# CSS -- is it crazy



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

Ok -- I so enjoyed the Elgar mockup that @NoamL posted, I'm tempted to get yet another string library, CSS.

Already have oceans of strings, including HS, LASS, Spitfire (practically everything), and other individual or specialised libraries.

Are there warnings / things I need to be aware of on CSS? (not picking at them at all but would like to know if they are noisy or not, well-edited shorts -- the usual). I think I read or someone implied that you could alter the volume of the legato transitions (or maybe the speed)?

Thank you,

John


----------



## Zhao Shen (Nov 13, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Ok -- I so enjoyed the Elgar mockup that @NoamL posted, I'm tempted to get yet another string library, CSS.
> 
> Already have oceans of strings, including HS, LASS, Spitfire (practically everything), and other individual or specialised libraries.
> 
> ...



Let's just say that with the exception of libraries that include content that CSS does not have (articulations, section size, etc), it has rendered the rest of my string libraries obsolete (with the exception of when there's a particular reason that I need a different color/tone). Very well-edited library, and yes there are multiple speeds of legato transition. Solid workhorse.


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 13, 2017)

No it's not noisy, shorts are very well-edited imo.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

Thanks @Sovereign 

Any other thoughts?


----------



## fixxer49 (Nov 13, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Ok -- I so enjoyed the Elgar mockup that @NoamL posted, I'm tempted to get yet another string library, CSS.
> 
> Already have oceans of strings, including HS, LASS, Spitfire (practically everything), and other individual or specialised libraries.
> 
> ...



there is some slight playback lag (likely due to the excellent - but intensive - legato scripting.) other than that, you will likely be retiring your other libraries for workhorse stuff.


----------



## The Darris (Nov 13, 2017)

The only negative thing I can say is the original legato. I wasn't a fan. The new Classic Legato patches they've released in the v1.1 update has fixed all that. Another small point that I hope they address with CSS and their new Solo Strings are the tempo sync'd measured trems. Currently, there is not way to sync to a triplet feel, you have to do the math and fine tune the manual BPM which sucks if you have a piece that changes tempos throughout. I've written them about this as I've been reviewing their latest solo strings but they have not responded. 

Other than that, it's become my main workhorse. Seems like it's becoming the industry standard as well. 

Best,

Chris


----------



## Saxer (Nov 13, 2017)

You probably watched this already: 
It doesn't really work for realtime playing for me though experienced keyboard players (that I am not) might simply adapt to the different legato latency. But there are classic legatos that work much better for me because they feel more "realtime".
Sound is rather dull compared to Spitfire and LASS but especially the dry mics have a lot overtones that can be rised by EQ. Vibrato is heavy and with character but I sometimes wish there was a less heavy amplitude vibrato layer. I tend to rise the dynamic by automating the Kontakt instruments main level to CC1 too (30 to 70%). Gives some more boost to the dynamic movement. Lot of words but at the end they simply sound beautiful.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

Saxer said:


> I sometimes wish there was a less heavy amplitude vibrato layer



Thanks @Saxer -- can you control the amount of vibrato easily?

[edit: and is it, in your view, very different from LASS? Sound seems somewhat similar]


----------



## Mike Fox (Nov 13, 2017)

My only complaint is that CSS can be too dark, which makes it hard to cut through. For that reason I usually stack CSS with a brighter library. A basic eq adjustment is easy though. The overall tone of the library is really where it's at. Strings never sounded so damn lush.


----------



## Saxer (Nov 13, 2017)

The sound is very different from LASS. LASS is harsh compared to creamy CSS. The heavy CSS vibrato is crossfaded to a non vibrato layer with nothing in between.


----------



## Jaap (Nov 13, 2017)

LASS and HS where for a long time my bread and butter, but CSS has replaced them in many occassions though I still use those others. CSS just sits so nicely with so many different things actually. Whether its classical orientated or for heavy trailerish stuff, it is quite an allround beast.

The legato transitioning and delays are something to look into though and you have to get used to that playing. A bit different then with LASS and HS, but once you got a grip on that it is a lovely great sound


----------



## Rohann (Nov 13, 2017)

Yeah CSS is one of the few libraries that have been on my mind persistently. No other library sounds quite so convincingly lush, and even though EWHS and SCS work great they just can't quite capture that sound.


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 13, 2017)

One thing I forgot to mention and which is disappointing, the non-vibrato patches have no legato.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

Thanks for all the replies guys!

I still find HS absolutely beautiful when you want to soar up and I like being able to dial in more or less vibrato. When you want a beautiful melody, that's often best I find. As far as CSS' sound, it's hard to tell from internet posts what exactly it sounds like because the sound can distort / get kind of fried-sounding on some playback sources. And of course sometimes people are posting at 128k which often makes strings sound mediocre and processed.



Sovereign said:


> the non-vibrato patches have no legato.



That's kind of a surprise, but thanks a lot for mentioning it.



Saxer said:


> The sound is very different from LASS.



Sometimes stuff plays back on Youtube and sounds really different -- I think that was it. Thanks



Saxer said:


> The heavy CSS vibrato is crossfaded to a non vibrato layer with nothing in between.



That is a bit of a pity. I will see if there's a demo with the non-vib to try to discern if it's still "lush" as everyone says.

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


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

Guy Michelmore from ThinkSpace does a review of a number of string libraries here -- it's spiccato only:


----------



## The Darris (Nov 13, 2017)

What type of work do you do? If you are working with deadlines and having to mix between live and sampled strings, this is a no brainer in my opinion. Their design beat out CineSamples' "Composer friendly" tag line by a lot. Not only do you get far more articulations but the interface and control-ability is very simple and intuitive compared to other libraries. 

I am a huge fan of Chamber Strings by Spitfire Audio but I rarely use them anymore in my work. CSS layered with their original CS2 covers 90% of what my clients needs are. I will usually add in some all stars from Albion, Chamber Strings, etc. But for the bread and butter, CSS does what I need it to do well, quickly, and efficiently. The price on it is very attractive compared to the market. 

What it comes down to for you is whether or not you are satisfied with what you have. Can you accomplish what you need to with the libraries you already own and use? If not, what are you missing? Articulations? Workflow? A specific style or sound? Etc... Answer those questions and you will know if you really need to buy this. Cinematic Studio contacted me to review their library. I'm glad they did because I thought I was good to go on my strings but after spending the time reviewing this library, I knew I would be making it my go to. It's definitely geared towards film scoring and composers who need a fast but efficient workflow that can wield final product results.

Best,

Chris


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

The Darris said:


> What type of work do you do?



Movies, games, TV, trailers; I often mix live and sampled performances, but sometimes there isn't time or money for replacing everything, or not on every cue. As a matter of perspective, I've been at this for over 20 years.



The Darris said:


> What it comes down to for you is whether or not you are satisfied with what you have



Most of the time. But that demo by @NoamL sounded different to my ears from the libraries I have.


----------



## vicontrolu (Nov 13, 2017)

I am thinking about this too. I wonder if there´s some macro in cubase that can be done to fix the legato lag. Something like Select overlapping notes + push backwards 20ms.

Also interested in how it deals with "adventure" style phrases, mixing staccatp/spicatto/marcato. Also curious if you can do some marcato/staccato overlay in the first note of legato phrases and if it sounds naural enough.


----------



## muk (Nov 13, 2017)

vicontrolu said:


> I am thinking about this too. I wonder if there´s some macro in cubase that can be done to fix the legato lag. Something like Select overlapping notes + push backwards 20ms.



It's not as simple as that because the legato speed depends on the note velocity. There are three different delays. I have set up keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl+Shift+S = move selected notes 300ms etc) for each (slow legato, medium, and fast). That way I can work quite quickly. The time I need to adjust the letato notes is saved several times over by the general ease of use and great sound out of the box.


----------



## lucor (Nov 13, 2017)

vicontrolu said:


> I wonder if there´s some macro in cubase that can be done to fix the legato lag. Something like Select overlapping notes + push backwards 20ms.


It's actually quite easy. I made 3 presets in the Logical Editor that push back notes 100ms, 250ms or 333ms (depending on the velocity). Then I put all of them in one macro. Now it's just a matter of hard quantizing the CSS data and then pushing one button, and everything is perfectly on the beat. Takes just a few seconds.


----------



## chapbot (Nov 13, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Movies, games, TV, trailers; I often mix live and sampled performances, but sometimes there isn't time or money for replacing everything, or not on every cue. As a matter of perspective, I've been at this for over 20 years.



Sounds like you should check out the products from http://www.musicalsampling.com/ - I tried CSS and the legato drove me crazy, and the sound didn't work in my pop tracks like LASS does.


