# How do you feel LASS' sound?



## brianmusic (May 25, 2010)

I've already used LASS for my two projects and enjoy its sound.
But just a couple of days ago, a violin friend from Eastman music school stopped by me and listened to my music and he did not like LASS' strings sound.

In his opinion, the raw sound of LASS lacks warmth and is too sharp. (mic. too close?)

I also showed him VSL's strings and he liked it much better.

I never doubt that LASS is great and is one of my favorite libraries so far, and actually I use it more frequently than VSL or EWQLSQ.

I ask this just for curiosity and would like to know what do you think?

Do you think LASS' recording is too pale, sharp or not warm enough?


Or, maybe I can improve this lack by EQ setting. Mostly, I use Vienna Suite's default settings and I'm not quite sure it's a good mate with LASS' strings too.


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 25, 2010)

I've tested this pretty relentlessly. You do need to EQ Vlns 1 a little more to take the edge off for the full ensemble, C, and A.

Vlns 2, Vlas, Cellos and Basses do blend well prior to EQ'ing Vlns 1 to get a warm sound.

I like LASS with an analog sounding reverb, even those within Logic's Space Designer are quite good. 

You didn't say which VSL strings you showed him that he like better. And I have nearly all the VSL strings. Excluding Appassionata 1, you can't get the big sweeping sound with VSL like you can the LASS violins.

The Vienna defaults are for Vienna. You have to develop your own for LASS which you can do by comparing Vlns 1 and Vlns 2 with an EQ analyzer. One is built into Logic's Channel EQ.


----------



## givemenoughrope (May 25, 2010)

LASS with an analog verb IS great. I'm going to do some experiments reamping soon as well. 

I really think that warmth is something you can add or take away with eq. You can also add it with distortion or compression.

I would say go with Hollywood Strings but Nick Phoenix said it's not worth it.


----------



## midphase (May 25, 2010)

Lest me be accused on playing favorites once again around here...I will simply say that I think the sound of strings (or other acoustic instruments for that matter) can be highly subjective.

I always remove the LASS built-in EQ from my presets, I'm not a huge fan of it, and I do the same with Symphobia.

On VSL, I always added the EQ curves that SvK provided for us a while back and I found that it helped a great deal.

Like Peter said, I think a good quality reverb helps a lot.

Lastly, just like our own voice tends to sound different to us than to others, I do believe that instrumentalists have certain notions of what their instrument sounds like which might or might not match our own likes and dislikes.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 26, 2010)

I think that in the world of sampled strings generally a kind of brightness desease has been spread :D This is not a specific comment on LASS, it is more or less true for every library and mockup that I have heard. Listen to classical recordings and you will find that the strings sound much fuller in the real world. (Exceptions are Cinematic Strings and Spitfire strings).

I think it is a psychological effect. Everybody that loves classic soundtrack music has been thrilled at times by that airy sound that strings can produce, part of it is big, part of it is susurrating at the same time. 

Both string library developers and composers try to achieve that (by mic choice, mic position, preamps, EQs, tube saturation etc. etc.). This way it is a double steep-up ... first the developers and their engineers try to make the sound brilliant out of the box, and then the composer hypes it again.

Now ... why not? If this is the sound that is wanted all of that is fine. More of a problem is that the ears of composers using samples are getting used to that brightened sound and their cognition stores that as "normal". For somebody from the world of classic orchestra this is more on the bright side.

Reduce the area around 3 kHz and you can tame it if you like.

Hope that helps
Hannes


----------



## NYC Composer (May 26, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Wed May 26 said:


> I think that in the world of sampled strings generally a kind of brightness desease has been spread :D This is not a specific comment on LASS, it is more or less true for every library and mockup that I have heard. Listen to classical recordings and you will find that the strings sound much fuller in the real world. (Exceptions are Cinematic Strings and Spitfire strings).
> 
> I think it is a psychological effect. Everybody that loves classic soundtrack music has been thrilled at times by that airy sound that strings can produce, part of it is big, part of it is susurrating at the same time.
> 
> ...



I agree, and I think it's not just about strings-it's everything. Pop music, cinematic music,whatever-the feeling is it has to be ear candy bright. Better too bright than too dull, always.

However, what's important to realize is that few people using sampled strings are going for a 'classical' or 'orchestral- sound-mostly they're going for a cinematic sound-and that's diverged from a classical sound for quite a while now.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 26, 2010)

... and, as we are at it, the short notes nowadays have to be ultra-short, piercing, agressive. All of them, all the time. Say goodbye to any charming mumbling, no time for buildup any more, staccccccccattttttttisssssssssimo is the flavor of our time.

It is important to know what is in fashion in order to deliver the goods, and also it is interesting how samples technology is influencing the style of live recordings.


----------



## JohnG (May 26, 2010)

Hannes_F @ 26th May 2010 said:


> It is important to know what is in fashion in order to deliver the goods, and also *it is interesting how samples technology is influencing the style of live recordings.*



A very interesting phenomenon indeed.

And, regarding the original post, Peter Alexander's advice on eq is the same I would recommend.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 26, 2010)

all comments i agree with here including the OP. what i would say is that to get LASS to sound really smooth and sweet you need to eq quite heavily the upper mids, and also drop slightly the boomyness of the basses and cellos which are lower mids.

stright out of the box and with their eq turned off, i do feel LASS to be quite harsh and unpretty, but by god once you have massaged the eq curve to how you like it, and sat it well inside the custom IR's it just absolutely comes alive.

i have a short cue - a WIP - and not finished which i think really shows LASS to sound wonderful i would be happy to post. similarly it would be nice to hear some of the cue/s that your friend felt was too harsh and even the comparison with VSL. personally i have experimented a bit with VSL and found it needed lots of massaging to make work.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 26, 2010)

Everything said here I pretty much agree with. All libraries need some EQ at times and I also do not like the to use built-in preset EQs, because the EQ you choose has everything to do with how the strings sit in your mix.

But also, at the end of the day it shouldn't matter to you whether or not your violinist friend likes the sound. You are not creating the music for him. If YOU like it and your clients like it, that is all that matters.


----------



## windshore (May 26, 2010)

I recently borrowed a popular mic (in LA) many engineers love for recording strings. (It's the Sennheiser MKH 40) 

The reason I mention it is that I found it to "feel" like it has an upper freq extension, or built-in Air - Ironically though, the freq graph is ruler flat. When I compared to a Neumann klm 184, the Neumann felt darker. Totally the opposite of what I expected!

My suspicion is that this is maybe a "LA" thing. Certain engineers or producers have found this kind setup appealing for their projects, and now it's "the sound" to have. 

I wonder if some of the thinking is that it's easier to EQ frequencies out than add them. Or... maybe it has to do with the boards they use on some of the sound stages here? (Maybe the boards make this kind of mic sound a bit warmer?) Would love it if someone else has some insights....


----------



## windshore (May 26, 2010)

btw, I should mention that I LOVE the sound of LASS. (no knock on the way it was recorded)


----------



## Hannes_F (May 26, 2010)

windshore @ Wed May 26 said:


> I recently borrowed a popular mic (in LA) many engineers love for recording strings. (It's the Sennheiser MKH 40)
> 
> The reason I mention it is that I found it to "feel" like it has an upper freq extension, or built-in Air - Ironically though, the freq graph is ruler flat. When I compared to a Neumann klm 184, the Neumann felt darker. Totally the opposite of what I expected!



Congrats, the MKH 40 are very fine microphones, especially as close mics for string sections. One reason is that their off-axis response is very homogenous where many other cardioid mics have a hidden high frequency boost (hidden in the sense of: you wouldn't figure that from looking at the data sheet) that exaggerates the bowing noises.

The Neumann KM184 have an on-axis 12 kHz boost that comes from being tuned to be used outside of the critical distance, and that is what can be seen in the data sheet (and therefore they should be brighter, in fact they sound more silvery). What is not in the data sheet is that Neumanns often have a drop around 6-7 kHz, and also the off-axis response of the KM184 is not as smooth as the KM84 or the KM140 are. I guess this explains why they sound darker to you than you would expect.

Another plus of the MKH series is that the intermodulation problems are much less due to their HF technology. Over all the sound is very clear, open and natural. It is a certain "sound", as every mic choice has, but maybe one of the most natural ones. 



> I wonder if some of the thinking is that it's easier to EQ frequencies out than add them.



There are engineers that I highly respect who say that you basically can dial in any characteristic by EQ. I personally differ a bit here because at least for me it was not possible to transfer 'the sound' of one mic to the sound of another mic entirely. But that may be my own shortcoming.



> Or... maybe it has to do with the boards they use on some of the sound stages here? (Maybe the boards make this kind of mic sound a bit warmer?) Would love it if someone else has some insights....



Using an SSL console adds a certain sound for sure that is more soundtrack-like than say a Yamaha console (more classic). But that are nuances and easier to compensate with EQ etc.


----------



## windshore (May 26, 2010)

very insightful, thanks Hans!


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 26, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Wed May 26 said:


> Reduce the area around 3 kHz and you can tame it if you like.



Thanks Hannes - very helpful.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 26, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed May 26 said:


> Pop music, cinematic music,whatever-the feeling is it has to be ear candy bright.



Two more thoughts here. First thing, for me the beauty of the strings sound happens not in the extreme ranges of the spectrum but in the mids, say between 500 and 5000 Hz. Very tasteful EQing in that region can make it or brake it. 

Second thought: Doing strings sound is very much like being the kitchen chef in a restaurant. You know what a very good cook does while preparing a desert? He adds just a bit of salt. If he prepares something tasty there will be still some sweet component in it and also some hint of sour etc.

If we go too far into only one direction then we loose the richness, the bouquet. If strings are hyped it may floor the listener for the first fifteen seconds (think trailer music or demo reel where this can have merits) but then it gets one-dimensional. LASS has great abilities if you tame it a bit like mentioned in order to reach a middle ground.


----------



## MikeH (May 26, 2010)

Yes, initially I found LASS to be extremely bright- too bright and harsh for my tastes. After some great tips from forum members here I took a big dip around 6.5 by about 3db and it warmed it up considerably. But what's too bright to me might be just right to someone else!

