# Cinematic Studio Strings vs. Spitfire Studio Strings Pro: My observations



## gohrev (Mar 28, 2020)

_Scroll to the bottom of this post for a side-by-side comparison_

Hi everyone,

earlier this week I purchased Cinematic Studio Strings, and boy.. am I glad I did 
As a newbie to the sample scene, I bought the entire Spitfire Studio suite last year: Woodwinds, Brass and Strings. All Pro editions. I really like these libraries, especially as the Brass and Woodwinds library feature some of the rarer instruments.

But the Spitfire Studio Strings is a hit and miss. Now that I have a decent library to compare them with, I decided to turn my observations and comparisons into a little post. May it come handy for those still in doubt on which Strings library to buy.

_Bear in mind that these are merely my personal observations and opinions, and I am by no means a professional._


*Cinematic Studio Strings ~ €425 inc VAT*


Overall characterWarm, classicOverall toneDark, even a bit muffledOverall 'vibe'LushParticularly suited forLong legato lines, classical compositionNot so suitable forAggressive articulations, modern compositionBest feature(s)Beautiful legatoMissing feature(s)Flautando, sul tasto, snappy shorts

Cinematic Studio Strings (CSS) sounds extremely _musical_, if that makes any sense. I would consider this my workhorse for most strings parts, as the legatos (both classic and advanced, the latter allowing for long, medium and short legatos) are just beautiful. Very realistic, warm sound. I particularly enjoy the ease of use for the CC1: It's cross-fading is very gradually, allowing for a smooth blending of dynamics.

CSS doesn't do short samples too well, I find the pizzicati to be laking in strength. The bartok snaps and col legno sound good, nothing wrong with them. The various microphones are OK, I have yet to discover their added value.

The samples are beautifully dry, and I appreciate how realistic the legato sounds. That is the one reason why I purchased this library, and I am very glad I did.


*Spitfire Audio Studio Strings Pro ~ €450 inc VAT*


Overall characterCool, modernOverall toneCrisp, very closeOverall 'vibe'SharpParticularly suited forFilm music, suspenseNot so suitable forLong legato lines, a traditional big soundBest feature(s)Clear short articulationsMissing feature(s)Good legatos, more variation in samples 

Spitfire Studio Strings Pro (SStS) win in the category "alternative articulations". From whispering flautando to aggressive bartok snaps, and from brushed spiccato to long sul tasto. Just toying around with all of the quirky samples is really inspiring. I can see this library being a great tool for film composition. The ultra-clear recordings make it feel as if the violinist is sitting right next to you.

That said, legato is sadly a big miss. No matter what I tried, I just can't get it to sound _right,_ let alone _musical_. The CC1 is extremely jumpy and it just doesn't feel intuitive. If you'd only use this library for its beautiful shorts, you'll be glad with the close microphones: Crystal-clear!

The samples are perfectly dry, so I could imagine the short articulations as a perfect supplement for CSS. But, one has to bear in mind that the crispness of sounds came at a cost: This library is not meant for long arcs.

*So there you have it..* 
Now that I come to the end of my post, I realise you can't really compare these two libraries. I never worked with Spitfire's Chamber Strings, but perhaps that would've been a fairer comparison in the end. One thing to keep in mind, is that SStS offers various ensemble sizes, like 16-8-4&4 (the last being divisi) for Violins I, and 12-6-3&3 for Violins II. Only four contrabassi seems to be a bit of an odd number, but the sound is still massive.

Yes, Spitfire's short articulations are truly a joy to experiment with, but chances are you won't be needing them that often. Another downside of SStS is the fact that many samples sound cut off, which results in a jumpy start. This is particularly audible in the lower registers of the 1st and 2nd Violins.

*For those looking to write beautiful legato lines for strings, I wouldn't hesitate to say: Get CSS, you won't regret it!*

Below you'll find a side by side comparison table.


*Cinematic Studio Strings (CSS)**Spitfire Audio Studio Strings Pro (SStS)**Price*€425€450*Character*Warm, classicCool, modern*Tone*Dark, even a bit muffledCrisp, very close*Vibe*LushSharp*Suited for*Long legato lines, classical compositionFilm music, suspense*Not suited for*Aggressive articulations, modern Long legato, traditional big sound*Best features*Beautiful legatoClear short articulations*Missing *Flautando, sul tasto, snappy shortsGood legatos, more variation samples


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Mar 28, 2020)

spitfire studio strings only has 1 kind of short note, CSS has 4. +the measured patch

how does that make it better for action than CSS XD

**ok sure we all have opinions, and I dont have SStS - just observations**


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 28, 2020)

berlin87 said:


> Missing feature(s) snappy shorts
> 
> CSS doesn't do short samples too well



LOL, what?.. 

When the articulations walkthrough for this library came out, I heard the shorts and bought it instantly before watching anything else.


----------



## mcalis (Mar 28, 2020)

@berlin87 here's a use you might have for the close mics of CSS: https://vi-control.net/community/th...ts-not-eq-compression-etc.77474/#post-4317154


----------



## Symfoniq (Mar 28, 2020)

Yeah, I can’t really agree on the short notes. CSS has excellent short notes.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Mar 28, 2020)

mcalis said:


> @berlin87 here's a use you might have for the close mics of CSS: https://vi-control.net/community/th...ts-not-eq-compression-etc.77474/#post-4317154



yeah im honestly very surprised.

