# Cinematic Studio Strings vs Spitfire Chamber Strings



## gjelul (Jul 11, 2016)

Torn between these two -- can only purchase one.

Any ideas which one I should go for? All opinions are appreciated -- "get them both" doesn't qualify 

Thanks!


----------



## The Darris (Jul 11, 2016)

Cinematic Studio Strings is a "basic palette" of articulations. It will be able to do around 80-85% of standard string writing but it lacks those more esoteric articulations and colors. Spitfire Chamber Strings offers the standard palette plus those extra colors, assuming you would be going for the full range which I recommend as just owning Vol 1 and 2 feels incomplete, especially when you really want to reach for those other articulations. 

I've had SF Chamber Strings (Sable) since the beginning so I have a lot of time spent learning it and I can honestly say that it is one of the best string libraries out there. I just started working with Cinematic Studio Strings and it is great. The sound is quite nice and offers that wide scoring sound but is does lack an expansive palette of articulations that I tend to reach for in my work. Cinematic Studio Strings also plays right out of the box and isn't difficult to write with. SF Chamber Strings on the other hand, does sound great but you do need to spend some time tweaking and programming your midi data to get your performances to sound right. 

In the end, the price is great for CSS but SF Chamber Strings is a more complete strings library that goes beyond what most string libraries pack in today's market.

If I could only choose one of the two libraries to use the rest of my life, it would be SF Chamber Strings because of the amount of content it offers which in turn gives me more flexibility for what I can compose. I don't consider Cinematic Studio Strings to be inferior by any means though. For what it is and what it offers, it is quite an amazing library. I just love the Measured Trems articulation.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## NoamL (Jul 11, 2016)

Well one point of comparison is where they fit into the section size lineup

16-16-12-10-8 ........ *LA Scoring Strings *(just four players shy of Wagner's specifications for *The Ring*)

16-14-12-10-8 ........ *Mural*

16-14-10-10-7 ........ *Hollywood Strings*

16-12-10-10-7 ........ *CinestringsCORE*

12-8-7-7-6 ........ *Cinematic Strings 2*

10-7-7-6-5 ........ *Cinematic Studio Strings*

8-6-5-5-4 ........ *Berlin Strings*

4-3-3-3-3 (fixed!!) ........ *Sable (and the new Spitfire Chamber Strings)*

The flagship libs are aiming at that huge romantic 55-60 player sound.

A bit lower down you're getting into a more traditional, classical orchestra (30-36). Sometimes even pared down further to get more detail.

Sable is, as far as I'm aware, alone in its tier. 4-3-3-0 is what someone might hire for a "sweetening session" (layering live players on top of samples). I don't know of any pieces in the repertoire that have that section size. I suppose Sable would be good for playing the Elgar Serenade or the Brandenburg Concertos or the Mendelssohn Octet.... if it had divisi....

speaking of divisi, LASS can be any section size you want


----------



## The Darris (Jul 11, 2016)

NoamL said:


> 4-3-3-3-0 ........ *Sable (and the new Spitfire Chamber Strings)*
> 
> Sable is, as far as I'm aware, alone in its tier. 4-3-3-0 is what someone might hire for a "sweetening session"



This is not accurate as there are 3x Basses in this library and it isn't a "new Spitfire Chamber Strings" it is the same library. It's just re-branded and will be compatible with the Free Kontakt Player (with minor scripting updates and GUI functionality). 

My point still stands, even compared to the list above. SF Chamber Strings is by far more complete in terms of articulation lists and features compared to the rest. Mural would be a close second with Berlin Strings. The rest are the standard articulations for Normal bowing types, not to mention the mediocre "scripted" Con Sordino effects. LASS does have an Con Sord expansion but again, basic articulations. 

Since the OP hasn't really specified what they need aside from comparing the two, I am stating the obvious. However, if the OP just wants a basic string library, I would suggest Cinematic Studio Strings out of that list above because of how easy it is to use. It is a pro level product at an entry level price. 

Best,

Chris


----------



## mickeyl (Jul 12, 2016)

Thanks for the section size details -- would anyone know which sizes the Soaring Strings employ?


----------



## Saxer (Jul 12, 2016)

For my taste: not all libraries really represent the sound of their section sizes. Sable and CSS sound bigger as they are, Mural and LASS smaller. I think it depends on the recording room, miking, mixing, layering inside the sampler, the amount of vibrato, the (de-)tuning between instruments, timing, the instruments themselves and mostly the players and their emotional input (or output). That said it's just a personal opinion. Others may feel that completely different.


----------



## dhlkid (Jul 12, 2016)

I have CS2, should I upgrade to CSS?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 12, 2016)

Well I'd say they sound nothing alike. I agree with Saxer that they both sound somewhat bigger than they actually are, but bottom line is, Sable at the bottom of it really is what the name says: chamber strings. CSS is closer to a classical string orchestra, prepped for "cinematic" sound-wise. I wouldn't even write the same type of music with those two libraries. So IMO it really comes down to what type of sound you actually need more and what kind of pieces you intend to write.


----------



## mc_deli (Jul 12, 2016)

dhlkid said:


> I have CS2, should I upgrade to CSS?


I have the same question...


----------



## Vik (Jul 12, 2016)

mc_deli said:


> I have the same question...


Find out if you have a reason to buy it. If not, don't.


----------



## prodigalson (Jul 12, 2016)

mc_deli said:


> I have the same question...



It's not an "upgrade" so don't think about it that way. it's a totally different library with different sections sizes and recorded in a totally different space intended to sound quite different to CS2.


----------



## NoamL (Jul 12, 2016)

mc_deli said:


> I have the same question...



Biggest difference in sound to my ears is the legato transitions.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 13, 2016)

Contemplating getting both Cinematic Studio Strings AND Spitfire Chamber strings. I already have Albion ONE, but I really do want/need to write in sections, not ensembles at this point I think.

Was contemplating LASS or Berlin Strings, or Mural, but they are pretty pricey. One reason I am considering getting both is the extra articulations found in Spitfire Chamber Strings.

Would getting both kind of be redundant?


----------



## tack (Aug 13, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> Would getting both kind of be redundant?


I don't think so. They have rather different sounds, and CSS's slow legato is just so juicy.

But I agree with everything The Darris said above.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2016)

I don't think they sound anything alike. [edit: must apologise because I misread the post that had the example. I do like the second example but it's not, as someone pointed out, Spitfire, but Cinematic Studio Strings. My mistake.] _Spitfire all day for me._


----------



## camelot (Aug 13, 2016)

NoamL said:


> Biggest difference in sound to my ears is the legato transitions.



