# Cinematic Strings, how does it compare to LASS?



## theheresy (Dec 3, 2009)

Hi guys, this Cinematic Strings library has been under the radar for me ..I've never even heard of it until I came to this forum and heard some demos. 
From the demos it sounds much more lush and better even than LASS.
Does anyone have it and how good is it exactly, is it limited or something, why is there no hub-bub around it like there is LASS which is now suddenly an industry standard in a matter of months? Can someone tell me about Cinematic Strings and how it compares to Symphobia/Lass/Sonic Implants, etc??

Thanks


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 3, 2009)

I don't own Cinematic strings but I do have their demo Monster Staccatos. This of course is mostly a supposition but LASS is far more realistic and detailed from my experience. I own LASS though and only have used a single patch from Cinematic Strings so take from that what you will. I am not impressed with the "lushness" of that CS library- it sounds synthy to me. I prefer the detail in LASS as it sounds like real strings- you can actually hear the violins, the violas, the celli. I think the pushback from some quarters re: LASS is a lack of wanting to work with it but rather have everything convenient and at a touch of a button. Sorry but this isn't Symphobia which sounds great with NO effort whatsoever. It has its place and I love it but LASS has some of the best string samples I have ever heard from any library. and once again, I have worked with chamber string groups and solo strings. I'm very familiar with what they sound like. The big thing is that, are you looking for realism or lush pads? If it's the latter, I think CS might serve you quite well. (p.s. that's not a dig)


----------



## mixolydian (Dec 3, 2009)

I recently did a trailer-like track with the Monster Staccatos and I liked what it brings to my music. I don't own Cinematic Strings (and LASS btw) but I'm sure that it would be a leap compared to my current strings.

...BTW: as an addition to the current demos it would be interesting to hear the Cinematic Strings in a full orchestrated situation as well, it's a guess this will be great.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 3, 2009)

LASS IMO has the best short articulation samples I have ever heard. nothing compares.


----------



## Revson (Dec 3, 2009)

dcoscina @ Thu Dec 03 said:


> I don't own Cinematic strings but I do have their demo Monster Staccatos. This of course is mostly a supposition but LASS is far more realistic and detailed from my experience. I own LASS though and only have used a single patch from Cinematic Strings so take from that what you will. I am not impressed with the "lushness" of that CS library- it sounds synthy to me. I prefer the detail in LASS as it sounds like real strings- you can actually hear the violins, the violas, the celli. I think the pushback from some quarters re: LASS is a lack of wanting to work with it but rather have everything convenient and at a touch of a button. Sorry but this isn't Symphobia which sounds great with NO effort whatsoever. It has its place and I love it but LASS has some of the best string samples I have ever heard from any library. and once again, I have worked with chamber string groups and solo strings. I'm very familiar with what they sound like. The big thing is that, are you looking for realism or lush pads? If it's the latter, I think CS might serve you quite well. (p.s. that's not a dig)


"Pads" is overstatement to make your point, yes? Spectrasonics has a couple of gorgeous string patches, but I wouldn't want to try to match the last two CS demos using one of them.

Standing next to an orchestra playing Verklärte Nacht? LASS kicks arse. But a "big," "hollywood," _mix_? Cinematic Strings is more than in the hunt there - because the timbre, the pure beauty of the sound - figures heavily. Those last two CS demos ("Home," and the previous one featuring the Tonehammer instrument) are the first mockups I've heard myself saying "my god, that's is just a gorgeous sound." Symphobia's patches sound gorgeous - but people tend not to write fully developed music with them because of all the doubling that's baked in.

That said, I'm looking forward to hearing CS 1.5 with the reworked legato. I think more surgical crossfades in the transitions will reveal greater "realism" in the library.

P.S. Using the word "pad" and saying it's not a dig, in this context, is kind of like saying "I'm not putting the guy down or anything, but he's a real [email protected]@hole."


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Dec 3, 2009)

I only just bought Cinematic Strings a couple of days ago and have not yet really used it too extensively, but I do have to say I was more than pleasantly surprised by its quality and features. Also, the organisation of patches / keyswitches is exceptionally well done in my opinion. It really is minimum hassle, maximum actual composing with these strings. 

As many others, I was slightly put off by the "synthy" quality you can hear in the demos, but this is simply because the sound is extremely uniform and stable in those demos. Once you actually load up a patch and start playing yourself, trust me, you will like what you hear. LASS is probably slightly superior in its detail (judging by the demos, don't own LASS), but CS is definitely more, well, cinematic, than anything else out there at this moment.

That said, the short articulations in LASS are more impressive, but CS shorts are also really good.

I'm about to start using Cinematic Strings in a new project, if you're still interested, I can upload some rough demos in a week or so.


----------



## Revson (Dec 3, 2009)

Mihkel @ Thu Dec 03 said:


> ... if you're still interested, I can upload some rough demos in a week or so.


Nah, I doubt anybody here'd be interested...


----------



## theheresy (Dec 3, 2009)

I would be very interested to hear the demos since I am considering which to buy.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 3, 2009)

So what makes the different when it comes to the sound of a library? 

The mics and preamps what were used at the recording sessions? The (Concert)Hall, the musicians or all together? :-D

Doesn`t it make sence to record a (real sounding) library only with some microphones at only one room position, a best room position where I as a listener can listen best to a concert? :mrgreen:


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 3, 2009)

Sorry about the "pad" comment- I really didn't mean for it to be nasty sounding- it's just the word in my vernacular to describe a lush sound. The thing is, we have a lot of lush sounding libraries but not a lot with the kind of detail we need. HOwever, I did try to qualify my post by saying I do NOT own CS, just LASS which for me is fine, given I also have Appassionata Strings, EWQLSO Platinum and Symphobia amoung others.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 3, 2009)

dcoscina @ Thu Dec 03 said:


> The thing is, we have a lot of lush sounding libraries



Nope. The majority of libraries are harsh and cold.


----------



## theheresy (Dec 3, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Thu Dec 03 said:


> dcoscina @ Thu Dec 03 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, we have a lot of lush sounding libraries
> ...



I agree..not sure which libraries someone was referring to but I WISH we had actual lush libraries, almost everything out there is the complete opposite.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 3, 2009)

I own both. It is difficult - perhaps impossible - for any one string library to be all things to all people. I also happen to know both Alex and Andrew - so here's my take.

Lass can get fairly big if that is what you're wanting which is especially true when calling up both full violin sections I & II and full violas, cellos and basses of various articulations. Included is even an ensemble patch (ala Symphobia) where the overlapping layers of the entire string section are included. But the true strength of Lass is its versatility as a product that is essentially five string libraries in one. Along with its layering abilities - plus adaptability to various high-end IR reverb libraries - its a versatile string chameleon. The long note connectivity in Lass - which includes both legato and portamento pre-recorded intervals embedded in complex scripting algorithms - is second none in this regard. 

Lass is hard to beat as far as string divisi, note connectivity, and sheer versatility. It is essentially five libraries built into one: Section A, Section B, Section C and Full Strings (which all have Violins I & II) plus Solo Strings. If you like string scoring and orchestrations with a lot of ornamentation which can also translate to scoring for real players, Lass was made for this. Complex divisi string writing is cake with Lass as it was designed with that in mind. In a layering role, Lass is a virtual Swiss Army knife for fixing note connectivity, adding spatial definition for layering in with other string libraries in both short and long notes. It uses both cc11 & cc1 xfade for expressive layers through all dynamics from pp to ff. With Lass, expressive writing is not only possible, its expected. Even if you have many string libraries, you'll always find a use for Lass.

I like Lass. Its my go-to library for most professional projects either alone or as a layer with other libraries.

Cinematic Strings are a bit like the lush Symphobia strings without the ensemble string programming. Sonically it sounds a little like it too but with a twist - you get separate violins (first and second sections), violas, cellos and basses to allow writing for each section instead of having everything piled up in ensemble layers like Symphobia (not that this is a bad thing for some instances). Note connectivity in Cinematic Strings is an improvement over Symphobia. Instead of the separate articulation instrument patches, all articulations are accessed via keyswitching. Included are 1st position and 2nd position vibrato which in the hands of a competent composer can yield remarkable results of a more epic variety. 

Cinematic Strings is certainly not a smallish library - strings sections are full and rich which may fit in certain styles but perhaps less so in others. However, the library does allow for you to go deep into really soft ppp strings so the expressive capabilities are built in for all who want to take advantage of them. Do not look for VSL-style legato intervals here though. CS is far more subtly stated in this regard. According to the literature, they did record legato intervals and programmed scripting into it. Its three position mic positions rounds out its possibilities.

I've used Cinematic Strings alone or with company for professional projects as well.

Some notes: an acid test for most all string libraries are whenever high pitched strings are called up. Lass passes this test with flying colors - perhaps more so than any other string library currently on the market. Violins sound natural and comfortable in higher registers with a clarity lacking in many libraries. Cinematic Strings also does well here too but its true strength are really in the mid to lower registers where it shines. The overall short-note string sample programming in Lass is perhaps the very best in the industry. Lass spiccatos are so tightly edited that its possible to nearly get nearly percussive results - the responsiveness is amazing.

Again, it bears repeating: it is difficult - perhaps impossible - for any one string library to be all things to all people. Many prominent composers go for the strengths of each library - mixing and matching them - for their own sound. Both libraries are capable of supplying the necessary ammo for good mockups. 

In the final analysis however, when we all have the same libraries, the deciding factor - as always - will be excellent writing, orchestration and mockup skills. Both libraries have their peculiar strengths. For me, Lass wins by its sheer versatility and value. But Cinematic Strings adds a lot of lushness to the table at an attractive price point - a point that might be matched by the release of Lass Lite. At any rate, you'll most likely find uses for both.


----------



## theheresy (Dec 3, 2009)

Thanks for the long and elaborate review Frederick. DAMN I wish I could get both right now. Anyone selling their CS or LASS for cheap?? :oops: :lol: :shock: 



Frederick, I can see now with what you said that CS is far more akin to Symphobia where it's very lush for long notes but probably isn't that strong in script type runs/fast things, short notes, etc...can you tell me does CS make Symphobia ensembles completely obsolete or is there still somehow room for Symphobia in one's setup if they have CS? (I mean ensemble wise only, not Symphobia's one of a kind pre-recorded effects and all that stuff..that's a completely different story that may never be matched).


----------



## midphase (Dec 3, 2009)

I hate to be this harshly honest, but I have yet to hear a demo for CS that makes me want to reach into my pocket for my $ as I have for LASS. Every LASS demo sells the library, but CS demos, although impeccably composed, just don't do it. It's not just me either, I think an improptu poll will reveal that way more people around here bought LASS than CS.

To me CS compares favorably to East West strings, but it doesn't feel like a next-gen library as much as LASS does.

IMHO, the CS guys should avail themselves of the services of one of the orchestral simulator top dogs around here (which incidentally is what LASS did) and have them write a couple of demos for them, maybe then they'll convince me to reach for that credit card?

What I hear from LASS that I don't in CS is the connectivity between the notes. When I close my eyes and listen to LASS, I can picture humans actually bowing and connecting note to note. When I hear CS I can only picture someone playing samples on a keyboard.

I've long maintained that creating samples is a dark art with a mind of its own. I think the guys around here who worked on their custom samples can attest to that. To some degree (without taking anything away from Andrew's technical skills and experience) I think LASS was a stroke of luck which probably exceeded expectations. It just works!

I think the same can be said of Sonivox's strings, which for quite a number of years held the top spot as the most realistic strings out there.

So there you have it folks...my $.02 for today!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 3, 2009)

Would could offer group buys through VI-Control. Approach different developers that we like and through the power of the masses get behind one worthy product at a time. I know it caused a lot of problems at NS but these days with the amount of indie guys like Hans, Andrew and Alex they could benefit from knowing that 100 people or so would be willing to pay x amount of dollars as long as they were getting a deal.

