# Spitfire Symphony Orchestra vs. Cinematic Studio Series



## Jacob Fanto (May 27, 2021)

Do people prefer one over the other? Do they compliment each other or would it be somewhat redundant to own both?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (May 27, 2021)

The tones are pretty different - attributable in no small part to the spaces they were recorded in (SSO in a church and CS recorded in a smaller scoring stage) and section sizes. SSO has a lot more articulations recorded, which you may or may not find interesting. CS is very consistently recorded across instruments in terms of articulations. With the CS series, you will eventually need to deal with the legato delay. With SSO, you also should pay attention to track delay to ensure things are in time, but it is less finicky - and with strings, the performance legato patches are very playable.

I think they compliment each other and are not redundant. You should buy both.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 27, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> You should buy both.


Already have SSO! Deciding between CS Series with 33% student discount or HZ Strings + Independent bundle to continue my Spitfire collection.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (May 27, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> Already have SSO! Deciding between CS Series with 33% student discount or HZ Strings + Independent bundle to continue my Spitfire collection.


Do you know what you need? Because CS series would be for very different applications than HZ Strings + Independent collection.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 27, 2021)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Do you know what you need? Because CS series would be for very different applications than HZ Strings + Independent collection.


Right, that’s what makes it tough, deciding between apples and oranges. Let’s just say both are appealing. I guess I’m looking for an orchestra without the AIR sound (as much as I like it). CS is bread and butter, Bernard Herrman isn’t so much, but just sounds so phenomenal (not that CS doesn’t). HZ Strings is just because the sound is top notch in my view and captures just the thick deep lush string sound I’ve been struggling to get with SCS.


----------



## NoamL (May 27, 2021)

I use both, often.

SSW is very good; I haven't used CSW enough to compare them but CSW has nice attitude on very fast agile lines, while SSW has very beautiful and lyrical vibrato.

CSB is considerably better than SSB for legatos, especially with a huge dynamic range, and also for punchy series of shorts. SSB on the other hand is good for the 2horns patch and all the auxiliary low brass like cimbasso and the very tasty contrabass trombone and contrabass tuba.

CSS and SSS are both excellent, I use SSS for symphonic size strings and CSS for more intimate/emotional writing. SSS is my go-to for all string auxiliary articulations like sul pont, flautando, etc. Except harmonics where CSS has some of the best ever recorded. CSS is my go-to for short strings, either by itself or layered with Hollywood Strings to increase the section size.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 27, 2021)

NoamL said:


> I use both, often.
> 
> SSW is very good; I haven't used CSW enough to compare them but CSW has nice attitude on very fast agile lines, while SSW has very beautiful and lyrical vibrato.
> 
> ...


How is the CS series on the computer? I’ve got 32GB RAM and a semi-powerful CPU. About how much would I be able to load up?


----------



## Casiquire (May 27, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> How is the CS series on the computer? I’ve got 32GB RAM and a semi-powerful CPU. About how much would I be able to load up?


I only have the strings but i believe they're the most intense instruments anyway. I think you'd be just fine


----------



## Trash Panda (May 27, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> How is the CS series on the computer? I’ve got 32GB RAM and a semi-powerful CPU. About how much would I be able to load up?


I get along fine with them on my Surface Book, which is 16 gigs of RAM. I unload the articulations I’m not planning to use though.


----------



## NoamL (May 27, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> How is the CS series on the computer? I’ve got 32GB RAM and a semi-powerful CPU. About how much would I be able to load up?



You'll be ok, articulations can be Option-clicked to unload them.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 27, 2021)

Great to hear. Now I've just gotta decide between this or Bernard Hermann + HZS over at Spitfire. Yikes.


----------



## David Kudell (May 27, 2021)

CSS would be a great compliment to SSS. Whereas SSS has a great tone for things like long sustains and a wealth of articulations, CSS has the best legato of anyone, and awesome shorts as well. CSS should be on every composer’s drive, imho.


----------



## yiph2 (May 27, 2021)

I use both series and layer them. SSS for the tone and CSS for the legato. Works well


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2021)

David Kudell said:


> CSS would be a great compliment to SSS. Whereas SSS has a great tone for things like long sustains and a wealth of articulations, CSS has the best legato of anyone, and awesome shorts as well. CSS should be on every composer’s drive, imho.


Oddly though I agree with the general proposition that one can never have too many string libraries, I’ve never had the bug for CSS. The tone has never appealed and—now I’m going to say something heretical— I’m not even fond of the legato, which I don’t think would especially suit my music. I have heard other people use the library very effectively and I agree the legato suits their music. I also agree that there are things CSS can do that other libraries cannot (though the converse is true as well.) So I’m not saying anything bad about the library or suggesting that others shouldn’t love it. I just don’t accept that it is the universal standard others make it to be.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 27, 2021)

I definitely prefer SSS over CSS. The tone, the playability, and all the extra articulations that SSS has over CSS.

Then again, I'm not a big fan of CSS in general.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 27, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Oddly though I agree with the general proposition that one can never have too many string libraries, I’ve never had the bug for CSS. The tone has never appealed and—now I’m going to say something heretical— I’m not even fond of the legato, which I don’t think would especially suit my music. I have heard other people use the library very effectively and I agree the legato suits their music. I also agree that there are things CSS can do that other libraries cannot (though the converse is true as well.) So I’m not saying anything bad about the library or suggesting that others shouldn’t love it. I just don’t accept that it is the universal standard others make it to be.


100% this.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 27, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Oddly though I agree with the general proposition that one can never have too many string libraries, I’ve never had the bug for CSS. The tone has never appealed and—now I’m going to say something heretical— I’m not even fond of the legato, which I don’t think would especially suit my music. I have heard other people use the library very effectively and I agree the legato suits their music. I also agree that there are things CSS can do that other libraries cannot (though the converse is true as well.) So I’m not saying anything bad about the library or suggesting that others shouldn’t love it. I just don’t accept that it is the universal standard others make it to be.


What kind of music do you write in which you feel the CSS legato isn't suitable? Just curious for my own potential purchase of the library.


----------



## David Kudell (May 27, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Oddly though I agree with the general proposition that one can never have too many string libraries, I’ve never had the bug for CSS. The tone has never appealed and—now I’m going to say something heretical— I’m not even fond of the legato, which I don’t think would especially suit my music. I have heard other people use the library very effectively and I agree the legato suits their music. I also agree that there are things CSS can do that other libraries cannot (though the converse is true as well.) So I’m not saying anything bad about the library or suggesting that others shouldn’t love it. I just don’t accept that it is the universal standard others make it to be.


The darker tone is a taste thing, for sure. And I would never try to convince anyone that it's the best option. I'm just sharing what I've learned which is many composers I've talked to in town are using CSS. Personally, I blend it with Berlin Strings or BSS.

What is it about the CSS legato you don't like? I personally used to hate it until I learned how to tame the beast (aka the variable delay times). Now I love it.


----------



## jbuhler (May 27, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> What kind of music do you write in which you feel the CSS legato isn't suitable? Just curious for my own potential purchase of the library.


Nothing terribly out of the ordinary, possibly not as tonal as many write here; for orchestral music, often I'm trying to capture an older sound of (non-cinema) music written between about 1910 and 1940, and frequently I pass from lyrical into textural expression so I'm often carefully weighing the tone of the samples, but ultimately the shapes of my lyrical lines are not those that CSS seems to prefer, which seems geared for the expressive arc of contemporary cinema music. (I also very much like cinema music—studying it is my day job—so that's no knock on it.) 

First, there is the basic tone of CSS, which I've just never found appealing even though I generally like my strings dark, so I'd have to get past that tone; since I also don't like the sound of CSB, I think the room is at least part of the issue. And then there's a particular arc to the legato that I think is what delivers CSS its reputation for excellence. And for that thing, it is surely unsurpassed. I've listened to a lot of mockups with CSS, and with folks who know what they are doing they are generally excellent. So don't get me wrong: for many folks on here CSS is absolutely the right library for their music. 

But there are also many other ways of effectively connecting string notes than the one(s) CSS is optimized for. (This is one reason you really can't have too many string libraries.) And, generally, I prefer a more transparent legato than what I hear CSS delivering. When I listen to lines written for CSS that are similar to what I might write, I hear how CSS seems to be encouraging the music to flow in ways I don't find appealing. And for lines that would be served well by CSS, I have other libraries that have legatos similar to CSS's, that work reasonably well, and don't so encourage my music to flow in that way. It's hard to explain, but interacting with this flow is one reason I like to write with my sample libraries rather than with a piano (and that's also a good reason not to write with your samples until you feel secure in your music, because it's all too easy to write to the strengths of your samples in a way that forecloses alternatives that are more in keeping with your musical expression).

Some praise the consistency of the shorts of CSS, and if I found I needed that kind of consistency with my shorts I might buy the library for that, but I'm reasonably happy with the shorts I have, and for my music I rather like the SF shorts that so many like to complain about. In my music or with my workflow, for whatever reason, I never encounter the timing issues that make others want to pound their heads against the wall. I'm not denying that those problems exist, btw, for other people or that their heads are very sore from all that pounding; I'm just saying that my music and workflow is such that they haven't posed a significant issue. 

Some praise the consistency of CSS programming across the board. I find that aspect of the library—really the whole collection of libraries—very tempting as that is one thing I do struggle with when programming my other string libraries. I have also heard CSS do some fast back and forth legato passages (imitating four or more notes to a bow) that I have not been able to replicate with any of my libraries. And if I was writing a lot of that kind of music, I'd certainly look more carefully at CSS.



David Kudell said:


> What is it about the CSS legato you don't like?


It's not really a question of whether I like or dislike CSS legato or even what I like or dislike about it, though I tried to explain some of that above. What I do very much dislike, however, is the developing legato monoculture. Mostly I just detest the whole abstract ranking mentality, declaring one library best, without stating rather explicitly best for what. And string legato is too broad and vague a term to be making such declarations without qualification. The long term consequence of abstract ranking mentality is not higher standards but the elimination of diversity and potential of string expression, the creation of a monoculture. If your library's legato has to sound like CSS to satisfy the legato police, all libraries will be forced to sound like CSS so long as collectively we grant the legato police this mandate. Is that what we want?


----------



## David Kudell (May 27, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Nothing terribly out of the ordinary, possibly not as tonal as many write here; for orchestral music, often I'm trying to capture an older sound of (non-cinema) music written between about 1910 and 1940, and frequently I pass from lyrical into textural expression so I'm often carefully weighing the tone of the samples, but ultimately the shapes of my lyrical lines are not those that CSS seems to prefer, which seems geared for the expressive arc of contemporary cinema music. (I also very much like cinema music—studying it is my day job—so that's no knock on it.)
> 
> First, there is the basic tone of CSS, which I've just never found appealing even though I generally like my strings dark, so I'd have to get past that tone; since I also don't like the sound of CSB, I think the room is at least part of the issue. And then there's a particular arc to the legato that I think is what delivers CSS its reputation for excellence. And for that thing, it is surely unsurpassed. I've listened to a lot of mockups with CSS, and with folks who know what they are doing they are generally excellent. So don't get me wrong: for many folks on here CSS is absolutely the right library for their music.
> 
> ...