I have both (CSS and CS2) and seems like I am one of the few who finds the general sound of CS2 a tad better than CSS, especially for this piece by Samuel Barber.
The statement given above that both are meant to be totally different is a bit over the top. Actually they are not. I have variuos string libs (VSL Orchestral & Appassionata, Adagio,Sable, Soaring Strings, Light and Sound, CS2, CSS) and CSS is by far the one sounding the closest to CS2. Was also a reason for me to buy, because I still adore the sound of CS2. With little tweak you can make both sound identically.

CSS and SCS sound quite different, it is like apples and bananas. So which sound do you prefer.
I would not argue over the amount of articulations. The articulation list in CSS is more than reasonable. SCS will give you a lot of articulations you will most probably never use. Most people fell in love with the flautando of Sable and it is used everywhere. So in the end, you will pick those you like, flautando probably being one of it, and use this selected collection all the time.

That does not mean you should not go for SCS. But don't let the long articulation list be the reason for it. 
This long articulation list remembers me of old VSL times with endless tweaking and patch choices. Multi-patches are more favoured today.


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 13, 2016)

They are both must buys for me! They are both incredible and sound completely different. Man, I need to start working 24 hr days to afford all this stuff.


----------



## camelot (Aug 13, 2016)

Maybe Berlin Strings is the right choice then. Lots of articualtions, good sounding out of the box and highly professional. Having all you need in one lib instead of two makes handling much easier. Because for the price of both SCS and CSS you can get BST. Think about it. 

I really mean it.

My only problem with this choice would be that I don't like the tone of BST.


----------



## tack (Aug 13, 2016)

camelot said:


> My only problem with this choice would be that I don't like the tone of BST.


Well that's rather a defeating blow for the recommendation, wouldn't you say?


----------



## camelot (Aug 13, 2016)

tack said:


> Well that's rather a defeating blow for the recommendation, wouldn't you say?



Yes, but maybe only for me. BST is highly acclaimed and many people around here love the tone. I regard myself as one of the few who is not convinced yet. But I bought the Nocturne Cello because I liked that sound and still do.


----------



## bc3po (Aug 13, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> Contemplating getting both Cinematic Studio Strings AND Spitfire Chamber strings. I already have Albion ONE, but I really do want/need to write in sections, not ensembles at this point I think.
> 
> Was contemplating LASS or Berlin Strings, or Mural, but they are pretty pricey. One reason I am considering getting both is the extra articulations found in Spitfire Chamber Strings.
> 
> Would getting both kind of be redundant?



I have both and love them. Mural is not nearly as good as the chamber strings in tone or programming.


----------



## bc3po (Aug 13, 2016)

tack said:


> Well that's rather a defeating blow for the recommendation, wouldn't you say?


Haha


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 13, 2016)

Thanks for all the input! Tough choices (Spitfire Chamber Strings+CSS, or just Berlin Strings main library)

Basically, for about $230 more then Cinematic Studio Strings+Spitfire Chamber Strings (factoring in exchange rates and discounts) I'd be able to get Berlin Strings Main + Special Bows I and II, hitting at right around $1000 (my budget for strings)

Still listening to tons of demos but choice can be paralyzing! I'm leaning towards CSS+SCS just for the fact that I will have those small sections from Spitfire.

But man, that adaptive Legato and blurring in Berlin Strings looks very nice...

ugh! What a great problem to have - so many wonderful libraries to choose from.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 13, 2016)

Depends on what sort of music you write and what it's for.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Aug 13, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> They are both must buys for me!



everything is a "must buy" to you, jono :B


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 13, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> everything is a "must buy" to you, jono :B



I have good taste.


----------



## N.Caffrey (Aug 13, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I don't think they sound anything alike. Spitfire all day for me.


You don't like css?


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2016)

[edit: must apologise because I misread the post that had the example. I do like the second example but it's Cinematic Studio Strings and not, as Darryl J pointed out, Spitfire. My mistake.] _I don't mind CSS but I think the Spitfire example sounds infinitely more musical and better. Mind you, Soundcloud exhibits crazy compression / wackiness that I can never parse, so it's possible that it's not really a fair comparison. But based on that comparison -- there's no comparison._


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2016)

@Hat_Tricky if you are on a budget, what about Hollywood Strings and Spitfire Chamber? That would give you a very good range. Not knocking Berlin but HS is ludicrously cheap for a top-class string library. Though not nearly that cheap when I bought it!

[note: I have received free products from East West]


----------



## Darryl Jackson (Aug 13, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I don't mind CSS but I think the Spitfire example sounds infinitely more musical and better. Mind you, Soundcloud exhibits crazy compression / wackiness that I can never parse, so it's possible that it's not really a fair comparison. But based on that comparison -- there's no comparison.



Which example are you referring to? The only one posted in this thread is Cinematic Strings 2 vs Cinematic Studio Strings. Is there a deleted post causing confusion?


----------



## Vik (Aug 14, 2016)

camelot said:


> My only problem with this choice would be that I don't like the tone of BST.


My feeling when I got Berlin Strings was, in the beginning, that the Spitfire stuff clearly sounded better.

But after some time with both the products, things have changed a little, and I often find myself kind of being surprised that Berlin Strings sounds better in real life use than it did when I listened to the demos, while it's kind of the other way round with Spitfire (Mural) - due to a lot more hit&miss situations with the legatos.

Re CSS vs SCS as my only library today, I'd still go for Spitfire, SCS it seems to be more mature than the other Spitfire products, and one can also use tricks to make stuff sound larger - while it's not so easy to make large ensembles sound smaller, when needed.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 14, 2016)

JohnG said:


> I don't mind CSS but I think the Spitfire example sounds infinitely more musical and better. Mind you, Soundcloud exhibits crazy compression / wackiness that I can never parse, so it's possible that it's not really a fair comparison. But based on that comparison -- there's no comparison.



I agree John.

I don't have CSS, but I would gladly take it. That said, I spent a lot of time with Big sounding full strings libraries and in the end it's like flogging a dead horse for a lot of the applications the sound is meant to be required for. Most of the time from my personal perspective, I just can't use big, thick sounding strings that much, simply because for TV usage they're just that. Too Big sounding. I like the idea of the big sounding Hollywood sweeping strings through nostalgia more than anything else, but it becomes a bit like furniture. It looks great in the showroom, but when you get it home, it's way bigger than you thought it would be and you wind up taking it back and getting something similar, but smaller. There are times when I get out the big guns, but it's very rare these days. I've moved completely away from full blown scores. I was never great at them anyway, so SCS is a good excuse. 
One of the differences in all the full section string libraries and SCS, is that full string libraries don't really ever cut completely versus the real thing equivalent. They can sound a bit synthy at times. Whereas SCS can fool me into thinking I'm a big shot string player/arranger.