Bonus: im sure the OP will notice a pattern where probably nobody will agree with his observations about the shorts and find after some exploration of the library he owns that CSS is better than he though by a good amount.


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

Sounds like CSS is the right library for you. And I think your overall comparison is quite good.

However, I'd also argue that it's a comparison is made largely on CSS's terms.

I think I know what you mean in characterizing StSS as "cool, modern" and "sharp". But I think this misses something, and perhaps comes from an excessively direct comparison to only the strengths CSS. 

But it's also the there are very different design philosophies behind each libs, which (grossly simplifying) I'd sketch as


CSS: "absolutely nail a relatively homogenous sound, high romantic hollywood studio sound with superb legato"

StSS: "deliver pretty good legato, but create a larger palette of sounds for an overall rich sonic palette"



Obviously, CSS legatos are technically superior, and certainly much better for high romantic legato lines.


But I'd argue that (within their obvious limitations compared to CSS) StSS does a very different type of legato line that CSS can't touch. I'm not quite sure how to describe it, it's somehow got a very differently lyrical quality. A different sense of motion and momentum and yearning. It isn't that I don't love the CSS high romantic sound, its just that I was looking for something quite different. And while I'd struggle to put into word precisely, whatever this StSS quality is, it's entirely different. You definitely have to work to it's strengths though , and these strengths are definitely not the soaring high romantic studio legato of CSS. Which suits me well.

And there is a "shapness" to it, which I think comes from the dryness, as well as the overall aesthetic of the recordings. And yet there's a lot of soft and lyrical dimension that you can get from this, for instance

- all of the long flautando, con sort, 1/2 con sort, sul tasto etc patches add all kinds of additional colours. Not helpful in a soaring high romantic lead line, but they enormously add colours to the palette that CSS isn't going to help you with.

- The soft dynamic layer of StSS is absolutely gorgeous, and with that wonderful Spitfire sense of texture. I often mess around with the levels to bring these textural qualities of the p layer out, perhaps a little more that is strictly "realistic" in a "natural" mix. I think of it as a "neo-classical" quality. It's quite beautiful, and just a little bit messy, in true Spitfire style.

- More impressionistically, there's something about the legatos that really convey a certain type of flow and momentum, which has a wonderful lyrical quality if you can write a line that takes advantage of this quality. Especially when you crank up the levels a bit and really bring out the texture of the p layer. It's taken me time to get my head around how to work with it, and I'm still not completely sure how to describe it. But it's a lyrical quality that no other library I have can touch, and that I'm quite certain you're not going to remotely approach with CSS.

- Another dimension to the "sharpness" is something that I came to understand with LCO. LCO is itself not only dry, but has it's own style of micro tuning. But here is one of the (many) fascinating things about LCO. Dryness + microtuneing + highly textural articulations really make it good for harshness and horror and dissonance. Which about half of the demos showcase, and this is a form of "sharpness" that holds absolutely no interest for me.

But with careful reverb, and a bit of care in orchestration, and maybe a certain type of crafting of your lines, these same qualities of the dry crispness and the micro tuning can also be used to give it a wonderful warmth. Someone on another thread suggested that it analogous to the way giving synth a bit of detuning creates a chorus effect, that rather that dissonance, can be experienced as richness and warmth.

Well, I'd argue that there's a similar effect with StSS. One interesting thing I've found is to put a great big (Valhalla Room) cathedral reverb on it. Then play with the early reflections. It's actually not a particularly dry library, it has lots of short reflections, it's just that it's not a room that has an intrinsically nice room tone without long reflections. What it does have, though, enough short reflections what when you add a long tail reverb it sounds wonderful (I personally don't believe that short reflections can be satisfying simulated, so I would make a very big distinction between StSS from a properly dry library like VSL or Chris Hein).

But from there you can play with the early reflections on the reverb, and you get very different qualities from this, and it can make a very big different to how cool vs warm it sounds


So it's certainly true that for your high-romantic soaring legato lines with a homogenous studio vibe, StSS is at best going to give you a pale imitation of the glories of CSS.


But I bought it precisely for this reason. CSS trying to reach towards the various lyrical, warm, expansive musical palettes that StSS can get you to is going to be, if anything, an even a paler immitation.

Moral of the story, as usual, you can really never own too many string libraries. And maybe also that I've found that the sonic palette of Spitfire libs have been consistently been the most surprising and fun libs to explore. And while it's obviously not everyone's thing, I think they should be recognized more for their willingness for providing this kind of depth and expansiveness over homogeneity and instant gratification.

That said, really looking forward to picking up CSS at some point also.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 28, 2020)

I don't own Spitfire Studio Strings Pro so I cannot compare the two, but my guess is the legatos can be convincing in the right hands. What I can say for _sure_ is that CSS shorts can be convincing in the right hands.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 28, 2020)

Just thought I'd chime in with my:

CSS doesn't do snappy shorts, are you out of your mind? Compared to StSS it doesn't do shorts? StSS has 'better' shorts? StSS, with its viola spiccatos that are half as quick off the bow - THOSE are the good shorts???

