# 14 strings libraries compared



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Hey all. I took a bit of time to make a comparison between 14 strings libs. Maybe it will be useful for your next purchase (or fuel your Friday procrastination):


----------



## Garry (May 31, 2019)

When these comparisons are done well, in the hands of skilled users like you, it’s incredibly helpful. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## rottoy (May 31, 2019)

I must say Iconica came off surprisingly well in this comparison.

My favourites:
1: CSS
2: Hollywood Strings
3: Soaring Strings / Adventure Strings


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Garry said:


> When these comparisons are done well, in the hands of skilled users like you, it’s incredibly helpful. Thank you for sharing.



Thanks a lot! But there is not much skills involved there :-p I mostly used them out of the box and programmed the CCs and velocities in a generic way (not played but drawn) so that the comparison makes sense.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 31, 2019)

They all sound really good...but I notice EWHS (even the Gold version) is easily as good as any of the others imo. Not bad for an oooooold library. Would have been especially interesting had you thrown the Diamond edition in.

Me:

1. EWHSD
2. Hein Ensemble and Solo
3. BHCT (especially the 1/2 section)


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

rottoy said:


> I must say Iconica came off surprisingly well in this comparison.
> 
> My favourites:
> 1: CSS
> ...



The thing is with Iconica is that it is a well underrated library. It's not only strings but a full orchestra! Produced by OT for Steinberg. If I could keep only one lib on my disk, this would be it. It's versatile and the sound is fantastic.

Now... onward to make the same with brass libraries (and yes, Iconica is also featured in it!)


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> They all sound really good...but I notice EWHS (even the Gold version) is easily as good as any of the others imo. Not bad for an oooooold library. Would have been especially interesting had you thrown the Diamond edition in.
> 
> Me:
> 
> ...



Haha, I don't have any of those... I think that for the time being, I'm quite set with strings libraries :-D I didn't even use all of them, had to stop at some point and get back to work!


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> Haha, I don't have any of those... I think that for the time being, I'm quite set with strings libraries :-D I didn't even use all of them, had to stop at some point and get back to work!



I think for the time being you're more than set with all those lol! However, allow me to declare the amazingness of Hollywood Stgs Diamond, it is a totally iconic library for good reason imo.

And GREAT WORK! Hope there will be more from you in general.


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I think for the time being you're more than set with all those lol! However, allow me to declare the amazingness of Hollywood Stgs Diamond, it is a totally iconic library for good reason imo.
> 
> And GREAT WORK! Hope there will be more from you in general.



I'm a Spitfire fan myself, though :-p Having all my libs answering to the same CCs with similar programming across the board is a huge time saver. And yes, I'll do the same for brass, woodwinds, pianos and percussion libraries!


----------



## rottoy (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> The thing is with Iconica is that it is a well underrated library. It's not only strings but a full orchestra! Produced by OT for Steinberg. If I could keep only one lib on my disk, this would be it. It's versatile and the sound is fantastic.
> 
> Now... onward to make the same with brass libraries (and yes, Iconica is also featured in it!)


I was surprised because I was never wowed by any official demos of Iconica.


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> I'm a Spitfire fan myself, though :-p Having all my libs answering to the same CCs with similar programming across the board is a huge time saver. And yes, I'll do the same for brass, woodwinds, pianos and percussion libraries!



Super duper!


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> Hey all. I took a bit of time to make a comparison between 14 strings libs. Maybe it will be useful for your next purchase (or fuel your Friday procrastination):



This is awesome Akarin! I remember you had mentioned a preference for Century Strings some time ago and it got me curious. With this video I think I can see what you meant.

I really like how Spitfire Symphonic Strings sound in this example. For me, they have a great mix of fullness and room, while still feeling present. (I'm commenting strictly on tone, BTW, and leaving aside legato scripting for the moment.)


----------



## I like music (May 31, 2019)

Nice. One thing this taught me was that I need to stop worrying about all the different libraries I don't have, and use the ones I do. They all sound pretty good. We're living in a great age, where you can approximate the sound of an orchestra. Alright, one day we'll approximate it better, but for now, this was good because a) it was well done and b) reminds me now that I have more SSD space, I need to get HWS back in the template (had kicked it out for CSS when I could only have one library)


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> This is awesome Akarin! I remember you had mentioned a preference for Century Strings some time ago and it got me curious. With this video I think I can see what you meant.
> 
> I really like how Spitfire Symphonic Strings sound in this example. For me, they have a great mix of fullness and room, while still feeling present. (I'm commenting strictly on tone, BTW, and leaving aside legato scripting for the moment.)



