# SPITFIRE - Announcing Spitfire Studio Strings! 24 Hours LEFT on Promo Price!



## Spitfire Team (Aug 30, 2018)

​


----------



## Nao Gam (Aug 30, 2018)

I propose S$S lol

Edit: In all seriousness, Spitfire put a lot of articulations in this one for a decent price


----------



## rottoy (Aug 30, 2018)




----------



## Zhao Shen (Aug 30, 2018)

This is a surprisingly generous price point. Seems that the main draw for this is the incredible variety of choice for section sizes.


----------



## benmrx (Aug 30, 2018)

Ok, so, this is awesome.


----------



## sostenuto (Aug 30, 2018)

If starting with Basic version 'today', will it be possible (before Sept 13) to Upgrade to Professional for the simple price difference ??
(cost is ~ 2X as new SSD needed for the ~250GB)


----------



## artomatic (Aug 30, 2018)

Dang it.


----------



## Loïc D (Aug 30, 2018)

I dunno if it's this announce or my brand new massage seat but I feel delighted.


----------



## Øivind (Aug 30, 2018)

Oh, i would love to have an upgrade/sidegrade path from Chamber Strings to the Studio Strings pro. The Divisi setup looks fantastic.


----------



## NathanTiemeyer (Aug 30, 2018)

Love the price for the basic edition! I will be keeping my eye on this series for sure!


----------



## Spitfire Team (Aug 30, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> If starting with Basic version 'today', will it be possible (before Sept 13) to Upgrade to Professional for the simple price difference ??
> (cost is ~ 2X as new SSD needed for the ~250GB)



YES

See FAQs here: https://www.spitfireaudio.com/info/faq/spitfire-studio-strings/


----------



## puremusic (Aug 30, 2018)

I am listening to this with a construction crew tearing up sidewalk not too many feet away. This.. is hard on me, the beautiful strings, then the jackhammers..


----------



## sostenuto (Aug 30, 2018)

Spitfire Team said:


> YES
> 
> See FAQs here: https://www.spitfireaudio.com/info/faq/spitfire-studio-strings/



Duuhhh 1 My Bad … gotta read those FAQ's 

SFA is too cool !!


----------



## AdamKmusic (Aug 30, 2018)

£159? That’s a very very attractive price!


----------



## will_m (Aug 30, 2018)

Damn that's a good price for what's on offer. I'm now very tempted.


----------



## stonzthro (Aug 30, 2018)

This sounds fantastic and what a nice price!. 
I see you guys have brass and winds planned (excited to hear what you come up with there as well), please, please consider doing a dry percussion library!

Love SFA!


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Aug 30, 2018)

Impressive price for what's in there. Sounds fab. I would love to see Spitfire pushing the envelope in terms of playability too - like Musical Sampling and Performance Samples have done. All the samples are recorded already, it's just a case of some tech wizards assembling some super turbocharged versions of the performance legato patches.
Something like this would be an ENORMOUS timesaver - especially when deadlines can be horrendous.


----------



## MisteR (Aug 30, 2018)

This sounds stunning.


----------



## anderslink (Aug 30, 2018)

Same space as BHT? Same mic setups? I'm assuming these would play extremely well together?


----------



## madfloyd (Aug 30, 2018)

Thank you so much for a DRY library!!! 

Is this going to be -6db like other SF libraries?


----------



## madfloyd (Aug 30, 2018)

Question for Spitfire: how long until the other Studio series libraries come out?


----------



## rottoy (Aug 30, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> Thank you so much for a DRY library!!!
> 
> Is this going to be -6db like other SF libraries?


They actually have 4 double basses, not negative 6.







I'll just show myself out.


----------



## procreative (Aug 30, 2018)

Tricky one for me:

*Pros*
Core version has a great price for the content.

*Cons*
I have Herrmann, same space similar arts, less sectional control.
Short articulation choice limited, no Staccato, Staccatissimo.

Very good overall, the Divisi is less of an attraction for me as the articulation choice is a bit limited.

Would have been nice to have a side by side comparison of Core vs Pro sound.


----------



## madfloyd (Aug 30, 2018)

rottoy said:


> I'll just show myself out.



With a sense of humor like that, please stick around.


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 30, 2018)

A bit of a weird name for a choir library.


----------



## catsass (Aug 30, 2018)

puremusic said:


> the beautiful strings, then the jackhammers..


Sounds like the cue I'm working on.


----------



## CT (Aug 30, 2018)

Wow, well... if the brass and woodwinds follow this same model, this looks like it will shape up to be pretty much the exact orchestral VI line I've been waiting for someone to make. All the better that it's from Spitfire. Time to start saving.


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 30, 2018)

Love that "Stretch" feature!


----------



## JeffvR (Aug 30, 2018)

Interesting. I'd have loved to see a bit less articulations and more dynamic layers on the legato side. I also wonder if Kontakt will remain the sampler of choice after HZ Strings.


----------



## Raphioli (Aug 30, 2018)

I honestly thought it was going to be more expensive, so I'm surprised at the $399 Pro pricing. (Its a decent amount of money of course generally speaking, but, for what you're getting, its generously priced IMHO)
Also surprised they also teased the woodwinds and brass.



sostenuto said:


> If starting with Basic version 'today', will it be possible (before Sept 13) to Upgrade to Professional for the simple price difference ??
> (cost is ~ 2X as new SSD needed for the ~250GB)


Library these days are getting bigger and bigger...
I bought the extra mics for the symphonic range during their sale, but haven't fully installed them yet since I still need to get another SSD... Probably a 1TB one.

BTW, regarding your question, they have a FAQ page which says the upgrade price is simply the price difference.

Edited: oh, but one thing. The price difference would obviously be different during their introductory pricing and their regular pricing. So you'll might want to ask how thats handled.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Aug 30, 2018)

JeffvR said:


> I also wonder if Kontakt will remain the sampler of choice after HZ Strings.


Yep, strange that the SF player hasn’t really been used again.


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 30, 2018)

I imagine that once their player has enough features to handle their libraries, they'll probably port all of their stuff over.


----------



## Leo (Aug 30, 2018)

So fellas, who this downloading now? I look forward to yours first Impressions...


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 30, 2018)

Why no Staccato. I only see Spiccato.

*Staccato* is a basic, and very important articulation to have. I wonder why it was not included.


----------



## Bill the Lesser (Aug 30, 2018)

Kinda seismic. I wonder how many furrowed-brow executive meetings this has generated in the sampling biz?


----------



## dogdad (Aug 30, 2018)

For some reason all of Spitfire’s web site has changed to GBP and is charging me VAT. Anyone know how to change it back to US currency?


----------



## Daniel F. (Aug 30, 2018)

This sounds really good. I think the Woodwinds in Studio One will be really dope.
The only thing I'm afraid of is that they won't do the brass good and that it will be weak. Please @Spitfire Team a good and rattling FFF layer or at minimum FF. Smaller brass sections playing heavy sounds really good.


----------



## dogdad (Aug 30, 2018)

Also, if anyone can, layer it with SCC. Does it blend? I was thinking about creating a hybrid between this, SCS and SsS.


----------



## Heledir (Aug 30, 2018)

Being poor AF I appreciate the price.


----------



## NoamL (Aug 30, 2018)

Hi Spitfire, sorry if this is answered in one of the videos, but: are the divisi sections front vs. back, or splitting the stands?


----------



## Spitfire Team (Aug 30, 2018)

NoamL said:


> Hi Spitfire, sorry if this is answered in one of the videos, but: are the divisi sections front vs. back, or splitting the stands?



Hi Noam, one to add to the FQ! Thanks for this.

Split stands...


----------



## ptram (Aug 30, 2018)

So, if woodwinds, brass and percussion are priced the same, a full high quality orchestra with lot of articulations will now cost only 1000 €/$ (twice for even more versatility)? Really shocking.

Paolo


----------



## NoamL (Aug 30, 2018)

Spitfire Team said:


> Hi Noam, one to add to the FQ! Thanks for this.
> 
> Split stands...



Cool, thanks!


----------



## sostenuto (Aug 30, 2018)

ptram said:


> So, if woodwinds, brass and percussion are priced the same, a full high quality orchestra with lot of articulations will now cost only 1000 €/$ (twice for even more versatility)? Really shocking.
> 
> Paolo



Maybe Symphony Orchestra Bundle gets quite close with good BlkFri discount.
So it gets down to 'New Chapter' or Air Lyndhurst for me. 

Any enthusiastic AIR voters before I choose ??


----------



## The Darris (Aug 30, 2018)

@Spitfire Team ; I'm really liking what I'm seeing in the articulation list. It would be great if we could get an additional walk through of the more colorful articulations found in the FX patches, especially the Hairpins and Textures. Also, any thoughts for adding some additional Legato patches such as the famous Fast and Runs Legato found in your Chamber Strings library? The way those patches work are wonderful and it would be great to have that capability with this library. In the Standard library walk-through, Paul demonstrated the Violins Legato and played a rather fast passage that did not sound very convincing at that speed. It seems like these legatos are designed for lyrical phrases in a more slow/long phrased performance. Thoughts?

Cheers,

C


----------



## The Darris (Aug 30, 2018)

Also, @Spitfire Team ; The "stretch" feature. Is this the same scripting from the other stretch features in your SSO line found in the TMPro Patches? If so, I do remember reporting some bugs with this in those libraries to which your Support line mentioned that this feature was not intended to be automated, it's more of a "set and forget" feature. Based on Paul's walk through, it seems like this isn't the case anymore. Can you confirm that and if so, will we be seeing an update to the older libraries with that feature so they can be automated now without issue?

Thanks,

C


----------



## dpasdernick (Aug 30, 2018)

puremusic said:


> I am listening to this with a construction crew tearing up sidewalk not too many feet away. This.. is hard on me, the beautiful strings, then the jackhammers..



Start and stop the video until you sync up with the Jackhammers. Who knows, this may be Zimmer's new trend and you could beat him to the punch.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Aug 30, 2018)

dpasdernick said:


> Start and stop the video until you sync up with the Jackhammers. Who knows, this may be Zimmer's new trend and you could beat him to the punch.


Nice to see you hammered the point home there...


----------



## procreative (Aug 30, 2018)

Can Spitfire explain something about the walkthrough for the Core Studio Strings?

As I understand it this version is Tree Mics only?

Is this walkthrough of this Mic position? If so why do some patches show a Mic mixer with varying positions between Close and Far in the GUI?

Just need to know whether we are listening to the sound of the Core library in the Core walkthrough and if so why the GUI seems to show it is adjustable? Was this done with a Beta that has since been fixed?


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 30, 2018)

The Darris said:


> any thoughts for adding some additional Legato patches such as the infamous Fast and Runs Legato found in your Chamber Strings library? The way those patches work are wonderful and it would be great to have that capability with this library.


I'm curious, did you mean to say "famous;" or was the Fast and Runs Legato actually infamous, and if so, then why?

Best,

Geoff


----------



## dogdad (Aug 30, 2018)

Hello, my name is Jason and I’m a string library addict.


----------



## TheSigillite (Aug 30, 2018)

Welcome, Jason. **whispering** you wouldn't happen to have any more of them string libraries? **insert Dave Chappele meme here*


----------



## dogdad (Aug 30, 2018)

Goodness knows I don’t need another library, but MAN, do these strings sound AMAZING!

I basically work for Spitfire at this point. Every other paycheck is a beautiful new library! 

I need to stay of the internet LOL!


----------



## dogdad (Aug 30, 2018)

Ok, the big question - Standard or Pro.

I like $199 and with already owning SCS Pro and SsS I’d probably be good. I’m planning to use it for layering. 

But... DIVISI!!!


----------



## The Darris (Aug 30, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> I'm curious, did you mean to say "famous;" or was the Fast and Runs Legato actually infamous, and if so, then why?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff


I meant famous because they were a huge game changer for the original Sable library (For me at least). I also consider them to be the best playable Runs legato on the market, above OSR and whatever string libraries with "adaptive" legatos can do. Again, this is all my subjective opinion but In my experience, their Runs Legato in Chamber Strings was certainly revolutionary at the time and still manages to maintain a heavy foothold in my template when I need to write those flourishing runs.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 30, 2018)

Thanks for clearing that up for me, *Chris*. I agree, it's a great feature!

I apologize if I'm being a jerk, but you may want to look up infamous. I don't know anyone whose command of language is perfect. Mine certainly isn't.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## The Darris (Aug 30, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> Thanks for clearing that up for me, *Chris*. I agree, it's a great feature!
> 
> I apologize if I'm being a jerk, but you may want to look up infamous. I don't know anyone whose command of language is perfect. Mine certainly isn't.
> 
> ...


Oh how embarrassing. I definitely meant famous in that case. Hahaha.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 30, 2018)

No worries, *Chris*. Who among us is perfect?

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 30, 2018)

@Spitfire Team, I realize I sound a bit like a broken record; but you might get more purchases if you extend the sale period to cover the next BMI quarterly royalty payment, which will occur the day after your introductory pricing ends.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Aug 30, 2018)

You had me at flautando.
I don't know if I have budget for this yet but it sounds/looks amazing. And if there are woods and brass coming...yup could be very good. Somebody mentioned perc earlier in the thread, have I missed something? I didn't see any mention of perc. from SF.


----------



## madfloyd (Aug 30, 2018)

So if I'm not mistaken this is available immediately, but there don't seem to be any comments from people who have purchased it...?


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 30, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> So if I'm not mistaken this is available immediately, but there don't seem to be any comments from people who have purchased it...?


It's a 210G download.


----------



## madfloyd (Aug 30, 2018)

D Halgren said:


> It's a 210G download.



The non-pro version is much smaller.


----------



## D Halgren (Aug 30, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> The non-pro version is much smaller.


That's true, but I have only been getting around 32mbps from their servers myself, so that might be slowing a lot of people. My internet is 400mbps.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 30, 2018)

Patience, young Skywalker.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Mr Mindcrime (Aug 30, 2018)

Hey guys, so maybe someone has a little advice for me... I'm currently saving my pennies for Spitfire Chamber Strings, hopefully to purchase before year's end, if not sooner. I've been craving SCS for a long time and it will help round out my current string options. 

So the question is.....would this new lib, Spitfire Studio Strings be a better choice? Is it an apples to apples comparison? Or is the obvious answer..... get them both


----------



## ism (Aug 30, 2018)

Mr Mindcrime said:


> Hey guys, so maybe someone has a little advice for me... I'm currently saving my pennies for Spitfire Chamber Strings, hopefully to purchase before year's end, if not sooner. I've been craving SCS for a long time and it will help round out my current string options.
> 
> So the question is.....would this new lib, Spitfire Studio Strings be a better choice? Is it an apples to apples comparison? Or is the obvious answer..... get them both



I'm in much the same position and picked up the $200 edition. Playing with it tonight, and the results are really good ... although of course the single fairly dry mic means that you're never really get the full AIR Lyndherst effect of SCS. On the upside, slathering on a bit (actually quite a bit) of Valhalla Room it does seem to mix well with other AIR-L libraries, which has my biggest concern. 

So initial impression ... if you really, really want SCS, hold out for SCS if at all possible, as no dry library is going to be the same ... and yet ... this lib really has many of the best qualities of SCS (in addition to its own qualities as a dry library in its own right), including the flautandos, and of course the sound in general ... so ... well I'd argue at the very least that it's a question worth agonizing obsessively. 


And if that wasn't a very helpful answer, I'll see if I can post some noodling mixing it with other AIR (lyndhurst) libs at some point.

Fun library though, quite regardless of reverb angst.


----------



## mgpqa1 (Aug 30, 2018)

Stupid question... is it safe to assume that the two divisi sections are each unique/different sets of recorded samples?


----------



## quantum7 (Aug 30, 2018)

mgpqa1 said:


> Stupid question... is it safe to assume that the two divisi sections are each unique/different sets of recorded samples?



Yes.


----------



## Fry777 (Aug 30, 2018)

@Spitfire Team could we get a bit more information about the vibrato control please ? What kind of vibrato range can we expect ?


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 30, 2018)

Raphioli said:


> BTW, regarding your question, they have a FAQ page which says the upgrade price is simply the price difference.
> 
> Edited: oh, but one thing. The price difference would obviously be different during their introductory pricing and their regular pricing. So you'll might want to ask how thats handled.



I seem to remember reading that you pay the price difference that existed at the moment of buying the non-pro version.


----------



## Ihnoc (Aug 31, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Why no Staccato. I only see Spiccato.
> 
> *Staccato* is a basic, and very important articulation to have. I wonder why it was not included.


Yes, an interesting one. I guess the brushed articulations could fill this purpose?


----------



## ysnyvz (Aug 31, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Why no Staccato. I only see Spiccato.
> 
> *Staccato* is a basic, and very important articulation to have. I wonder why it was not included.


In reality spiccato doesn't have that wide dynamic range. Spitfire's spiccato is a hybrid of spiccato and staccatissimo. If you have their libraries, start playing same note from lowest velocity to highest. You'll hear slight change of timbre and length around forte dynamic.


----------



## Tice (Aug 31, 2018)

Spitfire goes dry while VSL goes wet... strange world we're living in


----------



## SpitfireSupport (Aug 31, 2018)

procreative said:


> Can Spitfire explain something about the walkthrough for the Core Studio Strings?
> 
> As I understand it this version is Tree Mics only?
> 
> Is this walkthrough of this Mic position? If so why do some patches show a Mic mixer with varying positions between Close and Far in the GUI?


Hi there,

It sounds like you're referring to the 'easy mix' in the simple view, which by default would balance between Close, Tree, and Ambient mics with one fader. As Studio Strings only has the Tree mic available, this will instead control the wetness of the built-in convulution reverb. Everything in the walkthrough is absolutely using the library advertised, as is the case with all of our walkthroughs.

Luke


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 31, 2018)

Ihnoc said:


> Yes, an interesting one. I guess the brushed articulations could fill this purpose?



No.

Imho. Not including Staccato, and varying degrees of Staccato is very odd, especially for a professional strings library.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Aug 31, 2018)

Fantastic sounding library. I'm downloading it right now. 