You're doing something wrong.

OK. Had to say it.


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

Yes, I think the OP has perhaps not fully explored the CSS shorts, they're clearly more comprehensive that StSS.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Mar 28, 2020)

bbunker said:


> Just thought I'd chime in with my:
> 
> CSS doesn't do snappy shorts, are you out of your mind? Compared to StSS it doesn't do shorts? StSS has 'better' shorts? StSS, with its viola spiccatos that are half as quick off the bow - THOSE are the good shorts???
> 
> ...


maybe he had cc1 up the whole time LOL

I honestly don't know what berlin87 was thinking


----------



## tack (Mar 28, 2020)

In terms of what CSS shorts can sound like in those right hands Jay referred to, be sure to check out Christof's excellent composition done with CSS:


----------



## bbunker (Mar 28, 2020)

I mean there's a lot of strengths I'll yield to any library as a matter of interpretation, but that CSS's shorts are not objectively better than StSS is a hill I will gladly die seven deaths upon


----------



## MilesAbbott (Mar 28, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> maybe he had cc1 up the whole time LOL
> 
> I honestly don't know what berlin87 was thinking



Could you elaborate on the cc1 part of your comment? I'm just curious because I've written some shorts with CSS recently and haven't found a need to touch the dynamics at all. I merely change velocities for certain accented notes; otherwise, changing articulations is all I need to do. I've not heard of people employing cc1 on shorts before (I am new to all of this as well, so maybe that is why). 

I'm basically just wondering if using cc1 on shorts is something people normally do and what possible benefits there might be.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 28, 2020)

MilesAbbott said:


> Could you elaborate on the cc1 part of your comment? I'm just curious because I've written some shorts with CSS recently and haven't found a need to touch the dynamics at all. I merely change velocities for certain accented notes; otherwise, changing articulations is all I need to do. I've not heard of people employing cc1 on shorts before (I am new to all of this as well, so maybe that is why).
> 
> I'm basically just wondering if using cc1 on shorts is something people normally do and what possible benefits there might be.



CC1 doesn't affect velocity or dynamics in CSS, it controls the type of short articulation. CC1 up all the way would be Sfz attacks, down would be spiccato, and velocity determines the dynamics.


----------



## gohrev (Mar 28, 2020)

I absolutely don't mind to stand corrected  I may not have given the shorts in CSS enough attention, or perhaps I stared myself blind on its excellent legato. Either way, this definitely calls for more exploration from my side.

A special shoutout to @ism for his thorough review / experiences with SStS - if I didn't own it myself, I'd be persuaded to give it a try  One thing I am curious about, is a good example of great-sounding SStS legatos.


----------



## gohrev (Mar 28, 2020)

mcalis said:


> @berlin87 here's a use you might have for the close mics of CSS: https://vi-control.net/community/th...ts-not-eq-compression-etc.77474/#post-4317154


That almost sounds like a different library. Beautiful, and something I need to look further into.


----------



## MilesAbbott (Mar 28, 2020)

bbunker said:


> CC1 doesn't affect velocity or dynamics in CSS, it controls the type of short articulation. CC1 up all the way would be Sfz attacks, down would be spiccato, and velocity determines the dynamics.



Ah ok, thanks. I've been changing articulations with keyswitches so I didn't realize that.


----------



## gohrev (Mar 28, 2020)

tack said:


> In terms of what CSS shorts can sound like in those right hands Jay referred to, be sure to check out Christof's excellent composition done with CSS:



Beautiful. I agree, the shorts sound very good here.


----------



## shomynik (Mar 28, 2020)

MilesAbbott said:


> Could you elaborate on the cc1 part of your comment? I'm just curious because I've written some shorts with CSS recently and haven't found a need to touch the dynamics at all. I merely change velocities for certain accented notes; otherwise, changing articulations is all I need to do. I've not heard of people employing cc1 on shorts before (I am new to all of this as well, so maybe that is why).
> 
> I'm basically just wondering if using cc1 on shorts is something people normally do and what possible benefits there might be.



In CSS CC1 is set for changing the 4 different lenght versions of the shorts. One of the strenghts of the library for sure.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 28, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> spitfire studio strings only has 1 kind of short note,


Incorrect. It has spiccato, brushed spic, 2 versions with mute and a marcato attack that can work either as a long or a short. 

Studio Strings Pro is about 200 gigs. It has first chair mics, small sections, effects etc. Very easy to get a variety of sounds just by playing with mic positions and section sizes.


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

berlin87 said:


> I absolutely don't mind to stand corrected  I may not have given the shorts in CSS enough attention, or perhaps I stared myself blind on its excellent legato. Either way, this definitely calls for more exploration from my side.
> 
> A special shoutout to @ism for his thorough review / experiences with SStS - if I didn't own it myself, I'd be persuaded to give it a try  One thing I am curious about, is a good example of great-sounding SStS legatos.


I’ll try to put something together at some point. 

Important point though is that this isn’t the best library for writing Elgar. Nothing touches CSS for Elgar. 