Spitfire Sable aka SCS, which I do have, is about as good as it gets for most string applications for TV unless you're using really good players in a top notch sounding environment like Abbey. SCS covers most arcs required like pizz, legato, efx etc. For example, I just sent a track in that is nothing special because it's for a genre that is not really all that serious and is just for underscore, bed use, Tried with big strings and it just isn't any good. Replaced with SCS. Perfect. 

Another thing I see a lot of round here, is a lot of emphasis on legato. Legato is handy and sometimes important, but it's a lot less important than it looks in the showroom when it comes to practical, everyday use.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 14, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Another thing I see a lot of round here, is a lot of emphasis on legato. Legato is handy and sometimes important, but it's a lot less important than it looks in the showroom when it comes to practical, everyday use.



100% agree. Legato is vastly overrated, compared with the actual sound.

Very insightful post @Baron Greuner


----------



## JohnG (Aug 14, 2016)

Darryl Jackson said:


> Which example are you referring to? The only one posted in this thread is Cinematic Strings 2 vs Cinematic Studio Strings. Is there a deleted post causing confusion?



You are totally right and I apologize for the blunder; very sorry. I do like Spitfire's chamber strings but as you rightly point out -- it's not in the example!!


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 14, 2016)

Great thread! Love all the discussion on both products, with some other contenders sprinkled in (Berlin, etc)

I think I really am leaning towards Cinematic Studio Strings and Spitfire Chamber Strings as a combo. Although Berlin's legato system looks really good, I think I may need to go for versitility, and a Chamber Strings + Symphonic sized combo gives me that I think. If I didn't have a problem with Albion ONE being all-in-one patches, I'd possibly just go for Spitfire Chamber, but its kind of driving me nuts to not be able to write in sections.

Kind of funny how I was sold on Cinestrings, LASS or Mural half a year ago, and now that i have the funds it's kind of not on my radar at all (although I know its a great product) I also went through a phase of considering going all Hollywood products.

I love the work Orchestral Tools is doing, and I really really want to purchase a product from them. I've been waiting for their Brass and can't wait to see what they do.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 14, 2016)

JohnG said:


> 100% agree. Legato is vastly overrated, compared with the actual sound.


Oh oh, that chestnut again . 100% disagree, a good string library (edit for clarity: especially a chamber or solo library) should have a great sound and great legato, unless you're just playing long notes, in which case Omnisphere is probably fine.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 14, 2016)

Well, you and I disagree. No need for condescension.


----------



## Arbee (Aug 14, 2016)

Apologies if it came across as condescension, not my intention. I just believe that, in smaller section libraries particularly where lines are more likely to be more mobile and exposed, letting developers off regarding legato is perhaps a little too generous.


----------



## Darryl Jackson (Aug 14, 2016)

JohnG said:


> You are totally right and I apologize for the blunder; very sorry. I do like Spitfire's chamber strings but as you rightly point out -- it's not in the example!!



No need for apologies! I only posted because I was intensely curious- there haven't been all that many direct CSS/SF Chamber Strings comparisons. Understandably so, since I agree that they're apples and oranges in very many ways... but it would have made for an interesting listen.


----------



## tack (Aug 14, 2016)

Darryl Jackson said:


> there haven't been all that many direct CSS/SF Chamber Strings comparisons. Understandably so, since I agree that they're apples and oranges in very many ways


I posted this elsewhere, so you may already have seen it, but I did a tiny comparison with the ensemble patches. In my mind, Spitfire wins this round, but I do very much like both libraries.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 14, 2016)

I posted this in the CSS thread, but has anyone had experience layering CSS with SCS? I wonder how well they work together. Seems like they could compliment each other well in that regard, in a layering situation?


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 15, 2016)

Yeah nice example Tack. Can you do a similar for the legato, spicatto, etc?

Incidentally, I don't think anyone is saying let off developers on legato. You might as well say let them off for spicatto or pizzicato. Legato is basically over used a lot when using sample libraries versus what a real section does. Legato is a lazy way to write using samples because it all becomes too keyboardy and you wind up just sitting there with your tongue sticking out the side of your mouth, playing all these long and turgid legato lines for a past time. Same could be also said for spicatto where we all become guilty of moronic behaviour and sit there churning out 3 broken chord bollocks minor key repetitive spicatto lines because we all think it sounds good.

So legato is just as important, but not anymore important than any other well used articulation.


----------



## TGV (Aug 15, 2016)

tack said:


> I posted this elsewhere, so you may already have seen it, but I did a tiny comparison with the ensemble patches. In my mind, Spitfire wins this round, but I do very much like both libraries.


They both sound really nice. I do hear a difference in the "split point". The CSS patch seems to have the split between low and high strings a few notes before the SF patch, and adds more vibrato, which make it sound a bit less consistent in this particular example. But both sound really ... desirable.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Aug 15, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> sitting there with your tongue sticking out the side of your mouth



I write all my music like that and now I feel discriminated and ridiculed.


----------



## rottoy (Aug 15, 2016)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I write all my music like that and now I feel discriminated and ridiculed.


I'm pretty sure Bach did it this way and wouldn't settle for less.


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 15, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Same could be also said for spicatto where we all become guilty of moronic behaviour and sit there churning out 3 broken chord bollocks minor key repetitive spicatto lines because we all think it sounds good.




I'm doing that right now. It sounds good.


----------



## esencia (Aug 15, 2016)

I love Spitfire Chamber Strings.. they have a great sound and lot of articulations


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 15, 2016)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I write all my music like that and now I feel discriminated and ridiculed.



That was my original aim.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Aug 15, 2016)

rottoy said:


> I'm pretty sure Bach did it this way and wouldn't settle for less.



Bach could play things on a keyboard with his tongue you couldn't play with your feet Rotty! And don't you forget that!


----------



## rottoy (Aug 15, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Bach could play things on a keyboard with his tongue you couldn't play with your feet Rotty! And don't you forget that!


Why would I play anything with my feet? Silly.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 15, 2016)

tack said:


> I posted this elsewhere, so you may already have seen it, but I did a tiny comparison with the ensemble patches. In my mind, Spitfire wins this round, but I do very much like both libraries.




This is great, I remember listening to this over and over to decide between the two. Now i'm pretty much goinna get both! Quick question, have you experimented with layering the two together? I was wondering how "beefing up" Spitfire Chamber Strings with CSS would sound, then being able to instantly switch to a Divisi-like section with just Spitfire. Wondering how well the layer AND sound blend if swapped to in the same phrase.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Aug 15, 2016)

SCS layers nicely with CS2, so I don't imagine CSS would be a problem. As for using SCS as a divisi for CSS, I'd defer to a more skilled reverb expert to speak to ease of matching spaces.