One thing I'm curious about... I sort of thought that since Spitfire went through the trouble and expense of building their own engine (first used for the HZ strings), I'm surprised that they're not using it for this new library. Wonder if there's more to that story. Is it possible that showing they were serious about building their own engine got NI to make some concessions?


----------



## MrHStudio (Aug 31, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Fantastic sounding library. I'm downloading it right now.
> 
> One thing I'm curious about... I sort of thought that since Spitfire went through the trouble and expense of building their own engine (first used for the HZ strings), I'm surprised that they're not using it for this new library. Wonder if there's more to that story. Is it possible that showing they were serious about building their own engine got NI to make some concessions?




I suspect it’s about development cycle they started this 3 years ago so had significant work on it before developing the HZ engine Projects starting more recently may well be in the new engine.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Aug 31, 2018)

Eager to hear more demos


----------



## morphling (Aug 31, 2018)

I pulled the trigger and I'll try to write down my impressions of it next week. Third (and for sure last) strings library purchase this year from spitfire audio so it's been a very expensive year for me. I started out with Hans Zimmer Strings which have been personally for me been the biggest letdown I've done in a purchase in a long time. I barely use it and I regret severely buying into the hype of it. The Solo Strings meanwhile, while limited, is a very good library that have been really growing on me and I hope they fix some of the remaining issues with it over time. Let's hope the studio strings is the last piece that I'm missing (as I already own the chamber strings as well).


----------



## madfloyd (Aug 31, 2018)

I wouldn't hold my breath on any fixes to libraries unless they're really major goofs. The way I see it, Spitfire is so busy pumping out libraries that I just can't see them having the bandwidth to polish anything post release. The work that goes into creating these libraries is tremendous and they are so prolific. 

If they do release a patch, consider it a bonus but safer to just not count on it. 

I've lost track of the number of releases but I somehow held off on HZ, Solo Strings and the BDT (which was my fave although I thought all sounded really good). It seems the releases are coming so fast that most of us can't afford to buy them all! 

I do think I will buy this one, just trying to decide between regular and pro. I'm one of the ones who have been asking for this type of library so I better darn well put my money where my mouth is this time.


----------



## emasters (Aug 31, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> One thing I'm curious about... I sort of thought that since Spitfire went through the trouble and expense of building their own engine (first used for the HZ strings), I'm surprised that they're not using it for this new library. Wonder if there's more to that story. Is it possible that showing they were serious about building their own engine got NI to make some concessions?



At this point, glad it was released on Kontakt. Nothing against the Spitfire player -- but with HZ Strings, just doesn't get as much use outside of Kontakt. Lack of Multi ability with other instruments slows things down for me with the Spitfire player (not a big template user, combining instruments on the fly). If everything Spitfire released was in their player and one could overlay multiple libraries/patches - then no need for Kontakt. Good direction for Spitfire, but will be good when they are further down the path with their player.


----------



## morphling (Sep 1, 2018)

First impression after sitting with it for just 30min or so. Good sound but as usual with spitfire libraries the legato is once again flawed. Not sure why they even bother including these articulations anymore since they can never get them right.


----------



## star.keys (Sep 1, 2018)

morphling said:


> First impression after sitting with it for just 30min or so. Good sound but as usual with spitfire libraries the legato is once again flawed. Not sure why they even bother including these articulations anymore since they can never get them right.



Thank you for saving my money... I appreciate your feedback


----------



## morphling (Sep 1, 2018)

star.keys said:


> Thank you for saving my money... I appreciate your feedback


Actually after restarting my system for some reason a "ducking" that was going on before seems to have disappeared. Can't really say why. Anyway. I have to say the sound is really good though so don't be to fast to save that money. This might turn out to be a very good library. But yeah I'll give you a longer update next week.


----------



## Will Blackburn (Sep 1, 2018)

How dry is this compared to something like Lass?


----------



## re-peat (Sep 1, 2018)

Spitfire,
A very minor imperfection in the programming, one that certainly doesn't spoil the fun, but perhaps worth knowing about anyway: the _b-Violins 1 (8) - Long Harmonics (Stereo)_ patch (found in the Stereo Mixes > Advanced > Individual articulations folder) doesn't produce any sound when Mix2 is selected. (Mix1 is ok though.)

_


----------



## Francis Bourre (Sep 1, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Spitfire,
> A very minor imperfection in the programming, one that certainly doesn't spoil the fun, but perhaps worth knowing about anyway: the _b-Violins 1 (8) - Long Harmonics (Stereo)_ patch (found in the Stereo Mixes > Advanced > Individual articulations folder) doesn't produce any sound when Mix2 is selected. (Mix1 is ok though.)
> 
> _


Not sure it's the best place to report a bug.  Would be better to report to the support directly, don't you think?


----------



## ka00 (Sep 1, 2018)

I just downloaded the core edition.

Here are some quick observations I've made so far:
*
Legato patches (either standard or performance legato):*
- it sounds to me like at the top third of the slider, the loudest dynamic actually flows the best from one note to another
- the middle third of the slider, sounds like a middle dynamic layer, where the legato transitions are ever so slightly less flowy, unless I'm imagining things
- at the lowest third of the dynamics slider (or maybe the bottom 25%), the articulation does not sound like legato samples at all, and in fact the sound quality abruptly changes to a sort of flautando, (this is the same whether you're set to non-vib or vib)
- vibrato is not progressive. Bottom half of the slider has no vibrato, then abruptly vibrato is engaged for the top half of the slider (similar to other Spitfire libraries)
- the legato is pretty agile
- I'm thinking the legato transitions are the same recordings for the non-vib and vib versions of the samples, based on the fact that even when set to non-vib, the transition appears to have a split second of vib happening during the transition, but this is a total nitpick, I will admit.

*Con Sordino patch:*
- sounds like there are three dynamic layers, but crossfading between the middle and top dynamic layer yields a subtle but weird formant shift that has the potential to get annoying, but it's very subtle so hopefully not
- vibrato sounds like two layers: non-vib and then vib with no crossfading between then, either on or off style

*Decorative techniques:*
- nice colours and textures

*Other notes:*
It appears that there's no ensemble patch (I didn't check before purchase if there would be one). It will certainly be missed.


----------



## emasters (Sep 1, 2018)

ka00 said:


> It appears that there's no ensemble patch (I didn't check before purchase if there would be one). It will certainly be missed.



I didn't find one either -- would have been nice to include this for sketching out ideas.


----------



## Alex Niedt (Sep 1, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath on any fixes to libraries unless they're really major goofs. The way I see it, Spitfire is so busy pumping out libraries that I just can't see them having the bandwidth to polish anything post release.


They've pushed out multiple patches since the Solo Strings release, and they're incredibly receptive to feedback and bug reports. I've been emailing back-and-forth with one of their support members for a few weeks now about very minor issues, relatively speaking, and the team's totally on it, 100%. Spitfire support is awesome. Response times are very fast, as well. Actually, I'd go as far as saying their support is the best I've experienced with a sample library company.


----------



## ism (Sep 1, 2018)

So with the caveat that this is really just more of my amateur noodling, I though I'd share an experiment - I'm mostly just working out how to add reverb and mix it with libs recorded in AIR lyndhurst.


Here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours, using:

- lots of Vc + Vl flautando, and then Vl + Vc + Va legatos 
- Just the tree mics
- lots (ie. *lots*) of Valhalla Room reverb. One of the cathedral presents.
- no eq or any other processing.






Some thoughts:


- Valhalla room is a perfectly adequate reverb here, which alleviates my biggest concern about buying this library. SCS, or a higher end reverb, would probably be better for such a wet piece, but all in all, I'm very happy with the sound. Although I set out to write something really drenched in reverb thinking it would be the easiest type of sound to get working - I'm really just trying to replicate SCS here, and not trying to take advantage the "studio" dry sounds. (So I'm probably not using the library in the way it is supposed to be used, in much the same way that I don't actually plan to ever write any British drama with the British Drama Toolkit).

- even with the slathering of reverb, you still hear quite of lot detail, which I really love. I'm not sure precisely how this compares to SCS, since you have both the hall sound + the fact that it has smaller sections to account for. I'd be curious to get a better sense of the difference.

- I love the sounds of the winds here, but more importantly, how they blend - which was largely the point of the experiment. I did find myself needing to quite a lot of close mic on the winds, in addition to the tree, as well a surprising amount of the Valhalla reverb. I normally wouldn't add so much external reverb to SSW, but it helped give them consistency with the strings. Probably not the most realistic orchestral mix, but that's not the sort of think I tend to worry about.

- the legatos are limited compared to other libraries, but I do find them quite expressive, and the dynamic range is better than a lot of libraries (although I tend to crank up the volume and use only the lower couple of layers anyway).

- there's a little bit of (spitfire) solo strings as a flourish at the end. I love the way it just adds a bit of even finer detail, and again it fits really nicely in the mix, for these three notes. But in general I had a more difficult time figuring out how to get them to fit. Which is something I struggle with for all solo strings libraries. So that's something to revisit.

Basically, I just really love the sound of these musicians and how they've been captured. More advanced legato would have been nice. As would a close mic (without having to go pro). And some dynamic arcs (a la L&S). And progressive vibrato longs. And rebowing (which is a must-have on the next string library I buy).

But for $200, I just don't think you can beat this for its sheer sonority.


----------



## CT (Sep 1, 2018)

That sounds *very* nice! The legatos are quite pleasing there.

Up until Thursday, I'd been pretty grumpy lately because I still don't have a proper core orchestra in my lineup, just an ever-shifting mishmash of a semi-decent one. Now, I'm kind of glad it's taken me this long to really start building one....


----------



## D Halgren (Sep 1, 2018)

Alex Niedt said:


> They've pushed out multiple patches since the Solo Strings release, and they're incredibly receptive to feedback and bug reports. I've been emailing back-and-forth with one of their support members for a few weeks now about very minor issues, relatively speaking, and the team's totally on it, 100%. Spitfire support is awesome. Response times are very fast, as well. Actually, I'd go as far as saying their support is the best I've experienced with a sample library company.


That has been my experience as well.


----------



## anderslink (Sep 2, 2018)

Their support and user experience have improved immensely in the past couple years. They are now more like Native Instruments than the original Spitfire Audio in many ways. They probably have a different business model too.

They put so much thought into these beautiful long articulations but as noted earlier still haven't perfected the art of legato. To be fair that's not an easy task but I'd expect them to be able to hire the best of the best to do it.


----------



## amorphosynthesis (Sep 2, 2018)

anderslink said:


> They put so much thought into these beautiful long articulations but as noted earlier still haven't perfected the art of legato. To be fair that's not an easy task but I'd expect them to be able to hire the best of the best to do it.


The art of legato at least to my ears was nearly mastered in Spitfire Chamber Strings,where the performance legato enabled you to almost "play strings" on your keyboard(something that was as well present in Artisan Strings legato(now alternative) and Sacconi Quartet)
The fact that this kind of patch is nearly perfect,made me ask the Spitfire support group about plans on expanding that possibility to Spitfire Solo Strings(they don't have performance legato).The answer was negative.
On the other hand when the Sable Strings(former name of the chamber strings) came out,there was a promise...there would be expansions,there would be different kind of legatos,there would be fast legato runs,there would be no vibrato to molto vibrato.It took years but I think to my ears at least it came true.Now we don't have nothing promised,so nothing more to expect rather than just what we are buying.
To me abandoning that performance patch legato(with port-slur,finger,bow and fast runs legato) is just stepping backwards.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 2, 2018)

I'm also curious about the apparent abandonment of the performance legatos and noticed a conspicuous lack of Andy Blaney demos for any product since the Bernard Herrmann library... curious...


----------



## brenneisen (Sep 2, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> and noticed a conspicuous lack of Andy Blaney demos for any product since the Bernard Herrmann library... curious...



(great) Music by Andy Blaney.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 2, 2018)

Ah great. wondering why this track isn't listed as a demo on the product page but I stand corrected. Still confused and disappointed by their abandonment of the performance legatos in Solo Strings and Studio Strings. They really do work and are pretty great.


----------



## rocking.xmas.man (Sep 2, 2018)

but the website lists under legato patches: Legato performance.
is this something different?


----------



## brenneisen (Sep 2, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> Still confused and disappointed by their abandonment of the performance legatos in Solo Strings and Studio Strings. They really do work and are pretty great.



ye, that's unfortunate. I wish they've made that a standard feature on all products that have legato (even when there's only one type).


----------



## brenneisen (Sep 2, 2018)

rocking.xmas.man said:


> but the website lists under legato patches: Legato performance.
> is this something different?



yes. Like the ones on Mural before the SSS update. 

Legato Performance != Performance Legato


----------



## amorphosynthesis (Sep 2, 2018)

rocking.xmas.man said:


> Legato performance.
> is this something different?


Yes.It's the standard legato performance(eg fingered legato for velocities 21 to 127 and portamento below 21)-it's different than Performance patches(or legato) that includes shorts etc

That realization after purchasing Solo strings might make me abandon spitfire(hard core Spitfire fan since the original albion-of course if performance patches return I might return)


----------



## Tice (Sep 2, 2018)

After hearing Schmitz's demo it appears to me that the library has some tuning problems. When you get a dry setup recorded as intimately as this library has been, you really can't afford to be even the slightest bit out of tune.


----------



## Nao Gam (Sep 2, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> I'm also curious about the apparent abandonment of the performance legatos and noticed a conspicuous lack of Andy Blaney demos for any product since the Bernard Herrmann library... curious...


He has a demo with HZS as well


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 2, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> He has a demo with HZS as well



Missed it on the product page too.


----------



## thesteelydane (Sep 2, 2018)

amorphosynthesis said:


> The art of legato at least to my ears was nearly mastered in Spitfire Chamber Strings,where the performance legato enabled you to almost "play strings" on your keyboard(something that was as well present in Artisan Strings legato(now alternative) and Sacconi Quartet)
> The fact that this kind of patch is nearly perfect,made me ask the Spitfire support group about plans on expanding that possibility to Spitfire Solo Strings(they don't have performance legato).The answer was negative.
> On the other hand when the Sable Strings(former name of the chamber strings) came out,there was a promise...there would be expansions,there would be different kind of legatos,there would be fast legato runs,there would be no vibrato to molto vibrato.It took years but I think to my ears at least it came true.Now we don't have nothing promised,so nothing more to expect rather than just what we are buying.
> To me abandoning that performance patch legato(with port-slur,finger,bow and fast runs legato) is just stepping backwards.



The problem with the performance legato is the timbre change, presumably because it uses fewer voices. It’s less noticeable in chamber strings, but VERY notiacble in Sacconi - the viola legato sounds awful, while the viola longs that the legato uses sound great. You also lose the ability to adjust vibrato, while many of the “old” legato patches in SCS actually has very good vibrato cross fading. If I write with the performance legato I always replace it with the indivual legatoes and shorts later - it just sounds better that way.


----------



## paulmatthew (Sep 2, 2018)

ism said:


> So with the caveat that this is really just more of my amateur noodling, I though I'd share an experiment - I'm mostly just working out how to add reverb and mix it with libs recorded in AIR lyndhurst.
> 
> 
> Here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours, using:
> ...




Nice piece but what is that small thud at :02 , :11 ,:42 1:32 ? I heard in other places but really stuck out in those sections.


----------



## SpitfireSupport (Sep 3, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Spitfire,
> A very minor imperfection in the programming, one that certainly doesn't spoil the fun, but perhaps worth knowing about anyway: the _b-Violins 1 (8) - Long Harmonics (Stereo)_ patch (found in the Stereo Mixes > Advanced > Individual articulations folder) doesn't produce any sound when Mix2 is selected. (Mix1 is ok though.)
> 
> _


Hi re-peat, this has been addressed and will be released in the next update. 

Luke


----------



## re-peat (Sep 3, 2018)

Thanks very much, Luke, but don’t bother on my account, because I have meanwhile arrived at the certainty, after a more thorough exploration of the 210 gigabyte of material, that I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway. I am now of the opinion, you see, that this product is the worst thing that Spitfire has ever released. Infuriatingly unworthy, in fact, of Spitfire as I used to know and love them.

In any other circumstance I would follow the previous sentences with a polite ‘sorry’, but in this case I won’t because I strongly believe that it is Spitfire who should say 'sorry' to its customers for shamelessly selling them this awfully substandard material as a pro-end product. If I didn't know any better, this library could actually make me believe that Kirk Hunter had bought Spitfire.

Very best but deeply disappointed regards,

Piet

_


----------



## Simon Ravn (Sep 3, 2018)

Wow, tough comments from re-peat. But he is very critical and demanding, but most of the time right, so I listen when he comments here. As I stated in another thread (CSS vs SF Studio Strings), I thought something sounded way off from the beginning I listened to this. I am glad I didn't hurry out and got this because I had the feeling I would indeed hardly, if ever, end up using the library because of it's sound, programming etc.

Heck, even Paul doesn't sound excited about the product in his walkthroughs which this time seem like mere technical presentations of the products.

Hmm.


----------



## Musicam (Sep 3, 2018)

Is it possble walktroughs videos differents? Thanks!


----------



## ysnyvz (Sep 3, 2018)

My expectations were not high and I only bought it for layering with other libs. So far it works for me as adding definition tool. Main problem with library is inconsistency. You know things like dynamic layers, legato transitions, volume, tightness etc. In first few minutes with library you start noticing them. For example viola spiccato is totally different compared to cello spiccato. It seems like spitfire was in a hurry during recording, editing, programming it. I don't regret my purchase but I'm glad it was only $199.


----------



## ism (Sep 3, 2018)

paulmatthew said:


> Nice piece but what is that small thud at :02 , :11 ,:42 1:32 ? I heard in other places but really stuck out in those sections.



It’s the pedal mic on the piano


----------



## Musicam (Sep 3, 2018)

ism said:


> It’s the pedal mic on the piano



Cool! Look the manual, amazing!


----------



## paulmatthew (Sep 3, 2018)

ism said:


> It’s the pedal mic on the piano


Ah, I figured it wasn’t the strings but just wanted to make sure and it’s not a big deal. I actually enjoy some of that realism sometimes especially on an oboe or clarinet .


----------



## ism (Sep 3, 2018)

paulmatthew said:


> Ah, I figured it wasn’t the strings but just wanted to make sure and it’s not a big deal. I actually enjoy some of that realism sometimes especially on an oboe or clarinet .



