# A New Chapter from Spitfire Audio...



## pfmusic

Is it finally the choir? No string players on seats...


----------



## JohnG

definitely not set up for any kind of choir recording I've ever seen, but tantatlising


----------



## pfmusic

JohnG said:


> definitely not set up for any kind of choir recording I've ever seen, but tantatlising



Yeah, thinking the same but they might be tricking us


----------



## Illico

Zipper big library ?!


----------



## Andrajas

hmm tricky one, but don't think its the choir


----------



## procreative

Probably the repackaging of the Symphonic titles after the firesale...


----------



## pfmusic

procreative said:


> Probably the repackaging of the Symphonic titles after the firesale...


They mentioned recently the Pro version of their SSO range wouldn't happen until next year.


----------



## keepitsimple

I tried to count the mic-ed seats when the camera is moving (tricky teaser i must say). I counted 10 and maybe i missed one hidden off camera. A small Chamber ensemble maybe?


----------



## Jdiggity1

*British Talkback Toolkit
*
Game-changer


----------



## thesteelydane

This is studio 1 at Air Lyndhurst. It will be the dry orchestra they talked about in last years Q and A.

I bet it will be spectacular. You heard it here first.


----------



## givemenoughrope

I hear a pizz.


----------



## dcoscina

JohnG said:


> definitely not set up for any kind of choir recording I've ever seen, but tantatlising


I think It’s the long awaited slide whistle library complete with 12 mic settings.


----------



## ka00

Jdiggity1 said:


> *British Talkback Toolkit
> *
> Game-changer



And they’ll be peddling half-pedalling without backpedalling.


----------



## jamwerks

Definitely strings I'd say...


----------



## revlam

Maybe a more jazzy stuff ?


----------



## DavidY

JohnG said:


> definitely not set up for any kind of choir recording I've ever seen, but tantatlising


Agreed. For one thing, most choir performances I've ever seen have the choir standing up (apart from a few rare exceptions in the repertoire where the choir performs seated).


----------



## Geoff Grace

pfmusic said:


> No string players on seats...


It's marching strings. You can clearly hear the engineer saying, "Okay, let's start with the left...and right."

That's why they're not seated.

_John Philip Sousa Pizzicato Toolkit_

You heard it here first!

Best,

Geoff


----------



## artomatic

Short strings recorded at Air Lyndhurst's bathrooms; thus the empty chairs.


----------



## robgb

Spitfire Room Sounds. $1499.


----------



## MrHStudio

John Cage Strings thats the 4’33 articulation in the video


----------



## Eptesicus

I think i know what this is


----------



## kimarnesen

It's the trailer for the movie "Who killed the orchestra". Music by Christian Henson and Paul Thompson, directed by Peter Greenaway.


----------



## RandomComposer

John Cage strings? 60 players doing nothing, recorded from 30 mic positions?


----------



## N.Caffrey

Eptesicus said:


> I think i know what this is


Shoot away!


----------



## Eptesicus

N.Caffrey said:


> Shoot away!



I have a suspicion it may be brass related.


Although it could be all sections.


----------



## Jdiggity1

Eptesicus said:


> I have a suspicion it may be brass related.
> 
> 
> Although it could be all sections.


Yes. I also suspect it might have something to do with a musical instrument of some description...


----------



## Prockamanisc

Could it be a reverb plugin?


----------



## zolhof

Whatever top secret feature @Daniel James was planning for Project Chaos in the coming weeks, Spitfire is going to release this Thursday. HGW sold you out, mate lol


----------



## sostenuto

………….


----------



## Eptesicus

thesteelydane said:


> This is studio 1 at Air Lyndhurst. It will be the dry orchestra they talked about in last years Q and A.



Someone's got it.


----------



## Parsifal666

So, if it's not the J*erry Goldsmith Composer Toolkit* it's the *Gustav Mahler*?


----------



## dpasdernick

I already own a "12 Black Chairs" sample library complete with 3 mic positions and leather versus Naugahyde filtering.


----------



## Daniel James

zolhof said:


> Whatever top secret feature @Daniel James was planning for Project Chaos in the coming weeks, Spitfire is going to release this Thursday. HGW sold you out, mate lol



No chance 

-DJ


----------



## CT

Eptesicus said:


> Someone's got it.



Yeah. Maybe a more entry-level orchestral package, with basic articulations, instruments, and mic positions?


----------



## leon chevalier

CINEMATIC STUDIO BUMP !

Ho... Sorry... Wrong thread...


----------



## LamaRose

You heard it _here_ first... 

You heard it here first


----------



## procreative

If it is a dry strings library, to me seems like there is a lot of repetition going on. Bernard Herrmann already has pretty extensive strings recorded in Air Studio 1, albeit in High and Low Strings sections.

Seems to me there are lots of very similar libraries getting released by them that cover the same ground.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

FINALLY! I've been waiting for AGES for someone to record Britain's famously-elusive Invisible Ensemble!!


----------



## Soundhound

Yanni Toolkit?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Oops! Someone's let the cat out of the bag...:
http://alturl.com/xt9i8


----------



## Nao Gam

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Oops! Someone's let the cat out of the bag...:
> http://alturl.com/xt9i8


Sonofabitch


----------



## Virtuoso

"Toilet Break Evolutions"

There's even the sound of a zipper at 0.09!

It's not just the marketing that's gone down the pan...


----------



## Mornats

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Oops! Someone's let the cat out of the bag...:
> http://alturl.com/xt9i8



Class. Sheer class.


----------



## Geoff Grace

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Oops! Someone's let the cat out of the bag...:
> http://alturl.com/xt9i8


Will there be separate samples for Stock, Aitken, _and_ Waterman?

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Hanu_H

If it's strings recorded in a small studio, I will laugh my ass off.

-Hannes


----------



## MarcelM

Hanu_H said:


> If it's strings recorded in a small studio, I will laugh my ass off.
> 
> -Hannes



why?


----------



## Rob Elliott

Mornats said:


> Class. Sheer class.


Yea, classy but CLEARLY some issues with round robins - I think I heard one!


----------



## J-M

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Oops! Someone's let the cat out of the bag...:
> http://alturl.com/xt9i8



Kinda glad I clicked, the 8 bit version sounds kinda nice actually...


----------



## Vik

Spitfire Studio Strings, to fill the hole between SCS's 16 players and SSS's 60 players - and to compete with Berlin Strings' 28 players/Cinematic Studio Strings' 35 players... but with divisi sections? And with the close mics replaced by the warmer close ribbon mics used in Mural and the SSS mic expansion pack?


----------



## Hanu_H

MarcelM said:


> why?


Well, Spitfire has said many times that their strings are superior to others because of the amazing hall they record in. Air Lyndhurst has been one of their biggest selling points over the years. They have also said that dry libraries will never sound as good as the ones recorded in a great hall. I am not saying that their libraries don't sound good but there is some problems with the huge tail. For years they have been battling against critical people and now they make a groundbreaking library recorded in a small studio. I think it's kind of funny...don't you think? 

-Hannes


----------



## Bill the Lesser

What are they snickering about? Will it take my music to the next level?


----------



## Raphioli

Someone else already mentioned it, but I'm also assuming its a small section recorded in a small space.

I think Spitfire talked about it last year about it doing divisi.


----------



## jamwerks

Didn't they announce a while back that they would be doing a new line of "dryer" orchestral samples? Wonder if these will be Kontakt or Spitfire Player?


----------



## MarcelM

Hanu_H said:


> Well, Spitfire has said many times that their strings are superior to others because of the amazing hall they record in. Air Lyndhurst has been one of their biggest selling points over the years. They have also said that dry libraries will never sound as good as the ones recorded in a great hall. I am not saying that their libraries don't sound good but there is some problems with the huge tail. For years they have been battling against critical people and now they make a groundbreaking library recorded in a small studio. I think it's kind of funny...don't you think?
> 
> -Hannes



didnt know that, and yeah its kind of funny if they do a dry library now.

well, developers say alot of stuff right?


----------



## Geoff Grace

Raphioli said:


> Someone else already mentioned it, but I'm also assuming its a small section recorded in a small space.
> 
> I think Spitfire talked about it last year about it doing divisi.


If divisi not only divides the section but also the hall size, _that_ would be going the extra mile!

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Hanu_H

MarcelM said:


> didnt know that, and yeah its kind of funny if they do a dry library now.
> 
> well, developers say alot of stuff right?


Yeah, I know it's only talk, but it's still pretty funny.

-Hannes


----------



## thesteelydane

Hanu_H said:


> Well, Spitfire has said many times that their strings are superior to others because of the amazing hall they record in. Air Lyndhurst has been one of their biggest selling points over the years. They have also said that dry libraries will never sound as good as the ones recorded in a great hall. I am not saying that their libraries don't sound good but there is some problems with the huge tail. For years they have been battling against critical people and now they make a groundbreaking library recorded in a small studio. I think it's kind of funny...don't you think?
> 
> -Hannes



I actually completely agree with Spitfire that dry libraries will never sound as good as something recorded in that amazing acoustic of Air. But that’s not what people want, so they’re just giving people what they have been asking for.


----------



## Rob Elliott

Hanu_H said:


> Well, Spitfire has said many times that their strings are superior to others because of the amazing hall they record in. Air Lyndhurst has been one of their biggest selling points over the years. They have also said that dry libraries will never sound as good as the ones recorded in a great hall. I am not saying that their libraries don't sound good but there is some problems with the huge tail. For years they have been battling against critical people and now they make a groundbreaking library recorded in a small studio. I think it's kind of funny...don't you think?
> 
> -Hannes


Yes - a small studio may give them a better opportunity to perfect legato transitions - with the large hall used - never been my favorite. No doubt, their 'longs' have a great sound but I have always struggled to pull of a 'human-like' legato from SF. Hope everyone is right - for me - I want developers to pull off the up close, breathing and PERSONAL vibe (I'd be the first to say - freaking hard to do and do right - I get that).


----------



## Hanu_H

thesteelydane said:


> I actually completely agree with Spitfire that dry libraries will never sound as good as something recorded in that amazing acoustic of Air. But that’s not what people want, so they’re just giving people what they have been asking for.


Hmm, I think that most people want the libraries recorded in a hall, so it sounds great when you play it. Actually I am not even sure if people want/or need anymore libraries recorded the same old way, but Spitfire as a company must do new libraries to survive. So now they are making a dry orchestra that is groundbreaking to the sample world.(I don't really believe that.) After they have done the full orchestra, I am guessing they will go back to the hall and record a new set of wet samples and that is the new groundbreaking thing of the future...



Rob Elliott said:


> Yes - a small studio may give them a better opportunity to perfect legato transitions - with the large hall used - never been my favorite. No doubt, their 'longs' have a great sound but I have always struggled to pull of a 'human-like' legato from SF. Hope everyone is right - for me - I want developers to pull off the up close, breathing and PERSONAL vibe (I'd be the first to say - freaking hard to do and do right - I get that).


That is another thing that has bugged me. If you watch some videos by them, they always say that they prefer not to use legato and that they like the sound of the sustains more. I am sure that is the main reason for doing the dry library, but that is even more funny if it is true.

-Hannes


----------



## Rob Elliott

Hanu_H said:


> Hmm, I think that most people want the libraries recorded in a hall, so it sounds great when you play it. Actually I am not even sure if people want/or need anymore libraries recorded the same old way, but Spitfire as a company must do new libraries to survive. So now they are making a dry orchestra that is groundbreaking to the sample world.(I don't really believe that.) After they have done the full orchestra, I am guessing they will go back to the hall and record a new set of wet samples and that is the new groundbreaking thing of the future...
> 
> That is another thing that has bugged me. If you watch some videos by them, they always say that they prefer not to use legato and that they like the sound of the sustains more. I am sure that is the main reason for doing the dry library, but that is even more funny if it is true.
> 
> -Hannes


Yea - I'd be the first to admit I always seem to 'grab' the legatos when in reality sustains will not only do the trick but better....BUT....legatos are key to 'selling' these mockups to clients as it is the one comment about 'fake' I'd get (pointing out a 'legato moment'.) Of course there are a million things we can do to 'smear' this weakness reality about samples, but achieving 'legato nirvana' I am sure is ONE thing most developers really want (as it would translate into units sold - IMHO). Here's hoping SF moves into new territory in this regard.


----------



## ptram

Dry Chamber Strings, maybe.


----------



## MaxOctane

I've struggled with adding reverb to dry libraries. One of the reasons I'm a Spitfire customer. 

For example, Chris Hein solo strings. I have the full set but I just can't dial in a good reverb ever. Space Designer is always a fail. 2CAudio Breeze is nice but I can't get it to sound "real." Chromaverb is all over the place. I'm thinking of getting Spaces II but afraid it'll be just another failed attempt. 

Yet from listening to others here on VI-C, sounds like a bunch of you guys have this completely nailed down and wouldn't touch a wet library. 

I'd love to just have a hardcoded set of parameters that I can punch in and be done with it. _Want to do a string quartet with Chris Hein? Punch in ABC into software X._


----------



## Parsifal666

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> Oops! Someone's let the cat out of the bag...:
> http://alturl.com/xt9i8



The Rick Astley Vocal Toolkit, my greatest dream realized! \m/


----------



## Parsifal666

MaxOctane said:


> I've struggled with adding reverb to dry libraries. One of the reasons I'm a Spitfire customer.
> 
> For example, Chris Hein solo strings. I have the full set but I just can't dial in a good reverb ever. Space Designer is always a fail. 2CAudio Breeze is nice but I can't get it to sound "real." Chromaverb is all over the place. I'm thinking of getting Spaces II but afraid it'll be just another failed attempt.
> 
> Y_._




I wish you'd asked me first. EW Spaces does the trick. Goes great with the Hein. Try it.


----------



## dhlkid

I think BHCT has bunch of dry strings patch


----------



## NoamL

Hanu_H said:


> If it's strings recorded in a small studio, I will laugh my ass off.
> 
> -Hannes



Yeah it's a bit unfortunate marketing if that's the case.

*A NEW CHAPTER from Spitfire Audio: More Strings*

There are so many string offerings from SF already. If you want the AIR sound you can buy Mural (now SSS), or Sable (now SCS), or any one of the Albions, or Hans Zimmer Strings. Then besides that there's the String EVOs and Olfar's Evos, LCO, Spitfire Solo Strings, Alternative Solo Strings, the Sacconi Quartet, and the Bernard Hermann Composer Toolkit!

If Spitfire feels that they have a hole in their lineup for "studio strings but quite dry" that's only because the excellent SCS was recorded in AIR. You can get a wonderful chamber-sized or studio-sized string sound with good isolation from the close mics in CSS, or from Soundiron's new Hyperion Strings (which are also part of a future orchestra), or from Light & Sound Chamber Strings, or even from the individual sections in LASS I daresay.

At a certain point I wonder who they're selling these libraries to. At least new composers have lots of choices!


----------



## Jdiggity1

NoamL said:


> You can get a wonderful chamber-sized or studio-sized string sound with good isolation from the close mics in CSS, or from Soundiron's new Hyperion Strings (which are also part of a future orchestra), or from Light & Sound Chamber Strings, or even from the individual sections in LASS I daresay.
> 
> At a certain point I wonder who they're selling these libraries to. At least new composers have lots of choices!



You see how many libraries you just listed _without _mentioning Spitfire?
I'd say that's plenty motivation to do this.


----------



## CT

MaxOctane said:


> I've struggled with adding reverb to dry libraries. One of the reasons I'm a Spitfire customer.
> 
> For example, Chris Hein solo strings. I have the full set but I just can't dial in a good reverb ever. Space Designer is always a fail. 2CAudio Breeze is nice but I can't get it to sound "real." Chromaverb is all over the place. I'm thinking of getting Spaces II but afraid it'll be just another failed attempt.
> 
> Yet from listening to others here on VI-C, sounds like a bunch of you guys have this completely nailed down and wouldn't touch a wet library.
> 
> I'd love to just have a hardcoded set of parameters that I can punch in and be done with it. _Want to do a string quartet with Chris Hein? Punch in ABC into software X._



After hearing what Spitfire did with the Bernard Herrmann library, and some other good examples like LASS, I'm absolutely convinced that the spatial realism problem that so many face isn't a result of "dry" samples as much as it is "centered, super wide" samples.

When you record the players in position, you get a proper left-right image, as well as a genuine sense of depth and width. You can do that in a room like AIR Studio 1 and maintain that spatial integrity, but with pretty much no tail, if that's what you want. Then it's just a matter of slathering reverb on when called for, or not, as the case may be.

But when you present a library with every player in the orchestra as a close, centered, wide recording... that's when we end up going down a rabbit hole of digital trickery that just never sounds right. I've heard all the methods, seen all the expensive plugins that are supposed to do it for you. No thanks.

I'd be on board with a "dry, but positioned" offering from Spitfire, like the Herrmann Toolkit. I absolutely love the sound of the hall at AIR, but of course it makes certain things a little dodgy. This would be a very interesting new direction for them.


----------



## NoamL

Jdiggity1 said:


> You see how many libraries you just listed _without _mentioning Spitfire?
> I'd say that's plenty motivation to do this.



the choir would have much less competition I think? especially if it's a bit off the beaten path, more of a chamber choir than a big cinematic Every-2014-Trailer choir sound


----------



## muziksculp

Just a wild guess, I think "A New Chapter" would mean, a new line of orchestral sample libraries that are Not Recorded at Air, for a more intimate, dry sound, recorded in small hall/studio. maybe not only strings, but brass, woods and perc. as well. 

Whatever it turns out to be, I'm already excited. We will know on Thursday.


----------



## JEPA

i know exactly what it is: "Talk back conversations between sound engineers and string musicians". The sound engineer asks something through microphone, string musician responds with pizzicato. Lot of round robins...


----------



## Geoff Grace

muziksculp said:


> We will know on Thursday.


Presumably around 9:00 am PST, based on past announcements. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## sostenuto

Have held SFA right up there with OT, VSL for so long. Luv (3) Albions, Orch SWARM, BDT, EDNA01 !! 
Top Tier Orchestral Libs are finally within financial reach, and so hoping for something impressive from SFA …..


----------



## Saxer

A chamber orchestra recorded in a chamber size studio would be a cool thing! For my taste SCS sounds great but always a bit lost in the big studio. A good chamber sound is far from 'dry'. Just tighter and more intimate. And more TV size than movie.


----------



## LamaRose

Right now, I'm not sure that I can afford a chapter... ideally, this library is a solid few pages, lol.


----------



## HBen

Christian Henson said: A new chapter thats taken 3 years to make.... gasp. You're gonna like it!!!


----------



## jacobthestupendous

It's a library of Lali hits.


----------



## SoNowWhat?

jacobthestupendous said:


> It's a library of Lali hits.


Beat me to it (no pun intended).
The sound of sticks breaking in Air Lyndhurst will be breathtaking. Especially if it’s taken 3 years!! 

(I know this is not recorded in the big space, just jokes).



Saxer said:


> A chamber orchestra recorded in a chamber size studio would be a cool thing! For my taste SCS sounds great but always a bit lost in the big studio. A good chamber sound is far from 'dry'. Just tighter and more intimate. And more TV size than movie.


...intimate...yup.
I’m waiting with some interest to see what they deliver, but I would like to see something intimate like BDT.


----------



## Vik

I don’t think SF thinks in ‘either dry or wet’ or ‘either symphonic or chamber’ ways. They just want to keep producing stuff that sounds good, and a medium sized ensemble in a smaller location than the large Air hall would certainly sound great. I’m sure they’ll release something like that (now or later).


----------



## Henu

Please don't be anything useful, necessary or groundbreaking. I can't afford it anymore!


----------



## Tatu

A new quarter, a new chapter..


----------



## MaxOctane

Henu said:


> Please don't be anything useful, necessary or groundbreaking. I can't afford it anymore!



Here let me save you the trouble.

_"I'm not gonna buy this one."

*listens to Homay and Henson and Blaney demos*

Email inbox: _Order Confirmation from Spitfire Audio


----------



## jamwerks

I'm intrigued by the choice of the hall. It's medium size for sure, but extremely reverberant. Can't wait to hear what it sounds like!


----------



## jononotbono

NoamL said:


> There are so many string offerings from SF already. If you want the AIR sound you can buy Mural (now SSS), or Sable (now SCS), or any one of the Albions, or Hans Zimmer Strings. Then besides that there's the String EVOs and Olfar's Evos, LCO, Spitfire Solo Strings, Alternative Solo Strings, the Sacconi Quartet, and the Bernard Hermann Composer Toolkit!



When you write it out like that, all I instantly think is...

SSS sounds massive. SCS Sounds smaller (much more detail). The Albions give me a quick fix against a deadline. HZ Strings sound like HZ Strings. String Evos for instant underscore against a deadline. LCO for modern Horror and Tension. Spitfire Solo Strings... They are Solo Strings. Alternative Solo Strings... Giving an alternative option to Solo Strings. Sacconi Quartet for Quartet writing. Bernard Hermann Toolkit to give me a faint whiff of Hermann's vibe.

More choice? Plenty of room for it I say!


----------



## SoNowWhat?

MaxOctane said:


> Here let me save you the trouble.
> 
> _"I'm not gonna buy this one."
> 
> *listens to Homay and Henson and Blaney demos*
> 
> Email inbox: _Order Confirmation from Spitfire Audio


hey! Get out of my head.


----------



## thesteelydane

jamwerks said:


> I'm intrigued by the choice of the hall. It's medium size for sure, but extremely reverberant. Can't wait to hear what it sounds like!



Probably exactly like the Herrmann library, which was recorded there.


----------



## Drundfunk

I'm always for new colors and new inspiring tools, but damn I kinda feel the same fatigue I have with the next Marvel movie in cinema...


----------



## ptram

A chamber strings orchestra with a lot of extended techniques, and possibly a different player.

Paolo


----------



## germancomponist

A recorded orchestra in a good sounding hall like Air sounds great, yes. But does this mean that Spitfire is not allowed to record in other locations as well? I find the discussion about it delicious and completely pointless.
Whatever they do, if it sounds good, then it is good! Yes, no?


----------



## JEPA

3 years of work? i know right what it is: "a 3 year long room impulse response pizzicato string library"


----------



## Parsifal666

I so love the job SF did with BHOT, I can't help but be interested in expansions of that dry sound. In fact, this would be by far the most interesting library to me from SF since that library came out. 

As of now the prospect of the above is the only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger on the Hein Ensemble Strings (though it's probable I'll buy it later anyway, huge fan of the sound and workflow of the CH).


----------



## LinusW

A woodwind section to match Chamber strings?


----------



## BezO

Obviously not, and I'm likely the only one here hoping for NKS compatible solo brass & saxes.


----------



## leon chevalier

germancomponist said:


> delicious and completely pointless


Like all my favorite threads !


----------



## Raphioli

BezO said:


> Obviously not, and I'm likely the only one here hoping for NKS compatible solo brass & saxes.



If its brasses, I wish they would do an expansion for their Symphonic Brass library.
For example, the solo trumpet is very good for soft lyric lines, but its lacking high dynamics like ff.
I wish they would release a 2nd solo trumpet as an expansion and make it a comprehensive library. (e.g. sample legato, portamento, various shorts from pp to ff)
And then they could make another expansion with ensembles which have those "waves" patches from Olafur Arnalds Chamber Evolutions and sample different lengths. It will definitely be useful for brass. (Olafur Arnolds Symphonic Brass Evolution or something like that)
They could also do the same for woodwinds.
I'd definitely buy that kind of expansion =)


----------



## stonzthro

I'm guessing the violin pizzicatos in the video are probably pointing away from something like brass, winds...


----------



## noises on

Pēteris Vasks Toolkit,.....as more and more genres are gradually covered, and by the sound of it we will be hearing another string library, it is only natural that further "peripheral" styles will be sampled....so I would suggest someone in the league of Mr Vasks.


----------



## noises on

MaxOctane said:


> I've struggled with adding reverb to dry libraries. One of the reasons I'm a Spitfire customer.
> 
> For example, Chris Hein solo strings. I have the full set but I just can't dial in a good reverb ever. Space Designer is always a fail. 2CAudio Breeze is nice but I can't get it to sound "real." Chromaverb is all over the place. I'm thinking of getting Spaces II but afraid it'll be just another failed attempt.
> 
> Yet from listening to others here on VI-C, sounds like a bunch of you guys have this completely nailed down and wouldn't touch a wet library.
> 
> I'd love to just have a hardcoded set of parameters that I can punch in and be done with it. _Want to do a string quartet with Chris Hein? Punch in ABC into software X._


Try subscribing to East West for a month, try out spaces and make up your mind. So many in this forum swear by it, both in terms of what it does for the quality of their work, as well as its simplicity. Have you ruled out the possibility that CH recordings may not be your cup of tea?


----------



## LamaRose

Just got an email from Max: 



Here we go


----------



## MrHStudio

stonzthro said:


> I'm guessing the violin pizzicatos in the video are probably pointing away from something like brass, winds...



They have also trailered a new Olafer Arnolds in depth for next week so perhaps this another one in his series


----------



## keepitsimple

Well i just bought Inspire 1 today. I could have waited a day to find out what SF is coming up with....but...umm...i didn't. Yes it's called G.A.S.


----------



## muziksculp

For a smaller, less ambient hall/studio. max. of 3 Mic options is good enough I think, let's see how many mic options they will offer, hopefully not a an overkill for an intimate sounding library. 

Library sizes are getting crazy large these days.


----------



## Hanu_H

germancomponist said:


> A recorded orchestra in a good sounding hall like Air sounds great, yes. But does this mean that Spitfire is not allowed to record in other locations as well? I find the discussion about it delicious and completely pointless.
> Whatever they do, if it sounds good, then it is good! Yes, no?


I am not saying they shouldn't do it. I just find it funny when people who have been really loud and adamant about something, change their opinion and call it revolutionary. I have always liked LASS and other drier libraries for strings, so they might have a customer in me with the new series. Though I am a bit skeptical about people who don't honor their principals. I hope it's a good library and a bit cheaper than their previous offerings. To me, Spitfire has turned into Apple of sample world. There is so many fanboys ready to buy their new product before they have even heard it and no one is allowed to criticize it. I think that is bad for the industry overall. But all is good, don't get annoyed by my comments. I am eager to hear the new product and will then evaluate if I need it or not.