If we kept the major players out it could be successful for the indie developer.

Just a thought.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Dec 3, 2009)

I feel I have to slightly repeat myself in saying that, although CS was a sort of a non-logical impulse buy for me personally, as I also found the demos somewhat lacking, once you load it up and start playing, it will feel brilliant under your fingers. 

Personally, I feel that this is integral to composing.


----------



## theheresy (Dec 3, 2009)

Mikhel: I suspect you may be right. If only I could have a demo for myself to play with them to judge on my own. It's hard to let go of 700$ based on a couple professionally done mp3's.

Frederick: Holy crap what a good idea! Could I be the first recipient?? 8) :lol: :lol: 

I would put some money at least 10-20$ in such a fund.

Wow that's a good idea Joseherring about the group thing...DAMN!! Can we do this? If any of these guys offered a SUBSTANTIAL discount I would probably buy their stuff immediately. I remember back in the day when GPO was the cream of the crop they had a discount that was almost half price if I remember correctly..GPO was going for $300+ and I got it for a little over 100.

p.s. Frederick..damn I'm still thinking that's a good idea. One way to do that is to have a contest where all the needy composers who want to benefit from the fund compose a piece on midi or whatever crappy sound library they have to make them eligible for the free library :mrgreen:


----------



## schatzus (Dec 3, 2009)

I certainly do not know what it takes to get on there, but wouldn't it be great if both were on trysound.net?
That site has actually helped me spend more money. (Which is aways good for developers.)
There is no review ever written that can convince better than sitting down behind the controls and working with it, even briefly...


----------



## midphase (Dec 3, 2009)

"I feel I have to slightly repeat myself in saying that, although CS was a sort of a non-logical impulse buy for me personally, as I also found the demos somewhat lacking, once you load it up and start playing, it will feel brilliant under your fingers. "


That's great...keep on repeating it over and over see if it makes any difference. With all my sincerest respect, I don't know who you are or what you do, and hence your ability to convince me to part with my hard earned $$$ just because you say so ain't cutting it.

What we need are demos that demonstrate what you're talking about, believe me, I'm in the market for new strings right now...if the CS guys can convince me (and many others around here) that they have a superior product to what's already out there...I'm buyin'!

Right now from listening to the demos on the site, I don't hear anything that's not already achievable with a judicious use of QLSO, VSL and Sonivox strings...however when I listen to the LASS demos, I know it'd be a bitch trying to achieve that with anything else.

I don't want to sound like I'm mean or unsupportive, I applaud anyone willing to tackle the challenge of creating a new string library. I'm merely pointing out an issue that has got to be addressed IMHO.


----------



## Ed (Dec 3, 2009)

Frederick Russ @ Thu Dec 03 said:


> Symphobia caters to a completely different market imo. One like a composer for a television series who must get good, quick results fast and keep moving to meet the looming deadline as well as music editors' expectations on a weekly basis. Symphobia delivers in that regard because of the overlapping instrument sections in its full keyboard patches. Its important to note that Symphobia is not just an ensemble strings library but also covers brass and woodwinds.
> 
> I almost wish we could put together some kind of composer collective fund to help talented but struggling musicians get the libraries they need at prices they could afford - like a discount club paid for by dues? I have no idea how something like that would work though.



Would only make sense as some kind of lottery.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Dec 3, 2009)

Kays, I hear you and I agree with everything that you are saying. I simply meant to express my personal appreciation towards said library and I wasn't by any means trying to convince people to buy it based only on my personal, and rather superficial, experience with it.

And you are right, it certainly is an issue to be addressed, they need to show more new libraries in a light that would make people more inclined to actually commit to getting them.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 3, 2009)

theheresy @ Thu Dec 03 said:


> Frederick, I can see now with what you said that CS is far more akin to Symphobia where it's very lush for long notes but probably isn't that strong in script type runs/fast things, short notes, etc...can you tell me does CS make Symphobia ensembles completely obsolete or is there still somehow room for Symphobia in one's setup if they have CS?



Let me clarify. CS does just fine with short notes and faster runs if that's what you want - especially in the context of a larger more epic setting.

CS and Symphobia are both unique so I find it difficult to adequately answer your second question.


----------



## midphase (Dec 3, 2009)

If Andrew does indeed release a LASS lite as he's been threatening to do, it'll make the competition that much more heated.

Believe me, there's nothing more that I would love than to have CS be a kick ass string library that addresses most of the shortcomings of my current libraries so I hope that the demos are simply not doing it justice and that it's truly as good as Mihkel says.

Regarding Symphobia...I find a lot of it very useable within the context of a single orchestral library. As an experiment a couple of months ago I decided to use it almost exclusively for a small animated project that I scored within a "non-trailer" and "non-Zimmer" context. If you're curious, you can hear the results here:

http://www.daveschool.com/movies/PC/

Sorry but you'll have to crank it up since the music was mixed rather low.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 4, 2009)

midphase @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> (...) However when I listen to the LASS demos, I know it'd be a bitch trying to achieve that with anything else.(...)


True, but — and I don't wanna rain on the LASS parade here — perhaps it's useful to remind people that, in order to get the best out of LASS, one needs to be a lot more than a "press-a-few-buttons-play-a-few-lines-and-hey-presto!"-musician. LASS will only sound its best in the hands of someone who _really knows_ how to write for strings. One might say that this applies to most stringlibraries — and I don't disagree — but somehow, LASS is different. With most other libraries, you can get away with clumsy voicings or slapdash orchestration (to a certain extent anyway), but LASS is so accurately recorded and structured in such unprecedented fine detail, that it is also far less forgiving when treated in an uneducated or unorganized manner. If you use LASS in this way, the library will seriously disappoint. (In fact, up till now, I've only heard maybe 3 or 4 LASS-pieces which sound really good — realizing the full LASS-potential — all the other demos however sound far less impressive, not to say: quite bad.) To achieve the LASS sound that everyone seems to admire so much, one really needs to know a thing or two about the anatomy, the character and the behaviour of a string orchestra, it seems to me. In this respect, LASS is the complete opposite of a library like, say, Symphobia which excells at 'instant gratification'. Not so LASS. LASS needs work. And care. And craft. And well-written music.

It took me ages before I started to get anything resembling a satisfying sound out of LASS (and I'm still not really happy with the results I'm getting). It's never LASS's fault, I know that, the failure is entirely mine. LASS, in the hands of less skilled people like myself, tends to sound thin, nasal, shaky, uncertain and weak. As if the stringplayers really don't fancy to play the music you're asking them to play. So, in short: it's not because you've added LASS to your toolkit, that you will automatically be capable of producing a great and convincing stringsound.

_


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

> True, but — and I don't wanna rain on the LASS parade here — perhaps it's useful to remind people that, in order to get the best out of LASS, one needs to be a lot more than a "press-a-few-buttons-play-a-few-lines-and-hey-presto!"-musician. LASS will only sound its best in the hands of someone who really knows how to write for strings.



this is exactly right. LASS requires quite a bit of massaging and proficiency at both string writing and programming to bring it to life and realize its potential. it's strength lies in its clarity and flexibillity, and you can pull off things that are perhaps beyond the scope of other libraries. CS is a different beast with a different focus. i haven't tried it, but it seems to me exactly as frederick pointed out, to be a sophisticated version of symphobia, where you should get a great sound right away.

it depends what it is you think you most need. if you are into very careful and intricate string writing then you probably should go down the LASS route. if you are looking for a lush sweeping sound, but simpler more direct sounds then CS is the man. you CAN get that sound to a point with LASS but its a lot of work. CS is load a patch and play it. neither approaches are wrong, but if you are not going for really detailed string writing you might be better served with a library such as CS.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 4, 2009)

Sounds great, taylor! That's what I'm talking about I guess.... is that all Symphobia? I recognise a lot of it, but to an audience (or a producer) it doesn't matter. It sounds fantastic!

I like the strings that come in at 17s... which articulation is this, out of interest? Also the simple percussion works great there, I usually go too big - which lib?!

I may well end up getting more than one lib. The more I do in this project, its the string runs that keep frustrating me, so I think that's where I'll have to focus first... and that's pretty limited options right now. Might be quite different in a few months time though!


----------



## watikutju (Dec 4, 2009)

OOOOoooohh.....I love CS........

In Australia we may have the same conversation about Holdens Vs Fords, Carlton Vs Collingwood, Fanning Vs Parkinson, Lee Vs Lillie, O'Hare Vs Macpherson.....

In the end the punters usually pick a side and stick with with it.....BUT....if you could have some of one and some of the other....well....now that's sometimes a different story

Did I mention I love CS? o/~


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

> What I don't want or need is a library that takes vast amounts of time to get good results. With my deadlines, I don't have that luxury (and to be honest with myself, not the formal training to arrange correctly). I want a magic box that can translate notes I play on the keyboard to believable string performances!



LASS is very playable if you have done your homework. i have all the instruments connected to one expression track for the whole ensemble in arrange. it sends expression to all of the instruments so the section works as a whole. if i need individual expression i don't have any automation for that period in the music. this saves a lot of time.

you need time to work out how to set up the levels and reverb for LASS. you will need to eq otherwise the cellos and basses sound too boomy. if you do the homework, get everything set up right, i think you will find LASS to be extremely playable and instant. it's just that it isn't instant instantly - if you get what i mean....

if you have symphobia and you are working to really tight deadlines - and believe me i know all about tight deadlines - then you should be covered for most things and you can use smatterings of LASS to sweeten it. you will get greater clarity of line.

here is a cue that i knocked together very quickly - it's the only one i can think of offhand that i would dare present publicly - heh - but also in that in snippets it uses lots of elements of LASS and shows how it works and how it feels in a mix. this is for a romantic comedy in the shakespearean vein and you can see how it needed a more chamber sound, a greater lightness of touch, which other libs just don't have. also, it uses the LASS pizzicato patches which are just gorgeous in my opinion. but check out the cello run down about half way through. you can get the same effect with all of the strings just using the staccato patches (not the spiccato) and sounds very convincingly like a fast run.

http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/ClimbingWall.mp3 (Climbing the Wall)


----------



## _taylor (Dec 4, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> Sounds great, taylor! That's what I'm talking about I guess.... is that all Symphobia? I recognise a lot of it, but to an audience (or a producer) it doesn't matter. It sounds fantastic!
> 
> I like the strings that come in at 17s... which articulation is this, out of interest? Also the simple percussion works great there, I usually go too big - which lib?!



Thanks.

All Symphobia and I used the monster stac from CS for some low end layering with the stabs. 

@ 17 is Stac, Spic and solo stac from Symphobia. the drums are a custom diddy I made in K3.. plus a little synth1 for the pitch bend sound and drone at the end.


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

> Holdens Vs Fords, Carlton Vs Collingwood



holdens versus fords i can understand (holden obviously) but carlton versus collingwood? you have to be kidding me...meatheads versus morons isn't going to get you far before you see the futility of the argument. a bit like arguing over atari versus commodore 64 in the age of PCs and macs. now a dockers versus eagles debate would be a bit more interesting - and meaningful. sheesh.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 4, 2009)

Whoa, another fabulous demo Stevenson! Very reminiscent of Newman's Wall E score in places I thought (which is a huge compliment, I hope!)


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

> Whoa, another fabulous demo Stevenson! Very reminiscent of Newman's Wall E score in places I thought (which is a huge compliment, I hope!)



ahhhh....yes....you might be right. i am never sure who i am ripping off or from what - only that i am...

that said, i was actually ripping myself off, from a cue (actually a combination of 2 cues) i did from before wall-e came out so maybe thomas newman was ripping me off. bastard! i'll sue!


----------



## cc64 (Dec 4, 2009)

Hey Rohan,

nice track. The woodwinds are great too. What are they?

