it. But it's best to save up for the Professional versions of both, as the second Decca, outrigger, and close mics can be extraordinarily helpful in getting the sound you want. The horns and trombones, for example, in SStB are pretty anemic with just the Decca mic alone and I wouldn't recommend them to _anyone_ in that incarnation. I use all mics except the Ambient and max the close mics, back off on the Deccas, and keep the Outriggers around midlevel for a lot of my work with them.

And keep in mind before buying, those libraries are nearly bone dry. Even the outrigger mic still sounds relatively close. If you're looking for something out of the box you might look elsewhere.

Hokay, ready to hear the negatives.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

For solo strings I use the Hein. I should mention I did get some use out of the Adagio Viola and Double Bass (NOT the violin, which I consider to be an abomination of incalculable crud hitherto unknown) .


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Also as a side note, What do you guys think about Spitfire Studio Brass and Woodwinds? Are they a better choice over the symphony brass and woodwind series? As there isn't a chamber version of them like the strings library.


I would say check out the by now very lengthy discussions of the Studio Brass and Studio Woodwind libraries on the dedicated threads. Personally, I love the sound of the brass and the woodwinds in the big hall (that is, the Symphonic series libraries), and my basic orchestra is SCS with SSB and SSW. I do supplement the brass with Iceni and Arks 1 and 2 (horns a8, trumpets a4, Wagner tubas). I use SStB for mutes. When I need a bigger string sound, I'll add SSS and use SCS for divisi sections.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I'm personally a big fan


So if I got all of that right, you'd choose the Studio series for them both? 


Parsifal666 said:


> And keep in mind before buying, those libraries are nearly bone dry. Even the outrigger mic still sounds relatively close. If you're looking for something out of the box you might look elsewhere.


Hmm so I gathered from reading about the spitfire Studio libraries. Do you think that a good reverb and some mixing could achieve a believable, natural sounding ambience?


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> When I need a bigger string sound, I'll add SSS and use SCS for divisi sections.


So I would eventually have to buy both the drier and the wetter libraries to have more control?


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> So if I got all of that right, you'd choose the Studio series for them both?
> 
> Hmm so I gathered from reading about the spitfire Studio libraries. Do you think that a good reverb and some mixing could achieve a believable, natural sounding ambience?


The nice thing about the Studio series is that they are dry and so you have a wide variety of choices for the sound of the hall. With the Symphony series, you have the big hall, which is nice, but that sound is baked in.


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> So I would eventually have to buy both the drier and the wetter libraries to have more control?


No necessarily. Here SSS is SF Symphonic Strings, not SF Studio Strings. So it's all in the big hall. If you like the big hall, then you you don't have to worry about it, but if you need a radically different kind of sound it can be hard to get with those libraries. I like that sound and it serves almost all my needs at the moment, so I tend to mix dry libraries to that sound rather than needing to put that sound somewhere else (and the big hall also mixes well with OT libraries).

ETA: Studio Strings Pro has the divisi sections so that allows you to do quite a lot and with different sized ensembles. That is very convenient. The divisi doesn't always sound to me like divisi though. I think SCS sounds more like divisi section of Symphonic Strings than the small divisi sections of Studio Strings sounds like a divisi section of the big Studio Strings ensemble. I haven't studied it well enough to know why it sounds that way to me. It's just something I've noticed. I really do wish the articulations were more consistent across section sizes in Studio Strings.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> So if I got all of that right, you'd choose the Studio series for them both?
> 
> Hmm so I gathered from reading about the spitfire Studio libraries. Do you think that a good reverb and some mixing could achieve a believable, natural sounding ambience?


I use SStWW and SStB in conjunction with other dry libs like BHCT, the Hein, and EW Hollywood. They complement each other nicely. But for ensemble strings my go to is EWH...easily. And as the Wolf man above mentioned, still learning about that amazing library a decade later. In my humble opinion if all I had was HW strings and brass I'd be doing pretty damn good, and I know many other paid composers who feel similarly. That said, I'd hate to go without my Arks, Iceni... and there ain't no one taking away my BHCT. Nuh-uh.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I use SStWW and SStB


SStWW and SStB as in Spitfire Symphony Woodwinds and Spitfire Symphony Brass? Sorry all of these shortenings make me read them wrong every time. By the way, what is the t in SStWW, etc?