I absolutely love LASS and for right now I really think my search for strings has come to an end. I'll definitely get WIVI strings once they're on the market for sure since I prefer modelled VI's, but I think LASS is, personally, the last word in sampled strings for me.


----------



## synthetic (May 26, 2010)

Much easier to cut high frequencies from a bright sound than to add them to a dull sound without harshness. I like the sound but you should mix it to taste. Or layer another library.


----------



## Mike Greene (May 26, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Wed May 26 said:


> > I wonder if some of the thinking is that it's easier to EQ frequencies out than add them.
> 
> 
> There are engineers that I highly respect who say that you basically can dial in any characteristic by EQ. I personally differ a bit here because at least for me it was not possible to transfer 'the sound' of one mic to the sound of another mic entirely. But that may be my own shortcoming.


A friend of mine (a singer) did an album here a couple years ago. He's got a lot of money, so he rented a whole bunch of expensive mics to audition. I've always been a bit skeptical of "magic mics," so after he narrowed his favorites down to C12, a U47, an ELAM 251 and some custom mic I can't remember, I decided to throw my trusty Neumann M149 into the mix and do a test I'd been wanting to do for years.

As he'd test each mic (we spent many days testing mics. This guy's a fanatic,) I'd put my M149 side by side to whichever mic he was trying out and we'd record two parallel vocal tracks. Then I EQed the M149 track (using a basic Massenberg TDM plug-in) and within a couple minutes, had it sounding identical enough to whichever mic we were comparing, that even when I let *him* be the one going back and forth with the mute switches, he still couldn't tell a difference between the two tracks. This was the same result no matter which mic we were comparing.

Mind you, the TLM149 is not a cheap mic either. It's very flat and consistent (I have lots of other mics - U87, etc, but wouldn't use those for a test like this) and I'm not so sure I could get the same results with an inexpensive mic or a solid state mic (I am a believer in tube mic magic, just not vintage mic magic.) But I definitely came away from the experience that at least in a close mic vocal situation, the exact mic used isn't as big a deal as many think.

That's not to say that these results would apply to orchestral recordings, where off axis performance and a whole host of other factors come into play, but I do think it's worth noting.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 26, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Wed May 26 said:


> A friend of mine (a singer) did an album here a couple years ago. He's got a lot of money, so he rented a whole bunch of expensive mics to audition. I've always been a bit skeptical of "magic mics," so after he narrowed his favorites down to C12, a U47, an ELAM 251 and some custom mic I can't remember, I decided to throw my trusty Neumann M149 into the mix and do a test I'd been wanting to do for years.
> 
> As he'd test each mic (we spent many days testing mics. This guy's a fanatic,) I'd put my M149 side by side to whichever mic he was trying out and we'd record two parallel vocal tracks. Then I EQed the M149 track (using a basic Massenberg TDM plug-in) and within a couple minutes, had it sounding identical enough to whichever mic we were comparing, that even when I let *him* be the one going back and forth with the mute switches, he still couldn't tell a difference between the two tracks. This was the same result no matter which mic we were comparing.
> 
> ...



Hi Mike,
that is an interesting experience for sure. There is a saying that similarly constructed microphones should sound similar, and a flat mic should be a good base for starting to anywhere.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 26, 2010)

What I don't think you can get with EQ - or convolution mic models, etc. - is the sound of a ribbon mic (I'm thinking of the Royers specifically).

But maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Mike Greene (May 26, 2010)

We didn't try that, but I don't think so either. I wouldn't think I could match a dynamic mic either.

My only claim is that I believe I can get any good tube mic to sound like any other good tube mic in a basic cardioid, close mic type situation.


----------



## brianmusic (May 26, 2010)

givemenoughrope @ Tue May 25 said:


> LASS with an analog verb IS great. I'm going to do some experiments reamping soon as well.
> 
> I really think that warmth is something you can add or take away with eq. You can also add it with distortion or compression.
> 
> I would say go with Hollywood Strings but Nick Phoenix said it's not worth it.



Could you please explain that what's analog verb? Is it a part of the EQ in LASS library?


----------



## muziksculp (May 26, 2010)

When evaluating sounds/instruments, I think we should also factor in that we have differing specific sweet spots, i.e. for strings, some of us seem to fancy a raw/screechy, or should I say a bit on the harsh-side sound, with a lot of brightness, and rich upper overtones, some like them more on the smooth-dull side, and there is a huge variance between these two extremes, and in addition to that, there is the issue of 'context/style/genre/..etc.' some libraries might be better suited for certain types of genre/musical context than others. 

I also think that our ears, and age, play another important factor. We tend to hear less of the mid-high frequencies as we age, (have you had a hearing test lately ? it's an interesting experience), hence the same audio material can be perceived differently depending on our age, which is directly related to our ear's sensitivity to the mid-high frequencies. What might sound very bright to me, could sound a bit less bright, or even dull, to someone else. This is something that should not be ignored. 

Another factor is our pure taste for string timbre/texture, for example, I love the way period bowed instruments sound, (the 'Baroque' sound), bowed instruments were tuned down to a=415 or lower, the instruments were shorter, hence, less tension on the strings, and if gut strings were used, they produced a uniquely transparent, and very singing/sweet tone, they also used a period bow, (unfortunately there are no sampled string libraries of period-stringed instruments), since they are not in Vogue/Commercially attractive for sample libraries, (also, some people can't stand baroque music, or the baroque sound. These days, it's rather the big cinematic-hollywood sound that's more hip, which I do enjoy quite a bit as well, when used in the proper context. 

I don't own LASS, but did consider them, after hearing some of the audio demos, I find them sounding a bit too grainy or a bit on the harsh-side, actually the first time I heard LASS, which was being demo'd to me by a sales-rep at a music retailer, (kind of a rough listening test), without any reverb/eq, well... they did not sound very flattering/sweet to my ears, I'm sure they would sound much, much better with the right EQ, and Reverb treatment. I'm also confident that LASS has a lot of potential.

The LASS website should have a lot more audio demos to help evaluate them. given that LASS has been out for quite a while now, they should have been able to post a lot more audio demos to showcase it, but this has not happened. I'm looking forward to see what the next versions of LASS will offer, and hopefully they will have quite a bit more audio demos to help evaluate them. 

Cheers.


----------



## Narval (May 27, 2010)

brianmusic @ Wed May 26 said:


> givemenoughrope @ Tue May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > LASS with an analog verb IS great. I'm going to do some experiments reamping soon as well.
> ...


Let me be anal on this one: verb comes from re-verb, and analog comes from the anal I was talking about. :D


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

As someone who hasnt bought LASS yet, I also have found its too bright and harsh in peoples demos. 

I dont want to have to mess about with EQ's.


----------



## handz (May 27, 2010)

Yeah, EQing is definitely high on my "don´t wan to" list.


----------



## dcoscina (May 27, 2010)

Well, for the short articulations, this library is spot on! It sounds totally realistic. I use the spiccatos and staccatos all of the time. They are my favourite go-to samples (it used to be Symphobia but LASS kills it for strings). 

The long bowed articulations I find are very detailed and good although I still have a little issue with some of the tuning. But I find them good- actually better than good if mixed properly.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2010)

Ed @ Thu May 27 said:


> As someone who hasnt bought LASS yet, I also have found its too bright and harsh in peoples demos.
> 
> I dont want to have to mess about with EQ's.



There is no library that I have tried that does not require some EQ to get the instruments to sit in a mix properly.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu May 27 said:


> Ed @ Thu May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who hasnt bought LASS yet, I also have found its too bright and harsh in peoples demos.
> ...



Good for you. 

But I dont feel like I should HAVE to tweak stuff to get a good sound out of the box right from the start.


----------



## Dietz (May 27, 2010)

handz @ Thu May 27 said:


> Yeah, EQing is definitely high on my "don´t wan to" list.


Like written in another thread - that's much like cooking without salt and spices.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2010)

Ed @ Thu May 27 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Thu May 27 said:
> ...



Good for you. 

But I dont feel like I should HAVE to tweak stuff to get a good sound out of the box right fromòÏL   Ô˜¹ÏL   Ô˜ºÏL   Ô˜»ÏL   Ô˜¼ÏL   Ô˜½ÏL   Ô˜¾ÏL   Ô˜¿ÏL   Ô˜ÀÏL   Ô˜ÁÏL   Ô˜ÂÏL   Ô˜ÃÏL   Ô˜ÄÏL   Ô˜ÅÏL   Ô˜ÆÏL   Ô˜ÇÏM   Ô˜ÈÏM   Ô˜ÉÏM   Ô˜ÊÏM   Ô˜ËÏM   Ô˜ÌÏM   Ô˜ÍÏM   Ô˜ÎÏM   Ô˜ÏÏM   Ô˜ÐÏM   Ô˜ÑÏM   Ô˜ÒÏM   Ô˜ÓÏM   Ô˜ÔÏM   Ô˜Õ


----------



## Hannes_F (May 27, 2010)

Ed said:


> I dont want to have to mess about with EQ's.



Hmmm, I see where you are coming from ....


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

synergy543 @ Thu May 27 said:


> Then maybe LASS isn't for you? I find that I want to EQ LASS. I feel the same about VSL. And yet, I'm *really glad* they didn't gouge out all of the high-end and give me fast-food samples for easy digestion.



Who said anything about gouging out the high end? Is that what engineers do on all string recordings I like?  



> But the ART feature in LASS is pretty damm cool if you want that Zimmer effect. It doesn't seem PLAY has anything like that yet. Maybe PLAY PRO? Or maybe they decided its not worth it? I wonder how you'd achieve this bowing effect with HS as it has up and down bows it could make good use of the LASS ART feature. Could HS samples be imported into a LASS patch I wonder? (blasphemy)



if I had enough money I know I would find LASS very usefull, but it is a shame it needs some work post processing on the sound.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Thu May 27 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > I dont want to have to mess about with EQ's.
> ...



Hannes, I have never worked with an engineer, and I have worked with some pretty famous ones, who did not EQ the string section.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Thu May 27 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> > I dont want to have to mess about with EQ's.
> ...



Exactly. 