-Hannes


----------



## sostenuto

keepitsimple said:


> Well i just bought Inspire 1 today. I could have waited a day to find out what SF is coming up with....but...umm...i didn't. Yes it's called G.A.S.



Ha ! Got it at Intro and Inspire 2 as well. Maybe G.A.S. .. but there's good G.A.S. and bad G.A.S. ! :emoji_water_buffalo:


----------



## keepitsimple

sostenuto said:


> Ha ! Got it at Intro and Inspire 2 as well. Maybe G.A.S. .. but there's good G.A.S. and bad G.A.S. ! :emoji_water_buffalo:


I did it the other way around: Got the 2 on intro then used the voucher to get 1 today. Of course it’s good G.A.S, excellent G.A.S matter of fact


----------



## sostenuto

_I know, I know ...... lotsa fun, lighthearted waiting ........ 
_
But not truly unfair to state ..... this is hopefully something doggone good, or some serious 
moola is headed elsewhere for full Orchestral stuff. 

2018 has not been notable for SFA .... as experienced from here. 
Creation, Technology, Production is life-blood. Marketing either helps or hurts.


----------



## germancomponist

Hanu_H said:


> I am not saying they shouldn't do it. I just find it funny when people who have been really loud and adamant about something, change their opinion and call it revolutionary. I have always liked LASS and other drier libraries for strings, so they might have a customer in me with the new series. Though I am a bit skeptical about people who don't honor their principals. I hope it's a good library and a bit cheaper than their previous offerings. To me, Spitfire has turned into Apple of sample world. There is so many fanboys ready to buy their new product before they have even heard it and no one is allowed to criticize it. I think that is bad for the industry overall. But all is good, don't get annoyed by my comments. I am eager to hear the new product and will then evaluate if I need it or not.
> 
> -Hannes


Who clings to principles, does not really live. I do not think that Spitfire only clung to any principles. Only experimenting can break new ground! And if Spitfire is taking a new path that will bring us all the fantastic stuff, then I'll praise it!


----------



## SoNowWhat?

noises on said:


> Try subscribing to East West for a month, try out spaces and make up your mind. So many in this forum swear by it, both in terms of what it does for the quality of their work, as well as its simplicity. Have you ruled out the possibility that CH recordings may not be your cup of tea?


Or if you don't want to go that far even, you can try Spaces II for free as a demo. I'm doing it right now. And getting a bit off topic but, I like it a lot. If I get it I could easily see it becoming my go-to verb plug. The one thing that would make it amazing would be more (or perhaps more precise) control over ER/Tails.


----------



## Parsifal666

SoNowWhat? said:


> Or if you don't want to go that far even, you can try Spaces II for free as a demo. I'm doing it right now. And getting a bit off topic but, I like it a lot. If I get it I could easily see it becoming my go-to verb plug. The one thing that would make it amazing would be more (or perhaps more precise) control over ER/Tails.



For me the presets in Spaces are excellent, a fine springboard to tailor to your own needs. Easily my favorite reverb, though I had major respect for Altiverb (and my dark horse, the sometimes handy Revelation).


----------



## The Darris

I know a lot of people give spitfire a hard time because they have released so many string libraries. You're not wrong. I am certainly guilty for owning most of them. 

The only reason I continue to buy them is for one reason, whether or not they offer something the others don't. I know a lot of you get amazing result with a single library. I do to. The main one being Cinematic Studio Strings. However, Spitfire's offerings add some of those extra colors and flair missing in those all purpose libraries. Its usually in just a few patches because, and this makes sense from a business perspective, they want to give composers the core articulations to work with while also expanding the range of colors and sounds capable of the orchestra. 
I'm still waiting for an update to the woodwinds and brass that have more aleotoric/textural patches akin to Chamber and Symphonic Strings. 

So, I always find whatever new "chapter" they open to be interesting. I'm hoping whatever this new library is, offers something new besides the same ole palette of articulations but in a different space. The new solo strings was a let down because it was just the basics and didn't explore the range of sounds that Chamber Strings did. The only reason I didn't buy it.

This is all assuming it's just another string library. But, something tells me it might be more than that. We'll see tomorrow. 

Cheers,

C


----------



## keepitsimple

So what time do they usually reveal their product? Is there a certain time routine they follow for such events?


----------



## Geoff Grace

My recollection is that they usually wait until roughly the start of the business day on the west coast of the United States: 9:00 am PST.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## N.Caffrey

New cover on fb


----------



## sostenuto

Geoff Grace said:


> My recollection is that they usually wait until roughly the start of the business day on the west coast of the United States: 9:00 am PST.
> Best,
> Geoff



Heh! i.e. …. end of their 'business' day. You are likely correct and should be within next hour or so.


----------



## ptram

Looks like an hybrid strings orchestra…

Paolo


----------



## MrHStudio

Steam Punk Strings - SPS


----------



## N.Caffrey

Spitfire Studio Strings!!! with a professional version


----------



## JF

https://www.spitfireaudio.com/spitfire-studio-strings/


----------



## sostenuto

Delighted !!!!!  I'm back in the fold ! Ready now to start adding Main Orchestral Libs. 

AND Homay for 14 minutes as well


----------



## MatFluor

Two versions - Core and Professional


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

After playing with Caspian and Oceania libraries lots recently, I really hope there's some further development on playability with this one. Teaser sounds lovely - about to check out the walkthroughs to see if it's significantly different/better compared to SSS...


----------



## NoamL

Woah


----------



## Eptesicus

Was excited by this, and after hearing the 1st demo track ( the one used on the trailer).

Then i listened to the other two demo tracks.....eurgh.


----------



## MrHStudio

Eptesicus said:


> Was excited by this, and after hearing the 1st demo track ( the one used on the trailer).
> 
> Then i listened to the other two demo tracks.....eurgh.


Yes i really didn’t like the sound of Homay’s track the middle section sounded like a cheap accordion.

What I do find interesting though is that this time last year I was about to buy a new orchestra and was listening to all the different manufacturers and the basic version at £150 would probably have tempted me (I actually bought Spitfire Symphonic)


----------



## Eptesicus

MrHStudio said:


> Yes i really didn’t like the sound of Homay’s track the middle section sounded like a cheap accordion.
> 
> What I do find interesting though is that this time last year I was about to buy a new orchestra and was listening to all the different manufacturers and the basic version at £150 would probably have tempted me (I actually bought Spitfire Symphonic)



Yeh the 1st track sounds lovely.

The other two have put me right off it.

Not sure what to do now.


----------



## Consona

Eptesicus said:


> Not sure what to do now.


Wait for Hyperion and then decide I guess.


----------



## rottoy

You could also wait for 8Dio's Intimate Studio Strings, this release by Spitfire might put some fire under their asses to finally release their own studio strings.
https://vi-control.net/community/threads/8dio-intimate-studio-strings.72350/


----------



## axb312

Can't believe I'm saying this, but actually a pretty great price point from Spitfire...(for the pro version). Think the standard version should have stuck to 149 USD or so...


----------



## axb312

rottoy said:


> You could also wait for 8Dio's Intimate Studio Strings, this release by Spitfire might put some fire under their asses to finally release their own studio strings.
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/8dio-intimate-studio-strings.72350/



This could be the big surprise they have planned...


----------



## prodigalson

rottoy said:


> You could also wait for 8Dio's Intimate Studio Strings, this release by Spitfire might put some fire under their asses to finally release their own studio strings.
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/8dio-intimate-studio-strings.72350/



from checking out the teaser and looking at the GUI, 8dios intimate strings sound even more intimate and smaller than Spitfire Studio Strings. Like a quartet vs. chamber sections


----------



## jamwerks

So much to love; abundance of arts, features, different group sizes, etc. After listening to the walk-throughs and the three demos, I'm less in love with the sound of the hall. It's got a very short reverb time (.6-.8 sec?) but it's really far from "dry". I can very clearly (too clearly?) hear the size of the hall baked into the samples. I'll have to suspend judgement for the time being.

Seems that for most of Pauls very nice walk-through, he had the C1 & Ambient mic's up. I would need to hear other mix possibilities, C2 & Tree1 for example, hoping to hear a bit less of the walls...


----------



## muziksculp

They got Spiccato, but no Staccato. I find that odd.


----------



## CT

jamwerks said:


> So much to love; abundance of arts, features, different group sizes, etc. After listening to the walk-throughs and the three demos, I'm less in love with the sound of the hall. It's got a very short reverb time (.6-.8 sec?) but it's really far from "dry". I can very clearly (too clearly?) hear the size of the hall baked into the samples. I'll have to suspend judgement for the time being.
> 
> Seems that for most of Pauls very nice walk-through, he had the C1 & Ambient mic's up. I would need to hear other mix possibilities, C2 & Tree1 for example, hoping to hear a bit less of the walls...



Also remember that in the Professional version walkthroughs, Paul has the onboard reverb switched on.


----------



## MrHStudio

Further to my earlier post Listening to the walkthrough the individual articulation sound really good but it doesn’t seem to have come together well in most of the demos.


----------



## N.Caffrey

Dont love the sound of the strings, but I like the concept. I'm curious to hear WW and Brass for sure


----------



## rocking.xmas.man

I think that's a nice room sound especially for all the stuff I just could not make Albion and the likes of great Air Lyndhurst work for. Backing-Strings for ballads, String part in Musical-Style songs ... stuff like that.


----------



## VinRice

A return to form for Spitfire after that HZS nonsense. The core library is a no-brainer for anybody really. Sensible pricing.


----------



## Eptesicus

MrHStudio said:


> Further to my earlier post Listening to the walkthrough the individual articulation sound really good but it doesn’t seem to have come together well in most of the demos.



Yeh it is weird. 

I just watched the woman's video walkthrough and the patches on their own sound good but the whole piece...not so much.

Also, the legato patch she played...was not that great unfortunately :(.


----------



## MatFluor

It's nice. But overpriced

The Professional library is well priced for Spitfire product, pretty cool pricing.
But the Core library, for $300 (without the sale I mean of course) is just too sparse - only 1 mic, slashed down articulations, fewer players. I don't feel it's worth $300, but I feel the pro version is worth $600. But for $300 I would at least expect the classic standard Spitfire CTA mics.

Not talking about the sound here - just the pricing throws me a little off


----------



## Hanu_H

(laughing my ass off).


----------



## Hanu_H

And by the way...pretty disappointing for a new chapter. Everything done the same way like before but in a studio. I wouldn't call this revolutionary in any way...

-Hannes


----------



## madfloyd

Some of us have been asking for drier samples for some time now.


----------



## jamwerks

That doesn't at all strike me as a room that one would want to record brass in, but I'm open to being proven wrong.


----------



## Michael Stibor

jamwerks said:


> That doesn't at all strike me as a room that one would want to record brass in, but I'm open to being proven wrong.


If Spitfire's Bernard Herrmann library was recorded in the same space, then you might be proven wrong. I don't love all the ensemble choices with BHCT, but the _sound_ is incredible in that library.


----------



## procreative

jamwerks said:


> Seems that for most of Pauls very nice walk-through, he had the C1 & Ambient mic's up. I would need to hear other mix possibilities, C2 & Tree1 for example, hoping to hear a bit less of the walls...



Well check the non Pro walkthrough as thats Tree mic only.



MatFluor said:


> But the Core library, for $300 (without the sale I mean of course) is just too sparse - only 1 mic, slashed down articulations, fewer players.



Incorrect, not less articulations. Its got less Mic positions and no Divisi. But the articulations are the same.


----------



## JEPA

in this case i prefer the VSL strings...


----------



## madfloyd

JEPA said:


> in this case i prefer the VSL strings...



Not me. Not even close.


----------



## Jdiggity1

MatFluor said:


> It's nice. But overpriced
> But the Core library, for $300 (without the sale I mean of course)...


Is this another regional thing? I see $249 as the full price? ($199 on sale)
Which i think is a great price. This might be my way of getting those gorgeous extended techniques found in SCS, at less than half the price.


----------



## SoNowWhat?

jamwerks said:


> That doesn't at all strike me as a room that one would want to record brass in, but I'm open to being proven wrong.


I did wonder this too but am definitely suspending any judgement til release. SF usually do a good job at most things so will be interesting to see.


----------



## ptram

> JEPA said: ↑
> in this case i prefer the VSL strings...





madfloyd said:


> Not me. Not even close.


I compared VSL's Chamber Strings to what I hear in the SSS demos. The VSLs have, to my ears, more definition, clarity, and "readiness". They sound different, and better for my way of writing. While the SSS are a great library, at an incredible price, it is true they are not in the same league as the VSL Strings.

Paolo


----------



## Bill the Lesser

Regarding the demos, we have to remember the presenters are conditioned to the "opulent" sound of the big hall, and still struggling with the paradigmatic body-slam of spatial dryness. From the videos I suspect they were caught a bit unprepared and pressed for time.

I think this library is capable of easily producing a sound and textures previously out of reach. This or that articulation may be missing, but there is such a generous serving of articulations present that creativity will find a way, and maybe even a new way.


----------



## quantum7

I really liked what I heard in the walk-through videos by both Paul & Christian, but then in Homay's "In Action" video I didn't like the sound quite as much. Am I hearing something different there? Maybe it's just my laptop earphones and 49 year-old ears? LOL


----------



## quantum7

Bill the Lesser said:


> Regarding the demos, we have to remember the presenters are conditioned to the "opulent" sound of the big hall, and still struggling with the paradigmatic body-slam of spatial dryness. From the videos I suspect they were caught a bit unprepared and pressed for time.
> 
> I think this library is capable of easily producing a sound and textures previously out of reach. This or that articulation may be missing, but there is such a generous serving of articulations present that creativity will find a way, and maybe even a new way.



Yeah. in one of the walk-through videos once the Lexicon reverb was added, it really came alive. There is nothing like a great reverb to enhance great, but dry material.


----------



## The Darris

quantum7 said:


> I really liked what I heard in the walk-through videos by both Paul & Christian, but then in Homay's "In Action" video I didn't like the sound quite as much. Am I hearing something different there? Maybe it's just my laptop earphones and 49 year-old ears? LOL


I say this with no joy but I feel like Homay's demonstration video was just lack of good programming on her part. A lot of the things I noticed were the sucking effect with not properly overlaying note ends with the start of new notes. The Flautandos in Spitfire's libraries need a lot of finesse in an exposed section like that. I noticed similar issues in Oliver's demo as well, mainly note endings sounding very abrupt. Knowing their libraries, this just needs a little extra fine tuning in the CC1 & 11 data. Aside from that, I didn't hear anything that inherently sounded bad. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with a little extra automation in the dynamics and midi notes. 

This room is certainly a lot brighter sounding than that Hall so when you start to layer in those upper ranges, things can get pretty bright. Nothing a little EQ and some re-voicing can't fix.


----------



## ism

I wonder if some of the demos are mixed with less reverb to show the definition and the 'bite' the library is capable of - at least the experience of working with LCO convinced me that this 'bite' sometimes exactly what you want. But after hearing the lush reverb-y mixes of the first demos - perhaps combined with the built in bias of expectation from SCS demos (and in fact nearly every other spitfire demo) - I do find some of the dryer mixes a bit jarring, or at least not to my taste.

In any event, I picked up the non-pro edition, and have been shamelessly slathering on reverb with abandon and it sounds great!


----------



## quantum7

ism said:


> In any event, I picked up the non-pro edition, and have been shamelessly slathering on reverb with abandon and it sounds great!



Make those strings sound like you're in the Grand Canyon! I do love me some heavy reverb on my strings!


----------



## quantum7

The Darris said:


> I say this with no joy but I feel like Homay's demonstration video was just lack of good programming on her part. A lot of the things I noticed were the sucking effect with not properly overlaying note ends with the start of new notes. The Flautandos in Spitfire's libraries need a lot of finesse in an exposed section like that. I noticed similar issues in Oliver's demo as well, mainly note endings sounding very abrupt.



Yeah, I'm guessing they are both just not as familiar with the new library as Paul and Christian are so far because Oliver and Homay's other "in action" performances are always quite nice.


----------



## The Darris

quantum7 said:


> Yeah, I'm guessing they are both just not as familiar with the new library as Paul and Christian are so far because Oliver and Homay's other "in action" performances are always quite nice.


I agree, I'm a pretty big fan of Oli and Homay's style of writing. Their demos are usually pretty on point. But, with all of that aside, the little quirks that were underwhelming seemed less of the library itself and more of just how it was used. However, that's all based on my opinion. Hard to really say for sure without trying it out myself.


----------



## MatFluor

Jdiggity1 said:


> Is this another regional thing? I see $249 as the full price? ($199 on sale)
> Which i think is a great price. This might be my way of getting those gorgeous extended techniques found in SCS, at less than half the price.



interesting

Here its €249, €199 on sale (That's where with current exchange the $300 come from)


----------



## Jdiggity1

MatFluor said:


> interesting
> 
> Here its €249, €199 on sale (That's where with current exchange the $300 come from)


sucks to be you...


----------



## MatFluor

procreative said:


> Incorrect, not less articulations. Its got less Mic positions and no Divisi. But the articulations are the same.



A bit unclear then - thanks for correcting. I guess the added articulations *are *the additional players/divisi - when reading through that just popped into my eyes.

Studio Strings Core:
Spitfire Studio Strings takes you straight to the heart of our most pristine orchestral library to date: *148 articulations* across the full 30-piece string section (8.6.6.6.4)

Studio Strings Pro:
In addition to an all-embracing *232 articulations*, you can access and personalise your mix [...]

[emphasis by me]


----------



## Geoff Grace

For better and worse, the Euro price is VAT inclusive. The US price is not.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## mobileavatar

If the project/library is years in its making, why didn't the team spend MORE TIME on their demos???
Why such a hurry?

In Christian's video, I understand he wants to show how easy-to-use the lib is, but the use of block chords only makes the lib even less convincing, esp. when divisi is supposedly one of its major selling points.


----------



## Vik

I've noticed that the demos contain many areas where the strings has very little (or no?) vibrato, and some abrupt note endings. The new signal chain adds some kind of clarity which may not be 100% with my ears too, it's almost as if there's a very tiny bit of sul pont added to the non-sul-pont articulations (very unlikely, I know!!). 
Since vibrato, legato and how notes start and end all are so essential for a good string sounds, I hope they'll soon add more demos which shows that this lib probably/hopefully also can sound romantic/emotional/'passionate'/soaring. Sadly, my initial (and possible wrong) impression is that the library sounds a little 'colder' than CSS/Berlin/Sable/LASS etc.


----------



## StatKsn

The library is probably pretty good for a punchy hybrid track. Just not so sure about orchestral settings shown in the demo. I do think that the sample is pristine sounding and it is likely capable of an emotive mockup, but it obviously requires a lot more effort on mixing, modulating, humanizing etc. It frankly sounds like the day's first practice session where they sightread a musical score with no flow, emotion and harmony yet (except A New Beginning demo) coming from such a brilliant composers.

I am not judging the library by it but samples don't appear to have much baked-in performance e.g. played very statically to the score. This obviously is surprising to many given that Spitfire usually puts heavy emphasis on player performance.

I think the best known library for static dry samples is still Dimension Strings, where each player is recorded differently and modulated (detuned/humanized) after. This is also what the modern big phat emotive EDM synth does - 4 to 32 stacked oscillator all modulated slightly differently - by the way, that seems like a right approach for semi-synthesized sampled strings. I miss Dimension!


----------



## jamwerks

StatKsn said:


> I think the best known library for static dry samples is still Dimension Strings, where each player is recorded differently and modulated (detuned


Aren't you thinking of CH Strings? I thought Dimension strings were recorded in a group but with sperate spot mic's.


----------



## procreative

MatFluor said:


> A bit unclear then - thanks for correcting. I guess the added articulations *are *the additional players/divisi - when reading through that just popped into my eyes.
> 
> Studio Strings Core:
> Spitfire Studio Strings takes you straight to the heart of our most pristine orchestral library to date: *148 articulations* across the full 30-piece string section (8.6.6.6.4)
> 
> Studio Strings Pro:
> In addition to an all-embracing *232 articulations*, you can access and personalise your mix [...]
> 
> [emphasis by me]



Yes its a trick a few developers are doing, listing numbers of articulations by the section totals, NI did it with their Symphony series I think. Its a bit like stating the number of samples or GB, kind of meaningless to the sound or how good a library is.

On the fence with this one, its hard to tell how much of a jump it is as vs SCS which has more Legato options or BHT which has same studio/engineer and more shorts, but recorded in ensembles...


----------



## StatKsn

jamwerks said:


> Aren't you thinking of CH Strings? I thought Dimension strings were recorded in a group but with sperate spot mic's.


Yes, sorry my explanation was confusing. Dimension is recorded in a group w/ spot mics - technically "different" in terms of player performance.


----------



## ptram

So, if I understand correctly, VSL, the maker of dry samples, is being criticized for their new wet collections. Spitfire, on the other side, the maker of sounds surrounded by sumptuous reverberations, is now being criticized for their new dry collection!

Paolo


----------



## Saxer

ptram said:


> So, if I understand correctly, VSL, the maker of dry samples, is being criticized for their new wet collections. Spitfire, on the other side, the maker of sounds surrounded by sumptuous reverberations, is now being criticized for their new dry collection!


Exactly 

People don't like changes.

I think this library needs more love than invested in the demos right now. Especially divisi and different section sized are not very suitable shown by playing four voice cello chords and stacking articulations like synth layers. I think it's beauty will show up in monophonic lines and transparent arrangements.


----------



## SoNowWhat?

Saxer said:


> Exactly
> 
> People don't like changes.


Except babies


----------



## dhlkid

I.dont know if I should start this new series


----------



## Tfis

ptram said:


> So, if I understand correctly, VSL, the maker of dry samples, is being criticized for their new wet collections.



You don't.
VSL is criticized, because the legato suck, the overall library tends to sound synth-like and many of the promised articulations are just derived from a handful of samples.

The room sounds nice.


----------



## christianhenson

Hey all, as always we have a host of materials coming out during the promo period, I've done a HGW style contextual, and I've also taken an Arvo Part style cue to investigate the many magical areas of this library, we're also getting some pop stuff done (although don't hold me to this because they work in a very different timescale!). We'll keep posting stuff here... also we'll be talking more about the woods and brass which are well on their way!


----------



## Consona

ptram said:


> So, if I understand correctly, VSL, the maker of dry samples, is being criticized for their new wet collections. Spitfire, on the other side, the maker of sounds surrounded by sumptuous reverberations, is now being criticized for their new dry collection!
> 
> Paolo


I hope you are not suggesting they are criticised because they make something different. It's not about "Spitfire makes dry libs now" and "VSL makes them wet". It's about the libraries themselves.


----------



## gussunkri

MatFluor said:


> A bit unclear then - thanks for correcting. I guess the added articulations *are *the additional players/divisi - when reading through that just popped into my eyes.
> 
> Studio Strings Core:
> Spitfire Studio Strings takes you straight to the heart of our most pristine orchestral library to date: *148 articulations* across the full 30-piece string section (8.6.6.6.4)
> 
> Studio Strings Pro:
> In addition to an all-embracing *232 articulations*, you can access and personalise your mix [...]
> 
> [emphasis by me]


I think it adds to the confusion that Homay in her video says that the professional version has more articulations.


----------



## Eptesicus

ptram said:


> So, if I understand correctly, VSL, the maker of dry samples, is being criticized for their new wet collections. Spitfire, on the other side, the maker of sounds surrounded by sumptuous reverberations, is now being criticized for their new dry collection!
> 
> Paolo



No, they are being critisised because they don't sound very good or convincing.

How libraries sound, and how close they get in sound to a live recording, is literally the most important thing.

I don't see how anyone can listen to the 2nd and third demo on the pro page demos and think that sounds nice.


----------



## Vadium

Is there examples with sound comparison between different divizi sections?


----------



## markleake

jamwerks said:


> That doesn't at all strike me as a room that one would want to record brass in, but I'm open to being proven wrong.


The BHCT horns sound wonderful, and they are recorded in the same space I think. If there's one thing I really like about BHCT, it's the horns and some of the other brass.


----------



## jimmy3189

Christians demo sounds fab, Paul, Homays and Oliver’s sound unfinished. Some of the programming is just a bit ropey in places.

Christian and Paul’s video walkthroughs both sound way better, maybe the demos were just a tad rushed?

I’d love to hear some pop demos and an Andy Blaney special.

For the price I have little clue what people are complaining about it’s competitive and does things other libraries don’t at this price point. For ages people have been moaning about a lack of bite and tight aggression in spitfire libraries, they bring out something that has that in spades and people turn round and say ‘harrumph it doesn’t have the sound of lyndhurst hall’. ‍♂️


----------



## procreative

Three things still perturbing me:

1. Why make a Dry(ish) library then slap Reverb over the walkthrough, we want to hear it as is.

2. Seems a bit odd to sell the Core version as Tree mic, a better choice would have been a Mix mic (as included in the Pro version).

3. Nice selections of arts, but surprised no Staccato. No explanation of what "Runs" are (prerecorded or a plyabale patch)?


----------



## Brian Nowak

I am kind of waiting to see what comes here. I am not entirely sure it's the samples that sound "bad" as much as it might be the compositions and arrangements in question are * puts on fire retardant suit *... just not that great.

Big block chords within individual full sections, spicatto lines that just go on and on, random non-musical use of articulations with seemingly thrown together programming - there's no way it can really sound convincing using these methods.

Spitfire often boasts that their samples can cover a great deal of ground, and the particular statement for this series is they will be the most useful to date.

So where's the meat? I can take pretty much any good sounding set of samples and use them to make quasi-cinematic drivel. It will be so buried in dialog and casual foley nobody will be the wiser anyway. There are tons of library composers using "dated" sample libraries to do just this.