----------



## Guffy (Aug 15, 2016)

tack said:


> I posted this elsewhere, so you may already have seen it, but I did a tiny comparison with the ensemble patches. In my mind, Spitfire wins this round, but I do very much like both libraries.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 15, 2016)

jacobthestupendous said:


> SCS layers nicely with CS2, so I don't imagine CSS would be a problem. As for using SCS as a divisi for CSS, I'd defer to a more skilled reverb expert to speak to ease of matching spaces.



Nice, glad to hear. I really would be over the moon if SCS could be a transparent way to get Divisi out of CSS or another "big" strings lib that doesn't have divisi


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Aug 15, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> Nice, glad to hear. I really would be over the moon if SCS could be a transparent way to get Divisi out of CSS or another "big" strings lib that doesn't have divisi



could work for mural


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 16, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> could work for mural



Yeah I would think those two would work well together. Was thinking more of if Spitfire CHamber can work with something like Berlin Strings, or CSS/CS2


----------



## fgimian (Aug 18, 2016)

tack said:


> I posted this elsewhere, so you may already have seen it, but I did a tiny comparison with the ensemble patches. In my mind, Spitfire wins this round, but I do very much like both libraries.




I honestly prefer CSS in this particular example, it's clearly a bigger string section and this does come across richer with CSS. The stereo width in CSS is also quite a lot wider here also.

It would indeed be interesting to hear some more comparisons if you have some time free


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 19, 2016)

Decisions, Decisions...still wavering between getting both Spitfire Chamber AND Cinematic Studio Strings....or just getting Berlin Strings (and the expansions)

UGH! Just when I think i've made up my mind, another demo or composition sways me the other way.


----------



## fgimian (Aug 19, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> Decisions, Decisions...still wavering between getting both Spitfire Chamber AND Cinematic Studio Strings....or just getting Berlin Strings (and the expansions)
> 
> UGH! Just when I think i've made up my mind, another demo or composition sways me the other way.



I feel your pain, believe me. Still downloading CSS at the moment


----------



## 5Lives (Aug 19, 2016)

Get both


----------



## tack (Aug 19, 2016)

If you can afford Spitfire Chamber Strings, get it. If you can't, get Cinematic Studio Strings. If you can afford both, I agree, get both. They are each worth having.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 19, 2016)

tack said:


> If you can afford Spitfire Chamber Strings, get it. If you can't, get Cinematic Studio Strings. If you can afford both, I agree, get both. They are each worth having.



Yeah, my choice is either both SCS AND CSS, or Berlin on its own (about the same price after discounts, Berlin + exp A and B coming in about 200 dollars more for me)


----------



## fgimian (Aug 19, 2016)

With that combo, is Mural still relevant folks?


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 19, 2016)

fgimian said:


> With that combo, is Mural still relevant folks?



I'm sure Mural still is, just based on how it sounds. However, what I'm really hoping is that Spitfire Chamber can serve as a kind of quasi-divisi for CSS for me (or I can get all the tricks down to get Spitfire Chamber to sound big and sweeping when I need that sound)

I figure with CSS and SCS I get 2 very capable libraries that hopefully can blend well when I need to use both.

If I just go Berlin, I do have a world class library (lets face it, almost any of the big string libraries are great) but I only have one. I like that Berlin is in the middle section-size wise, and I do like its more "in your face" sound as well as its vast articulation list. That's why I feel I'd need SCS to compliment CSS - for the additional articulations.


----------



## fgimian (Aug 19, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> I'm sure Mural still is, just based on how it sounds. However, what I'm really hoping is that Spitfire Chamber can serve as a kind of quasi-divisi for CSS for me (or I can get all the tricks down to get Spitfire Chamber to sound big and sweeping when I need that sound)
> 
> I figure with CSS and SCS I get 2 very capable libraries that hopefully can blend well when I need to use both.
> 
> If I just go Berlin, I do have a world class library (lets face it, almost any of the big string libraries are great) but I only have one. I like that Berlin is in the middle section-size wise, and I do like its more "in your face" sound as well as its vast articulation list. That's why I feel I'd need SCS to compliment CSS - for the additional articulations.



Yeah, I had a similar set of thoughts. I own Albion II as well now and it is a really nice small string section with every articulation I need and legato through the entire range. However, it of course is not split into sections. I also own Albion ONE which has a similar vibe to CSS but the legato is far more limited.

That's why I think for me personally, CSS + Albion ONE and Ii will keep me going for now.

I was seriously considering NI Symphony Series String Ensembles too, as it has small sections (and auto-divisi) but ultimately, I am just not entirely sure that the tone of the library is quite as good as CSS and Spitfire libraries, let alone Berlin Strings (which sounds absolutely stunning).

Based on many composers I've been paying attention to, having one string library never seems to be enough, but maybe we're all just gear junkies


----------



## galactic orange (Aug 20, 2016)

fgimian said:


> I was seriously considering NI Symphony Series String Ensembles too, as it has small sections (and auto-divisi) but ultimately, I am just not entirely sure that the tone of the library is quite as good as CSS and Spitfire libraries, let alone Berlin Strings (which sounds absolutely stunning).



For owners of SSSE, would you say that a good complimentary library would be CSS as far as tone, width, etc?


----------



## fgimian (Aug 20, 2016)

galactic orange said:


> For owners of SSSE, would you say that a good complimentary library would be CSS as far as tone, width, etc?



I sadly don't own SSSE and am still in the process of downloading CSS but based on examples, I think they are honestly both solid libraries, each with their strengths and weaknesses.

CSS does have more articulations while SSSE has less but has divisi sections and also real sordino (albeit with no legato). The sound of LASS and similarly SSSE doesn't come across as wide or lush, but a bit more raw and edgy, which is great for many things and not so great for others. I may still end up buying SSSE if I find it at a good price to be honest.

I'll definitely be sure to share my thoughts on CSS when I install it tomorrow (my download is very close now). I own Albion ONE and II so can provide comparisons with those if you're interested too.


----------



## Hat_Tricky (Aug 20, 2016)

fgimian said:


> I sadly don't own SSSE and am still in the process of downloading CSS but based on examples, I think they are honestly both solid libraries, each with their strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> CSS does have more articulations while SSSE has less but has divisi sections and also real sordino (albeit with no legato). The sound of LASS and similarly SSSE doesn't come across as wide or lush, but a bit more raw and edgy, which is great for many things and not so great for others. I may still end up buying SSSE if I find it at a good price to be honest.
> 
> I'll definitely be sure to share my thoughts on CSS when I install it tomorrow (my download is very close now). I own Albion ONE and II so can provide comparisons with those if you're interested too.



That would be awesome. Read your thoughts on it in the CSS thread. How would you say it sounds against the small sections of Albion II (that will give me a good idea if it will sound alright with Spitfire Chamber Strings)

Have you tried layering at all?


----------



## prodigalson (Aug 20, 2016)

If I were you I'd go for SCS and CSS. They are both fantastic in terms of legato, sound and flexibility.