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> SStWW and SStB as in Spitfire Symphony Woodwinds and Spitfire Symphony Brass? Sorry all of these shortenings make me read them wrong every time. By the way, what is the t in SStWW, etc?


SSS, SSB, SSW are all part of SSO, Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra. This is the Symphonic series. SCS was also recorded in the same hall, and many substitute SCS for SSS (and SF even offers a bundle for that). SStS, SStB, SStW are all part of SStO, Spitfire Studio Orchestra, and these are all the dry libraries.

To this you can add that the Albion series was all recorded in the same hall as SSO. And BHCT was recorded in the same studio space as the Studio Orchestra.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Hmm so I gathered from reading about the spitfire Studio libraries. Do you think that a good reverb and some mixing could achieve a believable, natural sounding ambience?



IMO, not really. They are not meant to have that type of sound, hence the room they were recorded in. You could, but I personally wouldn't consider that if you want that lush sound. I would opt for a bigger sounding library (more wet), with bigger sections. The Spitfire Studio Series bundle is a great library to have regardless (even the core), but I would not constitute them as a main string library by any means.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> SSS, SSB, SSW are all part of SSO, Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra.





Wolfie2112 said:


> IMO, not really. They are not meant to have that type of sound


Got it. I think I will buy SCS, SSB and SSW. 

Do you guys think I can get away with using SCS for bigger sice stuff? maybe by layering, etc. Or would I also have to get the SSS to achieve it?


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

Sometimes I wonder if people dismiss EWH strings because they're old. It's testimony to the greatness of the lib that pros are still using them, indeed more than a few make it their default. Sure the play engine makes it look even older, but there are innumerable great patches there imo. Sometimes developers do things that stand the test of time and both the stgs and brass are a great example of that imo. As non glamorous as they may be, you might want to try them via Composer Cloud first and perhaps save a lot of money.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

Also, in retrospect. How often do you use the dry libraries compared for the wetter ones?


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

I also would reconsider looking for samples that are most authentic sounding. You can only get so real without the sympathetic vibration among a live orchestra. Instead, try going more for libraries you'll be inspired by, libs that will get you writing often. Without working on your composition skills often those libs can only do you so much good. And try not to hang out here too much, as you might end up down the library rabbit hole I too often see some folks falling into. I myself have to take breaks now and again.


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Got it. I think I will buy SCS, SSB and SSW.
> 
> Do you guys think I can get away with using SCS for bigger sice stuff? maybe by layering, etc. Or would I also have to get the SSS to achieve it?


SCS layers reasonably well with itself, since it has so many legatos, for instance, it's fairly easy to do. If you want something bigger there are also cheaper libraries out there than SSS that I think will work well for that bigger sound when you need it. I've been told by more than one person that Light and Sound Chamber Strings are an excellent supplement to SCS.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Also, in retrospect. How often do you use the dry libraries compared for the wetter ones?


I use the wetter ones when I am sketching and want an instantly good sound. The drier ones are more malleable.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> SCS layers reasonably well with itself





Parsifal666 said:


> You can only get so real without the sympathetic vibration among a live orchestra.



Thank you for all this information and advice!

Since SSB and SSW are symphonic, does it usually drown out the SCS due to its smaller number of players compared to them? If it does, for example like in parts where the woodwinds and the brass instruments be played Forte and I would still want the Stringed section not to get lost in the mix.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 27, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I use the wetter ones when I am sketching and want an instantly good sound. The drier ones are more malleable.


How do you personaly add the wetness to the dry libraries when you need them to have natural sounding spaces?


----------



## Vik (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Do you guys think I can get away with using SCS for bigger sice stuff? maybe by layering, etc. Or would I also have to get the SSS to achieve it?


