# The rite of Spring - Spitfire BBCSO VS Symphonic Series + Chamber & Solo Strings



## marcodistefano (Apr 26, 2020)

Hi All,

Just published a fair comparison of two outstanding spitfire audio sound libraries with an outstanding classical masterpiece!
BBC Symphony Orchestra vs the extended symphonic series (with chamber strings and solo strings)
Let me know what you think! :D


----------



## José Herring (Apr 26, 2020)

marcodistefano said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Just published a fair comparison of two outstanding spitfire audio sound libraries with an outstanding classical masterpiece!
> BBC Symphony Orchestra vs the extended symphonic series (with chamber strings and solo strings)
> Let me know what you think! :D



I appreciate the effort but dude this is painful. 

I wish that you would just play one then play the other rather than going back and forth between libraries on the same phrase. 

Just post the BBSCO version then post seperately the SSO version.


----------



## Rob (Apr 26, 2020)

your rendition makes me want to buy the BBCSO right away
EDIT: ehm... I mean the Symphonic series


----------



## marcodistefano (Apr 26, 2020)

josejherring said:


> I appreciate the effort but dude this is painful.
> 
> I wish that you would just play one then play the other rather than going back and forth between libraries on the same phrase.
> 
> Just post the BBSCO version then post seperately the SSO version.



Of course you can 
here are the videos

Watch the full BBC SO version 

Watch the full Symphonic Series version 

Behind the scene here 


Just added them in the description of the video so people can easily jump in


----------



## ed buller (Apr 26, 2020)

awesome effort ..but a hard choice for the BBC. The rite of spring is scored for one of the largest Orchestras ever assembled ( at the time ) BBC really is a LOT smaller. It will struggle. 4 horns VS 8 and so on. The overall sound of the SSO and the Church helps with the BALLS of the rite . I think it wins on this alone. But try l'apres midi du faune and see how that works !....But again...thank you...lot's of fun to listen to

Best

ed


----------



## bryla (Apr 26, 2020)

I wonder if the developers test their bassoon with the opening. This feels very jagged in both versions.


----------



## Vonk (Apr 26, 2020)

This is one of my favourite pieces of music. I appreciate the work the work that has gone in, and following the programming is interesting. However these versions make me feel like the original audience at the first performance.


----------



## Rob (Apr 26, 2020)

ouch... I got the versions mixed up... I much prefere the Symphonic Series


----------



## bryla (Apr 26, 2020)

I hope the fault is in the midi programming because I really like the SSW and use them myself. But there is serious phrasing issues with these comparisons and the BBC is even worse.

It would be immensely more helpful to do these comparisons without the focus on flow, ve pro, lex and whatever else you have that might distort the sound. I fear that there might be too much misbalancing going on in the chain.


----------



## marcodistefano (Apr 26, 2020)

bryla said:


> I hope the fault is in the midi programming because I really like the SSW and use them myself. But there is serious phrasing issues with these comparisons and the BBC is even worse.
> 
> It would be immensely more helpful to do these comparisons without the focus on flow, ve pro, lex and whatever else you have that might distort the sound. I fear that there might be too much misbalancing going on in the chain.


there is no distortion 
it is just a cubase template following state of the art rules for routing


----------



## marcodistefano (Apr 26, 2020)

marcodistefano said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Just published a fair comparison of two outstanding spitfire audio sound libraries with an outstanding classical masterpiece!
> BBC Symphony Orchestra vs the extended symphonic series (with chamber strings and solo strings)
> Let me know what you think! :D



Just realised I uploaded a version where BBCSO was mono :(
sorry for this, replaced the file with the right one and discontinued the previous video...


----------



## Laptoprabbit (Apr 26, 2020)

marcodistefano said:


> Just realised I uploaded a version where BBCSO was mono :(
> sorry for this, replaced the file with the right one and discontinued the previous video...




Every now and then there's strange popping and volume changes?