----------



## markleake (Nov 13, 2017)

Hi John. Not mentioned yet is the excellent Cinematic Series Solo Strings (CSSS). They are not the same as say Bohemian Violin, but they are very good at what they do, and are designed to be first chairs for CSS, or as quartet players. They work perfectly for the first chair purpose, and can be used to add some definition to the CSS sound. So those 2 combined add even more quality and some options in how it sounds to the mix.


----------



## Ihnoc (Nov 13, 2017)

I may be isolated in the criticism, but the two things I didn't like about CSS (compared to Spitfire/Berlin) are:

Shorts' dynamics only controlled by velocity (I find CC1 for all dynamics easier)
Trills require you to press the two keys at interval (which is harder to use with expression maps)
I have had to circumvent these with a script, and the legato transition length with a macro as others have stated. Those are my quarms though, and with a little EQ and this work, it is the area of my template I worry about the least.


----------



## calebfaith (Nov 13, 2017)

I love CSS especially when layered with CSSS. 

As far as the legato delay, if you use Reaper I've created some scripts which automatically adjust the delay. The link is in my signature.

Also here is a short string arrangement I did the other day.


----------



## The Darris (Nov 13, 2017)

lucor said:


> It's actually quite easy. I made 3 presets in the Logical Editor that push back notes 100ms, 250ms or 333ms (depending on the velocity). Then I put all of them in one macro. Now it's just a matter of hard quantizing the CSS data and then pushing one button, and everything is perfectly on the beat. Takes just a few seconds.


Cubase has a simple slider in the Inspector window for instrument and midi tracks that allows you to add a negative or positive delay per millisecond. So, you can work to the grid but adjust it accordingly so your music sounds in time to the click or other instruments.


----------



## I like music (Nov 13, 2017)

calebfaith said:


> I love CSS especially when layered with CSSS.
> 
> As far as the legato delay, if you use Reaper I've created some scripts which automatically adjust the delay. The link is in my signature.
> 
> Also here is a short string arrangement I did the other day.



Very nice ... enjoyed that a lot. Is that an out-of-the-box sound? Sounds a tad brighter than some of the other demos etc that I've heard.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

Nice work, @calebfaith


----------



## Mike Fox (Nov 13, 2017)

JohnG said:


> As far as CSS' sound, it's hard to tell from internet posts what exactly it sounds like because the sound can distort / get kind of fried-sounding on some playback sources.
> [note: I have received free products from East West]



Honestly, the walkthrough/demo videos that Alex has done sound just like library.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

mikefox789 said:


> Honestly, the walkthrough/demo videos that Alex has done sound just like library



If by that you mean "not so hot," I'm afraid I have to agree. The demos that members here have posted, by contrast, sound very good and have their own character. I rarely use much vibrato, however, so I'm hoping to track down a WAV file with a non vib example or two. 

The out-of-the-box sound has a lot of vibrato, which might explain in part why it works so well with nostalgia like "Merry Little Christmas" and Elgar. Not denigrating either the library or those pieces, but I think it's fair to say that the amount of vibrato sounds slightly yesteryear, though it's a good yesteryear.


----------



## ohernie (Nov 13, 2017)

Weird. In "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" the strings sound a little like they are reversed. Pronounced attack followed by fast decay down to sustain level?


----------



## procreative (Nov 13, 2017)

I think that CSS has a very romantic 1950s vibe, kind of like the strings you hear in Its A Wonderful Life. Caleb's excellent example made me think of that. Personally I find the Sustain/Legato tone the most inspiring of all my Strings libraries, I have HWS, Sable, Adagio, CS2 and while some excel in other areas, for me these are so lush.

My only critique outside of the extra work to get the Legato timing right, is the lack of Vibrato options, its either Molto or Non.

But I much prefer the CSS Molto Vib to the HWS Molto Vib.


----------



## Pablocrespo (Nov 13, 2017)

I am contemplating them too, but waiting to hear some more of synchron strings, then I will make my decision.


----------



## thesteelydane (Nov 13, 2017)

As a string player I love CSS. Most realistic legato out there, but it comes at the price of the already mentioned delay. You do have some control over vibrato, but not as much as HWS. The non vib does have legato, but it’s a scripted one. The overall sound is very dark, and I’ve been experimenting with different ways of mixing it a bit brighter. Here’s a couple of older demos that are both 100 % CSS. Listening back now both could use some more CC and mixing work, but on the other hand this is what you can do quickly.





I don’t think you will regret buying CSS - I certainly haven’t!


----------



## chrisphan (Nov 13, 2017)

lucor said:


> It's actually quite easy. I made 3 presets in the Logical Editor that push back notes 100ms, 250ms or 333ms (depending on the velocity). Then I put all of them in one macro. Now it's just a matter of hard quantizing the CSS data and then pushing one button, and everything is perfectly on the beat. Takes just a few seconds.


I've always done it this way but in 3 steps. Never once thought about putting them all in macro! Thanks for the tip


----------



## chrisphan (Nov 13, 2017)

And I find it quite easy to adjust the legato delay in Cubase too. I was intimidated by it at first but hardly think about it anymore now. Just play in your lines with the classic legato patches, adjust the velocity, quantize everything and apply logical editor


----------



## NoamL (Nov 13, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Ok -- I so enjoyed the Elgar mockup that @NoamL posted, I'm tempted to get yet another string library, CSS.



LOL I'm flattered John. 

For anyone interested in more detail on those mockups you can visit here -

CSS + Elgar = Magic

CSS + Williams = Magic

The Elgar mockup is completely out of the box (I used a little of the on board reverb). No EQ or anything though, so if you hear any tonal difference from Alex's walkthroughs it's likely due to the MP3 compression on Soundcloud.

John, if you "hear something different from other library mockups" I would be willing to bet it comes from two features. First I like creating a fluid tempo map (more on that in both threads). Second I am particular about selecting the exact right legato transition at each point in a phrase. Of course, the first feature you can recreate with any library. With the second, I think CSS stands fairly alone. There are 3 legato speeds plus portamento and the interchangeability is seamless. If "playability" is the goal there are better options, but if the final result is the goal then CSS is one of the best.

If I recall correctly, the Spitfire strings also have speed control but isn't it on a continuous slider? I'm not sure if it's actually discretely recorded samples or if it's just a cutoff control.

Here is a DAWcast of the Williams mockup cued up to the part where I show just CSS (before any mixing/processing). You can see that most of the TLC went into making those cello legato transitions sound like real music haha






vicontrolu said:


> Also interested in how it deals with "adventure" style phrases, mixing staccatp/spicatto/marcato. Also curious if you can do some marcato/staccato overlay in the first note of legato phrases and if it sounds naural enough.



You can hear this at 1:00-1:20 in the Williams mockup. The violins are playing a complicated mix of ordinary legato (keyswitch C0) and marcato legato (F#0) and a few of the marcato legatos have spiccato overlay. Despite all the keyswitching the sound is seamless. As for the aggressiveness, IMO they do all right but it's one of the more challenging passages for the library in that piece. The part at 2:05-2:35 is marcato legato with spiccato overlays on the first of each pair of notes. Before actually mocking up the piece I was sure that section would be a trainwreck but CSS turned out to nail it!


----------



## jononotbono (Nov 13, 2017)

Incase anyone wanted to know how to create a Logical Editor Command in Cubase for offsetting midi notes by -50ms (Just change the -50 to whatever you want and save).

The Cubase Track Delay in the Project window is good and everything but it will affect the whole Midi/Instrument track and CSS has 5 different latencies (50ms, 100ms, 150ms, 200ms and 300ms) so Macros/Logical Editor Commands can really help speed things up!


----------



## calebfaith (Nov 13, 2017)

I like music said:


> Very nice ... enjoyed that a lot. Is that an out-of-the-box sound? Sounds a tad brighter than some of the other demos etc that I've heard.



It has the tiniest bit of harmonic exciter and a tiny bit of EQ from Ozone 5.



JohnG said:


> If by that you mean "not so hot," I'm afraid I have to agree. The demos that members here have posted, by contrast, sound very good and have their own character. I rarely use much vibrato, however, so I'm hoping to track down a WAV file with a non vib example or two.
> 
> The out-of-the-box sound has a lot of vibrato, which might explain in part why it works so well with nostalgia like "Merry Little Christmas" and Elgar. Not denigrating either the library or those pieces, but I think it's fair to say that the amount of vibrato sounds slightly yesteryear, though it's a good yesteryear.



Yeah there is a lot of vibrato but even if that isn't for you the shorts are the best I've used by far. I posted a comparison at the start of the year of spiccato which the community here helped with heaps of other libraries here.

I've found that CSS seems to have a lot more life in it compared to other string libraries I've used. With dynamics you don't have to shape every note but can just use a general trend line. But each to their own some people swear by libraries which I 'hate' but produce a great sound out of them.


