# Spitfire Appassionata vs my custom string layers



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Hi all. I've done a quick test of the new Spitfire Appassionata Strings using one of my default reference tracks.

From 00:00 to 01:30, you will hear Spitfire Appassionata using minimal processing as Spitfire said that this library sounds like a real strings section out of the box.

Next, from 01:30 until the end, you will hear the same track but this time using a layering of various libraries going through my processing chain that I'd typically use for such a piece.

None of these is perfect nor has it been tweaked for hours. It mostly reflects the way I want to work with a strings library. And before you ask, yes, the MIDI CCs were adapted for each performance.









ReelCrafter







rcrft.co


----------



## robgb (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Hi all. I've done a quick test of the new Spitfire Appassionata Strings using one of my default reference tracks.


Well, if it's a question of "realism," then your custom layering wins by a mile. If it's a question of "emotion," then your custom layering wins by half a mile. I did notice that the Spitfire strings were printed louder, and even that wasn't an advantage. That said, the Spitfire strings still sound very nice.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

robgb said:


> Well, if it's a question of "realism," then your custom layering wins by a mile. If it's a question of "emotion," then your custom layering wins by half a mile. I did notice that the Spitfire strings were printed louder, and even that wasn't an advantage. That said, the Spitfire strings still sound very nice.


It's partly done on purpose as "louder sounds better" and I wanted to test this as well. It doesn't really help here, that surprised me a little bit.


----------



## RogiervG (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin, just curious, why didn't you post this in the release thread? (others post their renders their too, for discussing the library)
Might have a good reason.. but now there is a spread of information on multiple threads, making it harder to keep discussion on the library centralized


----------



## robgb (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> It's partly done on purpose as "louder sounds better" and I wanted to test this as well. It doesn't really help here, that surprised me a little bit.


I'd love to know what your layers are. I tend to layer strings too, and find it really brings a track to life.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

RogiervG said:


> Akarin, just curious, why didn't you post this in the release thread? (others post their renders their too, for discussing the library)


Because I'm not done reading it... only at page 39 now :-p So far, I've seen a lot of talks but no examples except for the great demo done by one of the Spitfire devs. I can merge it as soon as I'm done reading it


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

robgb said:


> I'd love to know what your layers are. I tend to layer strings too, and find it really brings a track to life.


I'll let the numerous string library experts take a shot at figuring this one out


----------



## stargazer (Jan 21, 2022)

Your custom layering sounds great - it sings!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 21, 2022)

I prefer the SF render. To me, the legatos sound more realistic than the layered patches. If this is Appassionata right out of the box, I’m impressed.

Beautiful piece, by the way.


----------



## Symfoniq (Jan 21, 2022)

I greatly prefer your layered strings. And of course now you need to spill the beans.


----------



## stargazer (Jan 21, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I prefer the SF render. To me, the legatos sound more realistic than the layered patches.


The legatos sound good, but there’s something lacking for a piece like this in my humble opinion. 
p/pp sounds great, mp/mf sounds a bit ”flat”, I would prefer a bit more vibrato.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

I like the custom string layer best too.


----------



## Evans (Jan 21, 2022)

I think one of the things our ears often like with layered instruments across different libraries is, in part, the different handling in attacks and dynamics. Sometimes, it's a "cheap" way to get expression and light swells in a sustain, as opposed to more delicate dynamics riding you'd have to do with a single library.

But the layering can also produce a "wall of strings" sound, which to me tends to drown out a real sense of space that I value with these types of instruments.

Just depends on where you want to put in the work, I guess, and if the single library has enough range (and smoothness in its implementation of the range) to accomplish the expression on its own.


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (Jan 21, 2022)

stargazer said:


> The legatos sound good, but there’s something lacking for a piece like this in my humble opinion.
> p/pp sounds great, mp/mf sounds a bit ”flat”, I would prefer a bit more vibrato.


Perhaps I would add even more voices to enrich the overall texture in polyphony.


----------



## stargazer (Jan 21, 2022)

Evans said:


> But the layering can also produce a "wall of strings" sound, which to me tends to drown out a real sense of space that I value with these types of instruments.


True!
But many times I still prefer a bit more expressive sound in favour of a cohesive ambience, especially if it’s a full arrangement and/or is a mockup that’s gonna be replaced by a real orchestra.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I prefer the SF render. To me, the legatos sound more realistic than the layered patches. If this is Appassionata right out of the box, I’m impressed.
> 
> Beautiful piece, by the way.



It's mostly out of the box using Mix 1. I EQ'ed out some resonances and harshness (around 2.5kHz) and added just a bit of tail reverb with Pro-R. Nothing else.



Symfoniq said:


> I greatly prefer your layered strings. And of course now you need to spill the beans.



There are many string libraries experts around these parts who will be able to figure it out, I think... Let's let them have a shot at it (@muziksculp wanna try?)



stargazer said:


> The legatos sound good, but there’s something lacking for a piece like this in my humble opinion.
> p/pp sounds great, mp/mf sounds a bit ”flat”, I would prefer a bit more vibrato.



I'd go with more vibrato too. Currently trying to layer it with another lib to see if I can get a richer sound while retaining the beautiful legatos.



Vladimir Bulaev said:


> Perhaps I would add even more voices to enrich the overall texture in polyphony.



I've heard some of your mockups. Especially the Swan Lake. You are one of the opinions I respect the most around here. I'm still waiting for the day when you'll publish a walkthrough of one of your mockups so that I can learn!


----------



## robgb (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> There are many string libraries experts around these parts who will be able to figure it out, I think... Let's let them have a shot at it (@muziksculp wanna try?)


Let's see... I'm no string expert but just based on popularity around these parts I'm guessing that Cinematic Studio Strings is in the mix and probably a Spitfire library. Chamber strings?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 21, 2022)

robgb said:


> Let's see... I'm no string expert but just based on popularity around these parts I'm guessing that Cinematic Studio Strings is in the mix and probably a Spitfire library. Chamber strings?