I love Berlin strings but for me SCS is unbeatable at this new price


----------



## WindcryMusic (Aug 21, 2016)

Hat_Tricky said:


> That would be awesome. Read your thoughts on it in the CSS thread. How would you say it sounds against the small sections of Albion II (that will give me a good idea if it will sound alright with Spitfire Chamber Strings)
> 
> Have you tried layering at all?



I'm not who you were asking, but if you'll allow me to chime in ...

On my first project with CSS after getting it, I layered it in some sections with either Albion 1 (legacy) or Loegria. In both cases I was VERY satisfied with the result of adding a little bit of Air Lyndhurst to the CSS sound. In fact I think that will remain my go-to string layering approach for the near term, until such a time as I can afford and justify a purchase of SCS (a day I look forward to).

I didn't try layering CSS and SSSE (at least not yet), because my suspicion is that it might not be a fit. I could be wrong, of course.


----------



## fgimian (Aug 21, 2016)

WindcryMusic said:


> I'm not who you were asking, but if you'll allow me to chime in ...
> 
> On my first project with CSS after getting it, I layered it in some sections with either Albion 1 (legacy) or Loegria. In both cases I was VERY satisfied with the result of adding a little bit of Air Lyndhurst to the CSS sound. In fact I think that will remain my go-to string layering approach for the near term, until such a time as I can afford and justify a purchase of SCS (a day I look forward to).
> 
> I didn't try layering CSS and SSSE (at least not yet), because my suspicion is that it might not be a fit. I could be wrong, of course.



Yeah, I can see how CSS and Albion ONE in particular would blend well. Albion has a bit more of a bit, particularly in the treble region and is a pinch more centered. I find CSS has duller treble and is much wider.

I'd love to hear a sample of how you used them together if that's possible (I understand if it's not though).


----------



## galactic orange (Sep 12, 2016)

fgimian said:


> I'll definitely be sure to share my thoughts on CSS when I install it tomorrow (my download is very close now). I own Albion ONE and II so can provide comparisons with those if you're interested too.


I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on CSS. I would most likely use it separately and for completely different things than SSSE rather than blending them. There are some CSS demos showing off legatos but I'm particularly interested in how it handles arpeggios and faster parts, rebowing the same note, etc.

Also, I was this close to getting CSS and then the Spitfire sale has caused me to reconsider SCS. What I think I'm getting at is which of these two libraries would be a greater contrast to SSSE rather than for blending?


----------



## fgimian (Sep 12, 2016)

galactic orange said:


> I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on CSS. I would most likely use it separately and for completely different things than SSSE rather than blending them. There are some CSS demos showing off legatos but I'm particularly interested in how it handles arpeggios and faster parts, rebowing the same note, etc.
> 
> Also, I was this close to getting CSS and then the Spitfire sale has caused me to reconsider SCS. What I think I'm getting at is which of these two libraries would be a greater contrast to SSSE rather than for blending?



CSS is really impressive but it indeed has a different sound to the Spitfire stuff imho.

CSS has quite possibly the most convincing legato I have ever heard and it is also a much darker and fuller sound than something like SCS. Of course with this comes less detail but for large cinematic or orchestral work, I think CSS is more lush while SCS would be much more detailed. I'm basing the SCS comparison on Albion II and demos I have heard of SCS.

SCS certainly has more clarity in the treble region and instrument separation is clearer. It is a more defined tone but I think you would need to layer around 3 instances playing the same part to get in the same ballpark as the lush CSS sound.

In summary, I think having both would be ideal, they are very different.

Spitfire had a video about layering SCS to get a thicker sound which may be a good place to start if you buy SCS first. 


I'm definitely still in the market for SCS too, but I absolutely love CSS!


----------



## galactic orange (Sep 12, 2016)

fgimian said:


> I'm definitely still in the market for SCS too, but I absolutely love CSS!


Indeed. I think I'm going to go with CSS for now since it's lighter on the wallet and the lush sound offers something different from the more harsh, up front sound that SSSE has. I'm trying to purchase some library basics (need percussion and woodwinds badly) so whichever I go with I'll probably stick with that UI ecosystem. Owning three string libraries isn't a priority. The tough part is that Spitfire already has every section covered and the Cinematic Samples stuff is yet to be released. I'd like to avoid blending too many different spaces (the Spitfire Air sound is gorgeous for sure).


----------



## fgimian (Sep 13, 2016)

Yep true, but the Cinematic Series will be all done this year except Percussion. I'm in a very similar boat to you and between OT, Spitfire and Cinematic Series, you can probably find something you like. It's all really pricey though, particularly Spitfire and OT.

The tone of SSSE is indeed very different to CSS and I think you will be very happy adding CSS to your libraries.

The Berlin Woodwinds are extremely well regarded and likely what I will be going with, or should we wait for the Spitfire release and/or the Cinematic release .... or should we just buy them all empty our wallets? Tough choices


----------



## galactic orange (Sep 13, 2016)

The Berlin Woodwinds sound great. I was a little disappointed with the NI / Soundiron woodwinds, but I could give them another listen. I like the arpeggiator. In BWW you can write 3 different parts wth 3 different flute players, for example (if I'm not mistaken). Without even considering the numerous articulations, this aspect of building smaller sections is very appealing. If I already owned Berlin Strings I wouldn't think twice about it.

Back to the main topic, I'm a little concerned how CSS will blend with a larger brass library like NI Symphony Series Brass. On top of that, trying to get BWW's Teldex sound to blend ...it could be quite a chore. That's why it would be useful to have the whole Cinematic series to get things into place faster.


----------



## EuropaWill (Sep 13, 2016)

Well down to SF Chamber, CSS and Berlin, I don't think you can really go wrong with any of these choices. These are among the best sounding libraries out there but they all have a very different tone/vibe they convey. Yes SF Chamber and Berlin have more articulations than CSS but do you need those? I would imagine that you would have more versatility with the combo of SF Chamber + CSS for layering and creating a custom sound or for doing divisi vs just going with Berlin. 

Personally I prefer the sound of SF Chamber and Berlin the best out of these three.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 13, 2016)

Yes, CSO is gonna be a _hella_ fierce competitor for the "Orchestra In A Box" title. At slow and medium speeds I consider their legato to be the best on the market today.

However @galactic orange if you are writing a lot of fast runs and arpeggios, Berlin should be your go-to.

There was a thread recently which conclusively demonstrated this. Check out the difference between Berlin:





and LA Scoring Strings (#1), Mural Volume One (#2):



or Hollywood Strings (listen to the violins toward the end):



Berlin keeps up with even the fastest runs, and the intonation/blurring engine creates a very appreciated degree of realism. LASS keeps up with the speed and maintains precision and detail, but there's no realistic sense of motion and effort to the playing. Mural can't keep up. Hollywood Strings sounds keyboardy.