----------



## bryla (Apr 26, 2020)

marcodistefano said:


> there is no distortion
> it is just a cubase template following state of the art rules for routing


Not distortion in the guitar amp kind of way but in the sense of distorting the interbalance of instruments/sections. It would be much more helpful to simply hear the decca of each sample library. I don't know what state of the art routing is but the point on phrasing is still a concern. The first note sounds like it's a take from a completely different recording that the rest of the phrase.
I can't tell how that relates in the next phrase because you cut the sequence there but BBC also shows it's weakness there in measure 14. The grace notes in measure 7 also don't really have a popping characteristic. These things are programmable and should be fixed to serve the comparison justice.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 26, 2020)

marcodistefano said:


> Just realised I uploaded a version where BBCSO was mono



You only realised that today, Marco?? Lord love a duck. When you posted your BBC SO version a little over two weeks ago, it happened to coincide with a BBC SO-related discussion that was unfolding at the time on the little forum around the corner, and to which I contributed a.o. the following, after having listened to your work: “(…) Spitifire’s BBC SO prides itself, and I think deservedly so, on its spatial opulence. Very odd and bewildering then, to hear a demo where the entire orchestra and its enfolding space are collapsed into a blurry, smeary, near-mono (!) porridge that never even hints at the spatial depth and dimensional splendour that’s captured in this library (…). The Spitfire people, I’m sure, must be horrified when they hear demo’s such as these. I mean, I am horrified, and I'm not even one of its creators.”

I really can not understand that, after all the work you invested in this, you would then upload an awful-sounding mono-version and only two weeks later come to realise the embarrassing error of your ways. How did that happen? Or did YouTube mono-fy your upload, and don’t you check these things? Whatever the reason, it's bad.

(I also don’t understand, by the way, that none of the previous posters seems to have heard it.)

Anyway, I’m not going to quote much else of what I wrote two weeks ago (except the closing line, see below), because you won’t like it. Let’s just say I’m of the opinion this is an ex-tre-me-ly bad mock-up — offensively so, as far as i’m concerned — both musically and technically.

(2020 seems to be fast becoming a year of abonimable mock-ups. We’ve already had to endure a couple of awful Vivaldi’s, several atrocious Beethovens, and now this. Zeus and Apollo are toying with us and testing our musical stamina, I suppose. That must be it.)

And one other thing: the decision to precede your BBC SO version with a recording of an orchestra warm-up doesn’t exactly raise you in my estimation either, I have to say. Because the only thing that does is add the stench of pretentiousness to what otherwise would have been just a poor, but innocent amateuristic effort. With that intro however, you've turned it into a blasé amateuristic effort, which is infinitely more insufferable.

I ended my post on the other forum with this: “If I were to reply in the thread on VI-C where this demo is posted, the thing would immediately be moved to the Drama Zone.”

_


----------



## marcodistefano (Apr 26, 2020)

Laptoprabbit said:


> Every now and then there's strange popping and volume changes?


That is when I switch from a version to the other


----------



## marcodistefano (Apr 26, 2020)

re-peat said:


> You only realised that today, Marco?? Lord love a duck. When you posted your BBC SO version a little over two weeks ago, it happened to coincide with a BBC SO-related discussion that was unfolding at the time on the little forum around the corner, and to which I contributed a.o. the following, after having listened to your work: “(…) Spitifire’s BBC SO prides itself, and I think deservedly so, on its spatial opulence. Very odd and bewildering then, to hear a demo where the entire orchestra and its enfolding space are collapsed into a blurry, smeary, near-mono (!) porridge that never even hints at the spatial depth and dimensional splendour that’s captured in this library (…). The Spitfire people, I’m sure, must be horrified when they hear demo’s such as these. I mean, I am horrified, and I'm not even one of its creators.”
> 
> I really can not understand that, after all the work you invested in this, you would then upload an awful-sounding mono-version and only two weeks later come to realise the embarrassing error of your ways. How did that happen? Or did YouTube mono-fy your upload, and don’t you check these things? Whatever the reason, it's bad.
> 
> ...



Indeed an horrible mistake, but you know what? it can happen and I don't make any drama cause life just goes on!

True it is a pity I did not realize before, I could have changed it immediately if you just had answered to my post 
I do video since years, and this never happened. I then realized that in Ozone I had erroneously clicked on the mono output when exporting the version for the video.