Good guess! Nic is also a VSL fan so I suspect those as well.


----------



## Jish (Jan 21, 2022)

Nice example between both options- perhaps Century strings is being used in the custom layered mix?


----------



## Alchemedia (Jan 21, 2022)

How can we be sure you're not taking credit for Bob's work here?


----------



## JashandeepReehal (Jan 21, 2022)

Whatever Libraries you did use to add those layers, i would love to learn how you actually layer then so well, it's so perfect. Would be great if you could expand some more about layering like this. Maybe a video in future? If that's possible?


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Alchemedia said:


> How can we be sure you're not taking credit for Bob's work here?


Crap... I've been caught.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

JashandeepReehal said:


> Whatever Libraries you did use to add those layers, i would love to learn how you actually layer then so well, it's so perfect. Would be great if you could expand some more about layering like this. Maybe a video in future? If that's possible?


What about a whole course?  --> digitalcomposing.com


----------



## robgb (Jan 21, 2022)

If you want to hear another very nice strings blend, check out some of Anne Dern's videos. If I remember correctly, she uses a combination of Cinematic Studio Strings and Cinematic Strings. Sounds lovely.


----------



## JashandeepReehal (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> What about a whole course?  --> digitalcomposing.com


Oh yeah. I forgot about it. I actually have this. You shared this course with me back then. I started. Got a lot Busy then. Will surely get back to it. It was greatly informative. Thanks.


----------



## ism (Jan 21, 2022)

Both have the strengths. But ultimately I think the latter wins simply because this is a piece that calls for a larger, more soaring sections. 

But it's still very interesting to hear the comparison, AS has some very lovely quality of emotion and detail ... just not quite the right qualities for this piece.


----------



## Jett Hitt (Jan 21, 2022)

For my money, the custom version wins by a country mile. The layering gives a much-needed definition to the sound. I had hoped this would be a library that didn't need layering, but to me, the layers clearly improved it. Bravo!


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Jett Hitt said:


> For my money, the custom version wins by a country mile. The layering gives a much-needed definition to the sound. I had hoped this would be a library that didn't need layering, but to me, the layers clearly improved it. Bravo!



Just to be clear: there's no Appassionata in the second example 😉 (and I know that you know what the second example is made of as I sent you the patches 😬)


----------



## Jett Hitt (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Just to be clear: there's no Appassionata in the second example 😉 (and I know that you know what the second example is made of as I sent you the patches 😬)


I guess that I am just a blockhead. I thought that you were layering with SAS. Totally missed that. So with one example, you've shown me that I didn't even need SAS. (Yeah, I know, I don't need half of what I have.)


----------



## José Herring (Jan 21, 2022)

Alchemedia said:


> How can we be sure you're not taking credit for Bob's work here?


I don't feel sorry for Bob. Bob knew what he was getting into when he signed the contract.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Jan 21, 2022)

Preferring the custom one! Sounds like 60-70% CSS.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

I think I heard Soaring Strings in there too


----------



## toomanynotes (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Hi all. I've done a quick test of the new Spitfire Appassionata Strings using one of my default reference tracks.
> 
> From 00:00 to 01:30, you will hear Spitfire Appassionata using minimal processing as Spitfire said that this library sounds like a real strings section out of the box.
> 
> ...


I feel your pain in the music. I really enjoyed!
I must say I'm a sucker from Vibrato too...maybe a touch would squeeze a couple of more tears.
What's your opinion on the SF new library? Will it replace any of yours?


----------



## MA-Simon (Jan 21, 2022)

Anne-Kathrin Dern - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




I am just amazed at how Anne has her own wikipedia page! Deserved so. Congratulations!
Nothing to do with that topic, just googled her after she had been mentiond here.

Anne-Kathrin, if ever you get mocked here, know that you archived more then most here.


----------



## ism (Jan 21, 2022)

Again, an interesting comparison. But I’m not sure what it’s trying to accomplish when read as trying to establishing a “winner”.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

ism said:


> Again, an interesting comparison. But I’m not sure what it’s trying to accomplish when read as trying to establishing a “winner”.


It’s always fun to see what people like the most out of some choices


----------



## gohrev (Jan 21, 2022)

Custom sounds richer and more strings-like, imho.


----------



## ism (Jan 21, 2022)

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> It’s always fun to see what people like the most out of some choices


Yes, but apples *always* win "best apple" contests.


----------



## FireGS (Jan 21, 2022)

I think this is slightly unfair to SF, to be honest. The stereo image of your custom patch is wider, and the SF one is using more closely focused (and therefor more mono-sounding), collapsed stereo image.

We're basically judging wide vs narrow here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

EDIT: Can't download the audio file. Would you mind posting a copy here? @Akarin


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Jan 21, 2022)

I think it’d be more interesting to have AS layered with other patches too and see if it adds anything to your existing layered patch. Comparing a bunch of libraries layered together (which will smooth out any programming issues, widen everything, etc) to a single library that has far fewer players is not going to reveal much of use I feel.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 21, 2022)

Not to slight Nico's talents but the Custom layer just sounds more full but not necessarily better just different. Personally I tend to think it sounds too thick when you start layering libraries losing the strings natural ambient atmospheric sound.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Hi all. I've done a quick test of the new Spitfire Appassionata Strings using one of my default reference tracks.
> 
> From 00:00 to 01:30, you will hear Spitfire Appassionata using minimal processing as Spitfire said that this library sounds like a real strings section out of the box.
> 
> ...



Need a video of what you did….👍


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 21, 2022)

Layering will always win over a single library. If it's done right. More timbres, and fuller sound when layering, but it could also be tricky to choose the right string libraries to layer. There is a sweet spot with layering, too little, or too much and you get diminished returns.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

toomanynotes said:


> What's your opinion on the SF new library? Will it replace any of yours?