Of course my issue is the way I work I dont want to have to do much work processing anything, if people are used to doing that all the time its not so much of a big deal I guess.


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2010)

"The way I work I like to have as little post processing as possible. Symphobia + reverb = done. HS it seems doesn't need any processing either."

Hmmm...ok....actually I tend to EQ the crap out of Symphobia (and definitely turn off their EQ curves).

I find it way too bright and sizzly for my taste, and if anything I tend not to add a whole lot of reverb to it since it's already pretty damn wet.

Also, to address Hannes' comments...have any of you been to an orchestral recording session in the control room? I assure you there is a good bit of EQ'ing going on! Same is true for just about every damn instrument in existence. Sometime the EQ happens "in-mic" with people using certain mics which, for all intents and purposes, is applying an EQ curve to the incoming signal.

(to everyone) Please don't make the mistake of justifying your ignorance/fear on how to properly use EQ (which I admit can be an intimidating tool) with the idea that a sample library "shouldn't" need it if it was recorded properly. That is nonsense. There is a lot of processing going on behind the scenes of the music that many around here praise as the ultimate in realism, and the guys who produce those tracks have taken the time to learn how to use these tools inside out. You want to sound like them? You better start learning how to incorporate EQ into your workflow!


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2010)

"Hannes, I have never worked with an engineer, and I have worked with some pretty famous ones, who did not EQ the string section."

Jay,

Using a mic which has coloration, or moving the mic off axis and proximity so as to color the incoming signal one way or another is EQing. Some engineers like to twist knobs, and some prefer to go through vintage preamps and mics, but as Mike Greene so eloquently put, the result is the same.


----------



## synergy543 (May 27, 2010)

Ed @ Thu May 27 said:


> Of course my issue is the way I work I dont want to have to do much work processing anything...


That's just lazy. But hey man, like, ya know, whatever works for you.

You do not always need to EQ LASS. Its just that you said:



Ed @ Thu May 27 said:


> As someone who hasnt bought LASS yet, I also have found its too bright and harsh in peoples demos.



So if *YOU* don't like it you *CAN* EQ it. As Jeff said in another thread "Much easier to cut high frequencies from a bright sound than to add them to a dull sound without harshness."

LASS sounds fine without EQ too. It depends upon the sound you're going after. You're choice.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 27, 2010)

Nothing against using an EQ as a creative tool or shaping the sound to taste. But if you _absoutely need _it as a repair tool then something has gone wrong before.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

synergy543 @ Thu May 27 said:


> Ed @ Thu May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course my issue is the way I work I dont want to have to do much work processing anything...
> ...



Its not lazy, I dont want to or expect to have to do that. I want to be given a well recorded sound to start with. If others want to EQ from there thats fine.



> So if *YOU* don't like it you *CAN* EQ it. As Jeff said in another thread "Much easier to cut high frequencies from a bright sound than to add them to a dull sound without harshness."



Once again I have to ask:
_
Who said anything about gouging out the high end? Is that what engineers do on all string recordings I like? _

Im pretty sure they don't, or you have no clue as to what "sound" people are really saying they like. Muffled high end is not it. 



> LASS sounds fine without EQ too. It depends upon the sound you're going after. You're choice.



Looks like another VSL debate... I see.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Thu May 27 said:


> OK guys, just let me say that whatever strings demos you heard from me lately was un-EQed. And be sure I know how to handle one.
> 
> BTW nothing against using an EQ as a creative tool or shaping the sound to taste. But if you _absoutely need _it as a repair tool then something has gone wrong before.



Totally agree with you Hannes, and I love your recordings btw


----------



## handz (May 27, 2010)

Ed @ Thu May 27 said:


> I just want to pick it up and play not have to f#@k around with EQs just to get away from a harsh bright sound. It sucks the creativity out of me.
> 
> The way I work I like to have as little post processing as possible. Symphobia + reverb = done. HS it seems doesn't need any processing either.



Yessss, exactly - all this postproduction is NOT fun and have nothing to do with composing. HS IMO dont need EQing and I dont see anything bad on symphobia outofthebox sound. 

BUT 

I dont wanna sound that I dont like LASS sound - I´m bit more positive about it than ed. But this EQneed debate scared me.


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2010)

Guys,

Welcome to the 21st century. A working composer nowadays needs all sorts of skills which are "NOT fun" but are necessary.


Do you really think that something like Troels' kick ass trailer cues sound that way out of the box?


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

midphase @ Thu May 27 said:


> Guys,
> 
> Welcome to the 21st century. A working composer nowadays needs all sorts of skills which are "NOT fun" but are necessary.
> 
> ...



Lets put it this way, TJ for YEARS said he never EQ'd any of his samples.


----------



## SvK (May 27, 2010)

Most of the EQing I have done to Vienna is to FIX the flawed recording of the string libraries. They will deny it, but they know it's true.

The fixes are in the form of drastically turning down single frequencies (fundamentals), that are booming like single sine waves.

They muddy up everything. You hear them really clearly when you hold down each sustain note seperately. All of of a sudden you'll come across a note that is suddenly waaayyyy louder than the notes directly below and above it, but in a really bad way.
You then notice it is due to the fundamental of that note being way, way louder than the fundamentals of the notes below and above it. Well with Logic EQ just find that single fundamental frequency ( by boost, sweeping @ 100 q ) and then turn it down ( sometimes drastically like 15 to 20 db ) to match the notes below and above.

Now repeat this tedious process for all other culprits.

A prime example are the Apass Celli.

This "fundamental" sine tone issue is not limited to the low strings but also present in highnotes of violas and violins as well. Here it doesn't BOOM but instead certain notes sound like a Hearing test at the doctors, real pleasant stuff.

Ps: fundamentals are important for the character of an instrument, so you don't want to completely kill themeverywhere, but in Vienna it's a big, big problem.

Cinematic strings exhibits NONE of these issues.

It's the Vienna silent stage. Its a bad room for large sections.

SvK


----------



## muziksculp (May 27, 2010)

SvK @ Thu May 27 said:


> Most of the EQing I have done to Vienna is to FIX the flawed recording of the string libraries. They will deny it, but they know it's true.
> 
> The fixes are in the form of drastically turning down single frequencies (fundamentals), that are booming like single sine waves.
> 
> ...



+1 

Especially your last statement "It's the Vienna silent stage. Its a bad room for large sections." I have been saying this for years, but unfortunately, it seems to fall on DEAF ears :mrgreen:


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2010)

I assume by DEAF ears you're referring to the guys making the stuff in Vienna? Because I think there is agreement on VI Control.


"Lets put it this way, TJ for YEARS said he never EQ'd any of his samples."

Ed,first of all, I know you're a big TJ fanboy and drink up everything that comes out of his mouth (and as I said in another thread, he's one talented mofo, so part of that is totally warranted). However, listening to his stuff, sounds to me like he's a big fan of subharmonic enhancement (a form of EQ), compression (another way to subtly change some of the characteristics of the original sound), and of course he's recorded his own custom samples a very specific way. My guess is that if most of us were given his exact same sample set, we couldn't get it to sound the way it does when TJ does it, because we wouldn't be privy to the post processing and mixing tricks that he has perfected. Plus, if I was TJ, I would definitely not divulge my tricks too openly...it is afterall a very competitive environment that we work in.

Here's an interesting read for you from the equally talented (and lucky) Mike Verta:

"And in all cases, each section has an additional EQ plug-in on it, with some seriously wacky and extreme curves, which go a long way towards helping place things together in the "room." Though interestingly, each of the sections sounds good on its own. I'm not really sure how I got all this to work, beyond some insane number of hours of experimentation."

http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/t/191 ... ageIndex=2


----------



## Hannes_F (May 27, 2010)

Guys, after a good pasta I noticed I maybe hijacked this thread a bit that should really be about LASS and nothing else. Have streamlined my posts a bit ... and anyway everybody should record and EQ how he can and loves it.

Cheers o-[][]-o


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2010)

For anyone who's interested, a while back I made this EQ chart based on an article in Electronic Musician which I refer to very often for a quick refresher:

http://www.musicbykays.com/clients/vi-c ... encies.jpg


----------



## handz (May 27, 2010)

[quote="midphase @ Thu May 27, 2010 12:49 pm]

I think I need a good pasta right about now![/quote]

You italians! 

Thanks for the chart!


----------



## Aaron Sapp (May 27, 2010)

Most of us who've spent countless hours massaging string performances anticipated the financial and artistic benefits of a library like LASS. To dismiss a potentially helpful tool due to certain ideals with processing techniques must mean you're in a position to do so. Until you have something to lose, you can pick and choose your battles all you want with no consequence. 

Most of us would sooner be writing. That's a given. Can't always frolic in the spoils of composition, though. Having as much a handle on mixing techniques as you do composition will get you exponentially further than the other guy. 

Take TJ, Colin, Troels, or Andy B (my faves here) - I'll bet you anything they've spent countless hours developing their mixing chops over the years. Countless hours on programming instruments. The result? Outstanding mockups with outstanding mixes. Think this happens by accident? No. It's a lot of unfun fucking work.


----------



## synthetic (May 27, 2010)

Great tips. Also, what seems like a mix problem is often an orchestration problem.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

midphase @ Thu May 27 said:


> I assume by DEAF ears you're referring to the guys making the stuff in Vienna? Because I think there is agreement on VI Control.
> 
> 
> "Lets put it this way, TJ for YEARS said he never EQ'd any of his samples."
> ...



You are always so wrong when you're wrong  

I am talking about BEFORE TJ had the private library and btw Troels has said he doesn't use compression since he doesnt understand it and as for "subharmonic enhancement" have you heard him say that? I havent heard that at all in all these years but maybe you know something I don't. I do know that people insisted that his sampled stuff was live back on NS in 2002, so maybe you're going to insist he use/d "subharmonic enhancement"s. Im also not sure how that would make that much difference anyway, aside from making the bass frequencies better. I keep being told its all about muffling the high frequencies to get the warm airy sound... (wait... what???)

Anyway, my point is that you shouldnt NEED to EQ or compress stuff just to get a good sound. Balancing with reverb, sure, but thats it. But if you have to start out having to do that, somethings probably not right. 