Which I mention because I sometimes feel that ‘good at Elgar’ is implicitly what people, especially people who love CSS, actually mean when the set their standard for ‘great sounding legatos’. StSS doesn’t try to compete with CSS at Elgar (ie. high romantic, soaring leads). It does other things wonderfully, but if I were mocking up Elgar, I’d use CSS or SCS. (And i think it was Noam who has a spectacular Elgar mockup with CSS on another thread). But there’s more to life than Elgar, much as I love Elgar.


----------



## Rob (Mar 28, 2020)

I think SStS has been my best purchase since a while, I love the sound, the programming, the way patches have been organized and the wealth of articulations... there's also a folder of special time machine patches where you can change the length of spiccatos to make them even extremely tight, tighter than in real life actually. And I only have the standard lib
an example with the stretch parameter turned up to 3/4, very quickly put together:


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

Rob said:


> I think SStS has been my best purchase since a while, I love the sound, the programming, the way patches have been organized and the wealth of articulations... there's also a folder of special time machine patches where you can change the length of spiccatos to make them even extremely tight, tighter than in real life actually. And I only have the standard lib
> an example with the stretch parameter turn up to 3/4, very quickly put together:


Wow! Wonderfully done.

This isn't even what I would have (previously) thought of as a sweet spot of StSS.

But yes, I can hear it now, a kind of "lyrical crunchiness". Kind of a modern sound, but instead of stretched into the neo-classical (as I would tend towards), applied here towards a more classical aesthetic. Makes sense when you think about it.

There's a few fast passages where other libs might be technically crisper, but this is more than compensated for in the overall sound. I just love the sound.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 28, 2020)

This is a clip I did using Studio Strings Pro. I like the sound a lot. I am gonna lay a few real fiddles over it, the legato is ok but a bit jerky and it should smooth is out.


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> This is a clip I did using Studio Strings Pro. I like the sound a lot. I am gonna lay a few real fiddles over it, the legato is ok but a bit jerky and it should smooth is out.


The legato is a bit jerky on this, but a lovely crunchiness to the tone. Would be great to hear it with live violins.

Here's a softer noodle with StSS, not yet a proper composition, and the programming isn't very good. But I'm zeroing in on the sound I'm looking for



And a similar sketch - the programming is rough in places, but, again, I'm more looking for a sound than attempting a finished piece.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 28, 2020)

I like CSS quite a bit. The only two real limitations imo are:

1. the heavy vibrato on the sustains
2. and the section sizes being short of symphonic proportions.

Other than that it can handle lots of different kinds of music.

It does need* a lot of EQ*, I feel.

You've got to tradeoff between added clarity and added hiss, especially on the lower dynamics, but I don't mind a bit of air in samples. It's rarely too audible in orchestral context.

Here is a theme from *Mad Max: Fury Road *by Tom Holkenborg with my CSS setup (still a work in progress...)



And here is the exact same MIDI but CSS out of the box:



Again, still battling the hiss a bit and this excerpt is unforgiving in that aspect (strings stop & start and are very exposed). But it shows that CSS doesn't always have to have that dark & muddy sound. You can shape it to whatever aesthetic pleases you!


----------



## tack (Mar 28, 2020)

NoamL said:


> But it shows that CSS doesn't always have to have that dark & muddy sound. You can shape it to whatever aesthetic pleases you!


I think so too. This is one pretty heavily processed:


----------



## Uiroo (Mar 28, 2020)

NoamL said:


> I like CSS quite a bit. The only two real limitations imo are:
> 
> 1. the heavy vibrato on the sustains
> 2. and the section sizes being short of symphonic proportions.
> ...



I wonder if you could solo out the hiss or get a different hiss sound to fill-in the gaps. 
You could then use the alternative hiss as a sidechain or something (maybe that's a really bad idea, but maybe worth trying)


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

Gorgeous mockup Noam. Really makes me want CSS. 

Here's another noodle, which uses a lot the Olafur Chamber Strings, but on top of that uses the crunchiness of StSS to occasionally peek out over the top of the OACE patches. Again, just a noodle. But again, honing in on finding the sound I'm looking for, and I really think the StSS crunchy-but-warm aesthetic works to good effect here. Though definitely not high romantic.

UPDATE - no I'm wrong. Most of this is the StSS flautandos (a single Vc + Vl track), with only a sprinkling of OACE for some additional texture, and then the StSS legatos for crunchiness. Which probably only strengthens my point about the general StSS aesthetic. I really do love the sound here (if you'll excuse the sloppiness of the composition and the programming).


----------



## NoamL (Mar 28, 2020)

Funnily after hearing them both side by side and listening carefully my EQ sounds bad. It improves the clarity but takes away the expressiveness/musicality of the performance. Grr, I hate mixing!!


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Funnily after hearing them both side by side and listening carefully my EQ sounds bad. It improves the clarity but takes away the expressiveness/musicality of the performance. Grr, I hate mixing!!


I think they both sound good (with the obvious caveat that the second needs some late reflections). That smoothness - sometimes flex as a dark muddiness, though not necessarily - strikes me as very much a part of the (gorgeous) CSS high romantic aesthetic. The mix adds different sheens and textures, but the emotion of the high romanticism is baked in. Nothing else I can think of gets close to this aesthetic.