The difficulty is in making agile, nimble, crafted lines that actually sound like a musical idea being performed by a cohesive ensemble. When I first showed my composition instructor the symphonic series of Spitfire the man nearly lost his mind. This is saying something because he has conducted and recorded the London Philharmonic. He knows what a great set of players in a great concert hall sounds like.

So if these samples are capable of incredible depth and musicality, at least throw us a bone in these demos and write something reflective of that, and spare me this languid longs, huge impossible stacked chords, and undeveloped background chord plucks. It does nothing to show the capacity for complexity and makes people want to avoid the library.


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau

"So this time, we have divisi, for ultimate realism."
_*plays a huge chord with both hands on a cello patch*
_
Just kidding, but still !


----------



## Brian Nowak

whitewasteland said:


> "So this time, we have divisi, for ultimate realism."
> _*plays a huge chord with both hands on a cello patch*
> _
> Just kidding, but still !



Yeah I'm not kidding though. I quite literally LOL'ed when they started into the walkthrough patches. 

I mean. I understand part of the fun of sample instruments is doing things you can't get away with in the real world. But it generally ends up just sounding completely unrealistic and generally bad. These demos just prove my point.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

I feel that SF was always about "the sound you hear on TV and movies", "the hall" and patches that play simple parts in more or less isolation. I know exactly what kind of stuff I can attept to tackle with my SF stuff, and what to steer clear from. Still waiting for VSL to properly update their line (Synchron Strings showed how NOT to do it).


----------



## jimmy3189

I agree with most of the sentiments above, the walkthrough videos by Paul and Christian show the samples to sound pretty damn good.


----------



## jamwerks

jimmy3189 said:


> For ages people have been moaning about a lack of bite and tight aggression in spitfire libraries, they bring out something that has that in spades and people turn round and say ‘harrumph it doesn’t have the sound of lyndhurst hall’. ‍♂️


I haven't seen any posts saying that but maybe I've missed something.

The symphonic range has a baked-in "cathedral" sound, whilst this new studio range has a baked-in med-small sound.

Must say I don't understand the reason why to record in that hall. For sure it was convenient to keep using the same studio with just changing the hall. But is that really the best sounding hall they could find in London for a whole new line? A more neutral sounding hall with less reflective walls would have seemed like a better option imo.

With SF being such a mega operation, I imagine they did trial samples in several different rooms, and had dozens of people weigh in with opinions on sound. This is a whole new line implicating many future libraries, so I hope they made a wise decision!


----------



## MrHStudio

jimmy3189 said:


> I agree with most of the sentiments above, the walkthrough videos by Paul and Christian show the samples to sound pretty damn good.



I have been pondering this and wonder about a comparison with synthesisers in that I can make these amazing sounds inisolation but then need to mix the stuffing out of them so that they sit together nicely in the finished piece. which is not how SSS works for me


----------



## madfloyd

MrHStudio said:


> I have been pondering this and wonder about a comparison with synthesisers in that I can make these amazing sounds inisolation but then need to mix the stuffing out of them so that they sit together nicely in the finished piece. which is not how SSS works for me



Not sure I understand, are you saying that you have issues mixing SSS or the opposite?


----------



## MrHStudio

madfloyd said:


> Not sure I understand, are you saying that you have issues mixing SSS or the opposite?


 I dont have issues mixing Symphonic strings


----------



## Brian Nowak

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I feel that SF was always about "the sound you hear on TV and movies", "the hall" and patches that play simple parts in more or less isolation. I know exactly what kind of stuff I can attept to tackle with my SF stuff, and what to steer clear from. Still waiting for VSL to properly update their line (Synchron Strings showed how NOT to do it).



It's not so much that I'm looking for a "classical sound" like with VSL. I'm just looking for musical sounding lines - that's it.

VSL gets a lot of praise for their flexibility and optimized scripting leading to low cpu costs. And for some reason I don't really understand a lot of people think they sound amazing. To me they sound like midi through and through, especially once the orchestra as an ensemble gets put together.

I think the idea that something is made "to sound like TV or film" is a big copout. Give me the ability to program flexible musical lines and if I want background music I can simply not program musical lines. Literally any library with long notes and short notes can be used this way. So why bother marketing about how detailed the sections are and then use them in such uninteresting and mundane ways?

Again - give me meat, and if I want fluff I'll trim back on their use.


----------



## AllanH

I think the studio strings sounds good for what they aim to be. It's certainly a huge articulation list. The intro price for standard is excellent, even though I find departure from the CTA triple-mics a bit disappointing.


----------



## Consona

Brian Nowak said:


> I think the idea that something is made "to sound like TV or film" is a big copout. Give me the ability to program flexible musical lines and if I want background music I can simply not program musical lines. Literally any library with long notes and short notes can be used this way. So why bother marketing about how detailed the sections are and then use them in such uninteresting and mundane ways?


I don't know whether Spitfire marketed and created the library in this manner, but just look at a lot of TV stuff these days. It's immensely far from "musical lines" of the times when Herrmann or Goldsmith composed for TV. Now, it's all drony and thumpy synths, sound effects and weird articulations rather than musical lines.


----------



## Michael Stibor

markleake said:


> The BHCT horns sound wonderful, and they are recorded in the same space I think. If there's one thing I really like about BHCT, it's the horns and some of the other brass.



I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Brian Nowak said:


> It's not so much that I'm looking for a "classical sound" like with VSL. I'm just looking for musical sounding lines - that's it.
> 
> VSL gets a lot of praise for their flexibility and optimized scripting leading to low cpu costs. And for some reason I don't really understand a lot of people think they sound amazing. To me they sound like midi through and through, especially once the orchestra as an ensemble gets put together.
> 
> I think the idea that something is made "to sound like TV or film" is a big copout. Give me the ability to program flexible musical lines and if I want background music I can simply not program musical lines.



Not necessarily talking about "classical" either. But about being able to really sculpt musical performances that go beyond block chord, short note pattern, background pizz, weird effect noise. That's what VSLs old line did best. At the cost of a more sterile and rarely "out of the box" stunning, beautiful sound (although I disagree about it sounding MIDI - depends on the craftsman as well, not just the tool).

That's the reason I brought up VSL, of all developers. Their old line is many ways is the exact opposite of what Spitfire libraries tend to be. The latter impress with incredibly beautiful sonics and samples that very often sound "just like" what you've been hearing on the screen ... as long as you let it stand there and don't interfere. It has everything that classic VSL has not - and vice versa.

I think that Spitfire libraries truly ARE made to "sound like" something. Almost all their products have a clear "theme" around them. The ultimate cinematic toolkit, the sound of AIR, the sounds-like-this-guy library, the drums where we recorded these legendary guys, etc. It's not so much the "here's a virtual instrument - you can make it play whatever you want" route. And to be honest, I think commercially speaking they're probably doing it right. Less exciting for me personally though.


----------



## Michael Stibor

I'm surprised by all the negative comments about the demos. I watched the two or three videos they put out as well as the audio demos on their website. From them, I was perfectly able to get gist of this library. And I'm no musical genius, so if I was able to get it, I'm sure you all were as well. Everything else is just nitpicking


----------



## jimmy3189

jamwerks said:


> I haven't seen any posts saying that but maybe I've missed something.
> 
> The symphonic range has a baked-in "cathedral" sound, whilst this new studio range has a baked-in med-small sound.
> 
> Must say I don't understand the reason why to record in that hall. For sure it was convenient to keep using the same studio with just changing the hall. But is that really the best sounding hall they could find in London for a whole new line? A more neutral sounding hall with less reflective walls would have seemed like a better option imo.
> 
> With SF being such a mega operation, I imagine they did trial samples in several different rooms, and had dozens of people weigh in with opinions on sound. This is a whole new line implicating many future libraries, so I hope they made a wise decision!




I own the BHCT (same room) and think it sounds amazing, I don’t mind a bit of real early reflection stuff in the room mics, and the close are plenty dry enough for me.

Perhaps I am mainly focusing on the brouhaha around HZ strings and once that came out I saw a bunch of posts lamenting the fact that it was that’s same old spitfire sound and that it was focusing on long droney stuff and huge sections.

To me this fulfills a lot of those criticisms and I guess spitfire knew this was coming as these things take so long to record and build, hence their general lack of response to people wanting these sorts of articulations. 

Listen to Paul’s demo of the time machine short articulations. That summed up in like 6 seconds what I feel most people were suggesting was lacking in the HZ stuff and without the lengthy tail of Air Lyndhurst that sort of muddies those things up.


----------



## Craig Sharmat

I think SF nailed what they set out to do and that is to create sampled strings that sound like real strings in a small scoring stage. To me the library sonically sounds about as right as it can, the only thing I have yet to hear is how nimble the legato can be and considering the space it was recorded in it should be nimble or can be corrected to be. Whether you need this sound or just want it is up the the potential buyer but I think SF accomplished what they set out to do well. Personally I really like Paul's demo so if you don't, then you likely won't see things the way I do. Will I buy, don't know yet, as a working composer I don't need it (I have a lot already), as a toy to play with it is quite tempting.


----------



## jonesdip

AllanH said:


> I think the studio strings sounds good for what they aim to be. It's certainly a huge articulation list. The intro price for standard is excellent, even though I find departure from the CTA triple-mics a bit disappointing.


I agree with this - I think I would willingly pay an extra £50 for the "amateur" version if it offered Close and Ambient Mics


----------



## jimmy3189

jonesdip said:


> I agree with this - I think I would willingly pay an extra £50 for the "amateur" version if it offered Close and Ambient Mics


Isn’t that basically the pro version + divisi sections?


----------



## Will Wilson

Personally I would much rather the "Core" version had a nice Stereo mix than just the Tree, it always confuses me that the basic Stereo mix is included in the Professional or Expansions. I only have the Expansion for SCS (SCS Pro) and that is my go to for a quick nice mix. Same with Chamber Evos, if it's got a Stereo mix I'm going to use it. As I'm not a "Pro" I don't need the flexibility of the CTAO+ mics


----------



## madfloyd

If the stereo mixes only come with expansions then I probably have never used one.


----------



## procreative

Will Wilson said:


> Personally I would much rather the "Core" version had a nice Stereo mix than just the Tree, it always confuses me that the basic Stereo mix is included in the Professional or Expansions. I only have the Expansion for SCS (SCS Pro) and that is my go to for a quick nice mix. Same with Chamber Evos, if it's got a Stereo mix I'm going to use it. As I'm not a "Pro" I don't need the flexibility of the CTAO+ mics



Exactly! Plus in a large template having a few Stereo Mixes cuts right down on RAM.

Having listened again and again, have to say the Core version sounds drier than the Tree Mics demoed in the Pro video, maybe because they chose to run through the Mics with a Spiccato which excites the room much more...

Really torn...

On one hand the Core sounds good enough, on the other the Close Mics sound useful, especially the leader as you could load that up as a separate instance and use it as a first chair/solo...

Then I already have BHT, same studio, same engineer, similar size ensemble. But recorded High Strings/Low Strings.


----------



## Saxer

I write additional string arrangements from time to time... either for film, commercials or for pop tunes. Recorded by chamber sized sections from 5 to 8 first violins in different studios and by different string sections. This library is soundwise the closest to those recordings. Half dry and a bit scratchy, not as cosy and warm and pre-produced like CSS. Needs some EQ and reverb to fit in a mix. But more than anything else close to the real rough recording.
I hope it's playable and doesn't has too much baked in envelopes or 'feeling' that often gets into the way when trying to play musical phrases driven by CC. If so it could be a really good reference library for chamber sections.


----------



## camelot

I think brass will sound quite excellent in there, as it has strong early reflections that help shape the sound with a very short tail, that avoids the mud piling up when having several brass players playing at once.

I think the pro version with divisi (I always loved to have that, but I am only faking it) is a really superb string set and the price tag is more than reasonable, regarding what is all included. And it seems as they offer fully controllable vibrato instead of just on and off. Big congratulations to Spitfire for this achievement, which really adds something to their portfolio.
To me, they sound very realistic for small sections recorded in a tight hall, a bit bright, tight and scratchy. (I recognize now, this is almost identical to what Saxer wrote above) You get the lusher sound by larger ensembles in big halls playing with strong vibrato. In the walkthrougs, some sounds I liked pretty much, others I disliked.
My biggest problem is, that I do not hear something, that I cannot do similarly with what I have. But it is a great offer for those who do not yet got something like this in their arsenal.

I also prefer compositions with more rhythmic variety and musical lines over long sustained cords that sometimes feel like synth pads when overused, but this is what makes up a lot of TV music today and it mixes exceptionally well with hybrid/synth sounds.

Using long sustains, sprinkled ever so slightly with different effects added for short rhythmic phrasings, seems to be the flavor of the spitfire guys. Most of their demos (especially introductions videos) seems like atonal backround music that rises slowly to a certain climax by adding or varying layers of different types of sustain, just to fade out afterwards, removing one layer of sound after the other. Basically a long orchestrated crescendo followed by a shorter decrescendo. It is very sound-design-ish approach to composition that does not seem to involve much harmony or melody. And there libs offer a huge amount of various sustain types that perfectly cater this type of writing. So, somehow it fits together. I really enjoy listen to something like this, as it is very relaxing. But not for very long as at some point, it will probably bore me. But that is just my flavor.

You may have a different opinion and I am fine with that.


----------



## muziksculp

More demos of the standard version (not Pro), and feedback from the standard version owners would be very helpful.


----------



## madfloyd

muziksculp said:


> More demos of the standard version (not Pro), and feedback from the standard version owners would be very helpful.



/\
||

+1. Can someone at least confirm the samples are the typical lower volume that Spitfire usually produces? I assume it is and that it will then blend well with BHTK (and not so much with, say, OT).


----------



## windshore

Craig Sharmat said:


> I think SF nailed what they set out to do and that is to create sampled strings that sound like real strings in a small scoring stage. To me the library sonically sounds about as right as it can, the only thing I have yet to hear is how nimble the legato can be and considering the space it was recorded in it should be nimble or can be corrected to be. Whether you need this sound or just want it is up the the potential buyer but I think SF accomplished what they set out to do well. Personally I really like Paul's demo so if you don't, then you likely won't see things the way I do. Will I buy, don't know yet, as a working composer I don't need it (I have a lot already), as a toy to play with it is quite tempting.


I totally agree. This library fills a void and sounds like a real string section in a studio. Yes I would love the legato to be able to respond faster but most legato patches tend to show their flaws at higher tempo anyway. SF has always been among the best at updating their libraries long after release. At this price, it seems like a very good investment...


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau

windshore said:


> SF has always been among the best at updating their libraries long after release.





Must be _very long _after release for some of their libraries then...


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

windshore said:


> I totally agree. This library fills a void and sounds like a real string section in a studio. Yes I would love the legato to be able to respond faster but most legato patches tend to show their flaws at higher tempo anyway. SF has always been among the best at updating their libraries long after release. At this price, it seems like a very good investment...



Did you ever played jingle bells on the timpani patch from the Joby Burgess Percussion library? I guess according to your comment which applies to the rest of your remark. You even don´t need a stereo tap delay for the bouncing effect on the timpani going from left to right and all over the place. They update their libraries, yes, but a lot of inconsistencies are not fixed and some are massive, maybe not fixeable because of inconsistent recorded samples.


----------



## Consona

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Did you ever played jingle bells on the timpani patch from the Joby Burgess Percussion library?


What does this mean? Are the timpani out of tune or what?


----------



## Michael Antrum

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Did you ever played jingle bells on the timpani patch from the Joby Burgess Percussion library?



Alexander, that would make a really cool monologue intro to a movie (á la Blade Runner)..... You sir, are a poet !


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau




----------



## Nao Gam

Consona said:


> What does this mean? Are the timpani out of tune or what?


I think he means the stereo image is inconsistent


----------



## Blake Ewing

I'd be curious to hear my old demo:  ,which I believe I used lots of the Sable/SCS close mics on, compared/contrasted with this new library.


----------



## SoNowWhat?

camelot said:


> I think brass will sound quite excellent in there, as it has strong early reflections that help shape the sound with a very short tail, that avoids the mud piling up when having several brass players playing at once.
> 
> I think the pro version with divisi (I always loved to have that, but I am only faking it) is a really superb string set and the price tag is more than reasonable, regarding what is all included. And it seems as they offer fully controllable vibrato instead of just on and off. Big congratulations to Spitfire for this achievement, which really adds something to their portfolio.
> To me, they sound very realistic for small sections recorded in a tight hall, a bit bright, tight and scratchy. (I recognize now, this is almost identical to what Saxer wrote above) You get the lusher sound by larger ensembles in big halls playing with strong vibrato. In the walkthrougs, some sounds I liked pretty much, others I disliked.
> My biggest problem is, that I do not hear something, that I cannot do similarly with what I have. But it is a great offer for those who do not yet got something like this in their arsenal.
> 
> I also prefer compositions with more rhythmic variety and musical lines over long sustained cords that sometimes feel like synth pads when overused, but this is what makes up a lot of TV music today and it mixes exceptionally well with hybrid/synth sounds.
> 
> Using long sustains, sprinkled ever so slightly with different effects added for short rhythmic phrasings, seems to be the flavor of the spitfire guys. Most of their demos (especially introductions videos) seems like atonal backround music that rises slowly to a certain climax by adding or varying layers of different types of sustain, just to fade out afterwards, removing one layer of sound after the other. Basically a long orchestrated crescendo followed by a shorter decrescendo. It is very sound-design-ish approach to composition that does not seem to involve much harmony or melody. And there libs offer a huge amount of various sustain types that perfectly cater this type of writing. So, somehow it fits together. I really enjoy listen to something like this, as it is very relaxing. But not for very long as at some point, it will probably bore me. But that is just my flavor.
> 
> You may have a different opinion and I am fine with that.


Not at all. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Also, you argued your points in support of your thoughts.


----------



## markleake

jonesdip said:


> I agree with this - I think I would willingly pay an extra £50 for the "amateur" version if it offered Close and Ambient Mics


Agree with this totally. I don't want the Pro version, but I've grown wary of buying libraries where I have no control over the mics at all.

I'd pay more to get the normal SF mics - something that sits a bit more comfortably in the middle between the 2 products. That way I could at least match it up better with BHCT and get more use out of that library.


----------



## 5Lives

I wonder how these will compare with NI's Session Strings Pro 2 for pop stuff. I think SSP2 has a good sound for pop (as their demos attest to) - PLUS it has a pretty intuitive interface and makes programming basic pop stuff easy (with smart chord and the phrase / rhythm animator). Most pop producers are not well-versed in SATB writing for individual string sections.


----------



## NoamL

Here's what the brass in BHCT sounds like. Same room. Thoughts? Dealing with the proximity of the sound might be an issue if you have to set the samples back behind hall-based libraries. But with reverb added maybe the early reflections are a positive? I don't know. The sound is really, really "clean" though; it doesn't have the characteristics of any particular hall.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Consona said:


> What does this mean? Are the timpani out of tune or what?



No, but it bounces around in the stereo panning on one note you hear the seating left, and reflection right, on another note just somewhere in the middle right, on a 3rd its a way on the right side sitting. I love the sound of the sample itself but thats hard to work with. I think my speakers have some issues and I need to calibrate the cables with better ones which will fix that problem then. Or you can use a split stereo cable and share the mono signal to both speakers so then everything is good.



mikeybabes said:


> Alexander, that would make a really cool monologue intro to a movie (á la Blade Runner)..... You sir, are a poet !



Yeah, I know that remark was intriguing, almost poetic haha....



whitewasteland said:


>



I saved that picture! Thank you


----------



## Francis Bourre

christianhenson said:


> Hey all, as always we have a host of materials coming out during the promo period, I've done a HGW style contextual, and I've also taken an Arvo Part style cue to investigate the many magical areas of this library, we're also getting some pop stuff done (although don't hold me to this because they work in a very different timescale!). We'll keep posting stuff here... also we'll be talking more about the woods and brass which are well on their way!



Thanks for that! Don't know if it's possible or too early but I would love to listen to a teaser of the woods and the brass before investing in this new collection.


----------



## Consona

NoamL said:


> Here's what the brass in BHCT sounds like. Same room. Thoughts? Dealing with the proximity of the sound might be an issue if you have to set the samples back behind hall-based libraries. But with reverb added maybe the early reflections are a positive? I don't know. The sound is really, really "clean" though; it doesn't have the characteristics of any particular hall.



The strings sound sooo good here. Is it really the same room? Is the difference just in the mics used?


----------



## Brian Nowak

Consona said:


> I don't know whether Spitfire marketed and created the library in this manner, but just look at a lot of TV stuff these days. It's immensely far from "musical lines" of the times when Herrmann or Goldsmith composed for TV. Now, it's all drony and thumpy synths, sound effects and weird articulations rather than musical lines.



And yet, composers continue to ask for companies to develop libraries that give them the capability to shape more convincing lines in more functional ways.

I'm not saying it's the case here, as the verdict is still out - they're so brand new.

But it's very easy to make individual articulations sound at least passable. It's more difficult to make quick transitions between different articulation types sound natural. That's where the devil's playground is with samples. It can really expose weaknesses in the way a library is put together.

I become wary when there seems to be a complete avoidance of realistic passages in the contextual demos of products, because even in my short bit of time in sample land I've learned developers will avoid anything that doesn't make their products sound absolutely best.

After finally listening in my studio (minor dog medical issues prevented me from going into my basement as I cared for my dear pooch the last few days), I do think these samples sound quite good. But while having a large number of articulation types is great, if I can't reasonably string (har har) those together in convincing ways it very much depreciates the value of the library for me.

This is something I've noticed with Spitfire demos for some time now. At least throw us a friggin bone and give us one contextual, or a series of passages on video with programmed realistic writing so we can be sure the library is workable in this fashion.


----------



## star.keys

Some parts of demos sound wonderful and some other parts don't sound good at all, they seem to have managed to package both extremes in this library

I will personally hold on to the purchase until there are some user demos available in the public space. Avoiding the mistake of buying their solo strings library and ending up deleting it due to the (lack of proper) legato implementation and weird vibrato control. This library looks interesting but I'm not quite convinced at this stage.


----------



## Consona

Brian Nowak said:


> And yet, composers continue to ask for companies to develop libraries that give them the capability to shape more convincing lines in more functional ways.
> 
> I'm not saying it's the case here, as the verdict is still out - they're so brand new.
> 
> But it's very easy to make individual articulations sound at least passable. It's more difficult to make quick transitions between different articulation types sound natural. That's where the devil's playground is with samples. It can really expose weaknesses in the way a library is put together.
> 
> I become wary when there seems to be a complete avoidance of realistic passages in the contextual demos of products, because even in my short bit of time in sample land I've learned developers will avoid anything that doesn't make their products sound absolutely best.
> 
> After finally listening in my studio (minor dog medical issues prevented me from going into my basement as I cared for my dear pooch the last few days), I do think these samples sound quite good. But while having a large number of articulation types is great, if I can't reasonably string (har har) those together in convincing ways it very much depreciates the value of the library for me.
> 
> This is something I've noticed with Spitfire demos for some time now. At least throw us a friggin bone and give us one contextual, or a series of passages on video with programmed realistic writing so we can be sure the library is workable in this fashion.


I think a lot of composers here ask for "musical" libraries in the age of spiccati patterns and thumpy synths because they are more musically literate than an average TV drama producer, they care about musicality and expression in their music even when using just samples, etc. Maybe composers from Spitfire subscribe to another musical ideology, but for people who like more classical approach, convincing vivid lines is where the music lives, basically.

There are two things to the "sound of this library". First, the actual sound, which feels rather stark to me, in comparison to something like Herrmann Toolkit, where the strings sound rich even though it was recorded in the same studio and it's also a smaller string section. Second, its "musicality", the performance in the samples themselves, the way legato flows, etc. I hope they'll release some demos where they show how agile the legato is and where they ride the modwheel like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## Vik

Two different ideologies maybe, but.... while non-vib long notes sometimes is exactly what is needed, I believe that in general, nobody want's lifeless samples. NB: I'm not saying that SStS has such samples, I have heard too little to have any opinion about this library. And since vibrato/legato - and note attacks (and ends) - are very important ingredients in orchestral string instruments, they'll probably post more demos soon, with more detailed examples showing the legato functionality etc. Meanwhile, I'll listen to some of the YouTube clips and try to play the same stuff with my main libs.



Consona said:


> where they ride the modwheel like there's no tomorrow


----------



## Brian Nowak

Consona said:


> I think a lot of composers here ask for "musical" libraries in the age of spiccati patterns and thumpy synths because they are more musically literate than an average TV drama producer, they care about musicality and expression in their music even when using just samples, etc. Maybe composers from Spitfire subscribe to another musical ideology, but for people who like more classical approach, convincing vivid lines is where the music lives, basically.
> 
> There are two things to the "sound of this library". First, the actual sound, which feels rather stark to me, in comparison to something like Herrmann Toolkit, where the strings sound rich even though it was recorded in the same studio and it's also a smaller string section. Second, its "musicality", the performance in the samples themselves, the way legato flows, etc. I hope they'll release some demos where they show how agile the legato is and where they ride the modwheel like there's no tomorrow.



I would assume it's due to different recording methods, including microphones and the fact that BHTK features group recordings vs individual sections. And yes, I'm hopeful that they'll release some demos where we see a bit more pep, for sure. But based off their last few library releases I can't say I'm particularly hopeful.

The problem I foresee is that the types of people who will auto-buy this are likely the types who will likely imitate the material already displayed by SF, so I doubt I'll be able to responsibly take advantage of this intro price.