Ha! You have a great memory (or I have been professing my love of Century Strings a bit too much!) Century is certainly not adapted for everything but for my workflow and my less than stellar composing skills, it just works.

SSS is a beast! I love it and am eagerly awaiting the pro version with the re-introduction of the stereo mixes. I also didn't spend much time on specific programming for each lib as I wanted to really have an out of the box sound, rather than playing on the strengths of each library (that's what official demos are for!)


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

I like music said:


> Nice. One thing this taught me was that I need to stop worrying about all the different libraries I don't have, and use the ones I do. They all sound pretty good. We're living in a great age, where you can approximate the sound of an orchestra. Alright, one day we'll approximate it better, but for now, this was good because a) it was well done and b) reminds me now that I have more SSD space, I need to get HWS back in the template (had kicked it out for CSS when I could only have one library)



All these libs are fantastic. The main differentiator is how much you know them. That's why these days, I only focus on a small subset to really learn them through and through.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 31, 2019)

Thanks for sharing this. I realize they were generically programmed, but at least you can hear how they sound. My only gripe with these types of comparisons is that, because they aren't each programmed as their own track (featuring their own strengths as a library), they end up sounding "synthy". IMO, none of these sounded like a real orchestra (despite the excellent composition), which in turn can form the wrong opinions to those that may not understand the concept behind these tests. If I were in the market for a string library, and this was my first introduction, I would keep looking. Many of these libraries sound incredible when sequenced properly.

I should also add that it's not really an out-of-the-box comparison, there was the addition of reverbs on the dry libraries, compression, and eq.


----------



## Denkii (May 31, 2019)

I really like the sound of the first part played by the spitfire studio strings (not the second one though). Having Cinematic Studio Strings and jumped on the wagon and got spitfire studio strings lately, I feel pretty well set.


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Thanks for sharing this. I realize they were generically programmed, but at least you can hear how they sound. My only gripe with these types of comparisons is that, because they aren't each programmed as their own track (featuring their own strengths as a library), they end up sounding "synthy". IMO, none of these sounded like a real orchestra (despite the excellent composition), which in turn can form the wrong opinions to those that may not understand the concept behind these tests. If I were in the market for a string library, and this was my first introduction, I would keep looking. Many of these libraries sound incredible when sequenced properly.



Agreed. I wanted to go for an out of the box sound (although the CC performance was tweaked for each) rather than a fully processed sound (vendors demos are really good for that.)


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

Denkii said:


> I really like the sound of the first part played by the spitfire studio strings (not the second one though). Having Cinematic Studio Strings and jumped on the wagon and got spitfire studio strings lately, I feel pretty well set.



Layer them! It's pure eargasm!


----------



## robgb (May 31, 2019)

Nice comparison. I have to say you really can't go wrong with any of the libraries (with the possible exception of NOVO, which doesn't seem cut out for this type of thing). My favorite is the SStS and Albion One combo. I use that combo myself and it's quite beautiful. I also prefer SStS alone—and I say that not because I own it, but because it sounds the best to my ears, especially on the faster passage. SCS sounds very nice, too, but so do the 8Dio entries. CSS was a bit of a disappointment for me, however, but still very nice.

Generally speaking, they're all good.


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

robgb said:


> Nice comparison. I have to say you really can't go wrong with any of the libraries (with the possible exception of NOVO, which doesn't seem cut out for this type of thing). My favorite is the SStS and Albion One combo. I use that combo myself and it's quite beautiful. I also prefer SStS alone—and I say that not because I own it, but because it sounds the best to my ears, especially on the faster passage. SCS sounds very nice, too, but so do the 8Dio entries. CSS was a bit of a disappointment for me, however, but still very nice.
> 
> Generally speaking, they're all good.



Novo is a very different beast and I love it. One of my best purchases. The strings designer is awesome. 

All recent libraries are truly excellent. We are so lucky to live in this day and age.