----------



## cloudesky (Mar 28, 2020)

NoamL said:


> I like CSS quite a bit. The only two real limitations imo are:
> 
> 1. the heavy vibrato on the sustains
> 2. and the section sizes being short of symphonic proportions.
> ...



Both examples sound quite good to me. I can hear the clarity of the strings in the first example. If you don't mind, can you share the midi file? Requesting only for learning purposes.


----------



## ism (Mar 28, 2020)

Pondering this a bit more, and realizing that the brilliance of the CSS legato isn’t just the technical execution. There’s a smoothness that permeates this library, nit just in how well the legato transitions are stitched together, but at the level of the tone. And i think also the smoothness an intensity of the progressive vibrato also.


‘Dark and muddy’ is one way to put it, but I think there’s, perhaps equivalently, a sense of ‘emotional fluidity’ to it, if that makes any sense. Listening Carefully to Noam’s demos above has really driven this sense home in a new way.

Very different from the ‘crunchy-but-warm’ aesthetic of StSS. Or the dynamic lyrical quality of light and Sound chamber strings. You really can’t have too many string libraries. (God I love string libraries.  )


----------



## NoamL (Mar 28, 2020)

cloudesky said:


> Both examples sound quite good to me. I can hear the clarity of the strings in the first example. If you don't mind, can you share the midi file? Requesting only for learning purposes.



The piece is by Tom Holkenborg, from Mad Max. Transcribed it from his Studio Time sessions where he shows us his music.


----------



## cloudesky (Mar 28, 2020)

NoamL said:


> The piece is by Tom Holkenborg, from Mad Max. Transcribed it from his Studio Time sessions where he shows us his music.



@NoamL, thank you and I greatly appreciate it. I have CSS too and I'm constantly trying to learn how to program better. I like examining the midi file to see the use of automation and other CC uses. Here's something I made with CSS and Joshua Bell violin. You can hear my programming needs help and probably other areas as well. Thanks again


----------



## GingerMaestro (Mar 28, 2020)

NoamL said:


> I like CSS quite a bit. The only two real limitations imo are:
> 
> 1. the heavy vibrato on the sustains
> 2. and the section sizes being short of symphonic proportions.
> ...



@NoamL These sound great to my ears. I really struggle with understanding EQ, might you be able to share your EQ settings for CSS ? It would really help me to try and get rid of some of the darkness, that is not always desirable. Thank you


----------



## NoamL (Mar 28, 2020)

Happy to share what I created... Because actually I'm gonna go back to using CSS out of the box (just putting it through Valhalla Room). Other way just sounds too artificial, the life is sucked out of it! I'll have to deal with the mid frequencies some other way, maybe Gulfoss or another dynamic EQ on the submix bus. Or maybe admitting that mixing should be done by mixers 

These are the presets for FabFilter ProQ3.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 28, 2020)

And some screenshots for people with other EQs (V1 / V2 / Va / Vc / DB)

EDIT: by the way, this was the penultimate version actually, I strongly suggest removing the highest frequency peak for all instruments, it just brings out the hiss too much during soft-dynamic passages.


----------



## Instrugramm (Mar 28, 2020)

Honestly for shorts I'd suggest to get Adventure strings (not very flexible, but great overall tone). I got all of the mentioned libraries (+ a lot more) and SStS really only shine through the divisi capabilities and some of the special articulations. They can work but are for very specific work cases and can sound too clean/ robotic/ perfect very quickly. (I'm a cellist, please trust me, strings do not usually sound this clean.) You'll have to mix SStS with another library for them to really work their best/ for them not to stick out too much.

If you use CSS, use them at low dynamics (gets rid of the overly dramatic vibrato) and mute the room mic, as that's what's making them sound all dark. Throw in a nice reverb, combine them with the solo strings and you'll be amazed what they can do.


----------



## AlainTH (Mar 29, 2020)

just bought SStS Pro two days ago, and i don't regret, passing good time to sculpt the sounds in micro details and obtain very precises phrases i was looking for..... Complement very well berlin strings and CSS.


----------



## muk (Mar 29, 2020)

@NoamL have you tried Kush Clariphonic? That's the first tool I reach for when trying to make CSS sound a little brighter and more open.

Here is a super quick and dirty test:









Mad Max Clariphonic test.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com





Only processing is from Clariphonic and just a tad of reverb.

By the way, have you rebalanced your CSS template somehow? Using your midi file out of the box, the melody line sounds much more prominent for me than it does in your example.


----------



## GingerMaestro (Mar 29, 2020)

muk said:


> @NoamL have you tried Kush Clariphonic? That's the first tool I reach to when trying to make CSS sound a little brighter and more open.
> 
> Here is a super quick and dirty test:
> 
> ...


@muk This is really interesting. Do you happen to have a before and after to do an A/B comparison. Is Kush Clariphonic your main eq for for all your instruments. I like the sound alot. I see they do a demo version. Might you be able to share your settings ? Thanks you


----------



## GingerMaestro (Mar 29, 2020)

NoamL said:


> And some screenshots for people with other EQs (V1 / V2 / Va / Vc / DB)
> 
> EDIT: by the way, this was the penultimate version actually, I strongly suggest removing the highest frequency peak for all instruments, it just brings out the hiss too much during soft-dynamic passages.