Claude


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

clarinets are me, flutes and pics are combinations of siedlecek and miroslav - centuries old but they still good.

the recorder is gorgeous - just apple jampacks. i have used it quite a bit now - it's become the instrument of of one of the main characters. apple jampacks are full of dinkum goodies. some of them are highly usable. the orchestral kit for example is fantastic.

i was going to post this cue in another forum to ask a different question. getting sick of fighting VSL harp into a mix. what are the alternatives? i have looked around a bit but haven't found anything that really made me sit up and want to have.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 4, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> if you have symphobia and you are working to really tight deadlines - and believe me i know all about tight deadlines - then you should be covered for most things and you can use smatterings of LASS to sweeten it. you will get greater clarity of line.



So true & well said. 

Btw nice cue! Lass sounds very clear and present.


----------



## cc64 (Dec 4, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> clarinets are me, flutes and pics are combinations of siedlecek and miroslav - centuries old but they still good.



Ok so that's why we here actual breathing and mouth noises ; ) 

I figured wow very realistic samples!

As for Harp did you try the one included in EWQLSO Platinum? I like it once you EQ it to fit the particular track you're working on.

Our friends at Cinesamples have one also at 29$. Haven't tried it...

Best,

Claude


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

thanks guys. i posted this because this is slightly different from the usual fare - this a more chambery sound and i think it shows off LASS's flexibility.

i did actually check out the cinesamples harp and wasn't sure about it. if its only $29 i think i'll just get it and be done. look over it at my leisure. i wish tonehammer would do a harp - those circle bells are just fantastic....


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 4, 2009)

The Cinesamples Harp is nice. Also, check out Maarten's Harp at Project SAM or Sonivox's Harp.


----------



## theheresy (Dec 4, 2009)

stevenson please post more. I beg you. I enjoy listening to your things


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

how very kind! thankyou...

well since i have managed to hijack your thread i can only oblige:

http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/TheBattle.mp3 (The Battle)

because we all enjoy a good battle cue - whcih this isn't - it is the culmination of the comedy of errors leading to a tourne - still needing to retain the light-hearted comic edge. uses a fair bit of those apple jampacks for the drums i metioned earlier and LASS just doing its thing really well.

of course! i love the SAM stuff, i'll check out their harp. i am afraid the cinesamples harp just sounds far too close mic'd for me. the demos are lovely but the weak point in them is actually the harp! i would love the cinesamples glissandi concept recorded properly alla SAM - then we'd be in business, and i would pay top euro too.

god it's like i have my head between the harpists legs i am so up close and personal - at least then i might have a chance of muffling the sound enough to make me think it was further away...

thanks for the tip on the SAM harp frederick. checking it out now.


----------



## Ed (Dec 4, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> of course! i love the SAM stuff, i'll check out their harp. i am afraid the cinesamples harp just sounds far too close mic'd for me. the demos are lovely but the weak point in them is actually the harp! i would love the cinesamples glissandi concept recorded properly alla SAM - then we'd be in business, and i would pay top euro too.
> .



I think CineSamples have learnt since then, I didnt like their Toms AT ALL and consider it a waste of money. However DOW seems to sound great and I want to buy it as does their woodwinds.


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

absolutely. daniel james posted a DOW in the music review section and it's stunning. i guarantee i will be buying those and i have already recommended them to a few colleagues. btw i bought the SAM harp even though i still felt the demo wasn't doing it for me - and it's alex pfeffer too - that's a man who knows a thing or two. never-the-less SAM has always managed to capture 'that' sound in everything else they have done i am prepared to just give it a go.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2009)

I have to jump to LASS' defense here. This has nothing to do with CS, which I haven't even heard, but saying that LASS sounds like worse crap in the hands of anyone other than an expert than any other library is like saying that bark is bad because it doesn't taste good. It's meaningless in other words.

Sorry, it annoys the f out of me to read ridiculous posts dissing a great product unfairly, followed by someone else saing "okay, then this is the wrong product for me."

With all due respect - which is a preface to being rude usually  - Re-pete, you've had an erection against LASS all along. Why?

Has anyone heard lush, expressive string passages that sound close to LASS? Or any other high strings that don't sound synthy? Never mind all the unique scripting features.

I agree with Frederick that all the libraries have something unique to offer, but really, there's a reason so many people have bought LASS. It absolutely is the next level - and that takes nothing away from the other libraries that have come before it.

BTW I'm certainly not saying it's perfect, just that I don't want to see a pearls-before-swine thing happening here.

I'm friends with Andrew, but I'd say the same even if he were a total asshole. You'd have to include Trillian, Omnisphere, K3.5, and VE Pro as being major products, but this is the product of the year - and it's been a great year for sampling.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 4, 2009)

Well, Nick I do agree but I think what Re-peat was saying was more complimentary to LASS rather than dissing it. The way I took his post was that LASS is for people who strive to work at music rather than want everything spoonfed to them. As a society, we're sliding down this slippery slope so much so it's nice to have a product that extols the virtues of learning an mastering it. I think LASS is one of the deepest libraries I own and 4 months later, I still feel like I'm getting more out of it with each day. That's a good thing. It's not a one dimensional product.


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 4, 2009)

> have to jump to LASS' defense here. This has nothing to do with CS, which I haven't even heard, but saying that LASS sounds like worse crap in the hands of anyone other than an expert than any other library is like saying that bark is bad because it doesn't taste good. It's meaningless in other words.




nick you don't have to defend LASS. there is nothing to defend. all anyone has said - including repeat - is that it is not instant gratification. it's pretty deep and the downside of flexibility is that it can't know exactly how you want it to sound right out of the box. you do need to massage it. once you have figured it out it can pull off stuff no other library (that i know of can) and i personally went out of my way to demonstrate that.

all i think anyone is saying is that the concept behind CS is different. it is not trying to be that flexible it is simply trying to do a narrower remit as well as it can, with less effort from the user. anyone who does not have the time to get to grips with it but needs symphobia like instantness may end up struggling with it initially. nothing to defend.


----------



## _taylor (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't know why there is a pissing contest going on? Or maybe I'm reading into it too much. 

I think all 3 would be the way to go. Cover all bases. 


Off topic a bit, when are we going to see some next level BRASS???


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2009)

Okay, but every string library sounds like poo if you don't know how to use it. I actually find LASS easier to make sound the way I want it to sound because of its programming, and it's certainly more gratifying at first than VSL or EWQLSO simply because you gotcher longs, two different shorts, trems, and yer pizzes. Boom, off you go.

And this isn't pissing as far I'm concerned, _taylor, it's saying that I don't think these criticisms are warranted.

(And I think it goes without saying that I'm not dissing EWQLSO or VSL, just saying that you have to learn a lot of articulations before they sound right...unless you load the massive VSL programs, which in all honesty I have a habit of doing...)


----------



## _taylor (Dec 4, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> Okay, but every string library sounds like poo if you don't know how to use it.



I find this statement true. lol. and true with anything else that makes a noise. 


I know you weren't having a piss contest, but this thread sure feels like one. 

Just a little befuddled (sp?) how people can't hear the differences amongst the 2 (3) libs and think what would benefit them and the sound they are after the best.


----------



## midphase (Dec 4, 2009)

"I don't know why there is a pissing contest going on? Or maybe I'm reading into it too much. 

I think all 3 would be the way to go. Cover all bases. "

Hmmm...because most of us don't have a bunch of cash laying around the house waiting to be spent? I think nowadays we all have to be wise with how we spend our sampling budget as there have been many duds in the past (plus some of us are trying really really hard to lay off the Bittorrent).


----------



## _taylor (Dec 4, 2009)

midphase @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> "I don't know why there is a pissing contest going on? Or maybe I'm reading into it too much.
> 
> I think all 3 would be the way to go. Cover all bases. "
> 
> Hmmm...because most of us don't have a bunch of cash laying around the house waiting to be spent? I think nowadays we all have to be wise with how we spend our sampling budget as there have been many duds in the past (plus some of us are trying really really hard to lay off the Bittorrent).




There is this new thing, its called a savings account! 

I have a few duds myself. But strings to me, like percussion, always find a place into new material.


----------



## lux (Dec 4, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> I have to jump to LASS' defense here. This has nothing to do with CS, which I haven't even heard, but saying that LASS sounds like worse crap in the hands of anyone other than an expert than any other library is like saying that bark is bad because it doesn't taste good. It's meaningless in other words.
> 
> Sorry, it annoys the f out of me to read ridiculous posts dissing a great product unfairly, followed by someone else saing "okay, then this is the wrong product for me."
> 
> ...



Nick, your post demonstrates once again that a few products are being considered "untouchable" on this board. And this is one of the reasons i'm less in love with this place from a few months. This is just the last of a long series of "terror" posts against any criticism (or concurrent product announcement, as in an old post i recall) on Lass. 

I think no product had all the hype Lass has received from this board. 

In this specific case i just found re-peat's post pretty informative. Pair.

Luca


----------



## watikutju (Dec 4, 2009)

...and this is the part where someone thows a chair...(I'm guessing it's gonna be the 1st chair)... :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2009)

hahaha

Terror post indeed.

Luca, I've defended other products against criticism I feel is unfair too. Many times. My post has to do with reality, not speaking up against criticizing a sacred cow.

Yes, LASS absolutely does deserve the hype it's had here. So do the other products I mentioned - Omnisphere, Trillium, K3.5/4, and VE Pro. And there have been several really good libraries this year.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2009)

By the way, LASS isn't perfect. There are a few things about that do deserve criticism - which Andrew is fully aware of and readily admits. But it's still the gold standard as of today.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 4, 2009)

Truth of the matter is that CS is an excellent sounding product and had it come out before LASS we'd all be singing it's praises a lot more. LASS has the best legato features of any library I've ever heard and that's stunning. 

I did dl the short string patch and if you want that action Hollywood marc strings CS does this better than anything I've heard. It also has that full sound that is so reminiscent of a lot of the contemporary big Hollywood scores. I'm thinking of getting CS just for that.

But as far as musicality I've not heard any sample library even come close to LASS. What it lacks in big badassness it makes up in dynamic range and subtlety.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 4, 2009)

I will say that I do agree with what someone said in an earlier post about the difference between assessing a library's merits based on listening as opposed to owning and playing with it themselves. This is why I insist that developers need some viable vehicle to allow potential buyers the ability to try before they buy. I think this would give them greater sales. At this point, some people shy away from committing to an expensive library because they don't know how it will sound in their rig, unlike a hardware keyboard that they can rent or even return should they not like it. this is the double edged sword in the world of sample based software libs.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 4, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> I have to jump to LASS' defense here. This has nothing to do with CS, which I haven't even heard, but saying that LASS sounds like worse crap in the hands of anyone other than an expert than any other library is like saying that bark is bad because it doesn't taste good. It's meaningless in other words.
> 
> Sorry, it annoys the f out of me to read ridiculous posts dissing a great product unfairly, followed by someone else saing "okay, then this is the wrong product for me."
> 
> ...



Nick, as someone who runs a magazine about virtual instruments it might not hurt to take 2 minutes of your time and listen to a CS demo, y'know catch up with the average user of this site in virtual instruments knowledge.

Re-peat routinely has some of the best posts on this forum. He's smart, and a great composer.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 4, 2009)

Hellooooooo .... boys .... >8o o=< 

This is a thread about libraries, not about getting personal. [schild=18 fontcolor=000000 shadowcolor=DC143C shieldshadow=1]Stop it please![/schild]


----------



## midphase (Dec 4, 2009)

I also find Nick's post a bit over-zealous. I get the feeling what triggered it was the implication that Andrew lost a sale because of Re-Peat's post which I doubt was the case.

I think this discussion has been quite civilized for this forum (which I admit makes for a less fun read).

Now on to more important matters:

"Truth of the matter is that CS is an excellent sounding product and had it come out before LASS we'd all be singing it's praises a lot more. '

Jose...I disagree. I think if CS would have had a couple of months head start, some people would have jumped in, but we would have not seen the same enthusiasm as we have for LASS, I have to agree with Nick here, Lass is something else that we haven't seen before (alien technology perhaps?).