----------



## jonathanprice (Nov 13, 2017)

I prefer HS to CSS for sound, but it takes me _way_ longer to produce an HS cue. I can crank out a CSS cue, with TouchOSC on CC58 for articulation changes, in a fraction of the time. If I have the time to make it sound great, I use HS. If I'm under a harsh deadline, CSS is my favorite.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 13, 2017)

@thesteelydane 

Liked the Moonshine cue especially -- great shorts and imaginative writing.


----------



## AllanH (Nov 13, 2017)

In comparison to Hollywood Strings, CSS is darker and a bit less intense. I find that CSS sounds better in the higher registers but is no match for HS for soaring and intense lines. CSS somehow reminds me of older movies and fills that role nicely. If I could only have one of the two, I'd stay with HS.


----------



## chrisphan (Nov 13, 2017)

NoamL said:


> Here is a DAWcast of the Williams mockup cued up to the part where I show just CSS (before any mixing/processing)


I never knew to halve the expression to create fake divisi. Does it sort of work as a master change in velocity? Also, in the other video, you have separate tracks for legato/ marcato/ legato - marcato. Is this just for better visual and easier delay adjustment or is there more to that?


----------



## Mike Fox (Nov 13, 2017)

JohnG said:


> If by that you mean "not so hot," I'm afraid I have to agree. The demos that members here have posted, by contrast, sound very good and have their own character. I rarely use much vibrato, however, so I'm hoping to track down a WAV file with a non vib example or two.
> 
> The out-of-the-box sound has a lot of vibrato, which might explain in part why it works so well with nostalgia like "Merry Little Christmas" and Elgar. Not denigrating either the library or those pieces, but I think it's fair to say that the amount of vibrato sounds slightly yesteryear, though it's a good yesteryear.


Very true. Ive been writing Hammer horror types of pieces lately, and CSS is perfect for it. Very yesteryear indeed!


----------



## lucor (Nov 13, 2017)

In case you need any more convincing that CSS is the best string library out there.


----------



## procreative (Nov 14, 2017)

thesteelydane said:


>




Really lovely piece, I know you are a string player and probably spent many years honing your skills. Can you tell me how you go about creating a piece like this? 

Do you first create the melody and chords then break it down into the various counterpoint? I have always struggled with this kind of writing where the lower register starts off almost chordal while the higher register plays the melody then they switch.

Any pointers to where I can learn more about the process and how to create these kind of passages?


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 14, 2017)

I did a morose/bleak sort of track a while ago just using CSS for the strings element, apart from a solo cello. It gets romantic in the middle and then goes back to its funereal roots. I like the way the strings sound with this library and like a lot of these sample libraries, they all play to their strengths.

Play loud.


----------



## tehreal (Nov 14, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> I like the way the strings sound with this library



How do you like the non-vibrato legato with this lib?


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 14, 2017)

tehreal said:


> How do you like the non-vibrato legato with this lib?



Unfortunately I don't get that forensic when playing in something. So I don't really know how to answer the question.

What I would say, is if you can do Hammer Horror with this library, that should be good enough for anyone!!! 

James Bernard was so much fun.


----------



## markleake (Nov 14, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> I did a morose/bleak sort of track a while ago just using CSS for the strings element, apart from a solo cello. It gets romantic in the middle and then goes back to its funereal roots. I like the way the strings sound with this library and like a lot of these sample libraries, they all play to their strengths.
> 
> Play loud.



Is this treated with something, or are they layered a lot with harmonics? Or maybe close mics with some EQ or something?


----------



## Harry (Nov 14, 2017)

lucor said:


> It's actually quite easy. I made 3 presets in the Logical Editor that push back notes 100ms, 250ms or 333ms (depending on the velocity). Then I put all of them in one macro. Now it's just a matter of hard quantizing the CSS data and then pushing one button, and everything is perfectly on the beat. Takes just a few seconds.


Yep, I do the same. I find the main legato patch is not very playable so I use the Classic Legato patch for tracking, then quantise it, change the patch to legato, hit the macro key and its done.


----------



## vicontrolu (Nov 14, 2017)

I dont know people..its too dark. I come from the 8Dio sound and thats almost the opposite. I guess all my template is sounding bright and adding this library would make me push the rest of the instruments back to make it cohesive..and i am not sure if i am going to like the sound of it then.

Has anyone tried to make this sound really bright/upfornt? Maybe using more the close mics?


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 14, 2017)

markleake said:


> Is this treated with something, or are they layered a lot with harmonics? Or maybe close mics with some EQ or something?



I don't think so. Apart from mastering when I sent it in. I may have used Neutron and a Universal 1073 when mixing. Nothing sounds quite the same on Soundcloud.


----------



## VgsA (Nov 14, 2017)

I don't know if this adds anything to the thread, but regarding legato and timbre I really love Soaring Strings (for certain situations, of course). Here's a little something I made the first day, Soaring Strings only:



Unfortunately, I don't own CSS, so I can't compare them.


----------



## thesteelydane (Nov 14, 2017)

procreative said:


> Really lovely piece, I know you are a string player and probably spent many years honing your skills. Can you tell me how you go about creating a piece like this?
> Do you first create the melody and chords then break it down into the various counterpoint? I have always struggled with this kind of writing where the lower register starts off almost chordal while the higher register plays the melody then they switch.
> 
> Any pointers to where I can learn more about the process and how to create these kind of passages?



Thank! To be honest, I still struggle with this myself, and this piece was actually intended as a pastiche on cheesy Americana, a study of sorts - I was trying to squeeze as many cliches as possible in there. In the end it comes down to my deep desire to write interesting parts for everyone, because I have played my fair share of boring whole note parts in modern music myself. So I would say counterpoint is the essence of everything. Once I have a melody and chord progression worked out, I figure out what voicing I want of the chords on the important beats and arrival points, and then I use counterpoint/figuration to get from one voicing to the next in an interesting way, looking for dissonances that I can create and resolve along the way. I try to always consider the rhythm of everything combined - basic arranging: The melody sustains, the other voices move and vice versa. This kind of music is alway moving towards or away from tension, and I try to always be aware of which of the two it is at any point in time. Other than that it's just motivic development and variation, there's nothing inspired about this, it's worked out deliberately. I work on a piano and a write all voices on short score before I even open up CSS. I still have tons to learn, but if it helps I have spent A LOT of time studying tonal counterpoint (Kennan and Piston), and then of course playing 10 years in an orchestra.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 14, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> Nothing sounds quite the same on Soundcloud.



this is certainly true.



vicontrolu said:


> I dont know people..its too dark.



it can never be too dark

Question: does anyone have a demo of the non-vib strings? I mostly write for live players either senza vibrato or ask that they use only a tiny amount of vibrato -- close to zero. Often sul tasto, senza vib, even. So the non-vibrato sound is something I'd love to hear.

The other thing I'd love to hear is a demo that's not a classical piece or a "retrospective" style. The Elgar and Chopin indeed sound good, but I "don't get much call for it around here," as they say in the Cheese Shop sketch. 

I enjoy the library's sound (Soundcloud / youtube deficiencies notwithstanding) and from what I've read it sounds very easy to work quickly with this library; sometimes that's a huge advantage.

[edit: also, the shorts sound very good too, from what I can tell]


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 14, 2017)

JohnG said:


> this is certainly true.
> Question: does anyone have a demo of the non-vib strings? I mostly write for live players either senza vibrato or ask that they use only a tiny amount of vibrato -- close to zero. Often sul tasto, senza vib, even. So the non-vibrato sound is something I'd love to hear.


Ah, I'll be honest, it's not even worth the trouble giving an example of zero vibrato legato playing, it's faked and it sounds horrible. You can dial the regular legato transitions in a bit by x-fading slightly into the regular vib strings, but it will sound weird because the transitions are long and they'll start playing vibrato and suddenly stop. If there's a feature request for an update for CSS, for me it would be real non-vib leg transitions.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 14, 2017)

Sovereign said:


> If there's a feature request for an update for CSS, for me it would be real non-vib leg transitions.



Thanks @Sovereign 

I sort of chuckled when I read your post, thinking of what the producers would think -- my guess is they would call adding legato to the non-vib transitions a "major upgrade," rather than just an update, but I get what you are saying. 

Very helpful and thanks again.


----------



## muk (Nov 14, 2017)

JohnG said:


> The other thing I'd love to hear is a demo that's not a classical piece or a "retrospective" style. The Elgar and Chopin indeed sound good, but I "don't get much call for it around here," as they say in the Cheese Shop sketch.