It's not replacing anything but it's adding. I had a hole in my template for a smaller string section that would fare well when exposed (think "slow sad intimate piano & strings" which one of my publishers can't get enough of). I was considering Vista for this but each track I've heard with it doesn't quite translate to the tone I have in mind (and the noise seems to be quite insane as well.) Spitfire Appassionata fills that gap majestically.



ism said:


> Again, an interesting comparison. But I’m not sure what it’s trying to accomplish when read as trying to establishing a “winner”.



A comparison is just that... a comparison of different tones. Nowhere it is mentionned "competition." Just "comparison." Therefore, there can't be a winner.



Henrik B. Jensen said:


> It’s always fun to see what people like the most out of some choices



It never ceases to amaze me... Some time ago, I asked here what people would use to mock up as close as possible a reference track that I provided. I received answers ranging from SCS (4 vlns I) to EWHS (16 vlns I). It was enlightening. Now, I only listen to advice from people who 1) post their music and 2) music that I'm enjoying. (Hint: most of these people are not members of the Legato Police Squad.)



gohrev said:


> Custom sounds richer and more strings-like, imho.



It's richer because there are more players, I think. It's also less defined. The heavier vibrato is also tricking people in believing that it sounds more "emotional" for a lack of a better term.



FireGS said:


> I think this is slightly unfair to SF, to be honest. The stereo image of your custom patch is wider, and the SF one is using more closely focused (and therefor more mono-sounding), collapsed stereo image.
> 
> We're basically judging wide vs narrow here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> EDIT: Can't download the audio file. Would you mind posting a copy here? @Akarin



For Appassionata, I used the Mix 1. I tried Mix 2 for this one but even though it sounds wider, it loses some of its definition which is the thing I find the most appealing here. For my custom layer, a lot of trickery went into making it larger than it is (stereo delay using the Haas effect, flipping the stereo image of vlns II and va, etc.) Again, it is not for judging (alright, for me it is as I judge how fast I can work with "this new thing" vs "this thing I know already"), it's just a comparison to let me know "I can have this sound or I can have that one."



ALittleNightMusic said:


> I think it’d be more interesting to have AS layered with other patches too and see if it adds anything to your existing layered patch. Comparing a bunch of libraries layered together (which will smooth out any programming issues, widen everything, etc) to a single library that has far fewer players is not going to reveal much of use I feel.



To me, it reveals many things but that's because they are things I use daily. I'm currently experimenting with various layers over SAS (yeah, I call it SAS. First S stands for Spitfire as Appassionata is and always will be a VSL library first.) Surprisingly, the layer I like the most so far is with Berlin Strings.



José Herring said:


> Not to slight Nico's talents but the Custom layer just sounds more full but not necessarily better just different. Personally I tend to think it sounds too thick when you start layering libraries losing the strings natural ambient atmospheric sound.



It's definitely less detailed and that's why I needed something more detailed and smaller while still having excellent legato. Appassionata delivers really well on this front.



easyrider said:


> Need a video of what you did….👍



Better than this... ...I have a *whole course* on how I do it (although using different libraries) --> digitalcomposing.com 



muziksculp said:


> Layering will always win over a single library. If it's done right. More timbres, and fuller sound when layering, but it could also be tricky to choose the right string libraries to layer. There is a sweet spot with layering, too little, or too much and you get diminished returns.



You often talk with authority on strings libraries and it seems that a lot of people follow your advice. Would you mind sharing some of your tracks, I don't think that I've heard any (or I missed them in the posts?)


----------



## FireGS (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> For Appassionata, I used the Mix 1. I tried Mix 2 for this one but even though it sounds wider, it loses some of its definition which is the thing I find the most appealing here.


Would you consider ditching the pre-mixed mixes and try to emulate the stereo field of your custom? Just to eliminate, for yourself, that you're not being tricked by a wider stereo field? Give it a try. Less tree mics, more outriggers and ambient mics than you think might be best on paper, and dial in close mics for detail to taste. Use a stereo image meter (and correlation meter) to make sure you're not going nuts. A/B.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> You often talk with authority on strings libraries and it seems that a lot of people follow your advice. Would you mind sharing some of your tracks, I don't think that I've heard any (or I missed them in the posts?)


----------



## lettucehat (Jan 21, 2022)

That seems unnecessarily hostile in response to a pretty non-controversial and general statement about layering...


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> It never ceases to amaze me... Some time ago, I asked here what people would use to mock up as close as possible a reference track that I provided. I received answers ranging from SCS (4 vlns I) to EWHS (16 vlns I). It was enlightening. Now, I only listen to advice from people who 1) post their music and 2) music that I'm enjoying.


This is so true. You learn along the way who really know what they’re talking about, and who just…talk


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

lettucehat said:


> That seems unnecessarily hostile in response to a pretty non-controversial and general statement about layering...



Ooooh... my reply has been taken the wrong way! It's not this at all! It's just that in every strings thread or controversy ones, I see his well-formed replies and I was wondering if I could hear something as well.



FireGS said:


> Would you consider ditching the pre-mixed mixes and try to emulate the stereo field of your custom? Just to eliminate, for yourself, that you're not being tricked by a wider stereo field? Give it a try. Less tree mics, more outriggers and ambient mics than you think might be best on paper, and dial in close mics for detail to taste. Use a stereo image meter (and correlation meter) to make sure you're not going nuts. A/B.



Absolutely not :-p I'm really happy with Mix 1 as it is. That fills exactly the niche I wanted it to fill. Even Mix 3 in some cases, I think. For larger, lusher, wider, stringer, legatoer, wetter... ...I have this covered by many other libs already


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

People in general should be better at making clear what their background is for saying or recommending something. Is it their own experience, is it something they read, is it something they’ve seen others say on the forum etc.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 21, 2022)

lettucehat said:


> That seems unnecessarily hostile in response to a pretty non-controversial and general statement about layering...