Balancing with reverb can take you quite far without EQing, TJ proved that. But if you start out with a good sound then put it in a space then you're going to have a better time than trying to, for example, mix VSL strings. I was one of the people that was in the "VI PRO" project and I think you were too, well in many ways we got a pretty damn good sound from that. The short string notes still sound really nice, all I do is load them up and go. No processing whatsoever apart from reverb. People will spend hours and hours talking about processing samples to try and make them sound like I know they could sound if they just recorded it that way in the first place. Before we had multiple mic positions and "wet" samples, people suddenly realised that if you record some room sound it all starts to sound more live all by itself with no processing required.



> My guess is that if most of us were given his exact same sample set, we couldn't get it to sound the way it does when TJ does it, because we wouldn't be privy to the post processing and mixing tricks that he has perfected. Plus, if I was TJ, I would definitely not divulge my tricks too openly...it is afterall a very competitive environment that we work in.



My point, as I explained, is not that I can sound like TJ if you make a sample set not have to be EQ'd simply that you shouldn't NEED to just to get an nice sound. I don't like this idea that samples should have to be corrected afterwards by processing them. 



> Here's an interesting read for you from the equally talented (and lucky) Mike Verta:
> 
> "And in all cases, each section has an additional EQ plug-in on it, with some seriously wacky and extreme curves, which go a long way towards helping place things together in the "room." Though interestingly, each of the sections sounds good on its own. I'm not really sure how I got all this to work, beyond some insane number of hours of experimentation."



As great as Mike is, he is nowhere near as good a mockuper as TJ is and was. TJ was awesome way before PP. That out of the way... Im sure TJ might do some EQ on his stuff now, Im sure that would help it sound better, but as I say sounding better and sounding nice to start with is different. As SvK says, you can EQ the crap (pun intended) out of VSL, but why should you have to?


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2010)

You know what guys? Believe what you want to believe.

It's best for me and everyone else who does this professionally that you think I'm full of shit...less competition the way I look at it.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

Don't get me wrong, I dont think LASS is a terrible sounding library at all. But the logic expressed here by some people just makes no sense. LASS doesnt sound the way I'd like, it makes up for it in sheer awesome performance features which still makes it usefull but that issue is still there for me. The rationales for thinking the sound is actually great is the same logic as saying VSL is just great, LASS is way better than VSL in sound of course but the logic here seems to be the same and so still just as wrong. EQing and so on should be used to taste not "fix" the samples. Im sure some will say LASS doesn't need fixing but honestly it does sound a bit harsh in most demos, yet Im told I should EQ out frequencies in the high end? I did ask, is that how engineers get the light warm sometimes "airy" sound I (and others it seems) like? By muffling the high end? Im pretty sure that's not what I mean when I think nice strings.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2010)

midphase @ Thu May 27 said:


> You know what guys? Believe what you want to believe.
> 
> It's best for me and everyone else who does this professionally that you think I'm full of [email protected]#t...less competition the way I look at it.



:lol:


----------



## synergy543 (May 27, 2010)

Ed my fanboy, here's what TJ said about LASS:

*"The strings sound great and seem to lend themselves well to that delicate and intimate scoring stage sound."*

o/~ o/~ o/~ o/~

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... ht=#148070

Do you disagree with TJ? >8o


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2010)

synergy543 @ Thu May 27 said:


> Ed, what TJ said about LASS:
> 
> *"The strings sound great and seem to lend themselves well to that delicate and intimate scoring stage sound."*
> 
> ...



TJ is nice in public 

He has even said theres not much different about his private samples in public before, and that was before LASS and HS... lol

And TJ isn't wrong here anyway, LASS does sound great, its got great legato and so on, but it also sounds kinda harsh as well that I dont want to *have *to correct with EQ.


----------



## sadatayy (May 27, 2010)

ed are you a profesional? you sound like a hobbyist just talking out of your arse and trying to argue with people that know far more than you. point isl earn to EQ every single person in the industry knows how to do it and is a master of it. you'll never rise above mediocrity if you sit there complaining and blaming all your personal faults on the developer ("they didn't record their library right because i can't play it out of the box")

for all the "breath" you wasted here complaining about the EQ you could have read an entire course about it and learned how to do it properly


----------



## synergy543 (May 27, 2010)

Not worth it.


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2010)

maybe we could ease up a little? 

It's just a discussion about eq, not lives at stake. These positions, both the "I shouldn't have to fuss with eq" and "eq is normal and to be expected," have been aired many times in different ways.

Thank goodness we aren't arguing about compression too...


----------



## NYC Composer (May 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed May 26 said:


> What I don't think you can get with EQ - or convolution mic models, etc. - is the sound of a ribbon mic (I'm thinking of the Royers specifically).
> 
> But maybe I'm wrong.



+1


----------



## NYC Composer (May 27, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Wed May 26 said:


> Hannes_F @ Wed May 26 said:
> 
> 
> > > I wonder if some of the thinking is that it's easier to EQ frequencies out than add them.
> ...



I went from using U-87's and U-67's for vocals to a much cheaper set of cardioids over the past few years, and my experience was the same as yours. By the time I'm done eq'ing, compressing, blah blah, I get much the same sound.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 27, 2010)

synergy543 @ Thu May 27 said:


> Not worth it.




Hahaha! Now it's a trend!!


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 27, 2010)

JohnG @ Thu May 27 said:


> maybe we could ease up a little?
> 
> It's just a discussion about eq, not lives at stake. These positions, both the "I shouldn't have to fuss with eq" and "eq is normal and to be expected," have been aired many times in different ways.
> 
> Thank goodness we aren't arguing about compression too...



It is now officially Memorial Day Weekend here in the U.S.

I will be away EQ'ing ribs and compressing a pork roast in the smoker.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 27, 2010)

It's still be a while til I jump on either LASS, HS, or any other new string lib. But based on the demos and reported experiences, here's my conflict to date:

TONE - CS sounds amazing, HS usually amazing, LASS more variable. I get that LASS needs work... and if you need to work under deadlines, I'm afraid this is a major negative. Symphobia only exists cos it's instant.

If it's a case of EQing... surely updated patches would help?

LASS ART SCRIPT. Wannit. Now.

HS RUNS, MEASURED TREMS. Wannem. Now.

LEGATO. Jury still out. Nothing yet has sounded perfect to my ears, but both LASS and HS are way, way ahead of anything I currently have (Symphobia and SO). Think LASS might edge it?

USEABILITY. Play 2.0 is a huge improvement. But LASS's 40GB vs 320GB is very appealing - ensembles will work fine on the laptop already. Speaking of which, it can be installed on 2 machines with no dongle hassle.

I'm hoping by the time I'm ready to buy, LASS 2 will be with us...

[EDIT - forgot a major one:]

SECTION SIZE / ARRANGEMENTS. Love that LASS has first chair and a highly flexible divisi options, especially with the upcoming Auto Arrange. HS (despite a divisi split) and CS nowhere near as flexible.


----------



## jamwerks (May 28, 2010)

I haven't heard the whole library in detail, but I have't yet heard a real "ensemble" sound out of the cello section. Isn't 4 cellos the biggest "group" thòÐV   ÔÚ³ÐV   ÔÚ´ÐV   ÔÚµÐV   Ô


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2010)

handz @ Fri May 28 said:


> jamwerks @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't heard the whole library in detail, but I have't yet heard a real "ensemble" sound out of the cello section. Isn't 4 cellos the biggest "group" that you get? That may not be enough?!
> ...



Handz I realize that you are probably much more accomplished than all of us, but has it occurred to you that if I, Bruce Miller, Jeff Beal, Al Silvestri, and David Newman all like them, they might at least be worthy of someone's consideration?

Sometimes a little humility in one's opinions, particularly if one is not that accomplished, is not a bad thing.


----------



## jamwerks (May 28, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Fri May 28 said:


> if I, Bruce Miller, Jeff Beal, Al Silvestri, and David Newman all like them, they might at least be worthy of someone's consideration?.



Jay, on your website you say to: "use and endorse Kirk Hunter sample libraries" (as well as lots of other products).

I haven't heard the KH samples (that I know of), and I don't know what the editorial policies are here at VI Control, but it would seem necessary for us all to be able to identify all posters who are resellers, paid sponsors, and/or paid endorsors of products.

If you use and endorse them because you are happy with the product, that's on thing, but if you're paid to use them (or use them for free in exchange for your endorsement), that's something that IMO should be declared in your signature. /\~O


----------



## yujade (May 28, 2010)

stevenson-again @ Wed May 26 said:


> all comments i agree with here including the OP. what i would say is that to get LASS to sound really smooth and sweet you need to eq quite heavily the upper mids, and also drop slightly the boomyness of the basses and cellos which are lower mids.
> 
> stright out of the box and with their eq turned off, i do feel LASS to be quite harsh and unpretty, but by god once you have massaged the eq curve to how you like it, and sat it well inside the custom IR's it just absolutely comes alive.
> 
> i have a short cue - a WIP - and not finished which i think really shows LASS to sound wonderful i would be happy to post. similarly it would be nice to hear some of the cue/s that your friend felt was too harsh and even the comparison with VSL. personally i have experimented a bit with VSL and found it needed lots of massaging to make work.



Please post! I have enjoyed listening to your work.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2010)

jamwerks @ Fri May 28 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > if I, Bruce Miller, Jeff Beal, Al Silvestri, and David Newman all like them, they might at least be worthy of someone's consideration?.
> ...



Actually, I need to update that page as it is out of date.

Fair enough question. I am NOT paid to use them nor do I sell anything but my soul. 

When Kirk has new libraries, he gives them to me to test. I then send him comments and when the product is finished, I do indeed get to keep them.

However, I have this relationship with a number of developers, as I beta test for quite a few of them. When I like their products, I say so publicly. When I do not, I say nothing publicly, only respond to queries privately. Some I can tell you about and some I am under NDA so I cannot.