Yep, some of those pedal releases made more sense in the context of the piano lines in which they were original recorded. So sloppy midi editing and, as I said, amateur noodling all round. 


But the more I play with this library, and get a sense of the performance and sheer sonority its capable of, the more I love it. I've been working on tweaking the midi, and between the vibrato and the dynamic layers, and there clearly better performances to be had than these first noodling, so this is all good. And I know of nothing comparable for $200.


My wish list though: (for a hypothetical expansion):


1. Rebowing. I really, really love rebowing. And its absence really puzzles me - all this work painstakingly sampling all the legato intervals - *except*, for some reason, the root note itself? Maybe there's a technical complexity I don't understand here. But it affects maybe 40% of the legato lines I write (or would write if I could get repeated notes to sound better). I think the next thing I need to work on is how to tweak the midi for repeated notes in legato lines (any tips?). But rebowed legato samples would be hugely, hugely welcome. Actually, this is becoming a sin quo non for any future string library purchases (that don't involve Olafur Arnalds).


2. flautando legato. Because, obviously. (Random suggestion: An Olafur Arnalds-all-flautando-legato string library. Can't tell you how quickly I would buy this. And as a side note: to all the people who wonder why we would ever need yet another string library - have you ever listened to an Olafur Arnalds record? I find myself using the OACE not as so much as an evo grid as 15 different sul tasto articulations. And nothing would make be happier than yet-another-string-library with yet another 15 variants on sul tasto articulations, unless of course it's a yet-another-string library with 15 more variants of flautando articulations ... or better yet variants of flautando articulations with legato ... or a solo string library of 15 variants of all-flautando legato ... I guess I'm just really not feeling the string library fatigue that some people seem to be suffering from)


3. bowed legato, or even just slightly faster slurred legato. I wonder if there mightn't be a relatively simple time machine based way to get this? I don't need fast runs particularly, or hyper-virtuosic fast legato a la Sacconi, but just slightly faster legato. I can live without it at this price point, but it would be very nice thing to have.


4. And somewhat relatedly, I'd really like a not-quite-so-molto vibrato for the solo strings, which I think might help them sit better with this library. Although still working on figuring out how to blend these libraries, so my thought on this are very much in progress.


----------



## Eptesicus (Sep 3, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Thanks very much, Luke, but don’t bother on my account, because I have meanwhile arrived at the certainty, after a more thorough exploration of the 210 gigabyte of material, that I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway. I am now of the opinion, you see, that this product is the worst thing that Spitfire has ever released. Infuriatingly unworthy, in fact, of Spitfire as I used to know and love them.
> 
> In any other circumstance I would follow the previous sentences with a polite ‘sorry’, but in this case I won’t because I strongly believe that it is Spitfire who should say 'sorry' to its customers for shamelessly selling them this awfully substandard material as a pro-end product. If I didn't know any better, this library could actually make me believe that Kirk Hunter had bought Spitfire.
> 
> ...



Ouch.

I did think the demos sounded...odd.


----------



## SoNowWhat? (Sep 3, 2018)

Could be another marmite this one. If you can make good music with it then more power to you; that's a good thing. I think I was hoping for "more" from the full set and I am definitely needing "more" budget before making another purchase. Having SCS I'm not sure this adds enough to move.


----------



## axb312 (Sep 3, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Thanks very much, Luke, but don’t bother on my account, because I have meanwhile arrived at the certainty, after a more thorough exploration of the 210 gigabyte of material, that I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway. I am now of the opinion, you see, that this product is the worst thing that Spitfire has ever released. Infuriatingly unworthy, in fact, of Spitfire as I used to know and love them.
> 
> In any other circumstance I would follow the previous sentences with a polite ‘sorry’, but in this case I won’t because I strongly believe that it is Spitfire who should say 'sorry' to its customers for shamelessly selling them this awfully substandard material as a pro-end product. If I didn't know any better, this library could actually make me believe that Kirk Hunter had bought Spitfire.
> 
> ...



Hi Piet ,

I wonder if it's the inherent dryness in this library that's making it sound bad to other Spitfire stuff? Part of the sound of a Spitfire library as we've come to expect it has been the Hall sound.

Is it this? Or is it something else? Do share so other potential buyers (like me) could judge for themselves if these things would bother them or not...


----------



## ka00 (Sep 3, 2018)

Here's a track I made today using SStS. I used ample amounts of Lexicon Large Hall reverb.

Specific patches used are:
- Violins legato 1 and 2 layered
- Celli and Bass legato layered
- a flautando multi ensemble.


----------



## keepitsimple (Sep 3, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here's a track I made today where all strings are from SStS. I used ample amounts of Lexicon Large Hall reverb.
> 
> Specific patches used are:
> - Violins legato 1 and 2 layered with some flautando violins
> ...



Am i going tone deaf or do those legato violins sound synthy? I like what you did with the Flautandos though.


----------



## erica-grace (Sep 3, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Thanks very much, Luke, but don’t bother on my account, because I have meanwhile arrived at the certainty, after a more thorough exploration of the 210 gigabyte of material, that I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway. I am now of the opinion, you see, that this product is the worst thing that Spitfire has ever released. Infuriatingly unworthy, in fact, of Spitfire as I used to know and love them.
> 
> In any other circumstance I would follow the previous sentences with a polite ‘sorry’, but in this case I won’t because I strongly believe that it is Spitfire who should say 'sorry' to its customers for shamelessly selling them this awfully substandard material as a pro-end product. If I didn't know any better, this library could actually make me believe that Kirk Hunter had bought Spitfire.
> 
> ...



Wow.


----------



## CT (Sep 3, 2018)

keepitsimple said:


> Am i going tone deaf or do those legato violins sound synthy?



It definitely sounds like there's some high end that needs to be tamed if you're going to pour the reverb on thick.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 3, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Thanks very much, Luke, but don’t bother on my account, because I have meanwhile arrived at the certainty, after a more thorough exploration of the 210 gigabyte of material, that I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway. I am now of the opinion, you see, that this product is the worst thing that Spitfire has ever released. Infuriatingly unworthy, in fact, of Spitfire as I used to know and love them.
> 
> In any other circumstance I would follow the previous sentences with a polite ‘sorry’, but in this case I won’t because I strongly believe that it is Spitfire who should say 'sorry' to its customers for shamelessly selling them this awfully substandard material as a pro-end product. If I didn't know any better, this library could actually make me believe that Kirk Hunter had bought Spitfire.
> 
> ...



Piet, If I may ask what in particular are the dissapointments to you? You spoke that you will not use any bits of the library so thats a broad statement and I am curious about that.


----------



## star.keys (Sep 3, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here's a track I made today using SStS. I used ample amounts of Lexicon Large Hall reverb.
> 
> Specific patches used are:
> - Violins legato 1 and 2 layered with some flautando violins
> ...




Oh boy... my trusty old JV 2080 has better strings patches


----------



## Consona (Sep 4, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here's a track I made today using SStS. I used ample amounts of Lexicon Large Hall reverb.
> 
> Specific patches used are:
> - Violins legato 1 and 2 layered with some flautando violins
> ...



What are those weird instruments? Is it Uist or something?


----------



## Old Timer (Sep 4, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Thanks very much, Luke, but don’t bother on my account, because I have meanwhile arrived at the certainty, after a more thorough exploration of the 210 gigabyte of material, that I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway. I am now of the opinion, you see, that this product is the worst thing that Spitfire has ever released. Infuriatingly unworthy, in fact, of Spitfire as I used to know and love them.
> 
> In any other circumstance I would follow the previous sentences with a polite ‘sorry’, but in this case I won’t because I strongly believe that it is Spitfire who should say 'sorry' to its customers for shamelessly selling them this awfully substandard material as a pro-end product. If I didn't know any better, this library could actually make me believe that Kirk Hunter had bought Spitfire.
> 
> ...



What a shame you don't like it. I think the only sample library I bought that I actually regretted was a harp library but that was only $40 or so. Hopefully, after a little time you might find something you like in Studio Strings. I can't believe Spitfire would knowingly and 'shamelessly' create a 'substandard' sample library. Why would they? 

I've read some of your other posts because of the strong views expressed in this one and it's clear you have a lot of knowledge and experience, and of course have had a chance to 'test drive' Studio Strings, which I have not. Having said that, the walkthroughs I've listened to sound pretty good to my untrained ears. 

I hesitate to offer advice, but is there any mileage in coming back to this sample library once your disappointment is less intense? You might see it with new eyes (or hear it with new ears). Just a thought. 

Best wishes, Old Timer.


----------



## rocking.xmas.man (Sep 4, 2018)

edit: no need to link to what piet states below


----------



## re-peat (Sep 4, 2018)

Below a few excerpts from what I wrote on The Sound Board.
(Mike, if this is against the rules of not polluting a commercial thread with criticisms, trash the following and please accept my apologies.)

- - -

If I have to condense my first (and probably lasting) impressions in a score, I’d say: 4/10. In words, that translates as: something of a disappointment.

First of all, Spitfire Studio Strings is certainly not what it says on the box: “an incredibly versatile pro-end stage sample library” (I purchased the 210 gig so-called 'professional' edition). For starters, it’s not ‘incredibly versatile’ at all, due to the incomprehensible absence of a lot that is required for spirited, agile and tightly focused performances — I’m thinking of a.o. a diverse collection of musically useful, crisp, shorter bowings — and, secondly, try as I may, I can’t call it ‘pro’ either because it is simply too undersampled in several key areas, and often sounding rather questionable too, to deserve that tag.

(…)

The absence of a versatile collection of quality short bowings is the big problem though. Not only is there only one short articulation — not counting the one-velocity-layer ‘Brushed’ (*) patch which some of the desks also have —, but this ‘Short Spiccato’ is also very uneven in speed, character and tightness across the instruments’ range (a very frustrating thing, I find), and there is simply not enough dynamic timbre differentiation in these shorts either.

(The dynamic range of the library, which is considerable, is on the whole much too much artificially created by mere volume, instead of by actual timbral changes. Another major short-coming in a supposedly pro-end product, if you ask me.)


(*) Weirdly, this ‘Brushed’ patch sounds completely different depending on which instrument section you choose: in the Violins1, it is a short soft-ish stroke, in the Vlns2 and the Cellos, it is slightly longer, but in the Violas it is at least three times as long as it is in the other sections. Odd.

To give you an idea of how infuriating this neglect for the short bowings is: if there’s only one short patch, and it is a bad as it is for, say, the 6 Celli, you have no short samples to work with at all for that particular section.
Here’s *a quick comparison* between, first, the Sable Cellos Spicc followed by the StudioStrings 6 Cellos Spicc, the latter displaying, to my ears anyway, a degree of ugliness I never thought I’d ever encounter in a Spitfire library. (Both use the same midi data.)
To be fair to the library and its developer, that 6 Cellos Spicc patch is not representative at all of how the Studio Strings (incl. most of its spiccato patches) sound. This uncharacteristic patch is simply a good illustration of what the paucity of decent short bowings forces you to work with in certain cases.

(…) and a collection of FX-articulations (glisses, runs, falls, slides, atonal gestures, …) the uselessness of which is at times (I’m thinking of the violins phrases) sadly comical. Lots of really good and great-sounding stuff in there as well, absolutely, but you can’t but shake your head and wonder: all of that … but hardly any decent shorts?

The legato is an acceptable legato I suppose, but neither the slurred or the portamento legato should ever be mentioned in the list of big selling points of this library, in my opinion. They don’t offend the ear, certainly not, but if you’ve said that, you’ve said everything.

It’s not just the absence of versatile short bowings that stand in the way of rendering lively, agile performances with this library, it’s also the rather slow-ish, non-affirmative character of most everything else that contributes to it.

And the sound? Well, a lot of it sounds pretty good, I find. At times even exquisite. (Which is what convinced me to buy it.) But considering that this is supposed to be the pro-end of Things Sampled, “a lot of it” just isn’t enough, I find. A library that truly deserves being called professonal, and aims to satisfy the professional user, shouldn’t have nowhere near as many weak spots, omissions, sloppy samples — almost every legato patch has a couple of flawed or clumsy transitions which, if they occur more than once in a phrase, immediately expose the artifical nature of the sounds and the performance — nor the degree of being-undersampled-where-it-matters which these Studio Strings suffer badly from.

And sadly, there’s also a lot that doesn’t sound good at all: I hear the exact same sort of problems in these samples as I do when I (or someone else) stacks samples: that near-constant borderline phasing, those whiney resonances, that strange unpleasant auto-filtering that is going on … (and it’s those things, together with some very sloppy editing and careless programming that I associate first and foremost with KH, hence me mentioning that name earlier on).

(…)

I have of course no problem making many allowances for Christian’s and Paul’s view on what a string library of theirs should deliver, but when it reaches the point where that view, or the result from it, is clearly at odds or even in contradiction with how they market and sell the library, something’s very wrong, in my opinion.

When I buy a library that is claimed by its creator to be “an incredibly versatile pro-end stage sample library”, I expect, and I believe justifiably so, something quite different, and a whoooole lot better, than what the Studio Strings amount to. I don’t mind that Spitfire’s obsession with gloomy Nordic vista’s, eerie string textures and things-moving-at-a-snail-like-pace is again overly apparent in the library, but I only don’t mind as long as it isn’t at the expense of the library being and functioning as what it was sold to me to be. And that is, alas, very much the case here.

But still, if that was all there was to it, I still wouldn’t be nearly as annoyed and displeased as I am. What I mind most of all is the inferior quality of much of the material. *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/SStS_Violas_Longs.mp3 (Listen to this.)* These are a few notes with the longs (not legato’s) of the violas. I don’t think I need to tell anyone here that if you put sounds like these in a mock-up, the thing is instantly ruined, and ruined beyond repair. And believe me, Studio Strings contains way too much of this sort of material.

Several years ago, around the time when I expressed an interest in buying the Spitfire Bespoke Strings, Paul elucidated me at length about Spitfire’s vision, principles, work ethic and aspirations. And those words of his rang like a beautiful hymn in my ears: words of passion, dedication, a non-compromising striving for the highest possible quality, and a great love for music. I was totally mesmerized. And when the Bespoke’s arrived, it was proof — despite its several short-comings and an at times frustrating degree of unfinishedness — that Spitfire wasn’t just bedazzling me with beautiful words, no, they actually delivered on them. And I was no longer just mesmerized, but deeeeeply impressed. And then ‘Sable’ arrived, and still later a few very fine BML libraries, all of them further cementing my belief in, and love for the work they were doing. (And let’s not forget the always sensational, at times sublime work that Andy Blaney — one of the finest composers of our day, in my opinion — did with these libraries, work which to me sounded like a celebration of everything that Paul had been talking about all those years ago.)

Since then there have been a couple of releases and direction-changes which have made me raise the eyebrows a bit, I admit, but nothing too worrying and certainly nothing that prepared me for the Studio Strings, the sort of library that is in fact everything that Paul said Spitfire would never make: an all-corners-cut, technically inferior, sonically weak, sloppily assembled and inconsistent collection of samples.

(...)
_


----------



## Vik (Sep 4, 2018)

re-peat said:


> I will never use a single byte of it in any of my music anyway


Thanks for the review you just posted, re-peat! A question for you: Since you write that "a lot of it sounds pretty good, I find. At times even exquisite", isn't never using "a single byte of it in any of my music" a tad... dramatic?

It seems that it may be a good idea for Spitfire (and a few other companies) to consider increasing the level of quality control a little before a library (or demo) is being published. But also (probably not intensional, but nevertheless)... the pitch/pan/other issues in SStS were also demoed, which to me means: "don't buy this yet, especially not the expensive version".

I'm not in any way saying that it's your own fault that you have been disappointed; these demos and maybe the initial version of SStS have more issues than SF libraries usually have, and that's the main thing here. But my feeling is still that with an update or two, this could become really good, because - as you say - there's already good/exquisite stuff in there.

Now back to music.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 4, 2018)

Huh, aren’t we now in Sample Talk territory here, instead of Commercial Announcements?


----------



## Musicam (Sep 4, 2018)

I havent bought yet this library. Its needs a deep video review, I would like that Mr Henson will talk about that. I find the sound: spectacular but this library needs updates.


----------



## slidemasterx (Sep 4, 2018)

I'm still very much on the fence whether to buy the core version or wait for black friday and just get CSS.


----------



## Nao Gam (Sep 4, 2018)

slidemasterx said:


> just get CSS.


Do it


----------



## Musicam (Sep 4, 2018)

So much reverb, five o six spaces ..


----------



## madfloyd (Sep 4, 2018)

That 'Sable' clip sounds great - did that morph into a library of a different name?


----------



## Musicam (Sep 4, 2018)

Anyway, for me Studio Strings is a workhose!


----------



## tack (Sep 4, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> That 'Sable' clip sounds great - did that morph into a library of a different name?


Spitfire Chamber Strings. You'll also see references to Mural, which became Spitfire Symphonic Strings.

I personally like the charm of the original names.


----------



## blougui (Sep 4, 2018)

Another case of "If only there was a resale policy" - not to mention "try before buy" (I grabbed SA Chamber strings thanx to the sampler - a few articulations - they once put online)


----------



## N.Caffrey (Sep 4, 2018)

blougui said:


> Another case of "If only there was a resale policy" - not to mention "try before buy" (I grabbed SA Chamber strings thanx to the sampler - a few articulations - they once put online)


Do you mean Orchestral Swarms?


----------



## Consona (Sep 4, 2018)

ka00 said:


> The woods and brass are normal instruments made weird with post processing.


Thx. Any tips for tutorials and plugins?


----------



## Begfred (Sep 4, 2018)

I think this library is pretty nice. I use a bit more eq than usual to tame some harshness in the top end. But this is due the size of the room and ensemble. Maybe I would turn those EQ off in a contextual mix. 

Otherwise it as this detailed close sound expected when recording a small/mid size strings ensemble in a studio. It should cut trough a dense mix more easily then most strings libraries.

The Long patch have a great dynamic range with make it pretty expressive when riding the mod wheel.
One inconstancy I've noted for now, the viola short brushes are way longer than the others.