Once again, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not saying that CS is not a fabulous library, is just that the current demos don't sell it as a next gen string library. Last night I went ahead and downloaded the staccato patch (I would urge Nick to do the same and give ample listening to CS's demos as well, especially in light of his line of work). CS is not a product that should be overlooked and it is unfortunate that it seems to be flying under the radar. I don't know if this is an intentional decision by the developers who AFAIK might be working frantically to improve the library and re-launch a 2.0 version soon. Then again, perhaps their sales might not reflect our speculation and might be well above their expectations for all we know. 

I played the staccato patch quite extensively today, the low end is commendably good and does have the grit and bite that is needed for some of those hollywood action cues that some of us like so much. 

Unfortunately, as I moved up in the octaves, I found myself less than excited about what I heard...why is it so difficult for samples to capture high strings? The sound was IMHO thin and synthy and very reminiscent of Symphobia's strings which have the very same issues. (smartly, the SAM guys have limited the high range in most of their patches). If the high end is CS's Achilles' heel, then LASS has been able to overcome that somehow (at least from listening to the demos). This might be an issue of ensemble size, or might have to do with the recording environment...hard to tell what it is.

CS sounds better than VSL and QLSO to my ears, and if those were the only game in town, we'd all be singing the praises of CS a lot more, although they would be for an evolutionary step forward and not revolutionary as LASS seems to present.

An old magazine ad comes to mind which Nick might remember quite well, one was for the Lynn 9000 and the other for the Oberheim DMX (if I remember correctly, which I probably don't). I'm going to paraphrase the ads by adapting them to CS and LASS which would say respectively:

CS - Real strings!

LASS - Unreal strings!


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 4, 2009)

nvm


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 5, 2009)

Actually this is still a really useful debate! I don't think it's getting too personal... passionate, sure, but that's ok!

I'm applying what I always try to, Noiseboy's Golden Purchasing Rule...

"What will this library enable me to do that I can't do already?"

Now, there will always be an answer for almost every library out there, the question becomes which is the most compelling answer. Very often I find the answer is "fine detail", and at this stage in my working life, that's not a priority for me sadly.

I hope I'm not setting my quality threshold too low. I've been getting unprompted feedback on my current-ridiculous-working-schedule project from others involved in the production, and its really extraordinary (which is nice, obviously). One of the artists could barely get the words out to say how much he loved the music and it added to the show! I'm well aware both of my own failings and those of my libs, but clearly on the basic level, the stuff I've got delivers. I feel just adding fine detail would be more for my own benefit than for sheer practical necessity.

(interesting digression... the only cue the producer rejected because it sounded "synthy" was a very rare time-saving cut in of an early cue of mine which was a combination of SO and Omnisphere to make the strings a little more lush... clearly it didn't work! I redid it using Symphobia and it went past his ears quite happily. That was a very revealing moment to me in terms of how my libs and techniques are perceived by outsiders... I thought the Omnisphere / SO combo had worked quite well, but obviously it hadn't!)

Now, I'm well aware that there are still (many) gaps in what I can achieve (again, partly it's talent no doubt, and partly tools). I get a little frustrated with the clarion call to "buy everything", because that doesn't just apply to string libs, it applies to absolutely everything! I could blow many thousands on VSL's stunning instruments tomorrow (especially their brass... hmmm....), never mind these string libs. I could buy all the great string libs out there available today, and still not be able to achieve stuff I really want. There's a helluva lot to weigh up, so its why I go back to my Golden Purchasing Rule... what can give me something I can't currently do?

HWW was a really important product for me. It opened up woodwind use to new areas for me, buying it was a no-brainer really. I think that's what I really want for strings, and as yet this product doesn't exist. I can make a fist of some simple solo strings using SO, but I can't really do the fast string runs I desperately (and frequently) want. Sometimes there's no alternative but to do a poor attempt using the tools I have, and it's not very pretty. I know for a fact I'd be frequently writing different stuff if I had those tools at my disposal.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from, and I may well not be typical. If I needed the next level of realism and detail in my projects, I'd probably have bought LASS months ago. I can't deny that this level of detail wouldn't be lovely to have and my material would benefit, but is it - overall - the best use of my resources given my other needs? May be it is, but I'm still agonising over it!


----------



## Revson (Dec 5, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Dec 04 said:


> I have to jump to LASS' defense here. This has nothing to do with CS, which I haven't even heard, but saying that LASS sounds like worse crap in the hands of anyone other than an expert than any other library is like saying that bark is bad because it doesn't taste good. It's meaningless in other words.
> 
> Sorry, it annoys the f out of me to read ridiculous posts dissing a great product unfairly, followed by someone else saing "okay, then this is the wrong product for me."
> 
> ...


Shaking my head and smiling at your post Nick, as I've been mulling a post wondering why repeat had put on the kid gloves.

LASS wins the "least criticized on vi-control ever" award. There's been no product backlash, no "the honeymoon is over." There's _always_ a backlash for new products that have been lavishly praised on introduction! It's a music product forum tradition!

This IMO isn't because LASS is such an outstanding product that there is nothing to criticize, but rather an outstanding, groundbreaking product developed by a great guy who is a longtime participant in this board who I'm guessing some of the core people on this board have shaken hands with, looked in the eye, and hoisted a few and therefore wish him the very best and feel slightly protective toward.

I'd be surprised if Andrew, hearing the couple of great CS demos, didn't say to himself: Yeah. Hmm. Woah. That's some kind of nice tone to those strings (as in: better 'n mine.) LASS is sampled strings dream-come-true in so many ways, but he didn't absolutely nail the tone, did he? I mean, we recognize and comment on great tone, yes? Symphobia? Huh?

So repeat comes on and instead of saying just that, manages to cloak his words something to the effect of "this is a library that is _so_ great, it has passed into another realm. Let me tell you how great it is: you have to be a _super_ composer to make it sound good." Or something like that. I mean, it is so obvious he's walking on eggshells here. And repeat has got ears man! I've got one of his posted mock-ups from the past year on my hard drive as a benchmark, really one of the most beautiful mixes, mock-up or not, I've ever heard. Then you come on and tear into him for having some arbitrary grudge against the product. Hah hah hah! This is where I start writing my post. 

A beautiful recorded string timbre is a simple thing (though not easy to obtain it seems). A note or two, a line...it sounds beautiful.

LASS is in a league of its own in many things. Straight timbre out-of-the-box? Not what you'd lead with.

This is, of course, just my opinion (and that of anyone else whose ears I'd have respect for.)

LASS really _is_ a great product Nick, and will suffer opinions such as this without breaking stride.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 5, 2009)

Andrew is a composer himself so that in of itself already set the bar really high when he began working on LASS. I just want to point out that LASS not only has those groundbreaking divisi sections but some flat out terrific short articulations that have no rival to my ears. I own VSL, EWQLSO, HSO, Miroslav, pretty much everything and LASS is my go to lib for those biting short strings without hesitation. I downloaded the monster staccato from CS and found it decent but it's not on the same level of detail (realism) than LASS. To me at least.

Edit- So I have CS monster staccato on one channel of DP right now and LASS on another. Gotta admit CS ain't that bad. I would say it offers something better than EWQLSO and VSL in terms of lushness. Perhaps even better than the Symphobia strings although I love those a lot. But, LASS, especially in the sustained sections, sounds like real players bowing. I was listening really intently and I gotta admit it's really really that good. To have this many accolades by so many people would suggest it IS worth all of the hype. Anyhoo, I'm off to compose. Bye all.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 5, 2009)

Nick,

You either have to (1) suffer a serious fit of malevolence, (2) be gravely dyslexic or (3) taken complete leave of your senses to twist my words and opinions so unfairly and stupidly like you have done when rephrasing the views expressed in my previous post, just for the sake of venting your irritation. There is not a single syllable in my entire previous post that even hints at me criticizing, let alone dissing LASS. So, shame on you, Batzdorf.

Anyway, doesn’t matter. Can’t be helped, I suppose. Just try to read the following a bit more attentively than you managed to do with my first post.

The thing that gets on my titties whenever LASS is being talked about here at V.I., is the preposterous idea that all you need to do in order to produce a fabulous stringsound is to buy, install and fire up LASS. Because that just isn’t true. And spreading the idea that it _is_ true (a foolishness which, to my great surprise, you seem to take part in), is highly unfair to people with an interest in the library. Just as it is every bit as unfair to the developer, because you stamp a promise on the box of his product that isn't his and that his product doesn't fulfill.

Anyone who has some experience in using LASS will tell you (or at least: _should_ tell you, if they’re honest) that LASS doesn’t provide the quick ‘n easy solutions that a library like Symphobia has so generously on offer. I’ll say it again: LASS needs work, orchestral know-know and well-written music in order for it to sound its best. If you want to create as breathtakingly beautiful a stringsound as Colin O’Malley did in “She Was A Fair Lass” — still one the best LASS-moments in existence, if you ask me — than you have to be as accomplished a writer as Colin is. Otherwise, forget it. That’s what I’m saying. And the sheer lack of pieces showcasing a LASS-stringsound comparable to Colin’s, seems to prove my point. Unless, Nick, you know of some hidden LASS-vault where all the ‘lush expressive’-sounding pieces reside? If so, please do share.

There is NO lush, expressive stringsound available in LASS at the mere press of a few buttons. If you want one — and LASS is indeed capable of providing one, no discussion there — then you’ll have to know how to write/orchestrate one and be prepared to put in the considerable effort to assemble the required ingredients (in other words: desks) which, together, will convincingly simulate one.

Does any of this mean that I hold LASS in little regard? Absolutely not. On the contrary, I share every ounce of your enthusiasm and admiration for the library and probably even more than that. What you interpret as criticism on my part is in fact a huge compliment because nothing else than a real and truly valuable musical instrument asks the kind of commitment from the user that LASS does.

Anyone can create a half-decent orchestral canvas with Symphobia. Just as anyone, with a reasonable experience in virtual orchestration, will be able to come up with an acceptable sounding EWQL mock-up. And it doesn’t require all too rare skills to create something inoffensive with the Vienna Special Edition either. LASS however is a different ballgame. If you don’t know the first thing about writing for strings, LASS will turn out to be a disappointing and confusing purchase. And yes, I _know_ very well that this applies to all stringlibraries — I seem to remember already having said that in my previous post — but it applies much more to LASS than all the others, because LASS, more than any other existing stringlibrary, is like _a dissection of a stringorchestra_. With other libraries you only get _the skin_ of a string orchestra — its exterior texture —, LASS on the other hand, gives you the muscles, the bones and the inner organs. The creation of the skin however is almost entirely the user's responsibility and whether that will happen successfully or not depends in no small part on that user's capabilities.

And this, the very thing which makes LASS so uniquely powerful, is also the thing that will (or might) cause the biggest frustration to casual, inexperienced or ignorant users.

_


----------



## Daniel James (Dec 5, 2009)

I want both libraries. You guys buy them for me and I shall tell you which is better.

End Discussion....


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 5, 2009)

OK, maybe it IS getting a little personal now (!)... but it's still a really good and meaty debate.

I really value re-peat's input here. I'm a not-very-good keyboard player (ditto guitar and bass). I've never arranged a string ensemble in my life, or come within a million miles of one. What I hope I do have is a good ear, and an ability to translate an idea into music using pretty much that ear alone. For example, I can hear how a counterpoint should go in my head, I know what instruments should be playing what in my head, and can find interesting chords and phrases, but it's not formal composition / arangement or anything within a million miles of it. Needless to say, Symphobia suits me down to the ground. (incidentally, I was exactly the same way back in my rock band days... I never learned a thing formally, but I wrote a good tune and had a unique style which a lot of people said nicer things about than I did myself).