In any case you are free to dislike, and one can always learn from his own mistakes


----------



## rhye (Apr 26, 2020)

Omg symphonic sounds muuuch better. Glad I didn't jump into BBC. Thanks for the comparison Marco!


----------



## ed buller (Apr 27, 2020)

rhye said:


> Omg symphonic sounds muuuch better. Glad I didn't jump into BBC. Thanks for the comparison Marco!



I really really wouldn't judge BBC SO on this...It's a fantastic library and this does NOT make it sound like that !

best

ed


----------



## muk (Apr 28, 2020)

Soundwise BBC SO sounds much nicer. Clear and transparent. SSO sounds muffled and dull in comparison. The legato transitions are much better in SSO. Overall, both renditions are so far from doing justice to the piece that I really can't deduce much about either library from it.


----------



## MaxOctane (Apr 28, 2020)

re-peat said:


> I really can not understand that, after all the work you invested in this, you would then upload an awful-sounding mono-version and only two weeks later come to realise the embarrassing error of your ways. How did that happen? Or did YouTube mono-fy your upload, and don’t you check these things? Whatever the reason, it's bad.
> 
> (I also don’t understand, by the way, that none of the previous posters seems to have heard it.)
> 
> ...



Mistakes happen. Asking "how did you let this happen?" is not in any way helpful.

Marco has more than demonstrated his skills on this forum after posting many compositions, which I highly appreciate. And anyone who is putting themselves out there, either through original composition or mockups, and actually _creating_ and _sharing_ with this forum, deserves respect.


----------



## Gene Pool (Apr 28, 2020)

The task of mocking up _Le Sacre_ is definitely not for the faint of heart. That's gotta be tedious. Thanks for posting this.

The one thing that jumped out at me most was that there's something screwy going on with the BBC SO bassoon. It has a peculiar tone I've never quite heard from a bassoon—most especially from this particular solo—live or recorded, close or distant, french or german. On some notes it gives the impression of a sort of hybrid between bassoon and english horn, and those notes pop out of the continuity of the line. The unique sense of a singing, throaty, but rounded not nasal "reaching upward" is absent, which negates the intension of the scoring, and makes the line sound patchy rather than continuous.

(Oh, by the way Marco, unless I'm losing my mind, it sounds like the comparison video begins with the SS and then flips to the SO, then back and forth from there, but the text intro lists them in the reverse order. And the videos of the individual libraries are then posted in reverse order to the comparison video. Am I right about this, or did I miss something?)

Anyway, in the comparison video, the jolt in tonal character between the normal bassoon tone at first with the nasty, uncharacteristic bassoon at 00:18 tells the tale. I wonder if the original samples were stretched or eq'd, or something with the miking maybe, I don't know. Curious.


----------



## NoamL (Apr 28, 2020)

Trying to extract some positives from this, the Ritual of Abduction seems like one of the sections where the least can go / has gone wrong in programming.... SSS feels much more lively than BBCSO in the strings and brass, while BBCSO is getting close to about as good with the woodwinds.


----------



## marcodistefano (May 6, 2020)

MaxOctane said:


> Mistakes happen. Asking "how did you let this happen?" is not in any way helpful.
> 
> Marco has more than demonstrated his skills on this forum after posting many compositions, which I highly appreciate. And anyone who is putting themselves out there, either through original composition or mockups, and actually _creating_ and _sharing_ with this forum, deserves respect.


Thanks, I appreciate your words 
indeed mistakes can happen, and I'll make sure to not repeat it! :D


----------



## marcodistefano (May 6, 2020)

muk said:


> Soundwise BBC SO sounds much nicer. Clear and transparent. SSO sounds muffled and dull in comparison. The legato transitions are much better in SSO. Overall, both renditions are so far from doing justice to the piece that I really can't deduce much about either library from it.


Consider that for BBCSO I have been using the mix and close mic, while for the symphonic I use 6 different mics.
Unfortunately BBCSO has performance issues in windows, which is far better than its first release, but still does not allow me to use many microphones


----------



## marcodistefano (May 6, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> Anyway, in the comparison video, the jolt in tonal character between the normal bassoon tone at first with the nasty, uncharacteristic bassoon at 00:18 tells the tale. I wonder if the original samples were stretched or eq'd, or something with the miking maybe, I don't know. Curious.


programming the bassoon with BBCSO was not an easy task, it just does not sound right in that high range... wondering if it has been sampled or just transposed there?