I see, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can see your concern. Although I personally feel there are so many options for strings that there’s no lack of choice and legato implementations to choose from.

And I also think we place a bit too much importance on the affect that opinions here in VI-Control have on the developers…the developers that I have met whether online or in person all have a vision about what they think is best and aren’t just doing what we think they should, so I don’t think there’s going to be some movement starting where “VI-Control likes CSS so let’s all do that type of legato.”


----------



## doctoremmet (May 27, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Oddly though I agree with the general proposition that one can never have too many string libraries, I’ve never had the bug for CSS. The tone has never appealed and—now I’m going to say something heretical— I’m not even fond of the legato, which I don’t think would especially suit my music. I have heard other people use the library very effectively and I agree the legato suits their music. I also agree that there are things CSS can do that other libraries cannot (though the converse is true as well.) So I’m not saying anything bad about the library or suggesting that others shouldn’t love it. I just don’t accept that it is the universal standard others make it to be.


+1 I love the Spitfire AIR sound but have never been moved by CSS in any way


----------



## VVEremita (May 28, 2021)

Not regarding (important!) technicalities like scripting, legato, consistency in articulations etc. I can say after completing the SSO Chamber Edition in the recent sale: No other standard orchestral library has put a smile on my face and moved me upon the first encounter in the way the soft layers of the low brass of SSB did. Or the thunderous low woodwinds of SSW did. I instantly found they sounded nothing but great, and they exceeded the high excpections I already had from demos and walkthroughs. It just clicked.

That is due to the sound of the hall AND the performances. They are alive and absolutely lovable in that regard. A comparison between the Studio Orchestra and SSO reveals that it is not just the room by itself but the liveliness in the playing. In combination there is some magic going on.

Again, that is judging the sound/performaces aspect in individual instruments on their own as well as in combination. Air Lyndhurst and the Spitfire approach are my favorite. There is a lot of information about shortcomings and downsides as well, which should be examined carefully. This post is meant to express my happiness


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 28, 2021)

I have both, but clearly prefer the Cinematic Studio series. Just gets me where I need to be quicker and easier.


----------



## lexiaodong (May 28, 2021)

+1 Air studio sounds ~ SSO，compared with AR1, I even like the air tone in the sampling world，just a personal preference，so trust your self


----------



## Wedge (May 28, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> How is the CS series on the computer? I’ve got 32GB RAM and a semi-powerful CPU. About how much would I be able to load up?


I would say... all of it. I'm currently working on a sketch with CSS and CSW on windows. In Kontakt I "reset markers" and "update sample pool". With Violin1, Violin 2, Viola, Cello, Bass, Flute, Clarinet, Oboe, and Bassoon. I haven't done much with articulations, mostly legato and stacatto (I use keyswitches), but I'm aso only using a total of 6.1GBs of RAM so far (yes, including windows and everything else). So I think you shouldn't have a problem with CSS, CSB, and CSW at the same time. Just as long as you can reset markers and update the sample pool without a problem. I also set the memory to 12k in Kontakt options.


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (May 28, 2021)

I don't know what kind of music you write and what kind of legato you prefer, but for traditional classical melodies, spitfire symphonic strings unfortunately do not make the transitions of notes as convincingly as we would like. Of course, no library does this as realistically as a live performance, but CSS is at least the closest in this league. Just like con moto with a bow change.
But I also love the tone of SSO in general.


----------



## jbuhler (May 28, 2021)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> I don't know what kind of music you write and what kind of legato you prefer, but for traditional classical melodies, spitfire symphonic strings unfortunately do not make the transitions of notes as convincingly as we would like. Of course, no library does this as realistically as a live performance, but CSS is at least the closest in this league. Just like con moto with a bow change.
> But I also love the tone of SSO in general.



Dude, who is this “we” of which you speak? And, no, for classic themes I really wouldn’t recommend CSS. For romantic film themes. Yes. But that is a very particular mode of expression.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 28, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Dude, who is this “we” of which you speak?


This cracked me up way too hard.


----------



## markleake (May 28, 2021)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> but for traditional classical melodies, spitfire symphonic strings unfortunately do not make the transitions of notes as convincingly as we would like


Interesting you say this. Comparing those samples you posted, I much prefer SSS in this comparison, especially the first part of the track. I think SSS brings a more natural and subtle approach to the legatos. To _my_ ears at least. Like @jbuhler says, I don't know who this _"we"_ is.

A few notes into the CSS part and I can already hear an over-emphasis on the legato that I don't think real players would be very happy with -- a repeating _wad-wad-wad_, _wad-wad-wad_ kind of sound. It's there for most of the CSS track, a kind of static overplay of the legato dynamic. It's hardly convincing.

Berlin Strings has that effect also in this track, unfortunately, which I find distracting near the start. (It seems more an in-built dynamic problem for Berlin maybe, so not as bad as CSS). It gets better further in.

SSS for the first half of this track especially is sublime. Wonderfully musical. Edit: And those Cellos!


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Dude, who is this “we” of which you speak? And, no, for classic themes I really wouldn’t recommend CSS. For romantic film themes. Yes. But that is a very particular mode of expression.


I'm talking about traditional orchestral writing in general. It's not just the film's music. And as for the classics, I will definitely choose CSS for legato lines, since this library is able to better reflect the intonation, and for example, such composers of the post-Romantic era as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov, Grieg... The list goes on for a long time. This choice would be successful...



Even Dmitry Shostakovich will sound organic for his waltz themes. And not just them.




But, of course, other eras, such as the Renaissance, Baroque, Classicism - CSS - will not be the most suitable choice.

I support my words with examples and my own experience, because I consider it indicative. Of course, I would like your words to also be supported by something, for example, links or references. It's so hard to evaluate what you're trying to say in your conversation about legato.



markleake said:


> Interesting you say this. Comparing those samples you posted, I much prefer SSS in this comparison, especially the first part of the track. I think SSS brings a more natural and subtle approach to the legatos. To _my_ ears at least. Like @jbuhler says, I don't know who this _"we"_ is.
> 
> A few notes into the CSS part and I can already hear an over-emphasis on the legato that I don't think real players would be very happy with -- a repeating _wad-wad-wad_, _wad-wad-wad_ kind of sound. It's there for most of the CSS track, a kind of static overplay of the legato dynamic. It's hardly convincing.
> 
> ...


But this is how real players perform!
Either you are deceiving yourself, or you believe it blindly yourself, but I cannot agree with you in any way. In contrast, legatos SSS are extremely uneven, many times larger than CSS.
SSS-Static and clumsy, and blurs at transitions(noticeably intersects with the sustain).
CSS-smooth as the legato transition does not break, and the performance continues to follow as it should.


----------



## markleake (May 29, 2021)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> But this is how real players perform!
> Either you are deceiving yourself, or you believe it blindly yourself, but I cannot agree with you in any way. In contrast, legatos SSS are extremely uneven, many times larger than CSS.
> SSS-Static and clumsy, and blurs at transitions(noticeably intersects with the sustain).
> CSS-smooth as the legato transition does not break, and the performance continues to follow as it should.


Well, of course both of the examples are how real players perform (within reason, they are sample libraries).
But it's a question of taste, right?

The SSS approach seems much more natural here to me. With SSS I don't hear the same static repeating pattern, the akward ducking "wad-wad" intonation/dynamic I mentioned earlier, or that same poor flow of the line that CSS seems to exibit. I don't think the concert master would be happy with her players if they played it like CSS does, unless the sheet music told them to emphasise the legato, I guess. I'm suprised you find CSS less static than SSS for this example. I listened on several speakers, and it's always apparent that CSS is stuggling at certain spots. It has a very pronounced interpretation of the legato.

The issue I hear with CSS is not the technical aspect you are focusing on. I actually very much like CSS and it's legato for what it is (and the library as a whole). I'm just saying for this track it brings out a particular weakness is CSS much more than SSS. The legatos in CSS are cleaner than SSS, I agree, very different to SSS. Remember though that these are very different sized bands and recording spaces.

We all have different ears and equipment. I'm just an amateur, but hardly think it's fair to call someone's (my!) preference on this as being deceived or blind, just because I criticised CSS.


----------



## Sarah Mancuso (May 29, 2021)

There are countless ways of performing two adjacent notes on a string instrument. The CSS way is not uniquely "the way that real players perform". It's one way. A nuanced performance contains _many _different types of note transitions. The types of transitions I've heard from CSS tend to sound somewhat stilted and artificial in actual musical contexts, because every transition sounds over-emphasized in a way that wouldn't be done on every single note in a real performance. The musical phrasing just doesn't flow like it should.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Dude, who is this “we” of which you speak? And, no, for classic themes I really wouldn’t recommend CSS. For romantic film themes. Yes. But that is a very particular mode of expression.


I don't know why there was any need to be so rude. That being said, Vladimir has even done an extensive test with a blind poll in which 88 people voted. The overwhelming winners were Con Moto and CSS. As you can see no one really liked SCS, and SSS didn't fare that well either. 

I like SSS very much, it has a beautiful tone and wonderful performances in it. But I don't know how anyone would say its legato is anything more than passable - it's lumpy, the sustain has weird swells that make it hard to phrase, and in general, is a bit of a blurry sound (a very common trait of missing legatos). 

I get the impression Vladimir has a similar viewpoint to mine: SSS has a beautiful tone but the legatos don't provide a bold or unified statement. CSS on the other hand is capable of just that, however, the room tone isn't great and certainly not a beautiful hall. But it is more musical and so it is better to deal with the tone but keep the best performance available. 

This is because SF record very short legato intervals and you can very clearly hear when SSS or SCS crossfades from sus-leg-sus. Whereas CSS captures long legato transitions and continues into the destination note, after considerable time it then crossfades to a sustain: sus-legsus-------sus.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> I'm talking about traditional orchestral writing in general. It's not just the film's music. And as for the classics, I will definitely choose CSS for legato lines, since this library is able to better reflect the intonation, and for example, such composers of the post-Romantic era as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov, Grieg... The list goes on for a long time. This choice would be successful...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As with others I simply disagree with you and your particular taste. You can disagree with mine and prefer yours. That’s to be expected. What you can’t do is say that everyone agrees with you, when clearly they do not. I find CSS, or the idea of any one library, is the library to rule them all patently absurd. I think it is actively damaging to good music making to assess every library’s legato against CSS as though it was some sort of abstract standard. CSS often plays quite contrary to how I’d want my string section to play. That doesn’t mean, btw, that there is anything wrong with CSS as a library or with its legato, or that it doesn’t fit a lot of music well. It may well be—it probably is—the best library for you that is currently available.


----------



## Casiquire (May 29, 2021)

To my ears the SSS transitions are so muddy there are points where it's difficult to tell exactly when notes are even changing and what note they're landing on in inner harmonies in this particular example.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

gst98 said:


> I don't know why there was any need to be so rude. That being said, Vladimir has even done an extensive test with a blind poll in which 88 people voted. The overwhelming winners were Con Moto and CSS. As you can see no one really liked SCS, and SSS didn't fare that well either.
> 
> I like SSS very much, it has a beautiful tone and wonderful performances in it. But I don't know how anyone would say its legato is anything more than passable - it's lumpy, the sustain has weird swells that make it hard to phrase, and in general, is a bit of a blurry sound (a very common trait of missing legatos).
> 
> ...