----------



## skythemusic (May 31, 2019)

Thanks for the comparison. To my ears SStS sounds easily the best. It’s the only one where the connection between low end and high sounds right and it’s more emotionally convincing. 

I’m finally downloading it right now having bought it a little while back.


----------



## muziksculp (May 31, 2019)

@Akarin,

Thanks for the Strings comparison video.

I like the last example, the combo of Spitfire Studio Strings + Albion ONE.

Layering various String libraries can produce some great results. Maybe you can expand on this detail in the future with some examples of layered string libraries in various combinations.

I didn't purchase Spitfire's Studio Strings, but might add the standard version in the future.

I'm looking forward to the release of Audiobro's LASS3, and 8Dio's Century Strings version 2, I also have a feeling we will also see some new Strings libraries released in the second half of this year.

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## Parsifal666 (May 31, 2019)

skythemusic said:


> Thanks for the comparison. To my ears SStS sounds easily the best. It’s the only one where the connection between low end and high sounds right and it’s more emotionally convincing.
> 
> I’m finally downloading it right now having bought it a lityle while back.


I must admit that despite already owning great libraries I'm more interested than ever in that one.


----------



## Akarin (May 31, 2019)

muziksculp said:


> @Akarin,
> 
> Thanks for the Strings comparison video.
> 
> ...



I'm so ready for Century 2.0... but I don't know if this was cancelled. The SStS in the demo is the standard lib with the tree mic only, by the way.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> I'm so ready for Century 2.0... but I don't know if this was cancelled. The SStS in the demo is the standard lib with the tree mic only, by the way.



SStS was probably the best $149 I ever spent on a library, the woodwinds are excellent too.


----------



## muziksculp (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> I'm so ready for Century 2.0... but I don't know if this was cancelled. The SStS in the demo is the standard lib with the tree mic only, by the way.



I don't think Century 2.0 was cancelled, I think it will be released in the near future. I'm really curious to know what it will offer in terms of improvements compared to the current version.


----------



## goalie composer (May 31, 2019)

Akarin said:


> I'm so ready for Century 2.0... but I don't know if this was cancelled. The SStS in the demo is the standard lib with the tree mic only, by the way.


I wrote their support today and suggested they include some ensemble patches on their next release. The support person's response was less than encouraging: he stated that such patches would be too big and heavy on the computer to handle. I responded by citing various other sample libraries that do include ensemble patches to which I received no response.... Hopefully this was only a lapse in judgement made by the support staff at 8dio and not indicative of their 2.0 release plans. I really like the library and appreciate how consistent it seems to be across its articulations however having ensemble patches for sketching seems to be a bit of a no brainer for inclusion in their update. I assume I'm not alone with those thoughts


----------



## Denkii (Jun 2, 2019)

Akarin said:


> Layer them! It's pure eargasm!


Layer CSS and SCS you mean?
I heard very mixed opinions about that combo but haven't tried it yet. Is it a lot of pain to make it work together CC and notestart/transition wise?


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jun 2, 2019)

Akarin said:


> Ha! You have a great memory (or I have been professing my love of Century Strings a bit too much!) Century is certainly not adapted for everything but for my workflow and my less than stellar composing skills, it just works.
> 
> SSS is a beast! I love it and am eagerly awaiting the pro version with the re-introduction of the stereo mixes. I also didn't spend much time on specific programming for each lib as I wanted to really have an out of the box sound, rather than playing on the strengths of each library (that's what official demos are for!)


I recommend people listen to this on Youtube, because Akarin provided start times for each library.

This test is definitely in my bookmarks, and I suspect it would be a good one to point people toward when they ask "What string library should I buy?", as someone seems to do at least once every week. _Although people need to take note of the caveats in the beginning, and be aware of the limitations of the test, as with any test._

@Akarin -- If I'm listening for panning and spacialization, would you mind sharing which ones you did some work on? If I recall, Century Strings is center panned out of the box, right?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 2, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> I suspect it would be a good one to point people toward when they ask "What string library should I buy?"



Personally, I feel the opposite. Although you can hear the basic tone of the patches, they all sound synthy and unrealistic....this is because they were not programmed how they were meant to. Each of those libraries have a different approach, copy/paste of a sequence is not a good method for showcasing libraries. Also, there are eq, reverb, compression, etc added, so they are not directly out-of-the-box in that regard.