You can layer SCS with itself in various ways (eg layer normal strings with con sardinos or sul tastos, or add a tad from an ensemble under one of the sections, or combine bass/cello, or violin/viola and so on). If you want another library to use along with SCS, maybe you should also consider some of the other good string libraries as well - like Berlin Strings, CSS or Afflatus - and/or some good solo strings to layer with your ensembles. That will add some definition and detail. 

SSS is good in several ways too, but the sections in SCS are 4/3/3/3/3 – while SSS sections are 16/14/12/10/8, so SCS isn't exactly an ideal library to use as divisi for SSS. 

There are some other, less expensive libraries that are worth checking out as well, like Con Moto, Soaring Strings and Light and Sound Chamber strings. Plus, of course, other Spitfire libraries that are worth checking out, like the Bernard Herrmann Toolkit, their studio and solo strings, the chamber evolutions and so on. But whatever you do, be careful with ordering too much stuff at the same time. According to my experience, it's a better idea to buy one library at a time. Once you have spent some time with one library, you know more about what you should look for in other libraries. Good luck.


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Thank you for all this information and advice!
> 
> Since SSB and SSW are symphonic, does it usually drown out the SCS due to its smaller number of players compared to them? If it does, for example like in parts where the woodwinds and the brass instruments be played Forte and I would still want the Stringed section not to get lost in the mix.


No, not really. I mean you have to balance your instruments like you would with any ensemble. You have the instruments play what's reasonable (if you care about that). You take into account the dynamics of the ensemble when setting the dynamics of the wind and brass players. Chamber orchestras play with winds in pairs, a varied assortment of brass (2-4 horns, 2 trumpets, occasionally 3 trombones and even a tuba), and timpani all the time and the strings don't struggle to be heard. When you are dealing with recordings you can also do some balancing with the faders. (Recordings, even good commercial ones, don't really sound like an orchestra in a hall.) What you lack in the smaller string ensemble is something more akin to weight than volume. What you gain in the smaller string ensemble is detail. You can layer to some extent to add weight. (You can also layer SCS with a bigger string library to bring some detail—especially nice for digging type shorts in loud dynamic settings.) If you find yourself writing all the time for strings in octaves, you'll probably want to add another library, because in such contexts you are usually looking for weight as much as volume. And so forth...


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2019)

Vik said:


> SSS is good in several ways too, but the sections in SCS are 4/3/3/3/3 – while SSS sections are 16/14/12/10/8, so SCS isn't exactly an ideal library to use as divisi for SSS.


In theory this is the case. I practice, I find it works extremely well.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> How do you personaly add the wetness to the dry libraries when you need them to have natural sounding spaces?



I've been using RC 48 for the first time ever on my buses for the past month or so, and find it delightfully, surprisingly good. But I usually use Altiverb or EW Spaces for final mockups. I just got worn out using the latter two so wanted some novelty. 

I must admit, it was nice to find something that I'd buried for years turn out to be not bad at all.


----------



## Geoff Grace (May 27, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> Got it. I think I will buy SCS, SSB and SSW.


In that case, look at the https://www.spitfireaudio.com/shop/a-z/sso-cs-edition/ (Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra Chamber Strings Edition) to get a bundle price break for all three.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2019)

Hollywood Strings and Spitfire Chamber are a very happy combination. You have all the size you need with HS and can add expressive quality to it with the smaller SCS. The results are just what you would hope for. Also you can use SCS as the divisi of HS. So each library enhances the other without the overkill of two large libraries blended or two smaller libraries not quite getting big enough.

A very flexible, useful combination. My SoundCloud page has a fugue I did recently where the final [strings only at 1:16] section really demonstrates them working together if you would like to hear. They’re together throughout the entire piece for the most part. Often to bring out a line that’s getting lost or needs more expression - or for a divisi that you don’t want to be unnaturally large and clumsy.