I understand how CSS works, and I appreciate its difference. But there is a trade off in having that arc built into the legato like that, which you are refusing to acknowledge. Especially when you are going to hear it like a gazillion times. And on the whole I find the SF transitions more transparent, and more like what I’d want a string section to sound like in any case. Not always, and not for all music. But enough that I wouldn’t want SF chasing the CSS model for what constitutes good legato. But I also don’t think CSS needs to be doing anything other than what it is doing. My fight is not with CSS, which is undeniably a great and useful library for some modes of musical expression, but with those who are effectively turning its legato into a singular standard.


----------



## ism (May 29, 2021)

David Kudell said:


> I see, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can see your concern. Although I personally feel there are so many options for strings that there’s no lack of choice and legato implementations to choose from.
> 
> And I also think we place a bit too much importance on the affect that opinions here in VI-Control have on the developers…the developers that I have met whether online or in person all have a vision about what they think is best and aren’t just doing what we think they should, so I don’t think there’s going to be some movement starting where “VI-Control likes CSS so let’s all do that type of legato.”



I’d argue that it's not I not so much about caring too much about what other people thing. More that the dominance which CSS asserts as the defacto gold standard one library to rule them all risks shutting down space for discussion of other musicalities on certain threads. Especially for new and different libraries with other musicalities and performabilities that can take a bit of time to get your head around.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> I understand how CSS works, and I appreciate its difference. But there is a trade off in having that arc built into the legato like that, which you are refusing to acknowledge. Especially when you are going to hear it like a gazillion times. And on the whole I find the SF transitions more transparent, and more like what I’d want a string section to sound like in any case. Not always, and not for all music. But enough that I wouldn’t want SF chasing the CSS model for what constitutes good legato. But I also don’t think CSS needs to be doing anything other than what it is doing. My fight is not with CSS, which is undeniably a great and useful library for some modes of musical expression, but with those who are effectively turning its legato into a singular standard.


You're saying there is an arc in CSS? I dislike the arc/swell in SSS, which it seems _you_ are refusing to acknowledge. and it is clear you are the minority as demonstrated. SSS is incapable of a simple sustain line due to the ridiculous attack and swell in the samples. Personally, I hate when people hammer on about CSS being the best for everything, but there is no escaping the consistency whose only comparable competitor is Performance samples.

Why can't CSS be a benchmark for legato? In many regards, it is head and shoulders above the competition. It isn't perfect - one thing I don't like is it can't do fast passages that well (hopefully the upcoming runs mode helps with this). But SSS falls over itself trying to play quick nimble legato passages also.

I just don't get how you can say SSS transitions are transparent when they are just a blurry mess, just as @Casiquire says it's hard to make out what is playing. You can hear the weird sound of the room tone changing. Albion's legato even has weird stereo imaging affectations that are offputting. Of course, on the non-legato articulations, that room is what makes them so beautiful, and I say this as someone who uses SSS for most of my non-legato needs.

You say it sounds like what a string section is like, but I don't understand how that is possible. Real plays don't crossfade in a short legato transition between their playing. CSS is an actual performance of moving to the destination note with _really_ long recorded performances. There is no fake legato crossfading going on - it is a real performance. Just because there is a long performance doesn't mean it has an arc to it, this isn't 8Dio where that was the objective.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

gst98 said:


> You're saying there is an arc in CSS? I dislike the arc/swell in SSS, which it seems _you_ are refusing to acknowledge. and it is clear you are the minority as demonstrated. SSS is incapable of a simple sustain line due to the ridiculous attack and swell in the samples. Personally, I hate when people hammer on about CSS being the best for everything, but there is no escaping the consistency whose only comparable competitor is Performance samples.
> 
> Why can't CSS be a benchmark for legato? In many regards, it is head and shoulders above the competition. It isn't perfect - one thing I don't like is it can't do fast passages that well (hopefully the upcoming runs mode helps with this). But SSS falls over itself trying to play quick nimble legato passages also.
> 
> ...


No, the claim is that there is an arc to the legato. Or if you prefer it's presented as a gesture, because of the fact it has been recorded with more of the arrival note built in, so there's more of a shape to it. There's a trade off to that. (Just as there is a trade off to SF's approach.) I have said nothing about SSS for you, that you should like it or dislike it, use it or not use it. I've not even claimed I like SSS, but only that I prefer SF's approach to legato. (Note that I said my own personal preference, not that I think everyone should share my preference.) Indeed I've gone out of my way to say that CSS is a great pick for some modes of (legato) expression. I've just denied that it is the best pick for all modes of (legato) expression. Note how you want to turn this into an eliminationist contest, and I'm looking to preserve diversity of different approaches.


----------



## David Kudell (May 29, 2021)

ism said:


> I’d argue that it's not I not so much about caring too much about what other people thing. More that the dominance which CSS asserts as the defacto gold standard one library to rule them all risks shutting down space for discussion of other musicalities on certain threads. Especially for new and different libraries with other musicalities and performabilities that can take a bit of time to get your head around.


I’m all for lots of options, that’s why I have so many string libraries myself. If you look at what I said, the original question he asked was he already owned SSS and asked if CSS is a good compliment, and it absolutely is. CSS is good at what SSS is not, and SSS has the tone that CSS does not. I said every composer should have CSS, but I didn’t say that’s ALL they should have.


----------



## Trash Panda (May 29, 2021)

gst98 said:


> one thing I don't like is it can't do fast passages that well (hopefully the upcoming runs mode helps with this).


How fast do you find it falls apart? I’ve found the marcato legato easily handles every quick thing I’ve thrown at it, including nearly trill type changes.


----------



## ism (May 29, 2021)

Ok, well here's rather a crude, and not very musically sophisticated metaphor, not for why I don't like CSS (because I do like CSS), but for why I sometime prefer other libraries.

CSS is supremely good at the high romantic swell of individual emotion. This immensely smooth legatos that this requires aren't just the legato transitions, it the way the legato seamless segues into the progressive vibrato, and the way the vibrato shifts on progressively higher dynamic layers, and probably a lot of other things as well.

So this the supremely smooth, intensifying flowing musicality isn't the legato in isolation, it's baked into the performance right from the initial design. It's a brilliant piece of engineering. But it's engineered very specifically for a very filmic take on a very high romantic musicality.

And it makes plenty of sense for film music, in that when you're paying to watch a film you want to be excited and then satisfied. And this kind of high romantic arc is perfect for doing that, over and over again.

This can be very, very beautiful indeed. But at some point it starts to feel the string sections are all on the same basketball team - ie. the arc always pushes yearningly towards the climax, always towards scoring the next point with all the longing and satisfaction that implies. And the satisfaction of denouement from each successive point scored feels like an implicit call for a high five.

Even more extreme in its focus on this "basketball effect" is Soaring Strings, which is even more hyper focused on always point scoring that CSS, just like it says on the box.

And this is all very beautiful for filmic, high romantic lines where you want an individual listener to feel this constant build and release, expectation and satisfaction. That's what you're paying for when you buy a ticket to see a film.

But the problem is that when all you have is a hammer, everything risks starting to look like a nail. And it's taken me years (and several really, really bad really bad same library purchases) to find the words for this angst. Much as I genuinely love this musicality, it turns out that in what I want to write, no matter how hard you repeatedly bang your head into this hammer, there's something that's just really, profoundly missing.

And you see this most especially at low dynamic layers. Soaring strings (which I'll reference for clarity although everything I'm saying also applies to CSS, if maybe not to quite such an extreme) at lower dynamics just feel (to me, obviously, ymmv) like the players are passively waiting on the defence. That is, they feel like these dyanamic layers are only there to serve the needs of the drive to climax of the higher dynamics and point scoring. Which is why you use would Soaring Strings. In it's hyper focus (on "soaring") it makes no pretence that the lower dynamics are there to write subtle nuanced pp-mp lines. The title itself more or less tells your that they're there to serve the needs of a drive towards a soaring climax and denouement. 

I really like soaring strings, and the is exactly what I bought it to do. But it's maybe 2% of the time that this is the musicality I'm looking for ... hence all the sample library angst.

One of the first things that really clarified the nature of this angst for me was OT special bows sul tasto. The higher dynamics layer can give you some soaring high romanticism here, but the lower layers - especially when you use all the different arcs, portatos etc - are really there in their own right. It's almost the opposite of Soaring Strings / CSS which always feels like they need to be driving towards scoring the next point. But here it's almost like the highest dynamic layer is only there to server the lower dynamics.

In any event, with the SBs, I can create contrapuntal lines here that really feels like the sections are nuanced interaction with each other, not as teammates on a basketball court always in collaborating to score the next point. Tallinn is an even more extreme example of this. (Although a downside of this of course is that the nuance is harder to coordinate than the homogenous arcs of something like CSS.)


This is something that has afflicted me in choirs as well. If I'd picked up Liberis a couple of years age, oh the angst I'd be suffering - it only has p and ff dynamic layers, so it's designed *only* for a particular extreme epic romantic swell. After working with Insolidus, Tallinn, EWC, which are design for completely, completely different musicalities, it was really quite painful at first, and it took some effort let my conscious knowledge of what this library is designed for to re-enter my fingers as I was noodling about.

So the very idea of a poll to ask "what legato is best" is maybe kind of fun, but it also risks being a "which hammer should always I hit everything with" kind of question. And at worst, it risks being actively unhelpful in opening up the kind of space for other musicalities.

And I'm enormously grateful for the space that vi-c has opened up for to discover new musicalities as I've worked though these "basketball team - " and "when all you have is a hammer " forms of library buying angst.


----------



## ism (May 29, 2021)

David Kudell said:


> I’m all for lots of options, that’s why I have so many string libraries myself. If you look at what I said, the original question he asked was he already owned SSS and asked if CSS is a good compliment, and it absolutely is. CSS is good at what SSS is not, and SSS has the tone that CSS does not. I said every composer should have CSS, but I didn’t say that’s ALL they should have.


Quite right. And there was no critique implied, I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your approach.

And CSS is indeed a powerful hammer in one's arsenal. Although, I might just propose a tiny bit of addition texture here that "every *media* composer should have CSS". A beginner composer, for instance, might like to start with other tools before picking up this particular hammer . I'm just thinking of how much angst I might have been spared - and money saved - if I'd seen your OT Special Bows video a few years earlier


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)




----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> because of the fact it has been recorded with more of the arrival note built in, so there's more of a shape to it. There's a trade off to that.


Are you suggesting players are incapable of playing a legato without swelling a phrase? Can't say I agree with that sweeping statement. It is of course possible, as I said 8dio do this, and VSL has an espressivo legato. But CSS is not that. You say in theory you like the SF approach, but SSS has large swells in the legato.