The drawback of Berlin is it's probably going to end up as the most expensive out of all the competition, when you add up the entire orchestra.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 13, 2016)

Just for giggles I tried it with CSS (the "Marcato Legato" patch on 1st & 2nd vlns). I'm surprised:



still doesn't have the sense of strain and blur that Berlin does, but you can definitely feel the bow flying across the strings. Better than a lot of other libraries.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 13, 2016)

As for rebowing - which you also asked about - CSS is gorgeous at it specially at slow speeds. Just a 40% effort mockup here but you can hear the scripting is good:



Actually now that the non vib patch is finally here I might try some _*L O S T*_ on these strings. If I can find free time!


----------



## WindcryMusic (Sep 13, 2016)

NoamL said:


> As for rebowing - which you also asked about - CSS is gorgeous at it specially at slow speeds. Just a 40% effort mockup here but you can hear the scripting is good:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually now that the non vib patch is finally here I might try some _*L O S T*_ on these strings. If I can find free time!




Wait ... what? CSS has a patch for the non-vibrato issue(s) available NOW? When did this happen, and how do I get it? I don't see any mention of it on the website, and haven't received any email notification thereof.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 13, 2016)

http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/updates.html

they're ninjas. Australian ninjas.


----------



## WindcryMusic (Sep 13, 2016)

NoamL said:


> http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/updates.html
> 
> they're ninjas. Australian ninjas.



Hehe, thanks! i did also just find the tiny Updates link at the bottom of the front page of the site, so I guess these 50-something eyes are primarily to blame.


----------



## galactic orange (Sep 13, 2016)

Cheers, NoamL! Thanks for putting these examples together. The Marcato Legato runs sound surprisingly nice! I'm very happy with this purchase. Now all I have to do is write music worthy of this quality instrument.


----------



## Vik (Sep 13, 2016)

NoamL said:


> Berlin keeps up with even the fastest runs, and the intonation/blurring engine creates a very appreciated degree of realism. LASS keeps up with the speed and maintains precision and detail, but there's no realistic sense of motion and effort to the playing. Mural can't keep up. Hollywood Strings sounds keyboardy.


Mural got its fast run samples in vol. 3. This test used volume 1.


----------



## EuropaWill (Sep 14, 2016)

NoamL said:


> or Hollywood Strings (listen to the violins toward the end):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For what its worth, I thought that Hollywood strings example at the end sounded phenomemal and not "keyboard like" whatsoever.


----------



## byzantium (Sep 14, 2016)

NoamL said:


> Just for giggles I tried it with CSS (the "Marcato Legato" patch on 1st & 2nd vlns). I'm surprised:
> 
> 
> 
> still doesn't have the sense of strain and blur that Berlin does, but you can definitely feel the bow flying across the strings. Better than a lot of other libraries.




Thanks for posting these NoamL. I think CSS sounds pretty good here. I layered CS2 (run articulation) over a CSS marcato run and it blurred it a little bit.


----------



## ctsai89 (Oct 14, 2016)

NoamL said:


> Yes, CSO is gonna be a _hella_ fierce competitor for the "Orchestra In A Box" title. At slow and medium speeds I consider their legato to be the best on the market today.
> 
> However @galactic orange if you are writing a lot of fast runs and arpeggios, Berlin should be your go-to.
> 
> ...





I find Mural to be a bit more realistic than all of the other examples. Remember, strings players aren't ALL going to be playing those notes like they're quantized from logic pro x. Some notes will be uneven (does not have to be out of tune). Uneven rhythm wise, thus causing the mushy-ness. And the Delay problem with CSS is just a big turn off though it just AWESOME but people would be able to tell you're using that library easily. Hollywood strings sounds fine. I still go with Mural. They have the fast legato patches in volume 3 as well if you need it, it's there.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Oct 15, 2016)

NoamL said:


> LASS keeps up with the speed and maintains precision and detail, but there's no realistic sense of motion and effort to the playing.


Has this been done with the divisi ?
I can imagine that altering the MIDI notes of the 3 divisi of each section seperately regarding timing and dynamics will result in more 'smearing' as OT calls it.


----------



## Pixelee (Oct 15, 2016)

so which of these can do Joe Hisaishi kind of stuff? My favourite track for example:


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Oct 15, 2016)

NoamL said:


> and LA Scoring Strings (#1), Mural Volume One (#2):




@NoamL , and #3?


----------



## markleake (Oct 15, 2016)

Pixelee said:


> so which of these can do Joe Hisaishi kind of stuff? My favourite track for example:



Probably CSS is your best bet, as there are a lot of smooth legatos in that track, which is where CSS really shines. Although I don't personally have Berlin or LASS to compare to.

But CSS won't sound anywhere near as full as that video example, due to the huge orchestra size and location in that video. CSS has a smaller much more detailed sound in comparison to this video.


----------



## fgimian (Oct 15, 2016)

Pixelee said:


> so which of these can do Joe Hisaishi kind of stuff? My favourite track for example:




The melody in the opening of that piece gives me chills, WOW!!!

I don't know if you can get that level of richness from CSS. It is also a lot darker in tone to the string sound in this clip imho which although helped by EQ, doesn't quite result in the same level of clarity as the vid.

I think your best bet would be layering to get this sort of sound. CSS absolutely would be one layer, and something like Berlin Strings or Spitfire Strings could be the other to bring that clarity and bigger size into the sound.

Just some ideas, I might try to achieve this sort of sound in my next piece.


----------



## kavinsky (Oct 15, 2016)

CSS is nice indeed, but I wonder why they are so dull in tone in every demo I heard, almost lo-fi at times with a distinct bump in the high mids,
its predecessor CS2 sounds better out of the box in this regard

the legatos seem to be one of the best in the game though


----------



## fgimian (Oct 15, 2016)

kavinsky said:


> CSS is nice indeed, but I wonder why they are so dull in tone in every demo I heard, almost lo-fi at times with a distinct bump in the high mids,
> its predecessor CS2 sounds better out of the box in this regard
> 
> the legatos seem to be one of the best in the game though



CSS is indeed recorded quite dark, but it can be EQed to sound much more crisp and bright. The close mics in particular are the key to making this happen. I wonder if Alex and the crew used a dynamic spot mic for the close as it does have that SM57 type sound to it.


----------



## markleake (Oct 15, 2016)

fgimian said:


> CSS absolutely would be one layer, and something like Berlin Strings or Spitfire Strings could be the other to bring that clarity and bigger size into the sound.


Bigger size, yes. But I wouldn't call the sound in the video "clarity". I've listened to this exact same track many times before, and the strings are very blurred due to the huge orchestra and stadium size they are playing in. But it is far less dark than CSS in tone, yes.