Hardly….it was a genuine request….muziksculp seems to buy everything so must have the chops For composing….I too would like to see and listen to some of muziksculps tracks…..


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau (Jan 21, 2022)

DarkestShadow said:


> Preferring the custom one! Sounds like 60-70% CSS.





Henrik B. Jensen said:


> I think I heard Soaring Strings in there too


I would be surprised, as if I remember correctly @Akarin has been pretty critical in the past about these two libs.  

(I can't say I prefer any of the two versions, both good!)


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> People in general should be better at making clear what their background is for saying or recommending something. Is it their own experience, is it something they read, is it something they’ve seen others say on the forum etc.


 I honestly don't care about background... Only the music  



Emmanuel Rousseau said:


> I would be surprised, as if I remember correctly @Akarin has been pretty critical in the past about these two libs.
> 
> (I can't say I prefer any of the two versions, both good!)



Hey man... I keep listening to your album. This provides a huge source of reference tracks. Both for programming/mixing and orchestrating.


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Hey man... I keep listening to your album. This provides a huge source of reference tracks. Both for programming/mixing and orchestrating.


Thanks so much Nico! Super happy with the warm welcome on this album. :')


----------



## Xabierus Music (Jan 21, 2022)

mmm the second mix guess ill go for: spitfire symphonic strings + cinematic studio strings ? maybe? xd lets see


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 21, 2022)

FireGS said:


> I think this is slightly unfair to SF, to be honest. The stereo image of your custom patch is wider, and the SF one is using more closely focused (and therefor more mono-sounding), collapsed stereo image.
> 
> We're basically judging wide vs narrow here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> EDIT: Can't download the audio file. Would you mind posting a copy here? @Akarin


It's not just the width, because i listened through my phone at work. The tone, expression, and vibrato have an edge. But the question becomes, is it fair to pit one library against several? Would the comparison sound *better* if Appassionata was included, in which case it would be worth getting? Would any single library used in the layered version hold up if we compared it by itself versus the layered version with Appassionata taking its place?


----------



## pawelmorytko (Jan 21, 2022)

I think with some processing, mainly taming some frequencies on SAS, I would prefer the first one. The custom one is nice but like mentioned already, the layers kinda drown out some of the detail, so I'm loosing a bit of that expressiveness in my ear. It also sounds a bit more muffled and mid heavy, that's why I prefer SAS in that regard, but only with some taming because it does sound a little harsh at times. I do love the expressiveness of SAS, especially that high strings part at 0:58. Those high violins in SAS make me very excited and really take the spotlight, whereas in the custom one those very high notes kind of just blend in, they're not as prominent, and I want them to be! Both examples are pretty nice though, I think SAS does well to hold its own saying it's just one library, I definitely prefer the tone, expressiveness and legato of it to something like Vista or Con Moto from what I've heard.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 21, 2022)

The hell is up with people saying a comparison isn’t “fair?” It’s just a comparison. There is no winner or loser. 

Is the insecurity of the new SAS buyers really that high? 😂


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Casiquire said:


> Would any single library used in the layered version hold up if we compared it by itself versus the layered version with Appassionata taking its place?



I don't know... you tell me! Here is the same but using the most prominent lib in my blend.

View attachment Custom Lib 1.mp3


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 21, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> The hell is up with people saying a comparison isn’t “fair?” It’s just a comparison. There is no winner or loser.
> 
> Is the insecurity of the new SAS buyers really that high? 😂


If that's about me, i don't own SAS and likely never will 🤷 but i don't think it's out of line to say that basing a purchasing decision off a comparison between one library versus several might not be the move


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 21, 2022)

The SAS demo would sound a mile better (to me) than what it currently does with some more time/thought put into the mic mix (or processing).
I'd suggest you try using the outriggers instead of any of the pre-mixed options. Not only is that the more lush option, it will help establish the width, too.
Bring in a little bit of mids or close ribbon for the detail if desired.



Trash Panda said:


> The hell is up with people saying a comparison isn’t “fair?” It’s just a comparison. There is no winner or loser.
> 
> Is the insecurity of the new SAS buyers really that high? 😂



Maybe so, but it's difficult to know what we're supposed to take away from it. When two options are being presented as a comparison you would expect the same amount of effort to go into both sides. Otherwise it should be presented as "Here is a custom blend I've spent a significant amount of time and money on VS a new library I've never used but thought I'd just load it up and run with it as is", which understandably leaves some room to question what the end goal really was?

The only real conclusion I can establish from this is "The OP should spend more time with SAS if he wants better results"


----------



## ism (Jan 21, 2022)

And I think the point is precisely that this is a comparison. But it’s like there’s this drive to turn in into a ranking.


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> I don't know... you tell me! Here is the same but using the most prominent lib in my blend.
> 
> View attachment Custom Lib 1.mp3


I actually quite prefer the sensitive tone in this one


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

To be fair, in the opening post OP does not ask which library users prefer at all. You can say using the “vs.” in the title makes it a comparison meant for ranking them in winner or loser. But the “vs.” can also just be interpreted as a neutral comparison IMO.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Jdiggity1 said:


> The SAS demo would sound a mile better (to me) than what it currently does with some more time/thought put into the mic mix (or processing).
> I'd suggest you try using the outriggers instead of any of the pre-mixed options. Not only is that the more lush option, it will help establish the width, too.
> Bring in a little bit of mids or close ribbon for the detail if desired.



Absolutely not! I got SAS especially because I can have it sound detailed, more intimate and not as wide.



Jdiggity1 said:


> Maybe so, but it's difficult to know what we're supposed to take away from it.