----------



## StillLife (Jun 2, 2019)

Thank you for this! Lucky for me I like SCS and Spitfire Solo Strings the best - both I already own.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jun 2, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Personally, I feel the opposite. Although you can hear the basic tone of the patches, they all sound synthy and unrealistic....this is because they were not programmed how they were meant to. Each of those libraries have a different approach, copy/paste of a sequence is not a good method for showcasing libraries. Also, there are eq, reverb, compression, etc added, so they are not directly out-of-the-box in that regard.


All good points. :emoji_wolf:

Listen with limitations in mind. Also seek out walkthroughs and maybe do searches through member compositions to see the working reality of the instruments. Don't place too much stock in one single data point.

That said, I'm not sure how many people own this many libraries and are willing to spend so much time creating a test, with each one side by side like this. But if anyone does, and is willing to put together a comparison that is more tailored to each individual library, I would certainly welcome that.


----------



## robgb (Jun 2, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> they all sound synthy and unrealistic....


I'd argue that every string library is synthy and unrealistic to trained ears.


----------



## ism (Jun 2, 2019)

robgb said:


> I'd argue that every string library is synthy and unrealistic to trained ears.



I'd agree with you on unrealistic.

But to me, 'synthy' means something else ... For instance this noodle with the spitfire solo cello:



The crossfades can be a bit bumpy, so exposed like this it's certainly 'unrealistic' on a physical level of bumpiness.

Yet, it to my ear, it never falls off that cliff into 'synthyness' (and this is the benefit of this particular approach to the crossfade vs phase alignment). 

And in context and for certain types of lines, I'd argue, an unrealistic 'bumpiness' can be easier to cover up that synthyness.

Of course, in other types of lines - like ensemble strings doing a smooth swell - this kind of bumpiness will kill the effect, so here I think my ear would tolerate a bit more synthy unrealism that a bumpy unrealism. 


And there are even times when real strings, if played to statically (or something) can start to sound 'synthy'


Kind of a nuance, but I think there's a useful distinction to be made here.


----------



## Zero&One (Jun 2, 2019)

EWHS totally shines here, especially on the second phase of the piece.


----------



## Garry (Jun 2, 2019)

Finally got to listen to this properly on decent speakers, and what I heard surprised me. For me, Albion ONE has probably been my best purchase ever - it suits exactly the tone I like; what surprised me is I'd all but convinced myself that I really should get SCS at some point, since I don't really like the tone of Studio Strings, and everyone and his dog seems to recommend SCS. But hearing this, I think I'd be disappointed at the difference, after having paid an extra 699 for SCS. There's clearly a difference in the tone between the 2 of course, and I'm not sure which I preferred. But if I'm spending 699, I want to see not just a subtle difference, but a real distinct separation that justifies that additional cost. If you're a professional composer, then I can see that you'd need many string libraries, to suit precisely the sound you need for a specific job, but as a hobbyist like me, based on the comparison here, I'm starting to think: (i) all of these string libraries sound sufficient similar as to not make the subtleties in the difference worth it to a hobbyist, and (ii) Albion ONE is probably sufficient for my needs, and I'd likely be disappointed if I buy another string library on top of this, because it won't have the dramatic difference I'm expecting/hoping for. That's not to say I don't have or want other string libraries, just that I think I don't need other string libraries that essentially do the same thing, but with a slightly different tone/versatility (or special articulations I'll likely never use): I already have Tundra, OACE, BDT and Solo Strings which I love, but these have specific uses that are not intended to just be a better string library than Albion One, they do something completely different. The difference in Solo Strings and the ensemble libraries in the comparison video was indeed a dramatic difference, as would be expected, and I wasn't at all disappointed. Would love to hear the combo of Solo Strings and Albion One.

The comparison itself though was incredibly helpful, and thanks again to the OP for sharing it. Much appreciated.


----------



## Garry (Jun 2, 2019)

Actually, the more I listen to these, and my ear attunes to the differences, I think my main point above still stands (ie that for me (and of course for me alone, I can only speak for my ears, not anyone else's!), Albion still stands out positively, but there are now some that I listen to that I really dislike. Interestingly, these are some that others in the thread have pointed to as being their favorites (and I'm sure there are many who dislike how Albion sounds). It's so interesting how our individual preferences can vary so widely. No right or wrong of course, just interesting differences in tastes.