Regardless this conversation has moved away from the original point which was that you didn't like when someone said they thought CSS was closer to what most people like.


jbuhler said:


> I've not even claimed I like SSS, but only that I prefer SF's approach to legato. (Note that I said my own personal preference, not that I think everyone should share my preference.)


Well, you did just that. Vladimir had an opinion that was backup up by large polling and spoke as 'we' because most people felt that way. You clearly had different preferences than most people but didn't like the generalisation. I don't see what's wrong with him saying 'we', but clearly the Spitfire Defence League does not like being included in that.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> How fast do you find it falls apart? I’ve found the marcato legato easily handles every quick thing I’ve thrown at it, including nearly trill type changes.


I'm talking about 16th note legato changes, as you say in nearly trill type, ornamental phrases. Yes, you can use the marcato legato, but I find CSS loses its magic when I do that. I prefer using Performances samples or HWS in those cases.


----------



## Frederick (May 29, 2021)

Question: Do you guys think the darker tone of CSS is a coincedence or is it possible that it has been processed to sound like that for the purpose of helping with the legato transitions? My own guess is that it's more difficult to get two samples to crossfade into the other when there's more going on at different frequencies that stand out. The crossfade at higher frequencies might make it more blurrier or sounding like it's two instruments. Does anyone know for sure this is a phenomena or is this just a silly amateur hypothesis that has no basis in reality?


----------



## bill5 (May 29, 2021)

I haven't read the whole thread, but it's worth noting that Cinematic Studio is way - WAY - more expensive. Whether it's worth it is of course a matter of opinion.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

bill5 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but it's worth noting that Cinematic Studio is way - WAY - more expensive. Whether it's worth it is of course a matter of opinion.


Cinematic Studio is way more expensive?


----------



## yiph2 (May 29, 2021)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Cinematic Studio is way more expensive?


Well now it is. SSO price now is $999 and will stay. CSS series is $399x3 = $1197


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

Frederick said:


> Question: Do you guys think the darker tone of CSS is a coincedence or is it possible that it has been processed to sound like that for the purpose of helping with the legato transitions? My own guess is that it's more difficult to get two samples to crossfade into the other when there's more going on at different frequencies that stand out. The crossfade at higher frequencies might make it more blurrier or sounding like it's two instruments. Does anyone know for sure this is a phenomena or is this just a silly amateur hypothesis that has no basis in reality?


I always assume the darkness was from lots of noise reduction. The lack of certain frequencies is not very natural and has to come from some sort of processing. But I think I saw he said he might have a fix to it. 

I'm not sure why darkness would help the legato. What helps the legato is the legato traditions are recorded really long. Also, the dry hall means there is no ambience to deal with which SF and 8Dio have a lot of problems with.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

yiph2 said:


> Well now it is. SSO price now is $999 and will stay. CSS series is $399x3 = $1197


CSS is 3*299 on sale and with discounts.


----------



## yiph2 (May 29, 2021)

gst98 said:


> CSS is 3*299 on sale and with discounts.


I'm assuming he ment MSRP


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

SSS price for me is $480/$660. I wish I could somehow pay less for SSS than I paid for CSS. That would be awesome.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)

Frederick said:


> Question: Do you guys think the darker tone of CSS is a coincedence or is it possible that it has been processed to sound like that for the purpose of helping with the legato transitions? My own guess is that it's more difficult to get two samples to crossfade into the other when there's more going on at different frequencies that stand out. The crossfade at higher frequencies might make it more blurrier or sounding like it's two instruments. Does anyone know for sure this is a phenomena or is this just a silly amateur hypothesis that has no basis in reality?


I remember quite a few people saying the darker tone is what real strings are supposed to sound like.

...which means most string libraries don’t sound real, because most aren’t that dark?

Or is the reality that strings vary in tone?

Would love some insight from actual string players on this.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

Re the OP:
Scamper put together an amazing and informative comparison of SCS/SSS/CSS/BBCSO (unfortunately buried 46 pages into a spitfire sale thread) but here is that post.

CSS has been a long time fav for me. I just really click with it and like the thinking behind it. But I'd love to get my hands on SSS one of these days.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

yiph2 said:


> I'm assuming he ment MSRP


 But he didn't quote MSRP for SSO. Also, only the first purchase is a sale price, the others were upgrade pricing available all year round.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

Mike Fox said:


> I remember quite a few people saying the darker tone is what real strings are supposed to sound like.
> 
> ...which means most string libraries don’t sound real, because most aren’t that dark?
> 
> ...


I always think the dark tone of CSS sounds like the original Star Wars score, so I guess it is realistic if you're talking vintage recordings. But not for anything modern.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Re the OP:
> Scamper put together an amazing and informative comparison of SCS/SSS/CSS/BBCSO (unfortunately buried 46 pages into a spitfire sale thread) but you can find that here:
> 
> 
> ...


You did your Black Beauty mockup with CSS, right?!


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

Mike Fox said:


> You did your Black Beauty mockup with CSS, right?!


Yeah, that one's all CSS and I think JB violin.

Re dark tone: When I reference concert recordings of repertory music, I find the tone matches. I also just like darker tone for underscore, since it conflicts with dialog less.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

gst98 said:


> Are you suggesting players are incapable of playing a legato without swelling a phrase? Can't say I agree with that sweeping statement.


No, I make no such claim. I believe there are an infinity of possible ways for string players to connect notes. And quite frankly you seem to be trying to construct an opponent in your own negative image. I'm suggesting CSS has a particular take on legato (and, yes, all legatos have a take on legato), and that take, like all takes, involves tradeoffs. And I do generally prefer other takes and other tradeoffs on legato. But that's neither here nor there for this point.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Yeah, that one's all CSS and I think JB violin.
> 
> Re dark tone: When I reference concert recordings of repertory music, I find the tone matches. I also just like darker tone for underscore, since it conflicts with dialog less.


Damn! That was SO well done! It’s mockups like that that always make me want to re-evaluate my stance on CSS.

Also, great point about using CSS for underscoring. Seems like it would be perfect for that.


----------



## gst98 (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> No, I make no such claim. I believe there are an infinity of possible ways for string players to connect notes. And quite frankly you seem to be trying to construct an opponent in your own negative image. I'm suggesting CSS has a particular take on legato (and, yes, all legatos have a take on legato), and that take, like all takes, involves tradeoffs. And I do generally prefer other takes and other tradeoffs on legato. But that's neither here nor there for this point.


I literally quoted you saying it. Nothing to do with a negative image.

"because of the fact it has been recorded with more of the arrival note built-in, so there's more of a shape to it."

regardless you're getting tangential from the original reason I replied to you. It's pointless arguing if you're going to take back what you've said


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)

C’mon guys, we all know that AR1 has the best legato.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

Mike Fox said:


> C’mon guys, we all know that AR1 has the best legato.


Did you end up getting it? (AR1)


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Did you end up getting it? (AR1)


Haha! Nah. I think I’m gonna pass it up, at least until it’s fully realized.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 29, 2021)

LOL, it's the legato bullshit again.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

gst98 said:


> I literally quoted you saying it. Nothing to do with a negative image.
> 
> "because of the fact it has been recorded with more of the arrival note built-in, so there's more of a shape to it."
> 
> regardless you're getting tangential from the original reason I replied to you. It's pointless arguing if you're going to take back what you've said


I was talking about CSS having the shape recorded into it because CSS includes more of the arrival note. Longer recording means more baked in shape.


----------



## Pixelpoet1985 (May 29, 2021)

Mike Fox said:


> I remember quite a few people saying the darker tone is what real strings are supposed to sound like.
> 
> ...which means most string libraries don’t sound real, because most aren’t that dark?
> 
> ...


As VSL had recorded the VI series in their silent stage as neutral and close to the real thing as possible, strings sound rather bright in general.

I think it has also something to do with the microphone setup (Decca vs other stereo techniques, as well as the distance to the instrument), the section size, the vibrato style and the room (also the reverb length). Take Cinestrings and Hollywood Strings for example. The first is bright, the latter is warmer and similar to CSS.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

Personally, I prefer SSO because the room is very nice, and I get more wiggle room for the kind of music I make. If you want to get down to business and just write music that sounds great, and not worry about jank, Cinematic Studio Series is your man. If you're willing to put in extra effort (for the wrong reasons), then SSO.


Cinematic Studio Series was made with utmost consistency possible in a sample library set. SSO, is the complete opposite. It is in a tighter sounding studio. It is not a small room by any means, but it's not huge or extremely reverberant. It is also quite dark. It also has the some of the smoothest legato ever sampled for a comprehensive orchestra library. 

However, all instruments except the woodwinds do not have any additional samples for legato "variations", and you won't find other stranger articulations. All of the sample time went into sampling IMPORTANT things, not things like _harmonic spiccato brushed_ There are minimal phase issues except for the woodwinds as many of the instruments were sampled with "long form", meaning the interval you here is as it was performed, with no trickery. You have all of the essentials here. One specific thing that is lacking, is actual marcato. The marcato you are provided with is primarily a staccato plus a sustain, the sustain weighted with higher dynamics on the crossfades, and faster transition response. No new samples in it except for the woodwinds which have runs.

Other users, and myself included you may find some complaints about the noise floor, the room is a tad noisy. This is primarily noticeable at low dynamics, the buildup can be very noticeable at times if you are really working those low dynamics. You can fix this with a bit of RX, but that's suboptimal. 

Nearly every articulation, dynamic, performance of notes, etc are pristinely sampled, timed, and tuned. I haven't even encountered any player noises yet like breathing/clicks(not counting low strings, that's normal)/taps/bassy booms from nowhere/whatever. They are sampled so well that it's TOO good at times, since there's not much player slop like you'll typically find.




SSO is pretty much the complete opposite in every way. It is very inconsistent, especially the brass. It is in a big lush hall, and on the strings, has some extra articulations not typically found. You also can purchase upgrades that give you an extensive microphone set, compared to CSSeries' 3+1 perspectives (and an additional OH mic for winds). You can hide quite a lot of flaws by masking it in the hall.

I claim a lot of stuff from Spitfire have a "room tax", as in, you're paying for the incredible equipment and rooms the sample libraries were recorded at, and not the quality of the library itself. This remains true throughout every spitfire library for the most part. So expect out of time samples, dodgy performances at times, noises, sniffs, coughs, taps on music stands, pages turning, and bizarre sampling decisions. Noise floor is quite low which is nice.

Given enough patience, at times it will feel like SSO can do more than CSSeries can. At the cost of needing to put more time in.

The strings are alright. Very big and lush sounding, and versatile legato. Picking up SCS will make SSS even more effective. Comprehensive articulation set for everything except some essentials. You get one normal staccato type. Everything else is weirder and you'll need to do articulation stacking to get your writing to sound correct sometimes. The manual won't tell you this, but on the legacy legato patches, you get three vibrato layers. The performance legato will only allow you access to two vibrato layers. Keep this in mind. The library isn't too inconsistent, but it's about what is expected from Spitfire. Has trouble with ostinatos/punchy sounding short notes, if you're into writing that kind of stuff a lot.