My take (as I did it for me, just shared it because I know many people on here like that kind of things,) was to compare it to what I use a lot already. Both in tone and in workflow.



Jdiggity1 said:


> You would expect the same amount of effort to go into both sides. Otherwise it should be presented as "Here is a custom blend I've spent a significant amount of time and money on VS a new library I've never used but thought I'd just load it up and run with it as is",



I think that Paul puts it way better than me:






That's *EXACTLY* why! I took the marketing at face value. ...and I think that it gets very close to this statement.



Jdiggity1 said:


> The only real conclusion I can establish from this is "The OP should spend more time with SAS if he wants better results"



Maybe. But that's not what I bought based on the presentation nor the quote above. I will anyway spend a lot (and I really mean A LOT as I'm scoring a 2h film at the moment, and plan to use SAS a lot once I'm comfortable with it.)



ism said:


> And I think the point is precisely that this is a comparison. But it’s like there’s this drive to turn in into a ranking.



Yep... The old "my string libraries are stronger than your string libraries" :-D

For those who may have missed it, I redid my example not using a blend of libraries but only one, the one that was the most prominent in my blend. This way, you can compare "one lib with one lib!"

View attachment Custom Lib 1.mp3


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Casiquire said:


> I actually quite prefer the sensitive tone in this one



Some of the transitions are very abrupt. That's why I layered it with others, to hide them. Of course, it comes with a trade-off: loss of detail, need for more processing due to build-ups.



Henrik B. Jensen said:


> To be fair, in the opening post OP does not ask which library users prefer at all.



None. They sound equally great to me. They are just meant for different use cases, and I plan on using both.



Henrik B. Jensen said:


> But the “vs.” can also just be interpreted as a neutral comparison IMO.



Thanks for that! I'm not a native English speaker and simply didn't know what the correct word was. I feared that if I used "with" people reading too quickly would think that I layered SAS with my own blend.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 21, 2022)

Jett Hitt said:


> I guess that I am just a blockhead. I thought that you were layering with SAS. Totally missed that. So with one example, you've shown me that I didn't even need SAS. (Yeah, I know, I don't need half of what I have.)


Forgetting what you have is half the fun of “you can never have too many string libraries.” 

As a string library, SAS has a distinctive profile, I think, and being principally a legato library it was destined to have to play with others, so some layering was inevitable. But I’m already finding it more versatile in itself than either Vista or Soaring Strings. And yet its overlap with those libraries is less than you might think. So SAS doesn’t really replace them or even the SCS or SSS legato, but offers its own strengths. 

There’s a way that SAS lays into the back end of lines and finishes them that I’m finding beguiling. It’s what immediately attracted me about the teaser pieces and why I’ve been concerned about the release of the final note, which so far I haven’t been able to reliably transition to silence the way I’d like. But that’s a very small thing in the scheme of things.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

jbuhler said:


> why I’ve been concerned about the release of the final note, which so far I haven’t been able to reliably transition to silence the way I’d like. But that’s a very small thing in the scheme of things.



I was just experimenting with this. I made it longer (less natural obviously but quite pleasing nonetheless to the untrained ears) by increasing the release to the max (over 50%, it makes the release longer) and adding just a tad of plate reverb as an insert with no pre-delay.


----------



## Jett Hitt (Jan 21, 2022)

jbuhler said:


> Forgetting what you have is half the fun of “you can never have too many string libraries.”
> 
> As a string library, SAS has a distinctive profile, I think, and being principally a legato library it was destined to have to play with others, so some layering was inevitable. But I’m already finding it more versatile in itself than either Vista or Soaring Strings. And yet its overlap with those libraries is less than you might think. So SAS doesn’t really replace them or even the SCS or SSS legato, but offers its own strengths.
> 
> There’s a way that SAS lays into the back end of lines and finishes them that I’m finding beguiling. It’s what immediately attracted me about the teaser pieces and why I’ve been concerned about the release of the final note, which so far I haven’t been able to reliably transition to silence the way I’d like. But that’s a very small thing in the scheme of things.


Let me assure you, my wife is not seeing any fun in any of it.😂

If you arrive at something you’re happy with, I’d love to hear it. I’m playing with Nico’s concoction and several other things. Ultimately for me, it’s probably going to boil down to the one I can make work best with Dorico.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Some of the transitions are very abrupt. That's why I layered it with others, to hide them. Of course, it comes with a trade-off: loss of detail, need for more processing due to build-ups.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think with any new library, it is only natural users ask themselves: “is it better than what’s already on the market”. So when a comparison thread like this one is posted, the immediate reaction from users is to look for which version they prefer / which is the ”winner” and which is the “loser”, even though it was never the intention with posting the thread.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> I was just experimenting with this. I made it longer (less natural obviously but quite pleasing nonetheless to the untrained ears) by increasing the release to the max (over 50%, it makes the release longer) and adding just a tad of plate reverb as an insert with no pre-delay.


It’s not such an issue if you are layering lots of libraries from different venues anyway (and I do that myself quite often), but adding the reverbs sort of defeats much of the purpose of recording in Air in the first place. But I haven’t tried an insert plate and will see if it has the desired effect of getting me into silence. I can also add tail from a long send reverb and that does the trick but at the cost of turning that reverb into something more than a bit of splosh.


----------



## CT (Jan 21, 2022)

First one sounds like a nice coordinated performance recorded in not quite the way I'd like. Second is not awful, just kind of amorphous, unsurprisingly. Can't say I see a real edge in production quality gained through investing the money, time, and computer power necessary for these big stacked setups.


----------



## FireGS (Jan 21, 2022)

Jdiggity1 said:


> The SAS demo would sound a mile better (to me) than what it currently does with some more time/thought put into the mic mix (or processing).
> I'd suggest you try using the outriggers instead of any of the pre-mixed options. Not only is that the more lush option, it will help establish the width, too.
> Bring in a little bit of mids or close ribbon for the detail if desired.