One thing I promise you that you can be sure of: if I say I like a product and use it, I do.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 28, 2010)

i do not normally like to wade in these sorts of arguments as they seem pretty pointless. but i have to say ed is quite right. in general i would prefer everything to sound right straight out of the box and no LASS does not sound right - to me anyway - straight out.

however, once you have got your head around how to make it sound good, it stays good forever - just as quick as if you were to pull up a symphobia patch. and it takes the same skills as anyone with a decent set of ears would need to make anything else sound good in a mix.

TJB is quite right. LASS is ideal for that more intimate sound. blended with symphobia you can get an HSesque big sound too. but the important thing is that it is incredibly expressive. you can really milk a phrase or a chord change and there in lies its true beauty and value.

i have recorded live strings that have needed a fair bit of eq to sit right as well. but i do like a thing where some of that trouble has been taken for me alla symphobia.


----------



## jamwerks (May 28, 2010)

o-[][]-o


----------



## nikolas (May 28, 2010)

For the record. Because I started out with EWQLSO Gold (and then xp pro), I don't really use EQ. It's not in one of my habbits. I'm deadly sure that one I get used to... using EQ in my tracks, things will only go better. In fact I recently started using reverb (because of LASS, mostly), since GOLD was already wet.

I will admit, that I've almost never used EQ with LASS and I do enjoy the things that come out of my DAW. And I don't recall a comment about EQing in any piece I use LASS (although I do remember comments about my use of reverb). 

I do enjoy the sound of LASS, immensly, more than anything out there currently! (based on demos of other libraries, of course, and based on what I use as a composer). It is very intimate, very 'close' (no mic wise really), almost sounding 'flawed' somehow... like you are really there. At least for me...

Let's relax a bit and let this thread be about LASS, shall we?


----------



## handz (May 28, 2010)

jamwerks @ Fri May 28 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > if I, Bruce Miller, Jeff Beal, Al Silvestri, and David Newman all like them, they might at least be worthy of someone's consideration?.
> ...



It was already said - if I get them for free or get money for using / testing them hen I maybe could be more positive... Sorry I dont trust Advertisements, its same when Actors / models / sport celebrities on billboards telling us about theirs favorite watches.


----------



## TimNielsen (May 28, 2010)

I guess what is somewhat interesting here is the debate about how sample libraries should be made.

One approach is that the designer do all the EQ, Compression, Enhancement to the samples themselves, or in real time in the interface (if in Kontakt, etc.) To deliver an 'out of the box' finished sound.

The second approach would be to deliver the most realistic rendition of an instrument, as it would be recorded on a stage, for instance. And then to let the user do any EQ, Compression, etc.

Of the two, I would MUCH prefer the second. What I want from a sample library is the closest thing to a replacement of a real instrument in a real space, recorded with as much depth and variety and emotion as I can get. I don't want a built-in 'sound' from it. And I can't imagine that any professional wouldn't agree.

How are you going to fit an instrument into your composition if you're not willing to EQ, Compress, as the situation dictates? This just makes no sense.

For instance, I really love the new Tonehammer Piano. But in no way is it good enough right out of the box for me. It requires some EQ, and some additional work to get the sound I want from it. And on any given song, that 'sound' might have to change, because of other instruments, etc.

So what you want is just something that you don't have to invest any time in at all? Just something that has a given sound, that you'll never want to modify, chance, etc? So you can't imagine wanting brighter strings in one song, and duller strings in another? I'm sorry, it DOES sound very lazy, if you're not willing to invest some time to do these things, then something like LASS certainly isn't for you.

I assure you, every real recording session needs and uses plenty of EQ. LASS is designed as a replacement for real instruments, and as such it should need the same work and care that any real recording would.

As for the 'sound', if you don't like, hey, you don't like it. No problem there, there are plenty of libraries I didn't buy (and some I did) that I just don't like the sound, or the micing, or the work they did to it. If I can't get the sound I want from it, I just don't use it.

But to say your problem with something like LASS doesn't sound perfect FOR YOU right out of the box, well you're certainly not their target audience anyway. I happen to like the sound out of the box, although any time I would use it, I would certainly still EQ it, or be prepared to, to get the proper sound for the song in question.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2010)

TimNielsen @ Fri May 28 said:


> I guess what is somewhat interesting here is the debate about how sample libraries should be made.
> 
> One approach is that the designer do all the EQ, Compression, Enhancement to the samples themselves, or in real time in the interface (if in Kontakt, etc.) To deliver an 'out of the box' finished sound.
> 
> ...



I don't want either extreme, I want something in the middle, something that I basically like the sound, but will have to tweak somewhat.

This is not a new argument and has nothing to do with professionalism. I have 2 friends who are terrific engineers. One usually records with a compressor because he knows it well and likes the sound and believes that can make it work in any mix.

The second says he never dos so because he does not want to paint himself into corners and that if you have to do that, you are doing it wrong. I point out the the Beatles got pretty good results recording through compressors and he still maintains they did it wrong

Also some engineers use "colored" mic pres because they want that sound where others prefer flat.

Horses for courses.


----------



## JohnG (May 28, 2010)

exactly
 
there is no such thing as a neutral recording -- as someone said, where you place and point the microphone changes the "eq" of the sound, and every other thing before and after that decision -- the room, the board, the preamps -- everything.


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

You know it would help a lot more if I could play with some kind of demo patch and see if it fits my workflow on my own system. 

And how anyone thinks Tonehammer piano doesnt sound good out of the box is koo koo to me. Sure you can mold it to sound just the way you want it to, but it sounds awesome out of the box. 

I would like it if devs could provide EQ settings you could import into Kontakt so that you could easily get "that" sound people are talking about.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 28, 2010)

The thing about samples is that they can't possibly be recorded to sound right in every context without being massaged. Live recordings are recorded in context - and even then they require lots of intervention.

And that's before you get to the next realization, which is what JohnG is saying: microphones are very different from human ears.


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 28, 2010)

Sometimes diversity (synergy as TJB puts it) in relation to layering and blending libraries can be all it takes to propel productions to another level. Layering can help you achieve a more custom sound. It is in that specific area where Lass really shines. Its a very pliable and chameleon-like library in terms of adapting to many different settings in EQ and IR, taking on characteristics of specific string sections through Match EQ. 

That said, my Symphobia will sound nearly exactly like your Symphobia and hundreds of others sitting on hard drives of composers everywhere. Layering changes all that. Lass also has an intimate sound and basically you have five separate string libraries built into one package when used in stand alone.


----------



## wst3 (May 28, 2010)

JohnG @ Fri May 28 said:


> there is no such thing as a neutral recording -- as someone said, where you place and point the microphone changes the "eq" of the sound, and every other thing before and after that decision -- the room, the board, the preamps -- everything.



Wading in here carefully, as I am relatively new to using large scale sample libraries...

It would be, I believe, impossible to create a sample library of any instrument that pleases everyone, or even a majority of the professionals, out of the box. Everyone hears things differently, and everyone works differently.

And while there is no such thing as a neutral recording, it seems to me that the objective ought to be a library that one can treat with processors to taste, or not, as the situation requires.

This comes from years of recording - though I've yet to record a large orchestra, and the folks that showed me the ropes pretty much all agreed that the optimal approach went something like this:
1) start with good material
2) use good sounding instruments played by talented players
3) record in a great sounding (for the project) space
4) place the instruments, and select and place the microphones to minimize the need for equalization and dynamics processing.
5) hit record and cross your fingers<G>!

This was in the late 1970s and on, and it seemed, at first, counter-intuitive. It wasn't like we had 16 (later 24) channels of compressor sitting around, and while we did have some filters on each channel strip, the really flexible ones were also in the racks, and there weren't 24 of them either.

So when it was determined that EQ or compression was required, either to place a track in the mix, or to fix something, or even just for effect, we printed it. We didn't usually have extra tracks either.

Printing the processing forced you to make decisions earlier rather than later - could be good, could be not so good.

These days we have nearly unlimited tracks and processors, so decisions can be pushed off, and that too can be good or bad.

The thing that I took away from all of this is striving to select and place source and microphone well so that I wasn't relying on EQ and compression to fix things later.

Seems to me that many of the larger libraries take that same approach, and I think that's going to serve me (ok, I'm selfish) well. I'd expect it to serve others too.

I don't always want to sound like Nick or Andrew or Kirk, but then, at least in this stage of my development, none of those would be a bad choice either<G>!


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 28 said:


> The thing about samples is that they can't possibly be recorded to sound right in every context



I guess that's my issue... I dont want samples to sound right "in every context." I don't want samples that are able to be jack of all trades, I want them to be great for a specific task. 

I want strings that can sound huge like a big John Williams score, but I also want strings that can sound intimate like Lost. I dont expect and think it is highly detrimental to try and go out and make a library that expects to be able to be used in both areas with a little EQ. I think its next to impossible to make a library sound good like that. You'll probably going to miss the mark of being great in both areas. This why I have such a problem with VSL's philosophy.

Im not saying LASS did this, just that this idea is what is the issue with samples for me. Too many libraries are trying to appeal to such a broad array of customers which then has a detrimental affect of the quality as a whole. Its the reason so many professionals have to go out and record their own libraries.

Tonehammer seem to understand this, which is why you have Emotional Piano. Its specifically made for soft playing, specifically said that its not going to be good at everything but will be great at this. Or their Epic percussion, specifically sounds great big... then they made dry libraries of the instruments specifically for that kind of sound. They did not try and make a library that could be used in both areas and expected the user to just have to EQ them to get to that sound. Ive used their stuff out of the box with no EQ, just some reverb, and it sounds great because Im using it for the task it was created for.


----------



## TimNielsen (May 28, 2010)

Ed, I'm not saying the Tonehammer Piano isn't 'good' out of the box. And it's completely usable. But so are the East West Pianos, and Ivory. And yet they all sound very different. So sure, it can sound 'good'. And then for me, I can make it 'better'. And by that I only mean, I can make it more 'mine'. You might hate what I do to the Tonehammer piano. Who knows!

But to me, LASS 'does' sound good out of the box, because I know when listening to it, that although I would like to do A, B and C to it, I know I 'can' do those things, because the samples are pre-compressed, heavily EQ'd, etc.

Just different methods of working I guess. I certainly have plenty of instruments that I don't do anything to when working with them. Some of the Tonehammer stuff, some of the Sonic Couture stuff. But it never offends me when I 'have' to tweak a bit to get the perfect sound.