The woodwinds have a completely inconsistent articulation set, articulations across sections will not match in dynamics, and what is provided very often. The legato can be dodgy and hard to work with, and no runs were sampled. You will struggle more with this getting it to work for more intricate phrasings working around the sample jank. Sounds good, when it works. The solo flute is strange sounding too.

The brass is definitely the worst one by far. Now, before you get mad at me, WHEN it works, it sounds lovely. But it's a hard beast to wrangle, you're going to need some patience for this one. Nearly all instruments except the Trumpets, Horns, and a6 patches are extremely inconsistent. It's quite egregious. You will have to familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of the jank here since on many instruments, it just won't automatically work as advertised.

Genuinely bad legato on certain instruments, or non existent legato. Funnily, the a6 patches have samples for fast transitions, the slurry messy you get when playing fast on brass was sampled on those. Playable rips in essence.
Legato/longs except for a6 doesn't go higher than forte/mezzo forte, if that's your kind of thing, it's not here.
The a6 patches are the only consistent ones, but they are weighted towards higher dynamics, and are kind of way too big at times.
Very bad dynamic crossfades
Patch layout has stuff hidden from the core patches despite there being enough room for the articulations to fit into core patches.
Completely inconsistent dynamics all around on EVERYTHING, you will find between sections that articulations will range from their maximum dynamics being mezzo forte, to fortississimo. 
The perspectives of how the instruments were recorded is not correct. Example: The a6 horns sound like their 15 feet further away than the a2/solo horns. 
Lots of out of tune samples (more than normal for spitfire) 
Some articulations are not usable due to sluggish response, you don't get much room for staccatissmo type stuff. Or just not usable due to the dynamics being completely wrong. 
Some sections have vibrato, but the vibrato will sometimes be one or two dynamics higher than the non-vib.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> No, I make no such claim. I believe there are an infinity of possible ways for string players to connect notes. And quite frankly you seem to be trying to construct an opponent in your own negative image. I'm suggesting CSS has a particular take on legato (and, yes, all legatos have a take on legato), and that take, like all takes, involves tradeoffs. And I do generally prefer other takes and other tradeoffs on legato. But that's neither here nor there for this point.


Doesn't matter how slow or fast it is, if there is only really one sample for the legato. There's no control over rebows, slurs, runs, and the like. Nor vibrato control. That is the issue, not the delay. And for stuff like runs for example, or more aggressive things, that's when the speed picks up and the delay gets lessened. We're running on samples here, we don't have unlimited data and processing power to sample every in between speed and type. People want expressive transitions, and people want fast transitions. When in the position to only have one type, expressive slow transitions are the one to use.
Too fast, and you get LASS, rigid, gross lifeless legato. Too slow, and it becomes redundant if you're not doing anything special. A runs update is in the works, and the "marcato" patch, has an artificially more aggressive and chipped into legato transition. Straight Ahead Samples Birth of Trumpet for example uses seconds worth of delay and scripting to select the correct transitions.

If you compare CSS to actual Trackdown strings recordings playing typical "legato-like" string phrases, the resemeblence is quite uncanny at times. Albeit, less expressive in CSS since you can't control how vibrato will come in with samples properly like real players do. It's pretty much as it sounds, in real life, at that location but in a more sampley sounding form


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> .
> The a6 patches are the only consistent ones, but they are weighted towards higher dynamics, and are kind of way too big at times.
> Very bad dynamic crossfades
> Patch layout has stuff hidden from the core patches despite there being enough room for the articulations to fit into core patches.
> ...


Weird, I love pretty much everything about SSB except the a6 patches. I don’t find the patches especially troublesome to program. The only thing other than the a6 patches that gives me consistent issues is the gap between dynamic layers with the shorts.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

It’s weird how defensive folks get about what should be an innocuous claim that CSS is not the last word in legato and that some folks might prefer other legatos.


----------



## Casiquire (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> Doesn't matter how slow or fast it is, if there is only really one sample for the legato. There's no control over rebows, slurs, runs, and the like. Nor vibrato control. That is the issue, not the delay. And for stuff like runs for example, or more aggressive things, that's when the speed picks up and the delay gets lessened. We're running on samples here, we don't have unlimited data and processing power to sample every in between speed and type. People want expressive transitions, and people want fast transitions. When in the position to only have one type, expressive slow transitions are the one to use.
> Too fast, and you get LASS, rigid, gross lifeless legato. Too slow, and it becomes redundant if you're not doing anything special. A runs update is in the works, and the "marcato" patch, has an artificially more aggressive and chipped into legato transition. Straight Ahead Samples Birth of Trumpet for example uses seconds worth of delay and scripting to select the correct transitions.
> 
> If you compare CSS to actual Trackdown strings recordings playing typical "legato-like" string phrases, the resemeblence is quite uncanny at times. Albeit, less expressive in CSS since you can't control how vibrato will come in with samples properly like real players do. It's pretty much as it sounds, in real life, at that location but in a more sampley sounding form



Are you familiar with the Pixelpoet trick? Breathes new life into LASS


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> It’s weird how defensive folks get about what should be an innocuous claim that CSS is not the last word in legato and that some folks might prefer other legatos.


It isn't the end all be all, it only has one sampled type of legato transition right now, and the nonvib layer has no transitions at all. No mid vibrato layer. It's just that it's rare to find such consistent and well made legato, despite it's limitation. The only other library I've heard that felt so consistently life-like is Vista, which too does one thing. Exposed, most other libraries fall apart very easily for seemingly simple slow phrasings that have no room to sound bad. Legatos I've heard and used that are "versatile" always have sounded worse, more rigid, etc. At the specific thing it excels at, no other full on string library has done yet. People like human feeling, emotive transitions which are surprisingly rare in sample libraries. It's part of the reason I don't recommend it if you want agile stuff. That's where SSS and SCS are killer. In faster phrasings those sound incredible


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

Just clarifying CSS legato:
There's two speeds (controlled by velocity), plus portamento, and sampled same-note re-bowing. And marcato longs have their own legato as well.


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 29, 2021)

I adore CSS for several situations, though it's style of playing and section size isn't perfect for everything, but I definitely get lots of use out of it.

My BIGGEST issue with CSS over almost anything else (I'd attribute the rest of the issues to taste and intent other than the noise one) is the sound, but not tone.

The imaging of CSS is a bit tricky. There's both a strong dark density to its room image (including some unfortunate large resonances and lack of resonances in the lower range) that can feel a little "trapped" but also a strong directionality of direct image.

I and others I know tend to need to do a lot of work to "expand" the imaging and thin out its density to get it playing well with other libraries, like blurring its immediacy with some sort of early reflections tool, manipulating its stereo width, and calming resonances in the room. I think it's safe to say those issues are not because of noise reduction or tone shaping in the editing process, rather they're from the true character of the room they were sampled in, the way the room and mics were configured for the session, etc.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Just clarifying CSS legato:
> There's two speeds (controlled by velocity), plus portamento, and sampled same-note re-bowing. And marcato longs have their own legato as well.



The "speeds" are scripted they are not sampled, simply cuts further into the transition sample. The difference is minimal as it is artificial and not sampled unless at the extremes, as in cut in very far to the sample to simulate a faster speed. I also don't count portamento as a speed and rather just it's own thing. Marcato legato pulls from the same transition sample pool. Try it yourself, alt+click sustain to disable the legato transitions and you will hear. The marcato does use it's own long, but it is not right proper marcato as there is a staccato spliced on top, and sounds just like that. The Performance Samples freebies for example, or the sampled marcato in SSS is a very different thing


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 29, 2021)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Just clarifying CSS legato:
> There's two speeds (controlled by velocity), plus portamento, and sampled same-note re-bowing. And marcato longs have their own legato as well.


If I recall, some people have been able to sleuth out that the main legatos don't actually have different legato speeds recorded and instead just cut into a main legato sample in different ways with smart programming, leaving in more or less of the pre/post transitions.

And there's actually no legato in the marcatos. Just smart programming.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 29, 2021)

I stand corrected then.  

I can't speak to how it was made (since the library is locked), so maybe a lot of it was done through scripting and not separate recorded performances.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> It isn't the end all be all, it only has one sampled type of legato transition right now, and the nonvib layer has no transitions at all. No mid vibrato layer. It's just that it's rare to find such consistent and well made legato, despite it's limitation. The only other library I've heard that felt so consistently life-like is Vista, which too does one thing. Exposed, most other libraries fall apart very easily for seemingly simple slow phrasings that have no room to sound bad. Legatos I've heard and used that are "versatile" always have sounded worse, more rigid, etc. At the specific thing it excels at, no other full on string library has done yet. People like human feeling, emotive transitions which are surprisingly rare in sample libraries. It's part of the reason I don't recommend it if you want agile stuff. That's where SSS and SCS are killer. In faster phrasings those sound incredible



Sure, but no one has been questioning that CSS does what it does well. It’s just been pointed out that it’s a limited form of legato (as all VI legatos will necessarily be). I see you agree at least with that much. Thank you for acknowledging that. I would hope you’d take it one step further and acknowledge that other libraries might have legatos that are optimized for musicalities not well served by CSS.


----------



## markleake (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> Weird, I love pretty much everything about SSB except the a6 patches. I don’t find the patches especially troublesome to program. The only thing other than the a6 patches that gives me consistent issues is the gap between dynamic layers with the shorts.


Yes, the dynamic layers in the shorts have bugged me from the get-go in SSB. Particularly in the high dynamics. This is one important area I wish Spitfire fixed with this library... it's very obvious on fist play that they don't blend the short layers, and that there aren't enough layers.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

markleake said:


> Yes, the dynamic layers in the shorts have bugged me from the get-go in SSB. Particularly in the high dynamics. This is one important area I wish Spitfire fixed with this library... it's very obvious on fist play that they don't blend the short layers, and that there aren't enough layers.


Genuinely the worst brass library in terms of how it was made I've ever experienced in my life. Sounds great when it works but wow. I don't know what they were thinking


----------



## Casiquire (May 29, 2021)

If there's no difference in legato transitions in CSS's different speeds, then wouldn't you do just as well to set everything to the very slowest legato speed where you hear the most of the transition? Just a thought experiment. My impression is that simply cutting deeper into the sample doesn't necessarily result in more convincing fast playing.


----------



## ism (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> At the specific thing it excels at, no other full on string library has done yet.


I think the point thought - which has been made above over and over - is just precisely that it is a very specific thing.

Sure, in the musical universe of media composing and vi-c, this could easily be a universe so expansive that a composer might spend an entire career within this expressive space without ever needing to come up for air, just like a cinema goer might, in principle at least, spend their entire life going to films and never hear any other kind of legato.

But in the universe of musical universes, it’s a grain of sand just like any other musical universe. A beautiful grain to be sure, but one of many beautiful universes in many beautiful grains of sand.




Tekkera said:


> People like human feeling, emotive transitions which are surprisingly rare in sample libraries.



Not so rare, I’d argue.

The OT special bows, and *especially* Tallinn, for instance, give very different examples of fantastically emotional, human, sampled legatos. And the Tallinn legato’s universe is as different from the SB Sul Tasto legato as it is from CSS.