Now, I'm getting two different messages here (as is obvious by the heated debate). If I understand re-peat correctly, LASS really isn't the library for me. However, one question for re-peat - how much of this is due to divisi writing? With LASS lite, will these more formal skills be less important because the scope / depth is much reduced?

However others have a slightly different skew (if I understand correctly). I won't get instant results, but if I spend some time initially getting to know the library and adapting it to my sound (EQ, reverb etc), it'll be perfectly quick to use in practice. Indeed, the attraction of LASS to me primarily is legato and ART, both of which (again, if I've understood right) are designed to be very easy to play and use.

So I'd be interested in hearing from both "sides" here - will LASS, or LASS lite, work for me?


----------



## Pedro Camacho (Dec 5, 2009)

I own both libraries, both have its place to me. Just like Symphobia and Sonic Implants Strings also still have a place.

I have to confess LASS takes a larger portion of the pie, but still CS has a good portion too.

Take note that to use LASS decently, you need at least 8 Gbs RAM just for it. (I have a single PC to use it, with all articulations loaded). 

You need like 2 or 3 HDs where you place LASS. This is because you might want to place Violins and Violas in one HD and Cellos and Countrabasses in another, to make sure the streaming is always perfect.

Also LASS is a bit harder to use in the sense that you need to have some good reverb/EQ/mixing skill to make it sound really perfect.


CS, in the other hand is dead easy to use. You need just 2 Gbs RAM to load all articulations and the scripting is already prepared to handle all articulations changes.


So for short:

LASS:
-Incredible detail and sonic quality
-Glissandi, Portamentos
-fantastic pure Real legato
-Great recordings
-polyphonic round robin
-Needs high reverb/EQ/mixing skills
-Need 8Gbs of RAM to load all articulations. You will need 12 Gbs if you also want Glissandi loaded (the non-fixed glissandi)
-Need good midi controller to change the many parameters
-You need to use your own knowledge to find the best way to handle multiple Articulations (which is good imo. I change on the fly any articulation with the touch of a button in my Novation 61SL)
-Needs to be distributed in many HDs

CS:
-Great tone
-Good Recordings
-3 mic positions Library (which makes it really easier to mix)
-2Gbs RAM aprox to have full articulations and mics loaded
-real/scripted hybrid legato
-Amazing Scripting by Gunter (extremely easy to change between articulations) (this can be worse for the real high end user, which likes to have its own config, but works great anyway!)


How do Symphobia and SI complement these libraries?

Well for Symphobia I must say it is the staccatos. If you are making trailers / really loud stuff, Symphobia gives a boost to your sound.

SI, I use it for extra power in really powerful staccatos and, SI has the best pianissimo spiccato ever. 
No library ever got this wonderful, baroque-ish, light and wonderful spiccato, as Sonic Implants did.

This articulation is a must for Baroque music or other comic/lighthearted spiccato passages.

Of course you can also get this sound from LASS but the attack in LASS is much more pronounced (which is great for modern scoring) but not so great for a more classical sound.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 5, 2009)

re-peat @ Sat Dec 05 said:


> If you want to create as breathtakingly beautiful a stringsound as Colin O’Malley did in “She Was A Fair Lass” — still one the best LASS-moments in existence, if you ask me — than you have to be as accomplished a writer as Colin is. Otherwise, forget it. That’s what I’m saying. And the sheer lack of pieces showcasing a LASS-stringsound comparable to Colin’s, seems to prove my point.
> _



re-peat, I don't recall having responded to too many of your posts in the past, so bear with me. 

I think the summation of your position is found in a single word - craft.

The more compositional and orchestration craft you have, the more you can get out of LASS. And depending on how well the divisi works with Hollywood Strings, then we might be saying the same thing about that library, too. 

Time and Demos will tell. 

Meanwhile - my own experience so far.

I haven't yet rolled out any comps with LASS because I'm still going through excerpts from my own book, Orchestrating the Melody Within the String Section, along with pop scores I've acquired from Robert Farnon, Nelson Riddle and a few others, to see how far I can push this library. Having been to the Scott Smalley Orchestration Class, I also have those two thick pads of books to test with, plus published John Williams scores. 

My question is simply this: can I write for strings and have LASS sound like strings, or do I have to write for samples in their best moments to replicate a string sound?

Now all sample libraries are string replications in this sense. But so far, I've found that I can write for strings, apply LASS, and get strings. 

I have scores from Jerry Goldsmith where he creates a smaller ensemble within the larger ensemble by dividing the violas and cellos in four-part harmony then writes bass and violins around that. 

I can now achieve this on my own right out of the box.

If I want to write div a 3 ala Debussy or Ravel, I can achieve it - right out of the box.

If I want to write a smaller chamber sound, I can do it. 

If I want to write for singers with realistic session-sized strings, I can do it with LASS, including using a matching bass pizzicato.

So far, I've found the ultimate team with LASS includes QLSO (at least Gold), Westgate Studio woodwinds and French horn (they drop into the LASS mix perfectly from what I've found so far), and the Sony Oxford Plugins. 

That's the core.

From there, the dynamic string and brass effects within Symphobia are a master addition, plus Cinesamples Hollywood Winds. 

I can also do advanced orchestration. 

Not everyone on this board wants to write this way, but that's not the point. The point is that anyone _can_ write this way should they choose to.

And that's the choice of craft, isn't it? 

Can similar things be done by combining libraries?

Yes, but as many of us know, it takes a lot of time. 

With LASS, that time is reduced, greatly. Which means I'm free to put more time into writing. Since time = money, that to me is a good thing.

Every library has its quirks, and LASS is no exception. 

But isn't it refreshing to know that if you wanted to write something like _The Lark Ascending_ for muted strings and solo violin you can do it with one library?

Hopefully, re-peat, I've "heard" your intent correctly, so please take my comments in that spirit. 

Thanks so much for your contribution.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2009)

Okay, this is out of hand.

"I also find Nick's post a bit over-zealous. I get the feeling what triggered it was the implication that Andrew lost a sale because of Re-Peat's post which I doubt was the case. "

Yes and no. That is what triggered it, I probably was overzealous and apologize, but it's the combination of what I think is unfair criticism and the lost sale that irritated me. And it's not because *Andrew* might have lost a sale, it's because I cringe at stampedes against any developer that result in lost sales. Even Apple - I find all the Logic dissing distasteful, even when it comes from people who know what they're doing musically and technically.

Re-Pete, I have nothing but respect for your musical abilities. You're clearly a very talented guy, and as Choc says, you do post valuable stuff here all the time.

In this case I think your criticism is unfair, and it may have mislead someone not to buy the best string library out there. (Choc - I have listened to the demos of CS but not actually played it.)

OF COURSE you aren't going to sound like Colin just by firing it up. Libraries are instruments, and you have to experiment with their capabilities before you'll get the most out of them. Colin knows where the sweet spots are in the layers, he's combining the sections in interesting ways, and of course he's using the MIDI controllers well.

BUT THAT'S WITH ANY LIBRARY! If you load VSL and start playing it without processing it properly or using enough articulations, it'll sound like a Casio! EWQLSO is the closest to sounding good as soon as you load it, but you still have to use the right articulations. And of course there's a reason EW is coming out with new strings: we're headed to a new generation.

Anyway, I apologize if I sounded overly aggressive, but I hope you understand my point. You can't get the sound Colin gets with any other library.


----------



## lux (Dec 5, 2009)

i still dont get your point.

re-peats doesnt seem to criticize, go figure in an unfair fashion. There is no critique but description i hear here. You can see that also from how all the members are discussing here with interest on this regard.

my impression is that what makes it a critique is probably your complete lack of acceptance for unhyped discussions on the matter.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2009)

No Lux. I too have criticisms of LASS.

But does anybody criticize VSL because they don't sound like Guy Bacos? Or EWQLSO because they don't sound like those original Thomas J demos?

Ultimately the product is a tool, and you have to master it. To me LASS is a great tool. I'm sure CS is too, by the way.


----------



## juliansader (Dec 5, 2009)

I think all everyone's questions would be much easier to answer if we had better demos of LASS and CS. 

Demos that were specifically composed to showcase sample libraries are not nearly as convincing as demos that are based on well-known classical music for strings. In the former case, the composition is in service of the library. In the latter case, the library is in service of a composition that was not written for (or limited to, or optimised for) the specific library, which is the way most potential users would like to use the library.

If the guys from LASS and CS (or any other demo composers) are reading this, please give us demos of well-known classical compositions!


Julian


----------



## re-peat (Dec 5, 2009)

Peter,

Thanks for your post. No, you're right, we haven’t exchanged much in the way of words yet, have we? I can only hope that this makes for a fine and promising start. 

I’m very well aware of all the amazing things that LASS can do and, especially for all those situations where intricate, nuanced filigree stringwriting is called for (such as in many of the examples that you’ve given), there is indeed no other library that has better, more satisfying (and, yes, quicker!) solutions available.

However, as you already mentioned yourself, not everyone who is seduced by the resounding (and well-deserved) rounds of praise for LASS, and subsequently decides to consider a purchase, is writing the kind of music that requires this level of multi-layered finesse. And for those people, as well as for the people who are — for whatever reason — unwilling or incapable of dealing with such finesse, it seems to me that a well-meaning word of warning — like the ones I expressed in my previous posts — is certainly not inappropriate or misplaced, let alone ‘ridiculous’ or ‘unfair’. What is unfair, it seems to me, is to present LASS as anything else than what it actually is, making it appear as if LASS is the best possible answer to every possible person’s virtual strings requirements. That, to me, is unfair. If someone wants to make a simple but tasty omelette and inquires about buying some eggs, I think it’s wrong to try and sell him the ingredients for a complex gourmet dish. The poor man will be left extremely hungry (and angry), not being able to make something with the ingredients he was adviced to buy, and not having the eggs which he desired in the first place either.

The thing I’m concerned about here is that people might read and keep reading that “LASS is the most phenomenal, best-sounding string library ever released”, the “nec plus ultra” of stringlibraries so to speak, only to find, after having bought it (with their heads full of excited expectations), that they’ve ended up with a rather complex tool for which they lack the required skills and knowledge — or, in one word, the ‘craft’, as you say — to make it sound like they were told it would sound.

Some people, to give just one example, mainly want to write big and sweeping unisono stringlines on a bed of padding chords. The kind of essentialy homophonic music that one often hears these days. Well, for those people there are more satisfying choices than LASS, I believe. Cinematic Strings, for example. 

You mentioned ‘time’, yes? Well, there are many things you can do relatively quickly with CS, that would require MUCH more time if you had to do them with LASS. Those big, sweeping ‘epic theme’ stringlines, for instance. Creating a big stringsound with CS is a piece of cake, with LASS it is time-consuming and much harder work. Or, other example, as Pedro has already mentioned, if one is looking for a library to simulate light-on-their-feet, good-humoured section spiccati, SonicImplants remains the best choice by far, despite its age. Again, MUCH quicker than LASS to get results with and still the library to beat for easy-to-use, medium-sized stringsections, as far as I’m concerned. If time is money, then it also makes sense, it seems to me, to know (and consider carefully) what you will be spending time on and what the best tools are for accomplishing the job, no?

Should any of the above be construed as a criticism towards LASS? No, I don’t think so. I’m just saying that LASS can’t be, and isn’t, all things to all stringwriting men, that’s all.

_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2009)

I'm not Peter, but I think people who just want to lay pads would be better with Omnisphere strings, frankly. That's not really string writing, it's something else - which is absolutely fine (and I really like Omnisphere in general). But that sound is not what one would choose *any* string library for.

The person who wants the omelette can use the full section programs and create smooth, expressive lines the likes of which nothing else yet does. That omelette is going to sound better than the one the stringwriting man gets out of his Kurzweil K250.

And as I said, the stringwriting man is going to have his excitement tempered by every string library out there when he discovers that he has no idea what he's doing.