----------



## jaketanner (May 28, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> SSS is recorded in a drier environment



Be sure to use SStS, as SSS=Spitfire Symphonic Strings...so there is no confusion. 

Also, the Studio series is no way similar, or can be close to the sound of Air Studios...maybe you can fake a space for them, but you can't fake the initial SOUND you'd get from simply being in that hall. The Studio series has it's ups, but not a replacement for anything in a nice large space. 

If you want a ton of articulations, and the sound of Air Studios, then go SCS...I have it, and it's very flexible and sounds great. If you want a much drier sound, that can be used for pop as well, and much smaller ensembles given the divisi, then go Studio. Each has it's unique sound, so listen to the demos and only you can decide which will work best for you.

Goo luck.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 29, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> Be sure to use SStS, as SSS=Spitfire Symphonic Strings...so there is no confusion.


Yeah I wasn't completely sure of the difference of the t between SSS and SStS. Thank you 


jaketanner said:


> If you want a much drier sound, that can be used for pop as well, and much smaller ensembles given the divisi, then go Studio


How often would a drier library like SStS be used in movie or game scoring? If at all.


----------



## Vik (May 29, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> How often would a drier library like SStS be used in movie or game scoring?


Dry libraries are can be very useful. One can always add reverb(s), but if you work with wet libraries, and there are no mic positions that are as dry as you want them to be (because even in close mics you'll be able to hear that the library has been recorded in a large hall), your are more stuck with 'one kind of sound' then you are with dry libraries. 

Having said that, it's usually possible to combine wet and dry libraries, or even use dry libraries combined with only the wet microphones from a wet library. 

I have SSS and SCS, but not SStS, but from what I've heard, I prefer the legatos in SCS. I think I've read that SCS also is a favourite among those who work at Spitfire. If you are happy with the SStS legatos, I wouldn't be worried about that library being too dry.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 29, 2019)

Dave Connor said:


> Hollywood Strings and Spitfire Chamber are a very happy combination. You have all the size you need with HS and can add expressive quality to it with the smaller SCS. The results are just what you would hope for. Also you can use SCS as the divisi of HS. So each library enhances the other without the overkill of two large libraries blended or two smaller libraries not quite getting big enough.
> 
> A very flexible, useful combination. My SoundCloud page has a fugue I did recently where the final [strings only at 1:16] section really demonstrates them working together if you would like to hear. They’re together throughout the entire piece for the most part. Often to bring out a line that’s getting lost or needs mor expression - or for a divisi that you don’t want to be unnaturally large and clumsy.



Great sounding fugue, Dave.


----------



## jaketanner (May 29, 2019)

Last-Echo said:


> How often would a drier library like SStS be used in movie or game scoring? If at all.



For gaming, I'd say pretty good...reason is that you have more freedom to put the music in different environments that might fit the visuals better. For movies not so much. For TV, that usually uses smaller and more intimate scoring, good chance.


----------



## Last-Echo (May 29, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> reason is that you have more freedom to put the music in different environments that might fit the visuals better.


Hmm makes sense, and I can picture it also being used along side more electronic type of sounds to give of a hybrid feel to the score. 
Thank you for you knowledge and input


----------



## robgb (May 29, 2019)

I like the dryness of Studio Strings Core. And Pro is even drier, if you choose the close up mics. I don't own SCS, but I imagine I'd probably prefer Studio Strings. Adding ambience isn't rocket science.


----------



## jaketanner (May 29, 2019)

robgb said:


> I like the dryness of Studio Strings Core. And Pro is even drier, if you choose the close up mics. I don't own SCS, but I imagine I'd probably prefer Studio Strings. Adding ambience isn't rocket science.



I own Chamber, but not StudioStrings, but I do have Studio Winds Pro, so I know the sound of the room...however I can tell you, that adding ambience is not the same as capturing the sound in the room from the start. What's been recorded is the room tone...dry or not, the strings in Studio series sound how they sound because of the room. Chamber has close mics also, but they're not dry...so yeah, you can add a nice hall to put them in, but you'd still have the tone of the room.