----------



## ctsai89 (Oct 15, 2016)

kavinsky said:


> CSS is nice indeed, but I wonder why they are so dull in tone in every demo I heard, almost lo-fi at times with a distinct bump in the high mids,
> its predecessor CS2 sounds better out of the box in this regard
> 
> the legatos seem to be one of the best in the game though



except the legatos just takes way too long. I would not want to spend time all day working on how much ms i have to pull that midi back on each notes especially when im doing a midi mockup that changes the temple a bit every single second.


----------



## camelot (Oct 16, 2016)

Sometimes I use the VSL Exciter on the complete CSS to bring more shine. Make them sound a little bit more like CS2. It worked for me even better than EQing.

CSS is really a studio recorded string set. 
The individual sections are unnaturally strong divided over the panorama compared to any real listen experience. I work a lot with headphones, where it is extremely pronounced. 
The basses are far too much on the right for my taste.
It is funny, because for me, it is exactly the opposite of what most other poeple said. They say, CSS sound more like all sections are really playing together compared to other string-libs. For me, the sections sound too much appart from each other. The sections on both edges of the panorama (1st vio, bassi) sound far to pronounced compared to the inner sections (2nd vio, violas), which sometimes get kind of lost volume wise. 

At least, this is my impression, my opinion. Can be the complete opposite of many other's.


----------



## Vik (Oct 16, 2016)

NoamL said:


> Well one point of comparison is where they fit into the section size lineup
> 
> 16-16-12-10-8 ........ *LA Scoring Strings *(just four players shy of Wagner's specifications for *The Ring*)
> 
> ...


Thanks for that info, Noam. Looking at that list, and based on my own experiences with Merlin Strings and having listened to all the Sable/SCS demos, it would be really interesting with a library based on an ensemble just a tad larger than Sable/SCS, and slightly smaller than Berlin Strings.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Oct 16, 2016)

Vik said:


> Merlin Strings



I love these in combination with Harry Potter Celesta and Gandalf Woodwinds.


----------



## The Darris (Oct 17, 2016)

Vik said:


> Thanks for that info, Noam. Looking at that list, and based on my own experiences with Merlin Strings and having listened to all the Sable/SCS demos, it would be really interesting with a library based on an ensemble just a tad larger than Sable/SCS, and slightly smaller than Berlin Strings.


Spitfire Audio's Chamber Strings sounds bigger than you think but still gives a very defined sound. Still my workhorse library. Just personal preference though.


----------



## Rohann (Feb 7, 2017)

I apologize in advance for a thread necro (at least it's only from October), but since there seem to be users involved that have used both libraries:
I already have Hollywood Strings and Symphonic Orchestra (both Gold) from EW, and am looking for something to complement it. I really love the swooping, romantic "live" sound of CSS, but I'm not really aiming to write much "Hollywood" sounding music. I'm wondering if SCS will be a better complement to HWS for writing more exposed/intimate with a sort of "close detail", but also more useful when it comes to writing horror/thriller pieces for games that typical use more sound effects. I have some good feedback from people who have used one or the other, but not many that have used both (or have specific recommendations for genre/versatility).

Can anyone shed light on that specifically? Tons of good info on this site but a good deal of it seems to be directed at writing rather specific types of pieces. Thanks in advance! If anyone wants an example of what I'm looking for I can post something.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 7, 2017)

CSS is definitley better than SCS despite them having different sound. The legatos SCS is a bit sloppily programmed in Viola and 2nd violins. There are huge crescendos during a viola's legato vibrato when held long enough. 

Now if you compare SSS to CSS then i'd choose SSS although i think they're just about as good. I choose SSS because CSS has that huge nasty legato delay that I can't deal with (yes even in the classic legato patch)


----------



## Saxer (Feb 7, 2017)

I think SCS is a good choice if you want to add something different to HWS. Especially for this horror/thriller thing. There's no other library out there which has so much articulations to offer. And the intimate sound is beautiful. Compared to HWS it's less 'creamy' and more 'glassy'. I don't have any problems with the legatos since the update from Sable to SCS includes the new performance legatos.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 7, 2017)

I've been using SCS since it was first launched (Sable) and the same with CSS. Both are amazing libraries.

But I don't think it's possible to directly compare CSS to SCS because the two are completely different animals. If you are going to write something that requires a lot of unusual articulations (like the horror stuff you refered to) then the Spitfire libraries have a serious advantage over CSS because of the exotic articulations they include. But for melodic writing, my opinon is that CSS beats both of Spitfire offerings. 



ctsai89 said:


> The legatos SCS is a bit sloppily programmed in Viola and 2nd violins.



Are you referring to the new performance legato patches, ctsai? I've personally not encountered these problems you mention.. in fact my experience has been that as far as all Spitfire libraries go, these legatos seem to be some of the best they have programmed. My experience is mostly based on working with the older Sable versions though, any only a few weeks with the new SCS ones, so it is a bit limited with the most recent version..


----------



## jononotbono (Feb 7, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> CSS is definitley better than SCS despite them having different sound.



I personally couldn't make the comparison. I own both and they are so different that the only similarities, to me, is that they are String Libraries.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 7, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> I've been using SCS since it was first launched (Sable) and the same with CSS. Both are amazing libraries.
> 
> But I don't think it's possible to directly compare CSS to SCS because the two are completely different animals. If you are going to write something that requires a lot of unusual articulations (like the horror stuff you refered to) then the Spitfire libraries have a serious advantage over CSS because of the exotic articulations they include. But for melodic writing, my opinon is that CSS beats both of Spitfire offerings.
> 
> ...



the unwanted crescendo is in both new and old legato patches. Oh, and the new performance legato patches aren't mixed correctly with everything except the viola at at least -6 decibels. SSS had the same problem at first but I mailed them and they fixed it.


----------



## Rohann (Feb 7, 2017)

Thanks for all the feedback folks! For the "horror"/intimate sound I'm looking for the complement the rather "grand" sound I have in HWS, some quick examples, both in the size of the sound and the strange articulations (first 10-20 seconds should do -- I apologize for reposting these but I have yet to hear from folks that have both libraries):





Vulnerable:


It _does_ also need to be able to competently write smaller pieces that sound realistic though, aside from just horror-specific articulations (I think there are much cheaper routes to go if _just_ looking for these).

*ctsai89*: Is the crescendo in all the legato patches? I didn't notice these in the demos. You also mentioned SSS -- is that in the same ballpark as SCS? I always thought SCS sounded smaller and less like a Hollywood orchestra than CSS.

*Saxer*: Thanks for the recommendation. Do you find it takes a great deal of work to get them to sound good (SCS), or is it fairly streamlined aside from typical realtime CC performance, etc?