Tallinn’s humanity and beauty comes from very, very different kinds of arcs. They make the SB Sul Tastos look positively hight romantic in comparison to Tallinn. Which was itself a revelation since the revelation of the SB sul tastos for be was how the beauty and humanity of the arcs is achieved in a way that so dramatically contrasts the high romantic drive of CSS and similar libraries.

And in that Arvo Pärt is said to be the most performed and listened to composer in the world, it’s at least arguable that outside the confines of vi-c polls, Tallinn represents a bigger grain of sand than CSS.

But even the legato in SStS - which no one would argue is technically in the same league as CSS or SCS - if you play within what it excels at - which is *not* what CSS excels at - it’s can capture emotion that sometime speaks much more to a humanity I want to write to than could CSS, for it’s own capacity for humanity and feeling.


Anyway, +1 for humanity and feeling in legato. And to more grains of sand being opened up by the good folks that make libraries like CSS, SCS & Tallinn.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

Casiquire said:


> If there's no difference in legato transitions in CSS's different speeds, then wouldn't you do just as well to set everything to the very slowest legato speed where you hear the most of the transition? Just a thought experiment. My impression is that simply cutting deeper into the sample doesn't necessarily result in more convincing fast playing.


Like I mentioned, at a certain point it becomes redundant at how slow the speed is for a normal transition. This sets in at about 150 to 200ms of a transition time. I used to use the "advanced" speed in CSS for years


----------



## markleake (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> Genuinely the worst brass library in terms of how it was made I've ever experienced in my life. Sounds great when it works but wow. I don't know what they were thinking


Personally I wouldn't say that. It can do things pretty much all other brass libraries _can't_ do. The tone can be truly beautiful, and it is better at soft played parts than any other brass library I have (although I've yet to explore Berlin Brass on this aspect, maybe Berlin comes close). That is what SSB excels at, the wonderful warm and noble tone it can produce.

And yes, it is fiddly, needs attention from Spitfire that they originally promised and never delivered on, has many frustrating inconsistencies and limitations, dynamics issues, etc. So yes, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and not my first recommendation for a good first brass library.

But the solo trumpet is one of my favourites, along with CineSamples and others. The solo horn / horns a2 / horns a6 all have their place, and can be especially good with the Outrigger mics. And you can get some great sound out of the lower brass. So no, I don't think it's the worst... just good at only certain things, like many libraries.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

markleake said:


> Personally I wouldn't say that. It can do things pretty much all other brass libraries _can't_ do. The tone can be truly beautiful, and it is better at soft played parts than any other brass library I have (although I've yet to explore Berlin Brass on this aspect, maybe Berlin comes close). That is what SSB excels at, the wonderful warm and noble tone it can produce.
> 
> And yes, it is fiddly, needs attention from Spitfire that they originally promised and never delivered on, has many frustrating inconsistencies and limitations, dynamics issues, etc. So yes, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and not my first recommendation for a good first brass library.
> 
> But the solo trumpet is one of my favourites, along with CineSamples and others. The solo horn / horns a2 / horns a6 all have their place, and can be especially good with the Outrigger mics. And you can get some great sound out of the lower brass. So no, I don't think it's the worst... just good at only certain things, like many libraries.


It's the least reliable brass library I've ever used, and I have used a lot of them. The tone is unparalleled but it's made just so poorly and it's actually very upsetting how badly it was made. Very wasteful.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> It's the least reliable brass library I've ever used, and I have used a lot of them. The tone is unparalleled but it's made just so poorly and it's actually very upsetting how badly it was made. Very wasteful.


I don’t find this at all and I have other brass libraries I find more difficult to wrangle for my music. But much of this sort of thing depends on the music you are writing and how the breaks in the library—the dynamic layers for instance—fall for your music. The only thing about SSB that gives me significant distress are the dynamic jumps in the shorts.


----------



## markleake (May 29, 2021)

ism said:


> But even the legato in SStS - which no one would argue is technically in the same league as CSS or SCS - if you play within what it excels at - which is *not* what CSS excels at - it’s can capture emotion that sometime that speaks much more the the humanity I want to write to that could CSS, for it’s own capacity for humanity and feeling.


I think this is why, when I read people pointing to a poll as proving CSS has the best legato, I shudder a bit. Sometimes I think those polls mostly show who bought what library. Sure, CSS has a great legato, it is very smooth and more consistent than probably any other library (except for the legato specialty libraries maybe), sounds technically better, and can be very beautiful and emotional.

BUT.... if you look at the poll that was posted and assume CSS is good for fast legato, then you will be mislead. There are better libraries for that. SCS is much better, if not THE best at very fast legato lines (although maybe debatable with Berlin if you use the right articulations... I remember an old thread with Harry Potter examples where Berlin absolutely excelled, way better than the rest). Even CSS's forerunner, CS2 probably is better at fast lines. These are lines which are very common in some types of music.

So asking which library is "best at legato", and assuming the response proves the question... that is not really a thing. If only life were this simple. But maybe this is a controversial thing to say here?

So yes, totally agree, there's much more nuance to this. And Special Bows really are very special, like you say... I got them at the NI sale, and wow they are good. A very different feel than CSS, but no less emotional and effective when used right. A surprisingly good set of libraries.


----------



## Trash Panda (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> It’s weird how defensive folks get about what should be an innocuous claim that CSS is not the last word in legato and that some folks might prefer other legatos.


You think that’s bad, try saying you don’t personally like a Spitfire product.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> I don’t find this at all and I have other brass libraries I find more difficult to wrangle for my music. But much of this sort of thing depends on the music you are writing and how the breaks in the library—the dynamic layers for instance—fall for your music. The only thing about SSB that gives me significant distress are the dynamic jumps in the shorts.


I'm referring to how libraries should just function at a base level, not how it sounds. Aside from the legato. SSB definitely not the bar for that thing.


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> It's the least reliable brass library I've ever used, and I have used a lot of them. The tone is unparalleled but it's made just so poorly and it's actually very upsetting how badly it was made. Very wasteful.


Don't worry, Spitfire Studio Brass is worse <3

But overall I agree. I have trouble using SSB as singular brass library, but there's definitely good stuff in there that I use on the reg, enough to make it one of my top 5 most used brass libs. All of the main Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra (other than Chamber) is some of the earlier Spitfire stuff and it shows even as they've reworked some of it over the years. It goes all the way back to the Mural series. Only so much editing can fix without compromising the actual material.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Don't worry, Spitfire Studio Brass is worse <3
> 
> But overall I agree. I have trouble using SSB as singular brass library, but there's definitely good stuff in there that I use on the reg, enough to make it one of my top 5 most used brass libs. All of the main Spitfire Symphonic Orchestra (other than Chamber) is some of the earlier Spitfire stuff and it shows even as they've reworked some of it over the years. It goes all the way back to the Mural series. Only so much editing can fix without compromising the actual material.


I try to block that one out of my memory. At least SSB has the room going for it. SStB is basically how I imagine what SSB would be, in a room nobody wants


----------



## Paul Cardon (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> I try to block that one out of my memory. At least SSB has the room going for it. SStB is basically how I imagine what SSB would be, in a room nobody wants


Oh the consistency is MUCH worse in SStB. It's....... also a library I still manage to get use out of every now and again. I love funny rooms on the right projects, but Spitfire doesn't dedicate every person to every project, things happen in parallel, and I'm pretty certain the Studio line wasn't managed by the A-team. Going from one divisi option to another across the entire Studio line and you'll find tone and playing style changes wildly. Kind of fun because it gives you a ton more options (Vln 6a spics aren't doing it for me, but maybe Vln 6b will!), but it definitely compromises its abilities as a divisi library.


----------



## markleake (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> It's the least reliable brass library I've ever used, and I have used a lot of them. The tone is unparalleled but it's made just so poorly and it's actually very upsetting how badly it was made. Very wasteful.


I agree it's not terribly reliable. Century Brass or Cinematic Studio Brass is better for that.

I would put the inconsistencies down to the approach Spitfire took with it's development. But I wouldn't say it is poor or bad. It's a good library that has a number of issues. Those issues make it harder to get used to using, and some people might find alternative libraries easier. But I think there would be plenty of pro users who make use of various patches from this library.


----------



## Casiquire (May 29, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> You think that’s bad, try saying you don’t personally like a Spitfire product.


Spitfire, Performance Samples, and CSS are dangerous third rails here!


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> I'm referring to how libraries should just function at a base level, not how it sounds. Aside from the legato. SSB definitely not the bar for that thing.


I’m also talking about how it works at a base level, programming it. I don’t find it difficult. It’s much easier than other brass libraries I have, aside for the JXL trombone which is also generally easy to program. I very much like the legato for the solo trumpet, horn, and tuba, and with the music I write the a2 ensemble patches are fine in the sense they don’t pose more than the usual problems.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Paul Cardon said:


> Oh the consistency is MUCH worse in SStB. It's....... also a library I still manage to get use out of every now and again. I love funny rooms on the right projects, but Spitfire doesn't dedicate every person to every project, things happen in parallel, and I'm pretty certain the Studio line wasn't managed by the A-team. Going from one divisi option to another across the entire Studio line and you'll find tone and playing style changes wildly. Kind of fun because it gives you a ton more options (Vln 6a spics aren't doing it for me, but maybe Vln 6b will!), but it definitely compromises its abilities as a divisi library.


I very much like the muted trumpet shorts in SStB. And the stopped horns have a timbre that’s quite different from most stopped horns. The euphonium is also decent. But overall the library is comparative difficult to use and program.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> I’m also talking about how it works at a base level, programming it. I don’t find it difficult. It’s much easier than other brass libraries I have, aside for the JXL trombone which is also generally easy to program. I very much like the legato for the solo trumpet, horn, and tuba, and with the music I write the a2 ensemble patches are fine in the sense they don’t pose more than the usual problems.


I could go through an compile a very, very large list with demos of every single major inconsistency. Acting as if its fine is simply just untrue and pretty messed up if you ask me.


----------



## Jacob Fanto (May 29, 2021)

So in terms of full orchestral packages... CSSeries + SSO? Good compliments to one another? Anything superior?


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> I could go through an compile a very, very large list with demos of every single major inconsistency. Acting as if its fine is simply just untrue and pretty messed up if you ask me.


You seem not to recognize that different music places different demands on libraries. I’ve told you where the library gives me trouble—the jump in dynamic layers on the shorts. The rest of it doesn’t give me issues. I don’t say there are no other issues in the library, btw. I just say that I don’t encounter them or if I do I don’t find them out of the ordinary for VIs (and I know how to work around them). If the library doesn’t work for you that’s fair, and you should definitely be looking elsewhere. I’m not going to tell you your experience with the library isn’t real. For your music it undoubtedly is. But you shouldn’t demand that I report that I struggle to use the library when I simply don’t. I have plenty of libraries I do struggle with and find irritating so it’s also not that I have an especially high tolerance for poorly programmed libraries.


----------



## jbuhler (May 29, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> So in terms of full orchestral packages... CSSeries + SSO? Good compliments to one another? Anything superior?