Thanks so much @NoamL this is so helpful,thanks for taking the time to do this. I'm going to give it a try now. Do you use a Valhalla Preset, or have you made your own. I agree, perhaps mixing is best left to the pros and I stick to composing ! It would be good to learn a little more though. Thank you


----------



## pawelmorytko (Mar 29, 2020)

NoamL said:


> And some screenshots for people with other EQs (V1 / V2 / Va / Vc / DB)
> 
> EDIT: by the way, this was the penultimate version actually, I strongly suggest removing the highest frequency peak for all instruments, it just brings out the hiss too much during soft-dynamic passages.


My EQ's looks very similar to this, and I get what you mean about the hiss from the high frequency peak, but honestly I love the way it adds some air to the strings, so it's a constant struggle between "do I get rid of the hiss, or do I keep the air"


----------



## I like music (Mar 29, 2020)

I'm sorry if this is derailing, but does a legato-delay "fix" plugin exist for Cubase too, or is it just for Logic?


----------



## muk (Mar 29, 2020)

GingerMaestro said:


> Do you happen to have a before and after to do an A/B comparison.



Sure. Here is the same thing without the clariphonic. Everything else is exactly the same:









Mad Max bit of reverb.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com







GingerMaestro said:


> Is Kush Clariphonic your main eq for for all your instruments.



No, the clariphonic is not really your standard eq plugin. For eq purposes I use a traditional eq plugin. The clariphonic I use mainly to 'open up' sounds that are a bit dull, dark, or muffled. CSS is a classic use case for me, as I find it can make them sound a bit brighter without boosting the hiss too much.


----------



## NoamL (Mar 29, 2020)

pawelmorytko said:


> My EQ's looks very similar to this, and I get what you mean about the hiss from the high frequency peak, but honestly I love the way it adds some air to the strings, so it's a constant struggle between "do I get rid of the hiss, or do I keep the air"



Interesting! Do you have cuts and boosts at about the same frequencies?


----------



## pawelmorytko (Mar 29, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Interesting! Do you have cuts and boosts at about the same frequencies?


Yeah, the most common ones I saw were the cuts just before 500hz, just before 5k, and then a boost at roughly 12k. I don't have the room noise killer cut right at the bottom on my strings eq when composing, but I usually do that at the end when mixing


----------



## ahorsewhocandrive (Mar 29, 2020)

tack said:


> In terms of what CSS shorts can sound like in those right hands Jay referred to, be sure to check out Christof's excellent composition done with CSS:



goodness this sounds fantastic. what's the technique here? i would love to learn how to play these kinds of lines in if anyone has any tips


----------



## ahorsewhocandrive (Mar 29, 2020)

I like music said:


> I'm sorry if this is derailing, but does a legato-delay "fix" plugin exist for Cubase too, or is it just for Logic?


----------



## I like music (Mar 29, 2020)

audiosprite said:


>



Legend, thanks!


----------



## Dayvi (Mar 29, 2020)

NoamL said:


> I like CSS quite a bit. The only two real limitations imo are:
> 
> 1. the heavy vibrato on the sustains
> 2. and the section sizes being short of symphonic proportions.
> ...




How do you get such a good stock css sound?

I tried different chord progressions, and they always sound strange. I tend to use Albion One strings and this is very dumb.

Do you use the none legato patch for chord progressions? Or do you split the progression into 5 tracks and run in legato mode for all?


----------



## Akarin (Mar 30, 2020)

I stopped reading at "_CSS doesn't do short samples too well_". You are comparing a lib that has 4 different shorts (and can sound very trailer-ish aggressive too) with one that only has one. Comparisons are nice but please, use the lib a bit before doing one


----------



## Uiroo (Mar 30, 2020)

Dayvi said:


> How do you get such a good stock css sound?
> 
> I tried different chord progressions, and they always sound strange. I tend to use Albion One strings and this is very dumb.
> 
> Do you use the none legato patch for chord progressions? Or do you split the progression into 5 tracks and run in legato mode for all?


Probably the latter. 
Also, how familiar are you with 4-part writing? Parallel fifths, octaves, resolving tritones etc.
Makes a huge difference in sound, something I knew almost nothing about some time ago


----------



## Dayvi (Mar 30, 2020)

Uiroo said:


> Probably the latter.
> Also, how familiar are you with 4-part writing? Parallel fifths, octaves, resolving tritones etc.
> Makes a huge difference in sound, something I knew almost nothing about some time ago



I’m getting into writing for strings atm, so the lack of orchestrating experience is definitely a problem.
But I saw, NoamL postet the midi of his example, i will look into that.


----------



## ism (Mar 30, 2020)

Akarin said:


> I stopped reading at "_CSS doesn't do short samples too well_". You are comparing a lib that has 4 different shorts (and can sound very trailer-ish aggressive too) with one that only has one. Comparisons are nice but please, use the lib a bit before doing one



One of the interesting things about the OP was that it's not a review, it's a rather more impressionistic comparison. And it's led to some interesting discussion if you read the rest of the thread (including ~17 corrections (and counting) of that line about the shorts).