----------



## The Darris (Sep 4, 2018)

I will certainly echo a lot of @re-peat's comments on the previous page but probably with a lot less color. His critical analysis of the samples themselves and how they are edited is spot on. The shorts in this library are frustrating to work with and are hardly "versatile". The divisi spiccatos are slightly better but there are some odd timbre/dynamic issues that aren't consistent from section to section. I did receive this product as an NFR and it will be fully reviewed with the rest of the Studio Series after they are released. On paper, this library looks great. It has a lot that I'm interested in and excited about but trying to work with it for the past two days, I've continually told myself, "SCS does all of this so much better." Like @re-peat , I am certainly in the corner rooting for Spitfire because of my experience as a user. I never used the Bespoke line, but I entered into the Spitfire user experience back when all they had was Albion, Solo Strings, and the Joby Burgess Percussion. I was a day one Sable early adopter and after so many years, it's still among the best/most comprehensive orchestral string packages on the market. There is a magic in those Spitfire libraries that is missing entirely in Studio Strings and I honestly hope they will read the critical views expressed by those using this library without defense because those of us want this to be a good library. We aren't going out of our way to "bash" here. I think we have worked with the best of what Spitfire has to offer and the way this library was presented to us made us feel like that was what we were getting. However, when using it, it certainly falls short of that experience.

-C


----------



## blougui (Sep 4, 2018)

N.Caffrey said:


> Do you mean Orchestral Swarms?


No, Sable. BAck in the days they made a sampler of Sable to download for those who whanted to have a -very small- taste of it. When Sable was remplaced by SCS, I layered my Sable taster with SSS and or Albion One and this trials and tests, as trivial as they were,helped me make my mind up greatly and I ended up buying SCS.


----------



## N.Caffrey (Sep 4, 2018)

blougui said:


> No, Sable. BAck in the days they made a sampler of Sable to download for those who whanted to have a -very small- taste of it. When Sable was remplaced by SCS, I layered my Sable taster with SSS and or Albion One and this trials and tests, as trivial as they were,helped me make my mind up greatly and I ended up buying SCS.


Oh yeah, I got that one too. I was so impressed with the quality. I'm sure of they did this thing again with their libraries they'd sell more!


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 4, 2018)

Not to bash SFA in general, but this example is for me an indicator that they should not release so many products because simply it seems they rush too much from one release to the next and the quality suffers and they did put a lot of stuff out during the last couple of years.

Quality over quantity not the other way around, but there is the question: I get the feeling that they aim the mass market and try to cash in with many products? See also the price tag. A bummer to be honest because I actually like drier libraries a lot recently. But I don´t like neither their marketing direction nor this mass production releasing thing where it seems they reached a point where their product quality starts to diminish.


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 4, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Not to bash SFA in general, but this example is for me an indicator that they should not release so many products because simply it seems they rush too much from one release to the next and the quality suffers and they put a lot of stuff out during the last couple of years. Quality over quantity not the other way, but there is the question: I get the feel that they aim the mass market and try to cash in with many products, see also the price tag. A bummer to be honest because I actually like drier libraries a lot recently. But I don´t like neither their marketing direction nor this mass production releasing thing.



Didn't SA mention that they have been working on their Studio Strings for the past 3 years ?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 4, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Didn't SA mention that they have been working on their Studio Strings for the past 3 years ?



I don´t know how long they worked on that. But what I know is that they released a lot of stuff during the last 12 months.


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 4, 2018)

I don't mind them releasing lots of stuff, as long as they are well done, no quality compromises, and sound well. IMHO. Productivity is a good thing, as long as it doesn't come at a cost in quality.

I also feel that planning what a library should include is a very important decision, i.e. I still don't understand how they didn't include Staccato, and variaous degrees of Stacatto articulations in their Studio Strings. Something I would have given a high-priority to if I was a developer.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 4, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> I don't mind them releasing lots of stuff, as long as they are well done, no quality compromises, and sound well. IMHO. Productivity is a good thing, as long as it doesn't come at a cost in quality.



I don´t mind too, so completely agreed here.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 4, 2018)

I haven't read here any reaction by SF to any concerns raised here. But I'm thinking that despite anything anyone has brought up here, this library might just be exactly what they wanted it to be. And I wouldn't gauge success by comments here.
As everyone knows, there are tons of arts here, and divisi sections. This thing might be selling thousands and thousands of copies to newer SF customers all over the world. It's useful to keep in mind what a small portion of the business VI Control represents, and size wise the US is big, Europe is big, but China is bigger than those two together. There are lots of buyers out there, and not all so demanding as we are here!


----------



## jtnyc (Sep 4, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Not to bash SFA in general, but this example is for me an indicator that they should not release so many products because simply it seems they rush too much from one release to the next and the quality suffers and they did put a lot of stuff out during the last couple of years.



and all the while they don't address existing issues... still missing mics in Tundra...


----------



## ka00 (Sep 4, 2018)

Alright, so I posted a demo of these strings that people called synthy, and then I see that Christian Henson decides to no longer post on vi-control! Coincidence???? I don't got time to be blamed for that, so I've reworked the lead strings in a mad dash to spare myself the two finger salute I may have earned.

- I reduced the amount of reverb
- I added more vibrato (non-vib can sound synthy)
- I used a touch of Zynaptic Intensity
- I massaged the midi programming

What say you vi-control?! Does this have a more organic, artisanal, certified rosin-enriched vibe? Or is it pure vintage analog synth? Are you going to buy these damned strings or not?


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 4, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Alright, so I posted a demo of these strings that people called synthy, and then I see that Christian Henson decides to no longer post on vi-control! Coincidence???? I don't got time to be blamed for that, so I've reworked the lead strings in a mad dash to spare myself the two finger salute I may have earned.
> 
> - I reduced the amount of reverb
> - I added more vibrato (non-vib can sound synthy)
> ...



Like this a lot! Just a novice so ignorant question. This is Pro, not Core ?


----------



## ka00 (Sep 4, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> Like this a lot! Just a novice so ignorant question. This is Pro, not Core ?



Thanks, @sostenuto! It’s core. Still undecided about Pro. Waiting for some in depth reviews of Pro, hopefully before the earlybird deadline.



Consona said:


> Thx. Any tips for tutorials and plugins?



Plugins I like using to mangle audio: zPlane ElastiquePitch, Eventide Blackhole, Audio Damage Discord, SoundToys pan man, decapitator, devil loc, crystallizer, etc. Infected Mushroom Wider, Fabfilter Saturn, Zynaptic Adaptiverb, Intensity, u-he Colour Copy.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 4, 2018)

ka00 said:


> I see that Christian Henson decides to no longer post on vi-control!


I see that he decided to stop posting in his vlog thread, but I don't see that he decided to stop posting on the entire site. Are you sure about that? Maybe I missed something.



christianhenson said:


> Thanks for your support all.... gonna switch this thread off (in my head) now, if you want to subscribe to more posts go here:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/c/christianhensonmusic
> 
> ...


Best,

Geoff


----------



## Consona (Sep 4, 2018)

@ka00 Thank you!


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 4, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Alright, so I posted a demo of these strings that people called synthy, and then I see that Christian Henson decides to no longer post on vi-control! Coincidence???? I don't got time to be blamed for that, so I've reworked the lead strings in a mad dash to spare myself the two finger salute I may have earned.
> 
> - I reduced the amount of reverb
> - I added more vibrato (non-vib can sound synthy)
> ...



I like your example but this is a bit in the vein of Spitfire Scoring..it doesn´t show much of a stresstest for strings. Not everybody does this ambient stuff. But try to mock up something like agile / fast / energetic, maybe classical. Your whole piece also features other instruments clouding the strings, also that huge reverb doesn´t do a favor at all to get the strings exposed. Don´t get me wrong, while I like your atmospheric piece and there is nothing wrong with it, I wouldn´t use this piece to demonstrate any strentgh or weakness, mate. Go and mockup Mozarts Figaro with the studio strings then you see what it sounds like.


----------



## Francis Bourre (Sep 5, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Not everybody does this ambient stuff... Go and mockup Mozarts Figaro...


Ahem, I guess not everyone "does this classical opera stuff". Everyone should feel free to write the kind of demos he likes.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 5, 2018)

Francis Bourre said:


> Ahem, I guess not everyone "does this classical opera stuff". Everyone should feel free to write the kind of demos he likes.



Sure, and that is not my point. I didn´t say that he is not allowed to write the stuff he likes so. That was entirely not the point here.


----------



## Eptesicus (Sep 5, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> I like your example but this is a bit in the vein of Spitfire Scoring..it doesn´t show much of a stresstest for strings. Not everybody does this ambient stuff. But try to mock up something like agile / fast / energetic, maybe classical. Your whole piece also features other instruments clouding the strings, also that huge reverb doesn´t do a favor at all to get the strings exposed. Don´t get me wrong, while I like your atmospheric piece and there is nothing wrong with it, I wouldn´t use this piece to demonstrate any strentgh or weakness, mate. Go and mockup Mozarts Figaro with the studio strings then you see what it sounds like.



Agreed. If i'm honest, most string libraries can do slow ambient type stuff pretty well.

agile, intricate and melodic stuff...well that is more of a test for a string library.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 5, 2018)

Old Timer said:


> I hesitate to offer advice, but is there any mileage in coming back to this sample library once your disappointment is less intense? You might see it with new eyes (or hear it with new ears). Just a thought.
> 
> Best wishes, Old Timer.



Excellent attitude to have. I was initially a little disappointed with a brass library I bought last year, and put it away deciding it wasn't worth the trouble to integrate into my template. Past few weeks when I was building the ultimate template, I pulled it out of cold storage and found it could do things no other library I have can achieve. There's always at least a few good samples in there... 



ism said:


>




I still think this sounds pretty damn good. YMMV. It reminds me of those British nature documentary shows. Sure it's "nothing but artsy longs," it sure isn't Mozart's Figaro, but it has personality and detail. The neutrality of the sound is an asset in this kind of writing compared to the overt sentimentality & expressiveness of CSS and to a lesser degree what I've heard of Light&Sound CS. I don't think SF's recent libs like HZS and SStS are suffering in quality, they're just increasingly failing this forum's "but can it play Star Wars" stress tests because that's less and less what they're designing towards. For those of us who prize realism and basically want the fantasy of a Hollywood silver age scoring orchestra at our fingertips (i.e. me and Alexander S and Mike V and all the other usual suspects), this library ain't it and I knew it was quickly from looking at the articulation list. For the composers who are _actually working_ in Hollywood today, I can see them easily putting this product to work.

EDIT: Hmm, I made it sound like none of us are working in Hollywood. That isn't quite what I meant, it's late  just, the people who are working on current TV shows for instance, will probably love this as much as they loved the Swarm libraries.


----------



## Consona (Sep 5, 2018)

NoamL said:


> "but can it play Star Wars" stress tests


Best criterion ever.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Sep 5, 2018)

NoamL said:


> I don't think SF's recent libs like HZS and SStS are suffering in quality, they're just increasingly failing this forum's "but can it play Star Wars" stress tests because that's less and less what they're designing towards


I agree. I've always found it strange that new libraries are compared against a set of forum imposed standards _("Is the legato as good as CSS? Can it play The Robber?")_ rather than being viewed as unique tools that can do unique things.

Technical misgivings aside, the bottom line is that a skilled and competent composer should be able to make great music with this library.


----------



## blougui (Sep 5, 2018)

@alex : this strings are not presented in a Swarm fashion or Evo-new-version. 
Piet sure is a skilled and competent composer.
Erik


----------



## Alex Fraser (Sep 5, 2018)

blougui said:


> @alex : this strings are not presented in a Swarm fashion or Evo-new-version.
> Piet sure is a skilled and competent composer.
> Erik


Hey Erik - can I assume to meant to tag me?
I'm not sure what you meant by the first part of the comment - but as for the second, I wasn't referring to Piet.


----------



## procreative (Sep 5, 2018)

Alex Fraser said:


> I agree. I've always found it strange that new libraries are compared against a set of forum imposed standards _("Is the legato as good as CSS? Can it play The Robber?")_ rather than being viewed as unique tools that can do unique things.
> 
> Technical misgivings aside, the bottom line is that a skilled and competent composer should be able to make great music with this library.



I dont think the criticisms of some of their libraries are about this at all.

And this library in particular is sold as to be a workhorse not an esoteric one like Tundra, as the marketing says:

_"incredibly versatile pro-end dry stage sample library"
"a string library with depth, detail and focus all at once"
_
So judgements are based on what is hinted at not some unrealistic expectation. And I suspect the flame war that HZ Strings brought was down to the naming and the section size leading many to expect big and bombastic.

Is this place a forum or is it a paid for marketing platform? If its the former then, we should all be allowed to agree/disagree without malice and developers should accept the rough with the smooth.

It does not mean we dislike the company or its products period, it means we know what they can achieve and that is the standard we judge by.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Sep 5, 2018)

procreative said:


> I dont think the criticisms of some of their libraries are about this at all.
> 
> And this library in particular is sold as to be a workhorse not an esoteric one like Tundra, as the marketing says:
> 
> ...


Sure, but I wasn't referring to Spitfire in particular with the comment about comparisons.


----------



## paulwr (Sep 5, 2018)

I have much more digging into the library to do, but I bought it (the Professional version) immediately due to the sound of the demos and walk-through videos as I'd just been handed a job to make a several tracks of live violin and violas become a major string section for a "James Bond" style song track. This library worked very well and the producer that uses live strings often went nuts for the sound. I told two composers I would have paid $1000 for this library. Again, I have a lot further to dig, I didn't use much but the legato's and spiccato. I have a number of string libraries including other Spitfire titles including Chamber Strings, but in this town, Nashville, it is my LASS that makes me money due to dryness and the wonderful things the divisi approach brings to the table. This library so far is like a turbo charged LASS with the multiple mic positions, being mainly dry, and of course the divisi approach that I'm so in love with. I was at first worried that the divisi sections were too much alike vs the LASS being so different which is part of their charm, but it turned out to work very very well at least for the first job with them. I look forward to digging much deeper. Loving Studio Strings at this point.


----------



## Musicam (Sep 5, 2018)

Love Studio Strings!


----------



## Musicam (Sep 5, 2018)

paulwr said:


> I have much more digging into the library to do, but I bought it (the Professional version) immediately due to the sound of the demos and walk-through videos as I'd just been handed a job to make a several tracks of live violin and violas become a major string section for a "James Bond" style song track. This library worked very well and the producer that uses live strings often went nuts for the sound. I told two composers I would have paid $1000 for this library. Again, I have a lot further to dig, I didn't use much but the legato's and spiccato. I have a number of string libraries including other Spitfire titles including Chamber Strings, but in this town, Nashville, it is my LASS that makes me money due to dryness and the wonderful things the divisi approach brings to the table. This library so far is like a turbo charged LASS with the multiple mic positions, being mainly dry, and of course the divisi approach that I'm so in love with. I was at first worried that the divisi sections were too much alike vs the LASS being so different which is part of their charm, but it turned out to work very very well at least for the first job with them. I look forward to digging much deeper. Loving Studio Strings at this point.



Love Studio Strings!


----------



## Musicam (Sep 5, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Alright, so I posted a demo of these strings that people called synthy, and then I see that Christian Henson decides to no longer post on vi-control! Coincidence???? I don't got time to be blamed for that, so I've reworked the lead strings in a mad dash to spare myself the two finger salute I may have earned.
> 
> - I reduced the amount of reverb
> - I added more vibrato (non-vib can sound synthy)
> ...



Less reverb


----------



## CT (Sep 5, 2018)

NoamL said:


> For the composers who are _actually working_ in Hollywood today, I can see them easily putting this product to work.



There's also another group, unless I'm the only one in existence, who finds that a lot of these Spitfire releases suit a certain strain of classical/ambient music very well. 

It's not *just* for media use, because classical music isn't *just* the Figaro overture.


----------



## ism (Sep 5, 2018)

NoamL said:


> It reminds me of those British nature documentary shows. Sure it's "nothing but artsy longs," it sure isn't Mozart's Figaro, but it has personality and detail. The neutrality of the sound is an asset in this kind of writing compared to the overt sentimentality & expressiveness of CSS and to a lesser degree what I've heard of Light&Sound CS. I don't think SF's recent libs like HZS and SStS are suffering in quality, they're just increasingly failing this forum's "but can it play Star Wars" stress tests because that's less and less what they're designing towards. For those of us who prize realism and basically want the fantasy of a Hollywood silver age scoring orchestra at our fingertips (i.e. me and Alexander S and Mike V and all the other usual suspects), this library ain't it and I knew it was quickly from looking at the articulation list. For the composers who are actually working in Hollywood today, I can see them easily putting this product to work.




I think I know what you mean here in a technical sense, but just to texture this a bit, I wouldn't describe the sound of these strings as at all 'neutral'. If anything, I find the classic hollywood sound 'neutral' - not because of any intrinsic qualities of the sound, but just because having grown up immersed in that sound it becomes the kind of default orchestral sound. Maybe you can argue for a kind of British understatedness in the SStS sound here, but only in that it knowingly eshwews the excesses of that drippingly-hollywood luke-I-am-your-father sound.

Of course, I really do love both sounds. But I actually don't think one is instrinsically more neutral than the other, its just that they operate on different emotional planes. And yes, "British Nature documentary' is probably closer to the emotional plane I'm going for than 'A galaxy far, far away'  

In any event, both planes are vast and expansive in their possibilities, and far from mutually exclusive - I remember one particular scene in a (French) nature documentary that, through some absolutely gobsmacking photography, had a scene (involving amorous snails ... its kind of hard to describe) that managed to rise to an moment of epic grandeur entirely worthy of the 'galaxy far, far away' plane.


----------



## ism (Sep 5, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> ... try to mock up something like agile / fast / energetic, maybe classical. Your whole piece also features other instruments clouding the strings, also that huge reverb doesn´t do a favor at all to get the strings exposed. Don´t get me wrong, while I like your atmospheric piece and there is nothing wrong with it, I wouldn´t use this piece to demonstrate any strentgh or weakness, mate. Go and mockup Mozarts Figaro with the studio strings then you see what it sounds like.