You seem to be saying you're unwilling to do ANY work to get a sound you want, and that is what sounds very lazy to me. Because as others have noted, how likely is it that you and everyone else in the world would agree on what sounds 'good' to you. So how can a library maker every hope to do that?

So I guess if you don't 'like' the sound of a given library, and aren't willing to invest any time in working with it, then just don't buy it. But to insinuate that those of us who are willing to invest the time to get what we want out of it, that we're 'wrong' because we don't see any problem EQ'ing, well, whatever.

And I guess I am koo-koo for not just loading the Tonehammer Piano and never adjusting a single knob. I mean, the thing has EQ BUILT IN, are you saying you've never once even 'tried' to see what those knobs do?

Just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## synergy543 (May 28, 2010)

JohnG @ Fri May 28 said:


> there is no such thing as a neutral recording ...



But there is something such as a heavily processed recording. Which has its place but isn't exactly "flexible" (such as the Abbey Road 60s drums).

How do you want your strings? Garrified? Fairlight electrified? Compressed? Uncompressed? Soaked with reverb sauce? KHcified? Miroslaved? Phobified?

There are lots of possibilities and fortunately, lots of choices. Nothing is "neutral" although some are clearly more flexible than others. Important distinction.


----------



## rJames (May 28, 2010)

A big thanks from me to all the contributors to this thread.

It has all been said before but it is good to be reminded how important it is to put the engineers hat on for any type of project.


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2010)

Ed @ Fri May 28 said:


> I would like it if devs could provide EQ settings you could import into Kontakt so that you could easily get "that" sound people are talking about.




I always thought you were way smarter than a squirrel!

That is a good idea actually. Hans Adamson did it with Virtual Grand Piano by building in a lot of presets which work within different styles, and smartly called them according to artists names so that the end user could easily pinpoint the sound he was after.

I wish that more developers did that. I think it would be fairly affordable for a developer to hire a good orchestral engineer and room for 1 day, take his library to the studio and let the engineer create EQ curves based on various types of sounds. I think 8-10 presets would be plenty for most people, ranging from warm and fuzzy to harsh and biting. Ideally the names of the EQ curves would be helpful for composers to quickly gravitate towards the appropriate preset.

Anyone listening to this? This could also be a 3rd party solution...I think someone could make some good money with this and would have the advantage of not being tied to any one particular product.

That set of IR's kindasorta did something of the sort, but was cost prohibitive, and was tied to the VSL suite which added to the cost prohibitiveness. I'm thinking a $99 product here and not more than that.

Anyone...anyone?


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

TimNielsen @ Fri May 28 said:


> You seem to be saying you're unwilling to do ANY work to get a sound you want, and that is what sounds very lazy to me. Because as others have noted, how likely is it that you and everyone else in the world would agree on what sounds 'good' to you. So how can a library maker every hope to do that?



And as Nick Batz pointed out a developer cant possibly make their recordings sound great in every context...

.... so dont! I dont want them to try! Too many libraries trying to cater to every sound. 

And I would have to play with a demo patch in order to see if I could make LASS sound the way I'd want it to, but I cant believe a professional would tell me its lazyness to want to have a plug a play library. 

I can probably make Gigapiano sound a lot like Tonehammers Emotional piano if I tried processing it enough... but who really wants to have to go to all that trouble? I guess thats lazyness as well!



> So I guess if you don't 'like' the sound of a given library, and aren't willing to invest any time in working with it, then just don't buy it. But to insinuate that those of us who are willing to invest the time to get what we want out of it, that we're 'wrong' because we don't see any problem EQ'ing, well, whatever.



I never said anyone was wrong because of that. I was saying Midphase was wrong because he didnt understand what i was saying and he said that the great mockup guys use EQ and compression... when that is incorrect. Troels said he doesnt use compression and for years TJ said he didnt EQ just balanced with reverb.



> And I guess I am koo-koo for not just loading the Tonehammer Piano and never adjusting a single knob. I mean, the thing has EQ BUILT IN, are you saying you've never once even 'tried' to see what those knobs do?



I turn the EQ off, but again sweetening the sound is different to having to EQ because you dont LIKE the sound to start with.


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 28, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Wed May 26 said:


> windshore @ Wed May 26 said:
> 
> 
> > I recently borrowed a popular mic (in LA) many engineers love for recording strings. (It's the Sennheiser MKH 40)
> ...



Interesting to read the praise for the MKH series and microphone 'signatures'.
I have to admit that the MKH's have a special place in my heart.
FWIW, in Holland many of the IMO best orchestral recordings are made using e.g. an MKH 30 figure of eight combined with an MKH 20 omni, or B&K 4006 in M/S configuration.
Some also prefer an MKH 40, but after doing lots of tests and listening, virtually nothing beats an MKH 20 / 30 when going for an absolute 'natural' sound with tons of atmosphere (if the acoustics are right).

I agree with what's said here regarding libs or recordings that are overly bright.
This saddens me actually, and therefore couldn't resist to chime in here...


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2010)

Wow, I was going to post a really great tip, and then I looked into the future and saw Ed totally ripping it apart for no apparent reason...so I decided not to post it.

PM me if you want to know what it was.


----------



## synergy543 (May 28, 2010)

midphase @ Fri May 28 said:


> Wow, I was going to post a really great tip, and then I looked into the future and saw Ed totally ripping it apart for no apparent reason...so I decided not to post it.



/\~O 

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

midphase @ Fri May 28 said:


> Wow, I was going to post a really great tip, and then I looked into the future and saw Ed totally ripping it apart for no apparent reason...so I decided not to post it.
> 
> PM me if you want to know what it was.



How bizzare...

I guess you were going to say something really stupid then o=< .


----------



## Hannes_F (May 28, 2010)

Robert Kooijman @ Fri May 28 said:


> FWIW, in Holland many of the IMO best orchestral recordings are made using e.g. an MKH 30 figure of eight combined with an MKH 20 omni, or B&K 4006 in M/S configuration.
> Some also prefer an MKH 40, but after doing lots of tests and listening, virtually nothing beats an MKH 20 / 30 when going for an absolute 'natural' sound with tons of atmosphere (if the acoustics are right).



You're my man. The 4006 is one of my main mics and the MKH20 is next on the list. Ditched the MKH40.



> I agree with what's said here regarding libs or recordings that are overly bright.
> This saddens me actually, and therefore couldn't resist to chime in here...



I' so happy ... I'm so happy ... I'm so happy ...
... about not contributing to this discussion any more ... :D


----------



## jlb (May 28, 2010)

Would also be very interested in any tips anyone has for EQ on lass especially full section samples, also hoping to buy lite

jlb


----------



## NYC Composer (May 28, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Fri May 28 said:


> TimNielsen @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess what is somewhat interesting here is the debate about how sample libraries should be made.
> ...



+1 re horses for courses. There are people out there making great music wtih Garage Band and a dynamic mic.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 28, 2010)

Ed @ Fri May 28 said:


> midphase @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, I was going to post a really great tip, and then I looked into the future and saw Ed totally ripping it apart for no apparent reason...so I decided not to post it.
> ...



I'm underwhelmed by the maturity of this statement. You seem very young, in a callow sort of way.

I sometimes admire your passion, but mostly I deplore your rants. At first I thought you were an ideologue. Then I realized you just love to argue and are totally invested in being 'right'. After a while, it became so exhausting I started skipping the vast majority of your posts and taking long naps instead of reading them. Now I feel minty fresh again.

Re/Lass- don't have it yet, demos sound good to me, I plan to buy LASS lite. I'll probably eq it differently on every project I used it for. YMMV. Horses for courses, as Asher said. Not that I think your original premise was 'wrong'....our methods simply differ. Now THERE'S a thought-different composers/producers, different methodologies! ::onders this:::


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Fri May 28 said:


> Ed @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > midphase @ Fri May 28 said:
> ...



Midphase decides to try and make my look bad by claiming he was going to give some good advice but then withdraws it by saying he inst going to because he claims Im going to "rip it apart". So why dont you get at him and call him immature? 

I challenge him to post whatever it was, I dont see how Ive said anything so unreasonable here. Midphase has always had a problem understanding what Im talking about in these kinds of topics. Whenever he has said I am wrong he has always showed me he doesnt really understand me, yet others seem to understand me just fine. Just show me once place where I have been unreasonable, one place.

If I said I was going to post some really great advice but am not because NYC Composer is going to attack it, wouldnt you be like "WTF?" as well?


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2010)

No Ed, some people understand what you mean, and others don't.

I don't have an issue understanding your position, but I don't agree with it and I find it highly subjective.

Your stance is that EQ should be used as an enhancing tool and not as a corrective one. Fair enough....except I personally don't feel that LASS needs corrective EQ....that's where we get in the subjective part.

Some do and some don't.

The other part of our divergence of opinion stems as to what degree should EQ (and other post processing) be necessary in a composer's day to day workflow. You have stated that TJ said that in the early days he didn't EQ anything. I wish TJ would chime in here to confirm or deny that statement..but my guess is that he has no intention of giving anyone any hints on what he does or doesn't do to make his mock ups what they are.

I think I have a pretty good idea as to "some" of the tools that someone like TJ very likely relies on to get where he needs to get. I'm not saying that with the same tools I'd be able to make it sound the way he does...all I'm saying is that I hear some of the characteristic sonic signatures in his tracks. You've pretty much insisted that I have no clue what I'm talking about. I had another trick that I was going to share (who some might already know about) to get from point A to point B with relatively little fuss, but since I'm not getting paid to divulge mixing tricks, and since every time I do it's met with scorn and a sense of derision by the likes of you...I'll just take advice from Nick and simply say....it's not worth it!


PS.

The following is for Nick. Hey Nick...don't get all worked up because I just made another positive statement about LASS. If you go back and read my posts about HS, I have stated pretty early on that I think HS has a gorgeous tone so I would more than likely say the same thing about HS that I don't think they need any corrective EQ. Fair is fair!


----------



## drasticmeasures (May 28, 2010)

FWIW, I think some of best EQing in LASS is simply turning off the EQ in the instrument...