----------



## Hanu_H

I think that the strength of drier libraries is the possibility to script them better and make different articulations flow together better. If you think about Sample Modelling brass, it's the most playable library I have. You can throw anything at it and it will manage. But the sound is not always right for the job. Spitfire have made a lot of libraries but most of them are recorded in Air Lyndhurst with a huge hall. That makes certain articulations sound great and some not so great. I am a bit disappointed to say but I don't think that Spitfire's scripting is on the bar with some of the other companies. The whole interface reminds me to one of their first library release, Spitfire Solo Strings. I am not a big fan of having so many different sustain patches and special articulations when that time and energy could have been used to make a multi functional, great sounding legato patch and maybe add some staccatos in there as well. Nowdays when I see a library with this many articulations it kind of makes me think that this is a bit poor design. All of these special articulations sound great on their own and are easy to record, but what is the actual usability of them? It would make them a lot useful if you could crossfade between different special articulations and have legatos in them, etc. Now you can use them for pads and block chords but it would be a lot better if you could use them like the real player would use them. I think that many of the new Spitfire libraries have snapshots of a great sounds and they are kind of stuck with the idea about the Spitfire sound. If you make a core string library for your new chapter, make the core articulations the best you can and skip all the nonsense special articulations. And if you really need to make those, you can make a expansion with special articulations later. I still think that the price is definitely right for the library and I actually like how the cellos and basses sound in the demos and videos. Spitfire has taken a different path if you compare them to other companies. When almost every other developer tries to perfect their legato scripting, so it can play anything. Or record many different length shorts, to give you possibilities. Spitfire gives you basic articulation set(that can't compete with the other offerings) and records a lot of these artistic Spitfirey longs, that sound good, but most people don't really have any use of.

Sorry about the long post and some ranting. I was kind of excited about this library and would have wished it to be more of an every day workhorse than yet another artistic Spitfire library.

-Hannes


----------



## camelot

Not all demos from Spitfire are alike. The ones done by Andy Blaney should be more up your alley, they are definitely up mine. He is also the one, who laid the foundation for the newer perfomance legato, which combines runs, legato and portamento into one patch focusing on playability, which intended for musical lines.

The market and most people around here are quite saturated with good string libs. So, when a new one is presented, it must bring something new to the table, innovating or game-changing are common phrases that come to mind. It is not enough anymore to be "just another really good one". This does not make this product worse than Spitfire's other praised string libraries. The selling point of this lib is the SF typical vast collection of gorgeous sounding sustain types recorded in a new venue offering a different (not really dry but compact) sound compared to what Spitfire is commonly known for.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

Hanu_H said:


> I think that the strength of drier libraries is the possibility to script them better and make different articulations flow together better. If you think about Sample Modelling brass, it's the most playable library I have. You can throw anything at it and it will manage. But the sound is not always right for the job. Spitfire have made a lot of libraries but most of them are recorded in Air Lyndhurst with a huge hall. That makes certain articulations sound great and some not so great. I am a bit disappointed to say but I don't think that Spitfire's scripting is on the bar with some of the other companies. The whole interface reminds me to one of their first library release, Spitfire Solo Strings. I am not a big fan of having so many different sustain patches and special articulations when that time and energy could have been used to make a multi functional, great sounding legato patch and maybe add some staccatos in there as well. Nowdays when I see a library with this many articulations it kind of makes me think that this is a bit poor design. All of these special articulations sound great on their own and are easy to record, but what is the actual usability of them? It would make them a lot useful if you could crossfade between different special articulations and have legatos in them, etc. Now you can use them for pads and block chords but it would be a lot better if you could use them like the real player would use them. I think that many of the new Spitfire libraries have snapshots of a great sounds and they are kind of stuck with the idea about the Spitfire sound. If you make a core string library for your new chapter, make the core articulations the best you can and skip all the nonsense special articulations. And if you really need to make those, you can make a expansion with special articulations later. I still think that the price is definitely right for the library and I actually like how the cellos and basses sound in the demos and videos. Spitfire has taken a different path if you compare them to other companies. When almost every other developer tries to perfect their legato scripting, so it can play anything. Or record many different length shorts, to give you possibilities. Spitfire gives you basic articulation set(that can't compete with the other offerings) and records a lot of these artistic Spitfirey longs, that sound good, but most people don't really have any use of.
> 
> Sorry about the long post and some ranting. I was kind of excited about this library and would have wished it to be more of an every day workhorse than yet another artistic Spitfire library.
> 
> -Hannes


That's exactly why I didn't buy their new Solo Strings - what is the point of a solo instrument playing longs with no ability to connect notes?


----------



## Brian Nowak

@Hanu_H my sentiments exactly. I remain hopeful that they will release a demonstration of these used musically.

@camelot But that's the exact thing. From what we've heard these "gorgeous" sustain types are seemingly hit or miss, either down to programming or some of the articulations are just kind of flops.

And yeah yeah yeah, we've heard the "oh that's not what these are aimed at" blither blather. The fact is there is absolutely no good reason to NOT develop the ability to make libraries that sound good and also have good phrasing capability. That excuse is, frankly, just mentally lazy.


----------



## Vik

camelot said:


> when a new one is presented, it must bring something new to the table, innovating or game-changing are common phrases that come to mind. It is not enough anymore to be "just another really good one".


Something new - or do what it does very good. There are so many libraries out there already, and CSS and LASS and Berlin Strings and SCS are all good at doing what they do. I guess that SF Studio Strings is an attractive product for people who already have started too invest in the Spitfire workflow - but also for others of course, if it's true that "it will work on anything from passionate period dramas to modern Scandi noir. It’s a fit for quirky indie and crisp pop, but can also tackle epic film and game scores." They just need to demonstrate more of that.


----------



## kimarnesen

This sounds excellent, expect the very strange solo passage in Paul Thompson's demo, which doesn't sound like a string instrument at all. Wonder what it is... And no staccato is a shame but absolutely considering this.


----------



## camelot

I think Paul Thompson demonstrated a stretch parameter for the spiccatos in one of the walkthroughs. It may be capable of representing various different types of short notes.


----------



## sostenuto

I am now joining those advocating additional Mic and slight price rise for Core SStS. 
Really not too late for SF to do this and could change early purchases notably ….. imho

Otherwise, it seems many Core buyers are committing to Professional in less than two weeks … or not ?


----------



## ka00

sostenuto said:


> I am now joining those advocating additional Mic and slight price rise for Core SStS.



Maybe I’ve just been trained to lower my expectations by a lifetime in a capitalist society... but it seems to me that any company will usually leave out just enough from the base model of anything they release, in order to incentivize you to purchase the higher end package which has all the things you want but also more than you usually need. Which is my way of saying that I don’t think Spitfire miscalculated anything here by including only the Tree mics.


----------



## sostenuto

ka00 said:


> Maybe I’ve just been trained to lower my expectations by a lifetime in a capitalist society... but it seems to me that any company will usually leave out just enough from the base model of anything they release, in order to incentivize you to purchase the higher end package which has all the things you want but also more than you usually need. Which is my way of saying that I don’t think Spitfire miscalculated anything here by including only the Tree mics.



No disagreement here …… but hoping that very mixed early reactions can cause some review and very simple addition for a few xtra bitcoins. Early buyers could simply add, and New purchasers go either way. Easy-peasy.


----------



## ism

Hanu_H said:


> every day workhorse than yet another artistic Spitfire library.




I quite like this phrase. And I think it captures the sense of the "artistic" palette that the recent explosion of orchestral colours suddenly makes possible - and I can't tell you how much I don't miss the days of trying to compose exclusively with a single "workhorse" library (which was VSL SE for me, not that is isn't a quality workhorse, just that I wanted to write in other colours the simply weren't available at the time). 

The irony is that I bought SStS as a kind of workhorse - to fill in a few gaps, and ocassionally add a slightly more conventional foundation to the more "artistic" libraries - Tundra, the Olafur evos, LCO and so forth. And yet playing with all the extensive articulations, it really does have wonderful "artisanic" qualities also (not least, those flautandos are amazing, and when combine the with solo string flautandos ... artisantic heaven).

So three cheers for the artisanic. (And another two and a half for the trusty workhorses of the sample library world).


----------



## nas

When SF first released this, my heart kind of sank and I thought “do we reaaallly need another string library?” Where’s that damn Choir library!” But upon reflection, I actually think that this is going to be a very useful and versatile library. I have quite a few of the symphonic series libraries and love the sound of Air Studios, but at times I find myself looking for a smaller tighter sound for certain arrangements - and dropping the tree and ambient mics while raising the close mics just doesn’t cut it. 

Reverb (whether baked in from the hall or artificially mixed in) has a wonderful ability to hide a multitude of sins, but if you’re looking for a drier and more exposed sound, then the trade off is that you have to do double duty with the phrasing performances and the CC editing… and that takes time. Not only getting to know the quirks and strengths of a library over a period of time, but moreover that labor intensive process of coaxing the best performances out of the library. 

I have every confidence that this library will deliver the goods, from what I’ve heard so far the samples sound excellent. The real question for me is a more practical consideration…. under the very real circumstances of having to deliver under a tight deadline… how much time can I really afford to spend massaging the MIDI performances and CC data? and how much time will be required with this library in particular ? (I find for example that both the Virharmonic strings and the JB violin are very playable and sound great out of the box with not quite as much editing required afterwards). 

I guess we’ll only really know once we are “in the field” and getting our hands dirty. 

Not sure if I really need another string library just yet, but I may just pull the trigger on this one as it does address some of my previous yearnings for a particular sound… and what’s more, I think this would be a great partner to the LCO library which I love.


----------



## madfloyd

What is SStS?


----------



## DavidY

madfloyd said:


> What is SStS?


I'm guessing it's the alternative to SSyS and SSoS.


----------



## procreative

I was told by support that if you buy the Core at £159 now and decide to "crossgrade" after the intro ends, they will calculate the difference based on the price of Core at the point you do so.

So if the price after intro is £449 then deducting £199 (Core full price) would leave £250 to pay.

So it would cost you £409 vs paying £349 during intro to get to the same place.

Its still £60 more, but surely not enough to make a panic decision?

I went back through BHT, it has exactly the same Mic setup as the Pro version including the Leader Mic. In fact I wonder if its taken from the same sessions as its the same Mix Engineer, Same Studio, Same Mic Options.

I think if the Core used a Mix Mic instead the choice would be a lot easier. As it is you are buying a library with quite a lot of early reflection ambience unless you get the Pro version.

However the Pro version would have made much more sense if the Legato was on a par with SCS (Fingered, Bowed, Fast).

And if the Vibrato is the same as BHT, then from what I can tell its NV, VB, MV with no real xfade, more an abrupt change so not really suited to mimicking progressive vibrato.

Still a very good value package, but I think less of the more esoteric articulations at the expense of the basics being bang on would have made more choice.


----------



## ism

madfloyd said:


> What is SStS?



Spitfire STudio Strings, as distinct from Solo (SsS) or Symphonic (SSS).


----------



## NoamL

Consona said:


> I think a lot of composers here ask for "musical" libraries in the age of spiccati patterns and thumpy synths because they are more musically literate than an average TV drama producer, they care about musicality and expression in their music even when using just samples, etc. Maybe composers from Spitfire subscribe to another musical ideology, but for people who like more classical approach, convincing vivid lines is where the music lives, basically.



yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona ...

Do composers want more "musical" libraries or brand new "sounds"?

From what I can tell... large numbers of people don't want either!

The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.

I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, 2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product, 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.

And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....

I think developers are in a very difficult place with composers who already have the "bread and butter" covered, as so many of us do.

If they made a really deep sampled standard articulations library then people would say "Why should I buy this? I already have CSS/HWS/SSS/OTBS/ChrisHein/whatever."

Instead they went for covering all kinds of unique articulations not sampled before, and now people are saying "Well these are interesting as one-shot samples, but difficult to join together into musical phrases, speaking of which, why did you skimp on the basic articulations like staccato?"

If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.

It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...


----------



## JF

Adding to what Noam is saying...
I wish some of the big companies would do a kick starter type of project where ideas are discussed and then one can buy in early on. And if they get x amount of money they do 3 dynamic layers and two types of legato, if they reach y amount of money you get 5 dynamic layers with five types of legato, etc. Maybe I am not thinking this through but it would allow a company to know exactly what buyers want and allow us to fund the orchestra we crave. And if they don't reach the amount needed then the project doesn't happen and no money was lost. This is not directed at Spitfire but all of the major sampling companies. For such expensive recording and editing commitments, why not a little more transparency?


----------



## MarcelM

i would love that someone would offer a modular approach. you only need sustains or spiccatos? buy those. only need new french horns, ok no problem.
choices between different mic positions would round this up.

alot of librarys just often offer stuff someone will never ever use and thats also sometimes a reason not to buy certain librarys. well you get the point


----------



## NoamL

It's a great idea but I think developers won't do it because they're wary of each other, and to be blunt, specifically of Spitfire.

You can see in Christian's blogs that Spitfire has dozens of people working there. 8Dio is less than a dozen people. I visited CineSamples once, they too had less than a dozen people cutting samples at that time.

The relevance of this is that once you finish a recording session all the work is a matter of man-hours... more people = you finish editing & release the library faster, all else being equal.

Think about Spitfire's 2018 releases, 183 GB of Hans Zimmer Strings, 210 GB of Spitfire Studio Strings, it's a lot of throughput.

Beating everyone else to the market is huge, there's a reason why developers are so secretive, for example we still don't know if Cinematic Studio Brass & Hyperion Brass will be a1/a2/tutti recordings like HWB, Century Brass etc., or if they might be full solos like Berlin Brass.

So if somebody like Jasper or Alex W went on Kickstarter right now and ran a "What exactly do you want" campaign, IMO they'd just be doing market research for Spitfire.

A Kickstarter campaign would also have a timing problem. Why would I pay $400 and not see results for a year or maybe 2-3 years even, when I could buy a pretty good brass library now for that price or even wait a few months and get the libraries that are known to be in the pipeline. Competing with already-announced products just compounds the problem that there's _a lot_ of supply in the marketplace right now.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

NoamL said:


> yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona
> 
> The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.
> 
> I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, *2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product,* 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.
> 
> And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....


That's simply a false statement. Aside from HZ having a stupid number of players what do these products offer that's not on the market already?


----------



## markleake

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> That's simply a false statement. Aside from HZ having a stupid number of players what do these products offer that's not on the market already?


Read NoamL's post again in full maybe.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

markleake said:


> Read NoamL's post again in full maybe.


Okay I did. What's the problem?


----------



## Hat_Tricky

Looking to get a libaray that can do "pop" strings for singer songwriters, folk/indie, to EDM and everything in between. Already have Cinematic Studio Strings, but i'd like a smaller sound.

Spitfire Studio Strings vs Spitfire Chamber Strings?


----------



## dhlkid

Will anyone of u buy this if already have Chamber Strings?


----------



## muziksculp

The only two audio demos posted by Spitfire for this library's Standard version have not impressed me, and no other audio demos of this library seem to exist that are tempting me to even consider it as a purchase option. Maybe some more demos will change that perception.

I will look to other options, i.e. LASS 3, and 8Dios's Intimate Studio Strings whenever they are released.


----------



## Vik

dhlkid said:


> Will anyone of u buy this if already have Chamber Strings?


If Studio Strings can 'sing' as well as the Chamber Strings, I'd rather have Chamber+Studio Strings than Chamber+ Symphonic Strings, because the Chamber + Studio Strings then could serve as a somehow modular library, seen together. SCS is 4 3 3 3 and SSTS Core is 8 6 6 6 4. That would allow 4, 8 or 12 V1s, 3, 6 or 9V2s etc. With the pro version of SSTS, you'd also have two divisi/half sections (4 3 3 3), meaning that you'd have an even more modular library.


----------



## markleake

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Okay I did. What's the problem?


It's just that I think he was saying the same thing, making that same point in the rest of his post.


----------



## Vik

NoamL said:


> If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.
> 
> It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...


It surely must be frustrating! But don't we all want both workhorse and expressiveness (and art)? I do. 

The reason we are into music, is that music makes us feel something. Not necessarily in some 'emotional' way, but if music wouldn't make us feel anything at all, we wouldn't have listened to it. I wouldn't. And the great thing about having a composition being performed my a good musician is that s/he can add something to your piece which makes it better. But - since Kontakt doesn't feel anything, the dilemma is that we (!) both want samples that are flexible enough to not limit us when we want to add 'feeling' to our tracks, by using velocity/CCs etc... and samples which may be more limited, but which adds a level of expressiveness to what we write. The outcome of all this is the many of us buy several libraries.

But since libraries already offer many choices: mic choices, dynamic layers, normale/flautando/con sord/sul tasto etc, why can't they (in the future) also, in a more systematic way, so to speak: offer different modes: (romantic, modern/contemporary/artsy, neutral etc)? There must be a better choice (in the future) than keep buy one library after another, often from different manufacturers (with different UIs/workflows etc). I'm writing this because from the SSTS demos I've heard so far, I'm miss hearing the soaring/espressivo aspect that eg SCS, SSS and Soaring Strings has. 

There are users in here with 40-50 string libraries and more. And of course that's good, short term, for the developers' economy. But it's time, IMO, to think of more future proof libraries, which can be expanded on in all possible ways (this will ensure that these companies keep getting sales). 

Since SSTS doesn't have ensemble patches, I do think we'll see paid SSTS upgrades in the future. And hopefully, at some point, we can invest in libraries which are designed from ground up to be expandable - allowing us to, for instance:

- Expand a three dynamic layer libraries with, say, one or to additional layers
- Add modules (in terms of section sizes)
- Add mic options, of course (SF already is very good at this)
- Add musical modes (add an 'emotional' set of articulations to a 'contemporary' sounding library etc etc).
- Add different types of well sounding samples (not talking about leves of espressivo or articulations here), based on different preamps/signal flow, tape saturation vs direct etc), lush/silky/bite etc etc. 

I have no idea how future proof this new SF range is planned to be. But I don't think SF (or any company) or most users can keep affording to make/buy libraries that are as limited as some of the current libraries are, with the risk - both for the user and the manufacturer - of having wasted time and money on something that didn't turn out as good as they hoped it would. 

Offering an as flexible concept as I describe above will of course involve a massive amount of work. But maybe not more work than releasing as many individual libraries like eg Spitfire and 8dio offer?


----------



## Eptesicus

Overwhelmingly for me, it's all about the sound and realism. I want my work to sound as close to a real performance as possible.

As an example, I like the work Jasper is doing at performance samples with strings. The legato and realism displayed in con moto and solos of the sea sounds fantastic and once all the sections are released I will likely get them.

The demos of spitfire studio strings leave me cold. They sound like they are done with samples and aren't fooling anyone. I mean, the shorts sound good, but they do in most libraries now.


----------



## Saxer

A modular library might be a good idea but I think it's far from applicable. If you want to record a new dynamic layer to an existing library you have to book the same players with the same instruments in the same location. Sounds easy but if you try to there will be probably studio time in 3 weeks but one of the used mikes is defect, one player bought a new (better but different sounding) instrument, one player is sick, another is pregnant and moved to her parents in Wales and so on. So you have to produce a library in one go for all future wishes from users over time (with all the production investment) but sell it in little pieces with most customers just buying one or two major articulations and dynamic levels. I think that will be the slow death of any sample developer company.


----------



## Vik

Valid points, Saxer! I still think we'll see a move towards more more modular libraries.

I guess some of these companies already have a method for adding new recordings later - unless eg the modular Spitfire Sable 1, 2, 3 and 4 (and Mural 1/2/3) was recorded at the same time. But even if that would be really difficult, one could record a full library based on the idea that people could by all or some of it, and expand later. And - since it's quite common to be able to buy more mic positions and articulations later, my idea is basically to not limit the expandability to mainly mics and artics. I really like the SFs Studio String concept, (two divisi sections, pro/core versions etc), and see that 8dios upcoming Intimate Strings also are modular (as in using three modules to allow the choice between 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 players). Also a great solution, if it sounds like music and not like samples.  Chris Hein Ensemble Strings are also modular, just like VSL Dimension Strings - this isn't something new.

Of course it would be wrong to exaggerate the modular aspect of all this - that would be complicated. 

Btw, Apple is apparently also planning a modular Mac Pro for release next year. That sounds like a very good idea as well to me, unless the entrance ticket to get started is si high that people won't buy it. This is where SF gets it right with SSTS: it starts with an inexpensive core module, and there's an upgrade part (to the more modular pro version, with two divisi sections). If the legatos/vibratos are good (or will become good soon), I think SF will sell SSTS to a lot of users.


----------



## Hanu_H

NoamL said:


> yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona ...
> 
> Do composers want more "musical" libraries or brand new "sounds"?
> 
> From what I can tell... large numbers of people don't want either!
> 
> The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.
> 
> I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, 2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product, 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.
> 
> And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....
> 
> I think developers are in a very difficult place with composers who already have the "bread and butter" covered, as so many of us do.
> 
> If they made a really deep sampled standard articulations library then people would say "Why should I buy this? I already have CSS/HWS/SSS/OTBS/ChrisHein/whatever."
> 
> Instead they went for covering all kinds of unique articulations not sampled before, and now people are saying "Well these are interesting as one-shot samples, but difficult to join together into musical phrases, speaking of which, why did you skimp on the basic articulations like staccato?"
> 
> If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.
> 
> It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...


Well that is just the game at the moment. There is so many sample developers and that makes competition really hard. If you are gonna make new library you better have everything figured out before you start the recordings. Like I said earlier, I feel that Spitfire is not anymore one of the innovative developers. Their scripting has never been the best, but their libraries have sounded great for certain uses. But with drier libraries it gets even more important whats happening under the hood and I am not really sure if Spitfire has what it takes. It just baffles me that it's year 2018 and they start a new chapter with a library that has interface and scripting that has been used for almost 10 years now. Even Steinberg Iconica(not the best sounding library) has a interface and scripting lightyears ahead of this. And even if it's not a string library, but the things AudioBro is doing with Genesis, is quite amazing. I think that just recording good sounding samples is not gonna cut it anymore, because everyone has a great engineer and access to nice sounding rooms. It's all about the functionality of the samples and how easy it is to get it play what you hear in your head. I got a lot of libraries and enough different timbres for the rest of my life. I will only buy a new library if I think it will get me better results, faster and easier. 

It's okay to record unique articulations, but how many flautandos do you need from Spitfire? Spitfire is really good at marketing these "unique" longs but they hardly even touch the legato patches in their walkthroughs. I am more into the developers that are enthusiastic about their legato engine, making the interface more fluid and user friendly. I would be a bit horrified with a patch with 20 keyswitches. If you want to go from sustain note to tremolo, how do you do it with this library without breaking the flow?

-Hannes


----------



## Saxer

If there's something I don't need any more in my life it's another demo of flautando longs.


----------



## richhickey

My first impressions of Spitfire Studio Strings. This is not a comprehensive review. I picked up SStS Professional and gave it a whirl. Here are some early thoughts:

Unlike my usual experience with Spitfire, the programming seems pretty consistent. Some niggles here and there, but overall I wasn't cringing. The legato has minimal latency (a bugbear of mine, and I hate when people call high latency yet expressive-sounding libs 'playable', they're not, but these are). I hate velocity triggers portamento, oh well. Relatively agile but you can't really play a fast line. Or any credible line that's not quarter notes or slower. This is yet another strings-as-color-palette endeavor from Spitfire. Don't get me wrong, the colors are very pretty. But there's a reason the demos are all block pads and chiffing shorts, rather than anything resembling a performance of a string ensemble. I treat (and love) Spitfire libs like a really awesome Mellotron. YMMV. 

This lib seems to have a more credible dynamic range than say SCS (which I own, with the extended mics). Even though it's likely the same number of layers, the softs seem genuinely softer (vs volume turned down, which I hate), and the forte genuinely stronger (vs just louder), although Spitfire rarely gets to the aggressive range.

As far as mics, I like tree 2 alone best - mixing tends to cloud things up IMO. Tree 2 is more present than tree 1 for most of the sections. The close mics are ok, but again, once you mix you destroy various realism cues and it sounds more string-like than like strings. I care about this, you might not. And I think the whole ambient/outrigger thing is misplaced in this lib. This is not a great sounding room. The more you use of it the more it sounds like a small basketball court. You are going to want to add reverb and too much of this small room will again thwart the realism and continuity of that. But tree 2 gels really well with additional reverb to my ears. 

Tree 1 also sounds very good, not too ambient, and works well with verb, so I think the base package would be just fine for most people - don't lust for mics you won't actually use. As far as the stereo mixes, I don't like them _at all_ in this lib (I have liked them, and their economy, in other Spitfire libs). Really chorused with long sloppy overlapping releases. Shrug.

So, as a drier Spitfire-sensibility string 'palette' +1. If you are interested in strings as colors this is pretty nice. The sound is good, and I think more flexible than the wetter Air libs unless Air is exactly the space you want. I like it, and will probably end up using it more than SCS - as beautiful as SCS sounds the ambience is always a challenge. 

As a credible tool for crafting string ensemble performances, I don't think so. I had VSL Dimension Strings up before I took this for a spin and when I returned to DS it was night and day. DS (w/MIR) blows this out of the water for responsive playability, realism, flexibility and sound (except DS misses the softer flautando and brushed areas). Use the right tool for the job 

Wishlist - actual staccatos (and detache and...), and I wish one each of the divisi sections had the full articulation set. You are not getting a small chamber ensemble in this package via the divisi sections. SStCS? Likely. Guard your wallets.


----------



## Brian Nowak

That's the kind of information I was looking for. It's a shame, really. I guess I'll just pinch those pennies for a while and get Berlin strings, which will fit in perfect with the percussion and woodwinds that I already have.


----------



## Vik

Thanks, richhickey. What about the vibratos - how do they compare to SCS and SSS? From what I've heard in the demos, I have a feeling that there's an overall less intense level of vibrato across the SSTS samples, but maybe that's just because the demos/walkthrough often have used a lover CC21 level, so I'm a little confused. 
This:"there's a reason the demos are all block pads and chiffing shorts, rather than anything resembling a performance of a string ensemble" isn't very encouraging. Any other SSTS owners who have any opinion about this?


----------



## jamwerks

I know the UI's pretty well of all the major devs, and as far as articulation management, SF seems the most advanced Imo. Capsule does allow crossfading between arts and applying legato to other arts, but SF can do all the rest better than the others.

Once their own player matures in the coming months, it should equal or surpass Kontakt and Synchron. No reason why it wouldn't.


----------



## richhickey

Vik said:


> What about the vibratos - how do they compare to SCS and SSS? From what I've heard in the demos, I have a feeling that there's an overall less intense level of vibrato across the SSTS samples, but maybe that's just because the demos/walkthrough often have used a lover CC21 level, so I'm a little confused.
> This:"there's a reason the demos are all block pads and chiffing shorts, rather than anything resembling a performance of a string ensemble" isn't very encouraging.