And I appreciate your points here. But I have to wonder why you would recommend mocking up Mozart with this library? Granted, I suppose I can see how this might have value as an exercise, although kind of a masochistic one, to test the extreme limits of one's midi programming. I'd be very interested to see how far someone with the skill of say, yourself, or Andy Blaney, could push this library in a Mozart mock up before hitting its inevitable breaking point. 

But to any one who really cares about Mozart mock ups I would have to say - don't buy this library! Nothing about any of the marketing even obliquely implies 'hey this would be a good library to buy if you love mozart Mock ups'. And one way to read the absent of a legato performance patch is as an admission that 'hey, you might not want to get your hopes up about any really earnest attempts to mock up Mozart with this library.' 


But seriously, I think there's a couple of interesting things here. Going back to your earlier critique of the library with respect to your preference towards crafting more "musical" lines - I do understand what mean here. And at some point I'd really like a library that really focuses on crafting lines with lots of seamlessly integrated articulations in the manor of Williams (or Mozart). (Which in practice probably means picking up something like SCS or something with a comparable performance legato at some point). 

But having established in some detail what this library isn't - which is important, but not exactly the aspect of sample library criticism that calls for the most incisiveness - lets focus for a minute on what it is. 

Take my piece above. Definitely not Mozart. But equally, I wouldn't want to say that my love of Mozart is nowhere present in this piece - for there remains a certain classical sensibility in, for instance, the counterpoint of legatos lines. Is the thematic material here strong enough to merit sitting down with pencil and paper to develop into a composition of more sophisticated? ... yeah, probably not. (But this is the direction I hope to move it.)

What I did get out of this experiment - in terms of crafting 'musicality' was:

1. the bass flute sounds, quite unexpectedly, *awesome*. Seriously, I doubt Mozart every wrote such an awesome bass flute line, even though it has only two notes (actually one note twice). 

Partly this is because I'm not sure that the bass flute was invented in Mozart's era, but mostly because what I was trying to accomplish in this piece was really just to figure out how to mix the various elements, and the mix I came to has quite a bit of close + tree mics and more that a splosh of external reverb on the flutes ... so in order for Mozart to get anything like this effect, he would have needed a string orchestra at one end of a cathedral, and then a bass flute standing right directly on your left, and an alto flute directly on your right ... so I guess technically Mozart might have been able to pull this off if there was only a single person in the audience ... or I suppose if member of the audience had their own bass and alto flautists on ... but then this would quickly have become prohibitively expensive in the context of 18th century chamber music ... my actual point here is I was able to achieve a certain *sonority* (of flutes and the flautandos). And having found it, I can now revisit in a (hopefully!) more sophisticated composition.

2. The legatos, within their predictable limitations, sound great. The dynamic range is excellent, the dynamic crossfade very good. And more to the point, it's really fun to play - by which I mean it's really worth investing effort in crafting a performance for a legato line. I've learned the hard way that its best to learn the range of what you can reasonably perform with a library before attempting to write for it. 

So the broad takeaway is not just that its sounds nice, its that I now have a sense of the kind of performaces that are possible - the space in which to craft "musical" lines. And it's surely not as a large a space as you can find in other libraries. But I'll take a relatively small space (ie slur and portamento legato only) of possible musical lines executed really well over a larger space executed less well. Which is the perennial trade of sonority over expressivity endemic to any sample library. Of course I'd love a library with another dozen or so types of legato, someday. But this library really hits sweet spot for me. 

3. The violas and violins really work together, not just in harmony, but in contrapuntal dialogue. You'de think this should be obvious, but my experience with other libraries says that it really isn't. I'm not quite sure how to articulate it, but it does influence the way I write. So another sweet spot. 


4. I was also able to mix the alto flute with the strings - again, not just harmonically, but in countrapuntal dialogue. Again I don't quite know how to articulate it, except there's a big different when two instruments are kind of working together in counterpoint, and when they're *really* working together in counterpoint. Here they're really working. Which makes me very happy (even though the actual composition they're playing is pretty lame). 


---- 

So I guess my broader point is that I want to affirm the way you talk about crafting "musical" lines, but also emphasize that this process of crafting musical lines extends beyond traditional melody, harmony and orchestration. (Which I'm sure you know, I just really want to hammer the point).

Now, I'm really not kidding when I say that the above piece just a bit of noodling - at least at the level of crafting melody and harmony, which I (obviously I think) put virtually no effort into. 

But I do think I was successful in exploring the sense of the "musicality" of this library. For instance - in the way that the performances of the melodic lines can be crafted, in the way contrapuntal lines can be blended, in the way that it not only mixes well with the woodwinds, but in how allow *interaction* with the woodwinds both contrapuntally (the alto flute), harmonically (the bass clarinet), and even on a level of almost pure sonority (in the single, but completely *awesome*, note of bass flute over the flautandos).


So when I'm fiddling about with the reverb and the stereo image and the close mics on the bass flute - is this just engineering, or is it properly composition? Either way, I'm starting to see it as a process of searching for an elusive musicality.


----------



## ism (Sep 5, 2018)

miket said:


> There's also another group, unless I'm the only one in existence, who finds that a lot of these Spitfire releases suit a certain strain of classical/ambient music very well.
> 
> It's not *just* for media use, because classical music isn't *just* the Figaro overture.




And I'd like to really strongly affirm this also. What's really inspiring me at the moment is a lot of new music that has connections to classical chamber music. Jane Antonia Cornish, for example, being among my favorite composers: chamber music, but with a touch of minimalist. I don't know if she'd put it like this, but I understand her work as not so much traditional minimalism, but more that she's really looking for the 'musical' at the level of sonority, but without ever abandoning the harmonic and melodic core of chamber music in the best tradition of (for example) Mozart. I really love her records.

So without criticizing anyone, I would like to suggest that when there's a sometimes implied, or maybe even wrongly perceived dismissiveness towards a library when its described as "good for underscore", or "nothing but artsy longs" or "British nature documentary" (although I am personally happy to take both of these as a compliment) - one variant of this being a dismissal all recent spitfire libraries as basically the same concept - maybe this doesn't give the element of sonority as a legitimate dimensional of serious composition its full due?


But these criticisms (perceived or otherwise), have got me thinking about (and defending) my own composition compositional practice, so its all good. .


----------



## babylonwaves (Sep 5, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Alright, so I posted a demo of these strings that people called synthy, and then I see that Christian Henson decides to no longer post on vi-control! Coincidence????


Drama! I missed that so much ...
@chillbot - here's the action


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 5, 2018)

ism said:


> And I'd like to really strongly affirm this also. What's really inspiring me at the moment is a lot of new music that has connections to classical chamber music. Jane Antonia Cornish, for example, being among my favorite composers: chamber music, but with a touch of minimalist. I don't know if she'd put it like this, but I understand her work as not so much traditional minimalism, but more that she's really looking for the 'musical' at the level of sonority, but without ever abandoning the harmonic and melodic core of chamber music in the best tradition of (for example) Mozart. I really love her records. ******* .



Luv these fabulous tidbits for those with far different backgrounds !! 
Now have (4) Album: _Jane Antonia Cornish_ (flac) Playlist streaming throughout home. 
THX so much ....


----------



## re-peat (Sep 5, 2018)

NoamL said:


> I don't think SF's recent libs like HZS and SStS are suffering in quality (...)



I don’t know about HZS, Noam, but the Studio Strings exhibit flaws and a level of sloppyness that beggars belief. 
Listen to the following (and never loose sight of the fact that we’re talking about a _professional_ library here). 

Here are the attacks of the longs of the Violins4B (that’s the second of the two divisi desks). The *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/Vlns1-4B_LongsStart_ex1.mp3 (first example)* shows the first half-a-second of a series of notes, in a chromatic downwards scale, only to illustrate the serious, almost laughable, inconsistencies within this articulation. Timbral inconsistencies, dynamic inconsistencies, articulation inconsistencies, tuning issues, and a few very poorly edited samples.
The *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/Vlns1-4B_LongsStart_ex2.mp3 (second example)* illustrates what happens if you use this patch to play phrases with. OK, I know, these phrases are probably not quite what the developer intended the Longs to be used for, but since there is nothing available in the Studio Strings that comes close to a medium length detaché, I have to make do with what is available.
Now, is ‘excruciatingly horrible’ too strong a pair of words to describe what we’re hearing here? I don’t think it is. (If you’ve listened all the way through, you’ve also heard some terribly out-of-tune samples.)

And it’s not just this patch, you know. I can make minute-after-minute-after-minute of examples like these, with each and every one of the sections (full or divisi). The deeper I dig into this library the more baffled I am by how bad it is.

It’s not the first time in the history of language that words take on the very opposite meaning of what they used to mean. ‘Wicked’, for example. I’m beginning to think that the same thing might be happening with the word ‘professional’. I mean, if this library qualifies as ‘professional’, then all the dictionaries in the world need to be rewritten, presto, to redefine the lemma completely. Henceforth the definition of ’professional’ will be: ‘of bitter disappointment to anyone who expected to find something that answers to the word’s original definition’.

_


----------



## Vita Et Musica (Sep 5, 2018)

re-peat said:


> I don’t know about HZS, Noam, but the Studio Strings exhibit flaws and a level of sloppyness that beggars belief.
> Listen to the following (and never loose sight of the fact that we’re talking about a _professional_ library here).
> 
> Here are the attacks of the longs of the Violins4B (that’s the second of the two divisi desks). The *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/Vlns1-4B_LongsStart_ex1.mp3 (first example)* shows the first half-a-second of a series of notes, in a chromatic downwards scale, only to illustrate the serious, almost laughable, inconsistencies within this articulation. Timbral inconsistencies, dynamic inconsistencies, articulation inconsistencies, tuning issues, and a few very poorly edited samples.
> ...





That ain't right.


----------



## erica-grace (Sep 5, 2018)

NoamL said:


> For the composers who are _actually working_ in Hollywood today, I can see them easily putting this product to work.



I can't, sorry. The composers who are _actually working_ in Hollywood today tend to use real musicians.

I can see TV composers using this, however.


----------



## bryanmckay (Sep 5, 2018)

re-peat said:


> The deeper I dig into this library the more baffled I am by how bad it is.



For context here, I'm curious what string libraries you _do_ like and would recommend as an alternative to SStS?


----------



## Sid Francis (Sep 6, 2018)

bryanmckay said:


> For context here, I'm curious what string libraries you _do_ like and would recommend as an alternative to SStS?


That would be indeed interesting, Piet. Not to rip your choice to pieces...no no...I appreciate your view. Really to have a hint what library gave YOU the professionalism you need and sounded as life-like as possible for you. I own 6-7 bigger string libraries and am not completely satisfied with any of them. For this reason I make my own string stacks and I got to a point where I can live wonderfull with my violas and celli. But to find violins for a soaring emotional melody which do not sound strident or harsh on one side but neither lifeless and synthy on the other is a goal yet to achieve for me ..:-(

Edit: Oops, sorry...did not remember that we are in commercial announcements. So I will have a look in sample talk.


----------



## StatKsn (Sep 6, 2018)

Thanks for the example, re-peat. I really appreciate that you are taking your time to do the review. To be honest, that sounds very bad - not just editing issue such as attack inappropriately cut, but the performance is way too inconsistent (almost sounds like the same patch is firing marcato, detache, sustain, slow attack bowing randomly?) - and unlike legato problems you already pointed out, which is more of a sloppy editing, that's something that re-recording is needed 

Given that Spitfire is already announcing a new product (yeah, after releasing so many products lately, already...) I simply can't see enough time and resource were available to properly edit this library.


----------



## Jaap (Sep 6, 2018)

bryanmckay said:


> For context here, I'm curious what string libraries you _do_ like and would recommend as an alternative to SStS?



Welcome to the VI forum Brian  Though I fully understand the question and good to talk about comparing different things to create the right context, it is however a common courtesy to not talk about other products in a commercial announcement thread from a developer. There is in the Sample Talk section of the forum also a topic about this library and more suited to be asked there: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/a-new-chapter-from-spitfire-audio.74460/


----------



## re-peat (Sep 6, 2018)

Jaap is right of course. But let me just quickly add the following.

My kind of stringslibrary doesn’t exist yet. Which largely explains why I was so excited by the announcement of Studio Strings. Because, on paper, that would have been it: a not-too-big stringband, recorded in a not-too-wet environment. (Any orchestral library should have some degree of wetness though, because without it, acoustic instruments can never be all they’re meant to be, but not so much as to limit the mixing options.) Assuming that such recordings are done expertly, conscientiously, meticulously and with musical insight & intelligence, and that the players are up to scratch (not a given, if you listen closely to some of the Studio Strings samples), and provided that the recordings are skilfully turned into a ‘versatile, pro-end’ sample library, you have the perfect description of something I’m happily prepared to pay several thousands of dollars for. 

Sadly, no one’s done it yet. 25 years of strings sampling — of which I bought most outcome (starting off with the Vitous for the EMU E6400) — and I can’t point to a single library that makes me say, in my best Billy Connolly imitation: “These are the fellas for me!”

(I got similarly excited a few months ago when the Synchrons were about to hit our download buttons, but that turned out to be just as much of a disappointment, be it for different reasons, as these new Spitfires are.)

Musical intelligence, to me, dictates that a developer understands, at the very least, that no serious stringslibrary can ever be called complete (let alone, ‘professional’) without a detaché bowing, offering at least 2 or 3 different lengths and speeds plus a rich range of intensities. Why this type of bowing — the most fundamental and essential of them all, in fact — remains so criminally neglected in most strings libraries, is a complete mystery to me (and a source of endless frustration).

And such a library also needs a lot more in the way of short & medium bowings than a single, carelessly executed spiccato of course. There are dozens of different short & medium-length bowings — all of them musically profoundly different — which, in my view, simply can’t be ignored in a high-end strings library.

What a library-worthy-of-the-‘professional’-tag also needs is MUCH more timbral differentiation across the dynamic range. Much more. 3 velocity-layers is, frankly, preposterous. That’s not even allowing for 5% of the timbral nuances with which strings express themselves. 8 layers is an absolute minimum, I’d say, and double that even better. And if you say: “Yeah, maybe, but’s that’s going to make these libraries unwieldily large, isn’t it?” Well, no. Not necessarily. Not if you cut down on the silly amount of microphone perspectives that so many libraries ship with these days. (Isn’t that, together with performance scripting, the most pestilential trend in recent years of sampling?) 

I can understand that, when recording in a big, characterful space, you do it with, say, three perspectives, because in such situations, it makes a real _musical difference_ if you record from up close, from mid-distance or from far away. But someone really needs to explain to me what the point, and the musical value, is of having SIX different microphone pairs in a smallish, dry room. That to me, is not a sign of professionalism, it’s more a sign of not knowing where to put your microphones in order to get the best result. Loose 4 of these ridiculously useless pairs (simply keep ‘Close’ and ‘Room’) and you immediately reduce the Studio Strings size from 210 to 70 gig. 

Just imagine what those 140 gig that you’ve thus gained, could have been used for. I’ll tell you: everything I’ve described above. And then some.

_


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2018)

While my ears are not nearly as disappointed by this library as yours, Piet, I completely agree with what you're looking for from an ideal library, and I am equally puzzled as to why it hasn't been done yet. It's far from impossible, or even difficult.


----------



## muk (Sep 6, 2018)

Interesting thoughts, @re-peat I wonder, don't Hollywood Strings offer most of what you are looking for? It is a pity and slightly puzzling that no other devs followed that Hollywood Strings approach of sampling a lot of articulations. To me this sounds like a clear winner: smaller sections sizes (somewhere around 8-6-5-4-3), relatively dry recording venue but with a nice sense of space, all the articulations re-peat mentioned. Too bad that nothing like this is available.

As to Spitfire Studio Strings, to me it looks like after the symphonic libraries (Sable, Mural, Woodwinds, Brass) they started to tailor their newer products much more towards what Christian and Paul would use for their compositions. It seems to be the case with their Studio Strings as well. Nice if your own writing is in a similar vein, but limiting if it is not.


----------



## MrHStudio (Sep 6, 2018)

muk said:


> Interesting thoughts, @re-peat
> 
> As to Spitfire Studio Strings, to me it looks like after the symphonic libraries (Sable, Mural, Woodwinds, Brass) they started to tailor their newer products much more towards what Christian and Paul would use for their compositions. It seems to be the case with their Studio Strings as well. Nice if your own writing is in a similar vein, but limiting if it is not.



I did wonder this too especially when some of the comments about a lock of normal articulations (Stacatto was definately mentioned as missing.) If you watch some of the behind the curtain spitfire videos they use the Bartok pizz, Col Legno , all the fun stuff from the libraries and record normal articulations with the real players


----------



## Vik (Sep 6, 2018)

muk said:


> To me this sounds like a clear winner: smaller sections sizes (somewhere around 8-6-5-4-3)


HS sounds good, but sounds larger than SstS. I read somewhere that HS = 16/14/10/10/7. Or are you thinking of the divisi sizes (if they have divisi?)?


----------



## muk (Sep 6, 2018)

Vik said:


> HS sounds good, but sounds larger than SstS. I read somewhere that HS = 16/14/10/10/7. Or are you thinking of the divisi sizes (if they have divisi?)?



Yes, Hollywood Strings are larger section sizes. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. A strings library with a similar amount of articulations, but smaller section sizes (about half as many players as Hollywood Strings) would be awesome.


----------



## re-peat (Sep 6, 2018)

muk said:


> I wonder, don't Hollywood Strings offer most of what you are looking for?




Hollywood Strings is an excellent library, and it did feature in the list I originally had made as part of my previous post, but with that library, we touch upon another big problem: no longer allowing the user full control over a library.

I am raised on sample players (hard- and software) that gave, or give, the user complete access to every nook and cranny of a library and permit him/her to edit whatever he/she thinks needs editing. Sample mapping, ADSR, velocity-switching, filters, loop-points, tuning, trimming, modulations, you name it ...
For some reason we have been prepared to give all that power up (in many of the big libraries anyway), or we were forced to do so by developers, and I can’t begin to describe what a big loss I think that is. And in exchange for what? Scripts. (You can’t see it, but I _vomit _the word.) The pseudo-convenience of pre-wired, pre-formatted performance behaviour of our libraries. Algorithmified passe-partout blandness.