As far as "tools" - the Sony Oxford plugs , ESPECIALLY the Inflator is staple for some guys.


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

midphase @ Fri May 28 said:


> I had another trick that I was going to share (who some might already know about) to get from point A to point B with relatively little fuss, but since I'm not getting paid to divulge mixing tricks, and since every time I do it's met with scorn and a sense of derision by the likes of you...I'll just take advice from Nick and simply say....it's not worth it!



But again you're trying to make me look bad by alluding to some helpfull knowledge and blaming me for not sharing it.

Just why exactly do you think I would meet it with scorn? Can you show me one time where Ive commented on someones advice unreasonably? When have I been unreasonable in this thread? 

There is no possible way that would happen if it was a tip to make it sound better unless you were actually going to say something silly. So why dont you just say what it is?


----------



## sadatayy (May 28, 2010)

ED you are really annoying and immature please stop this garbage.... you're a hobbyist kid talking to professionals on here about advanced things you know very little about. just stop complaining jeeezz just go learn about EQ and join the ranks of pros who use it every single day including your idol TJB. 

:roll:


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

sadatayy @ Fri May 28 said:


> ED you are really annoying and immature please stop this garbage.... you're a hobbyist kid talking to professionals on here about advanced things you know very little about. just stop complaining jeeezz just go learn about EQ and join the ranks of pros who use it every single day including your idol TJB.
> 
> :roll:



How do you know Mr Smarty pants?

And I never said no one should use EQ and I never said I didnt use it, why is it none of you people that have such a problem with what Im saying ever seem to read what I write?


----------



## sadatayy (May 28, 2010)

Ed @ Fri May 28 said:


> sadatayy @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > ED you are really annoying and immature please stop this garbage.... you're a hobbyist kid talking to professionals on here about advanced things you know very little about. just stop complaining jeeezz just go learn about EQ and join the ranks of pros who use it every single day including your idol TJB.
> ...



how do i know what??? how do i kno that your annoying?? just look at the page everyone here has enough of you please just stop. everyone has their own preference in EQ don't you understnad it's personal taste. just learn to EQ like everyone else and stop whining like a child. every single library is EQ'd by various people. some use lass out of the box and that's the sound they prefer and some EQ the hell out of hollywood strings because that's the sound they prefer. you're acting like you're the end all be all of string experts by deriding lass for being supposedly wrongly recorded just because you don't know how to eq


----------



## Ed (May 28, 2010)

sadatayy @ Fri May 28 said:


> how do i know what??? how do i kno that your annoying?? just look at the page everyone here has enough of you please just stop.



There are various people here that say they agree with me. And I was talking about you saying Im a hobbiest kid. Just how much professional work would I have to do to make me not a hobbiest, I wonder?



> everyone has their own preference in EQ don't you understnad it's personal taste.



True.



> just learn to EQ like everyone else and stop whining like a child.



Stop projecting. 




> every single library is EQ'd by various people.



As others have said everything you do to a sound colours it somehow, including microphones. 

... oh wait, you dont really understand what Im saying? No, thats pretty obvious.



> some use lass out of the box and that's the sound they prefer and some EQ the hell out of hollywood strings because that's the sound they prefer.



True. But if lots of people say LASS has kind of a harsh sound they want to get rid of, I agree and am saying I wish it was recorded differently. But then maybe if I actually had it I would be able to easily find a good way of working with it, but when most demos appear quite harsh it puts me off and makes me wonder, given how I work, if I can make it sound the way I want it to. 



> you're acting like you're the end all be all of string experts by deriding lass for being supposedly wrongly recorded just because you don't know how to eq



You really like putting words in my mouth dont you?

FYI this "argument" has nothing to do with LASS really, its quite general. You'd know that if you had been paying attention which I know you havent.


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2010)

Ed, I am 99% sure that in person you're a really cool guy, someone who is eager to learn and get better at what they do, and you're obviously passionate about music.

You have an open invite to come to my studio in LA and hang out whenever you want and I'll tell you what I know which you can then take and apply to what you do...or not.

I don't think I've earned my stripes with you, because you seem to have me painted in such a way that you don't really believe that I know what I know...perhaps you've been on my site, listened to my crap, and decided that I wasn't worthy of your attention...fair enough. On the other hand, it's not really my job or mission in life to impress you or anyone else around here. I'm just doing what I do, and damn lucky to be able to make a decent living at it.

People generally don't hire me to do orchestral music (although you might have heard my orchestral work on trailers and television without realizing it), but I have a good idea of what sounds good and realistic and what doesn't. In essence, just because the body of my work is not orchestral it doesn't mean I have no clue what I'm talking about when it comes to orchestral mock ups.

Everyone who knows me personally knows that I'm very open, I speak my mind, and am always more than willing to share all my secrets even with the competition (including dollar figures as you well know). I don't believe that everyone shares in that point of view, and the general tendency is to keep their cards close to their chest and if anything misguide others into thinking they zig, when they really zag. If you live around here long enough...you get a much better picture of what's real and what's make believe.


----------



## NYC Composer (May 28, 2010)

Ed @ Fri May 28 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Fri May 28 said:
> ...



Fair enough. I agree to the extent that Midiphase's approach was somewhat of a " I'm taking my toys and going home" statement, which is not my idea of a mature way of doing things.

However, Ed, it probably didn't merit you upping the immaturity ante either, so I stand by my statements.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 29, 2010)

> Would also be very interested in any tips anyone has for EQ on lass especially full section samples, also hoping to buy lite




for those of you who actually genuinely interested in the original subject of this thread, i have a picture of my eq curve up on the audiobro forums. i reckon this tames the wilder elements in the LASS sound and leaves you with all its yummy expressiveness.

http://www.audiobro.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=590


----------



## muziksculp (May 29, 2010)

The primary reason I did not buy LASS, is that so far, non of the audio demos of LASS have impressed me, both from a tonal, and from a performance perspective. Of course this might change, but LASS has not been very helpful, since they have not added any audio demos to their website to change my impression of LASS. I have requested more audio demos, especially demos that show case their violins, both long, and short articulations, and that was quite a while ago, but so far, nothing has changed, they have not added any new demos to help evaluate them, which suggests a lack of responsiveness from the developer to 'potential future customer' requests. 

LASS has been available for quite some time, I could have purchased the same day it was released, if some of the audio demos really impressed me, or moved me in some way, but non did. Everything I heard sounded OK, but they surely lacked the WOW factor. When that happens I will happily purchase LASS. 

Hearing a few impressive audio demo where LASS really shine will surely sell me LASS, but telling me that I can EQ LASS to make it sound better/sweeter, ..etc. will surely NOT sell me a library at this price point.

*'Hearing is believing' ! *


----------



## midphase (May 29, 2010)

Fair enough. I absolutely agree that if the demos aren't doing it for you then it wouldn't make any sense to buy a certain product.

As I mentioned before, the sound of strings can be a very subjective thing. 

I think for any product, the best thing that one can do is to see if someone locally owns it (ideally a fellow composer friend), and spend some time playing it and going through presets.

Maybe someone should start a sample library equivalent of a tupperware party?


----------



## MikeH (May 29, 2010)

I've been actively following this thread and decided to throw together two pieces this afternoon for you guys--

*Hatikvah (arr. Keith Terrett)*
http://www.officialmichaelhuey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Hatikvah.mp3

- uses only the full (legato) sections-- no divisi.
-there's a 3.6db reduction around 6kHz spread from 1kHz to 10kHz (on the master) 

*Random Action track (by me!)*
http://www.officialmichaelhuey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Action.mp3

-no EQing done to any strings
-brass is WIVI

*Random Action track *
http://www.officialmichaelhuey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Actionstrings.mp3

(strings only mix-- no brass)

I love LASS, but to each his own. I thought it might be nice for people to hear some new pieces.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 30, 2010)

> non of the audio demos of LASS have impressed me, both from a tonal, and from a performance perspective.



here are a couple of pieces that show LASS tonal qualities once they are tamed.

1st is a work in progress and very unfinished, but i think shows a really nice string sound (i think it is anyway). it was smashed together pretty quickly (you can tell) but you can hear the fun with the expressivity i had:

http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/NewMissionWIP.mp3 (Work in progress)

and another showing the short articulations:

http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/TheBattle.mp3 (The Battle)

i have plenty more mature cues than these but these ought to give you a guide. The key with LASS is its expressiveness, and the short artics are just awesome.


----------



## Harzmusic (May 30, 2010)

Hey guys, thank you for these user demos!

Sounds really amazing!


----------



## R. Soul (May 30, 2010)

I'm still waiting anxiosly for LASS lite (hurry up Andrew) but one of the best demos I've heard is one by Pietro.

http://www.piotrmusial.com/piotr_musial_-_improvisi.mp3


----------



## jlb (May 30, 2010)

Many thanks for the EQ tips stevenson-again. I can't wait to get my hands on this, I am going to write some really good stuff with it

jlb


----------



## Danny_Owen (May 30, 2010)

Liking the new stuff Rohan, good work 

Been faffing about with LASS today since people have been saying you can't get expression and the EQ is too harsh, thought I'd mock up a cue I'm sure you all know very well! Hope it's not too accordion-y, this is only my 3rd time actually using LASS but I think it demonstrates what the potential would be in the hands of someone who really knew how to use it!

http://www.dannyowenmusic.co.uk/Media/Jurrasic_Lass.mp3

No EQ has been added at all, no compression, only reverb. All strings are using only the Legato Patches, and this ran (with 3 sections on each part) on My 2.4 ghz Core 2 Duo iMac with 4GB of RAM without any problems. Admittedly my chances of running any of the other instruments would have been pretty slim, but I was just doing the strings anyway!

Please don't massacre me like the last unfortunate person who posted some John Williams... this is just a mockup

Cheers
Danny

**Edit** Went back on the JPark, and here it is again with a bit of tweaking and EQ 

http://www.dannyowenmusic.co.uk/Media/Jurrasic_Lass4.mp3 (http://www.dannyowenmusic.co.uk/Media/J ... _Lass4.mp3)


----------



## muziksculp (May 30, 2010)

Thanks for the additional LASS demos. Maybe it's my taste, but nothing I heard so far has changed my impression of LASS. So.....