Yes, the vibratos seem less intense, which I prefer. They certainly didn't bother me as they have in the past  The vib crossfade is abrupt, more like a switch.

To clarify re: performance crafting - I don't think SStS is any worse at it than other Spitfire libs. But IMO it's never been their forte or focus, they don't do e.g. repetitions and performance trills, scrupulous level matching etc as do VSL to give you the tools to do that. The emphasis seems to be on track-per-articulation composition. If you've been happy with that approach in the past you will likely be happy here.


----------



## Brian Nowak

richhickey said:


> Yes, the vibratos seem less intense, which I prefer. They certainly didn't bother me as they have in the past  The vib crossfade is abrupt, more like a switch.
> 
> To clarify re: performance crafting - I don't think SStS is any worse at it than other Spitfire libs. But IMO it's never been their forte or focus, they don't do e.g. repetitions and performance trills, scrupulous level matching etc as do VSL to give you the tools to do that. The emphasis seems to be on track-per-articulation composition. If you've been happy with that approach in the past you will likely be happy here.



As I'm just getting going that's a decision I'm coming to. I don't really mind hopping between tracks for shorts and legatos/longs. It all depends on how convincingly I can program that behavior to sound "natural". Do you think that's a reasonable approach here?


----------



## richhickey

Brian Nowak said:


> As I'm just getting going that's a decision I'm coming to. I don't really mind hopping between tracks for shorts and legatos/longs. It all depends on how convincingly I can program that behavior to sound "natural". Do you think that's a reasonable approach here?



That depends entirely on your music, but it's obviously viable as many film composers do it. 

I guess I was trying to answer the presumptive question - at a time when VSL is going wet like Spitfire (or trying to, with Synchron), is Spitfire now going dry like VSL? To which the answer is no, they are going dry like Spitfire


----------



## Nao Gam

richhickey said:


> I hate velocity triggers portamento, oh well.


Isn't that programmable? I don't own it but I went through the manual yesterday. Still not sure


----------



## Alex Fraser

Brian Nowak said:


> As I'm just getting going that's a decision I'm coming to. I don't really mind hopping between tracks for shorts and legatos/longs. It all depends on how convincingly I can program that behavior to sound "natural". Do you think that's a reasonable approach here?


I don't have the library, but I'm assuming the keyswitching methods mirror other SF libraries. 
Spitfire give you masses of tools and methods to keyswtich between articulations. In combination with something like Logic's articulation ID system, you can get any Spitfire library to bend to your will as far as triggering different articulations go, including combining, switching across patches etc..

It just depends on how much time you're willing to spend to set it up. Whether you should be expected to spend the time is another debate I guess.

So I think it's less of a workflow issue and more a case of sound wise - do the artics sit well together? I can't answer that.


----------



## Brian Nowak

^^^^ THIS is what I need to know. 

There's going to be work no matter what. Even in homogeneous libraries there's always adjustments and things to overcome. It comes with the trade. What I need to know is if the articulations work well in succession without TOO many really obvious warts sticking out.


----------



## LamaRose

Well, SStS sure as hell sounds better than STDs, lol. I'd much prefer the former to the latter.


----------



## Vik

richhickey said:


> Yes, the vibratos seem less intense, which I prefer. They certainly didn't bother me as they have in the past  The vib crossfade is abrupt, more like a switch.


I believe all SF vibratos are cross-switch, and not crossfade?



> If you've been happy with that approach in the past you will likely be happy here.


My first SF libs were Mural 1 and Mural, which I ended up not using much. The legatos were, to my years, not useful in many cases. So I happily bought Berlin Strings after having heard their legato demo on YT. (Happily, except for the vibrato, it's as if there's a missing vibrato layer in BS).
Later, I got an update offer from Spitfire resulting in having both SCS and SSS - and SSS is clearly better, legato wise, than Mural 1&2. I like the Sul Gs and the con sord/normale combos also, and more. Their chamber strings are really good in many areas too for me, including the legatos (most of the time).

So if I wouldn't already have what I already have , the studio strings would have been really interesting for me - with believable legatos and vibrato which at least isn't less good than in SCS.

Btw, when they write that this library "will work on anything from passionate period dramas to modern Scandi noir. It’s a fit for quirky indie and crisp pop, but can also tackle epic film and game scores", maybe that actually is their way of saying that it's not primarily meant for orchestral mockups?


----------



## Brian Nowak

@Vik I kind of took the last bit as buzzword talk, myself. All those words are currently pretty popular terms and touch on their regular market base.

The one thing I will say is that the stereo image on the library is fairly wide in terms of their seating positions. Wider than CSS, for sure. The sections do feel a bit more spread out, or disconnected. So it may be a bit trickier to get them to feel like an ensemble? I am probably not explaining myself very well.


----------



## sostenuto

Plz help with my imminent purchase! Main comparisons _here_ have been CSS and LASS.
I want/need top tier Orchestral Libs (Strings now). Many recent posts re. SStS make it seem quite desirable, but not in the sense of a _main_ orch strings choice.

I can handle separate paths, with one being more modern and narrower in focus. The other being 'workhorse'.
(_today _ LASS 2.5 @ $596. / SStS Pro @ $400._)

It seems I should be separating LASS, but not at all sure which path to place CSS (or does it somewhat fit both).

I realize this is not B/W, but could really use some help.


----------



## star.keys

Saxer said:


> If there's something I don't need any more in my life it's another demo of flautando longs.



And particularly after hearing what Orchestral Tools can deliver for theur flautando patch. It just puts SPF flautando to shame.


----------



## sostenuto

OT preferred for sure, but cost forces delay. 
This keeps LASS 2.5 Full in the game for current needs.


----------



## Hanu_H

jamwerks said:


> I know the UI's pretty well of all the major devs, and as far as articulation management, SF seems the most advanced Imo. Capsule does allow crossfading between arts and applying legato to other arts, but SF can do all the rest better than the others.
> 
> Once their own player matures in the coming months, it should equal or surpass Kontakt and Synchron. No reason why it wouldn't.


Hmm, can't really see it. What about VSL? What about AudioBro and Steinberg Iconica? Even CineSamples have more advanced UI's and ways to change articulations. It's of course about the workflow I prefer, but after I ditched EW libraries, I could never go back to the articulation per track workflow. About the crossfading between arts, that shouldn't be too difficult to do and would give a lot of more options how to use these different longs.



sostenuto said:


> Plz help with my imminent purchase! Main comparisons _here_ have been CSS and LASS.
> I want/need top tier Orchestral Libs (Strings now). Many recent posts re. SStS make it seem quite desirable, but not in the sense of a _main_ orch strings choice.
> 
> I can handle separate paths, with one being more modern and narrower in focus. The other being 'workhorse'.
> (_today _ LASS 2.5 @ $596. / SStS Pro @ $400._)
> 
> It seems I should be separating LASS, but not at all sure which path to place CSS (or does it somewhat fit both).
> 
> I realize this is not B/W, but could really use some help.


Most important question is, do you need divisi? If you are not gonna use it a lot, I would definitely go LASS Lite for workhorse. And if you like the SStS sound and special articulations, then buy the Core to compliment LASS.

Cinematic Strings 2 is also great bread and butter lib for you to consider. If you don't have any libraries, I think you could also check out Steinberg's Iconica. It gives you a lot of value for the money and I actually like how some of the demos sound for more traditional orchestral music. I have to say that if you can't write good music with all of these libraries then it doesn't matter what library you will get. All of the libraries are way better than the good old EWQLSO or Miroslav Philharmonik and you can hear great music done by those libraries as well. So I wouldn't stress too much about buying the right library. Just buy the one that sounds best to you and start writing music.

-Hannes


----------



## germancomponist

Where can I listen to audio examples of what u are all talking about?
Who of you bought this new Spitfire library and can post his critic review in an audio example?


----------



## brocco89

To me this library sounds boring and dry (literally). I understand everybody wants/needs some good core libraries. But I much prefer sample libraries that push the envelope in terms of creativity. I love spitfire audio's olafur arnalds chamber evolutions and his whole collection, as well as orchestral swarm and the other evos and of course LCO. I know the playability of some of these libraries are debatable - but I just love the amount of inspiration I get out of them. The sounds are beautiful, unique, out of the box! Personally I want more of those kinds of sample libraries! I Also love slate and ashes auras kontakt library - albeit a niche one, since its meant for the MPE controllers, roli seaboards, etc... But it is just so damn creative and inspiring. We don't need any more standard/classic strings libraries - unless it's playable out of the box and sounds like john williams is in the room with you! Just my two cents!


----------



## germancomponist

brocco89 said:


> To me this library sounds dry (literally) and boring. ...


Yeah, at the other day I listened to a string player who played an "E-minor", and it was boring, it didn't inspired me. The sound was great, but what? 
Let's bring the sample libraries to life and let them play automatically, just like the keyboards of the solo entertainers do? https://www.thomann.de/gb/yamaha_ge...iLCJjdXJyZW5jeSI6IjIiLCJsYW5ndWFnZSI6ImVuIn0=


----------



## Vik

jamwerks said:


> Capsule does allow crossfading between arts and applying legato to other arts, but SF can do all the rest better than the others.


Guess I have to disagree here...There's lots of good stuff to say about both OT and SF strings, but Capsule/Berlin Strings actually does - IMO - a number of things better than Spitfire (in addition to being able to add legato to all long artics).

Before looking at this list, remember the price differences between SFs Studio Strings and Berlin Strings. 

Berlin generally has better legatos (all this is IMO of course)
Solo/mute/pan on all mics
AutoGain: if I select three mic faders and change the level of one of them, the other two are adjusted automatically, meaning that the combined out level of the mic package won't change.
Berlin Strings has a knob for legato volume which works really well.
One can "morph" between up to four different articulations in the multis
The Multis contain many longs with dynamic changes
You can disable on or two layers and Capsule will automatically spread the reminding layer(s) over the whole dynamic range.
CC remapping
5 mic positions in the core product (for V1)
Tons of parameters can be CC automated
Also - from the manual:
Niente: If enabled, the lowest dynamic setting (usually CC1 at 0 or key velocity at 0) will cause the instrument to be completely silent. Use this setting when using your instruments with a breath or wind controller.
Soft Low Layer: If checked, the lowest dynamic layer will first be increased in volume when controlling dynamics and only later the next layer will begin to fade in, allowing softer low dynamics.


----------



## sostenuto

Vik said:


> Guess I have to disagree here...There's lots of good stuff to say about both OT and SF strings, but Capsule/Berlin Strings actually does - IMO - a number of things better than Spitfire (in addition to being able to add legato to all long artics). ********
> Before looking at this list, remember the price differences between SFs Studio Strings and Berlin Strings.



This really helps my immediate concerns, as it reinforces personal (very limited) _main orchestral_ preference for Berlin.
OTH, SF_SStS offers immediate, affordable, desirable tools.

A remaining key issue, beyond my skills to evaluate, is DIVISI.
I can become conversant with either LASS Lite or SStS Core for relatively small cost. If DIVISI becomes critical, then I lack capabilities to sort LASS 2.5 Full versus SStS Professional _ DIVISI.
_What are the defining factors _?


----------



## germancomponist

I think today's discussions about sample libraries are delicious. Everything is very much criticized: Library A can not do what library B can do, and so on. The room is too big, the room is too small, the legato is totally bad e.t.c. , Let me remind you of Thomas Bergerson, who was able to fascinate everyone with the old East West libraries, even though this library would be very poor in today's world. (there were no legato samples at all...) Could it be that the composer, his arrangement and his handling with the samples is why something sounds awesome and something not?


----------



## Kony

germancomponist said:


> I think today's discussions about sample libraries are delicious. Everything is very much criticized: Library A can not do what library B can do, and so on. The room is too big, the room is too small, the legato is totally bad e.t.c. , Let me remind you of Thomas Bergerson, who was able to fascinate everyone with the old East West libraries, even though this library would be very poor in today's world. (there were no legato samples at all...) Could it be that the composer, his arrangement and his handling with the samples is why something sounds awesome and something not?


I'm curious what you think the discussion about a new library release should be about.


----------



## Alex Fraser

germancomponist said:


> I think today's discussions about sample libraries are delicious. Everything is very much criticized: Library A can not do what library B can do, and so on. The room is too big, the room is too small, the legato is totally bad e.t.c. , Let me remind you of Thomas Bergerson, who was able to fascinate everyone with the old East West libraries, even though this library would be very poor in today's world. (there were no legato samples at all...) Could it be that the composer, his arrangement and his handling with the samples is why something sounds awesome and something not?


I quite agree. The harsh truth is that the library is rarely the weak link in the chain.


----------



## sostenuto

Hanu_H said:


> Most important question is, do you need divisi? If you are not gonna use it a lot, I would definitely go LASS Lite for workhorse. And if you like the SStS sound and special articulations, then buy the Core to compliment LASS.
> Just buy the one that sounds best to you and start writing music.
> -Hannes



Appreciate your detailed help. But also want you to note that there are large numbers of new users of orchestral strings libs, as well as many others, who are not orchestra trained, yet who are enthusiastic and dedicated to learning. I have limited understanding of DIVISI and surely cannot anticipate the future. 
I do not yet know whether or not I 'need divisi' ? If I am well advised to add it, and learn it, then it will be helpful to know how to choose between LASS 2.5 Full, or SStS Professional.


----------



## germancomponist

Kony said:


> I'm curious what you think the discussion about a new library release should be about.


I am awaiting "audio" examples of what the forum-members are talking about, audio examples done by them self, no links to what ever ... .


----------



## tack

germancomponist said:


> I am awaiting "audio" examples of what the forum-members are talking about, audio examples done by them self, no links to what ever ... .


Piet posted his first impressions over on The Sound Board and provided an example there comparing the celli spiccato samples of Sable with this new library and it ended up being something of an indictment, later tempered through a qualification that not all patches sound quite that bad. Still, my wallet is grateful for the review.


----------



## Alex Fraser

tack said:


> Piet posted his first impressions over on The Sound Board and provided an example there comparing the celli spiccato samples of Sable with this new library and it ended up being something of an indictment, later tempered through a qualification that not all patches sound quite that bad. Still, my wallet is grateful for the review.


Sure, interesting points in the review....but why are we still grafting midi data created for one library onto another library and expecting the same results? I don't get it.


----------



## tack

Alex Fraser said:


> but why are we still grafting midi data created for one library onto another library and expecting the same results?


I can't speak for @re-peat but I really doubt he was expecting the _same_ results, and he wouldn't have posted it if it wasn't representative of his experience directly playing the patch.


----------



## Brian Nowak

Alex Fraser said:


> Sure, interesting points in the review....but why are we still grafting midi data created for one library onto another library and expecting the same results? I don't get it.



The fact is I've yet to hear anything from the limited pool of user recordings has made that makes me excited about the library. I recognize that it's still brand new but I haven't been wowed yet.

His criticisms overlap on my concerns about things I didn't hear in the demonstrations of the library, and it seems my suspicions were correct. When used outside of pretty narrow contexts the stuff just doesn't seem to sound that great at all.


----------



## Alex Fraser

tack said:


> I can't speak for @re-peat but I really doubt he was expecting the _same_ results, and he wouldn't have posted it if it wasn't representative of his experience directly playing the patch.


I understand. But why not provide a second musical example that *does* suit the new library, using the same sound? 
Sorry for the grump. It's 3am here..


----------



## tack

Alex Fraser said:


> I understand. But why not provide a second musical example that *does* suit the new library, using the same sound?


Right now one has the official demos for that. I think it's valuable to know what things the library isn't so good at, and we're not likely to get that from Spitfire


----------



## bap_la_so_1

One big let sown of this library for me is lacking of short articulations
Can the "core" library consists of essential articulations instead of bunch of decoratives which not that common?


----------



## Jay Panikkar

Imo, a studio palette of this sort is exactly what is missing from the Spitfire line-up and the logical "next step" for them. The divisi setup seems very interesting. Sounds good overall based on the walkthrough videos and demos, but there's some weird timbre nonsense going on with some of the articulations.

Re: what @richhickey was referring to earlier:


richhickey said:


> This lib seems to have a more credible dynamic range than say SCS (which I own, with the extended mics). Even though it's likely the same number of layers, the softs seem genuinely softer (vs volume turned down, which I hate), and the forte genuinely stronger (vs just louder), although Spitfire rarely gets to the aggressive range.


The compressed dynamic range of mainline SF products is a consequence of recording to tape. SF do record higher dynamic layers but it ends up being "smudged" by tape saturation, which compresses perceived dynamics.

This is my main gripe with SF products: the AIR Lyndhurst + tape gimmick. And before I (inevitably) get trashed for saying so, let me elaborate. AIR L is basically a church and not a stage/concert hall. Other than that, there is nothing special about its colour or room tone—it's a good but otherwise generic space. The lush "Spitfire sound" comes from the tape, not the space. Any sufficiently deep and wide space put through tape will yield similar results.

The obnoxious release tails, mid and noise build up are all problems caused by tape saturation, and are not programming flaws.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to a SF studio orchestra without these issues.


----------



## keepitsimple

sostenuto said:


> Appreciate your detailed help. But also want you to note that there are large numbers of new users of orchestral strings libs, as well as many others, who are not orchestra trained, yet who are enthusiastic and dedicated to learning. I have limited understanding of DIVISI and surely cannot anticipate the future.
> I do not yet know whether or not I 'need divisi' ? If I am well advised to add it, and learn it, then it will be helpful to know how to choose between LASS 2.5 Full, or SStS Professional.


I would just get CSS if i were you. So far, it's the only library that blends seamlessly with all the piano work i do. That dark yet tender character makes it really unique and unlike any library. It also has a wonderful Marcato articulation that you can layer on top of Spiccato keyswitch which begs for riding that keyboard and jamming all day long (if that's what you're into). Just my two cents.


----------



## ctsai89

Well I hope the studio brass will have proper solo trumpet legato patches.


----------



## Vik

germancomponist said:


> I think today's discussions about sample libraries are delicious. Everything is very much criticized: Library A can not do what library B can do, and so on. The room is too big, the room is too small, the legato is totally bad e.t.c. , Let me remind you of Thomas Bergerson, who was able to fascinate everyone with the old East West libraries, even though this library would be very poor in today's world. (there were no legato samples at all...) Could it be that the composer, his arrangement and his handling with the samples is why something sounds awesome and something not?


Of course the major thing is if we, the composers, can make something great out of whatever tools we have. But that shouldn't hold us back from discussing VIs in a forum about VIs. 

OTOH - lots if us now have a lot more experience with sample libraries than we had a few years ago. So we have a more circa vision in terms of what we need/want (and don't need/want). That can easily trigger comments which are seen as (and sometimes are) harsh. That, and the fact that there have been some libraries lately which have delivered new products with legato issues, tuning issues, panning issues etc results in the situation we have.

Two major companies have been criticised this year for presenting new libraries that seem unfinished by a number of users (companies that are generally seen as being among the most serious ones in this business), and that itself may result in more critical comments than if a newcomer would launch a library with out of tune notes or legatos which sound like what they are (samples!).

My guess is that the major, long term winners of this game will be the companies which takes whatever time it takes to get the products, demos and walkthroughs ready for prime time before they are released - and the composers who can make great music even on an out-of-tune piano or a far from perfect library.


----------



## Consona

NoamL said:


> yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona ...
> 
> Do composers want more "musical" libraries or brand new "sounds"?
> 
> From what I can tell... large numbers of people don't want either!
> 
> The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.
> 
> I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, 2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product, 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.
> 
> And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....
> 
> I think developers are in a very difficult place with composers who already have the "bread and butter" covered, as so many of us do.
> 
> If they made a really deep sampled standard articulations library then people would say "Why should I buy this? I already have CSS/HWS/SSS/OTBS/ChrisHein/whatever."
> 
> Instead they went for covering all kinds of unique articulations not sampled before, and now people are saying "Well these are interesting as one-shot samples, but difficult to join together into musical phrases, speaking of which, why did you skimp on the basic articulations like staccato?"
> 
> If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.
> 
> It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...


But it can all be solved by making it "musical". You can make a library full of artsy stuff, but develop it so it can be used in a "musical" manner. (I hope everybody knows what that means by now. )

I don't think not knowing something like CSS or Hyperion will come is any kind of excuse. Devs should know what you want to accomplish. Do you want to make something well suited just to underscore some modern TV drama or a hybrid PC game trailer, or do you want the library to be able to handle way more than that? And we still don't know how agile SStS actually is. We need some people to buy it, explore it, and put their mock-up skills to use to show us how good it can sound. Maybe the legatos and runs are good enough to handle wide range of styles, the dynamic range of shorts seems good enough to make musical passages with them plus there are the timestretch patches which is a wonderful tool for making shorts feel really organic.

Look, we are speaking about Spitfire Audio here, a company that's among the leaders of this industry. Maybe they are developing stuff that fits their needs, but they shouldn't be surprised people who listen to anything from Haydn's classical to Williams' film music can have more demands on their library. I think the era when everyone (exaggeration) wanted to sound like Han's Batman is gone. If they were developing this library as this kind of "basic legato plus some nice shorts" then, again, don't be surprised people would like something more, no matter whether something like CSS or Hyperion exist.

With the amount of articulations SStS has and their dynamic range, I think it should be able to handle way more than what demos showed us, IMO.

I'd like to hear SStS used for something like this...


----------



## Vik

Saxer said:


> If there's something I don't need any more in my life it's another demo of flautando longs.


I'm one of those who really like SFs focus on the quiet stuff - but this time, I think their new Flautando is part of the reason why there has been a number of negative comments here. A combination of loud, rather dry, non- (or little) vibrato and out-of-tune is possible the worst possible way to present a new string library, and their InAction video is made with a flautando V1 preset in a leading role - a preset which is sampled with one or more players with a clearly lower pitch than the others. This doesn't only make the whole flutando ensemble sound out-of tune, it gives the impression that the library may not be that good.


----------



## Kony

germancomponist said:


> I am awaiting "audio" examples of what the forum-members are talking about, audio examples done by them self, no links to what ever ... .


That's fair enough, but I think a lot of people here are discussing the library based on the official demos. Maybe watch the demos so you can see/hear what people are referring to. Cheers


----------



## Alex Fraser

CH did mention there were more videos, more demos to come. Perhaps there are patches on the way. Maybe the picture isn’t yet complete.

Or maybe Mr Blaney drops a couple of demos and stops the arguments cold..


----------



## MrHStudio

Consona said:


> And we still don't know how agile SStS actually is.



I noticed the number of times the spitfire staff said Agile in the video’s was quite high ....


----------



## The Darris

Consona said:


> I'd like to hear SStS used for something like this...




tl;dr - It takes a lot more work to do this than CSS does. Here is my attempt at recreating that demo (just an excerpt) First half is with my reverb, second is library out of the box (dry). I used the Stereo Mix 2 option since the CSS demo used the Mix mic.

The strengths I'm finding so far are what most of you already know which is the extended techniques and colors you can't find in most "All purpose" libraries like CSS. I've noticed now, with Spitfire at least, that their Spiccatos and other shorts are becoming less "tight." This is okay in some cases but the main patches (8,6,6,6,4) don't have very tight shorts. To be clear, they don't hold up rhythmically on the grid. The samples aren't edited very well on the front end which makes them harder to use for fast ostinatos. This was the case with HZ Strings as well. They sound great but not for fast stuff. Now, the Divisi sections do have a much better short spiccato sound and hold up much better than the main patches do on the grid at least.

Based on just trying to mimic that CSS demo, I'm finding that I prefer the sound of the divisi sections the most. I used the Divisi sections on this demo but had to use the main sections for the Trills and Measured Trems. I did this so you can hear that the differences of using the two divisi sections layered together and jumping back and forth between the main section doesn't sound different at all, not in a mix at least.

This also used two tracks per instrument + keyswitches to accomplish. With Expression maps in Cubase, I'm sure you could cut this down to a single track if you are one of those people who prefer to work that way. In trying to accomplish this short demo, I didn't notice anything buggy. I just have that preference for a tighter front end edit of the samples. The tightness control doesn't help it enough in my opinion and I honestly don't want to have to rely on the Time Machine patches for something so simple.

Additional thoughts are all subjective of course. I wish they had some more Hairpin samples because the ones included are very long. I wish they did some short, medium, and long length versions. The phrases and Runs seem like a random after thought. They are not tempo locked so they seem pointless to me. We could have substituted those for some good Staccato or SFZ samples. I also suspected and can confirm that the Legato lacks the ability to play fast runs. It works great for lyrical stuff but nothing good with 1/16th notes at 110 and above. 

Okay, I need to go to sleep now. I hope my initial thoughts are helpful.

Best,

C

_[Note: Spitfire sent me an NFR of Studio Strings for review. I will actually be reviewing it along side the forthcoming Studio Brass and Woodwinds after they are released. As I continue to work with this library, I will come back to the critiques I've laid out here as I'm sure some updates will occur between now and the time I release my full review of this new series.]_


----------



## germancomponist

The Darris said:


> ... To be clear, they don't hold up rhythmically on the grid. The samples aren't edited very well on the front end which makes them harder to use for fast ostinatos. ...



O.t
Some years ago I produced a track where I needed very short and precise chello staccatos. Finally, I imported all chello staccato samples from the East West library into Cubase. There I worked on each sample with the time-stretch tool, cutted it exactly and built a new Kontact instrument for me. I called it "super short chelli stacc" and it worked wonderfully.


----------



## procreative

Hanu_H said:


> It's of course about the workflow I prefer, but after I ditched EW libraries, I could never go back to the articulation per track workflow.



Actually depending on your DAW, there are ways to avoid that. I use Logic and with the Articulation Sets, you can keyswitch between Play slots by Midi Channel. All you need is a way to switch midi channel in Logic this is done per note and is excellent. Hollywood Strings is in my opinion still one of the best as nobody else has sampled as many dynamic layers (their sustains have 6-7 layers and nearly as many vibrato layers).