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 30, 2020)

Akarin said:


> I stopped reading at "_CSS doesn't do short samples too well_". You are comparing a lib that has 4 different shorts (and can sound very trailer-ish aggressive too) with one that only has one. Comparisons are nice but please, use the lib a bit before doing one


When Studio Strings fires up, it loads a "greatest hits" patch of common articulations, presumably to save memory. That is only some of them. It has a ton. One has to go further to "core", "extended", "individual" etc. to see all of them...


----------



## Akarin (Mar 30, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> When Studio Strings fires up, it loads a "greatest hits" patch of common articulations, presumably to save memory. That is only some of them. It has a ton. One has to go further to "core", "extended", "individual" etc. to see all of them...



I have it. Yet, I didn't find common shorts like staccato  Super Sul Tasto may be nice but that's not really bread and butter articulations (neither it is a short articulation, which was the point).


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 30, 2020)

Akarin said:


> I have it. Yet, I didn't find common shorts like staccato


Well, you could always call one of the many shorts "staccato" if you'd like. 

Since you have it, others can listen to the attachment. I played a few notes and messed up at the end, you can tell that it's the same performance. Call them what you want- spiccato, shortcato, spiccorko, splexasto. It has any kind of short needed. I didn't do mic positions or section sizes etc because that would be an endless amount of shorts.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 30, 2020)

BTW, in case anyone is wondering (and because I have a few months with nothing to do):

Staccato is a musical term.
Spiccato is a bow technique. 

Trumpet, Timp, Fiddles, Flute- they all can play "staccato". Only strings can play spiccato.

One could say "fiddles, play the spiccato staccato". It would be redundant and stupid, but it can be said. Staccato (and the various variations i.e. staccatissimo etc) are lengths of notes/articulations. A Staccato note for strings can be off or on the string. It's usually off of course but doesn't have to be. Spiccato is off the string. 

Spiccato, Saltando, Sautille- these are all bowing techniques. How long or short each note is, that's up to the person writing the checks at the gig.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Mar 30, 2020)

and to back up Sears post.....


no wait. there's a pdf too...



http://naspaa.hostcentric.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/book.pdf


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 30, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> and to back up Sears post.....
> 
> 
> no wait. there's a pdf too...




Oh wow. I know several of the players. This was a while ago.  Time flies. And now it's 35ish years later....


----------



## mikeh-375 (Mar 30, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> Oh wow. I know several of the players. This was a while ago.  Time flies. And now it's 35ish years later....



cool Sears.


----------



## ism (Mar 30, 2020)

Hey if anyone had any thoughts on Soaring strings (currently at $129) vs CSS for that high romantic legato sound, I'd be very curious.


----------



## robgb (Mar 30, 2020)

tack said:


> In terms of what CSS shorts can sound like in those right hands Jay referred to, be sure to check out Christof's excellent composition done with CSS:



Very nice. But CSS strings always sound like sordinos to me.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Mar 30, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> When Studio Strings fires up, it loads a "greatest hits" patch of common articulations, presumably to save memory. That is only some of them. It has a ton. One has to go further to "core", "extended", "individual" etc. to see all of them...



Yeah, but that's kind of Spitfire's M.O. right? Load up their programs with a bunch of stuff you don't really need, like flautando and _"Violins FX slide 5th to the dominant"_ (Wtf?) to make you forget that their legatos are sub par.


----------



## ism (Mar 30, 2020)

mikefrommontreal said:


> Yeah, but that's kind of Spitfire's M.O. right? Load up their programs with a bunch of stuff you don't really need, like flautando and _"Violins FX slide 5th to the dominant"_ (Wtf?) to make you forget that their legatos are sub par.



Except that if legato is the only thing you care about why not buy SCS or CSS in the first place?

It's clearly a different design philosophy - decent legato and an expansive sonic pallet - as compared to CSS (superb legato and a fairly homogeneous palette). But it's a perfectly valid one, and some of us prefer to start with the StSS sound and expansiveness of the palette (and will maybe pick up CSS later).

Not that I wouldn't like the best of all worlds - StSS sonic palette + StSS price + CSS /SCS depth of legato sampling. But I don't see how it's deceptive.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Mar 30, 2020)

ism said:


> Except that if legato is the only thing you care about why not buy SCS or CSS in the first place?
> 
> It's clearly a different design philosophy - decent legato and an expansive sonic pallet - as compared to CSS (superb legato and a fairly homogeneous palette). But it's a perfectly valid one, and some of us prefer to start with the StSS sound and expansiveness of the palette (and will maybe pick up CSS later).
> 
> Not that I wouldn't like the best of all worlds - StSS sonic palette + StSS price + CSS /SCS depth of legato sampling. But I don't see how it's deceptive.


Priority number one for any company that's in process of creating a string library in 2020 should be their legatos. If you can get that down, then by all means go nuts with the fluff that makes up a 'design pallet'. But my guess is that Spitfire doesn't know how to make great legato transitions, so they load you up with other stuff that you don't need.

And there's no reason to _start_ with StSS when Cinematic has the best of both worlds already. The quality of a professional library at the price of an amateur one. I'm not trying to be a jerk, CSS is not perfect, and the Spitfire studio stuff has its plusses. And most importantly, in the hands of a good composer/programmer, great music can be made with either. But at this point, I won't even look at another company's offerings until I hear that they got those legatos down solid.