I will pass on both LASS, and the new Miroslav Strings.

On the other hand, I have decided to add EW-HS in the very near future, I hear a new level of quality, realism, and great timbre in EW-HS that imho seems like it is not possible to obtain from all other Orch. Strings libraries at this time (just my very personal opinion).

I will also be keeping an eye on both the upcoming solo, and section string from ‘SampleModeling’ I’m very optimistic about them, although I think they will take quite a bit more time for development, my guess is they might release them during the fourth quarter of 2010. 

Now... if ‘ProjectSam’ comes out with a sequel to ‘Symphobia’, maybe ‘Symphobia 2’ , it might have a healthy doze of new Strings to complement the strings in ‘Symphobia’. 

There is always a chance that there might be some other new String library release surprises during 2010. 

I know that Sonivox will be releasing a Kontakt 4 version of their Symphonic Strings library, actually they plan to update all of their orchestra to Kontakt 4. With some new programs, and possibly advanced scripting.

Cheers.


----------



## nikolas (May 30, 2010)

http://www.nikolas-sideris.com/Django/3rd_new.mp3

I don't know, but I like this sound very much... Especially the 2nd half, where the high strings go portamento all the way... And the repeated notes also sound very good, imho.

(btw, this piece, already in the listening foru, got rejected by the computer game developer, but got commissioned (I did, anyways) to complete it into a full scale string orchestra piece! YAY! :D)


----------



## C.Septimus (May 30, 2010)

Hi Brianmusic - 

My reply here is a bit tardy but maybe, if nothing else, it will add fuel to the conflagration. Ahem...

Your question specifically has to do with the timbre of the ensemble and the way Audiobro decided to record it. Last week, when I posted on another LASS thread, I used the phrase "warts and all" re. their recording philosophy. In that thread, the issue was intonation and/or vibrato. The colloquialism was in reference to their own position on the subject. On the first page of the LASS manual v.1, along with the legal boilerplate, there is the following carefully worded statement, in *boldface *to set it off from the rest:

The entire LA Scoring Strings sample library is based on "real player" performances and the utmost care was taken in preserving the human feel of these performances. It is these human "elements" (natural variances and imperfections in performance and sound) that create the realistic sound you hear when using LA Scoring Strings. Any imperfections in sound and performance are to be considered "by design" and are subject to change only at audiobro's discretion.

I found it somewhat odd that Audiobro felt the need to print such a statement. And on the very first page of their manual, right below a legal disclaimer - in boldface. It is so laden with euphemistic sleight of hand that it bears close scrutiny, especially if your ears (and the ears of a trained string player like your Eastman friend) are telling you something other than what the words would have you believe. It doesn't describe decisions made re. the recording environment. It doesn't describe decisions made re. mic type or placement. It doesn't describe decisions made re. the use, if any, of post DSP. And there's no particular need to here. That's hard info provided elsewhere. But it _does _make a number of claims, apparently assets, re.:

- "real player" performances - Are we to believe LASS is unique in this approach? The Vienese of VSL or NYC musicians of Garritan might have a thing or two to say here. And why the quotes? 

- utmost care was taken in preserving the human feel - again, as far as I know, utmost care was taken by all major sample library producers to preserve the human feel, esp. in orchestral libraries. Not a pioneering concept in 2009. 

- human "elements" (natural variances and imperfections in performance and sound) - or as my grandmother used to say, warts and all. And man did she have an arsenal of remedies for wart removal! 

- realistic sound - by who's definition? Surely a brief perusal of just the remarks on this thread will confirm that such a claim can only be subjective. To use the phrase as if it were some kind of established benchmark is, at best, disingenuous. 

Professional musicians, real players, be they string players or any other instrumentalists, work very hard to _remove _"natural variances and imperfections" from their _sound _and technique. They were taught to do so over years of intense training by their teachers. The last thing they would do is make an effort to produce them "by design".

All I'm suggesting is that we, as potential customers trying to decide whether or not to shell out $1,200 for a product that is touted as A-List, should consider why Audiobro felt a need to write such a peculiar non-disclaimer disclaimer right along with their legal disclaimer. One get's the distinct impression that Oceania has _always _been at war with Eurasia...


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 30, 2010)

C Septimus - sure, everyone listens and decides. And surely no-one is arguing against that?

I remember lots of tuning comments when LASS was released, and heated debate about "real" imperfections. Clearly LASS's philosophy of including and celebrating imperfections is not that of, say, VSL. But interestingly, the comment I hear time again from composers' private libraries is that they contain a lot of imperfections, which helps make is special.

So I have no problem with AudioBro calling out attention to this. Sure, everyone professional takes care, but this policy is, imho, definitely worth stating upfront - it will surely suit some and not others (?)


----------



## Killahurts (May 30, 2010)

I found that it wasn't having EQ that sounded wrong on LASS for me, but it was _Kontakts_ EQ I was not liking. 

After I had LASS for a few weeks, one day I turned off the "stock" EQs and used the Sonnox Oxford EQs, or my Sony console's EQs instead. Changed everything! With a really good EQ, you can do a lot of different colors with LASS, which is also a testament to how well the samples were recorded, IMO.


----------



## midphase (May 30, 2010)

Dear S.M. Clark,

I've been accused of being overly zealous in defending LASS, and I'm trying to offer as unbiased opinion as possible...but I find your line-by-line breakdown of the LASS description to be faulty, bizarre and even paranoid.

"- "real player" performances - Are we to believe LASS is unique in this approach? The Vienese of VSL or NYC musicians of Garritan might have a thing or two to say here. And why the quotes?"

No, I believe that in that context, it was a reference to the fact that studio musicians were instructed to perform in such a way that they would normally perform and not adjust their playing towards an unnatural sound. Andrew might have also meant it as an indication towards users not familiar with sampling technology as a clarification that the sounds were not generated by physical modeling or other methods.


"- utmost care was taken in preserving the human feel - again, as far as I know, utmost care was taken by all major sample library producers to preserve the human feel, esp. in orchestral libraries. Not a pioneering concept in 2009. "

Once again, incorrect. Many developers have been known to autotune, normalize, and add post production tweaks to make the samples more consistent with one another.


"- human "elements" (natural variances and imperfections in performance and sound) - or as my grandmother used to say, warts and all. And man did she have an arsenal of remedies for wart removal!"

Once again, without the warts and all, the tendency it towards a very artificial sound. What has made many of those legendary custom libraries so good is their acceptance of the imperfections, and in some cases even welcomed them.


"- realistic sound - by who's definition? Surely a brief perusal of just the remarks on this thread will confirm that such a claim can only be subjective. To use the phrase as if it were some kind of established benchmark is, at best, disingenuous. "

I think when LASS came out, which was almost a year ago (and I believe it was recorded and created well before then), it set a new standard for realism. All you have to do is go back and read the posts of when the initial demos were released to see that they were overwhelmingly positive towards its achievement in this respect. Of course every orchestral (or acoustic) developer likes to state that their product offers a realistic sound, I fail to see how this is disingenuous. 


Ultimately, all you have to do is listen to the demos. They either pique your interest, or they don't. I think it would be much more productive if you have an issue with some aspect of the demos (tone, tuning, etc) to bring that up in this forum rather than trying to build a case for a conspiratorial agenda behind LASS.


PS.

Had you posted the same observation in reference to HS, I would still feel that it was bizarre and paranoid.


----------



## EwigWanderer (May 31, 2010)

I downloaded Vienna Suite demo and you can have a lot of different string sounds with it by using LASS. Even though the presets are named after Vienna instruments they sound great with LASS dry sampless  
You should try VS for LASS.


----------



## midphase (May 31, 2010)

I thought his post was not bizarre and paranoid because of the issues that he raised, but because there seemed to be an innuendo in his post of some sort of occlusive and misguiding agenda on the part of AudioBro...weird.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 31, 2010)

sure - and i can see how you would think that is weird - but my point is that it could seem weird from his perspective if he had not been part of the discussions or vogue that leads to try and create a library like LASS. "why would you want to record and include the mistakes? wouldn't you want the optimum performance?" and so on and so forth...

the reason i point this up is because of a point andrew k and others have made before about how far you can push a commercial library in this direction.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 1, 2010)

Dietz @ Thu May 27 said:


> handz @ Thu May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, EQing is definitely high on my "don´t wan to" list.
> ...



I can't agree with that analogy. You can have a ton of control over the "flavor" of a mix just by varying mic choice and position (and as someone already mentioned, good orchestration). Sure, sometimes EQ is necessary to fix, or desirable to taste, but it's also possible to make a great recording with no EQ.

As for LASS, I'm happy with how it sounds even without EQ (and have been able to EQ it to sound like other strings pretty easily), but that may just be a matter of personal taste.



Ed @ Fri May 28 said:


> ...I also want strings that can sound intimate like Lost.



And you haven't bought LASS? It's perfect for that sort of thing, I can't think of another library that comes close for that specific style.



muziksculp @ Sat May 29 said:


> I have requested more audio demos, especially demos that show case their violins, both long, and short articulations, and that was quite a while ago, but so far, nothing has changed, they have not added any new demos to help evaluate them, which suggests a lack of responsiveness from the developer to 'potential future customer' requests.



I get the impression that they haven't done more demos because they are too busy working on updates (and later, expansions) to the library. From what I've seen so far, they are one of the most responsive developers I've bought a library from. And I do think the library is capable of much better than what is heard in the demos (no disrespect to the guys who made those demos).



C.Septimus @ Sun May 30 said:


> - "real player" performances - Are we to believe LASS is unique in this approach? The Vienese of VSL or NYC musicians of Garritan might have a thing or two to say here. And why the quotes?



Based on what I've heard, I'd say yeah, they are unique in that approach.



C.Septimus @ Sun May 30 said:


> - utmost care was taken in preserving the human feel - again, as far as I know, utmost care was taken by all major sample library producers to preserve the human feel, esp. in orchestral libraries. Not a pioneering concept in 2009. [/òÕ   Ö
> HÕ   Ö
> IÕ   Ö
> JÕ   Ö
> ...


----------