----------



## robgb (Jun 2, 2019)

Garry said:


> But if I'm spending 699, I want to see not just a subtle difference, but a real distinct separation that justifies that additional cost.


As an owner of several strings libraries, I have found that the differences are usually very subtle. Some are clearly superior sounding, but in a full mix I'm not sure anyone would know the difference.


----------



## artomatic (Jun 2, 2019)

I wish you had Strezov's Afflatus Strings to compare with the rest of your string libs.


----------



## Garry (Jun 2, 2019)

artomatic said:


> I wish you had Strezov's Afflatus Strings to compare with the rest of your string libs.


Yeah, wouldn't that be good, and you know, just sayin', but if more people supported the idea of VI-C members sponsoring independent library reviews, maybe we could help him do just that! You know, like suggested here. Just sayin'!!


----------



## LinusW (Jun 2, 2019)

@Akarin I could add some more examples if you would send me a project file?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jun 3, 2019)

Garry said:


> For me, Albion ONE has probably been my best purchase ever


While Albion ONE was one of the most useless purchases of mine, I still agree that I was very surprised by how good the strings sounded to me in this comparison.


----------



## Loïc D (Jun 3, 2019)

Very nice work, and the piece is very musical, so it’s a pleasure to listen to it 14 times.
First, no library has a ugly sound. Some feel more natural, some less, but none sounds synthy to me.

My favorite is SCS, but I’m totally biased on this one. 
I’m positively surprised by Albion One since it’s an ensemble library, and Novo since it’s not really a dedicated string library and Iconica since it’s totally underrated.
Spitfire seem to take a special care at the balance between instruments.
Slight disappointments were Jaeger and CSS. 
Some libraries have a too boomy / muddy low end. Basses & celli seem to be the most variable elements from a library to another one.

Can’t wait for other libs to join the test (Afflatus, etc.)
And for your brass comparison test (hard to do since the library content varies a lot from libs to libs).


----------



## GingerMaestro (Jun 3, 2019)

I second if someone could add an Afflatus & Berlin Strings to this demo, that would be so useful for me. Thanks for taking the time to do this.


----------



## pipedr (Jul 30, 2019)

Thanks for this great comparison! I learn a lot from it, and I appreciate the 'out of the box' approach. I really liked your Spitfire Studio Strings + Albion combination. 

Akarim: Do you (or anyone else) have any reasoning behind which libraries might sound good together? (e.g. wet + dry, dramatic arcs + more stable, etc.?) "Try it" and see may be good advice but with 14 libraries, that would be 196 combinations (and that's just for pairs)>


----------



## Leon Portelance (Jul 30, 2019)

I miss LASS.


----------



## yellowtone (Jul 31, 2019)

Garry said:


> The difference in Solo Strings and the ensemble libraries in the comparison video was indeed a dramatic difference, as would be expected, and I wasn't at all disappointed. Would love to hear the combo of Solo Strings and Albion One.
> 
> The comparison itself though was incredibly helpful, and thanks again to the OP for sharing it. Much appreciated.



I second the two sentiments above. First off, THANK YOU @Akarin for putting this together. Clearly there are limitations to any side-by-side test but for me this was really insightful regarding just how similar, and in some ways how different, many of these libraries are. Finding similar side-by-side test has been difficult. Regarding the sentiment that many of these sound, to my ears, "similar enough" that in a full score they'd work for most big cinematic purposes, I thought the standout different examples were SF's Solo Strings, to a lesser extend SF's Chamber Strings (particularly in the 2nd part of the composition) and 8DIO's Anthology in the Solo example (#3). For the big cinematic sounding string section, I found Albion 1 to be my favorite in this set. However, as I'm personally more interested in smaller-group sounds, I'd be really interested to hear this with 8DIO's Intimate Strings. I'm also curious if others have experience the Intimate Strings library, or with other libraries that are more similar to the SF Solo Strings? I'm wondering for example if VSI or Best Service's The Complete Orchestra would provide options for more "intimate" (sorry, couldn't think of yet another synonym to use instead of 8DIO's library name) sounding groups? OR - is it possible with the reviewed libraries, say Albion 1 for example, to just reduce the number of instruments and take down the reverbs and get a more intimate sound?