Sounds familiar.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Michaelt said:


> First one sounds like a nice coordinated performance recorded in not quite the way I'd like. Second is not awful, just kind of amorphous, unsurprisingly. Can't say I see a real edge in production quality gained through investing the money, time, and computer power necessary for these big stacked setups.


What is a typical string library that you really like?


----------



## Peter Satera (Jan 21, 2022)

It's always really challenging to do these comparisons because one library or a few libraries chosen to be brought together can be tailored to work for specific recreations of scores, and it's really hard to disconnect what we expect to hear due to our familiarity with the film score. So it's more like I'm judging to how close it is to the original, rather than how great it sounds in most scenarios.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 21, 2022)

Peter Satera said:


> It's always really challenging to do these comparisons because one library or a few libraries chosen to be brought together can be tailored to work for specific recreations of scores, and it's really hard to disconnect what we expect to hear due to our familiarity with the film score. So it's more like I'm judging to how close it is to the original, rather than how great it sounds in most scenarios.


Interesting! I usually go in the complete opposite way: I "hear" something in my head and I try to recreate it, and only then apply it to a few references and see if I like it that way  What interests me the most in a lib is if it can do something that I want rather than me having to tweak a phrase for it to work with a lib.

Sidenote: I'm currently doing a video review of Synchron Woodwinds and it is one of those libs that can take mostly anything that you throw at it. I like that.


----------



## jazzman7 (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Absolutely not! I got SAS especially because I can have it sound detailed, more intimate and not as wide.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beautiful! I was wondering, at :45 where the B kicks in, the attack seems slow. Kinda hits a little wobbly there. Most likely the legato transition?


----------



## dunamisstudio (Jan 21, 2022)

Akarin said:


> I'll let the numerous string library experts take a shot at figuring this one out


I'm no pro but... Synchron Strings Pro?


----------



## JashandeepReehal (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> I'll let the numerous string library experts take a shot at figuring this one out


I will guess Afflatus too. Nico loves Afflatus a lot from what I've seen. So wild guess that he could have used Afflatus. I may be wrong. I am in no way a String Library expert


----------



## MrCambiata (Jan 22, 2022)

I would guess by listening to the second library exposed that it is CSS. Not a strings expert either


----------



## AR (Jan 22, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Not to slight Nico's talents but the Custom layer just sounds more full but not necessarily better just different. Personally I tend to think it sounds too thick when you start layering libraries losing the strings natural ambient atmospheric sound.


Yes I totally agree. I bought AS, but didn't try it out yet and I can already tell if someone posts a demo here, where he/she uses mix mic or really puts some thought into mic'ing. That is what I love about HZS, HZP, OT (to some extend) and what I dislike about CSS, Performance Samples and others. Every piece or composer needs different mics to achieve a good mockup. And seriously I don't trust the guys at spitfire when they put a mix together. Look at their studios. No serious room treatment. Damnit, I even trust my own professional treated studio. I always check my mixes at my colleagues. So, please, start using your own combinations as Paul and Christian provide.


----------



## holywilly (Jan 22, 2022)

Every developer should have mic merging feature, to preserve voice counts for save system resources. I like to experiment with different mics to shape the sound I want.


----------



## Peter Satera (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Interesting! I usually go in the complete opposite way: I "hear" something in my head and I try to recreate it, and only then apply it to a few references and see if I like it that way  What interests me the most in a lib is if it can do something that I want rather than me having to tweak a phrase for it to work with a lib.


Yeah. Don't get me wrong, Nico. I do prefer your custom, it has more agility and yours is closer to achieving the original appeal. But, if you put Appassionata against other scores with that type of sound, it would favour the libraries strengths.

This is why every time I see a lib released and it's instant Star Wars, it becomes a determination to see how good the lib is outside it's designed context, it's doomed to fail. It's like eating spaghetti with a spoon.


----------



## mussnig (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Hi all. I've done a quick test of the new Spitfire Appassionata Strings using one of my default reference tracks.
> 
> From 00:00 to 01:30, you will hear Spitfire Appassionata using minimal processing as Spitfire said that this library sounds like a real strings section out of the box.
> 
> ...


First of all, I think your custom blend sounds great. Still, I actually prefer Appassionata and that's not because it is apparently a bit louder here.

What I have noticed from all the comparisons so far is that Appassionata sounds more "polished" (I don't know a better word to describe it) than other libs. What I mean is that to my ears it sounds more like a modern (but probably not too modern, I guess late 90s to ~2010) Hollywood soundtrack. I have the impression that it has a more prominent but also defined low end and to some extent more dimensionalty (but I might imagine the latter to some extent). In part that's for sure the room. Probably it's also the section sizes and the way it was recorded.

Anyways, I have been looking for a lyrical legato strings lib for quite some time but was not in a hurry (it's more like "nice to have" for me). The last days I have been listening again to many contenders, comparing prices, features etc. Appassionata does many things right in my opinion and the intro price is great and tempting. I will probably still wait until the end of the intro price period to make a decision. However, if it would have same note repetition/rebow, then I would have already bought it.


----------



## Cat (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Hi all. I've done a quick test of the new Spitfire Appassionata Strings using one of my default reference tracks.
> 
> From 00:00 to 01:30, you will hear Spitfire Appassionata using minimal processing as Spitfire said that this library sounds like a real strings section out of the box.
> 
> ...


The blend is CSS + Afflatus + Soaring Strings?
The piece is really nice, congrats!
Also, in the Appassionata version, I can hear the issue of phrase's ending note being abruptly cutoff (missing or insufficient release sample volume), for example at 0:48. One would need to compnsate for this by lengthening that last note and drawing a ramp-off CC. Problem is that by doing this, a legato might be triggered to the following note (next phrase's starting note) and this is not desirable.
Having said this, I like the Appassionata version sound a lot more than that custom mix which to my ears sounds too dense. Maybe too much layering? Maybe only layer the violins1 and celli?