In fact I even do this method for some libraries that have Keyswitch patches where the slots in them dont always have the same controls over details (eg OTs Capsule Legato is not as controllable as the standalone Legato patch).


----------



## StatKsn

If your DAW can switch MIDI channel per note, articulation per track workflow is in fact, a bliss! I can't quite go back to keyswitching, except where you need a lot of MIDI CCs.


----------



## AxEbel

StatKsn said:


> If your DAW can switch MIDI channel per note, articulation per track workflow is in fact, a bliss! I can't quite go back to keyswitching, except where you need a lot of MIDI CCs.



What do you mean by that exactly? Are you using different Tracks for each Midi Channel/Articulation?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I love SF to bits and use their libraries daily, but that last In-Action video is really disappointing sound-wise. I don’t know why it was published.


----------



## Brian Nowak

StatKsn said:


> If your DAW can switch MIDI channel per note, articulation per track workflow is in fact, a bliss! I can't quite go back to keyswitching, except where you need a lot of MIDI CCs.



My only problem with the one track per articulation situation, or switching articulation by midi channel, is it becomes a problem of getting the different articulations to sound like a cohesive unit. Timing the tail of legato notes so that they don't hang over into a spicatto section in CSS, for example, is a right pain. In situations where I'm making complex phrases key switching is the only way I can make that happen.


----------



## sostenuto

keepitsimple said:


> I would just get CSS if i were you. So far, it's the only library that blends seamlessly with all the piano work i do. That dark yet tender character makes it really unique and unlike any library. It also has a wonderful Marcato articulation that you can layer on top of Spiccato keyswitch which begs for riding that keyboard and jamming all day long (if that's what you're into). Just my two cents.



Cool reply; especially since my pianist background didn't get mentioned, yet is so relevant to this purchase. 
OTW _ my DIVISI uncertainty remains ..... 
Thank-you for your comments!


----------



## jononotbono

I have to admit, I'm a little bit drunk to fully bother myself and read all 16 pages... So, are most of these comments from people that have actually bought SStS and have experience with it or by people that just like typing stuff on the internet? Just trying to save a bit of time


----------



## Alex Fraser

jononotbono said:


> I have to admit, I'm a little bit drunk to fully bother myself and read all 16 pages... So, are most of these comments from people that have actually bought SStS and have experience with it or by people that just like typing stuff on the internet? Just trying to save a bit of time


You're drunk but managed to type "SStS" correctly...


----------



## jononotbono

Alex Fraser said:


> You're drunk but managed to type "SStS" correctly...



I'm adaptable.


----------



## tack

jononotbono said:


> So, are most of these comments from people that have actually bought SStS and have experience with it or by people that just like typing stuff on the internet? Just trying to save a bit of time


A mixture of both. I'm afraid that doesn't help you save any time. But at least you're drunk, so wading through 16 pages isn't as painful a task as it would otherwise be.


----------



## Eptesicus

jononotbono said:


> I have to admit, I'm a little bit drunk to fully bother myself and read all 16 pages... So, are most of these comments from people that have actually bought SStS and have experience with it or by people that just like typing stuff on the internet? Just trying to save a bit of time



I imagine many comments (including myself) are based on the the demos.....which are in my opinion, not very good (sound wise, not compositionally).

Normally demos show the very best of what you can achieve or at least paint the library in a flattering light...


----------



## jononotbono

Eptesicus said:


> Normally demos show the very best of what you can achieve or at least paint the library in a flattering light...



Depends if someone is an artist or not. Or drunk. It's a fine line.


----------



## procreative

Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann, find it hard to believe they re-recorded the Strings using the same Room, Producer, Mic Setup etc. The setup in BHT is the same as this ie C1 C2 T1 T2 O.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Obviously the are supplied as High/Low Sections in BHT and less articulations, but I reckon otherwise very similar.

But I found it helpful as the same Leader Mic is used in BHT.


----------



## sostenuto

procreative said:


> Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann, find it hard to believe they re-recorded the Strings using the same Room, Producer, Mic Setup etc. The setup in BHT is the same as this ie C1 C2 T1 T2 O.
> Nothing necessarily wrong with that.
> Obviously the are supplied as High/Low Sections in BHT and less articulations, but I reckon otherwise very similar.
> But I found it helpful as the same Leader Mic is used in BHT.



Appreciate your comments, yet wondering about '3 years in the making ...' 
Guess this remains valid, even with Herrmann detail ……..


----------



## Geoff Grace

Eptesicus said:


> I imagine many comments (including myself) are based on the the demos.....which are in my opinion, not very good (sound wise, not compositionally).
> 
> Normally demos show the very best of what you can achieve or at least paint the library in a flattering light...


Spitfire products are being released so rapidly that I wonder how much time there is to really familiarize oneself with a new library before having to create a demo.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## The Darris

germancomponist said:


> O.t
> Some years ago I produced a track where I needed very short and precise chello staccatos. Finally, I imported all chello staccato samples from the East West library into Cubase. There I worked on each sample with the time-stretch tool, cutted it exactly and built a new Kontact instrument for me. I called it "super short chelli stacc" and it worked wonderfully.


That's cool. I wish I had the time and patience for such a task. For me, it's just easy enough to say, "Well, this library can't do what I need it to do, but this one does." I'm trying to figure out what SStS can do differently that my other libraries can't do. Aside from some of the FX patches, there doesn't seem to be a 'worth the price' patch that I've found yet. There is a lot to explore and it will take time though. 

-C


----------



## babylonwaves

The Darris said:


> That's cool. I wish I had the time and patience for such a task.


print to audio -> quantise audio. works pretty well...


----------



## The Darris

It seems to me that Spitfire Audio is more focused on following trends and trying to set them. They don't focus on releasing libraries that can do classical music because, in the media world, nobody is really writing that music. The same goes for music like John Williams or Goldsmith. SSO can sort of do that but it still has a lot of limitations that the more "bread and butter" libraries can succeed in. That's why I still use SSO in my template and layer it with libraries like CSS and CineBrass. But, at the end of the day, when I'm not working on mockups for a more sweeping orchestral score that's mostly replaced by live players, I'm reaching for Spitfire's more experimental libraries like EVOs and Olafur libraries. They just do things you can't do with traditional orchestra libraries. They help you with the creative side and allow you to experiment. SStS seems like it's trying to fit in both worlds but sort of comes up short at the moment. Again, I can't give a final decision on my thoughts because I've literally only spent 2-3 hours with it and there is a lot of content there.


----------



## The Darris

babylonwaves said:


> print to audio -> quantise audio. works pretty well...


Like I said, even such a simple task that you've outlined here takes time that I don't really have on a gig. There is not way I'm going to spend the time it takes to write a cue, do conforms and revisions, and then edit the audio to get a better lock to the grid when it's going to be recorded by players after the fact. That's a waste of time. The patience I was referring to was that of building a patch out of the re-edited samples. Why do all of that when CSS has exactly what I need? Again, just a waste of time for me and the work I use these libraries on. To each their own though.

-C


----------



## Vik

jononotbono said:


> I have to admit, I'm a little bit drunk to fully bother myself and read all 16 pages... So, are most of these comments from people that have actually bought SStS and have experience with it or by people that just like typing stuff on the internet?


 It's mainly people who haven't bought it who either like the product, don't like it, want more demos/walkthroughs - or a mix of these.


----------



## sostenuto

The Darris said:


> ******* That's why I still use SSO in my template and layer it with libraries like CSS and CineBrass. But, at the end of the day, when I'm not working on mockups for a more sweeping orchestral score that's mostly replaced by live players, I'm reaching for Spitfire's more experimental libraries like EVOs and Olafur libraries. ******.



Very timely and helpful post ! > It led me back to SF site and was totally unaware of Olafur promotional deals !  
Will be adding OA Chamber Evos now.

SSO is top of bucket list, but will await SF_Wishlist or BlkFri to purchase.
Your CSS and CineBrass layering comment reinforces other priority titles.

Many THX!


----------



## jononotbono

Vik said:


> It's mainly people who haven't bought it who either like the product, don't like it, want more demos/walkthroughs - or a mix of these.



Are they really "people" though? haha


----------



## Michael Antrum

jononotbono said:


> Are they really "people" though? haha



Jono my old china, one of the key attributes of any musician is to be able to operate at a high level whilst having imbibed unfeasible amounts of alcoholic beverages.

This is an important skill, and I commend you on your dedication to practicing hard in this area. Keep at it !


----------



## jononotbono

mikeybabes said:


> Jono my old china, one of the key attributes of any musician is to be able to operate at a high level whilst having imbibed unfeasible amounts of alcoholic beverages.
> 
> This is an important skill, and I commend you on your dedication to practicing hard in this area. Keep at it !



I implore you to put some lipstick on, and enjoy the professionalism.


----------



## germancomponist

The Darris said:


> That's cool. I wish I had the time and patience for such a task. For me, it's just easy enough to say, "Well, this library can't do what I need it to do, but this one does." I'm trying to figure out what SStS can do differently that my other libraries can't do. Aside from some of the FX patches, there doesn't seem to be a 'worth the price' patch that I've found yet. There is a lot to explore and it will take time though.
> 
> -C


Yeah, it took me one day, and after that I used it many times in other projects. At this time, libraries weren't that cheap as today, and; I have learned a lot of things when it comes to produce a sample library.
About short notes:
It is more a conductor thing. For fast notes you have to conduct in a fast tempo. The result is that the players automatically play shorter notes .... . But yeah, I think you know this anyway.


----------



## SillyMidOn

madfloyd said:


> What is SStS?


Sounds like and STD ... I wouldn't go near it ...


----------



## NoamL

somehow I missed 10 pages of this including someone calling Spitfire "just mentally lazy" for not including multiple lengths of shorts and legato transitions. I don't think it's lazy at all. They were working on this for three years. I think it's a question of tradeoffs. Every articulation, every mic, every round robin adds to the final mass of the library, and its price. They had to decide what to put in and leave out.

Anyone out there who expects ANY developer, EVEN Spitfire, to make the "be all & end all of strings" with both a super-deep sampled set of workhorse articulations, plus all the artsy extended techniques, is going to be disappointed. That's an absolutely titanic, company-sized risk. Modular is the future, and it's not like these libraries are hard to blend & balance, especially the drier ones. Just use your ears.

Where this all falls down of course, is that every developer (SF being neither the exception nor exceptional) insists on BRANDING their product as the "be all & end all of strings" instead of saying "Hey this is a cool modular library, but maybe look at our very own [insert other product] if you want multiple shorts and legato styles."


----------



## JEPA

NoamL said:


> somehow I missed 10 pages of this including someone calling Spitfire "just mentally lazy" for not including multiple lengths of shorts and legato transitions. I don't think it's lazy at all. They were working on this for three years. I think it's a question of tradeoffs. Every articulation, every mic, every round robin adds to the final mass of the library, and its price. They had to decide what to put in and leave out.
> 
> Anyone out there who expects ANY developer, EVEN Spitfire, to make the "be all & end all of strings" is going to be disappointed. That's an absolutely titanic, company-sized risk. Modular is the future, and it's not like these libraries are hard to blend & balance, especially the drier ones. Just use your ears.
> 
> Where this all falls down of course, is that every developer (SF being neither the exception nor exceptional) insists on BRANDING their product as the "be all & end all of strings" instead of saying "Hey this is a cool modular library, but maybe look at our very own [insert other product] if you want multiple shorts and legato styles."


being curious if they plan to sell the "staccato" patches in a modular way...


----------



## NoamL

What I mean is that this is would sit in your template side by side with some other library you find more suited to workhorse articulations for chamber strings, such as Spitfire's own SCS, Hyperion, LASS with the smallest section sizes, Light&Sound, CSS, Dimension Strings, etc.


----------



## Consona

Maybe they'll split SCS and SSS back into Sable and Mural?


----------



## Geoff Grace

Vik said:


> If Studio Strings can 'sing' as well as the Chamber Strings, I'd rather have Chamber+Studio Strings than Chamber+ Symphonic Strings, because the Chamber + Studio Strings then could serve as a somehow modular library, seen together. SCS is 4 3 3 3 and SSTS Core is 8 6 6 6 4. That would allow 4, 8 or 12 V1s, 3, 6 or 9V2s etc. With the pro version of SSTS, you'd also have two divisi/half sections (4 3 3 3), meaning that you'd have an even more modular library.


I believe this may be an example of what @NoamL is talking about.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## erica-grace

procreative said:


> Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann, find it hard to believe they re-recorded the Strings using the same Room, Producer, Mic Setup etc. The setup in BHT is the same as this ie C1 C2 T1 T2 O.
> 
> Nothing necessarily wrong with that.



Actually, there is something wrong with that.

Releasing a new product based, to a large degree, on samples from an old product, without telling your customers? There is something very wrong with that, IMO


----------



## givemenoughrope

I’m not sure I ever thought about a drier, studio version of Sable/SCS but I guess that makes sense. SCS sounds great but to me it’s the room (Air) that makes it. Tbh, I’m really all about more evo’s but was also kind of hoping they would tackle a project of connected notes (loures, spiccatos) using something like REX files and/or time machine.


----------



## procreative

erica-grace said:


> Actually, there is something wrong with that.
> 
> Releasing a new product based, to a large degree, on samples from an old product, without telling your customers? There is something very wrong with that, IMO



Well firstly I cannot say 100% they did this and it would be wrong to accuse them of that. But logic would tell me it would be stupid to not re-purpose recordings and I doubt its the only time a developer has done this.

I don't see a problem with it because the BHT strings are premixed into ensembles so I think it is perfectly reasonable (if they have done this) to sell the same recordings in different products as they have been mixed differently.

I think Spitfire and any other developer that reacts badly to negative reviews should take a step back, take a breath then realise its a unique opportunity to gain customer insight.

If they truly passionately care about the quality of their libraries, they should be able to (once the emotions have calmed) take a step back and see that many of the criticisms come from loyal customers (in some instances) who rate previous work highly.

The vast increase in releases has definitely impacted on perceived quality for two reasons.

1. Firstly endless revamps of basically the same concepts eg Alternative Solo Strings/LCO begin to create an expectation the new title offers something better and more innovative than the last.

2. Secondly the mad schedule undoubtedly has an impact on quality control and design choices.

The sample library industry has devloped so far in a few years, but our expectations have grown as the choices are now so vast, but yet in many instances new libraries only offer minor advances (if any) and it often feels like commerce over art.

But if you have over 30 staff, you need to pay their wages, the rent, the investors. Thats the curse of growing a business based on artistic endeavour. I have seen it happen time and again my industry (graphic design).

You start off with a core of creative people, then as it grows you add account managers, sales teams, financial officers etc and it becomes a beast that has to generate income just to exist and starts to lose the essence of what made it great.


----------



## Vik

procreative said:


> Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann, find it hard to believe they re-recorded the Strings using the same Room, Producer, Mic Setup etc. The setup in BHT is the same as this ie C1 C2 T1 T2 O.



Recording multiple string ensembles using the same mic setup/room etc isn't necessarily a bad idea (different players, different concept, different section sizes, different signal chain etc). But if that's what they have done, and I was a Bernard Herrmann Toolkit owner planning to buy SStS, I'd like to know that I'm actually about to buy the same recordings again. 

I don't think SF are reselling the BH strings with SStS. But if you are concerned, why not ask them?


----------



## jamwerks

I hate reading conspiracy theories like this on this forum. We should be better than that. If you own both, it would be easy to tell if there are redundant samples.


----------



## NoamL

I think we should refrain from accusing developers of reusing samples unless you have two specific samples you want to share with the forum that you think are reused. In which case go for it. The only time I'm aware a developer has done something like this is the EW Ghostwriter situation and they pretty much never lived it down.

Reminds me of when someone asked if HZS was just Mural samples restacked. Oh yes? And how did they get the cellos all the way on the other side of the room?


----------



## procreative

Vik said:


> Recording multiple string ensembles using the same mic setup/room etc isn't necessarily a bad idea (different players, different concept, different section sizes, different signal chain etc). But if that's what they have done, and I was a Bernard Herrmann Toolkit owner planning to buy SStS, I'd like to know that I'm actually about to buy the same recordings again.
> 
> I don't think SF are reselling the BH strings with SStS. But if you are concerned, why not ask them?



I would not be bothered either way as the choice of articulations is different and the BHT is more like an Albion in its section formats.

I simply think it would make no financial sense to do virtually the same studio setup/mic choices/producer twice.

Now I am not saying they are the exact same samples. Firstly they are mixed differently one is sectional the other instrument based. But its perfectly reasonable to assume they were part of the same session.


----------



## procreative

And even if they had it would not stop me buying as BHT does not have separate Violin, Viola, Cello, Bass.

My decision is more about what does this add to what I have, is it a fresh take, is the Legato good etc. Now if Spitfire had released this 3-4 years ago, I would have thought maybe, but any flaws will be ironed out in fixes.

Now with their hectic release schedule, I am not so sure. So I have to judge it on its first release state.

And if I did not have BHT I would be interested, but having re-evaluated the strings in there I am not so sure even at the very good price on intro its worth the extra control as BHT has some good stuff that crosses over with this.

And thats my real point.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

NoamL said:


> I think we should refrain from accusing developers of reusing samples unless you have two specific samples you want to share with the forum that you think are reused. In which case go for it. The only time I'm aware a developer has done something like this is the EW Ghostwriter situation and they pretty much never lived it down.
> 
> Reminds me of when someone asked if HZS was just Mural samples restacked. Oh yes? And how did they get the cellos all the way on the other side of the room?


moving your speakers from left to right !!!


----------



## jamwerks

Do they have a "hectic" schedule putting out new libraries, or does the fact the they have 60+ people working there allow them to just put things out very quickly?


----------



## Consona

I doubt SStS samples are from BHCT recordings, the strings sound very different.


----------



## Brian Nowak

I think "mentally lazy" is, at this point, a fair assessment.

Nobody is putting words in SF's mouth. The announcement was that this would be their most versatile and flexible string library yet. I guess if a person gauges flexibility entirely on whether or not the samples were taken in Lyndhurst, then yes they're more flexible.

But it seems that the phrasing capabilities, agility of, and general sound quality of this library is lesser than its predecessors. So then the argument is made that they meant flexible within the context of modern tv/film scoring.

And yet, the library seems to have considerable problems with tuning, legato transitions, telltale noises with low round robin count, etc. It becomes pretty clear that the reason they are using big fat cello chords, for example, in their demos is to hide the fact that there are obvious inconsistencies within the library.

Perhaps these issues will be corrected and Spitfire will do an update on the library. But then we're still looking at a release that clearly wasn't ready for professional use, based solely off the number of issues within the sample content itself

I can't think of a better description than mentally lazy. Would you prefer I say "dishonest"? They aren't giving these samples away. It's a paid product that can neither be returned or resold. And to me they have been sloppy enough that it is hard to take them seriously.


----------



## Francis Bourre

On my side, I liked the walkthrough and I bought the library. I didn't have time to play much with it, but yesterday I used the 2 celli spiccato divisi with the solo strings one + some rev bus, and I really enjoyed the sonic result.

I'm a bit surprised by all the continuous negativity about the product and the company.

Imho, I don't think it brings any value to the discussion when I read some assumptions about the recording, or some comments about how Spitifre should drive its own business, or even worst some repetitive bashing because its not what people expect for their personal needs, or compared to what they already got.

Hey, relax :emoji_tulip:, maybe this library was not designed for you. And if that would be the case, why would you suffer from any kind of indignity? As lot of people didn't forget to mention, there are lot of other opportunities in the sampling library world now. And I'm wondering why is it so important for some people to repetitively convince the others this is not THE real thing, and they should do like them, not buy it?

Just wanted to post these few words because you cannot even imagine how I just feel strange and alone to write I liked this project (Am I normal?, Do I got ears?, Shouldn't I be ashamed?... ) after all the poisonous brainwashing posted in few different threads. I'm sure the negativity is not intended, but is more a result of emotional biased feedback with the brand anchored to memories and ideals. But whatever...

I hope to see more people coming with positive feedback, and my comment there is just there to try to break this dark loop. :emoji_sunny:


----------



## JEPA

procreative said:


> is the Legato good


...


----------



## Eptesicus

Francis Bourre said:


> On my side, I liked the walkthrough and I bought the library. I didn't have time to play much with it, but yesterday I used the 2 celli spiccato divisi with the solo strings one + some rev bus, and I really enjoyed the sonic result.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised by all the continuous negativity about the product and the company.
> 
> Imho, I don't think it brings any value to the discussion when I read some assumptions about the recording, or some comments about how Spitifre should drive its own business, or even worst some repetitive bashing because its not what people expect for their personal needs, or compared to what they already got.
> 
> Hey, relax :emoji_tulip:, maybe this library was not designed for you. And if that would be the case, why would you suffer from any kind of indignity? As lot of people didn't forget to mention, there are lot of other opportunities in the sampling library world now. And I'm wondering why is it so important for some people to repetitively convince the others this is not THE real thing, and they should do like them, not buy it?
> 
> Just wanted to post these few words because you cannot even imagine how I just feel strange and alone to write I liked this project (Am I normal?, Do I got ears?, Shouldn't I be ashamed?... ) after all the poisonous brainwashing posted in few different threads. I'm sure the negativity is not intended, but is more a result of emotional biased feedback with the brand anchored to memories and ideals. But whatever...
> 
> I hope to see more people coming with positive feedback, and my comment there is just there to try to break this dark loop. :emoji_sunny:



*"poisonous brainwashing"
*
Woah there. I think you are reading far more into all this than is actually there.

Personally, i know i dont even have to buy it to know if i will like it or not, because almost all the demos sound horrible (in my opinion and to my ears).

I have nothing against Spitfire. I think some of their libraries sound fantastic. I just think it is very telling that they can't even make a fantastic sounding demo with it. Normally i expect demos to sound good and set my expectations slightly lower in terms of what i could get out of it. If the demos dont even sound passable though...well.

If you have bought it and like it then that is all that matters. There is no "brainwashing" going on though, just people stating their opinions.


----------



## dogdad

Francis Bourre said:


> On my side, I liked the walkthrough and I bought the library. I didn't have time to play much with it, but yesterday I used the 2 celli spiccato divisi with the solo strings one + some rev bus, and I really enjoyed the sonic result.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised by all the continuous negativity about the product and the company.
> 
> Imho, I don't think it brings any value to the discussion when I read some assumptions about the recording, or some comments about how Spitifre should drive its own business, or even worst some repetitive bashing because its not what people expect for their personal needs, or compared to what they already got.
> 
> Hey, relax :emoji_tulip:, maybe this library was not designed for you. And if that would be the case, why would you suffer from any kind of indignity? As lot of people didn't forget to mention, there are lot of other opportunities in the sampling library world now. And I'm wondering why is it so important for some people to repetitively convince the others this is not THE real thing, and they should do like them, not buy it?
> 
> Just wanted to post these few words because you cannot even imagine how I just feel strange and alone to write I liked this project (Am I normal?, Do I got ears?, Shouldn't I be ashamed?... ) after all the poisonous brainwashing posted in few different threads. I'm sure the negativity is not intended, but is more a result of emotional biased feedback with the brand anchored to memories and ideals. But whatever...
> 
> I hope to see more people coming with positive feedback, and my comment there is just there to try to break this dark loop. :emoji_sunny:



It’s been my assumption is that those who are enjoying this library do not feel comfortable posting here about it. Or possibly, they’re too busy making music with it 

Also, it seems that a lot of the critical posts are from people who have not used the library and are basing their opinions off of the demos (could be wrong).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just appreciate fist hand experiences. 

If you do own it and are disappointed, a demo of your own would be helpful in pointing out what you are disappointed in.

I myself am excited about this library and can’t wait till I can afford to purchase it.


----------



## ism

dogdad said:


> It’s been my assumption is that those who are enjoying this library do not feel comfortable posting here about it.



As someone who really likes this library, and has posted a demo, I think that's a real thing. And a manifestation of a very well established effect, that I've seen it in many, many contexts.

But this is just to say the on the internet ... there are group dynamics at play (shocking, I know).


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Francis Bourre said:


> On my side, I liked the walkthrough and I bought the library. I didn't have time to play much with it, but yesterday I used the 2 celli spiccato divisi with the solo strings one + some rev bus, and I really enjoyed the sonic result.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised by all the continuous negativity about the product and the company.
> 
> Imho, I don't think it brings any value to the discussion when I read some assumptions about the recording, or some comments about how Spitifre should drive its own business, or even worst some repetitive bashing because its not what people expect for their personal needs, or compared to what they already got.
> 
> Hey, relax :emoji_tulip:, maybe this library was not designed for you. And if that would be the case, why would you suffer from any kind of indignity? As lot of people didn't forget to mention, there are lot of other opportunities in the sampling library world now. And I'm wondering why is it so important for some people to repetitively convince the others this is not THE real thing, and they should do like them, not buy it?
> 
> Just wanted to post these few words because you cannot even imagine how I just feel strange and alone to write I liked this project (Am I normal?, Do I got ears?, Shouldn't I be ashamed?... ) after all the poisonous brainwashing posted in few different threads. I'm sure the negativity is not intended, but is more a result of emotional biased feedback with the brand anchored to memories and ideals. But whatever...
> 
> I hope to see more people coming with positive feedback, and my comment there is just there to try to break this dark loop. :emoji_sunny:



It is good that you enjoy the new library, and I guess nobody here wants to speak bad about that library. *I think the library does a great job for that emotional Film / TV Underscoring enviroment.* So imo SFA aimed not to release a product to extremes here in terms of replicating Williams string stuff or some classical mockups. And it is not needed because the target audience are not a few people like me or Noam or Mike V. who dont´*want to write to the strengths of a library but to their own needs but the mass market*. SFA thinks also a lot about their target audience and they are definitely not the people who like to score oldschool shit.


----------



## anderslink

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> It is good that you enjoy the new library, and I guess nobody here wants to speak bad about that library. *I think the library does a great job for that emotional Film / TV Underscoring enviroment.* So imo SFA aimed not to release a product to extremes here in terms of replicating Williams string stuff or some classical mockups. And it is not needed because the target audience are not a few people like me or Noam or Mike V. who dont´*want to write to the strengths of a library but to their own needs but the mass market*. SFA thinks also a lot about their target audience and they are definitely not the people who like to score oldschool shit.