----------



## Mark Schmieder (May 29, 2019)

I have recently found the tremolos in the Studio Strings to be the perfect balance of clarity, timbre, and heft, that one might get from an imaginary library that is in-between chamber size and regular orchestra section size (not super-grand size), without any anomalies or stacking issues if trying to personally "size" a custom "section" oneself. To me, they're worth it for that alone.


----------



## robgb (May 30, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> however I can tell you, that adding ambience is not the same as capturing the sound in the room from the start.


You can easily create the tone of the room. I do that with all my dry instruments. You create a smaller room on the instrument chain itself (you can even do this in Kontakt, if your'e so inclined), then use a reverb bus to put it in a hall. Studio Strings Core already has that smaller room sound, so that step isn't necessary. But what the drier instruments allow you to do is mix and match libraries so that they all sound as if they're in the same hall. With the baked in halls it takes much more time and effort to try to match the hall they were recorded it in and can quickly become a muddy mess.


----------



## jaketanner (May 30, 2019)

robgb said:


> You can easily create the tone of the room.



The “room” tone is not what I meant though. It’s the sound of the room, that makes the tone of the instrument. So as an extreme example, a violin recorded in a vocal booth with a killer reverb, will never sound the same if recorded close in a nice hall. So the small room will not give you the same tone. Even if you had Lyndhurst studios as an impulse response, the damage is done in the recording process. You can get close, but not the same thing. This is extremely apparent in the winds. That smaller room is not flattering for woodwinds at all.


----------



## robgb (May 30, 2019)

jaketanner said:


> It’s the sound of the room, that makes the tone of the instrument. So as an extreme example, a violin recorded in a vocal booth with a killer reverb, will never sound the same if recorded close in a nice hall.


I beg to differ. You can do amazing things in the mix. Delay. EQ. Reverb. Compression. If what you are suggesting were true, even a VOCAL wouldn't sound right.


----------



## pderbidge (May 30, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Spitfire Chamber Strings or Studio Strings as a MAIN orchestral string library? Neither. Too dry, and the ensembles are too small.





Wolfie2112 said:


> Actually, I'm in the same boat! I might pick up both CSS and CSB if LASS 3 doesn't pan out.



Not sure you're going to like LASS 3 if you think SCS is too dry.


----------



## pderbidge (May 30, 2019)

robgb said:


> I beg to differ. You can do amazing things in the mix. Delay. EQ. Reverb. Compression. If what you are suggesting were true, even a VOCAL wouldn't sound right.


I can see where he is coming from. If the room sound you are looking for is, for example, Air Studios then there probably isn't a room verb that is going to sound quite like recording the instrument in the space to begin with, but whether or not a decent reverb added to a dry recording sounds just as good, although not the same, is subjective. I'm with you Rob on the dry libraries but if you have, say all the Spitfire Libraries recorded in the same space like the way their SSO sereies then I can see the convenience of not having to spend as much time processing the sound with reverb (although there is the room buildup issue but that's another discussion)


----------



## jaketanner (May 30, 2019)

robgb said:


> I beg to differ. You can do amazing things in the mix. Delay. EQ. Reverb. Compression. If what you are suggesting were true, even a VOCAL wouldn't sound right.



I am a mix engineer. Well aware of how I can make things sound and I am not arguing this point. I’m saying that the tone of the samples are not as nice, as the tones from a better sounding room. And especially for the winds. A vocal has been heard in every space imaginable, so whatever you do to it, it’s still going to sound fine. A violin has its space to shine. Not every space does it justice. 

We can certainly make dry samples sound like they’re in a bigger space, but we’d still be starting with a less than stellar tone. Which was my point . But I think we agree on most things. I a just not a huge fan of dry orchestral instruments, since we rarely ever hear them that way.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 30, 2019)

pderbidge said:


> Not sure you're going to like LASS 3 if you think SCS is too dry.



What I meant was....too dry as a main string library. I use HS as my main, hoping LASS 3 might be a good contrast.