Don't know if that's what you are looking for, or if you meant something traileresque, but maybe it helps:

https://app.box.com/s/vc529lsqsuuzemieurzs7we11mc74f6i


----------



## JohnG (Nov 14, 2017)

hi @muk Nice piece! Actually, I have everything necessary to make "real loud" music and your demo is lovely. Tasteful, thought-provoking, and emotional without being "oversaturated." Need to listen to more of your music.

Did you use any of the vibrato patches on the demo? Just asking because it almost sounds as though there are occasional legato transitions, and I thought the legato was only on the "regular" vibrato patches.


----------



## adg21 (Nov 14, 2017)

muk said:


> Don't know if that's what you are looking for, or if you meant something traileresque, but maybe it helps:
> 
> https://app.box.com/s/vc529lsqsuuzemieurzs7we11mc74f6i




This is very nice. I found the stereo field a bit too wide but maybe this is more about taste


----------



## muk (Nov 14, 2017)

Thank you John! These are just the normal legato patches with vibrato. I only switch to nonvibrato if I find it overbearing on some notes, but if I remember correctly that was not the case on this track. So everything just standard legato patches.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 14, 2017)

Ok; sounds like less vibrato on your example than on some of the others. Could be because I downloaded it and it's at 256k instead of whatever the internet forces us through, but it does sound less "crispy" than some of the hosted examples sound, at least on my system. I find in general that string playback, even live strings, at 128k or less generate a weird high-frequency "wash" and artifacts that make them sound synthetic and -- a bit horrible!

So thanks for the higher res demo, muk. Nice work!

No doubt it's a nice sound. I still love HS (and Spitfire, and LASS...) but this is a different vibe, and I can see why so many people like this library.

I like the wide stereo for what it's worth, though it is indeed pretty wide.

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


----------



## muk (Nov 14, 2017)

True about the stereo field. It is pretty wide out of the box. But it can be reduced if you lower the main mic or even mute it, and use the close and ambient mics more prominently. That gives a nice sound as well, and you can add additional reverb to taste. Most of the width comes from the main mic


----------



## JohnG (Nov 14, 2017)

muk said:


> Most of the width comes from the main mic



Thanks for the info, and the demo @muk Very generous of you.

And thanks to everyone else who weighed in. This thread to me is a great example of what this site can be.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## adg21 (Nov 14, 2017)

muk said:


> True about the stereo field. It is pretty wide out of the box. But it can be reduced if you lower the main mic or even mute it, and use the close and ambient mics more prominently. That gives a nice sound as well, and you can add additional reverb to taste. Most of the width comes from the main mic



I think some sample libraries exaggerate the stereo width for the wow-factor (perhaps in the same vein that some are overly bright) but to the detriment of some realism. Anyway, it's a great demo and nice sounding library


----------



## aaronventure (Nov 14, 2017)

Another way of getting a more _Decca_ sound would be to use a delay with two taps and 0 feedback, and (I work in Reaper and am referring to ReaDelay) make one tap mono with 0 delay and lower it by 6db, then just delay the second tap (leave the stereo field as it is) by ~8ms.

Essentially emulating that middle mic that gets the sound (usually) before the other two. Although it can never be the same since every instrument hits every mic in a different time, it does help a bit with achieving a more solid image while maintaing width (that's what the 8ms delay is for, if you don't dial in that delay it will be the same as if you narrowed down the entire field / added volume to the _Mid _channel)


----------



## Pianolando (Nov 14, 2017)

My 2c:
I bought both CSS and CSSS recently when the solo strings were released and I believe I am one of what seems like very few users who doesn't like either of the libraries. The solo strings have a very heavy vibrato that makes them unusable for me on their own. CSS is also too vibrato heavy for my taste, and feel much less detailed than my workhorse Berlin Strings. Also I had trouble with getting a nice timing on the legato transitions, even when editing the notes afterwards...it felt hard getting both a natural legato and the occasional, super romantic portamento. Also the shorts didn't have a "bite" that I liked.

I have heard beautiful demos from lots of people with both CSS and CSS+CSSS, no good ones with just the string quartet. Obviolusly people can make the combo sound great, but I found it hard.

The GUI is great, the best ones of any of the big libraries imo.

Disclaimer: I started using these libraries in the middle of a big production, so I didn't have time to adjust, when it didn't do what I wanted within a few hours I just went back to my trusty old BS and it sounded just like I wanted it to. A few months from now when I have tried them again, I might love both libraries, but I very much doubt that I will ever use CSSS by it's own.


----------



## Nils Neumann (Nov 14, 2017)

I'm a little bit late to the party but here are my thoughts on CSS. 
I own HWS, CS2 and CSS (and minor string collections like Ark1+2, Albion etc). CSS is my main workhorse, but starting with the critic first:
The pp sustain samples are pretty noisy. If you are trying to create a crescendo (pp-mf) you realise the noise floor quite heavily.
But thats all, only one articulations dynamic. For me thats impressive, don't know about any other libraries with so few problems.

Spiccato/Staccatos are superb. The 3 Legato types bring variety and I personally love the vibrato. The consistency between the articulations is perfect for my taste.
Yes, CSS is pretty dark but with a little bit of eq you can match them to a brighter sound.

Here is a mockup of the TMNT soundtrack and a little composition by me if you are more interested in "epic" tracks


(all strings CSS)


----------



## calebfaith (Nov 14, 2017)

JohnG said:


> The other thing I'd love to hear is a demo that's not a classical piece or a "retrospective" style. The Elgar and Chopin indeed sound good, but I "don't get much call for it around here," as they say in the Cheese Shop sketch.



Here's an 'inspirational' trailer style piece


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Nov 15, 2017)

With CSS, I often find myself limiting my legato lines to around mf or less and then cranking up the gain in Kontakt to compensate. There is a fair amount less vibrato baked into the quieter dynamics, and you can still be plenty expressive without leaning on the mod wheel quite as hard.


----------



## N.Caffrey (Nov 15, 2017)

Nils Neumann said:


> I'm a little bit late to the party but here are my thoughts on CSS.
> I own HWS, CS2 and CSS (and minor string collections like Ark1+2, Albion etc). CSS is my main workhorse, but starting with the critic first:
> The pp sustain samples are pretty noisy. If you are trying to create a crescendo (pp-mf) you realise the noise floor quite heavily.
> But thats all, only one articulations dynamic. For me thats impressive, don't know about any other libraries with so few problems.
> ...



Really cool man, well done! Is that symphonic brass?


----------



## JohnG (Nov 15, 2017)

On sale for Black Friday:
http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/strings.html


----------



## thesteelydane (Nov 15, 2017)

JohnG said:


> On sale for Black Friday:
> http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/strings.html



Well, in that case I believe this is what is often called a "no brainer" around here. Seriously, I doubt you'll regret it.


----------



## nas (Nov 15, 2017)

There was a pretty cool 4 part series JunkieXL did where he breaks down some of the cues he scored for *Dark Tower.* He mentions somewhere on the videos (or some other videos he's done) that he loves CSS, the _older_ version. Not sure if there's an actual sonic difference between those samples and the newer library, but he does manage to get some pretty good sounding mockups with them.

Here's a link to one of the clips. You can hear the strings on their own at around 14:05


----------



## markleake (Nov 15, 2017)

I think JunkieXL uses CS2, not CSS. There are some relatively recent vids where he talks about strings and mentions this.


----------



## nas (Nov 16, 2017)

markleake said:


> I think JunkieXL uses CS2, not CSS. There are some relatively recent vids where he talks about strings and mentions this.



Yes that's right, I believe that's the same creator no?


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Nov 16, 2017)

nas said:


> Yes that's right, I believe that's the same creator no?


Same creator, different library. Different recordings of a different ensemble size in a different space.
Somehow, both are still amazing.


----------



## Nils Neumann (Nov 16, 2017)

N.Caffrey said:


> Really cool man, well done! Is that symphonic brass?


No, Ark 1 Brass and maybe the 6Horns legato patch from HWB


----------



## markleake (Nov 16, 2017)

nas said:


> Yes that's right, I believe that's the same creator no?


CS2 is a different library by the same developer, not an older version of CSS. CS2 is a very good library in its own right... there's a reason why JunkieXL continues to use it.


----------



## nas (Nov 16, 2017)

markleake said:


> CS2 is a different library by the same developer, not an older version of CSS. CS2 is a very good library in its own right... there's a reason why JunkieXL continues to use it.





Jdiggity1 said:


> Same creator, different library. Different recordings of a different ensemble size in a different space.
> Somehow, both are still amazing.




Thanks for clearing that up guys. It seems they don't sell that one anymore? I went to their site and I could only find CSS and CSSS. 

Anyway back on topic, listening to some of the excellent demos posted it does have a certain sound that may be useful in several instances but it wasn't really to my liking and probably not something I would get (even for sale) - simply because it's not something I really need at the moment. 