The good news is that the skills to make a library sound good are not beyond anyone here.


----------



## lux (Dec 5, 2009)

juliansader @ Sat Dec 05 said:


> Demos that were specifically composed to showcase sample libraries are not nearly as convincing as demos that are based on well-known classical music for strings. In the former case, the composition is in service of the library. In the latter case, the library is in service of a composition that was not written for (or limited to, or optimised for) the specific library, which is the way most potential users would like to use the library.



I think this is a good point. Original demos will always tend to modify a bit the writing according to what the lib allows best. (btw, this is probably THE topic about samples and orchestral music today, not related only to demos but to everything we do). Its just automatic for the demo writer, and absolutely natural. After all demo writers are supposed to show the beauty of something they play, as it should be.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 5, 2009)

Anyone fancy answering my questions? For example, how much of the skill and craft required to make LASS shine involves working with divisis? With LASS lite, once you've got your EQ and reverb sorted, is there any reason why it will be any more complex to use than any other lib? It will have its own tone (probably not as sweeping as some others?) but otherwise what would the difference be? And you've got ART and legato.

(aside - I hope the Omnisphere comment was intended as hyperbole...)


----------



## midphase (Dec 5, 2009)

I think your questions are subjective. Someone who is quite comfortable with string writing will find t extremely intuitive and easy, while someone else might be more frustrated...who knows?

Also, since LASS Lite doesn't yet exist, it's hard to predict what it will or will not have or how much it will simplify things. Only time will tell.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 5, 2009)

lux @ Sat Dec 05 said:


> juliansader @ Sat Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Demos that were specifically composed to showcase sample libraries are not nearly as convincing as demos that are based on well-known classical music for strings. In the former case, the composition is in service of the library. In the latter case, the library is in service of a composition that was not written for (or limited to, or optimised for) the specific library, which is the way most potential users would like to use the library.
> ...



+1 This is true for 99% of all what happens all over the world. o/~


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2009)

The problem is that you're going to really hate mock-ups of pieces you know. There are exceptions, for example Jay Bacal does a great job of that with VSL, but one can only imagine how long it takes him to do such a detailed job.

And then you're back at the beginning of the circle: why does my mock-up not sound like Jay's demo right away?


----------



## Niah (Dec 5, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Dec 05 said:


> Anyone fancy answering my questions? For example, how much of the skill and craft required to make LASS shine involves working with divisis? With LASS lite, once you've got your EQ and reverb sorted, is there any reason why it will be any more complex to use than any other lib? It will have its own tone (probably not as sweeping as some others?) but otherwise what would the difference be? And you've got ART and legato.
> 
> (aside - I hope the Omnisphere comment was intended as hyperbole...)



I agree with midphase, there are very subjective questions however I would like to share my experience with LASS:

Sorry if you have already read this since I have done several posts about LASS before but here it goes:

I will not proof or disproof what was said here but I'm simply sharing my own personal experience with LASS.

LASS is the library that I have found more easy to work with. This doesn't come as a surprise to me though, since LASS is much more advanced than past libraries, so this is something what I was already expecting. And listening to the tutorials confirmed this idea for me, that it was easy to play with. With past libraries I had to do much more Midi editing and it was a PITA to get smooth lines and note transistions not to mention some sense of dynamics and expressiveness. Not the case with LASS. 
The same goes in terms of production, I always was turn off the EQ preset that comes with LASS so I am really using it with the out of the box sound which I prefer the best, no EQ whatsoever. And Reverb is just 1IR sent to K3.

So that's it for me.

Essentially I must say that one needs to take everything that is said here on this forum about any product with a grain of salt including what I have just said. We are all different musicians and make different music so we all do have different musical needs.

Personally I feel that nowadays devs provide with alot of good information and a good approach including tutorials that can really help to make a good decision.


----------



## Niah (Dec 5, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> The problem is that you're going to really hate mock-ups of pieces you know. There are exceptions, for example Jay Bacal does a great job of that with VSL, but one can only imagine how long it takes him to do such a detailed job.



That's true, at least for me.

For that reason I always like to listen to user demos, because mockup of classical know pieces will create a really bad impression on me no matter how good the library is.

Personally I like to hear what the library can do not what it can't do.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 5, 2009)

> Some people, to give just one example, mainly want to write big and sweeping unisono stringlines on a bed of padding chords. The kind of essentialy homophonic music that one often hears these days. Well, for those people there are more satisfying choices than LASS, I believe. Cinematic Strings, for example.



re-peat, I have Cinematic Strings to review but have opted to wait for the 1.5 update, so I won't make any comments about CS until then.

There are pads and there are pads. 

I have Jerry Goldsmith's scores for all of _First Knight_. The cue in front of me is _A New Life_. It has a low open voiced "pad" using basses, cellos and violas - in divisi.

There are no other strings _today_ that enable me to replicate this pad with balance other than LASS.

I can of course create open pad voicings with Omnisphere, Symphobia, and other libraries, but I can't divide them to achieve this texture. However, this voicing isn't unique to Goldsmith as it was first used by Ravel in _Rhapsodie Espagnole_. 

Here's what I wrote in my first review of LASS (http://soniccontrol.tv/2009/07/31/lass-part-1/):

_If you have several string libraries, you now have the option with LASS of asking and answering, “What kind of string sound do I want for this project?” That is a very serious scoring advantage._

I'll put it like this With LASS (again, Today) you can score as normal or go to the next step in building your string writing. 

That's how I see it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2009)

The real problem is that demos of sample libs only go so far - you don't know what it's really like until you play it.

But if you hear demos that do things nothing else can pull off, obviously that tells you a lot.


----------



## Niah (Dec 5, 2009)

Revson @ Sat Dec 05 said:


> This IMO isn't because LASS is such an outstanding product that there is nothing to criticize, but rather an outstanding, groundbreaking product developed by a great guy who is a longtime participant in this board who I'm guessing some of the core people on this board have shaken hands with, looked in the eye, and hoisted a few and therefore wish him the very best and feel slightly protective toward.
> 
> .



Sorry to bring this up just now and I know that you were mostly responding to nick's reaction but let me point out to the fact that...

Alex from cinematic strings is also a long time VI member and very well respected here.

Still and to my surprise, I find that both libraries have received fair criticism, which just speaks highly of VI members. 

I also find that the comment about re.peat wearing kids gloves missed the point. Sometimes I feel that there's this perception that Re-peat just shreads libraries when in fact he is one of the most well-balanced, honest and sincere posters around here. In my opinion he is just being too humble about his skills and I would bet that he could produce a great LASS demo on the spot.

Now I won't deny that there was a huge hype from people surrounding LASS prior to its release. Partly I think it was caused by the fact that it was the first string library in years and because of what it promised. The hype increased with colin's teaser but then after the release and alot of people getting it I don't think I've heard many people complaining about LASS not delivering what it promised. That doesn't mean that LASS is the best library ever it simply means that most customers are happy customers.

Besides the award for less criticized product on VI will be always to something from spectrasonics...sorry.
Is it hype? A cult? Are people afraid to hurting eric persing's feelings? Or have they simply been brainwashed?

Or maybe,...just maybe it has something to do with the quality of the products...?

stay tuned ~o)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 6, 2009)

midphase @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> I think your questions are subjective. Someone who is quite comfortable with string writing will find t extremely intuitive and easy, while someone else might be more frustrated...who knows?
> 
> Also, since LASS Lite doesn't yet exist, it's hard to predict what it will or will not have or how much it will simplify things. Only time will tell.



Well (ahem) not really imho.

We know what LASS is - 5 libraries in 1. We know what LASS Lite is - 1 Library in 1 (the full sections). It's just a subset of what already exists, there won't be anything new.

Several people report that LASS is hard work / skill to get sounding good. The question specifically asks -does this basically mean arranging for divisi? All the craft that these people bring to LASS compared with the non-classically trained... is this mostly to do with arranging using the divisi libs (plus EQ / verb), or there other aspects of LASS that contribute?

Many people have said that a great benefit of LASS is how you can make it sound big or small - obviously this will be lost with LASS lite. Another poster suggested getting a great smooth epic sound wasn't easy - I therefore presume this also requires good writing (and EQing) with the divisis. So the question(s) really should be answerable now - how do people find working with the full sections? Still harder than other libs or (as Niah suggests) actually easier? Is the warm epic sound much harder to achieve?

Obviously I'm trying to establish exactly why LASS lite requires so much skill to get the most out of compared to anything else. Divisi is obviously a big part of the answer - however, this really should logically mean "to get something BETTER than other libraries, use divisi". Are the micing options another? (CS / SO platinum have three mics ready to go for the sound you want).

Here's my take on the sum of everything so far. The basic out-of-the-box sound of LASS is rather cold. If you need a non-classic-Hollywoood warm sound, LASS will get you far further than any other of the standard libs. If you need the classic warm sound, it's also doable, and to a higher level than most other libs, but it will require great writing / engineering skill.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 6, 2009)

Well, in my opinion that's not really an on-the-mark appraisal of the library. Some of it is true, but it's sort of like describing a dog as a moving tail and some fur.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 6, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> Several people report that LASS is hard work / skill to get sounding good. The question specifically asks -does this basically mean arranging for divisi? All the craft that these people bring to LASS compared with the non-classically trained... is this mostly to do with arranging using the divisi libs (plus EQ / verb), or there other aspects of LASS that contribute?



First of all, "classically trained" is a total misnomer. If you go to music school you get one semester of orchestration which is really about instrumentation. Orchestration is learned "on the streets" by attending concerts and studying scores. It's no more complicated then that. 

I think you're complexing divisi. Divisi, to divide, simply enables you to:

1. voice more tones in a chord
2. create smaller ensembles within the larger ensemble
3. create textures beyond using five linear voices, which the full string section represents. 

Divisi is about having options.

Frankly, I'm personally not understanding why people seem to think it takes more work with LASS. It works right out of the box. Yes, there are some features within Kontakt you need to spend some learning, but it's not _that_ hard!



> Many people have said that a great benefit of LASS is how you can make it sound big or small - obviously this will be lost with LASS lite.



Not so. With LASS, because of how it was recorded, you can have a big ensemble, or you have the option of writing for smaller ensembles. That's different from what you wrote. You're not "making it sound big" you're choosing the ensemble size you want to write for.

With what's been said about LASS Lite (remembering that nothing has been posted about it by Andrew you'll have the ability to write for the large ensemble sound, just like all the other libraries. If you want divisi capability, you upgrade. 



> Another poster suggested getting a great smooth epic sound wasn't easy - I therefore presume this also requires good writing (and EQing) with the divisis.



I don't understand this either. You get an epic sound by writing an epic theme using epic harmony (for example, harmonizing the theme with all major triads). EQ has nothing to do with getting an epic sound. The theme, the harmony, and the register in which you write the instruments creates the epic sound, along with certain types of rhythmic figurations typically associated with an epic theme. 



> So the question(s) really should be answerable now - how do people find working with the full sections? Still harder than other libs or (as Niah suggests) actually easier? Is the warm epic sound much harder to achieve?


 
The full sections are fine to work with. There's no problem with them at all. They mix and blend great. Once your basic MIDI editing is done, LASS sounds closest to a live recorded string section of any library. 



> Obviously I'm trying to establish exactly why LASS lite requires so much skill to get the most out of compared to anything else.



It doesn't. 



> Divisi is obviously a big part of the answer



No, because divisi isn't part of LASS lite. It's Just the full ensembles. That's what Andrew has said.



> however, this really should logically mean "to get something BETTER than other libraries, use divisi".



No. It's that if you want to write at a deeper level, you can with divisi writing.



> Are the micing options another? (CS / SO platinum have three mics ready to go for the sound you want).



The alternate mic positions from QLSO enable you to place the woods, brass, and QLSO strings (if desired) more easily with LASS since you can use the Mic sliders to set that up.