----------



## neblix (May 30, 2019)

robgb said:


> I beg to differ. You can do amazing things in the mix. Delay. EQ. Reverb. Compression. If what you are suggesting were true, even a VOCAL wouldn't sound right.



Replicating good room tones lies in the gear you have available. Definitely convolution based stuff with stellar early reflections are a must. But it's nice when the library just has this part taken care of for you; this is coming from a guy who only uses close mics in his mixes, in every single library. Not to mention not all reverberations are equal in quality; and this is certainly subjective, but AIR studios is popular for a reason.


----------



## pderbidge (May 31, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> What I meant was....too dry as a main string library. I use HS as my main, hoping LASS 3 might be a good contrast.



I get what you're saying however as a LASS owner I think it would work great as a main string library. Just a different preference is all. I have HS as well but I think if I had to choose a main I would actually choose LASS. I still love HS though.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 31, 2019)

I do know I have EWHD, the Heins, Session Strings Pro, and other more niche string libraries and I'm planning on buying Studio Pro next wish list and letting the Symphonic Strings hang by the wayside. I just don't need a wet string library (my Arks and Albions take care of that nicely, thank you, even if Ark 1's longs aren't exactly pristine). But then, I am getting pretty beholden to dry libraries in general. I also have been inspired by both the SStS walkthroughs and demos I've heard. I can't say that about SSS.


----------



## Mark Schmieder (May 31, 2019)

It's funny you should bring up Session Strings Pro from NI, as I was using it for some pop duties for a while, then tried to adjust to v2 when I upgraded Komplete at end of February. My frustrations with that experiment led me down a few other choices until I settled on Spitfire Studio String Pro, which got me the "cuts through the mix" results that I needed, but without sacrificing warmth or articulateness. Yet I can also make Spitfire's library sound cold if that's what I need.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 31, 2019)

Mark Schmieder said:


> It's funny you should bring up Session Strings Pro from NI, as I was using it for some pop duties for a while, then tried to adjust to v2 when I upgraded Komplete at end of February. My frustrations with that experiment led me down a few other choices until I settled on Spitfire Studio String Pro, which got me the "cuts through the mix" results that I needed, but without sacrificing warmth or articulateness. Yet I can also make Spitfire's library sound cold if that's what I need.


 I used SSP for a rock opera I wrote back in the day, it was perfect for that kinda Poppy thing I was going for. Not my favorite but definitely useful.


----------



## Mark Schmieder (May 31, 2019)

Yeah, it's good value, and I did eventually succeed in matching my previous settings from v1 so I could do a more honest comparison, as well as trying new settings in v2 that took advantage of all that it has to offer. It won't get deleted; that's for sure. Interestingly, as I didn't expect this, I don't find that it speeds up my workflow like the original version does, so I have less incentive to use it now -- especially with this Spitfire lib at hand. But for the NI lib, at least there was no cash outlay as it is part of Komplete. It may crop up in another project at some point, such as my own unfinished rock opera.


----------



## pderbidge (May 31, 2019)

pderbidge said:


> I get what you're saying however as a LASS owner I think it would work great as a main string library. Just a different preference is all. I have HS as well but I think if I had to choose a main I would actually choose LASS. I still love HS though.


It dawned on me to reply to my own post here and clarify because context is everything. Due to the variety of songs I do that are not orchestral LASS is the obvious choice, however if I were doing trailer work or film scoring then I think that Hollywood Strings would be a better choice. LASS would certainly compliment HS to give it some dry bite where needed.


----------



## dman007 (Nov 29, 2019)

I regret buying the Studio Strings Pro. Chamber sound far better, different league imho


----------



## jaketanner (Nov 29, 2019)

dman007 said:


> I regret buying the Studio Strings Pro. Chamber sound far better, different league imho


That’s interesting you regret it. It’s very versatile and it shines more as a small symphony. Utilizing the 3 divisi sections really makes a difference as well as customizing the mics.


----------