----------



## boxheadboy50 (Mar 30, 2020)

NoamL said:


> I like CSS quite a bit. The only two real limitations imo are:
> 
> 1. the heavy vibrato on the sustains
> 2. and the section sizes being short of symphonic proportions.
> ...



Maybe it's just me, maybe it's the ever-growing tinnitus, but I _like_ the hiss. For some reason to me it makes it feel like it's a live concert recording, which is awesome.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Mar 30, 2020)

mikefrommontreal said:


> Yeah, but that's kind of Spitfire's M.O. right? Load up their programs with a bunch of stuff you don't really need, like flautando and _"Violins FX slide 5th to the dominant"_ (Wtf?) to make you forget that their legatos are sub par.



The one that gets me is the portamento. It's with the legato patch..... but only if one uses the legato patch from the "legato" section. Oy.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 31, 2020)

ism said:


> Except that if legato is the only thing you care about why not buy SCS or CSS in the first place?
> 
> It's clearly a different design philosophy - decent legato and an expansive sonic pallet - as compared to CSS (superb legato and a fairly homogeneous palette). But it's a perfectly valid one,



I go back to 1990 using sample librarie. IMHO this was true then, and is still true now. I reject the idea that “all sample libraries should.”

I only ask myself:
1. How well did they achieve what their goals were for this library?
2. Does it suit what I am trying to achieve musically?


----------



## ism (Mar 31, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I go back to 1990 using sample librarie. IMHO this was true then, and is still true now. I reject the idea that “all sample libraries should.”
> 
> I only ask myself:
> 1. How well did they achieve what their goals were for this library?
> 2. Does it suit what I am trying to achieve musically?



Well said. And moreover, one of the things I love about at least a certain type of sample library is the of opening musical space that working with them and learning the understand their design philosophy and palette. And vi-c at it's best is a place to lear how others experience these pallets and musicalities provided by libraries, like CSS, SCS, StSS, LCO, Light and Sound, Venice Strings, or any other best in class library. vi-c is at its best in opening up these spaces, rather than declaring "One Library to Rule them All". 

I mean sure, judged but the aesthetic standards of CSS, undoubtedly nothing does CSS better that CSS. If you only want to do CSS and many have a couple of nice-to-have flautandos, the CSS really is the One Library to Rule them All and everything else is mere details. 

And I understand how the CSS niche is absolutely amazing for both certain artistic spaces (as Mahler and Elgar mock ups show, breathtakingly), and also that it's focus on homogeneity, frictionless workflow, and it's explicitly design of hitting a very particular, very particular mainstream-to-the-point-of-being-an-almost-defacto-hollywood sound across many genres of media music makes it very professionally compelling. Which, combined with its price point, make it an obvious commercial choice for a large number of media composers, perhaps even a (vocal) majority of people on vi-c. 

But musically, aesthetically, philosophically, CSS simply doesn't do the best of both worlds. It does the best of one world, the CSS world. And in SCS, StSS, Light and Sound, Venice Strings, LCO, OACE - or any best in class library - they are designed for such magnificently different worlds, opening up such different aesthetic spaces and musicalities that CSS - clearly best in its own class also - was just never designed take us into. Sure you can layer them, and mix them, and approximate one with another (although usually badly), but this misses the fact that the art and sciences of sampling at it's best isn't to just provide a rough approximation of a single reality, but to capture a vision of a particular musicality, and open up the possibility of an entire aesthetic space via the palette the library provides. 

And though people who care about those non-CSS worlds may be in a minority on threads with "CSS" in the title, and though the more I read about the experience and aesthetic visions of people using CSS, the more I want to pick it up so as I can also enter that world myself, it's just one world, not the best of any two. 

Man, I'm really doing a good job of convincing myself that I need to buy some more string libraries. The moral of these posts seems to always come out as: you can really never have too many string libraries.


----------



## Instrugramm (Mar 31, 2020)

ism said:


> Well said. And moreover, one of the things I love about at least a certain type of sample library is the of opening musical space that working with them and learning the understand their design philosophy and palette. And vi-c at it's best is a place to lear how others experience these pallets and musicalities provided by libraries, like CSS, SCS, StSS, LCO, Light and Sound, Venice Strings, or any other best in class library. vi-c is at its best in opening up these spaces, rather than declaring "One Library to Rule them All".
> 
> I mean sure, judged but the aesthetic standards of CSS, undoubtedly nothing does CSS better that CSS. If you only want to do CSS and many have a couple of nice-to-have flautandos, the CSS really is the One Library to Rule them All and everything else is mere details.
> 
> ...


Nope, you're simply right, string libraries are mostly good at one specific thing, to me it's CSS for legato, Adventure Strings for shorts, Tundra for huge and soft and SStS for niche techniques. I just got Trailer Strings, hoping it might do huge and agressive or just louder to complement Tundra. Oh and sometimes L&S Strings are the ones to use... .

Ps. Note, that this really doesn't quite apply to other sorts of libraries, for now other orchestral instrument types are mostly covered by one library to my absolute satisfaction.


----------