I switched the libraries in the description, thanks for your feedback


----------



## bryla (May 6, 2020)

All the different mics you used was something that I suspected. It would be interesting just to do Decca tree comparisons.


----------



## Minsky (Nov 20, 2020)

Vonk said:


> This is one of my favourite pieces of music. I appreciate the work the work that has gone in, and following the programming is interesting. However these versions make me feel like the original audience at the first performance.



Ha! I found something cool out from Stephen fry's book on Classical Music. It is said that Stravinsky PAID people to cause a fuss at the first performance. He wanted to be big news the next day and ..well.. it worked. Great piece of music though.


----------



## Gene Pool (Nov 20, 2020)

Minsky said:


> Ha! I found something cool out from Stephen fry's book on Classical Music. It is said that Stravinsky PAID people to cause a fuss at the first performance. He wanted to be big news the next day and ..well.. it worked. Great piece of music though.



No, Stravinsky didn't hire anyone to cause trouble. That is a slander on his character (and I'm not blaming you for it, btw). He underwent more than enough hurdles to get his score past Diaghilev, Monteaux, the musicians and the Ballets Russes. Major revisions after the first run-thru with the orchestra. Crap parts copying. Nijinsky unable to count the meters to the dancers. Etc.

No composer wants his masterpiece—one that is already just barely hanging on by its fingernails—to be interrupted and ruined, possibly ending the performance prematurely, and the piece falling into obscurity for lack of being performed. They came expecting to hear the bright, happy, tuneful _Petrushka_, and they got a radical admixture of primitivism and modernism.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Nov 20, 2020)

re-peat said:


> You only realised that today, Marco?? Lord love a duck. When you posted your BBC SO version a little over two weeks ago, it happened to coincide with a BBC SO-related discussion that was unfolding at the time on the little forum around the corner, and to which I contributed a.o. the following, after having listened to your work: “(…) Spitifire’s BBC SO prides itself, and I think deservedly so, on its spatial opulence. Very odd and bewildering then, to hear a demo where the entire orchestra and its enfolding space are collapsed into a blurry, smeary, near-mono (!) porridge that never even hints at the spatial depth and dimensional splendour that’s captured in this library (…). The Spitfire people, I’m sure, must be horrified when they hear demo’s such as these. I mean, I am horrified, and I'm not even one of its creators.”
> 
> I really can not understand that, after all the work you invested in this, you would then upload an awful-sounding mono-version and only two weeks later come to realise the embarrassing error of your ways. How did that happen? Or did YouTube mono-fy your upload, and don’t you check these things? Whatever the reason, it's bad.
> 
> ...


 Drama and life are what you make of it. Actuality cares not. Take a breath, relax with the family, life all over the world is very stressful right now. 

Best of luck.


----------



## Minsky (Nov 22, 2020)

Gene Pool said:


> No, Stravinsky didn't hire anyone to cause trouble. That is a slander on his character (and I'm not blaming you for it, btw). He underwent more than enough hurdles to get his score past Diaghilev, Monteaux, the musicians and the Ballets Russes. Major revisions after the first run-thru with the orchestra. Crap parts copying. Nijinsky unable to count the meters to the dancers. Etc.
> 
> No composer wants his masterpiece—one that is already just barely hanging on by its fingernails—to be interrupted and ruined, possibly ending the performance prematurely, and the piece falling into obscurity for lack of being performed. They came expecting to hear the bright, happy, tuneful _Petrushka_, and they got a radical admixture of primitivism and modernism.


You should let Stephen Fry know then!


----------



## re-peat (Nov 22, 2020)

Fry didn't write that book. It was written by T. Lihoreau based on some radio talks that Fry did for Classic FM. It's not a very reliable book either, information-wise, and ruined by annoying attempts (mostly unsuccessful) on the part of the author to make each page drip with Fry-esque wit and humour.