I'm really digging the SF string libraries (Symphonic, Chamber, and LCO) at the moment and they cover most of what I need. Additionally, I've been checking out the Virharmonic Solo Vln and Cello and Embertone's Joshua Bell Vln for quartet and first chair use and they sound incredible.

Anyway, just my 2 cents - YMMV


----------



## calebfaith (Nov 16, 2017)

nas said:


> It seems they don't sell that one anymore? I went to their site and I could only find CSS and CSSS.



http://www.cinematicstrings.com/


----------



## Lassi Tani (Nov 16, 2017)

calebfaith said:


> http://www.cinematicstrings.com/


https://sites.fastspring.com/cinematicstrings/product/cinematicstrings


----------



## nas (Nov 16, 2017)

calebfaith said:


> http://www.cinematicstrings.com/



Thank you! I didn't realize that these two libraries actually have their own websites. Looks like CS2 also has a Black Friday sale.


----------



## reddognoyz (Nov 16, 2017)

markleake said:


> I think JunkieXL uses CS2, not CSS. There are some relatively recent vids where he talks about strings and mentions this.



I think he actually uses CS1


----------



## calebfaith (Nov 16, 2017)

reddognoyz said:


> I think he actually uses CS1



From memory when I watched his studio walkthrough with the Mad Max theme I thought it was 2

Edit: Just rewatched it and yeah he does clearly saw the old version. My bad


----------



## markleake (Nov 16, 2017)

reddognoyz said:


> I think he actually uses CS1


What makes you think that? From his videos it seems to be CS2.


----------



## nas (Nov 16, 2017)

reddognoyz said:


> I think he actually uses CS1





markleake said:


> What makes you think that? From his videos it seems to be CS2.



I think *reddognoyz* may be referring to this: (go to 6:20)


----------



## markleake (Nov 16, 2017)

nas said:


> I think *reddognoyz* may be referring to this: (go to 6:20)



I think he means he hasn't wanted to move over to the new CSS because he prefers CS2. It wouldn't make sense for him to avoid using the updated version of Cinematic Strings - CS2 is the same library, just updated. I could be wrong, but I think that is the most likely case.


----------



## synthpunk (Nov 16, 2017)

CSS going on sale 24-28th btw
https://vi-control.net/community/threads/your-black-friday-vi-list.66033/page-6#post-4150914


----------



## nas (Nov 16, 2017)

markleake said:


> I think he means he hasn't wanted to move over to the new CSS because he prefers CS2. It wouldn't make sense for him to avoid using the updated version of Cinematic Strings - CS2 is the same library, just updated. I could be wrong, but I think that is the most likely case.



Yes you could be right. Somehow I seem to like CS on his mockup (whatever ver. he's using) better than CSS. He does do some EQ and processing on that library though.


----------



## markleake (Nov 16, 2017)

nas said:


> Yes you could be right. Somehow I seem to like CS on his mockup (whatever ver. he's using) better than CSS. He does do some EQ and processing on that library though.


Yes, I prefer CS2 over CSS quite often. It depends on what sound you want. CS2 is a fuller sound (more players, bigger space) with less heavy vibrato, and has less of the old-school classic movie feel that CSS has. For people looking for a good strings library, that also happens to be cheaper than others that it compares well to, CS2 is the one to go for.


----------



## NoamL (Nov 16, 2017)

CS2 is really not that much bigger - it's 40 players to CSS's 35, still outmatched by the "Hollywood sized" ~60 piece strings of Mural, LASS, HWS etc - but it has a really nice hall sound. Also more aggressive & responsive and I can see why Junkie would prefer it. It kind of looks like he has the old version (CS, before it was updated to CS2).


----------



## Nmargiotta (Nov 16, 2017)

Pianolando said:


> My 2c:
> I bought both CSS and CSSS recently when the solo strings were released and I believe I am one of what seems like very few users who doesn't like either of the libraries. The solo strings have a very heavy vibrato that makes them unusable for me on their own. CSS is also too vibrato heavy for my taste, and feel much less detailed than my workhorse Berlin Strings. Also I had trouble with getting a nice timing on the legato transitions, even when editing the notes afterwards...it felt hard getting both a natural legato and the occasional, super romantic portamento. Also the shorts didn't have a "bite" that I liked.
> 
> I have heard beautiful demos from lots of people with both CSS and CSS+CSSS, no good ones with just the string quartet. Obviolusly people can make the combo sound great, but I found it hard.
> ...




If you want to sell CSS I’ll gladly make an offer, I’ve been wanting to pick it up.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

my results in my string tests:

Ultimately never use this lib anymore. Zero need to waste the time on offsets. Sound is just muddy, distant, weak-ish, almost synth like sometimes. And if u want that, u can EQ any other (high end) lib to sound so, but not vice versa.

SSS/Mural wipes the floor with CSS, every single time for me. Depth, clarity, thick sound if using all mics appropriately as needed - I don't get that from CSS, and naturally it lacks these extra mics.

CSSS is weak and thin. Unusable on it's own, u can mix it with other libs, but why then buy it if u _*have to*_ mix ?

Sacconi wipes the floor with it and can be used standalone, if the Viola thingy is compensated for.

There are some nice mockups on here where CSS sounds nice, but those are pieces with many instruments playing and the attention is not on the strings, and/or the strings are not the center piece.

Real test for me is to do pieces with strings only, and yes CSS can sound nice (after some work, and u ears adjust to it) - but then do the exact same piece in less time with SSS and be blown away... different sound for sure, different location, but man just hear the clarity... no mud.

But I wonder how much peeps here EQ CSS and get some extra magic out of it... ? Would love to see some EQ settings and get more out of this digital paper weight..... 

Maybe I've not treated these strings correctly...


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> There are some nice mockups on here where CSS sounds nice, but those are pieces with many instruments playing and the attention is not on the strings, and/or the strings are not the center piece.


There might be something wrong with your eyes and ears then since a number of them were strings only. 



> Maybe I've not treated these strings correctly...


Self-diagnosis confirmed.


----------



## David Chappell (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> Ultimately never use this lib anymore. Zero need to waste the time on offsets. Sound is just muddy, distant, weak-ish, almost synth like sometimes. ...
> 
> ... CSSS is weak and thin. Unusable on it's own



Please post an example of this, because based on my experience with CSS/CSSS I don't think I could disagree with you more.


----------



## JonSolo (Nov 16, 2017)

I enjoy CSS and CSSS and find them great. CSSS is harder to work with, but mostly the legato. They sound wonderful. Then again, I don't do much "just strings".


----------



## aaronventure (Nov 16, 2017)

The sound is dark and not the easiest to work with if you want it brighter. The ppp layer has a decent amount of noise to it, and if you brighten the whole output up, it's gonna be much, much more apparent. And it's not a consistent layer of white noise, it swirls and folds as you go through different notes and velocity layers. Luckily, Waves has X-Noise which takes care of this problem completely.

I recently composed a piece with a main focus on the strings and used CSS. There is nothing quite so expressive as this library, especially not SSS. It just... flows. There's no other word for it. There wasn't much work to it, I just played it in and fixed some small errors here and there. No different than with any other library. Along with the EQ, I also have some saturation of lows and low-mids.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 16, 2017)

reddognoyz said:


> I think he actually uses CS1



He might of started using strings ANYTHING like a year ago. (Oh snap!)


----------



## patrick76 (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> Sound is just muddy, distant, weak-ish, almost synth like sometimes. And if u want that, u can EQ any other (high end) lib to sound so, but not vice versa.


Man, we are definitely hearing different things. It's almost as if you are describing a different library. You must have picked up the shitty synth strings special edition library from that guy with the religious signs down by the bus station. Good guy, but you can't always count on legitimate sample libraries from him.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

Sovereign said:


> There might be something wrong with your eyes and ears then since a number of them were strings only.
> 
> 
> Self-diagnosis confirmed.



or.... just another idea: u simply don't realize that I don't have time to look for or scout vi for tests - some I saw by coincidence (the one from NoamL)... I do my own tests... doesn't measure up... plenty of other libs available that do.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

David Chappell said:


> Please post an example of this, because based on my experience with CSS/CSSS I don't think I could disagree with you more.



tested CSSS directly against Sacconi on a string quartet piece - rather simple piece. part of a movie, can't post. but doesn't matter, just test yourself on a dedicated piece. Sacconi eats CSSS for breakfast.

CSSS is straw thin on it's own, as others have stated who bought it (look at the dedicated thread), and now only use it to mix with CSS, to make that richer, which mans CSS could have been thicker and richer from the get go..... like SSS is 

my opinion only, do ur own direct 1:1 tests. not just listen to just CSS - u need to directly compare to another lib with the same piece.