As if making music with orchestral samples isn’t already difficult and frustrating enough even when you have full control over them, we've also relinquished the last bit of creative power we had over those dead audio bricks by appearing all too willing to lazily accept what a developer thinks is best for us and our music. (Not to mention the related fact that the option to be really creative with a library and its contents has also been immensely reduced.)

A legato, these days, is what a developer decides it is, not what my music requires it should be. That says it all really. At times there is a huge difference between the two and with too many libraries, there is nothing I can do about it. And that same contrariety, between the developer’s assumptions and my requirements or wishes, manifests itself in every single aspect of the performance (and sound) of most of today’s libraries.

Which is a big part of why I don't use the Hollywood Strings more often than I do. (Any news on Play Pro anyone?)
To say something nice about the Studio Strings: all of its patches with individual articulations are unlocked.

_


----------



## Lee Blaske (Sep 6, 2018)

Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 6, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.



Pleasure to hear this, as well as balance it adds to the discussion.

I'm personally all about _expectation = reality_ or at least expectation ~ reality. 
SF_Mktg seems to have promoted this new Lib very ineffectively, thus setting _expectations_ far from _reality_ for many purchasers and prospects.

I do not have the orchestral chops to critique this as has been done impressively in earlier posts. The major defects described are of concern, but in the context of $199. Core, OR $399. Pro versions, what is provided surely has comparable merit.
You have demonstrated this repeatedly and effectively.

Even reducing Mics to Close & Room does not seem unacceptable at the Pro price point imho.

Thank-you for this, and hopefully more, example(s) of what is possible with Spitfire Studio Strings !


----------



## CT (Sep 6, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.




Sounds great!


----------



## Dr.Quest (Sep 6, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.



Wow! Lovely piece of music! Love it!


----------



## Jack Weaver (Sep 6, 2018)

pestilential? contrariety?

I've often said Piet's swashbuckling use of his second language puts my usage of my first and only language to shame.

.


----------



## ism (Sep 6, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.




very nice!


----------



## dogdad (Sep 6, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.



Very nice Lee! Thank you for sharing!


----------



## artomatic (Sep 6, 2018)

FYI, Christian Henson uploaded a couple of additional demos on their page.


----------



## NoamL (Sep 6, 2018)

Jarva Country with the new strings sounds great!


----------



## kgdrum (Sep 6, 2018)

Jack Weaver said:


> pestilential? contrariety?
> 
> I've often said Piet's swashbuckling use of his second language puts my usage of my first and only language to shame.
> 
> .




no kidding! lol
I have to actually think about the meaning of some of the words as they're rarely used in the conversational english of NYC.

*Yo!*


----------



## madfloyd (Sep 7, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Here's a piece I put together last night using the new Spitfire Studio Strings (pro version) in orchestral context with other Spitfire libraries (so, not intended to put the string sounds under a microscope by themselves). For this piece, I used only the largest groupings in the pro version. Additional verb is VSS3. I like the beef and heft of the the shorts in this new library (especially in the lower strings). At higher velocities, there's some real power there.




Did you add artificial reverb to Studio Strings to make it blend/match the other SF libraries? I like the composition but to me the amount of reverb seems unnatural.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Sep 7, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> Did you add artificial reverb to Studio Strings to make it blend/match the other SF libraries? I like the composition but to me the amount of reverb seems unnatural.



I used VSS3 on the strings. Just the choice I used on this piece. I was going for a bigger sound.


----------



## ism (Sep 7, 2018)

What mics did you use here?


----------



## Spitfire Team (Sep 7, 2018)

Check out Christian's latest demo for Spitfire Studio Strings Professional: 

​


----------



## Lee Blaske (Sep 7, 2018)

ism said:


> What mics did you use here?


T1 and A.


----------



## New Neighbor (Sep 7, 2018)

Spitfire Team said:


> Check out Christian's latest demo for Spitfire Studio Strings Professional:
> 
> ​



Love this!


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 7, 2018)

In SStS Professional version, is it possible to load majority on SSD and place some Mic content on HDD to access when desired?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Sep 7, 2018)

I enjoyed the demo at 2 minutes everything before is just random writing and noise to me. But at 2 minutes..its getting a few pretty cool! Apart from that: Where are any Andy Demos for that library? Would be interesting to hear something from him..curious why they had none from him there, he is really good and did some really great stuff for other sf libraries.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Sep 7, 2018)

New Neighbor said:


> Love this!


Me too. Confusing times. The threads on this forum about this library have been a combination of legit complaints (with sound examples of excess noise, inconsistencies, and tuning issues), but also compositions featuring the library that are among the best I've heard.


----------



## dhowarthmusic (Sep 7, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> In SStS Professional version, is it possible to load majority on SSD and place some Mic content on HDD to access when desired?


Yes. You put the samples on the hard drives where you want them and then do a batch resave and it saves all the patches with the correct location of the samples on different drives.


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2018)

mikefrommontreal said:


> Me too. Confusing times. The threads on this forum about this library have been a combination of legit complaints (with sound examples of excess noise, inconsistencies, and tuning issues), but also compositions featuring the library that are among the best I've heard.



I think all of those artifacts and imperfections which are obvious in spotlighted isolation just don't have much of an effect in the context of actual music.

I've worked with libraries that have far more glaring inconsistencies than what's been demonstrated from this one, and still managed to make music with them which is just fine (sonically; can't speak for my abilities as a composer).

If anything, slightly unpolished samples are what add humanity to our world of musical illusion, provided that they aren't totally compromised in playability, or obviously repeated in round robins. I have no reason to feel that either is the case here, unless you insist on using regular longs as detachés, I'll concede.  Although, I bet that could be done fairly convincingly with a breath controller.

I think SStS, and the series as a whole, will ultimately fare very well, and I'm following it quite closely....


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 7, 2018)

dhowarthmusic said:


> Yes. You put the samples on the hard drives where you want them and then do a batch resave and it saves all the patches with the correct location of the samples on different drives.



Thank-you! Only ~ six days to decide whether to go with Pro vs Core … and such major content size difference. 
Hoping this approach will be viable until more SSD space can be added.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 7, 2018)

miket said:


> unless you insist on using regular longs as detachés, I'll concede.



So what then are you supposed to use in this library if you want a note that’s in any way longer than a tight spiccato?


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> So what then are you supposed to use in this library if you want a note that’s in any way longer than a tight spiccato?



That's not an inconsistency though, it's just an articulation that's not there. The spiccato seems to do what it should do.

Plus, the TM patches give some pretty wide flexibility with the shorts.


----------



## dhowarthmusic (Sep 7, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> Thank-you! Only ~ six days to decide whether to go with Pro vs Core … and such major content size difference.
> Hoping this approach will be viable until more SSD space can be added.


You can buy the core version for $199 then if you want to upgrade to the professional it is $200. I bought the core version last week and just upgraded to the Professional for $200 and am downloading now. I think it’s better to own both as it’s the same price so you can maybe keep the core version on your SSD then the professional on another drive.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 7, 2018)

miket said:


> That's not an inconsistency though, it's just an articulation that's not there. The spiccato seems to do what it should do.



Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.


----------



## Nao Gam (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.


You're not forced. The articulations were right there for everyone to read.


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.



Well my post was about inconsistencies and how they affect the end sonic result, so I figured that's what you were responding to.

I wouldn't want to have obfuscated re-peat's point, but rather dispute it, as I don't really agree that you're "forced" to use anything. That's why people have dozens of libraries that do different things in different ways, isn't it? Sure, I'd love to have one master option, but it isn't exactly surprising for a new library to not live up to that. It is odd to not include a staccato option, but like I said above, the TM patches get you close, and I think that was probably what SF had in mind.

"Why didn't Spitfire include x, y, and z articulations?" is totally understandable. "Why don't these patches intended to do one thing work when I do something totally different with them?" is... less understandable. Again, isn't that why people have all of these different libraries? It just doesn't seem like a substantial criticism. I can appreciate that re-peat may wish to push that point in order to encourage some change in the not-quite-comprehensive way that VI's are normally put together, though.

I guess I just feel like the proportion of re-peat's reaction to what he was actually reacting to was a little silly. That's not surprising though. He has a different brain and different ears than the ones I have. Clearly he wanted to like it very much, and I'm let down for him that he doesn't. I've been there enough times myself.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Sep 7, 2018)

miket said:


> I think all of those artifacts and imperfections which are obvious in spotlighted isolation just don't have much of an effect in the context of actual music.
> 
> I've worked with libraries that have far more glaring inconsistencies than what's been demonstrated from this one, and still managed to make music with them which is just fine (sonically; can't speak for my abilities as a composer).
> 
> ...


Well normally I'd agree with you. As a recording guitarist where extraneous noise is a given, I'm used to the benefits of masking imperfections.
But when I heard that guy (Piet is it?) play the out of tune descending notes, I thought "well that's going to be hard to get past". But again, great music has already been made with this library, it's hard to argue that point too.
But for me, the absence of staccatos is a deal breaker for me. I've read the argument that spiccato isn't a true articulation or something like that, but hey, I don't care what they call it. They could call it super spiccatos for all I care, as long as they're in there. An inexcusable omission imo.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 7, 2018)

miket said:


> Well my post was about inconsistencies and how they affect the end sonic result, so I figured that's what you were responding to.
> 
> I wouldn't want to have obfuscated re-peat's point, but rather dispute it, as I don't really agree that you're "forced" to use anything. That's why people have dozens of libraries that do different things in different ways, isn't it? Sure, I'd love to have one master option, but it isn't exactly surprising for a new library to not live up to that.
> 
> I guess I just feel like the proportion of re-peat's reaction to what he was actually reacting to was a little silly. That's not surprising though. He has a different brain and different ears than the ones I have. Clearly he wanted to like it very much, and I'm let down for him that he doesn't. I've been there enough times myself.



lol, of course you're not FORCED to. Of course you're able to use as many libraries as you need but we're talking about one specific library here and it's inherent utility. You could just as easily say 90% of a library is useless but 10% is not so "hey you're not FORCED to use 90% of it". I like to layer and use as many libraries as I need, however, personally I've never needed to swap in basic (non-spiccato) short notes from different libraries to make a basic phrase work. But thats just me.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 7, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> You're not forced. The articulations were right there for everyone to read.



See my post above. Also, sure the articulations are there to read. Does that mean we can't discuss the inherent value and relative success of that design choice?


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> I like to layer and use as many libraries as I need, however, personally I've never needed to swap in basic (non-spiccato) short notes from different libraries to make a basic phrase work.



Sorry, I have a bad habit of making hefty additions to my posts after the fact, so you quoted me before I mentioned the TM patches. Don't you think you could get some use out of them to circumvent the lack of more short notes? I mention it not as a point of argument, just as a suggestion which is possibly useless since it's from someone who doesn't get turned on much by short notes.


----------



## Nao Gam (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> See my post above. Also, sure the articulations are there to read. Does that mean we can't discuss the inherent value and relative success of that design choice?


Absolutely we can, but moaning about articulations missing _after_ you bought it is null. Bad scripting is another issue..


----------



## robgb (Sep 7, 2018)

A DRYish library from Spitfire. Maybe my complaints were heard? Not to mention the price for what you get is pretty exceptional.


----------



## paulwr (Sep 7, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> Thank-you! Only ~ six days to decide whether to go with Pro vs Core … and such major content size difference.
> Hoping this approach will be viable until more SSD space can be added.


The divisi alone is worth it. Granted I've been relying on LASS since the beginning, I can't imagine being without divisi options.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 7, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> Absolutely we can, but moaning about articulations missing _after_ you bought it is null. Bad scripting is another issue..



who said I bought it? I didn’t because I read the articulation list LOL and listened to users reports that confirmed my fears about the limited number of basic articulations. And now I’m discussing that on this discussion forum.

But regardless, let me explain to you how this place works:

Developer creates library
users buy library
Users discuss library.

Discussion does not equal “moaning” and you dont get to patronize people and decide what they should or shouldn’t be discussing just cos you don’t agree with them.


----------



## Nao Gam (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> who said I bought it? I didn’t because I read the articulation list LOL and listened to users reports that confirmed my fears about the limited number of basic articulations. And now I’m discussing that on this discussion forum.
> 
> But regardless, let me explain to you how this place works:
> 
> ...


First of all we were talking about re-peat, who bought it. Maybe moaning is a strong word in this case but I've definitely seen moaning both here and on HZS threads.
Also, I never told anybody what they should or should not do. I said it was null, as in pointless.
If a library has no detache or no staccato, you can't expect to coax it out of another articulation, it doesn't make sense. And if you've seen all the arts beforehand and bought it it means you've consented to the fact the arts are limited. Complaining about sth you've already consented to is not very responsible.

But we're getting into "anal forum discussion" territory here and there's no point dragging this. Of course I support conversation regardless its content and it seems the library may have its problems anyway.


----------



## paulwr (Sep 7, 2018)

prodigalson said:


> Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.



I would assume you tried the 'time machine' shorts.... quite a range in length which is certainly helpful. Not real staccato, but helpful.


----------



## paulwr (Sep 7, 2018)

mikefrommontreal said:


> Well normally I'd agree with you. As a recording guitarist where extraneous noise is a given, I'm used to the benefits of masking imperfections.
> But when I heard that guy (Piet is it?) play the out of tune descending notes, I thought "well that's going to be hard to get past". But again, great music has already been made with this library, it's hard to argue that point too.
> But for me, the absence of staccatos is a deal breaker for me. I've read the argument that spiccato isn't a true articulation or something like that, but hey, I don't care what they call it. They could call it super spiccatos for all I care, as long as they're in there. An inexcusable omission imo.


As I just posted, there is a "time machine" patch available that lets you define the length of the spiccato a LOT. Very helpful, if I had to choose between only one spiccato + one staccato, or spiccato with a wide controllable length, I think I'd go with controllable length. YMMV. Spiccato is a stroke that comes down on the string then lifted up right away for a short. Staccato is with the bow remaining in contact with the string.


----------



## prodigalson (Sep 7, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> And if you've seen all the arts beforehand and bought it it means you've consented to the fact the arts are limited. Complaining about sth you've already consented to is not very responsible.



And this is where I also disagree. I think it is absolutely legitimate to assess, criticize and discuss a design choice and it’s impact on the inherent utility of a library regardless of whether or not you “consented” to the design choice. Re-peat may have purchased but others haven’t and can benefit from his opinions. Again, this is a FORUM for discussing sample libraries. The value in discussing library features doesn’t disappear just because you bought it knowing it has a design feature.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Sep 7, 2018)

paulwr said:


> As I just posted, there is a "time machine" patch available that lets you define the length of the spiccato a LOT. Very helpful, if I had to choose between only one spiccato + one staccato, or spiccato with a wide controllable length, I think I'd go with controllable length. YMMV. Spiccato is a stroke that comes down on the string then lifted up right away for a short. Staccato is with the bow remaining in contact with the string.



Fair enough. Still seems like an odd omission to me, but I guess the time machine thing could be an acceptable workaround. Thanks for the information!


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 7, 2018)

mikefrommontreal said:


> Still seems like an odd omission to me, but I guess the time machine thing could be an acceptable workaround.



Not an acceptable omission for me, and that's why I will be passing on this library. Makes no sense to not offer Staccato, and even varying degrees of Staccatos to choose from.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Sep 7, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> Not an acceptable omission for me, and that's why I will be passing on this library. Makes no sense to not offer Staccato, and even varying degrees of Staccatos to choose from.


Oh it's definitely a head scratcher for sure! And in my case, the key word here is that it _could_ be an acceptable workaround, but I'd have to hear it first. There's so much to like about this library, that I'd be willing to make some concessions within reason. I mean, I've never owned a library where I've liked every facet of it, so why start now? But having some type of usable staccato-like option is a necessity before I proceed.


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 7, 2018)

Spitfire Audio has both Short Spiccato, and Staccato options in their Spitfire Chamber Strings, it makes no sense they omit Staccato in their Studio Strings. Very Bad decision from SA.


----------



## bryanmckay (Sep 7, 2018)

The brushed shorts, especially when paired with Time Machine, seem like they should work as a fine substitute for staccato articulations, as they lack the bite of the spiccatos. I haven't created anything with them yet, but they sound nice, and should be very flexible if you use TM to stretch or shorten them.


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 7, 2018)

bryanmckay said:


> The brushed shorts, especially when paired with Time Machine, seem like they should work as a fine substitute for staccato articulations, as they lack the bite of the spiccatos. I haven't created anything with them yet, but they sound nice, and should be very flexible if you use TM to stretch or shorten them.



That's kind of cheating, using TM on Spiccato to emulate a very popular, and standard Short articulation "Staccato" that's easy to sample. Why did they not include Staccato ? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## bryanmckay (Sep 7, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> That's kind of cheating, using TM on Spiccato to emulate a very popular, and standard Short articulation "Staccato" that's easy to sample. Why did they not include Staccato ? Makes no sense to me.



Well, that I can't answer, but does it really matter if it's "cheating" if it helps someone who plunked down the cash for the library make it work for them? It could be improved, sure, but I don't mind cheating if it gets the job done.


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 7, 2018)

bryanmckay said:


> Well, that I can't answer, but does it really matter if it's "cheating" if it helps someone who plunked down the cash for the library make it work for them? It could be improved, sure, but I don't mind cheating if it gets the job done.



I don't think the results of using TM on Spiccato will result in authentic sounding Staccato bowing sounds, so it's not only cheating, but the results are not going to be great, or authentic.

Think about it. Why didn't SA omit Staccato in their Chamber Strings ? because they are essential to have, and not something you omit in a strings library, so.. what's the big idea of omitting Staccato in their Studio Strings ?


----------



## bryanmckay (Sep 7, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> I don't think the results of using TM on Spiccato will result in authentic sounding Staccato bowing sounds, so it's not only cheating, but the results are not going to be great, or authentic.



Just a correction here: I suggested using the *brushed* shorts articulation, not spiccato (the softer spiccato layers do have a slightly softer bite to them, but I don't think they serve the same purpose).


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 7, 2018)

bryanmckay said:


> Just a correction here: I suggested using the *brushed* shorts articulation, not spiccato (the softer spiccato layers do have a slightly softer bite to them, but I don't think they serve the same purpose).