On the subject of the Rite's premiere: like Gene said, Stravinsky never paid anyone to cause problems — "Stravinsky parting with money" is in itself already most uncharacteristic of the composer (let alone that he would be willing to do so to ruin a performance of his music) — but there were strong rumours that Diaghilev, shrewd businessman as he was, mobilized a 'claque' to help make the Rite's première a "succès de scandale". 
Also: Nijinsky's choreography was at least as much responsible for the raucous first reception of the ballet as the music was.

_


----------



## Gene Pool (Nov 22, 2020)

Minsky said:


> You should let Stephen Fry know then!



Sez who and since when?


----------



## Minsky (Nov 22, 2020)

re-peat said:


> Fry didn't write that book. It was written by T. Lihoreau based on some radio talks that Fry did for Classic FM. It's not a very reliable book either, information-wise, and ruined by annoying attempts (mostly unsuccessful) on the part of the author to make each page drip with Fry-esque wit and humour.
> 
> On the subject of the Rite's premiere: like Gene said, Stravinsky never paid anyone to cause problems — "Stravinsky parting with money" is in itself already most uncharacteristic of the composer (let alone that he would be willing to do so to ruin a performance of his music) — but there were strong rumours that Diaghilev, shrewd businessman as he was, mobilized a 'claque' to help make the Rite's première a "succès de scandale".
> Also: Nijinsky's choreography was at least as much responsible for the raucous first reception of the ballet as the music was.
> ...


Yes, it was a flippant response, I have the book and know how it came about.  I'm willing to accept that it's unlikely ole Strav deliberately set anything up to kibosh his Premiere. Interestingly though there is another school of thought expounded on over at Classic FM - that he was acutely aware of what a Paris audience reception might be like ...but even that expectation was superseded by reality; and it wasn't all down to his music etc:

{Stravinsky himself believed that the crowd “came for Scheherazade or Cleopatra, and they saw the ‘Sacre du Printemps”, and were therefore upset at the level of dissonance in the score, the jerky movements of the dancers and the rapidly twittering sounds from the woodwind section.

“The curtain opened on a group of knock-kneed and long-braided lolitas, jumping up and down. The storm broke,” the composer recounts. “I went out, I said ‘go to hell’… they were very naïve and stupid people.”

Or did they simply desire to see something outrageous? Contrary to popular belief and contrary to the composer’s own account, it was likely not just the shock of hearing the music, nor Nijinsky’s exotic choreography, nor Roerich’s bizarre settings that prompted the riot that ensued in the theatre. There were anti-Russian, anti-Diaghilev and anti-Nijinsky factions at work in Paris, determined to disrupt proceedings before a note of music had been heard. 

Stravinsky knew that his ballet score was a landmark. It was primordial, elemental, full of complex technical innovations – and it was a brand-new ballet from the Ballets Russes, which had something of a reputation for shocking Paris audiences.

“From all indications I can see that this piece is bound to ‘emerge’ in a way that rarely happens,” he wrote in a letter to Nicholas Roerich, who helped form the ballet’s exposure of pagan Russia. The composer predicted the controversy surrounding The Rite of Spring – but it ‘emerged’ in a more riotous way than he had hoped. }

We'll probably never know. They're all good stories though and sometimes that's all that really matters.


----------



## Thorgod10 (Apr 11, 2021)

marcodistefano said:


> Indeed an horrible mistake, but you know what? it can happen and I don't make any drama cause life just goes on!
> 
> True it is a pity I did not realize before, I could have changed it immediately if you just had answered to my post
> I do video since years, and this never happened. I then realized that in Ozone I had erroneously clicked on the mono output when exporting the version for the video.
> ...


I know it's been a year but dang, Re-peat you must have been having a bad day.
This forum is supposed to be a beacon to those old and new, looking to explore the world of synthetic music work.
Re-Pear That thing (yuck); that most definitely gross wall of text digging into poor OP, was most definitely uncalled for in terms of tone AND (a lack of ) constructiveness.
Please do better in the future.

As for OP, thank you SO much for posting this, one can still even with the upload mistake see how the sounds of these two libraries compare.


I've noticed SSO handles lush and spatious better, BUT lacks versatility in dynamics, sounding somewhat soft no matter what you do.

While BBC lacks this inherently crazy sound quality, it makes up for this by being able to handle the raw CRUNCH of Strav, but also the delicateness of ethereal sustains.