OTOH, also understand I'm not trying to convince u to buy something else.... really don't care... just sharing my experience.


----------



## David Chappell (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> tested CSSS directly against Sacconi on a string quartet piece - rather simple piece. part of a movie, can't post. but doesn't matter, just test yourself on a dedicated piece. Sacconi eats CSSS for breakfast.
> 
> CSSS is straw thin on it's own, as others have stated who bought it (look at the dedicated thread), and now only use it to mix with CSS, to make that richer, which mans CSS could have been thicker and richer from the get go..... like SSS is
> 
> ...


Well, but this isn't a case of whether another library is better than than another, I don't really care about that as everyone has their own opinions. It's more about how you've described CSS as being "muddy, distant, weak-ish, almost synth like sometimes" and CSSS as being "unusable on it's own". I'd like to hear some examples of these so that perhaps we can figure out what it is you're doing wrong with them.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

patrick76 said:


> Man, we are definitely hearing different things. It's almost as if you are describing a different library. You must have picked up the shitty synth strings special edition library from that guy with the religious signs down by the bus station. Good guy, but you can't always count on legitimate sample libraries from him.



two things:

(1) u and that guy at the bus station is a weird story to share... I assume he is your cr*ck dealer... (?)  

(2) for the sake of helping u out: u do understand that statements/comparisons being made are done to the reference being given, in my post: SSS. in full explanation for you: muddy compared to SSS.

My opinion only.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

David Chappell said:


> Well, but this isn't a case of whether another library is better than than another, I don't really care about that as everyone has their own opinions. It's more about how you've described CSS as being "muddy, distant, weak-ish, almost synth like sometimes" and CSSS as being "unusable on it's own". I'd like to hear some examples of these so that perhaps we can figure out what it is you're doing wrong with them.



very simple:

u take the notes. u mockup Sacconi. u take the same notes, u mockup CSSS and then figure out where to apply offsets etc. Then u listen. Then u choose Sacconi.

Pretty straightforward. 

but if u have a dedicated string piece to share that is CSSS only, please do. Would love to hear it.

And btw, Sacconi - as any other solo seats lib - is also rather "thin", same with BST FC etc etc, but CSSS doesn't cut it for me at all on it's own


----------



## David Chappell (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> very simple:
> 
> u take the notes. u mockup Sacconi. u take the same notes, u mockup CSSS and then figure out where to apply offsets etc. Then u listen. Then u choose Sacconi.
> 
> ...


Like I said - I'm not concerned about comparing libs, but more with how you described CSS/CSSS on its own. As you've now clarified that you were describing them as such in comparison to SSS/ Sacconi rather than on their own, it's not as important.



I don't have any tracks myself yet using only CSSS, but this official demo has a link to download the MIDI file in the description which should be helpful.


----------



## patrick76 (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> two things:
> 
> (1) u and that guy at the bus station is a weird story to share... I assume he is your cr*ck dealer... (?)
> 
> ...



(1)Not my crack dealer, your sample library salesman. Give him my regards. Fine fellow.

(2) Thanks so much. Do you realize that you describe CSS as muddy and then later say that it could have been thicker and richer from the start (compared to SSS, yes, I understand)? I know this is a bit subjective, but I think many engineers would agree that "muddy", "thicker" and "rich" could all be considered to be around the same frequency range.... so it seems something is askew. Just my opinion of course!


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

David,

my statements were NOT absolute, but in comparison to the libs I mentioned in my posts. This needs to be understood. Also, as always: YMMV

Gregh, the OP, seems to be a very experienced composer who owns many libs already... including the very high-end ones... and it seems that a lot of the CSS owners do not have these or never compared to them...

so.... u can't understand what u've not directly tested 1:1... so the general yapping how great something is, when u've not cross compared is often nothing but: okay, "I wanna convince myself I've not bought the wrong library" or "yeah, yeah I'm happy... (although I wish I could afford the SF and/or BST)"...

look at the CSSS thread, people trying to convince themselves they've not just wasted their money... some were honest though.

regarding tracks from devs: gotta be honest, it's often hard to get the same quality out of some of the libs - with some libs u need a lot of secret sauce and they don't share... (wonder why..... ?)

I've not gotten CSS to any level in a standalone track that it would live up to the sound of SSS... but I've happily mixed CSS with BST...

like I said: share ur EQ settings ! Let's go.


----------



## NoamL (Nov 16, 2017)

Ultra said:


> regarding tracks from devs: gotta be honest, it's often hard to get the same quality out of some of the libs - with some libs u need a lot of secret sauce and they don't share... (wonder why..... ?)



But, those demos from Alex are completely out of the box. And so was my Elgar mockup.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

NoamL said:


> But, those demos from Alex are completely out of the box. And so was my Elgar mockup.


the one I heard from u was the Williams one: HP... wonder how that would have sounded with SSS...

listen to BST, VSL, SF dev tracks... lots of customers don't get that from their samples...


----------



## Ultra (Nov 16, 2017)

I just listened to ur Elgar mockup... very nicely done, u clearly spend a lot of time with the lib...

but - as to one of my points - IMO, this lib lacks clarity... it always feels like you're sitting in the next room, not in the same room as the players... like somebody wrote in that thread: "kind of like an early radio broadcast recording."

but maybe possibly that is something that somebody is looking for and can use as a color once in a while...


----------



## MaxOctane (Nov 16, 2017)

I did this quick comparison of CSSS Violin 1 and Spitfire Sacconi V1 ("Playable" patch). Both patches out of the box. A _tiny_ bit of tweaking in the first CSSS clip to fix a suddenly-loud attack, which I find to be a common issue with CSSS unless you play _very_ delicately.


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 17, 2017)

Ultra said:


> David,
> Gregh, the OP, seems to be a very experienced composer who owns many libs already... including the very high-end ones... and it seems that a lot of the CSS owners do not have these or never compared to them...


This seems like an insult to just about everyone here who recommends CSS, basically claiming we're all ignorant. There's no good reason to assume that most CSS owners do not own other libraries, and as such lack reference points. So I'd say the "yapping" is all yours. There's also a fine line between subjectivity and sheer madness, the fact that pretty much no one is supporting your assessment of CSS would suggest the problem lies squarely with yourself. Perhaps you simply have poor judgement, or poor speakers, or a combination thereof. Who is to know.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 17, 2017)

Sovereign said:


> This seems like an insult to just about everyone here who recommends CSS, basically claiming we're all ignorant. There's no good reason to assume that most CSS owners do not own other libraries, and as such lack reference points. So I'd say the "yapping" is all yours. There's also a fine line between subjectivity and sheer madness, the fact that pretty much no one is supporting your assessment of CSS would suggest the problem lies squarely with yourself. Perhaps you simply have poor judgement, or poor speakers, or a combination thereof. Who is to know.



.... or: better taste. Opal's sounding just fine over here... thank u 

it def does seem though that it is above ur pay grade to realize that everything u just wrote about _*my opinion*_ applies to the same suck up CSS propaganda u keep writing. What's happening Cpt. Ironic ?

Also: high-end libs. not "other libs". but u keep pretending Kirk Hunter strings is as good as a reference as flagship SSS.

but I'll say this: one of the advantages of CSS is that the damage is little.

And I OTOH am not insulted that u like CSS that much. But my pipi is not as tiny as urs.


----------



## Sovereign (Nov 17, 2017)

Ultra said:


> ...
> it def does seem though that it is above ur pay grade to realize that everything u just wrote about _*my opinion*_ applies to the same suck up CSS propaganda u keep writing. What's happening Cpt. Ironic ?
> 
> Also: high-end libs. not "other libs". but u keep pretending Kirk Hunter strings is as good as a reference as flagship SSS.
> ...


I'm having trouble taking you seriously, especially if you believe this is some kind of dick contest. 

First, I'm not posting any CSS propaganda. If you think I did you're delusional and you must wilfully ignore the critical notes I posted about CSS in the beginning of this thread. Second, you still labor under the delusion that people who disagree with you do not own other high-end libraries. Contrary to your childish assumptions I do not own Kirk Hunter. I never even mentioned Kirk Hunter and you're actually lying by suggesting I did. The string libraries I do own are Hollywood Strings Diamond, VSL, 8DIO Agitato & Majestica, and VI-Pro. And I'm pretty sure others here who have commented positively on CSS own a similar cross-section of "high-end" libraries. I'm not the one calling forum participants ignorant for their positive CSS experiences, but you are. Your assertion passed beyond a mere subjective opinion when you made that silly claim, so expect to be called out on it.


----------



## tehreal (Nov 17, 2017)

Ultra said:


> it def does seem though that it is above ur pay grade to realize that everything u just wrote about _*my opinion*_ applies to the same suck up CSS propaganda u keep writing. What's happening Cpt. Ironic ?