The Berlin series comes to mind, though it’s generally pricier and requires a more robust system especially for the Capsule stuff.


----------



## Tekkera (May 29, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> So in terms of full orchestral packages... CSSeries + SSO? Good compliments to one another? Anything superior?


They don't really complement eachother very well since the rooms are quite different. You'll have to douse CSSeries in some heavy reverb to help match it. 

Ultimately it's up to how much patience you have to work with spitfire libraries, and or which one sounds better to you. You will probably end up buying both in the future anyway since they're both pretty good sounding.

List of key differences for you
Tighter, dark, noise floory room.
Legato sampling in CSSeries is near flawlessly consistent. Almost no jank, and minimal to no phasing, impossible to tell where the sample starts and ends for transitions usually, very connected and lyrical. Only the woodwinds have extra legato samples for runs.
CSSeries short notes are far more consistent and reliable
The brass feels more confined in it's space, choked even, at times.
Full on proper dynamic range from pp->fff across all sections, instruments, and articulations consistently.
Very natural dynamic range across the entire series, and yes, consistent.
The shortest brass notes were sampled repetition style from actual phrases, meaning the tail cuts off, as a room tail was not spliced on. This can cause problems at times with heavier compression.
At times, overbearing vibrato.
Limited sampling engine and patch setup compared to how spitfire does it


Spitfire's engine is much deeper with more options to change if you please.
Extensive microphone selection available and condensed mixes done by Jake Jackson
Big ol' hall that sounds amazing
You have an "upgrade" path with SCS, that works in tandem very well with SSS. They are not consistent with eachother in articulation selection so much, but tonally they are a perfect pair.
The legato works way better in (strings and a6 brass) agile circumstances. In more lyrical things, it comes off as pretty rigid at times. It's literally a dice roll if the legato will sound good or not with slow stuff. I've had phrases that sound amazing, or total crap. 
You have better vibrato control, from nonvib, to vib, to molto vib with the strings legacy legato patches.
Legato is missing on some patches, and articulation mis-matching section to section overall. Can be pretty bumpy and phasey
Jumpy and bumpy dynamic range on longs, primarily the brass.
MASSIVE sounding low brass (that is sometimes out of tune)


----------



## ism (May 29, 2021)

Tekkera said:


> I could go through an compile a very, very large list with demos of every single major inconsistency. Acting as if its fine is simply just untrue and pretty messed up if you ask me.



There are libraries who's inconsistencies don't bother me at all. And others that make be want to slam my head in a door. And I've cordially debated people who have the exact opposite positions. This is totally normal on vi-c. We can just recognize that we live in different grains of sand.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 29, 2021)

Jacob Fanto said:


> So in terms of full orchestral packages... CSSeries + SSO? Good compliments to one another? Anything superior?


CSS isn’t a full package...yet. 

But I’d personally take CineSymphony, Berlin, or possibly even HOP over either of those.


----------



## Soundbed (May 30, 2021)

Casiquire said:


> If there's no difference in legato transitions in CSS's different speeds, then wouldn't you do just as well to set everything to the very slowest legato speed where you hear the most of the transition? Just a thought experiment. My impression is that simply cutting deeper into the sample doesn't necessarily result in more convincing fast playing.


Actually the fastest is generally better for “most” transitions I’d think, then if you want to slow down to medium or slow (in advanced) for emphasis now and then, it’s available. Variety. 



Jacob Fanto said:


> So in terms of full orchestral packages... CSSeries + SSO? Good compliments to one another? Anything superior?


I recently discovered Performance Samples Vista provides a nice CSS like legato to SSS with possibly better tone / room matching. Vista helps make up for SSS legato “issues” and is very easy to blend to taste. 

personally the vibrato in CSS is too much for me, 90% of the time. play with anything that has less vibrato or vibrato you can control and go back to CSS and wow. But CSS taught me a lot about sampling strings legato, even though I use it less and less.

there’s some tuning issues with CSW (esp flutes and piccolo up higher) that will probably be fixed this year.

fwiw I’m not a huge fan of SSS legato due to a couple of the issues mentioned: occasional overlaps that sound like weird sample crossfades, slight inconsistencies... but the tone has a nice tape feel and stands the test of time for me; I keep coming back to it.

I’ve heard too many negative things about the SSO winds and brass to try to complete the set though.

orchestral tools seems to have the best woodwinds by most accounts (I don’t have them; expensive).

CSB seems to be quite a good brass package. Or Cinebrass.

I usually start with JXL for my brass but I have lots of options to mix and match as needed. I like the sound of brass in teldex. 

I think a LOT of people mix SSS with other wind and brass packages; I wouldn’t try to complete the SSO set or limit yourself to Cinematic Studio. 

some things to consider include workflow and flexibility.

for workflow, do you prefer playing things in with “performance like” patches or tweaking every midi control for days?

for flexibility, is it more important to have something that can do almost anything (infinite brass) or would you be happier with something less flexible but has killer tone (some OT stuff perhaps)?


----------



## David Kudell (May 30, 2021)

ism said:


> . I'm just thinking of how much angst I might have been spared - and money saved - if I'd seen your OT Special Bows video a few years earlier


Thank you, the special bows Sul Tastos are a ‘secret weapon.“Also love the flautandos in SSS...there really is no one library to rule them all.


----------



## jbuhler (May 30, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> Actually the fastest is generally better for “most” transitions I’d think, then if you want to slow down to medium or slow (in advanced) for emphasis now and then, it’s available. Variety.
> 
> 
> I recently discovered Performance Samples Vista provides a nice CSS like legato to SSS with possibly better tone / room matching. Vista helps make up for SSS legato “issues” and is very easy to blend to taste.
> ...


I use SSW and SSB all the time, and have far more issues with SSS. I prefer HZS and BSS for the big symphonic sound. Which is one reason I found the earlier discussion, where folks simply presumed I was defending SSS, more than a bit amusing, since I always defended SF's approach to legato (I was thinking of SCS and HZS), never SSS. But SSS does have lots of useful articulations of its own, even though its legato is extremely limited (something similar might be said of HZS, which has a legato I very much like but it has a very limited expressive range where it works well; it just happens to be one that fits my music well). The low woodwinds in SSW are nothing short of amazing in my use cases. The only instrument I dislike in the set is the solo clarinet (and even it is quite useable) though there are a lot of mismatches across the set in terms of available articulations. That inconsistency can be very irritating and is one reason I'm looking forward to the modular AR.


----------



## dunamisstudio (May 30, 2021)

I'm in a similar boat. During the next sale I'm contemplating completing the SSO bundle and get SSB and SSW. Or ditch the idea, get Cinebrass bundle and Berlin Woodwinds. Thoughts?




Mike Fox said:


>





jbuhler said:


> It’s weird how defensive folks get about what should be an innocuous claim that CSS is not the last word in legato and that some folks might prefer other legatos.


LOL


----------



## Tekkera (May 30, 2021)

dunamisstudio said:


> I'm in a similar boat. During the next sale I'm contemplating completing the SSO bundle and get SSB and SSW. Or ditch the idea, get Cinebrass bundle and Berlin Woodwinds. Thoughts?


Since CSB, I've completely deleted cinebrass because I've only used it three times from the launch of CSB, to current day. The tone isn't too dissimilar, but what it offers is just way more stuff and no jank. Not that cinebrass has much jank, just a few of the instruments are kind of misleading. Total lack of legato for some stuff, weird combined sections, articulations on "less important instruments" missing. It's not that big of a problem here compared to something like the problems SSB has that's for sure. But it is annoying at times.

As for woodwinds, I've found Berlin Woodwinds pretty flat in the dynamics department. The difference between the lower and upper dynamics is often lackluster, especially noticeable on staccato type notes. It does boast a pretty deep articulation set, and sampled runs.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (May 30, 2021)

dunamisstudio said:


> I'm in a similar boat. During the next sale I'm contemplating completing the SSO bundle and get SSB and SSW. Or ditch the idea, get Cinebrass bundle and Berlin Woodwinds. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I completed SSO recently after owning SSS and I’m pretty happy about it. I also own CineBrass and Berlin WW. Different strengths, weaknesses, and sounds across all of them.


----------



## Soundbed (May 30, 2021)

dunamisstudio said:


> get Cinebrass bundle and Berlin Woodwinds. Thoughts?


If I had no libraries, or had to start all over again from scratch, I think starting with these two and adding CinePerc and some strings would be the way I’d go.

edit - or maybe CSB


----------



## Artemi (May 30, 2021)

dunamisstudio said:


> I'm in a similar boat. During the next sale I'm contemplating completing the SSO bundle and get SSB and SSW. Or ditch the idea, get Cinebrass bundle and Berlin Woodwinds. Thoughts?


Sometime ago I would easily suggest you something, but since I've released a couple of comparison videos on youtube I've realised how different the people's preferences are from mine sometimes.

Got Berlin vs SSW, CSB vs Cinebrass videos
I can p.m. you if you want.


----------



## dunamisstudio (May 30, 2021)

Artemi said:


> Sometime ago I would easily suggest you something, but since I've released a couple of comparison videos on youtube I've realised how different the people's preferences are from mine sometimes.
> 
> Got Berlin vs SSW, CSB vs Cinebrass videos
> I can p.m. you if you want.


yeah send them on. also yes, I have experienced that myself or least from reading the forums or watching youtube videos.

Edit: I found your channel and added the videos to my watch list.


----------



## Mike Fox (May 30, 2021)

dunamisstudio said:


> I'm in a similar boat. During the next sale I'm contemplating completing the SSO bundle and get SSB and SSW. Or ditch the idea, get Cinebrass bundle and Berlin Woodwinds. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The tone of Cinebrass is unparalleled, imo, which makes it completely worth its shortcomings.

The 12 horns and monster low brass patches Cinebrass Pro are complete homeruns. The only other library i know of that can compete with the monster low patch is Talos, and possibly JXL.

But I’d just watch as many youtube videos as possible and figure out which ones sound best to your ears, and decide which aspects are most important to you. They’re all pretty different from eachother, especially in terms of tone.

I don’t write much with woodwinds, so i really can’t make any helpful recommendations.


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 8, 2022)

Vladimir Bulaev said:


> I don't know what kind of music you write and what kind of legato you prefer, but for traditional classical melodies, spitfire symphonic strings unfortunately do not make the transitions of notes as convincingly as we would like. Of course, no library does this as realistically as a live performance, but CSS is at least the closest in this league. Just like con moto with a bow change.
> But I also love the tone of SSO in general.



Hi Vladimir. How do you feel CSS compares to Abbey Road One (legato aside, they've fixed that for the lower strings and I understand upper strings legato are being fixed soon by add ons.)


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 8, 2022)

markleake said:


> Well, of course both of the examples are how real players perform (within reason, they are sample libraries).
> But it's a question of taste, right?
> 
> The SSS approach seems much more natural here to me. With SSS I don't hear the same static repeating pattern, the akward ducking "wad-wad" intonation/dynamic I mentioned earlier, or that same poor flow of the line that CSS seems to exibit. I don't think the concert master would be happy with her players if they played it like CSS does, unless the sheet music told them to emphasise the legato, I guess. I'm suprised you find CSS less static than SSS for this example. I listened on several speakers, and it's always apparent that CSS is stuggling at certain spots. It has a very pronounced interpretation of the legato.
> ...