I feel like some people are giving SF a little too much credit. There's no reason we can't push them to make content that works for more than underscoring. Sacconi's legatos are not fantastic and that was 100% marketed, conceived, and designed for string quartet music which is about as classic, nuanced, and high art as you can get. I LOVE Sacconi for non lead writing though. I also don't think Embertone's Joshua Bell violin is perfect either but definitely a huge step up. One of the main problems with any library for lead lines is the attacks just start to sound way too similar.

I love Spitfire's products and realize there are always limitations to sample libraries. I just think for the quality they are aiming for, the money they are making, and the amount of people they have hired to work for them there's no reason to hold back realistic critique. The goal is clear - they want to be as good as they possibly can be. Don't let marketing get in the way of knowing that there is always room for improvement.

It must be hard to be one of the leading sample developers!


----------



## SpitfireSupport

procreative said:


> Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann



Just to give this thread a categorical answer - no, these are not the same samples used in Herrmann

Ben


----------



## The Darris

Let me clear this up because it's ridiculous that someone has made the claim in the first place. I can definitively tell you that these samples are not from, nor used in, the Bernard Herrmann library. How do I know? I have both and I've compared. I didn't compare because I felt the need to rebuke those conspiracies in this thread. I compared because they were recorded in the same room, same mics, and same engineer yet sound completely different to me. BHT is a great library for what it is. It's a very useful library. Those ensemble patches of mixed instruments aren't baked samples. They are the real deal. SStS is far from that. The sound and characteristic of the library is very different. I compared the two because one of them, SStS, is highly inferior to the other when you compare strings. Sure, SStS has more articulations and is regarded to be more versatile. I can personally get more music in different styles written with BHT's strings than I can with the current state of SStS. 

-C


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

anderslink said:


> I feel like some people are giving SF a little too much credit. There's no reason we can't push them to make content that works for more than underscoring. Sacconi's legatos are not fantastic and that was 100% marketed, conceived, and designed for string quartet music which is about as classic, nuanced, and high art as you can get. I LOVE Sacconi for non lead writing though. I also don't think Embertone's Joshua Bell violin is perfect either but definitely a huge step up. One of the main problems with any library for lead lines is the attacks just start to sound way too similar.
> 
> I love Spitfire's products and realize there are always limitations to sample libraries. I just think for the quality they are aiming for, the money they are making, and the amount of people they have hired to work for them there's no reason to hold back realistic critique. The goal is clear - they want to be as good as they possibly can be. Don't let marketing get in the way of knowing that there is always room for improvement.
> 
> It must be hard to be one of the leading sample developers!



Just to give you an answer to your last line: Yes, where the bigger money comes and company grows, there comes the question: Do you want to produce libraries as good as possible or do you want to sell the things to the mass market? At least for me they evolved in a direction that I find unattractive to support anymore. And not because I have a grudge with them or anybody of course not but just simply because many of the releases seem to me a bit redundant. I hope that I can say that without getting stoned. I don´t want to be VIC persona non grata, but for me that is very obvious.


----------



## Ric4001

ism said:


> As someone who really likes this library, and has posted a demo, I think that's a real think. And a manifestation of a very well established effect, that I've seen it in many, many contexts.
> 
> But this is just to say the on the internet ... there are group dynamics at play (shocking, I know).


I’m still on the fence on this library given all the faults demonstrated by Piet and others. Those examples really are disappointing. But your demo and in particular the legatos in it sound wonderful and are pushing me over to the buy side of the fence. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## sostenuto

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> ***********
> ........simply because many of the releases seem to me a bit redundant.
> I hope that I can say that without _getting stoned_.



_

You clearly have key perspectives beyond the pure 'music-related' aspects of this topic. Some things are universal and continue to play critical roles in company decisions._


I spent a long career with a top electronic firm growing out of the space-age period. It hit a major turning point when GROWTH became the driving force. Competitors were growing rapidly, and a large. divisive, internal split changed the company dramatically. Large segments which built profit and reputation were not seen as 'growing' fast enough and were turned into 'cash cows' until they failed and were discarded.

SFA is in a vastly different marketplace, but I see these forces as being very similar. How the issues get sorted will be instructional to follow.


----------



## erica-grace

SpitfireSupport said:


> Just to give this thread a categorical answer - no, these are not the same samples used in Herrmann
> 
> Ben



I didnt think so. Thank you for clearing that up!


----------



## Geoff Grace

Perhaps a little levity is in order:

Q. _What is British Drama Toolkit?_
A. Spitfire releases a library, and then drama ensues on the forums.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## anderslink

The Darris said:


> Let me clear this up because it's ridiculous that someone has made the claim in the first place. I can definitively tell you that these samples are not from, nor used in, the Bernard Herrmann library. How do I know? I have both and I've compared. I didn't compare because I felt the need to rebuke those conspiracies in this thread. I compared because they were recorded in the same room, same mics, and same engineer yet sound completely different to me. BHT is a great library for what it is. It's a very useful library. Those ensemble patches of mixed instruments aren't baked samples. They are the real deal. SStS is far from that. The sound and characteristic of the library is very different. I compared the two because one of them, SStS, is highly inferior to the other when you compare strings. Sure, SStS has more articulations and is regarded to be more versatile. I can personally get more music in different styles written with BHT's strings than I can with the current state of SStS.
> 
> -C


What is more useful about the strings included in BHT for you? I'm surprised by this.


----------



## CT

Yeah, I actually had the opposite thought, since I really like the articulations and overall flexibility of the BHT strings, but would rather have each section instead of the ensembles, and that's essentially what they've done here.


----------



## The Darris

anderslink said:


> What is more useful about the strings included in BHT for you? I'm surprised by this.


For me, it's how it functions and sounds. SStS isn't as nice sounding and as easy to program for reasons I've already posted about. Having the instrument combinations allows for a better mock up sound when compared between the two. The inconsistencies between the main sections and divisi make this library harder to write idiomatically for a string section. I'm not talking about section sizes, but really how drastically different the same articulations sound between the sections. Because BHT is more simplified, it's easier to work with and produce. I wish Spitfire had focussed on a more specific set of articulations, though limited, but did them for each section size. This way, you can easily switch back and forth. Trills for instance, they don't exist in the divisi sections. Those are basic articulations if you ask me. Anyway, that's my point I've been trying to make. 

-C


----------



## sostenuto

The Darris said:


> For me, it's how it functions and sounds. SStS isn't as nice sounding and as easy to program for reasons I've already posted about. *** Because BHT is more simplified, it's easier to work with and produce. -C



Good stuff_ THX !  .........… but makes is tuffer for economically challenged. 
BHCT @ $499. or SstS Professional @ Promo.


----------



## procreative

sostenuto said:


> Good stuff_ THX !  .........… but makes is tuffer for economically challenged.
> BHCT @ $499. or SstS Professional @ Promo.



All depends if you have the chops to orchestrate. If you are at the beginning of the journey or don't plan to write in a way that will be transcribed, then BHCT every time.

I totally stand corrected on my assumptions about the recordings being used for both. I was not trying to accuse at all, I just could not quite believe they would set up twice with same engineer, same studio, same setup to record a string section.

And I compared the Mic choices and thought they were similar(ish), oh well  me.


----------



## sostenuto

procreative said:


> All depends if you have the chops to orchestrate. If you are at the beginning of the journey or don't plan to write in a way that will be transcribed, then BHCT every time. *********
> And I compared the Mic choices and thought they were similar(ish), oh well  me.



Well you had the 'chops' to check and comment ! 

and NO ..... I do not have the chops to orchestrate. 
That does not mean not having the honest interest and commitment to get good tools and enjoy learning /experimenting. But it seems to get more perplexing to sort which are the 'good tools'. 
For immediate addition BHCT is comfortable, so is SCS. Have not missed a Thread or Post yet, and SStS remains enigmatic.


----------



## procreative

sostenuto said:


> Well you had the 'chops' to check and comment !
> 
> and NO ..... I do not have the chops to orchestrate.
> That does not mean not having the honest interest and commitment to get good tools and enjoy learning /experimenting. But it seems to get more perplexing to sort which are the 'good tools'.
> For immediate addition BHCT is comfortable, so is SCS. Have not missed a Thread or Post yet, and SStS remains enigmatic.



If I were choosing between SCS and SSTS, I would always choose SCS. But mainly because it has the sound I like and a really good selection of Legato options. Probably their largest library to date in terms of articulations.

By the way, not being "superior" with the chops statement. Simply trying to make you assess what suits you best.


----------



## jamwerks

Just because their marketing says "best legato", or whatever for that matter, they shouldn't be held to that. In no other industry is it as such. They provide walk-throughs are that's just about all we need imo. Let's just let their marketing say whatever they want and get over it.


----------



## StatKsn

After listening to re-peat's examples posted in the commercial annoucement thread and The Sound Board thread, frankly speaking, I think "rushed" is too nice a word for this library. It is just unfinished.

Even a library like Adagio Violins (which widely criticized for its inconsistency) is nowhere near that bad. In fact, none of libraries (including very old libraries like Philharmonik) I played with has so many performance inconsistencies in the same patch and myriad of badly edited attacks. I initially thought his criticism was a bit hyperbolic, but it was not.

I don't want to speak for anyone, but if I were him I would be asking for full refund or at the least expect a comprehensive fix. I can't understand why they released the library in such state. It is a brand suicide.


----------



## ism

StatKsn said:


> After listening to re-peat's examples posted in the commercial annoucement thread and The Sound Board thread, frankly speaking, I think "rushed" is too nice a word for this library. It is just unfinished.
> 
> Even a library like Adagio Violins (which widely criticized for its inconsistency) is nowhere near that bad.



I have adagio and SStS core. I find this a comparison ... unhelpful.

All respect to re-peat's critique of the inconsistencies in the short - I think its great that we live in a world where there are such hyper-connoisseurs of spicattos. But they sound great to me when you actually play them (in Core, I don't have the Pro). Although I suppose I aspire to have such refined tastes in spicatto someday that this level of inconsistency will bother me.

And the second example - yes those are truly horrible detache sounds. It totally fair to be disappointed to that the library doesn't have detache. But to play detache with a *non-detached* patch and then savage the library for its detache ... well it reminds me of the way that solo strings was savaged because the *non-legato* articulations had terrible legato transitions . I have no problem with people savaging a library for its faults. But I just don't think that this style of criticism is particularly fair or helpful to the community in general.

Not to dismiss re-peat, or anyone else's issues here. But I think that jumping from "no detache patch" to "horrible pseudo detaches" to "worse the Adagio" is a bit of a leap and ... unhelpful, in the sense that its a bit of a classic internet information cascade.

(Also, I guess you've kind go hit a nerve with Adagio, which is a library that, compared to it's marketing, deserves to be savaged at least a little bit)


----------



## StatKsn

To be fair for both Adagio and SStS, I mentioned Adagio Violins because I think it was one of the first libraries that met a harsh criticism because of inconsistencies rather than the timbre itself etc. (later day Adagio got a full overhaul, v1.1 which completely replaced the sample pool, and then v1.5. Both fixed many problems). I just want to state that I have no problem using Adagio Violins v1.5.

But I have never seen the level of inconsistency re-peat has demonstrated, like the same sustains patch going from marcato to detache to soft attack bowing to "normal" sustain randomly, with some sample start cut out abruptly. It doesn't sound like the patch is finished at all, and legato patches were equally badly edited.


----------



## morphling

After working with this library the whole week Spitfire Audio have pretty much completely lost me as a customer for the future. This is the second library they released that's been a *major disappointment *to me this year (first being the Hans Zimmer Strings). After this I just can't see myself buying anything from them in the future anymore because of their no resell policy. I've literally spent over a 1000$ on libraries I don't see myself using. It's incredibly disappointing to say the least as this was a very heavy investment for me. Especially after Chamber Strings which is based on samples recorded years ago now but still sounds much better then this.


----------



## erica-grace

morphling said:


> After working with this library the whole week Spitfire Audio have pretty much completely lost me as a customer for the future. This is the second library they released that's been a *major disappointment *to me this year (first being the Hans Zimmer Strings). After this I just can't see myself buying anything from them in the future anymore because of their no resell policy. I've literally spent over a 1000$ on libraries I don't see myself using. It's incredibly disappointing to say the least as this was a very heavy investment for me. Especially after Chamber Strings which is based on samples recorded years ago now but still sounds much better then this.



This is exactly why sample library developers need, as I have said at an earlier date, to offer a small "try before you buy" patch or two with limited range. Just for people to get a feel for the library.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

morphling said:


> After working with this library the whole week Spitfire Audio have pretty much completely lost me as a customer for the future. This is the second library they released that's been a *major disappointment *to me this year (first being the Hans Zimmer Strings). After this I just can't see myself buying anything from them in the future anymore because of their no resell policy. I've literally spent over a 1000$ on libraries I don't see myself using. It's incredibly disappointing to say the least as this was a very heavy investment for me. Especially after Chamber Strings which is based on samples recorded years ago now but still sounds much better then this.



I am sorry to hear that. So did you experienced similiar problems like Piet mentioned? Or what is the dissapointment for you?


erica-grace said:


> This is exactly why sample library developers need, as I have said at an earlier date, to offer a small "try before you buy" patch or two with limited range. Just for people to get a feel for the library.



Imo they should allow a refund in such cases. I mean honestly, they sell such sh..library and the user is then screwed because of their policy. This is just not good..


----------



## re-peat

ism said:


> But to play detache with a *non-detached* patch and then savage the library for its detache ... (...) I have no problem with people savaging a library for its faults. But I just don't think that this style of criticism is particularly fair or helpful to the community in general.


You appear to have failed to understand the point of my excercise with the Violins 4B Longs completely, Ism. The point was not to illustrate how bad the detachées are and then using an non-detaché articulation to do it with — that would indeed be idiotic in the extreme and highly unfair to the developer — no, the point was (1) to show how much inconsistencies there are among the samples within one articulation and (2) to show how unsatisfactory the results are when you have to find solutions to make up for the lack of essential articulations. In other words: to draw some attention to the question: suppose you want or need to play a phrase that requires certain notes to be bowed detaché/martellé/portato, how do you do it? The problem (and 50% of the reason why I posted that example) becomes clear in the answer to that question: you can't.

_


----------



## morphling

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> I am sorry to hear that. So did you experienced similiar problems like Piet mentioned? Or what is the dissapointment for you?


Well there you have it. I hadn't read that post until now but that's very well written and I wish I had read it before I purchased this library.


----------



## Michael Stibor

This is a tough one. I was really looking forward to this library. BHCT sounds so good that it seemed like they read my mind when I thought to myself "_This sounds amazing! Now if only they could bottle this dry(ish) sound into individual strings, brass, and woodwinds libraries, also with smaller divisi sections_". But alas, that may not be the case.

On the one hand, the majority of the naysayers in this thread seem to be basing their opinions soley based on demos that to my ears sound decent (I mean at least they're not "epic" orchestra demos for once).

On the other hand, those that have actually purchased the program, and have eloquently communicated their reasonable complaints and disappointment with it have left me no choice but to wait until the dust settles on this one before deciding whether to purchase it or not.

Don't get me wrong, I indeed have my own reservations about this program. For example, I'm astounded that they did not include staccato samples, and once again chose to put a partial focus on the mostly useless flautando articulation. But no library is perfect. I mean, I have varying degrees of issues with every program I own (including BHCT) so I can look past some things provided that the strong points inspire me to write better music through a more efficient workflow.

EDITED to accommodate forum rules and mod request.


----------



## Loïc D

At this price tag, I wouldn’t expect a perfect all-rounder product, but the audio examples are dreadful and quite far from Spitfire standard.

The lack of staccato/marcato/détaché/lourré and the legato looks like a step backward.

Sadly, it was something one could sense with the demo/walkthru emphasizing the exotic artics.

Maybe its use is mostly found in those artics after all. Which would place SStS more as an extension pack...

Anyway, as I’m looking for a string library, I was really waiting for this one. Glad I kept my wallet shut.
Maybe an update will fix these issues...


----------



## givemenoughrope

I’m hoping there will be a sort of evo-ization/expansion of Sable/SCS. That’s why I keep scooping these evo libraries up. (And I’m realizing how many SF libraries I already own...yikes...)


----------



## gussunkri

givemenoughrope said:


> I’m hoping there will be a sort of evo-ization/expansion of Sable/SCS. That’s why I keep scooping these evo libraries up. (And I’m realizing how many SF libraries I already own...yikes...)


I thought Olafur Arnalds Chamber evolutions was that.


----------



## Gerbil

LowweeK said:


> Maybe its use is mostly found in those artics after all. Which would place SStS more as an extension pack...



That's how I saw it when I bought the basic version. Extended trills, con sord sul pont...things I don't already have. I haven't played around with the library much yet but for those sounds I've not much to gripe about as it's unlikely they'll spend much time exposed.

It is far from the finished article as a whole though. Some very clumsy editing here, there and everywhere. I have to say that a fair amount of very ropey playing is also in evidence, stuff that you'd wince at as a conductor or teacher. Most large-scale library projects suffer from this, probably because of sheer volume alone but, as plenty of members have said, it is pretty excessive here and suprising given Spitfire's reputation for quality and employing terrific musicians.

Hopefully a fair few of these problems will be ironed out after some re-recording and editing. An expansion including many more shorter articulations would be very welcome (and extended trills for the violas please).


----------



## givemenoughrope

gussunkri said:


> I thought Olafur Arnalds Chamber evolutions was that.


It’s in the ballpark for sure. But you know, could always more types of evos...a lot of gaps to fill in sampleland.


----------



## N.Caffrey

givemenoughrope said:


> It’s in the ballpark for sure. But you know, could always more types of evos...a lot of gaps to fill in sampleland.



My wish would be to have the same articulations but playable


----------



## star.keys

jamwerks said:


> Just because their marketing says "best legato", or whatever for that matter, they shouldn't be held to that. In no other industry is it as such. They provide walk-throughs are that's just about all we need imo. Let's just let their marketing say whatever they want and get over it.



I agree. I have stopped listening to their marketing after a recent purchase. They go extreme to an extent to an an analogy that if I'm running a business, one fine day I wear a 'composer hat' and start providing 'opinions' wearing user's shows. This will be a case study in marketing classes (for how to make self goal, or an art of falling the face)


----------



## sostenuto

Was hoping SStS Core would be solid _today_ add _ _but _ OA_Chamber Evos @ Promo now looks best (in this cost range).

Large purchases definitely waiting for BlkFri anyway.


----------



## Geoff Grace

star.keys said:


> I have stopped listening to their marketing after a recent purchase.


When I hear marketing from any source, it sounds to me like the teacher's voice in an old Peanuts cartoon:



Thankfully, my ears work much better when it comes to demos and walkthroughs. Reviews are helpful too.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## lucianogiacomozzi

Glad I read Piet's post in the Commercial thread - he's always brutally honest, and he has a point.


----------



## Geoff Grace

The http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/Vlns1-4B_LongsStart_ex1.mp3 (audio) http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/Vlns1-4B_LongsStart_ex2.mp3 (examples) @re-peat posted also highlight some of SStS's weaknesses well.

On the other hand, the example @Lee Blaske composed showcases some of the strengths of the library:



Lee Blaske said:


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



At this point, I'm grateful that I already have plenty of string libraries to keep me busy. I have no need to buy another for the time being.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## NoamL

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Just to give you an answer to your last line: Yes, where the bigger money comes and company grows, there comes the question: Do you want to produce libraries as good as possible or do you want to sell the things to the mass market? At least for me they evolved in a direction that I find unattractive to support anymore. And not because I have a grudge with them or anybody of course not but just simply because many of the releases seem to me a bit redundant. I hope that I can say that without getting stoned. I don´t want to be VIC persona non grata, but for me that is very obvious.



I completely see your point of view Alexander about the redundancy of "yet more Spitfire flautandos" but it really boils down to two different approaches to the relationship between virtual instruments and real instruments.

From one perspective *VIs exist to emulate recording sessions*. This perspective leads me to think of flautando or pizzicato, for instance, as playing techniques and musical instructions. The goal of collecting VIs is to get good ones that accurately represent how real players play, so that you can comprehensively write for VIs whatever you would want to write for a real orchestra, _and then stop buying libraries_. Once I have one library that plays pizzicato well (e.g. Mural), why would I ever get four or five more? At best, I might buy a few good string libraries in order to cover different ensemble sizes - chamber, studio, and symphonic. But I wouldn't buy new libraries just to get _every_ pizzicato or _every _flautando. That's a waste.

The other perspective sees *VIs as sound tools for scoring*. From this perspective, words like "flautando" and "sul pont" are not playing techniques, they are just usefully broad categories for types of sounds, similar to the keywords that help organize Omnisphere's presets. Each flautando, however, is a unique preset, just as every "synth pluck" is its own preset that sounds different, has a unique color and maybe has a unique emotional effect next to picture. You can almost always justify buying a new string library as long as it brings new colors of sounds, because fresh sounds are inspiring, and because going through a thousand and one synth plucks is sometimes necessary to find the one that exactly fits your project. And not just flautandos or other artsy longs; they also see every legato and sustain articulation as a different sound.

IMO the attitude of working composers (especially the ones who are too low budget for recording sessions, which now covers the vast majority of TV scoring I'm afraid) is much much closer to the 2nd attitude than the 1st.

I am in the 1st category, for instance I've been working on a project to make CSS and Mural work together for my "Holy Grail" string orchestra setup. A 2nd-philosophy composer would never even try this. They would rightly point out that even if I achieve what I'm trying to do, it will always sound like _one_ thing, that particular sound, good for some things perhaps but totally inflexible.

I think SFA have done a big gear change in the past few years, it started with the success of LABS Scary Strings and then the full price String EVOs library where they went in and recorded 48+ variations of evolving string longs. And people ate them up. That presaged a shift to the second philosophy. They'll keep on putting out new colors of strings as long as people buy. Individual articulations may be less deep sampled than certain competitors, but that's just so they can give you a really comprehensive "instrument synth" with all kinds of sound colors, while their competitors are "stuck" (from the 2nd point of view) bringing the same old boring standard articulations to the market again and again.

Just look at the libraries SF did on commission for Remote Control recently, specifically "Orchestral Swarm" and the HZS samples that were used on _Dunkirk_. It wasn't about sampling the best legato that nobody on the public market has yet. It was about creating soundscapes and depths that nobody has yet.


----------



## Vik

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Just to give you an answer to your last line: Yes, where the bigger money comes and company grows, there comes the question: Do you want to produce libraries as good as possible or do you want to sell the things to the mass market? At least for me they evolved in a direction that I find unattractive to support anymore.



First, I'd like to mention that I have a particular interest in SStS because I suggested in some thread last year that I'd like SF to produce a studio string package with divisi recorded in a drier location than SCS/SSS was recorded in. 

Regarding the quote above: I believe that SF both wants to produce as good libraries as possible, deliver stuff to the mass market to keep employees employed - and last but not least - produce libraries that they can use in their own productions, which also include art-by-accident projects like som of the evo stuff. I have no problem with any of that, and I don't even have a problem with the SStS flautandos which I in an earlier post claimed that (in many cases) sounded out of tune. This is a no-drama situation for me, and with all respect for frustrated SStS buyers, the discussion needs to be de-dramatized a little, because a) it's only a product, and b) just don't buy it if you don't need it. 

Regarding the refunds - that's a different story, and a complex thing to deal with - especially since at least in this case, a close listen to the demos would reveal some of stuff in SStS that has triggered negative reactions. The best suggestion I can come up with here is that companies ideally should allow users to buy one instrument at a time. Then they could buy eg the violins, and check out of this library is something they'd want to invest more money in.


----------



## Nao Gam

If you haven't noticed, there's a demo by Christian now up in both versions' pages


----------



## sostenuto

Strange ….. nothing here. USA Mtn time


----------



## muziksculp

How does _Orchestral Tools_* Berlin Strings *which is recorded in the Teledex Hall, and offers multiple mic options, compare to Spitfire Audio's *Studio Strings Pro *?

I would expect Berlin Strings to be able to offer what many were expecting Studio Strings Pro to deliver, but it didn't.

i.e. the Number of players of both libraries are quite similar, and using more close mic, and less of the other mics in Berlin Strings, it can sound quite intimate, and dry if needed.

Berlin Strings (8,6,5,5,4)
Studio Strings (8,6,6,6,4)

But the price of Berlin Strings is much higher compared to Studio Strings, you can even expand Berlin Strings with expansions to have more articulations, also Berlin Strings offers much more short articulations to work with, compared to just Spiccato in Studio Strings. I think the real issue here is the Price.

Berlin Strings : 840. Euros
Studio Strings Pro : $499. (Intro Price $399).

Your thoughts ?


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

muziksculp said:


> How does _Orchestral Tools_* Berlin Strings *which is recorded in the Teledex Hall, and offers multiple mic options, compare to Spitfire Audio's *Studio Strings Pro *?
> 
> I would expect Berlin Strings to be able to offer what many were expecting Studio Strings Pro to deliver, but it didn't.
> 
> i.e. the Number of players of both libraries are quite similar, and using more close mic, and less of the other mics in Berlin Strings, it can sound quite intimate, and dry if needed.
> 
> Berlin Strings (8,6,5,5,4)
> Studio Strings (8,6,6,6,4)
> 
> But the price of Berlin Strings is much higher compared to Studio Strings, you can even expand Berlin Strings with expansions to have more articulations, also Berlin Strings offers much more short articulations to work with, compared to just Spiccato in Studio Strings. I think the real issue here is the Price.
> 
> Berlin Strings : 840. Euros
> Studio Strings Pro : $499. (Intro Price $399).
> 
> Your thoughts ?