----------



## Monkberry (Jul 31, 2019)

Great Comparison video. Much appreciated!! There are a number of libraries I had not listened to that were in this comparison. I still prefer SSS for long articulations and overall sound and CSS for their shorts and heavier vibrato longs when appropriate. Love Albion One also but it's such a mixed bag so probably not a fair comparison, though it was cool that you added it at the end. Still need to pick up Spitfire Chamber Strings Pro.


----------



## tomosane (Jul 31, 2019)

The combination at the end sounded very nice -- I have Albion Loegria and recently grabbed SStS, should try doing something similar with them. 

Side note, but funnily enough, based on this demo I vastly prefer the tone of the sustains in CS2 to that in CSS


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jul 31, 2019)

I'm kind of amazed Albion One is showing up here at all. For what I would think are obvious reasons. Iceni is a different story...


----------



## robgb (Jul 31, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I'm kind of amazed Albion One is showing up here at all


I think using it as a blending tool is probably its best use. Hearing this has certainly made me regret my purchase of Albion One a little bit less.


----------



## AndyP (Aug 19, 2019)

I can't say that there is a clear winner here, especially since I find that there are clear differences between long and short versions. But Albion One is slightly ahead in this comparison in both versions. 

My impression:

long:
1. Albion one (+ Spitfire mix) - both well balanced
2. Hollywood Strings
3. Soaring / Adventure strings

short:
1. Albion one (+ Spitfire mix) - sounds most convincing
2. 8Dio Century
3. Iconica - the mid and upper range sounds completely different to all other libs - in a positive way - silky

What I can't cope with here is Anthology, they don't sound convincing in either the long or the short articulations. Not the sound itself, but the notes sound unnatural when played together. I think a changed playing technique could change that. But that applies to all candidates.

Well done and interesting comparison!


----------



## Zero&One (Aug 19, 2019)

I dread every time this thread pops up. I know I'll have that melody in my head for days again... I love it


----------



## AndyP (Aug 19, 2019)

Should I say sorry, or please?


----------



## Akarin (Aug 19, 2019)

James H said:


> I dread every time this thread pops up. I know I'll have that melody in my head for days again... I love it



Hahaha. Thanks  Really appreciated. Here's the complete track where I extracted that part from:


----------



## Kent (Aug 19, 2019)

IMO, and somewhat to my surprise, EWHS is by far the standout here. CSS and CS2 are not-too-close seconds, depending on which direction you want to go in. 

I wonder if Diamond would make HS stand out even more. Crazy that this library is the oldest on the list (I think?)!


----------



## Akarin (Aug 19, 2019)

kmaster said:


> IMO, and somewhat to my surprise, EWHS is by far the standout here. CSS and CS2 are not-too-close seconds, depending on which direction you want to go in.
> 
> I wonder if Diamond would make HS stand out even more. Crazy that this library is the oldest on the list (I think?)!



I think EWHS is to oldest, yes. Programming-wise, I had to build some multis in Play to be able to control it the way I want with Expression Maps and the lib definitely shows its age. Sound-wise, well recorded samples age just fine and Shawn Murphy did an awesome job with them. The control you get with Diamond is night and day compared to Gold but I don't have it. I went full 8Dio/Spitfire instead because... Play.

EDIT: Regarding CS2, it seems that it's also JXL favorite strings lib.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 22, 2019)

Akarin said:


> I think EWHS is to oldest, yes. Programming-wise, I had to build some multis in Play to be able to control it the way I want with Expression Maps and the lib definitely shows its age. Sound-wise, well recorded samples age just fine and Shawn Murphy did an awesome job with them. The control you get with Diamond is night and day compared to Gold but I don't have it. I went full 8Dio/Spitfire instead because... Play.
> 
> EDIT: Regarding CS2, it seems that it's also JXL favorite strings lib.



And JXL is known for his string writing...not really.

I highly recommend giving HS another chance, and feel compelled to tell you HS Diamond is the boss imo. There's a freaking learning curve, I myself continue to not like Play much, etc. But the best is the best, and there isn't a paid composer I know whom doesn't at least _*own*_ HS (most of them use it regularly).