I agree with the SSS quality but there is most definitely a problem, particularly in faster string passages regarding SSS becoming 'lumpy' at times. I'm still on the fence. It would be interesting to know whether Abbey Road One has addressed this. I know they've added legatos in the lower strings in their add on, and hopefully the upper strings legato are coming soon. If AR1 is able to move around freely in the same manner as CSS then that's good enough for me. It's a deal. Would very much appreciate some feedback.


----------



## yiph2 (Jan 8, 2022)

Abbey Road One doesn't have legatos though, its only the expansions which are recorded in octaves


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 8, 2022)

Thanks for getting back yiph2. Appreciate it. Just to confirm were talking about the same thing?








Spitfire Audio — Abbey Road One: Legendary Low Strings






www.spitfireaudio.com




This is what they are claiming 'legato transitions created with Spitfire Audio’s newly-developed recording techniques'


----------



## yiph2 (Jan 8, 2022)

Wagnersliszt said:


> Thanks for getting back yiph2. Appreciate it. Just to confirm were talking about the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, those are the expansions and are pretty limited. The modular orchestra will be individual instruments and will be very detailed


----------



## szczaw (Jan 8, 2022)

Soundbed said:


> If I had no libraries, or had to start all over again from scratch, I think starting with these two and adding CinePerc and some strings would be the way I’d go.
> 
> edit - or maybe CSB


Starting from zero, all of AR1 at the front and BBC core as softcock filling-in library.


----------



## wunderflo (Jan 8, 2022)

I don't have CSS, even though I like its dark tone. I assumed that it was easier to make bright strings sound dark than the other way round, as in theory it's easily possible to attenuate frequencies, but difficult to boost what's hardly there or not there at all (but I'd assume there's also high fequency content in CSS.. just less of it). However, I'm not so sure of that anymore. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of attenuating high frequencies. Would be very curious and thankful for your opinions on how to darken brighter string libraries to make them sound more like CSS tone-wise. How do you go about that? I hope that's not too off-topic, as it implies the question whether it'd be worth it to get CSS just for the dark tone (if that's what you like) - putting the legato discussion aside for a moment (2022 is still too young for that  ).


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 8, 2022)

wunderflo said:


> I don't have CSS, even though I like its dark tone. I assumed that it was easier to make bright strings sound dark than the other way round, as in theory it's easily possible to attenuate frequencies, but difficult to boost what's hardly there or not there at all (but I'd assume there's also high fequency content in CSS.. just less of it). However, I'm not so sure of that anymore. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of attenuating high frequencies. Would be very curious and thankful for your opinions on how to darken brighter string libraries to make them sound more like CSS tone-wise. How do you go about that? I hope that's not too off-topic, as it implies the question whether it'd be worth it to get CSS just for the dark tone (if that's what you like) - putting the legato discussion aside for a moment (2022 is still too young for that  ).


I find using *bx_Refinement* Plugin a very good tool to mellow down high-frequencies in strings, and keep them natural sounding, you can even approach Sordino terrirory sonic characteristics if that is needed. It will surely darken the timbre of Spitfire Symph. Stirngs. I tried it on the violins 1 section, and it works very nicely.


----------



## wunderflo (Jan 8, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> I find using *bx_Refinement* Plugin a very good tool to mellow down high-frequencies in strings, and keep them natural sounding, you can even approach Sordino terrirory sonic characteristics if that is needed. It will surely darken the timbre of Spitfire Symph. Stirngs. I tried it on the violins 1 section, and it works very nicely.


nice, thanks! Didn't have that on my radar, yet.


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 8, 2022)

wunderflo said:


> nice, thanks! Didn't have that on my radar, yet.


You're very welcome  

Yes, It's a very useful plugin, I highly recommend it.


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 8, 2022)

wunderflo said:


> I don't have CSS, even though I like its dark tone. I assumed that it was easier to make bright strings sound dark than the other way round, as in theory it's easily possible to attenuate frequencies, but difficult to boost what's hardly there or not there at all (but I'd assume there's also high fequency content in CSS.. just less of it). However, I'm not so sure of that anymore. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of attenuating high frequencies. Would be very curious and thankful for your opinions on how to darken brighter string libraries to make them sound more like CSS tone-wise. How do you go about that? I hope that's not too off-topic, as it implies the question whether it'd be worth it to get CSS just for the dark tone (if that's what you like) - putting the legato discussion aside for a moment (2022 is still too young for that  ).


Mmmmm I’ve been thinking about signal processing applied to supplied libraries as well (post the event). Not sure. Sorry


----------



## markleake (Jan 8, 2022)

Wagnersliszt said:


> I agree with the SSS quality but there is most definitely a problem, particularly in faster string passages regarding SSS becoming 'lumpy' at times. I'm still on the fence. It would be interesting to know whether Abbey Road One has addressed this. I know they've added legatos in the lower strings in their add on, and hopefully the upper strings legato are coming soon. If AR1 is able to move around freely in the same manner as CSS then that's good enough for me. It's a deal. Would very much appreciate some feedback.


SSS is far from perfect, agreed, including the legato. I love the library, but there are some quirks.

I do think that it's underestimated sometimes as a good solid workhorse library though.


----------



## Soundbed (Jan 8, 2022)

wunderflo said:


> I don't have CSS, even though I like its dark tone. I assumed that it was easier to make bright strings sound dark than the other way round, as in theory it's easily possible to attenuate frequencies, but difficult to boost what's hardly there or not there at all (but I'd assume there's also high fequency content in CSS.. just less of it). However, I'm not so sure of that anymore. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of attenuating high frequencies. Would be very curious and thankful for your opinions on how to darken brighter string libraries to make them sound more like CSS tone-wise. How do you go about that? I hope that's not too off-topic, as it implies the question whether it'd be worth it to get CSS just for the dark tone (if that's what you like) - putting the legato discussion aside for a moment (2022 is still too young for that  ).


CSS is sort of in the middle in terms of brightness, according to my comparison tests. And not too far from SSS in brightness. Vista (for instance) is arguably less bright. Soaring Strings is quite bright. The first seconds of this video plays a quick snippet of each. I did “balance” the sections so the violas and cellos were all about equally loud for each package.


----------



## Soundbed (Jan 9, 2022)

Here is another video comparing CSS with BBCSO, and again CSS sounds "brighter" than BBCSO. I know CSS has a reputation for a "dark" tone ... but I'm not sure where exactly that impression comes from. Of course, you can simply like it's tone — dark, bright, or whatever. I'm only trying to throw out there that it's not necessarily all dark, all the time.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 9, 2022)

I like Cinematic Studio series.. I just find I'm not using it a whole lot these days... I'm more Spitfire, OT and Audio Imperia...


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 9, 2022)

Soundbed said:


> Here is another video comparing CSS with BBCSO, and again CSS sounds "brighter" than BBCSO. I know CSS has a reputation for a "dark" tone ... but I'm not sure where exactly that impression comes from. Of course, you can simply like it's tone — dark, bright, or whatever. I'm only trying to throw out there that it's not necessarily all dark, all the time.



After watching the video I compared on soundcloud too. It appears I may have come full circle. This time I included SBBCPRO in my soundcloud comparison. Yep, definitely no over the top 'processing' there. Love it. Thank you.


----------



## thereus (Jan 9, 2022)

Jacob Fanto said:


> Do people prefer one over the other? Do they compliment each other or would it be somewhat redundant to own both?


If I had to pick one it would be SSO but both are quite wonderful to play with. SCS and the percussion libs compliment SSO. BH compliments SStS.


----------



## thereus (Jan 9, 2022)

Scrub that. I misunderstood...


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 9, 2022)

thereus said:


> If I had to pick one it would be SSO but both are quite wonderful to play with. SCS and the percussion libs compliment SSO. BH compliments SStS.


Yeh I’m starting out. I’m trying to avoid spending sheds loads on strings I might not use. I have friends who’ve disappeared down that rabbit hole.


----------



## markleake (Jan 9, 2022)

Wagnersliszt said:


> Yeh I’m starting out. I’m trying to avoid spending sheds loads on strings I might not use. I have friends who’ve disappeared down that rabbit hole.


Innevitable. You're on VI-Control.


----------



## Wagnersliszt (Jan 9, 2022)

markleake said:


> Innevitable. You're on VI-Control.


You’re probably right 😂😂😂


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 9, 2022)

Wagnersliszt said:


> Yeh I’m starting out. I’m trying to avoid spending sheds loads on strings I might not use. I have friends who’ve disappeared down that rabbit hole.


Oh you sweet summer child.


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 9, 2022)

Wagnersliszt said:


> I’m trying to avoid spending sheds loads on strings I might not use.


Welcome to VI-Control, and Good Luck with building your Strings Library collection.


----------



## doctoremmet (Jan 9, 2022)

For new VI collectors we have a buddy system in place. @muziksculp can help you with all things strings. And if you’d ever need a synth or some 8Dio sample? Just holler and I come running to you


----------



## mybadmemory (Jan 9, 2022)

doctoremmet said:


> For new VI collectors we have a buddy system in place. @muziksculp can help you with all things strings. And if you’d ever need a synth or some 8Dio sample? Just holler and I come running to you


I guess you mean “If you’re ever in doubt about whether to purchase some more strings @muziksculp is always here to push you over the edge.” :D


----------



## doctoremmet (Jan 9, 2022)

mybadmemory said:


> I guess you mean “If you’re ever in doubt about whether to purchase some more strings @muziksculp is always here to push you over the edge.” :D


That’s what makes our buddy system so beautiful ❤️


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 9, 2022)

@mybadmemory ,

Yes, we have a great system in place. @doctoremmet takes very good care of the Synth. Dept., I take very good care of the Strings Dept. , together we promote world economic growth, and wisely recommend suitable products, and many creative choices for our fellow composers.  

We are always happy, and ready to serve the VI-C community. 

By the way, has anyone seen the VI-C Legato-Police lately ?  

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 9, 2022)

Soundbed said:


> Here is another video comparing CSS with BBCSO, and again CSS sounds "brighter" than BBCSO. I know CSS has a reputation for a "dark" tone ... but I'm not sure where exactly that impression comes from. Of course, you can simply like it's tone — dark, bright, or whatever. I'm only trying to throw out there that it's not necessarily all dark, all the time.




To be fair BBCSO strings are also pretty dark, but you do have a point. I think it's a certain mic combo that does it. Before getting my hands on it i thought it was really dark too and in comparison threads here it sometimes stands out at how muffled it sounds, but in my own hands i don't always feel that way. Some mic setups sound a bit brighter and other mixes blend the vibrato better. For all the crap i give the library, it certainly does come with flexibility


----------



## Vladimir Bulaev (Jan 12, 2022)

In a nutshell. Recently, I have made this conclusion for myself. The Spitfire Symphony Orchestra is excellent in accompaniments, whereas the Cinematic Studio Series is excellent for melodies.


----------