You get what you pay for


----------



## muziksculp

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> You get what you pay for



+1 

I agree


----------



## sostenuto

muziksculp said:


> How does _Orchestral Tools_* Berlin Strings *which is recorded in the Teledex Hall, and offers multiple mic options, compare to Spitfire Audio's *Studio Strings Pro *?
> I would expect Berlin Strings to be able to offer what many were expecting Studio Strings Pro to deliver, but it didn't.
> 
> i.e. the Number of players of both libraries are quite similar, and using more close mic, and less of the other mics in Berlin Strings, it can sound quite intimate, and dry if needed.
> 
> Berlin Strings (8,6,5,5,4)
> Studio Strings (8,6,6,6,4)
> But the price of Berlin Strings is much higher compared to Studio Strings, you can even expand Berlin Strings with expansions to have more articulations, also Berlin Strings offers much more short articulations to work with, compared to just Spiccato in Studio Strings. I think the real issue here is the Price.
> 
> Berlin Strings : 840. Euros
> Studio Strings Pro : $499. (Intro Price $399).
> Your thoughts ?



Over one year sorting this, and Berlin gains strength slowly yet steadily …… BUT _ when all Exp are factored in, plus Euro/usd xchg, Berlin is much higher. I have (2) 100 Euro Vouchers, and (1) 50 Euro.
Complete Berlin cost today is net _ $1,811. Factoring in SStS Pro cost, Berlin is still another $1,312. 

SF _ SSO remains my best option come BlkFri, unless SF rolls out a Thanksgiving turkey …. :emoji_turkey:


----------



## New Neighbor

muziksculp said:


> +1
> 
> I agree


I was wonder why there is little talk of Berlin Strings? I find that it can be used in finished professional orchestral cues and pop productions quite successfully. I've had sound stage engineers ask me whether my stems were a live hybrid or even completely real....You get plenty of the dry sound from the close mic and I prefer the overall sound to CSS (which seems to be everyone's fav on here). I guess people just don't like capsule??? Anyway, I would recommend it over spitfire, cinematic, 8dio, and LASS (a close second). So +2


----------



## muziksculp

New Neighbor said:


> I was wonder why there is little talk of Berlin Strings? I find that it can be used in finished professional orchestral cues and pop productions quite successfully. I've had sound stage engineers ask me whether my stems were a live hybrid or even completely real....You get plenty of the dry sound from the close mic and I prefer the overall sound to CSS (which seems to be everyone's fav on here). I guess people just don't like capsule??? Anyway, I would recommend it over spitfire, cinematic, 8dio, and LASS (a close second). So +2



imho. OT Berlin Strings, and Expansions are the Rolls Royce of Strings Libraries, they offer so much variety, quality, flexibility, not too wet, not too dry, not too big, not too small, and a beautiful timbre, but... at a high price, surely worth it for the serious music composer/producer.


----------



## bap_la_so_1

I think Berlin Strings' tone is to die for. However, it too suffers from inconsistency samples


----------



## New Neighbor

bap_la_so_1 said:


> I think Berlin Strings' tone is to die for. However, it too suffers from inconsistency samples


Which one's specifically? Just out of curiosity.


----------



## camelot

Well to me, the general tone of BS was always the Problem. I don't like it. And after buying Berlin Brass I also came to realize that I am not the biggest fan of Capsule either. It is the most extreme system hog from all libs I know and its praised flexibility options are barely more than what you can find in Spitfire libs and nothing compared to VIPro.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

camelot said:


> Well to me, the general tone of BS was always the Problem. I don't like it. And after buying Berlin Brass I also came to realize that I am not the biggest fan of Capsule either. It is the most extreme system hog from all libs I know and its praised flexibility options are barely more than what you can find in Spitfire libs and nothing compared to VIPro.


Ill agree nothing compares to VIPro (not even close) but to say the brass has barely more than what spitfire has is a bit silly. One thing I loathe about spitfire's main orchestral libraries is the inconsistencies and lack of articulations where as BB is the exact opposite + the muted brass is exceptional and robust.


----------



## Heledir

I mean, I _would _sell just 1 kidney to own an Orchestral Tools Berlin library, but I think I'd soon run out of organs.


----------



## StatKsn

I mean, I am still blown away with consistency and functionality of Hollywood Strings. It is one of a very few libraries that let you choose finger positioning too (the only letdown is artificial divisi). We do have meticulously crafted libraries like Berlin Strings, Sable and Cinematic Studio Strings now, but I wish there was Hollywood Chamber Strings!


----------



## jamwerks

Yeah imo HS & HB are some of the best libraries ever made. I wonder if reprogramming the crossfading for less phasing would be possible? If they could, and bring them to modern standards, I'd still use them.


----------



## muk

StatKsn said:


> but I wish there was Hollywood Chamber Strings!



A big +1 to that.


----------



## Michael Stibor

Heledir said:


> I mean, I _would _sell just 1 kidney to own an Orchestral Tools Berlin library, but I think I'd soon run out of organs.



Haha, I'm not at the selling body parts phase yet, but one of the things that holds me back from buying a Berlin strings _is_ the price.

Now I know it's considered one of the best libraries, and you get what you pay for etc. But is it really all that much better than say Cinematic Studio Strings which is very reasonably priced? Different yes, but better?

It seems like the same level of quality and attention to detail went into both and yet one is on the lower end (price wise) of string libraries, and one is on the higher end. Is there something I'm missing here?

Btw, I quoted your post, but I guess this is a general question.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

mikefrommontreal said:


> Now I know it's considered one of the best libraries, and you get what you pay for etc. But is it really all that much better than say Cinematic Studio Strings which is very reasonably priced? Different yes, but better?
> 
> It seems like the same level of quality and attention to detail went into both and yet one is on the lower end (price wise) of string libraries, and one is on the higher end. Is there something I'm missing here?



It's more than 4x the size of CSS. It comes with way more extended articulations and special patches like playable runs etc. Does that make it a better library? Depends who you ask I guess.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's more than 4x the size of CSS. It comes with way more extended articulations and special patches like playable runs etc. Does that make it a better library? Depends who you ask I guess.



I don´t think so (that it makes it better) :D


----------



## New Neighbor

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's more than 4x the size of CSS. It comes with way more extended articulations and special patches like playable runs etc. Does that make it a better library? Depends who you ask I guess.


And I do.... I can't get away with CSS alone. BS I can. There is a learning curve with bigger libraries and the more time you spend the bigger the divided paid. Of course there are libraries that are just soul sucking time sinks, but BS is not one of them. Each to his own! I wonder if the people commenting own both? Because I think it make a huge difference whether you've put the time in. Many times my first week with a library is totally a shit-show.


----------



## camelot

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> but to say the brass has barely more than what spitfire has is a bit silly


I was not talking about the sample content. I was referring to the bare player itself, as I was also comparing it to VIPro and not the available brass sample content from VSL.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

New Neighbor said:


> Because I think it make a huge difference whether you've put the time in. Many times my first week with a library is totally a shit-show.



On a side note: I think that the need of having to "put the time in" these things often is kind of presented as this big truism, but you never even really know what kind of a time this is supposed to be. I mean, how much time is really needed, or even reasonable, to get the hang of a sample library? It's not exactly high tech - or an art. It sounds quite overstated to me.


----------



## New Neighbor

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> On a side note: I think that the need of having to "put the time in" these things often is kind of presented as this big truism, but you never even really know what kind of a time this is supposed to be. I mean, how much time is really needed, or even reasonable, to get the hang of a sample library? It's not exactly high tech - or an art. It sounds quite overstated to me.


Fair enough.... I actually have a 5 day limit. If I can't being using it in a project it gets stored on a hard drive called "the graveyard." I'm embarrassed to admit how big that drive is


----------



## jbuhler

New Neighbor said:


> And I do.... I can't get away with CSS alone. BS I can. There is a learning curve with bigger libraries and the more time you spend the bigger the divided paid. Of course there are libraries that are just soul sucking time sinks, but BS is not one of them. Each to his own! I wonder if the people commenting own both? Because I think it make a huge difference whether you've put the time in. Many times my first week with a library is totally a shit-show.


I do find BS to be a time suck. Everything takes me about 50% longer to get where I want to. Maybe it's because the library doesn't respond to my workflow. Maybe I haven't spent enough hours with it. Hard to say, but for me it's among the most frustrating libraries I work with. Which is a shame, because it sounds great when I get it there.


----------



## star.keys

Berlin Strings is easily both, the most authentic sounding and playable library on the market today. I like SCS as well, it certainly has more depth and air than BST. However BST is something very, very special and authentic sounding library, except their first chairs expansion which I didn't find to be use able (or I haven't been able to learn it properly) . The price is high but I wish I had decided to stick to OT platform from day 1 and that way, I would have ended up spending far less than buying libraries from various developers taking a piecemeal approach.


----------



## Michael Antrum

If OT ever did a special on Berlin Strings, I'd be all over it like a rash, but they have said they won't do this. All I can hope for is that they do a close out deal on it when they inevitably update it, like they did with the Woodwinds.

I do love SCS though. A Lot.


----------



## sostenuto

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

This struck a major chord (pardon pun) for me with few days left for SStS Intro offer.
Can any other LASS Full Users add comment here on SAMPLE Talk ?
Do any others see SStS and LASS as true stablemates ??


----------



## Iskra

> I completely see your point of view Alexander about the redundancy of "yet more Spitfire flautandos" but it really boils down to two different approaches to the relationship between virtual instruments and real instruments.
> 
> From one perspective *VIs exist to emulate recording sessions*. This perspective leads me to think of flautando or pizzicato, for instance, as playing techniques and musical instructions. The goal of collecting VIs is to get good ones that accurately represent how real players play, so that you can comprehensively write for VIs whatever you would want to write for a real orchestra, _and then stop buying libraries_. Once I have one library that plays pizzicato well (e.g. Mural), why would I ever get four or five more? At best, I might buy a few good string libraries in order to cover different ensemble sizes - chamber, studio, and symphonic. But I wouldn't buy new libraries just to get _every_ pizzicato or _every _flautando. That's a waste.
> 
> The other perspective sees *VIs as sound tools for scoring*. From this perspective, words like "flautando" and "sul pont" are not playing techniques, they are just usefully broad categories for types of sounds, similar to the keywords that help organize Omnisphere's presets. Each flautando, however, is a unique preset, just as every "synth pluck" is its own preset that sounds different, has a unique color and maybe has a unique emotional effect next to picture. You can almost always justify buying a new string library as long as it brings new colors of sounds, because fresh sounds are inspiring, and because going through a thousand and one synth plucks is sometimes necessary to find the one that exactly fits your project. And not just flautandos or other artsy longs; they also see every legato and sustain articulation as a different sound.
> 
> IMO the attitude of working composers (especially the ones who are too low budget for recording sessions, which now covers the vast majority of TV scoring I'm afraid) is much much closer to the 2nd attitude than the 1st.
> 
> I am in the 1st category, for instance I've been working on a project to make CSS and Mural work together for my "Holy Grail" string orchestra setup. A 2nd-philosophy composer would never even try this. They would rightly point out that even if I achieve what I'm trying to do, it will always sound like _one_ thing, that particular sound, good for some things perhaps but totally inflexible.
> 
> I think SFA have done a big gear change in the past few years, it started with the success of LABS Scary Strings and then the full price String EVOs library where they went in and recorded 48+ variations of evolving string longs. And people ate them up. That presaged a shift to the second philosophy. They'll keep on putting out new colors of strings as long as people buy. Individual articulations may be less deep sampled than certain competitors, but that's just so they can give you a really comprehensive "instrument synth" with all kinds of sound colors, while their competitors are "stuck" (from the 2nd point of view) bringing the same old boring standard articulations to the market again and again.
> 
> Just look at the libraries SF did on commission for Remote Control recently, specifically "Orchestral Swarm" and the HZS samples that were used on _Dunkirk_. It wasn't about sampling the best legato that nobody on the public market has yet. It was about creating soundscapes and depths that nobody has yet.


This is probably the best post I have read in a few months @NoamL. Balanced and thoughtful.
Thanks for that.


----------



## paulwr

Thought this might be of interest on this thread as well about Spitfire updating the legato soon for the divisi sections, and more...



> Support statement I just got regarding Legato Portamento on the divisi groups and more...
> 
> I had a separate issue they are helping me with (my Behringer X-Touch Compact controllers machine code "touch" is getting through to Kontakt with this patch and turning off cc11 when I release my finger from the fader!)
> 
> Anyway, I also mentioned to them today how desperate I am to have Portamento on the divis groups, and asked about a possible upcoming expansion pack and I received this in reply:
> 
> _*"In regards to legato, we'll certainly be looking to update the legato soon, and we do have content recorded which we will be updating over time."*_
> 
> All in all, I feel this is positive news for all of us who like this library a lot but are frustrated by some things we feel are necessary make the library more regularly usable.


----------



## New Neighbor

paulwr said:


> Thought this might be of interest on this thread as well about Spitfire updating the legato soon for the divisi sections, and more...


As soon as the divisi gets the legato update, it's an automatic purchase for me. A no-brainer. Thanks for sharing that feedback


----------



## paulwr

New Neighbor said:


> As soon as the divisi gets the legato update, it's an automatic purchase for me. A no-brainer. Thanks for sharing that feedback


Keep in mind the discount available now. It really is worth the price as is and I trust them on the legato update, they've come through on things like this before. Eventually having all the articulations and hopefully some other improvements put should put this in the highest category.


----------



## JeffvR

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Ill agree nothing compares to VIPro (not even close) but to say the brass has barely more than what spitfire has is a bit silly. One thing I loathe about spitfire's main orchestral libraries is the inconsistencies and lack of articulations where as BB is the exact opposite + the muted brass is exceptional and robust.


Berlin Brass consistent? Haha...


----------



## kavinsky

JeffvR said:


> Berlin Brass consistent? Haha...


relatively to SSB - absolutely.


----------



## bap_la_so_1

How is the tone of this library? Is it as raw, woody and bitey as the Spitfire Chamber Strings?


----------



## Batrawi

bap_la_so_1 said:


> Is it as raw, woody and bitey as the Spitfire Chamber Strings?


 SCS is far from being raw/woody even with close mic! 
SStS is more comparable to something like LASS if not even more dry


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau

kavinsky said:


> relatively to SSB - absolutely.



The Berlin Brass "inconsistency" is something that comes back often on the forums. This library isn't without any flaws, but I'd like to say most of its users only complain about it because it had the potential to be a true masterpiece.

If only half of the libraries on the market could be as "inconsistent" as Berlin Brass, it would already be awesome.


----------



## paulwr

sostenuto said:


> Over on COMMERCIAL Thread, *@ paulwr* posted :
> "_ When I purchased this, it was meant to be an extension of my LASS library. But things like no legato portamento in the divisi... killing me. Still I've already used this library on a job with rave reviews from the producer, but I dearly hope we get the portamento slides on the divisi. Often doing string arrangements I need to go smaller sections. With LASS I get slides on all sections. I'm a bit taken aback. Still happy I purchased. _"
> 
> This struck a major chord (pardon pun) for me with few days left for SStS Intro offer.
> Can any other LASS Full Users add comment here on SAMPLE Talk ?
> Do any others see SStS and LASS as true stablemates ??



For a very exacting producer doing a sort of James Bond theme style song for his client, I did the initial strings in a very dynamic emotional way and somewhat intimate way (cc control-wise) with LASS. Then he asked me to duplicate the parts with something bigger for him to blend in more as the song progressed and built in volume and emotion. So I bought and used SF Studio Strings. Additionally, this was all being blended with live violins and violas! (no celli or bass on this one) It worked to perfection, he works with strings a lot and said often he could not tell the difference of live v/s mocked up but they thickened up just like he was after.


----------



## sostenuto

Really helps me push aside '_either /or_' tendencies, and open more to how these can work together. 
THX !


----------



## germancomponist

I would like to get a NFR and produce a score with it, because I think this lib isn't as bad .... .


----------



## The Darris

Okay, I've spent more time with this library and I've submitted quite a few bugs/issues with Support. I take issue with a couple of things, the first being the published statistic that this library features "Up to 4-8 Dynamic Layers (Shorts)" This is totally inaccurate. By my count, go through all the patches in the Professional version, the most I can find is 4. The average being 3 and the least being 1. The second issue is inconsistencies. 

The idea of having divisi sections, per their user manual: _"When writing for strings it is always worth remembering that you really only have 5 ‘voices’ to play with. If you write any more harmonic lines the sections are going to have to divide up or play ‘divisi’. The result of this is a smaller, thinner, and quieter harmonic line. This is why sampled strimgs sound so massive; ‘hey listen to me I’m playing a different note with each of my fingers it sounds HUGE!’. Well ofcourse it does, you’re likely to be producing the noise a band of 200 players would make! But don’t be surprised if on the day it doesn’t sound as rich and fat. Which is why we always recommend getting samples to do what they do well (ie hold a high tremolando ad nauseum, or play complex pizzicato passages) so you can use your live forces for stuff that matters, like big sweeping melodies." 
_
Half of this makes sense to me, traditional orchestration wise, but the last half basically says to use these in a way that let's you use your live players for the real thing? Are they trying not to sell the idea of divisi sections here? Anyway, let's focus on the divisi sections. When comparing each section (not including the largest player count), the main patches (8,6,6,6,4) are the standard. From here, we break out into our smaller divisi sections. The purpose, as I see it, is if you are using a lead line melody in the 8 player Violins patch but want to split out to harmony, you'll want to split those into the smaller sections to keep proper voicing. This is a purist mindset which I feel isn't Spitfire's intentions with this library. Be that as it may, the divisi sections lack cohesion between the same articulations. Such as the Violins 4A Spiccato only has 3 dynamic layers whereas the Violins 4B Spiccato has 4! When trying to layer these together, you get a pretty unbalanced dynamic range that is very noticeable between the two. This approach of having different dynamic layers isn't consistent either, for instance, the Celli divisi section Spiccatos have 3 layers each making them more consistent but with less definition, especially compared to their 4 layer parent patch of the 6 Player Celli section. This whole approach, again, great on paper but it's a mess at the moment. 

Finally, some other bugs that I've reported were little annoyances like the Spiccato CS patches in many of the patches were switched with the regular Spiccato patches (I'm pretty sure this is in the main patches as well, at least in the Stereo Mixes). This might be why @re-peat was complaining about certain timbres of this library not sounding appealing. It screws with your brain to load a normale Spiccato patch and hear a Con Sordino Spiccato instead. Personally, I'm not a fan of the Con Sord sound of this library in this room. At least not out of the box. With some EQ and reverb, I'm sure it could sound great. 

Spitfire support assured me that a lot of my issues I've sent them will be fixed in an update but did not specify which issues or when this update would be coming. They've been very patient with my concerns and frustrations in using this library so far. Had I actually bought it, I'd probably be a lot more frustrated but at least I'm trying to help get a fix to these issues. If you own the library, please send support tickets for all the problems you find. I know that it sucks to deal with release version in a state that this one is in, but the only way things can get better is to report them. Spitfire has always been very good about listening to my critiques and fixing issues I raise with them. Just be civil and thorough with your reports. 

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## erica-grace

whitewasteland said:


> If only half of the libraries on the market could be as "inconsistent" as Berlin Brass, it would already be awesome.



Maybe from this day forward, libraries should be marketed as inconsistent.


----------



## prodigalson

I orchestrated a little phrase from a piece i'm working on to see how SStS and the Bernard Herrman libraries work together. Unsurprisingly I think they work quite well. As much as I have a few gripes with SStS, there's a lot to like and it's def nice to have a detailed string library to go along with BHCT.

All Winds and Brass and Pitched Percussion from BHCT. No external reverb.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/ssts-bhct-test-mp3.15293/][/AUDIOPLUS]


----------



## Casiquire

NoamL said:


> I completely see your point of view Alexander about the redundancy of "yet more Spitfire flautandos" but it really boils down to two different approaches to the relationship between virtual instruments and real instruments.
> 
> From one perspective *VIs exist to emulate recording sessions*. This perspective leads me to think of flautando or pizzicato, for instance, as playing techniques and musical instructions. The goal of collecting VIs is to get good ones that accurately represent how real players play, so that you can comprehensively write for VIs whatever you would want to write for a real orchestra, _and then stop buying libraries_. Once I have one library that plays pizzicato well (e.g. Mural), why would I ever get four or five more? At best, I might buy a few good string libraries in order to cover different ensemble sizes - chamber, studio, and symphonic. But I wouldn't buy new libraries just to get _every_ pizzicato or _every _flautando. That's a waste.
> 
> The other perspective sees *VIs as sound tools for scoring*. From this perspective, words like "flautando" and "sul pont" are not playing techniques, they are just usefully broad categories for types of sounds, similar to the keywords that help organize Omnisphere's presets. Each flautando, however, is a unique preset, just as every "synth pluck" is its own preset that sounds different, has a unique color and maybe has a unique emotional effect next to picture. You can almost always justify buying a new string library as long as it brings new colors of sounds, because fresh sounds are inspiring, and because going through a thousand and one synth plucks is sometimes necessary to find the one that exactly fits your project. And not just flautandos or other artsy longs; they also see every legato and sustain articulation as a different sound.
> 
> IMO the attitude of working composers (especially the ones who are too low budget for recording sessions, which now covers the vast majority of TV scoring I'm afraid) is much much closer to the 2nd attitude than the 1st.
> 
> I am in the 1st category, for instance I've been working on a project to make CSS and Mural work together for my "Holy Grail" string orchestra setup. A 2nd-philosophy composer would never even try this. They would rightly point out that even if I achieve what I'm trying to do, it will always sound like _one_ thing, that particular sound, good for some things perhaps but totally inflexible.
> 
> I think SFA have done a big gear change in the past few years, it started with the success of LABS Scary Strings and then the full price String EVOs library where they went in and recorded 48+ variations of evolving string longs. And people ate them up. That presaged a shift to the second philosophy. They'll keep on putting out new colors of strings as long as people buy. Individual articulations may be less deep sampled than certain competitors, but that's just so they can give you a really comprehensive "instrument synth" with all kinds of sound colors, while their competitors are "stuck" (from the 2nd point of view) bringing the same old boring standard articulations to the market again and again.
> 
> Just look at the libraries SF did on commission for Remote Control recently, specifically "Orchestral Swarm" and the HZS samples that were used on _Dunkirk_. It wasn't about sampling the best legato that nobody on the public market has yet. It was about creating soundscapes and depths that nobody has yet.



Is there a Post of the Year award here?


----------



## Vik

Casiquire said:


> Is there a Post of the Year award here?


Yes, that's a good and important post. 
I'd also like to add that even when emulating an orchestra, it would be great if SF and others would go a bit further with their flautandos, because flautandos can also have different attacks, they can be long or (various variations of) short, it could be interesting to have presets where flautandos could have several dynamic layers/come in presets where they are combined with other articulations) and so on.

Of course - all this may be totally uninteresting for users who never need flautandos, but that's true for a lot of artics and libraries. And while flautandos and similar articulations may be used more often now than they used to be, I don't think we're even remotely close to see 'flautando overuse' the way we have seen overuse of spiacctos+taikos+widescreen chords for a decade or two


----------



## Casiquire

Vik said:


> Yes, that's a good and important post.
> I'd also like to add that even when emulating an orchestra, it would be great if SF and others would go a bit further with their flautandos, because flautandos can also have different attacks, they can be long or (various variations of) short, it could be interesting to have presets where flautandos could have several dynamic layers/come in presets where they are combined with other articulations) and so on.
> 
> Of course - all this may be totally uninteresting for users who never need flautandos, but that's true for a lot of artics and libraries. And while flautandos and similar articulations may be used more often now than they used to be, I don't think we're even remotely close to see 'flautando overuse' the way we have seen overuse of spiacctos+taikos+widescreen chords for a decade or two



You're absolutely right, there's an intense focus on standard playing but a few techniques are not explored enough. Flautando, sul tasto, sul pont, and artificial harmonics should all be sampled with some kind of legato at some point, though I'll take a good scripted legato. Certain devs, LASS comes to mind, have scriped some of these (like emulated sul pont in LASS or emulated sordino in Hollywood Strings) and that's honestly good enough for me as long as it sounds real, but so many playing styles are nearly unexplored territory.


----------



## Vik

Casiquire said:


> Flautando, sul tasto, sul pont, and artificial harmonics should all be sampled with some kind of legato at some point, though I'll take a good scripted legato.


Yes, or... more libraries should have that. Spitfire already has some of that eg. for their Chamber Strings. Orchestral Tools also have various flautando artics in one (or both?) of their Inspire libraries.


----------



## procreative

Vik said:


> Yes, or... more libraries should have that. Spitfire already has some of that eg. for their Chamber Strings. Orchestral Tools also have various flautando artics in one (or both?) of their Inspire libraries.



Which is why I think SCS is the pinnacle still for Spitfire as they offer the most Legato variations of all their titles and this is what they should have done for their Solo Strings reboot, not to mention that other recent "Definitive" string library.


----------



## Casiquire

That was sort of my point, that more libraries should have it


----------



## ism

Of course, scs was developed over years in 3 or 4 instalments , costing quite a bit more than the current library that combined them. I really hope solo strings will expand to a similar depth, but expecting them to get this done all at once is a little ... optimistic.

Flautando legato in the solo strings is something I’d buy instantly.


----------



## Nando Florestan

Could someone post some video or audio showing the limits of fast legato in Spitfire Studio Strings? Also, when you play staccato on the legato patch, what does it sound like? Finally, is the vibrato just on or off, or is it gradual?


----------



## Zoot_Rollo

if Studio Strings Pro (downloading now) is anything like Studio Brass Pro, $299 each - i'll be happy with the purchase.

Brass Pro layers beautifully with VSL Brass and HWBD.

Perfect? Hardly.

But for me, blending libraries has become a standard workflow.

No doubt there are inconsistencies with these sub-$500 libraries.

I just bought London Contemporary Orchestra and Alternative Solo Strings for that very reason.

Suits my taste.

I could have easily bought Chamber, but, ehhh... not the direction i'm going.

I mentioned this in another thread, this little experiment has shown me how SOLID the VSL and HWO libraries are.

Gorgeous stuff - great platforms for sculpting.

More when i finally get SStS and BHCT downloaded and installed - buggers to set up.


----------

