# Layering libraries and VST expression maps



## wuubb (Sep 22, 2017)

I'm at the point now where I have the hardware resources to start layering libraries (mostly strings, but in some cases I might want to do it with other sections), but the one thing I can't quite wrap my head around is how to do that in the context of Cubase and the VST expression maps that I currently use.

For example, two string libraries that I use frequently are CSS and Spitfire Symphonic Strings. I can make CSS keyswitches line up with spitfire, but what if I want to layer another library that has a different set of articulations mapped differently? Do you simply not use certain libraries or leave gaps in the keyswitches if one library doesn't have it?

Since from what I understand VST expression maps are specific to the virtual instrument, I can't have multiple expression maps running on one track in Cubase controlling different instruments in Kontakt right?

I'm trying to avoid having to have tons of kontakt instances and having to load the single articulation patches if possible


----------



## wuubb (Sep 22, 2017)

Also, I just realized that since some libraries like cinestrings have certain articulation groups as separate instruments vs Berlin for instance where you can customize it, how do you work around that?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Sep 23, 2017)

I wouldn't recommend layering instruments on a single track. Even if you sort out articulation switching you still have the bigger problem of CC data - each library responds so wildly differently to MIDI CC you are guaranteed to need different CC1 / 11 curves for each instrument if you want to blend them well..


----------



## wuubb (Sep 23, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> I wouldn't recommend layering instruments on a single track. Even if you sort out articulation switching you still have the bigger problem of CC data - each library responds so wildly differently to MIDI CC you are guaranteed to need different CC1 / 11 curves for each instrument if you want to blend them well..


So am I correct in assuming that if I want to layer 2 string sounds (like spitfire and CSS) I would need 2 instrument tracks with two separate instances of kontakt, and then combine them by bussing both of those to an "all encompassing" Violin 1 track? 

Seems messy, that's why I wanted to ask how other people do it to see if there's a better way


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Sep 23, 2017)

Yes, that's what most people do. Separate instrument tracks - separate gain control, automation, insert plugins, MIDI CC data, and separate MIDI note velocity. You just really want to be able to control those things separately. What if one of the instruments needs a bit of EQ for example? What if velocity XX plays as mf in library A, but as ff in library B?

As for combining the layers - up to you to decide when to do that, but no need to have one group track per instrument, you could easily combine entire orchestral sections or why not even go straight into a mix bus? Depends a bit on how you like to mix of course..


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Sep 24, 2017)

wuubb said:


> Seems messy, that's why I wanted to ask how other people do it to see if there's a better way


Welcome to the world of virtual instruments . A better way is not found yet as far as I know.


----------



## gpax (Sep 24, 2017)

wuubb said:


> So am I correct in assuming that if I want to layer 2 string sounds (like spitfire and CSS) I would need 2 instrument tracks with two separate instances of kontakt, and then combine them by bussing both of those to an "all encompassing" Violin 1 track?
> 
> Seems messy, that's why I wanted to ask how other people do it to see if there's a better way


Messy is an interesting way to put it.

If I may presume to offer some thoughts - I think you are perhaps getting some of the point of how such a nuanced workflow works, or you would not be asking the question of how two distinct voices and sets of characters, i.e., two or more libraries when blended or layered, produce a unique and/or more dynamic voice than one library by itself.

Clearly you are discovering disparate libraries which you feel can complement each other this way. But consider the recipe as needing more than reaching for corn starch as a thickening agent.

The other side of this equation is _not_ to have complete homogeneity; the mapping and controlling of each respective library (in their own track), effectively functions like sections. Or that’s how I’ve always visualized them. You want that difference (and even tedium) as it lends itself to more natural and human-sounding variance that each brings to the equation. Ingredients, if you will.

There are all kinds of other, potential scenarios which come to mind, like a con sordino patch from one library, with the straightforward patch from another, and so forth, where my ear likes such combos, and where it is absolutely necessary to harness each on their own terms to get a desired performance in tandem. Messy? Perhaps, though I don’t think most see it that way. Tedious at first, but second-nature once you are in it for weeks, months and years.

And other, different libraries, and combos, you might also discover, will lend themselves to different jobs and tasks (and character) at times.

In theory, it would be great if every developer adhered to universal key switches, I suppose, but even then, I would not want each to be dynamically identical, as it is these different approaches which, when combined, create unique character and tonality once you know them better.


----------



## wuubb (Sep 24, 2017)

To be honest, I find the ingredients analogy very interesting, and can't say that I've ever thought of it that way myself, so for that, thank you.


----------