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 22, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> And JXL is known for his string writing...not really.
> 
> I highly recommend giving HS another chance, and feel compelled to tell you HS Diamond is the boss imo. There's a freaking learning curve, I myself continue to not like Play much, etc. But the best is the best, and there isn't a paid composer I know whom doesn't at least _*own*_ HS (most of them use it regularly).



Agreed. And to say HS is showing its age is ridiculous. I've tried much more recent libraries that don't even come close.


----------



## Gerbil (Aug 22, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Agreed. And to say HS is showing its age is ridiculous. I've tried much more recent libraries that don't even come close.



Is there a reason why they've never permitted users to create their own keys witches, do you know? The Hollywood Orchestra I am a fan of but the lack of KS makes using it feel a bit of a drag.

That said, I've always rather liked Play because it's very easy to adjust basic things quickly. Faster than Kontakt, I find.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 22, 2019)

Gerbil said:


> Is there a reason why they've never permitted users to create their own keys witches, do you know? The Hollywood Orchestra I am a fan of but the lack of KS makes using it feel a bit of a drag.
> 
> That said, I've always rather liked Play because it's very easy to adjust basic things quickly. Faster than Kontakt, I find.



I don't use key switching or expressions mapping, but there are free expression maps on the Steinberg site for HS (if you use Cubase).


----------



## Akarin (Aug 22, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I don't use key switching or expressions mapping, but there are free expression maps on the Steinberg site for HS (if you use Cubase).



Yep, there are. But only for selected patches which are not super useful. Instead, I built multis on different MIDI channels and based my expression maps on that. Unfortunately, Play doesn't let you purge before use like Kontakt does and it uses a tremendous amount of resources.


----------



## Gerbil (Aug 22, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I don't use key switching or expressions mapping, but there are free expression maps on the Steinberg site for HS (if you use Cubase).



I use Reaper only these days. I know there's Reaticulate but it's a bit over my head in its current state so I just use Kontakt libraries and the odd track for EW stuff most of the time. Shame as I really do like the Hollywood Orchestra.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 22, 2019)

Akarin said:


> Yep, there are. But only for selected patches which are not super useful. Instead, I built multis on different MIDI channels and based my expression maps on that. Unfortunately, Play doesn't let you purge before use like Kontakt does and it uses a tremendous amount of resources.



Not sure if it's what you're referring to, but PLAY 6 has a purge function (I use it often). See page 56 in the manual.


----------



## Akarin (Aug 22, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Not sure if it's what you're referring to, but PLAY 6 has a purge function (I use it often). See page 56 in the manual.



It's only purging after you play a line. You can't template a purged Play instance. It's an after-the-fact purging. Kontakt, you can unload all the samples and they get loaded as you play.


----------



## NoamL (Aug 22, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> And JXL is known for his string writing...not really.



Check out his score for _Brimstone _


----------



## I like music (Aug 22, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> And JXL is known for his string writing...not really.
> 
> I highly recommend giving HS another chance, and feel compelled to tell you HS Diamond is the boss imo. There's a freaking learning curve, I myself continue to not like Play much, etc. But the best is the best, and there isn't a paid composer I know whom doesn't at least _*own*_ HS (most of them use it regularly).



I know someone who owns only *one* string library, and it is HS. He got it as a demo writer. He uses it daily, and has done so for close to a decade, and it (with Hollywood Brass) generates all his income (along with decade old VSL woodwinds and Truestrike). In many respects, it is right up there as one of the very very best. Shame I only have Gold (and a crap machine with not enough RAM) and the learning curve is indeed high.


----------



## Mike Fox (Aug 23, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> They all sound really good...but I notice EWHS (even the Gold version) is easily as good as any of the others imo. Not bad for an oooooold library. Would have been especially interesting had you thrown the Diamond edition in.
> 
> Me:
> 
> ...


Totally. I feel like we're at a point where string libs can't get any better, just offer variations.


----------



## ism (Aug 23, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> Totally. I feel like we're at a point where string libs can't get any better, just offer variations.



Physicists (~ 1900): “Physics is basically done. Just a little tweaking here or there”
Einstein (~ 1905): “Hold my beer ...”


----------



## Mike Fox (Aug 23, 2019)

ism said:


> Physicists (~ 1900): “Physics is basically done. Just a little tweaking here or there”
> Einstein (~ 1905): “Hold my beer ...”