> Here's my take on the sum of everything so far. The basic out-of-the-box sound of LASS is rather cold.



If this were true, John Debney, Danny Elfman, and David Newman would not have given LASS the endorsements it has. All these guys paid for the library. No one got it for free to get the endorsement.

But it's not true. LASS is not "cold" out of the box.



> If you need a non-classic-Hollywoood warm sound, LASS will get you far further than any other of the standard libs. If you need the classic warm sound, it's also doable, and to a higher level than most other libs, but it will require great writing / engineering skill.



No, no, and no. LASS works with any genre of music. It doesn't take any more engineering skill then any other sample library. In fact, I think it takes less. It's positioned, and it's eq'ed. Setting the volume doesn't require much engineering skill. 

As with any library from any company, the more writing skill you bring to the table, the more you can do. 

If I may offer a suggestion, spend some time listening to music with divisi writing and do it score in hand. Twenty or 30 minutes with the right score will answer your questions.

If you want a short list, let me know and I'll suggest a few. 

LASS' key advantage is that you can write what you want in any style with large to small ensembles. 

It's no more complicated then that.


----------



## nikolas (Dec 6, 2009)

I don't have CS, but here's my experience on LASS:

Basically it can be summed up with a simple idea: I'm trying to come up with tracks that use prominently strings! :D The moment I got LASS, I decided that it was about time to start using strings more...

I don't have an issue of working with strings, scoring for strings, or rendering (at least I don't think I have), so what re-peat describes makes sense in a philological point of view. But it makes great sense.

I know composers who work with, literally the "one button method" with omnisphere and symphobia (and actually torrent products) and it honestly gets on my nerves! For all the reasons above. But it remains that LASS takes more to work well, as re-peat says and it simply makes sense. And it's not bad for the user, if they are willing to work their way through great results. Otherwise there are other tools.

I'm sorry at CS for not reffering at all to them, but I don't own them, so I shouldn't discuss for something I know nothing about. 

(Collins' demo made it work for me and made me buy LASS, btw)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 6, 2009)

Thanks Peter - so many quotes, forgive me for picking up on general points!

Divisi - what you describe is exactly what I understood it was. LASS gives you those options, LASS lite doesn't. So:

1. voice more tones in a chord

This I guess just takes time to divide your part. Presumably this will only work well when a part is written correctly in the first place. I might play some chords using a string ensemble patch which sound fine to my ears, but probably break orchestral rules. If someone wrote a similar part with a better understanding of orchestration, I'm sure it would sound better when played by divisi sections. That same persons basic ensemble part will probably sound better too because he / she's only playing chords that are playable. But LASS enables someone who knows what they are doing to realise their ideas better. (side issue - obviously divisi writing will take longer). 

2. create smaller ensembles within the larger ensemble 

Yup, and this must be as easy as selecting the right patch I guess!

3. create textures beyond using five linear voices, which the full string section represents.

This seems a great advantage of full LASS to me. The legato demo on Andrew's website is really persuasive of how legato works so well using divisis. And I guess there's nothing hard about that - just a bit more time and computing resources.

IMHO (unless I'm really not getting it as usual) it sounds like you're splitting hairs with "making it sound big / small" versus "using a big / small ensemble". With LASS you've got first chairs, divisis and ensembles... it kinda stands to reason that this enables you to create a big or a small sound overall (???)

Epic sound - I really don't get your point here at all. Perhaps we're using different senses of the word epic? I think of an epic lead line as not being chordal at all (well, by definition this must be true!) and the underlying chords could certainly be minor and still be epic. Perhaps I mean sweeping, and you mean heroic? Anyway, I can clearly hear the difference in tone between my Appassionata strings and Symphobia's. Appassionata sounds perfect for what I think of as epic / sweeping lines (whenever I play it I feel like John Barry...), but not so appropriate for other uses.

I think I got my LASS / LASS Lite terms muddled at the end... obviously I meant that a) LASS divisi is a part of why it takes more effort to get the most out of it (which seems very clear from your points above too) and b) therefore with LASS Lite there is obviously less depth to the library so therefore is less demanding on arrangement skills to get the most out of it?

Cold - that's not meant as a criticism, so I don't know why appealing to famous composers is relevant? It's not always right or appropriate to have the very lush warm sound. Peter, perhaps you feel differently but most people here seem in broad agreement that the tone of LASS isn't as lush as some other libs (such as CS), but for many that won't be a bad thing?

On a final general point... I'm definitely getting the vibe that no two people can agree on anything to do with string libs!


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 6, 2009)

> Several people report that LASS is hard work / skill to get sounding good. The question specifically asks -does this basically mean arranging for divisi? All the craft that these people bring to LASS compared with the non-classically trained... is this mostly to do with arranging using the divisi libs (plus EQ / verb), or there other aspects of LASS that contribute?



hi noiseboy. nobody, not even peter, has managed to get a handle on where you are coming from - but since you PMd me about stuff you have been doing i think i do...

it boils down to the sheer practicality of working to the deadlines you are facing. you are not going to have time to score out each individual part with all the correct nuances that LASS allows. i generally am not using the divisi in LASS either, i am using the full section patches, and only very occasionally using divisi for the celli. i find that the full section patches have sufficient clarity, that even when i do have divisi they don't sound stacked. pretty much i am using LASS lite.

for your work flow i suggest continuing with a short score form with symphobia - which is the epic sound you are talking about - and no that is NOT easy to achieve in LASS or with LASS alone despite what people say - and then farming out specific lines to LASS. simply use the KC in logic 'select top notes' and copy from your symphobia part into a track for LASS and you will find that the line will have more definition and clarity.

similarly, if you want fast runs, use the staccato patch in symphobia andògÅ   ¹t³gÅ   ¹t´gÅ   ¹tµgÅ   ¹t¶gÅ   ¹t·gÅ   ¹t¸gÅ   ¹t¹gÅ   ¹tºgÅ   ¹t»gÅ   ¹t¼gÅ   ¹t½gÅ   ¹t¾gÅ   ¹t¿gÅ   ¹tÀgÅ   ¹tÁgÅ   ¹tÂgÅ   ¹tÃgÅ   ¹tÄgÅ   ¹tÅgÅ   ¹tÆgÅ   ¹tÇgÅ   ¹tÈgÅ   ¹tÉgÅ   ¹tÊgÅ   ¹tËgÅ   ¹tÌgÅ   ¹tÍgÅ   ¹tÎgÅ   ¹tÏgÅ   ¹tÐgÅ   ¹tÑgÅ   ¹tÒgÅ   ¹tÓgÅ   ¹tÔgÅ   ¹tÕgÅ   ¹tÖgÅ   ¹t×gÅ   ¹tØgÅ   ¹tÙgÅ   ¹tÚgÅ   ¹tÛgÅ   ¹tÜgÅ   ¹tÝgÅ   ¹tÞgÅ   ¹tßgÅ   ¹tàgÅ   ¹tágÅ   ¹tâgÅ   ¹tãgÅ   ¹tägÅ   ¹tågÅ   ¹tægÅ   ¹tçgÅ   ¹tègÅ   ¹tégÅ   ¹têgÅ   ¹tëgÅ   ¹tìgÅ   ¹tígÅ   ¹tîgÅ   ¹tïgÅ   ¹tðgÅ   ¹tñgÅ   ¹tògÅ   ¹tógÅ   ¹tôgÅ   ¹tõgÅ   ¹tögÅ   ¹t÷gÅ   ¹tøgÅ   ¹tùgÅ   ¹túgÅ   ¹tûgÅ   ¹tügÅ   ¹týgÅ   ¹tþgÅ   ¹tÿgÅ   ¹u gÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹u	gÅ   ¹u
gÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹u gÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹ugÅ   ¹u gÅ   ¹u!gÅ   ¹u"              ògÅ   ¹u$gÅ   ¹u%gÅ   ¹u&gÅ   ¹u'gÅ   ¹u(gÅ   ¹u)gÅ   ¹u*gÅ   ¹u+gÅ   ¹u,gÅ   ¹u-gÅ   ¹u.gÅ   ¹u/gÅ   ¹u0gÅ   ¹u1gÅ   ¹u2gÅ   ¹u3gÅ   ¹u4gÅ   ¹u5gÅ   ¹u6gÅ   ¹u7gÅ   ¹u8gÅ   ¹u9gÅ   ¹u:gÅ   ¹u;gÅ   ¹u<gÅ   ¹u=gÅ   ¹u>gÅ   ¹u?gÅ   ¹[email protected]gÅ   ¹uAgÅ   ¹uBgÅ   ¹uCgÅ   ¹uDgÅ   ¹uEgÅ   ¹uFgÅ   ¹uGgÅ   ¹uHgÅ   ¹uIgÆ   ¹uLgÆ   ¹uMgÆ   ¹uNgÆ   ¹uOgÆ   ¹uPgÆ   ¹uQgÆ   ¹uRgÆ   ¹uSgÆ   ¹uTgÆ   ¹uUgÆ


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 6, 2009)

well - i am nearly done on my big project so i quickly smashed together some edits from a couple of cues that use the staccato patches for the string runs - and while they are not that present, in context i think they work quite well. all of these were done with similar kind of time pressure you are facing. in particular i think the big string run in the 3rd snippet works well and its a shame i didn't have that a little more forward in the mix. i don't remember it being so quiet - i do remember thinking that as string runs in a mock goes, it wasn't a bad effort. 

the second snippet was done very quickly and was early on - i had only just gotten LASS and was trying to get to grip with mixing it with the brass and working in plogue. it's not a mix i am proud of but you do really get the fast string passage work and a sense of what you can get away with.
http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/StringRuns.mp3 (Snippets of String Runs)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 6, 2009)

Well to my ears the first and last sound strongest, really very good runs that wouldn't have set my ears flapping at all (in a bad way!). These were Symphobia staccs? Was less keen on the runs in the second clip in particular which sounded a bit more synthy. Needless to say overall the stuff is excellent, just focusing on those runs.

I'd begun to wonder again about Smart Violins. Best Service are doing a deal on String Essentials / Composer Collection bundle for 249 Euros (http://www.bestservice.de/detail1.asp/b ... _bundle/en). This time last year String Essentials was getting some really good write ups... I just tried it on Try Sound but technically the system wasn't working well today so it was almost impossible to get a feel for it. The runs in String Essentials and Smart Violins, though a little limited, did sound pretty useful though. Anyone with any experience of these libs?


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2009)

i'm interested as well to the bestservice bundle. I had the strings essentials for a while due to a review but i remember it had only huge keyswitched patches. I also recall they did provide separate articulations in a second time, but i could be wrong.

Anyone with strings essentials could confirm this? Re-peat?

Thanks


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 6, 2009)

Thanks for posting the runs.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 6, 2009)

I'm sure it does have separate stuff, lux... I managed to get that much out of Try Sound today!


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 6, 2009)

It has and the stacc patches are awesome! The sound is also awesome.


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2009)

Thanks noiseboyuk and Gunther, gotta give a run to try-sound


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 6, 2009)

Pedro Camacho @ Sat Dec 05 said:


> ....How do Symphobia and SI complement these libraries?
> 
> Well for Symphobia I must say it is the staccatos. If you are making trailers / really loud stuff, Symphobia gives a boost to your sound.
> 
> SI, I use it for extra power in really powerful staccatos and...



Pedro, could you perhaps post an example only with the staccs from Symphobia?

Thanks

Gunther


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 6, 2009)

lux @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> Thanks noiseboyuk and Gunther, gotta give a run to try-sound



This samples have this special "warm" sound. Send me a midifile what you did with another lib and I will do it for you with SE2 stacc patches.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 6, 2009)

FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF DIVISI
http://soniccontrol.tv/2009/07/31/lass-part-1/


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 6, 2009)

http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/StringRuns2.mp3 (String Run Symphobia)

very short snippet that has string runs using only symphobia staccato patches. very star wars i know but this was cue was smashed out really fast. context is everything though. blend in some wind and other things and the runs are convincing.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 6, 2009)

stevenson-again @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> http://idisk.mac.com/rohan.stevenson/Public/webdemos/StringRuns2.mp3 (String Run Symphobia)
> 
> very short snippet that has string runs using only symphobia staccato patches. very star wars i know but this was cue was smashed out really fast. context is everything though. blend in some wind and other things and the runs are convincing.