I see, but I still stick to my statement, there is no excuse to omit Staccato articulation, I don't think the brushed shorts will do a perfect/authentic emulation of Staccato bowing.


----------



## StatKsn (Sep 7, 2018)

If you timestrech a sample longer, it usually sound pretty awful and artifact-y (OTOH timestretching a staccato sample shorter to make it a spiccato sounds pretty decent, especially with a separate release sample). If I need to timestretch it I'd rather have just staccato than just spiccato.


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 7, 2018)

In the face of credible critiques of SStS; the silence from Spitfire Audio is deafening.
I have been as close to being a SF Fanboy as one can get; with notable purchases over years.
Planned purchase of SStS, Solo Strings, SSO, EVOs, are now in limbo. Alternatives being reviewed carefully.
Not simply SStS, but several questionable Intros back to BT Phobos.
No clue how this has happened, but IT HAS !

Plenty of time before BlkFri scramble begins, but thousand of (my) usd at stake.
What was once locked in to SFA, is now up for grabs.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 7, 2018)

I wouldn't read too much into "the silence from Spitfire Audio." Maybe, after the endless HZS debates earlier this year, they simply decided it might be better to not engage. Who knows? The bottom line, as always, is whether or not a product suits your needs. That's entirely up to you.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 7, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> I wouldn't read too much into "the silence from Spitfire Audio." Maybe, after the endless HZS debates earlier this year, they simply decided it might be better to not engage. Who knows? The bottom line, as always, is whether or not a product suits your needs. That's entirely up to you.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff



Sure Geoff, and there are always ebbs an flows as one sorts new Intros and many User comments.
Whether the product suits, is far from my concern now; but the gap which exists since something which exemplifies SFA's proven talents.
I quickly take the posture of evaluating what is creative and productive, versus that which is missing or flawed; yet I have an increasing sense that new SF Libs are less of one, and more of the other.

Not quitting SFA so easily. Just increasingly concerned.

THX


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 7, 2018)

I would like to hear directly from Spitfire Audio why they didn't include Staccato in Studio Strings ? or if they would consider adding Staccato in an update ?


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 7, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> Sure Geoff, and there are always ebbs an flows as one sorts new Intros and many User comments.
> Whether the product suits, is far from my concern now; but the gap which exists since something which exemplifies SFA's proven talents.
> I quickly take the posture of evaluating what is creative and productive, versus that which is missing or flawed; yet I have an increasing sense that new SF Libs are less of one, and more of the other.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I'm not too concerned at this point, but that's me. We each have the right to our opinions.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Sep 7, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> I would like to hear directly from Spitfire Audio why they didn't include Staccato in Studio Strings ? or if they would consider adding Staccato in an update ?


They mentioned when SSS came out, something along the lines of sampled staccato isn't representative of how it's played in an orchestra as tempo & meter play a huge role so they omit it for other types of shorts.


----------



## CT (Sep 7, 2018)

Yeah. A true staccato stroke is more tied to its original tempo because it lingers on the string for more of a definite note value than spiccato. Detaché has the same problem when sampled. Samples in general are snapshots, but it can be really obvious in these cases unless you're writing in just the right tempo.

I'm sure there's some clever scripting similar to Time Machine that could be done to make them more widely usable, though.


----------



## robgb (Sep 7, 2018)

I couldn't care less about staccato. But apparently that's just me.


----------



## jimmy3189 (Sep 8, 2018)

This thread is pretty funny, it reads back like most of you are arguing with the forum posts itself rather than the actual content Spitfire have uploaded to demonstrate the library.

In particular the short note argument.

Have all the people who can’t buy it purely because it doesn’t have a patch named staccato actually watched the time machine demo?

Chamber strings is 8 years of work and the amalgamation of multiple sable libraries. It costs £900 for the full library which includes all of the short articulations and performance legatos. 

This thing has an entry point of £160.

Be realistic, the chances are Spitfire plan to add to the divisi sections, they plan to add articulations. As they have to most of their core libraries over time.


If you own Chamber and CSS and CSSS and Berlin Strings guess what, this probably isn’t for you. 

This is for the huge number of people out there that maybe own komplete and maybe an Albion 1, or a metropolis ark and want something to do individual sections with less overbearing room. 


Every string library released in the last 5 years has been marketed as ‘the ultimate string library’. Watch the videos, listen to the demos and make a decision. 


I don’t see many people on here as unhappy customers. Just the usual disgruntled VI control moans of people who were never gonna buy a small room string library in the first place.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 8, 2018)

It would probably be a no win situation for them to engage with folks on a forum regarding the questions raised here. They have tens of thousands of customers the world over, why try to talk to the 20 moaners among them?

And not aiming anyone in particular, but the moaners are often not pro's, often not even buyers, they're just moaners!


----------



## Gerbil (Sep 8, 2018)

Typical populist-age reductionism there. Criticism isn't moaning. Often it's made because buyers want the library they've just splashed their cash on to mature and reach it's true potential. Developers who listen and act on concerns earn themselves a lot of respect. Likewise those who, like Audiobro, really wring the most out of their samples.

Unfortunately, given that this is mostly a no-returns market some people are forced to reach conclusions via demos and walkthroughs. Of course criticism is going to be made from non-buyers based on what they're hearing and seeing. Until companies offer a way of trying libraries out before committing (and a few do) then developers have to accept this angle as well.


----------



## StatKsn (Sep 8, 2018)

On a side note, is anyone volunteering to post a demo for timestretched spiccato simulating staccato? I am curious because it is basically a non-starter with other libraries (below is a comparison of SCS spiccato patch and SCS staccato timestretched longer). Is that possible? I think timestretching works best for creating a "spiccatissimo" or super short pizz.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/spiccato-to-staccato-mp3.15200/][/AUDIOPLUS]

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/super-short-pizz-and-spiccato-to-spiccatissimo-mp3.15201/][/AUDIOPLUS]


----------



## Eptesicus (Sep 8, 2018)

Gerbil said:


> Typical populist-age reductionism there. Criticism isn't moaning. Often it's made because buyers want the library they've just splashed their cash on to mature and reach it's true potential. Developers who listen and act on concerns earn themselves a lot of respect. Likewise those who, like Audiobro, really wring the most out of their samples.
> 
> Unfortunately, given that this is mostly a no-returns market some people are forced to reach conclusions via demos and walkthroughs. Of course criticism is going to be made from non-buyers based on what they're hearing and seeing. Until companies offer a way of trying libraries out before committing (and a few do) then developers have to accept this angle as well.



I REALLY want to see more proper trials/demos rolled out.

Even just a few main articulations with a limited range etc, something like that.

These things are not inexpensive and there is just so much choice and so many releases these days, you just never know whether anything is going to be any good or not. You can't even trust the big names anymore as they are slipping up with dire releases now as well.


----------



## Gerbil (Sep 8, 2018)

True.

Bit of a tangent: It's interesting to me that some of the developers/composers whose libraries I love and respect the most, guys like Alex Wallbank, Andrew Keresztes and Aaron Sapp, were around right back in the early days of Northern Sounds (yes....I have been lurking for a very long time!).


----------



## germancomponist (Sep 8, 2018)

StatKsn said:


> On a side note, is anyone volunteering to post a demo for timestretched spiccato simulating staccato? I am curious because it is basically a non-starter with other libraries (below is a comparison of SCS spiccato patch and SCS staccato timestretched longer). Is that possible? I think timestretching works best for creating a "spiccatissimo" or super short pizz.
> 
> [AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/spiccato-to-staccato-mp3.15200/][/AUDIOPLUS]
> 
> [AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/super-short-pizz-and-spiccato-to-spiccatissimo-mp3.15201/][/AUDIOPLUS]


In the past I did this very often with other libraries, built new Kontakt instruments with the time stretched samples and it always worked fine. You have to be tricky when it comes to the right cutting (not timestretched the release part of the samples e.t.c.)
The last demo from Christian sounds fine!


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 8, 2018)

jamwerks said:


> It would probably be a no win situation for them to engage with folks on a forum regarding the questions raised here. They have tens of thousands of customers the world over, why try to talk to the 20 moaners among them?
> 
> And not aiming anyone in particular, but the moaners are often not pro's, often not even buyers, they're just moaners!



No luv from me for moaners, but SFA surely monitors what is posted here.
My preference is that they respond to *valid* critiques, in terms of their errors, or misunderstanding, or correctness.
If there are none here, then so be it …. and SFA _silence is golden_.

This Forum is pyramidal; bell curve ….. _like any large population_, and the majority is less capable than the small upper tier.
BUT …. the majority benefits immensely from upper tier comments and critiques.
For SF to ignore this, misses a huge opportunity to maintain their valued position among top VI providers … imho.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 8, 2018)

Critisizing and "talking about" is of course what forums are all about and I myself have weighed in here with my own thoughts, unfortunately mostly negative this time. And SF has posted a few times here also, iirc.

I don't see them entering into real discussions though, but I might be wrong. Remember how that went with HZS, or between other devs and their customers? It rarely comes out well. The whole "one against many" in written form, between unidentifiable posters, doesn't seem conducive for adult communication!


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 8, 2018)

jamwerks said:


> ******
> I don't see them entering into real discussions though, but I might be wrong. Remember how that went with HZS, or between other devs and their customers? It rarely comes out well. The whole "one against many" in written form, between unidentifiable posters, doesn't seem conducive for adult communication!



Yeah; Pandora's Box for SFA I guess. 
OTH, my low skill /experience level leaves me frustrated and uncomfortable, as prospective SStS CORE buyer.
I cannot easily separate specific criticisms and complaints from SStS Professional Users, with their higher-level expectations and requirements. 
Other than the single Mic limitation with Core, perhaps the Pro issues are not as applicable, and its content quite reasonable at Intro $199. 
_I know, I know_ …… pay money and sort it myself !


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 8, 2018)

ka00 said:


> ***** maybe $200 isn’t too much (compared to other string libraries) for you to just get core and use it to gain the skill/experience you are looking for, and then once that’s done, to decide if you want something else. *******



This is sorting out as only realistic choice with SStS, as Core version surely offers much to work with for its cost. 
The more technical criticisms have had their impact, and were pushing me to other _cost-comparable_ SF promo offers, such as OA Chamber EVOs. 
Can't really go far wrong in either case ….


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 8, 2018)

@sostenuto, I have a lot of compassion for your current struggle. We all started out inexperienced and grew from there. I can understand your desire to listen to more experienced voices than your own.

Nonetheless, if you're going to find your own voice as a composer, you've got to start trusting your own ears. If they fail you from time to time, then it'll be a great chance for you to learn from that experience. Music is very subjective and experts will disagree on what's good and bad. If you listen to the demos and ask _does this resonate with me?_, then the decision making process will get easier.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Zhao Shen (Sep 8, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> @sostenutoIf you listen to the demos and ask _does this resonate with me?_, then the decision making process will get easier.



I'm going to have to disagree with that. Would recommend listening to full walkthroughs instead and asking yourself if it sounds real. There are countless instances of a product with absurdly good demos that mask a lot of glaring shortcomings.


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 8, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> @sostenuto, I have a lot of compassion for your current struggle. We all started out inexperienced and grew from there. I can understand your desire to listen to more experienced voices than your own.
> ***** If you listen to the demos and ask _does this resonate with me?_, then the decision making process will get easier.
> Best,
> Geoff



Hey Geoff ... your steady replies are helpful and generous. 
There is a dominating personal factor which clearly makes things tough for anyone trying to help me; and tougher for me.

In spite of being trained pianist from early age, I am very 'left-brain' driven. I appreciate a very wide range of artists and genres. 
I'm a strong sight-reader; but dismal at composing and improvising. The result _for this discussion_, is that 'more experienced voices' who attack very specific omissions or flaws in libraries like SStS, are much more impactful for me, than for the majority of 'creative' talents here. 
I'm left with such a strong concern that these notable flaws may remain unresolved.
Demos, so far, seem to lack full exploration of SStS, but that will surely improve very soon.

Regards


----------



## sostenuto (Sep 8, 2018)

Zhao Shen said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with that. Would recommend listening to full walkthroughs instead and asking yourself if it sounds real. There are countless instances of a product with absurdly good demos that mask a lot of glaring shortcomings.



I take this less as disagreement, but as sharper focus on additional concerns. 
Going back over several 'early-adopter' compositions, I hear some creative work, but not much attention to shortcomings noted repeatedly in posted critiques.
You can sort these far better than I, yet your comment here resonates with me.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 8, 2018)

sostenuto said:


> Hey Geoff ... your steady replies are helpful and generous.
> There is a dominating personal factor which clearly makes things tough for anyone trying to help me; and tougher for me.
> 
> In spite of being trained pianist from early age, I am very 'left-brain' driven. I appreciate a very wide range of artists and genres.
> ...


Thanks for sharing that, *sostenuto*. It makes a lot of sense. I was more right-brain driven at an early age—hence my decision to become a musician—but I was raised by college professors, so my left-brain received plenty of nurturing as well. If you consider the plasticity of the brain, I suggest that you can develop the other hemisphere; but it may be a struggle to learn to focus on it and trust it when the other side is so developed. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 8, 2018)

Zhao Shen said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with that. Would recommend listening to full walkthroughs instead and asking yourself if it sounds real. There are countless instances of a product with absurdly good demos that mask a lot of glaring shortcomings.


You're absolutely right, *Zhao Shen*. Product walkthroughs are the next best thing to hands on experience with a product. My omission of the importance of walkthroughs in my post was unintentional. The bottom line I had intended was to let your ears be your guide.

That said, I like to get a handle on both the strengths and weaknesses of a product before I buy. Audio files from early adopters that demonstrate problems cover one end of the spectrum, while manufacturer demos presumably cover the other; so I like both. I want to know what the problems are _and_ whether they can be worked around or covered up.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## re-peat (Sep 8, 2018)

Can I just say one more time — I explained it already *once before* — that my reason for posting that earlier example (longs being used for a non-long articulation) seems to be seriously misunderstood by a few people. My point was NOT to suggest that you’re forced to use the longs if you want to play something detaché-like — and my idea was most certainly not to criticize the awful-sounding articulation which you get that way; that would be deeply stupid and highly unfair on my part —, my point was simply that *(1)* there can be a very inconvenient amount of inconsistency among the samples within one and the same articulation, and *(2)*, that there is simply nothing available in Studio Strings to play any type of medium-length bowing that has a pointed attack (like detaché or martellé or whatever). If you have to make do with what *is* available in the library, forget about trying to play/simulate/evoke any of these types of bowing, unless you want to get *very* bad results (as that audio clip illustrated). That was all — no more, no less — what that example was about.

- - -



SimonCharlesHanna said:


> They mentioned when SSS came out, something along the lines of sampled staccato isn't representative of how it's played in an orchestra as tempo & meter play a huge role so they omit it for other types of shorts.




That’s a very weak argument, if I may say so, as no sampled articulation, transition or inflexion is ever going to be wholly “representative of how it’s played in an orchestra”, and furthermore: tempo & meter have just as much — I would even say: much more — bearing on the way the long articulations are played (and connected) than on how the short or medium-length articulations are played. (The speed with which the longs in the Studio Strings are bowed, for example, cleary suggests a slow to medium tempo.) It is obviously true that a staccato bowing in a slow piece is something quite different from the same type of bowing in a fast piece, but the exact same thing applies at least as much to the sustains and to just about every other articulation.

- - -

And about the Time Machine: yes, that increases the versatily of the included short articulation a bit. But only marginally and if done very carefully. You certainly can not turn a spiccato into a staccato via time-stretching, and the brushed shorts remain brushed shorts even if showing severe stretch marks.

Here's *http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/SStS_Vlns1_Timestretched.mp3 (a short example)* with the _‘Vlns 1 (16) Time-Machine’_ patch. (Phrase repeated 3 times: first neutral, then with time-compression and finally with time-stretching. This example shows the extremes of what is possible with the Time Machine, and those extremes don’t sound very good, I know. But please don’t take this again to be an implied criticism or anything, it’s nothing of the sort. This is merely an illustration of how far you can go with the Time Machine. Like I said, for decent results with this technique, and they certainly are within reach, it should be used very subtly.)

_


----------



## Michael Stibor (Sep 8, 2018)

jimmy3189 said:


> This thread is pretty funny, it reads back like most of you are arguing with the forum posts itself rather than the actual content Spitfire have uploaded to demonstrate the library.
> 
> In particular the short note argument.
> 
> ...



Sounds like an oversimplification of the discussion that's being had here Jim.


----------



## Babe (Sep 8, 2018)

Geoff Grace said:


> Thanks for sharing that, *sostenuto*. It makes a lot of sense. I was more right-brain driven at an early age—hence my decision to become a musician—but I was raised by college professors, so my left-brain received plenty of nurturing as well. If you consider the plasticity of the brain, I suggest that you can develop the other hemisphere; but it may be a struggle to learn to focus on it and trust it when the other side is so developed.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff


We know that the right side of the brain dominates in people who are left handed, and vice versa for right handed folks. That means lefties are the only ones in their right mind.


----------



## CT (Sep 8, 2018)

I'm probably grabbing this tomorrow, and straight away, I'm going to input a few bars I've written that will hopefully decently explore some of the elements that people are concerned about: flexibility of shorts and longs, legato agility, etc.

It'll be in the context of some other elements from the BH Toolkit, as a further experiment with how well the two will play together, but I'll upload the strings on their own too.

I'll try to have this done soon, in case it may help anyone with their decisions before the promo price expires.


----------



## idematoa (Sep 8, 2018)

Just my short contribution...


----------



## Spitfire Team (Sep 9, 2018)

​


----------



## Musicam (Sep 9, 2018)

Wow!


----------



## Musicam (Sep 9, 2018)

Wow! Thank you Mr. Henson, thank you for you video, thank you Spitfire. This video is perfect!


----------



## kinginknyc (Sep 9, 2018)

I've purchased the Pro version and I'm just getting a chance to get into the library and I'm immediately struck by the fact that the full sections have fewer articulations than the smaller sections. WHY DO THAT ??????? There are more than 30 articulations for the 8 player Vln 1 section and there are 6 for the 16 player section. What exactly is the logic behind this? I'd love to hear it because it makes zero sense to me.