Ultra said:


> But my pipi is not as tiny as urs



You're a pretty obnoxious person and I'm sure I'm not alone in the notion that comments like these aren't welcome here.


----------



## Ultra (Nov 17, 2017)

Sovereign said:


> I'm having trouble taking you seriously, especially if you believe this is some kind of dick contest.
> 
> First, I'm not posting any CSS propaganda. If you think I did you're delusional and you must wilfully ignore the critical notes I posted about CSS in the beginning of this thread. Second, you still labor under the delusion that people who disagree with you do not own other high-end libraries. Contrary to your childish assumptions I do not own Kirk Hunter. I never even mentioned Kirk Hunter and you're actually lying by suggesting I did. The string libraries I do own are Hollywood Strings Diamond, VSL, 8DIO Agitato & Majestica, and VI-Pro. And I'm pretty sure others here who have commented positively on CSS own a similar cross-section of "high-end" libraries. I'm not the one calling forum participants ignorant for their positive CSS experiences, but you are. Your assertion passed beyond a mere subjective opinion when you made that silly claim, so expect to be called out on it.



man, stop crying.

OP asked about opinions. That is what we're sharing here in this thread. please stop crying if somebody else does not share ur opinion about a particular VI. How sad is that ?!

Also, u don't own SSS. So u can't follow my personal reference. then why are u even commenting about my personal opinion in my posts ?

Obviously I never said that "all CSS owners" don't own high-end libs, but again... reading: asking too much from u.


----------



## MaxOctane (Nov 17, 2017)

Please, no more, either of you. You want to reply.... just don't.

Post an audio example, or just walk away. Please.


----------



## MarcelM (Nov 17, 2017)

CSS got voted as best string library here on VI... for a reason imho, but thats just me!


----------



## Pablocrespo (Nov 17, 2017)

don´t feed....


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 17, 2017)

patrick76 said:


> (1)Not my crack dealer, your sample library salesman. Give him my regards. Fine fellow.



You have a crack dealer?


----------



## JohnG (Nov 17, 2017)

Everyone can ease up a bit, I think. Not everyone has to love what one loves; I am often surprised to find people denigrating a library I've used with great fondness and success.

I am satisfied that CSS does something a little different from what I have now, and I most likely will get it, though I plan as well to investigate the other library mentioned in the thread -- CS2.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## markleake (Nov 17, 2017)

So I got a bit sick of the bickering and decided to actually put an example comparison together (and loose out on some Friday night sleep ).

This is for all three libs mentioned here (SSS, CS2 and CSS). It was written with CS2 as a part of a track I'm working on, so especially SSS has an occasional oddity where the midi needs more tweaking but I can't be bothered - it's good enough.

Things to note:
- I've put a bit of compression on it.
- SSS is only tree mics.
- CS2/CSS are default mics, with in-built reverb turned off.
- All 3 libs have Spaces Southern Cal. Hall added, with more for CS2/CSS than SSS to try and match them somewhat.
- There is no EQ added.

The 7 takes are as follows:
1. SSS
2. CS2
3. CSS
4. SSS + CS2
5. SSS + CSS
6. CS2 + CSS
7. SSS + CS2 + CSS



Edit: OK, I'm off to bed. Thanks for keeping me up guys!... these were kind of interesting and fun to compare though.

Edit 2: Click the little download button to get the uncompressed original FLAC file.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 17, 2017)

Just listening briefly to CS2 demos; the sounds is much more ambient than CSS, apparently, and far less vibrato. Any other key differences?

[edit: thanks @markleake -- very interesting comparison. I'm thinking that CSS is much more complementary to SSS than CS2 would be, based on these demos. Very helpful, and nice writing!]


----------



## tehreal (Nov 17, 2017)

markleake said:


> decided to actually put an example comparison together



Wow thanks for doing this, especially the layered examples.


----------



## markleake (Nov 17, 2017)

No worries guys. It was interesting to do, and not very hard to do the layering etc. Just copy/paste. 

If you want to hear it uncompressed I just turned on downloads for the track also. You should be able to click the small download icon and get it in the original FLAC format, which will be a lot better for comparison purposes.

Now... I'm definitely off to bed this time!


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Nov 17, 2017)

Does anyone layer CSS legato with Hollywood strings legato?

If so, how do you record the dynamic performances? As CSS uses cc1 dynamic control and Hollywood strings uses expression.


----------



## khollister (Nov 17, 2017)

As someone who isn't looking for another string library (like John, I have HWS, SSS, LASS as well as SCS), Mark's examples are interesting. My 2 cents? While I understand the love for the CS2 and CSS UI, these examples don't exactly make me fall in love with the sound of either CS2 or CSS. The biggest thing that stands out to me is how much more SSS sounds like a collection of individual players rather than a homogenized voice. The tone of the CS stuff is OK (darker) but it is pretty "opaque" sounding in comparison and thus less "real" to a small degree. LASS is the king of transparency and complex divsi writing IMHO but requires a fair bit of engineering. SCS is a bit more wash and wear and gets you part/all of the way to the LASS clarity but with part of the "big" sound of SSS assuming you use the +2/-2 transpose trick to build up the divisi sections. And HWS still has maybe the most decadent sound at a bit of expense of clarity and ease of use.

Hard for me to imagine needing the CSS tone variation with the other 3 (or 4 in my case) libraries that John has. A bit of engineering on the SSS stuff could get much closer to the CSS sound I would think with the right EQ and maybe some tube/tape/transformer plugin mojo.

But YMMV, IMHO, bla bla bla. All of this is opinion anyway


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 17, 2017)

khollister said:


> As someone who isn't looking for another string library (like John, I have HWS, SSS, LASS as well as SCS), Mark's examples are interesting. My 2 cents? While I understand the love for the CS2 and CSS UI, these examples don't exactly make me fall in love with the sound of either CS2 or CSS. The biggest thing that stands out to me is how much more SSS sounds like a collection of individual players rather than a homogenized voice. The tone of the CS stuff is OK (darker) but it is pretty "opaque" sounding in comparison and thus less "real" to a small degree. LASS is the king of transparency and complex divsi writing IMHO but requires a fair bit of engineering. SCS is a bit more wash and wear and gets you part/all of the way to the LASS clarity but with part of the "big" sound of SSS assuming you use the +2/-2 transpose trick to build up the divisi sections. And HWS still has maybe the most decadent sound at a bit of expense of clarity and ease of use.
> 
> Hard for me to imagine needing the CSS tone variation with the other 3 (or 4 in my case) libraries that John has. A bit of engineering on the SSS stuff could get much closer to the CSS sound I would think with the right EQ and maybe some tube/tape/transformer plugin mojo.
> 
> But YMMV, IMHO, bla bla bla. All of this is opinion anyway



Not close in expertise/experience ... have LADD and hoping for BlkFri help with LASS Bundle !
Alternative is SF_SSS ( and tough choice since have EDU price approval ). 
I am buoyed up by your consistent LASS support, and could use some help here ......


----------



## khollister (Nov 17, 2017)

sostenuto said:


> Not close in expertise/experience ... have LADD and hoping for BlkFri help with LASS Bundle !
> Alternative is SF_SSS ( and tough choice since have EDU price approval ).
> I am buoyed up by your consistent LASS support, and could use some help here ......



My experience is in being a former orchestral string player - my expertise otherwise is suspect 

There is no doubt that SSS is way more plug & play than LASS. SSS sounds great without really doing anything from an engineering standpoint. LASS - not so much. It also doesn't have the articulation variations that SSS/SCS has.

Speaking as a classical musician and someone who mostly writes what I jokingly refer to as "fine art music", i.e. not music intended for film/game/TV use, If I could only have a single string library for large orchestral works, it would be SSS or perhaps OT. The problem with OT Berlin Strings is cost (especially with the expansions) and they normally do not do sales. Spitfire usually has a 25% BF thing. A lot of folks don't like the ever present Lynhurst hall sound in the SF stuff, but it works well for how I use it. LASS & HWS are much, much drier and are a bit easier to blend with other stuff.

Speaking of that - HWO is a really good deal right now ($500 for Diamond - strings, brass, woodwinds and percussion). The strings, brass and percussion are still fantastic IMHO, the winds are a bit dodgy. PLAY is pretty solid now (even on Mac) but the strings & brass libs are huge, and the programming of the libraries is a rather old-school brute force approach (separate patch for every articulation) that requires some patience. But the sound is wonderful and the price is right. 

The Spitfire string eco-system with SSS, SCS, SS EVO and Albion IV+V is a fantastic tool assuming you can live with the hall sound. The close mic's tame it a lot but it still has hall early reflections in there.