With some mixing wizardry, one could most definitely give that BBCSO a similar sound quality.
So despite the sound difference...I'm going to have to stick with the preferable technique quality, which goes to BBCSO.
I appreciate this comparison, OP


----------



## wsimpson (Apr 13, 2021)

I am working on a rendition of The Rite of Spring using BBC Pro right now. I am on bar 60 so I will report back in about a year when I have something worthy of publishing.


----------



## aaron73 (Jun 18, 2021)

Just to throw in another point of comparison: here's a mockup of the entire work made with VSL in 2013 or earlier. Other than having slightly lower fidelity (perhaps 16-bit vs. 32-bit or higher samples?), in my mind this beats both the BBCSO and SSO versions posted here, although (disclaimer!) there are definitely more variables at play than just the libraries themselves.


----------



## Thorgod10 (Jun 18, 2021)

aaron73 said:


> Just to throw in another point of comparison: here's a mockup of the entire work made with VSL in 2013 or earlier. Other than having slightly lower fidelity (perhaps 16-bit vs. 32-bit or higher samples?), in my mind this beats both the BBCSO and SSO versions posted here, although (disclaimer!) there are definitely more variables at play than just the libraries themselves.



This is cheating, as VSL woodwinds are some of the best, if not still the best woodwinds in the history of VSTs


----------



## dhmusic (Jun 18, 2021)

Thorgod10 said:


> This is cheating, as VSL woodwinds are some of the best, if not still the best woodwinds in the history of VSTs


Do you think they would work well with Berlin Woodwinds + Expansions? 

I've found I can get some amazing results with lots of articulation switching across all the Main+Exp+Ark libraries, but there is something to be said about the raw playability of dimension strings, and solo strings. They can mimic a lot of those programmed extended articulations pretty well with their more agile patches and layer nicely. I just haven't heard much about the VSL silent stage woodwinds.


----------



## el-bo (Jun 18, 2021)

re-peat said:


> You only realised that today, Marco?? Lord love a duck. When you posted your BBC SO version a little over two weeks ago, it happened to coincide with a BBC SO-related discussion that was unfolding at the time on the little forum around the corner, and to which I contributed a.o. the following, after having listened to your work: “(…) Spitifire’s BBC SO prides itself, and I think deservedly so, on its spatial opulence. Very odd and bewildering then, to hear a demo where the entire orchestra and its enfolding space are collapsed into a blurry, smeary, near-mono (!) porridge that never even hints at the spatial depth and dimensional splendour that’s captured in this library (…). The Spitfire people, I’m sure, must be horrified when they hear demo’s such as these. I mean, I am horrified, and I'm not even one of its creators.”
> 
> I really can not understand that, after all the work you invested in this, you would then upload an awful-sounding mono-version and only two weeks later come to realise the embarrassing error of your ways. How did that happen? Or did YouTube mono-fy your upload, and don’t you check these things? Whatever the reason, it's bad.
> 
> ...


There are so many ways you could've expressed that the OP consider going 'back to the drawing table' with this, and even perhaps taken a moment to offer constructive pointers.

You seem to have a reputation for being harsh, but fair. And I understand why there's a certain reverence towards so-called straight-talkers (It's honest, apparently). But when said straight-talking is just a thinly-veiled cover for bullying, it honestly just comes across as nasty.

Good to see others calling you out for it.

Like it or not, there are many of us here who are just learning about all this stuff, and certainly wouldn't make your bar for quality. I've seen, on quite a few occasions, members declare that they won't share their music until "It's good enough". Shouldn't 'we' be encouraging people to share, regardless, so that mistakes can be corrected and guidance offered?

You don't seem to be here often enough that I'd lay the blame for the above situation wholly at your feet. But posts like the one above certainly have the potential to make a lot of fledgling composers second-guess what they are doing, refuse to put their efforts out there, and thus potentially really stall their progress.



> I ended my post on the other forum with this: “If I were to reply in the thread on VI-C where this demo is posted, the thing would immediately be moved to the Drama Zone.”


Perhaps "the other forum" don't see you as a bully; either that, or they don't particularly mind.


----------