----------



## Eptesicus (Sep 9, 2018)

kinginknyc said:


> I've purchased the Pro version and I'm just getting a chance to get into the library and I'm immediately struck by the fact that the full sections have fewer articulations than the smaller sections. WHY DO THAT ??????? There are more than 30 articulations for the 8 player Vln 1 section and there are 6 for the 16 player section. What exactly is the logic behind this? I'd love to hear it because it makes zero sense to me.



Yeh that surprised me and made it an instant no buy for me.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 9, 2018)

kinginknyc said:


> I've purchased the Pro version and I'm just getting a chance to get into the library and I'm immediately struck by the fact that the full sections have fewer articulations than the smaller sections. WHY DO THAT ??????? There are more than 30 articulations for the 8 player Vln 1 section and there are 6 for the 16 player section. What exactly is the logic behind this? I'd love to hear it because it makes zero sense to me.


Budget? Just guessing.


----------



## Vik (Sep 9, 2018)

kinginknyc said:


> I've purchased the Pro version and I'm just getting a chance to get into the library and I'm immediately struck by the fact that the full sections have fewer articulations than the smaller sections. WHY DO THAT ??????? There are more than 30 articulations for the 8 player Vln 1 section and there are 6 for the 16 player section. What exactly is the logic behind this? I'd love to hear it because it makes zero sense to me.


If the 16 piece V1 section is created by summing the three other sections (8/4/4), the 16 piece section can only have as many articulations as the divisi (4 piece) sections, but the surprising this is that the divisi sections have 7 articulations:

INDIVIDUAL ARTICULATIONS
VIOLINS 1 (16)

Violins 1 (16) - Legato (Slurred)
Violins 1 (16) - Long CS
Violins 1 (16) - Long Flautando
Violins 1 (16) - Short Pizzicato
Violins 1 (16) - Short Spiccato
Violins 1 (16) - Tremolo

So, based on that list, it seems the the regular longs are missing from the 16 piece section. That's probably just due to how it is presented on their page, because the V1s are also listed here:

ALL-IN-ONE PATCHES

Violins 1 (16)

....and here:
LEGATO TECHNIQUES

Violins 1 (16) - Legato performance



(...and here:
OTHER PATCHES

Violins 1 (16) - Economic Longs
Violins 1 (16) - Economic Shorts
Violins 1 (16) - Light resources
Violins 1 (16) - Time Machine)


----------



## gussunkri (Sep 9, 2018)

kinginknyc said:


> I've purchased the Pro version and I'm just getting a chance to get into the library and I'm immediately struck by the fact that the full sections have fewer articulations than the smaller sections. WHY DO THAT ??????? There are more than 30 articulations for the 8 player Vln 1 section and there are 6 for the 16 player section. What exactly is the logic behind this? I'd love to hear it because it makes zero sense to me.


I don’t own the library, but a quick look at the list of articulations already suggest an answer. The biggest section is made by mixing the middle size section with the two small divisi sections. The small sections have fewer articulations and thus the biggest section is necessarily limited to those articulations.

EDIT: Vik beat me to it, and formulated it more clearly.


----------



## gussunkri (Sep 9, 2018)

Spitfire Team said:


> ​



Fantastic work, Henson!


----------



## paulwr (Sep 9, 2018)

When I purchased this, it was meant to be an extension of my LASS library. But things like no legato portamento in the divisi... killing me. Still I've already used this library on a job with rave reviews from the producer, but I dearly hope we get the portamento slides on the divisi. Often doing string arrangements I need to go smaller sections. With LASS I get slides on all sections. I'm a bit taken aback. Still happy I purchased.


----------



## kinginknyc (Sep 9, 2018)

paulwr said:


> When I purchased this, it was meant to be an extension of my LASS library. But things like no legato portamento in the divisi... killing me. Still I've already used this library on a job with rave reviews from the producer, but I dearly hope we get the portamento slides on the divisi. Often doing string arrangements I need to go smaller sections. With LASS I get slides on all sections. I'm a bit taken aback. Still happy I purchased.


EXACTLY !!!!!! I want all the articulations (not the FX patches) for ALL THE SECTIONS, large med and small. It's a fabulous library missing things that seem "a given".


----------



## Alex Fraser (Sep 9, 2018)

I'm not talking about the new Spitfire library in particular here. But IMO, there are two ways you can look at a new library:

You can view the library through your expectations of what you _believe it should be_ or what you _want it to be._ With this scenario, you'll always find fault somewhere.
You can view the library as it comes. Accept that it "does what it does" and compose around its best features and avoid its shortcomings.
A lot of complaints I feel come from viewing the library via option one. When someone likes a library, I often find they've taken an "option 2" viewpoint and found a use for it.

Of course, if the library is failing on a technical level, that’s a whole other thing.

My 2C on a philosophical Sunday afternoon.
A

Edited for clarification.


----------



## kinginknyc (Sep 9, 2018)

Alex Fraser said:


> I'm not talking about the new Spitfire library in particular here. But IMO, there are two ways you can look at a new library:
> 
> You can view the library through your expectations of what you _believe it should be_ or what you _want it to be._ With this scenario, you'll always find fault somewhere.
> You can view the library as it comes. Accept that it "does what it does" and compose around its best features and avoid its shortcomings.
> ...



I'm merely giving customer feedback as a professional media composer with 25 years under my belt who also happens to own damn near every library Spitfire has made. I don't think my criticism is unreasonable. They can do with it what they like .....


----------



## givemenoughrope (Sep 9, 2018)

I think an A/B comparison demo of SCS and SStS would help me figure out if I’m buying now. Even if the demo is meant for a studio sound and not an Air sound, etc.


----------



## ka00 (Sep 9, 2018)

Here's an A/B comparison I made of the sound of Spitfire Studio Strings Core vs Professional edition, using the two available versions of Christian's beautiful track "Java County Revisited".

Personally, this comparison convinced me to upgrade to the Pro version. To me it sounds more full, rich and 3D.


----------



## N.Caffrey (Sep 9, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here's an A/B comparison I made of the sound of Spitfire Studio Strings Core vs Professional edition, using the two available versions of Christian's beautiful track "Java County Revisited".
> 
> Personally, this comparison convinced to upgrade to the Pro version. To me it sounds more full, rich and 3D.



agree


----------



## paulwr (Sep 9, 2018)

kinginknyc said:


> EXACTLY !!!!!! I want all the articulations (not the FX patches) for ALL THE SECTIONS, large med and small. It's a fabulous library missing things that seem "a given".


Perhaps we'll see an expansion pack. It wouldn't be out of character for Spitfire to do so. At this price point, I won't complain. With all the articulations and playing styles across all divisi and main group I'd have paid up to $1,000. To this day LASS is still up in that area for everything.


----------



## star.keys (Sep 9, 2018)

Spitfire Team said:


> ​




I almost had tears in my eyes while watching this passionate demonstration of the library... A very emotional moment


----------



## Nao Gam (Sep 9, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here's an A/B comparison I made of the sound of Spitfire Studio Strings Core vs Professional edition, using the two available versions of Christian's beautiful track "Java County Revisited".
> 
> Personally, this comparison convinced me to upgrade to the Pro version. To me it sounds more full, rich and 3D.



Hate to be that guy but you didn't level match


----------



## ka00 (Sep 9, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> Hate to be that guy but you didn't level match



Hmm, interesting point. But first, how exactly would that work? There's no uniform level difference between the two tracks. To have turned down the levels on the the Pro version to account for occasional moments where the close mics are louder than the tree would have recessed the outriggers and reduced their contribution to the sound.

And there are certain passages on either the left or right channel that differ, based on the inclusion of close mics at times. I can’t see a straightforward way to level match these for those reasons.

And secondly, you know that some people would have complained had I messed with the levels on one track and not the other. As a result, I've deferred to CH/Spitfire’s decisions on mixing and mastering both tracks.

Anyway, take it for what it is. I hear spatial differences, and proximity differences outside of levels differences. I think anyone listening will have to interpret the reasons why one sounds different than the other and decide what effect that has on the quality (not just quantity) of the sound.

I found this A/B comparison sufficient to make my decision about upgrading and am downloading the new content as I type this.


----------



## star.keys (Sep 9, 2018)

Alex Fraser said:


> I'm not talking about the new Spitfire library in particular here. But IMO, there are two ways you can look at a new library:
> 
> You can view the library through your expectations of what you _believe it should be_ or what you _want it to be._ With this scenario, you'll always find fault somewhere.
> You can view the library as it comes. Accept that it "does what it does" and compose around its best features and avoid its shortcomings.
> ...



There are certain things which have to be included taking a common sense approach in any product. Nobody has the bandwidth to read specs in detail. Also, there are so many vendor specific terminologies here and there. E.g. Their solo strings library can't do "fast legato" which was a shocker to me. The thing is, there is an implicit (or common sense) expectation (since we are in 2018) that when Legato is an advertised feature, it should do legato properly at all speeds and if not, I would hope to see a list of clearly documented exclusions in font 18 in order to establish transparency.


----------



## lp59burst (Sep 9, 2018)

Gerbil said:


> Typical populist-age reductionism there. Criticism isn't moaning. Often it's made because buyers want the library they've just splashed their cash on to mature and reach it's true potential. Developers who listen and act on concerns earn themselves a lot of respect. Likewise those who, like Audiobro, really wring the most out of their samples.
> 
> Unfortunately, given that this is mostly a no-returns market some people are forced to reach conclusions via demos and walkthroughs. Of course criticism is going to be made from non-buyers based on what they're hearing and seeing. Until companies offer a way of trying libraries out before committing (and a few do) then developers have to accept this angle as well.


Although I agree with your observations and the points you make above... isn't labeling someone else's comments and observations as "_Typical populist-age reductionism_" a form of the same...?


----------



## Gerbil (Sep 10, 2018)

lp59burst said:


> Although I agree with your observations and the points you make above... isn't labeling someone else's comments and observations as "_Typical populist-age reductionism_" a form of the same...?



It's not their comments and observations as a whole, just their umbrella term of 'moaner' that I took issue with.

For anyone interested, I've found that using the time machine patches with the shorts really helps add some variety to passages. I set my assigned midi controller to control around 20% - 80% of the stretched range in kontakt so that it doesn't veer into the bit reduction or chipmunk territory either side and it's possible to realtime play in some nice subtle slurred notes etc.


----------



## paulwr (Sep 10, 2018)

Support statement I just got regarding Legato Portamento on the divisi groups and more... 

I had a separate issue they are helping me with (my Behringer X-Touch Compact controllers machine code "touch" is getting through to Kontakt with this patch and turning off cc11 when I release my finger from the fader!)

Anyway, I also mentioned to them today how desperate I am to have Portamento on the divis groups, and asked about a possible upcoming expansion pack and I received this in reply:

_*"In regards to legato, we'll certainly be looking to update the legato soon, and we do have content recorded which we will be updating over time."*_

All in all, I feel this is positive news for all of us who like this library a lot but are frustrated by some things we feel are necessary make the library more regularly usable.


----------



## windshore (Sep 10, 2018)

While there's a lot I like about the sound and approach of the library in general I'm disappointed to hear about the disappointing depth of short articulations. It's a strange concept to include so many esoteric articulations without having a wide variety of good sounding shorts and many velocity levels etc. The whole thing about a close mic'd string section is that dynamic range and nuance of attack and dynamic are going to REALLY be on display. For that, I would have gladly sacrificed some of the fancy bowings ....


----------



## CT (Sep 10, 2018)

miket said:


> I'm probably grabbing this tomorrow, and straight away, I'm going to input a few bars I've written that will hopefully decently explore some of the elements that people are concerned about: flexibility of shorts and longs, legato agility, etc.
> 
> It'll be in the context of some other elements from the BH Toolkit, as a further experiment with how well the two will play together, but I'll upload the strings on their own too.
> 
> I'll try to have this done soon, in case it may help anyone with their decisions before the promo price expires.



I haven't been able to do this demo yet, but I did want to give some first impressions after quickly playing through the Core version.

First, the shorts. Full disclosure, I'm not a short note junkie, so you might not be so easily pleased, but I think that the spiccatos paired with Time Machine give me all the flexibility I really need there. The usable range before artifacts are introduced is very wide. I've actually never used Time Machine before. It's kind of fun having that on the modwheel....

If you have the BH Toolkit, they respond just the way that those spiccatos do with TM. BH Toolkit is also a very accurate preview of what this library is like, sonically speaking. It gets along just fine with reverb. I tend to use a lot, and SStS (is this what we're calling it?) doesn't mind, although having the other mic's in the Pro version would definitely be useful for nailing down the right sound for your reverb choices.

The regular longs have 2 round robins, so I've been able to approximate some "long-short" bowings like détaché. It's not perfect, but it works. This is using a breath controller; it may be less easy to execute with a wheel or fader.

The legatos are reasonably agile. 32nd-note runs at a fast tempo will probably not convince you, although they fared better there than I might have expected, and there's a very wide range of speeds where these sound absolutely great. Again, if you have BHT, that is a good example of what you'll get here. 

I've only had a few minutes with it so far, but my main takeaway is that this is *fun* to use, and it gets the musical juices flowing. I am always let down when I can't play a VI in a way that feels natural and musical, but I absolutely can here. I think I'm going to be making a lot of music with this.


----------



## Kadirally (Sep 11, 2018)

Hi,

i want/need a string library with well done 'Runs' articulations. Maybe some good performing legato's too. I want to choose between SCS, SSS or Studio strings. 

For anything 'big' 'long' and 'short' i want to stay with HZS.

So to owners of Spitfire SCS, SSS and Studio Strings i wouldn't mind some input regarding 'Runs' playability and range and how those 3 libraries compare in that particular department.

Feedback regarding this topic would be appreciated.


----------



## Spitfire Team (Sep 12, 2018)

https://youtu.be/cktZxtMqj7Q (<div class="bbImageWrapper js-lbImage" title="60c8079e-526f-430a-b6e8-86445fd7989e.jpg"
data-src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/147ea0eb7d5a8ef4e35c359bd/images/60c8079e-526f-430a-b6e8-86445fd7989e.jpg" data-lb-sidebar-href="" data-lb-caption-extra-html="" data-single-image="1">
<img src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/147ea0eb7d5a8ef4e35c359bd/images/60c8079e-526f-430a-b6e8-86445fd7989e.jpg"
data-url="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/147ea0eb7d5a8ef4e35c359bd/images/60c8079e-526f-430a-b6e8-86445fd7989e.jpg"
class="bbImage"
data-zoom-target="1"
style=""
alt="60c8079e-526f-430a-b6e8-86445fd7989e.jpg"
title=""
width="" height="" />
</div>)




​
https://youtu.be/cktZxtMqj7Q


----------



## Geoff Grace (Sep 12, 2018)

The sale price is set to end just eight hours before the earliest point at which BMI will direct deposit my royalties into my account. I'm glad I don't really need another string library!

Of course, other BMI members may have hoped to buy this at the introductory price. It's a shame the sale deadline so narrowly missed the availability of their royalty funds.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## lp59burst (Sep 12, 2018)

I'm in at the 11th hour... I probably could have waited for a possible BF "Wish List" sale but alas - patients is something Doctors have that I don't...


----------



## MaxOctane (Sep 12, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here's an A/B comparison I made of the sound of Spitfire Studio Strings Core vs Professional edition, using the two available versions of Christian's beautiful track "Java County Revisited".




@ka00 can you please share your reverb settings?


----------



## Spitfire Team (Sep 13, 2018)

​


----------



## Michael Stibor (Sep 13, 2018)

miket said:


> If you have the BH Toolkit, they respond just the way that those spiccatos do with TM. BH Toolkit is also a very accurate preview of what this library is like, sonically speaking...
> 
> The legatos are reasonably agile... ...Again, if you have BHT, that is a good example of what you'll get here.



Hmmm. I've quoted the parts of your post that both exite me and disappoint me at the same time. On the one hand, I love the sound of BHCT, and was hoping that they'd bottle that sound in a more streamlined approch. And this is it.

BUT, BHCT's legatos were average at best. To my ears, there's almost a space between each note. As if they removed the attack from the consecutive notes but didn't include the actual legato sample. That's how I hear it on BHCT anyway.

Too bad, I was really hoping that this would be Spitfire Symphonic Strings but in BHCT's room.


----------



## holywilly (Sep 13, 2018)

Got both Core and Pro edition, Pro for studio and Core for mobile, thanks Spitfire for this fantastic release and pricing!


----------



## AdamKmusic (Dec 20, 2018)

So this worth picking up if there's the Spitfire wishlist offer again this year?


----------



## ism (Dec 20, 2018)

Well I certainly think so. 


Corey's review of the standard lib is the one I find most helpful (even after buying it) 

https://vi-control.net/community/threads/library-spotlight-studio-strings.77864/


----------



## AdamKmusic (Dec 20, 2018)

ism said:


> Well I certainly think so.
> 
> 
> Corey's review of the standard lib is the one I find most helpful (even after buying it)
> ...


Well that videos convinced me! Roll on Christmas wish list!


----------



## madfloyd (Dec 22, 2018)

holywilly said:


> Got both Core and Pro edition, Pro for studio and Core for mobile, thanks Spitfire for this fantastic release and pricing!



Do you have to buy the core separately if you own the Pro?


----------



## holywilly (Dec 22, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> Do you have to buy the core separately if you own the Pro?


Yes, got bought them at the intro promo.


----------



## StillLife (Dec 22, 2018)

holywilly said:


> Yes, got bought them at the intro promo.


Why would you buy the core if you own the pro?


----------



## StillLife (Dec 22, 2018)

StillLife said:


> Why would you buy the core if you own the pro?


I am sorry, I now understand you bought the core for mobile. Did not read the previous page...


----------



## jbuhler (Dec 22, 2018)

madfloyd said:


> Do you have to buy the core separately if you own the Pro?


No, the core is contained in the Pro.


----------



## axb312 (Dec 22, 2018)

You have 2 licenses with a Spitfire purchase. So you can buy Pro and delete the unnecessary samples to strip it down to Core for your second system.


----------



## axb312 (Dec 22, 2018)

Can anyone comment and/or post an example of how Studio strings handles runs? Not prerecorded ones....


----------