----------



## khollister (Nov 17, 2017)

And while CSS doesn't blow my skirt up, it is a very good library that is easy to use, not a complete system hog, pretty inexpensive (particularly on sale) and sounds pretty good within it's sonic niche. I just prefer what I already own.


----------



## nas (Nov 17, 2017)

One things is clear from *markleake's* helpful demonstration is that these are all great libraries. As long as one writes idiomatically for the strings and learns the idiosyncrasies of a particular library they can achieve very satisfying results. It then really becomes a question of individual taste and what you think will work for the particular style of your composition. That's probably why most of us will have more than one string library to draw from.

FWIW, I actually preferred the samples that weren't layered, they sounded a little cleaner and clearer to me - if I was doing any layering it would probably be with a solo strings library just to bring out a little definition if needed.


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 17, 2017)

khollister said:


> My experience is in being a former orchestral string player - my expertise otherwise is suspect
> 
> There is no doubt that SSS is way more plug & play than LASS. SSS sounds great without really doing anything from an engineering standpoint. LASS - not so much. It also doesn't have the articulation variations that SSS/SCS has.
> 
> ...



I very much appreciate the extra time and attention to my inquiry !!  Using Albion(s) One/Tundra now. 
UIST is a bit of a chore to get a solid feel for prior to purchase. Will continue to pursue, and factor in your comments.
SSS feels good, but will revisit HWO_Diamond carefully.
THX!


----------



## JohnG (Nov 17, 2017)

sostenuto said:


> I am buoyed up by your consistent LASS support, and could use some help here ......



I still use LASS for some things. It leapt very far up after the v2.5 update, quite some time ago, and is very useful. I personally am slightly put off by the latency that the 2.5 improvements introduce, but the improvement and flexibility in tone are well worth the tradeoff.



sostenuto said:


> UIST is a bit of a chore to get a solid feel for prior to purchase



It is a very large library, and I am glad to have it, but it is not what I'd call a "basic" library. Maybe you could describe what you feel you lack -- for what kind of music, small or large sound, all that -- and you could get a bit more by way of suggestions that would be actionable?



sostenuto said:


> will revisit HWO_Diamond carefully.



Hollywood Strings Diamond is absolutely awesome and amazingly inexpensive. Really, it's such a bargain it's head-scratching for me. I think I paid $1,000 just for the strings, many years ago, and now I read that the entire orchestra's on sale for $500.

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


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 17, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I still use LASS for some things. It leapt very far up after the v2.5 update, quite some time ago, and is very useful. I personally am slightly put off by the latency that the 2.5 improvements introduce, but the improvement and flexibility in tone are well worth the tradeoff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) Diamond is also available with Solo Instruments for $732. Is that option equally attractive to 'you', or staying with Diamond @ $500. ?

2) Various references to aleatoric ... in UIST promo info ... is one point of confusion.
Then Walkthrough starts out with a statement essentially negating the aleatoric reference ?
I'm sure I misunderstand !!


----------



## JohnG (Nov 17, 2017)

sostenuto said:


> 1) Diamond is also available with Solo Instruments for $732. Is that option equally attractive to 'you', or staying with Diamond @ $500. ?



I have not found demos of solo string libraries at all convincing -- not East West in particular, but all of them. So I never buy them. I don't remember the instrument list for Hollywood Brass and Hollywood Winds, but I am pretty sure there are solo instruments in both of those, and of course some in the percussion as well.



sostenuto said:


> 2) Various references to aleatoric ... in UIST promo info ... is one point of confusion.
> Then Walkthrough starts out with a statement essentially negating the aleatoric reference ?
> I'm sure I misunderstand



technically, the phrases are not "aleatoric," since they are all notated and planned out. That said, they _sound_ as though they might be fully, or partly aleatoric (that is, left to chance or the independent decisions by individual players about elements of the performance).

Put differently, the UIST library is useful in creating the _impression_ of aleatoric or quasi-aleatoric passages, where you'd ask a live orchestra, if you had one, to play bits that are guided by notation, but not necessarily 100% notated as to pitch, rhythm, phrasing, or dynamics.

Does that help?


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 17, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I have not found demos of solo string libraries at all convincing -- not East West in particular, but all of them. So I never buy them. I don't remember the instrument list for Hollywood Brass and Hollywood Winds, but I am pretty sure there are solo instruments in both of those, and of course some in the percussion as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Helps a great deal !!! E/W Diamond will remain a possible choice. 
UIST explanation really 'gels' a number of related parts & pieces floating around in my head ....  
Many thanks!!


----------



## mc_deli (Nov 17, 2017)

Any Logic users got a trick for the CSS legato timing?


----------



## Christof (Nov 17, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> Any Logic users got a trick for the CSS legato timing?


Yes, just play around with negative ms delay settings in the inspector, or watch the tutorial on the CSS website.


----------



## mc_deli (Nov 17, 2017)

Christof said:


> Yes, just play around with negative ms delay settings in the inspector, or watch the tutorial on the CSS website.


That's not quite the same as elegant macros with shortcuts that the royal QBass crowd are rolling with, is it?


----------



## NoamL (Nov 17, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> Any Logic users got a trick for the CSS legato timing?



Yes. But only if you use a steady tempo across your piece.

Simply quantize everything, then enter your tempo & meter into this spreadsheet

*Logic CSS Delay Creator*

This will tell you what values to enter into the MIDI transform window.

However I do not use this often because of 2 reasons. I like to change the tempo a lot in a fluid way - and because Logic can only nudge notes by bars/beats/ticks, not milliseconds, this spreadsheet becomes useless when the tempo is constantly changing. The second reason is that I have an inherent negative track delay on all of my CSS articulations. I believe for the legatos it's -135ms, for the shorts it's around -40ms, the marcatos and trems are -80 etc. Thus, the values helpfully given by Alex (-300, -250, and -100) are already partially compensated by the negative track delay.

From what I've seen, Logic has a much nicer tempo track UI than Cubase though. So right now I'm happy using CSS in Logic


----------



## NoamL (Nov 17, 2017)

Regarding @markleake 's comparison, I think SSS is much more impressive than the old Cinematic Strings library which sounds quite keyboardy to me.

Where SSS and Cinematic *Studio* Strings differ, to me is - they're both great, but SSS seems to "glue together" into one sound whereas with CSS the partwriting and independence of voices is brought out beautifully. CSS also has very emotional & intimate attitude from the players, while SSS is more standoffish and neutral. This does not make one superior to the other.

Here is a comparison of CSS and Mural1 (note, _not_ the revamped SSS). I made this when deciding which library to use for the Fawkes The Phoenix mockup. Please note that the woodwind and brass parts were still in a very rough incomplete form and there's basically no mixing here. However, all the better to hear the differences between SSS and CSS.





The final mockup with CSS in case you haven't heard it a zillion times from me constantly reposting it -



It's worth pointing out that all of these comparisons so far have shown SSS at what I think is its greatest strength. Moderato legato playing. I think the shorts in Mural (don't have SSS) really lack top end aggression compared to the range in CSS. *This comparison* by @Christof made that pretty clear. On the other hand, I think the soft pizzicatos in Mural are absolutely beautiful.


----------



## sostenuto (Nov 17, 2017)

NoamL said:


> Regarding @markleake 's comparison, I think SSS is much more impressive than the old Cinematic Strings library which sounds quite keyboardy to me.
> 
> Where SSS and Cinematic *Studio* Strings differ, to me is - they're both great, but SSS seems to "glue together" into one sound whereas with CSS the partwriting and independence of voices is brought out beautifully. CSS also has very emotional & intimate attitude from the players, while SSS is more standoffish and neutral. This does not make one superior to the other.
> 
> ...




There is so much great learning and detail in most of these type posts ! 
Not much progress for many, like me, on the early learning end, without this constant flow of ideas and impressions from those who labor daily creating cool output. 
OTH, budgets are often limited, important choices are made with full knowledge that there is no magic solution. But there are 'safer' solutions ........ 
CSS, on the coming BF sale, is far les costly than SSS (even for those with notable EDU pricing options.) ... like 2x !!!

Just posting with gratitude, as information is HUGE, in the decision process !


----------



## Consona (Nov 19, 2017)

Can you edit things in CSS in the wrench Kontakt edit mode window?


----------



## Vik (Nov 25, 2017)

reddognoyz said:


> I think he actually uses CS1


What are the differences between CS1 and CS2, sound wise - if there are any? I really like the sound of what he does in that YouTube clip (where he says he uses the first version).


----------



## Vik (Nov 26, 2017)

Consona said:


> Can you edit things in CSS in the wrench Kontakt edit mode window?


Only this kind of stuff:


----------



## Consona (Nov 26, 2017)

@Vik Thx!


----------