Too bad we haven't had an "Einstein" string library since HS. We're going on a decade now!

Don't get me wrong, I think there's been significant improvements since HS (some newer string libs contain some of my fav. patches!), but there hasn't been any large strides is what I'm really getting at. Seems like the advancements have been a gradual process. If I remember right, HS just kinda blew away anything that we had been used to listening to. It was a major milestone in the world of sampling.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 24, 2019)

Gerbil said:


> The Hollywood Orchestra I am a fan of but the lack of KS makes using it feel a bit of a drag.



Easy to do in both Logic with Articulation IDs and in Cubase with Expression Maps. And in Logic with Articulation IDs, you don't have to worry that a note has not seen the appropriate keyswitch and plays the wrong articulation when you stop and start or click on it. FAR superior to normal key switching.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Aug 24, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> Too bad we haven't had an "Einstein" string library since HS. We're going on a decade now!
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think there's been significant improvements since HS (some newer string libs contain some of my fav. patches!), but there hasn't been any large strides is what I'm really getting at. Seems like the advancements have been a gradual process. If I remember right, HS just kinda blew away anything that we had been used to listening to. It was a major milestone in the world of sampling.



Speculative question: Is that the "fault" of the sampling libraries, or of the tool (e.g., Kontakt)?


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 24, 2019)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Speculative question: Is that the "fault" of the sampling libraries, or of the tool (e.g., Kontakt)?



Neither. It is the limitation of software, not having a heart and soul and most importantly, the ability to listen to its fellow players and creatively react.


----------



## Mike Fox (Aug 24, 2019)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Speculative question: Is that the "fault" of the sampling libraries, or of the tool (e.g., Kontakt)?


I think Jay is onto something. There's only so much "humanism" (for lack of a better word) you can inject into the digital realm.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 26, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> I think Jay is onto something. There's only so much "humanism" (for lack of a better word) you can inject into the digital realm.



I've noticed in many of my mockups that I tend to compose for the libraries I'm using more often than not. In retrospect I found that interesting, especially in light of the fact that the people whom were paying me at the the didn't seem to notice anything different.

When it comes to my own (what I call) art compositions, I've found that the whole writing-for-the-library thing to at times be preferable. 

What I mean is, I've finished up final mockups, heard how the orchestration was a bit wonky due to my writing to the idiosyncracies of the libraries involved, and actually preferred leaving it the way it was. I mean, if there's going to be a live performance of the piece then sure, I'll get all scholastic on the orchestration and overall sound. But there are times I'm completely thrilled with something that wouldn't really work live with an orchestra....such is one of the happy accidents that come with this age of sample libraries. 

I guess if I were even more a preposterous boob than I already am I'd swear that this byproduct of vis is one of the cornerstones of a new era of how music sounds and is written. But I'm a minor league boob (I know, I know, break out the Sartre).


----------



## Parsifal666 (Aug 26, 2019)

Mike Fox said:


> I think Jay is onto something. There's only so much "humanism" (for lack of a better word) you can inject into the digital realm.



Mike hit on what I wrote above, if only peripherally. If something you wrote thrills even yourself, just be Joel in Risky Business and say what the f&^%. 

It's good, so stop intellectualizing and *leave it the hell alone*.


----------



## erikradbo (Aug 26, 2019)

Hard to pick a favorite, almost all of them sound great but CSS has been a go to for some tome now, and I was slightly surprised with the legato part where I thought SStS came off better (and the layering with Albion ONE sounds amazing). CSS shorts amazing though. I have SCS pro but never became friends with it.

Recently did a vocal piece with a string solo and started with CSS, which guaranteed great realism, but sometimes I feel its too much 50’s hollywood in that sound when not in a full orchestral context. Went for SCS, but again it’s just felt too thin and nasal. So tried in order Albion ONE, Loegria, Tundra, but ended up with Hollywood strings being the star, slightly layered with CSS for the legato of the 1st violin and some distant Loegria mics for some room.

In this comparison though I found HW Strings great in the earlier bits but not smooth enough in the last section for the lead violins, but I suspect it would benefit a great deal from mod wheel action there to turn down the dynamics.

And even though CSS is my work horse, every time I hear CS2 I wonder if I shouldn’t have gotten that instead, I just love the tone, even if the legato suffers a bit here.


----------