----------



## AR (Jan 22, 2022)

holywilly said:


> Every developer should have mic merging feature, to preserve voice counts for save system resources. I like to experiment with different mics to shape the sound I want.


Yeah, but how do you eq bumps and lopass/hipass each track when you have all baked in one? Plus you lose control over routing. I dunno. This merging things seems to me like a feature for trailer composers who barely touch the cinematic immersive universe


----------



## cedricm (Jan 22, 2022)

Regarding comparison vs competition, "Huge Member": are you openly comparing yourself to Rocco?


----------



## holywilly (Jan 22, 2022)

AR said:


> Yeah, but how do you eq bumps and lopass/hipass each track when you have all baked in one? Plus you lose control over routing. I dunno. This merging things seems to me like a feature for trailer composers who barely touch the cinematic immersive universe


Mic merging means merge mic mix from multiple mics into just one mic position, per instrument; and each instrument will only cost 1/4 of ram and voice counts, this is how I do for all my Berlin series instruments. 

Berlin woodwinds for example, I like the sound from the mix of SPOT1, SPOT2, ORTF, TREE and SURROUND mics. It costs 2~3GB of ram just for one instrument. I merge my mic mix into one single mic only cost me 500mb of ram. 

I’m still able control my mix. 

Also, my job is to write music, and get them recorded. Whatever makes my work more efficient, I’ll go for it.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 22, 2022)

The other libs is CS2. A 10 years old library. And in the blend, I've layered it with CSS set at -6dB less compared to CS2. 

But in the previous example, it's CS2 alone.


----------



## ism (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Thanks for that! I'm not a native English speaker and simply didn't know what the correct word was. I feared that if I used "with" people reading too quickly would think that I layered SAS with my own blend.


It's interesting, "vs" does invoke a strong connotation of competition and ranking, so there's an excellent point that language here is a part of this drive towards competition and ranking. 

But it's also interesting also that it's not immediately obvious what a better word in English might be. 

Perhaps "contra", which I think is technically French (or Latin - though it's always hard to tell from that time you lot invaded England and replaced half of the language with your own), and it's much less common in English, and has a certain academic air to it, but perhaps a hint of a sense of contrast in visual arts also. But maybe it's less likely to feed a drive to competitiveness than "vs". 

Or maybe something like "contrasting A to B". But that's more awkward that "A vs B"

I actually think Mike's "deathmatch" videos are some of the most effective in neutralizing this drive to ranking, perhaps because they unavoidably foreground the silliness of it.


----------



## Jett Hitt (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> The other libs is CS2. A 10 years old library. And in the blend, I've layered it with CSS set at -6dB less compared to CS2.
> 
> But in the previous example, it's CS2 alone.


Previous example CS2? Do you mean SAS?


----------



## AR (Jan 22, 2022)

holywilly said:


> Mic merging means merge mic mix from multiple mics into just one mic position, per instrument; and each instrument will only cost 1/4 of ram and voice counts, this is how I do for all my Berlin series instruments.
> 
> Berlin woodwinds for example, I like the sound from the mix of SPOT1, SPOT2, ORTF, TREE and SURROUND mics. It costs 2~3GB of ram just for one instrument. I merge my mic mix into one single mic only cost me 500mb of ram.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm aware of that. But once you created a merged mic you then are no longer in control of killing certain frequencies or roll off topend on individual mic tracks and (what's much more important) route these individual mics to certain speakers. You just get a stereo track out of it. Let's say OT will someday make it surround compatible, then you still loose control over pulling back in the close mics for a intimate passage, then fading it out for a wider tutti sound. And that's what bothers me most when hearing the threadstarter's demo. You could get a much better sound out of Apassionata when dialing in your own mics to taste. Makes things start moving and not so static compared to the 2nd demo. And here is why: There in the 2nd demo he uses more libraries which give him automatically other perspectives. Makes it sound more natural and live. Though, all I hear is: Small room, large room, small & large room together, etc. It sounds like violinst fighting against cellist, instead of playing together.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 22, 2022)

Jett Hitt said:


> Previous example CS2? Do you mean SAS?


No. CS2. The one I posted just above when people asked to compare SAS but not with a layer of various libs.



AR said:


> Let's say OT will someday make it surround compatible,


For now, just a VST3 version of Sine would be cool... with the next version of Cubase dropping support for VST2


----------



## Akarin (Jan 22, 2022)

AR said:


> You could get a much better sound out of Apassionata when dialing in your own mics to taste


Considering my mixing abilities, I kinda trust the pre-made mixes by engineers who know what they are doing a little bit more.


----------



## AR (Jan 22, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Considering my mixing abilities, I kinda trust the pre-made mixes by engineers who know what they are doing a little bit more.


Don't trust them. They mixed it according to a certain type. And if you're not into that British Scandi Drama Thriller sound, I'd mix my own sound. Do you remember the ongoing discussion here about the bottle mic in HZS? Well, I use it for celli, but only for a certain frequency region. I don't think they'll put such a mic in a default mix.


----------



## Ricgus3 (Jan 22, 2022)

Great comparison Nico! SAS seems like such a good value for someone like me who do not own CSS, afflatus, soaring strings, CS2. For 175€ and to get that sound is great value. I own Areia, Nucleus, Ssts and Albion NEO and anthology. Inspired to blend my own strings to see if I can get a nice balance!

But currently I am thinking aof getting SAS and intimate strings for a AIR hall string sound with legato and shorts


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 22, 2022)

Thanks to @Akarin for the comparison. The Cinematic strings do sound awesome. And no surprise that a "wall of strings" sounds better (more interesting) in an exclusively string arrangement. But one you start adding brass and winds, we might all prefer SAS and how that marries to other instruments?