*Mikhel and jononotbono*: Glad to hear you've both used both these libraries -- any thoughts in specific reference to examples? I tried a recreation of the Dark Souls song with HWS but it sounds quite a bit bigger to my ear, seems difficult to get a "small" sound out of it (understandably). I have to say I'm quite impressed by the "unusual" demos for SCS on Spitfire's site, though the articulation list shows a lack of tempo-sync'd tremolo (how much I'd actually use that is debatable). I have a number of effects already in EWSO, but they're mostly on a pretty short loop with not a lot of flexibility. Sacconi is also something I'm considering, depending on how stackable it is.

I also have to bear in mind that there's about a $200 difference between the libraries with the student pricing I get so I'm curious on thoughts there as well.

CSS sounds very appealing but I am concerned about versatility -- in all honesty if I could trade HWS for CSS I just might, the polished "trailer music" sound that HWS has works great for some things but not as well for others.

Edit: 8dio's full Adagio is on the table too with their 70% off deal.


----------



## Rohann (Feb 8, 2017)

I apologize for my tendency to be "thorough" (read: verbose). Perhaps more focused questions would help.

For those that have both, I would love to hear what you personally use them for and how you approach them differently (if there's anything outside the obvious). They really do seem like two vastly different libraries for different purposes.
I'm also curious about any FX included in SCS, again for sound design or more "horror/suspense" purposes. I'm also extremely intrigued by Albion IV but I'm not sure if it's worth the cost yet, though it really does seem to be a complete library (brings to mind Brian Reitzell's work on Hannibal).


----------



## Saxer (Feb 8, 2017)

Rohann said:


> Do you find it takes a great deal of work to get them to sound good (SCS), or is it fairly streamlined aside from typical realtime CC performance, etc?


Always good to move strings by CCs but SCS isn't more demanding than other libraries. Aside from some leveling they work out of the box. Your Dark Soul example sounds similar to SCS close mics. By the way: I have no problems with any 'crescendos' in the legatos. And I really use them a lot.
But I hear a lot of aleatoric strings in the YT videos. Probably Spitfire EVO Grid are a good accompainment to SCS for the FX thing. There is a 'nearly' freebee at Spitfire showing the possibilities. I used it for a horror audio drama throughout. http://www.spitfireaudio.com/shop/a-z/scary-strings/


----------



## Rohann (Feb 8, 2017)

Saxer said:


> Always good to move strings by CCs but SCS isn't more demanding than other libraries. Aside from some leveling they work out of the box. Your Dark Soul example sounds similar to SCS close mics. By the way: I have no problems with any 'crescendos' in the legatos. And I really use them a lot.
> But I hear a lot of aleatoric strings in the YT videos. Probably Spitfire EVO Grid are a good accompainment to SCS for the FX thing. There is a 'nearly' freebee at Spitfire showing the possibilities. I used it for a horror audio drama throughout. http://www.spitfireaudio.com/shop/a-z/scary-strings/


Glad to hear that! I appreciate the feedback. Are the FX in SCS fairly standard (i.e. comparable to what HWS or SO has, not that they're really intended to sound the same as SCS)? I.e. gliss, trem, trill, etc? Or are there scratches, Pendereki, etc? The FX in SO actually sound not bad but they tend to loop very quickly and sound a bit low-fi in comparison.

EVO Grid and EVO Grid 2 sound pretty swell. I've also been looking at Albion IV but it's considerably more expensive. Any input on those would be welcome too (though I don't really want to derail this thread). I'd love some of their Labs strings but they all seem to require the full version of Kontakt...I could at least demo Scary Strings though.

*Re: Sable Legato*
I've read a lot about Sable's legato being quite finnicky and difficult to work with. Did the update to SCS fix those issues and make them more believable/playable?


----------



## Saxer (Feb 8, 2017)

Scary Strings and EVO Grid are notes that morph over time form clean to trem to scratch to flautando... very handy to make textures.
For me the SCS performance legatos are great. 
Just watch the videos.


----------



## ctsai89 (Feb 8, 2017)

Saxer said:


> Scary Strings and EVO Grid are notes that morph over time form clean to trem to scratch to flautando... very handy to make textures.
> For me the SCS performance legatos are great.
> Just watch the videos.




i like the SSS performance legato more.


----------



## chapbot (Feb 8, 2017)

tack said:


> I posted this elsewhere, so you may already have seen it, but I did a tiny comparison with the ensemble patches. In my mind, Spitfire wins this round, but I do very much like both libraries.




Thanks for this video - it made me decide on purchasing Spitfire last month


----------



## Rohann (Feb 8, 2017)

Thanks Saxer. I think it would worth the investment if not for the Kontakt investment. I'd love to see a screenshot of SCS's FX articulation list, they don't have one on their site.

ctsai: How do the two compare? The libraries themselves aren't particularly comparable are they?


----------



## Vik (Feb 9, 2017)

Rohann said:


> The libraries themselves aren't particularly comparable are they?


Not in size (number of players) but they are based around the same principles and using the same kind of coding, it seems.


----------



## Rohann (Feb 9, 2017)

Vik said:


> Not in size (number of players) but they are based around the same principles and using the same kind of coding, it seems.


True, but I find the outcome quite different. I think I'll eventually own both, and I think CSS will certainly serve more for the swooping melodic passages. Spitfire's seems amazing for more intricate/"exotic"/small pieces.


----------



## robgb (Feb 9, 2017)

camelot said:


> I am one of the few who finds the general sound of CS2 a tad better than CSS


I agree. I thought it sounded more natural.


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Dec 24, 2018)

robgb said:


> I agree. I thought it sounded more natural.



same.


----------



## mushanga (Nov 9, 2020)

Baron Greuner said:


> I agree John.
> 
> I don't have CSS, but I would gladly take it. That said, I spent a lot of time with Big sounding full strings libraries and in the end it's like flogging a dead horse for a lot of the applications the sound is meant to be required for. Most of the time from my personal perspective, I just can't use big, thick sounding strings that much, simply because for TV usage they're just that. Too Big sounding. I like the idea of the big sounding Hollywood sweeping strings through nostalgia more than anything else, but it becomes a bit like furniture. It looks great in the showroom, but when you get it home, it's way bigger than you thought it would be and you wind up taking it back and getting something similar, but smaller. There are times when I get out the big guns, but it's very rare these days. I've moved completely away from full blown scores. I was never great at them anyway, so SCS is a good excuse.
> One of the differences in all the full section string libraries and SCS, is that full string libraries don't really ever cut completely versus the real thing equivalent. They can sound a bit synthy at times. Whereas SCS can fool me into thinking I'm a big shot string player/arranger.
> ...


Hi Baron - I would be interested to know if, after all these years, SCS is still your main workhorse for TV work and that smaller string sound you wrote about?

Thanks!

EDIT: Looks like Baron is no longer a member here


----------