----------



## Akarin (Jan 22, 2022)

jamwerks said:


> But one you start adding brass and winds, we might all prefer SAS and how that marries to other instruments?



I'll let other people share their compositions 😊 As far as I'm concerned, I will definitely be using SAS for a long time to come.


----------



## stargazer (Jan 22, 2022)

AR said:


> Let's say OT will someday make it surround compatible, then you still loose control over pulling back in the close mics for a intimate passage, then fading it out for a wider tutti sound.


Surround compatible in what way? You can already route the different mics to separate outputs.


----------



## Obi-Wan Spaghetti (Jan 22, 2022)

If i have to choose between a hop cheerleader and a team of hot cheerleader i choose the team every time. But it's not really fair is it?


----------



## alcorey (Jan 22, 2022)

Obi-Wan Spaghetti said:


> If i have to choose between a hop cheerleader and a team of hot cheerleader i choose the team every time. But it's not really fair is it?


Obi, surely you meant hip hop cheerleader?


----------



## AR (Jan 22, 2022)

stargazer said:


> Surround compatible in what way? You can already route the different mics to separate outputs.


I was referring to mic merging function.


----------



## holywilly (Jan 22, 2022)

Samples are for writing mock-ups for clients’ approval. In the end everything will be recorded. Therefore mic merging for samples is a nice feature for my workflow, I can load more instruments without worrying choking my system.

And good libraries are inspiring.


----------



## stargazer (Jan 22, 2022)

AR said:


> Let's say OT will someday make it surround compatible, then you still loose control over pulling back in the close mics for a intimate passage, then fading it out for a wider tutti sound.





stargazer said:


> Surround compatible in what way? You can already route the different mics to separate outputs.





AR said:


> I was referring to mic merging function.


Making the mic merging surround compatible?
You mean an option to create multiple merged mic sub-mixes for one instrument?


----------



## stargazer (Jan 22, 2022)

holywilly said:


> Samples are for writing mock-ups for clients’ approval. In the end everything will be recorded. Therefore mic merging for samples is a nice feature for my workflow, I can load more instruments without worrying choking my system.
> 
> And good libraries are inspiring.


Mic merging is a awesome CPU power saving feature (when it works).
I don’t have the luxury of having every project being recorded by a live orchestra eventually, but it’s also great to be able to use mic merging in the composing process and then splitting the mics up in the mix, if needed, when the sounds are supposed to be used in the final product.

Sorry for being OT, but it would be nice if more developers introduced this type of feature.
(VSL, for example, does have the room mixes in the Synchron player, that can serve the same CPU saving purposes, while being less flexible, of course)


----------



## holywilly (Jan 23, 2022)

And voice count too, especially when using CC1 for dynamic crossfade. All developers should really look into the mic merge technology. 

Back to the topic, both SAS and custom blends sounds good, they are just having different timbre. I have 6 sets of strings libraries in my template, I experiment different blends depending on different projects and genres of cues.


----------



## Banquet (Jan 23, 2022)

holywilly said:


> Samples are for writing mock-ups for clients’ approval. In the end everything will be recorded.


That might be true for you, but for me and a lot of other people and situations, samples are still used in the final version.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Jan 23, 2022)

@Akarin thank you for sharing!


----------



## AR (Jan 23, 2022)

stargazer said:


> Making the mic merging surround compatible?
> You mean an option to create multiple merged mic sub-mixes for one instrument?


This, or having a 7.1 mic merging output


----------



## sumskilz (Jan 23, 2022)

Banquet said:


> That might be true for you, but for me and a lot of other people and situations, samples are still used in the final version.


But does that mean that you don't want or wouldn't use a mic merge function? Because that was the context of holywilly's comment.

I actually think that whether or not someone wants to keep the mics separate for mix purposes doesn't really matter, because mics could be merged during composition and unmerged or not during mix.


----------



## Banquet (Jan 23, 2022)

sumskilz said:


> But does that mean that you don't want or wouldn't use a mic merge function? Because that was the context of holywilly's comment.
> 
> I actually think that whether or not someone wants to keep the mics separate for mix purposes doesn't really matter, because mics could be merged during composition and unmerged or not during mix.


That's true. I would like a mic merge and even more so, the ability to download/clear certain mic positions to free up memory when needed..


----------



## Akarin (Jan 23, 2022)

stargazer said:


> Making the mic merging surround compatible?
> You mean an option to create multiple merged mic sub-mixes for one instrument?



Yesterday, I drove past my favorite butcher shop. I stopped my car and bought some steaks. We had them for dinner, they were awesome. How does this relate to the current SAS discussion, you may ask? Well, I really don't know.


----------



## stargazer (Jan 23, 2022)

stargazer said:


> Making the mic merging surround compatible?
> You mean an option to create multiple merged mic sub-mixes for one instrument?





Akarin said:


> Yesterday, I drove past my favorite butcher shop. I stopped my car and bought some steaks. We had them for dinner, they were awesome. How does this relate to the current SAS discussion, you may ask? Well, I really don't know.


This was in response to a request/wish for mic merging in SAS.
And responding to that is why I said I’m sorry for being OT (earlier in this thread).
Let me hereby apologize once more.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jan 23, 2022)

Your custom layers sound much better. SAS is good but lacking in emotion (vibrato), especially in the lower dynamics and on cellos+violas.


----------



## Peter Satera (Jan 25, 2022)

Akarin said:


> Yesterday, I drove past my favorite butcher shop. I stopped my car and bought some steaks. We had them for dinner, they were awesome. How does this relate to the current SAS discussion, you may ask? Well, I really don't know.


Shhhh, say no more. You had me at "butcher".


----------