Sounds very cool. Could you send me a midifile with only the staccs...?

to [email protected]


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2009)

germancomponist @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> lux @ Sun Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks noiseboyuk and Gunther, gotta give a run to try-sound
> ...



Thanks for the nice offer Gunther, but i think my try-sound session gave me enough infos about the lib.

My only concern at the moment is if I have too many libraries on my hd and if another one could help or slow down things.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 6, 2009)

> First of all, "classically trained" is a total misnomer. If you go to music school you get one semester of orchestration which is really about instrumentation.



Unless you went to Berklee and majored in Film Scoring, that is. 

(Which you did, right Peter? Or not...I think you may have a couple of years on me - just a couple - so maybe you were there before Don Wilkins got it going?)


----------



## re-peat (Dec 6, 2009)

lux @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> i'm interested as well to the bestservice bundle. I had the strings essentials for a while due to a review but i remember it had only huge keyswitched patches. I also recall they did provide separate articulations in a second time, but i could be wrong. Anyone with Strings Essentials could confirm this? (...)



StringEssentials? Yes, a very fine and sadly overlooked library, in my opinion. I’m actually pretty sure that, had StringEssentials been produced and released by a fellow V.I. member, it would have been lauded here as being one of the better packages. Maybe not my all time favourite stringlibrary, but most certainly among the ones I would hate to loose.
And StringEssentials2 was a major improvement over its predecessor, in that the library is now programmed FAR more conveniently, so that the cumbersome huge programs, with all the keyswitches, no longer need to be loaded in their entirety even if you only want to use the pizzicati. You can still work that way if you like, but there are alternatives provided as well in the form of separate programs for almost every articulation (which are the ones I alway use).

Not everything about SE is equally successful though: there’s a slightly ‘processed’ feel to some of its sustains (particularly in the lower strings) and some of the library’s longer articulations often walk (and cross) that very thin line between sounding silky smooth and synthy, a flaw which it has in common with the, in my opinion, vastly inferior VI Appassionatas (which I never really liked because, to my ears, these almost constantly cross into synthetic-sounding territory). Also: SE's celli and basses are not as expressive as the violas and violins, which is a bit of pity.

On the (very) positive side: SE is capable of producing a really nice, warm and glowing sound, unlike any other library. There are some truly beautiful sounds in the violins and violas. (I wish I had time to demo these. Maybe later.) And another splendid jewel in its crown are its staccatos (across the entire range of the string orchestra): meaty, articulated with panache and conviction, and yet without any of that raspy chainsaw ugliness that ruins all the short articulations in KH’s libraries. (Also deserve a short demo, these SE staccatos. Would be much better than trying to describe it.)

The runs are pretty useful too, although I haven’t used them all that much as I rarely write the kind of music that benefits from such diatonic/chromatic string bravoura.
A problem I’m having with many of these pre-fab figurations such as runs (not just in SE, but in other libraries as well), is that, for some reason, they always turn out sounding slightly different than the surrounding (not-running) notes and hence don’t join very well into coherent sounding lines. But even so, I have no doubt that, in the right context, the runs in StringEssentials have plenty of good uses. (Their tempo can be scaled as well, and determining the range of the run is very easy too.)

All in all: a really good all-round string library. Nowhere near as refined or detailed as LASS obviously, but still a solid and surprisingly versatile collection of pretty decent samples.
To give some idea of my appreciation of the library: I would gladly trade in both the Appassionatas AND the CinematicStrings in return for just the StringEssentials, any day of the week. Without hesitating for a second. I really would.

SmartViolins, on the other hand, is not a library I’d recommend as enthusiastically as StringEssentials. The included patterns, runs and riffs all have their uses I suppose (and if you have Melodyne, you could probably multiply those uses, if you’re willing to make the effort) but even so, the whole thing does sound like a string library from days gone by, in my opinion. (The SmartViolins sound is very much the sound of Advanced Orchestra, unlike String Essentials, which has a far superior, richer timbre.) 
There is one element in SmartViolins though that is still unsurpassed by any subsequent library and that is: its disco string licks. Phe-no-men-al-ly good. Absolutely spot on. For those who need to produce disco-inspired music and are wondering how to simulate those very characteristic string flourishes, one answer and one answer only: SmartViolins.

_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 6, 2009)

Once again, thanks re-peat, a valuable review.

I don't know what's going on with me and trysound... after playing the first patch with poorer than usual latency, the midi stops working on anything else. V frustrating as I was keen to try the legatos. I can't say I loved the tone to be honest, I think it would be filling in bits and pieces, but based on your comments re-peat I'll certainly give it some serious thought.


----------



## lux (Dec 6, 2009)

yes, thanks for the detailed review Piet.

Luca


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Dec 6, 2009)

re-peat @ Mon Dec 07 said:


> StringEssentials? Yes, a very fine and sadly overlooked library, in my opinion.



+1 Absolutely...!



re-peat @ Mon Dec 07 said:


> There is one element in SmartViolins though that is still unsurpassed by any subsequent library and that is: its disco string licks. Phe-no-men-al-ly good. Absolutely spot on. For those who need to produce disco-inspired music and are wondering how to simulate those very characteristic string flourishes, one answer and one answer only: SmartViolins.



+1 Again...!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 6, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Dec 06 said:


> > First of all, "classically trained" is a total misnomer. If you go to music school you get one semester of orchestration which is really about instrumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Berklee - yes.

Film scoring - learned direct from observing Henry Mancini and Jerry Goldsmith.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 6, 2009)

SE2 REVIEW
http://soniccontrol.tv/2008/08/10/string-essentials-2/

SE2 didn't have the US impact it could have because of exchange rates and the lowering of QLSO Gold to a price competitive with SE2.


----------



## Polarity (Dec 7, 2009)

Interesting discussion here,
like Noiseboyuk I'm looking for a new string library, but I'm not interested in the composing deepness offered by divisi at the moment.... and waiting for LASS Lite version.
I'm more interested in short articulations.
One of my great interest into LASS was due to the A.R.T. tool.... that Cinematic Strings and Hollywood Strings don't own.

So, please, I'd like to ask some info about the A.R.T. tool to the LASS owners:
till now - I don't know why - I always thought that A.R.T. tool was an arpeggiator.

That's because I heard the arpeggiated sequence notes of the video tutorial on LASS website and understood from Andrew's voice that he was just playing chords.
yesterday, watching again the video tutorial and reading LASS manual section about A.R.T, I realized that there aren't any note direction/octave/tempo choice parameter (or any other parameters typical of arpeggiator).

So my doubt now is that A.R.T. perhaps it isn't a real arpeggiator, but just a dynamic processor for repeated/arpeggiated fast string articulations notes.
Is it so?

Are those sequenced/arpeggiated phrases I heard in spiccato/staccato tutorial already present inside ART/LASS library... or are phrases programmed by Andrew on his own outside ART/LASS ??

I'm looking for an arpeggiator tool for helping me during programming my own rhythmic fast strings phrases during song compositions, and I think at this point I have created till now a false idea in my mind.
The sequencing script inside Kontakt can do that, but A.R.T.? Is it an advanced arpeggiator or not? 
Can you clear the doubt, please? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Polarity (Dec 7, 2009)

germancomponist @ Sun 06 Dec said:


> This samples have this special "warm" sound. Send me a midifile what you did with another lib and I will do it for you with SE2 stacc patches.



is it possible to hear then the rendered midifile with SE2?
thanks.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 7, 2009)

Polarity @ Mon Dec 07 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun 06 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > This samples have this special "warm" sound. Send me a midifile what you did with another lib and I will do it for you with SE2 stacc patches.
> ...



Yes. o/~


----------



## re-peat (Dec 7, 2009)

http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Re_SE2.mp3 (Here's a few StringEssentials sounds.)òhh   ¹ž¢hh   ¹ž£hh   ¹ž¤hh   ¹ž¥hh   ¹ž¦hh   ¹ž§hh   ¹ž¨hh   ¹ž©hh   ¹žªhh   ¹ž«hh   ¹ž¬hh   ¹ž­hh   ¹ž®hh   ¹ž¯hh   ¹ž°hh   ¹ž±hh   ¹ž²hh   ¹ž³hh   ¹ž´hh   ¹žµhh   ¹ž¶hh   ¹ž·hh   ¹ž¸hh   ¹ž¹hh   ¹žºhh   ¹ž»hh   ¹ž¼hh   ¹ž½hh   ¹ž¾hh   ¹ž¿hh   ¹žÀhh   ¹žÁhh   ¹žÂhh   ¹žÃhh   ¹žÄhh   ¹žÅhh   ¹žÆhh   ¹žÇhh   ¹žÈhh   ¹žÉhh   ¹žÊhh   ¹žËhh   ¹žÌhh   ¹žÍhh   ¹žÎhh   ¹žÏhh   ¹žÐhh   ¹žÑhh   ¹žÒhh   ¹žÓhh


----------



## theheresy (Dec 7, 2009)

Thonex @ Mon Dec 07 said:


> Polarity @ Mon Dec 07 said:
> 
> 
> > So, please, I'd like to ask some info about the A.
> ...



Damn your sig made me swat at my screen I thought there was a flee or bug crawling on my screen :x :x


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 7, 2009)

That's really gorgeous composition, re-peat. I definitely don't like the tone of SE2 though... perhaps I'm over-conditioned by Hollywood? It sounds strangely EQd or something. It's interesting because you don't like Appassionata, whereas I adore that tone (and I don't think it at all synthy... Symphobia sounds a little more synthy to my ears). I guess in the end its just personal preference?

At this point I guess I have to hear what HS is gonna be like. I see the demos will be delayed by a couple of weeks, but they promise some video tutorials walking through the software - I love that approach alongside the wowser full demos.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 7, 2009)

Thanks!

Does it really sound _strange_? Could be, you know, because my studio is a bit of a mess at the moment (re-arranging various bits and pieces) and my monitors aren't positioned like they should be. Still, I've just checked it on earphones and, apart from the inherent and inevitable sonic flaws in what is, after all, a sample library, I can't really say I hear anything that's too disturbing ... But yeah, I certainly agree it doesn't sound much like 'movie strings'.

_


----------



## theheresy (Dec 7, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Dec 07 said:


> That's really gorgeous composition, re-peat. I definitely don't like the tone of SE2 though... perhaps I'm over-conditioned by Hollywood? It sounds strangely EQd or something. It's interesting because you don't like Appassionata, whereas I adore that tone (and I don't think it at all synthy... Symphobia sounds a little more synthy to my ears). I guess in the end its just personal preference?
> 
> At this point I guess I have to hear what HS is gonna be like. I see the demos will be delayed by a couple of weeks, but they promise some video tutorials walking through the software - I love that approach alongside the wowser full demos.



where did you hear that HS demos are delayed?? They were supposed to be for dec 10-13 or so to my knowledge..what have they been delayed to now?


----------



## midphase (Dec 7, 2009)

Is it too early to start a NAMM rumors thread?


----------



## Mahlon (Dec 7, 2009)

re-peat,
That sounds very good, indeed. They have a good tone to them, and an airiness to the upper violins which I like. In fact, I've liked most everything I've heard from String Essentials 2. It really does deserve lots more airtime.

Mahlon


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 7, 2009)

Bought Alex's Cinematic Strings today on a whim. Not bad. Sound a little like EWQLSO but more detailed. Not going to replace LASS by any stretch but I can see using them both for specific things. Worth the purchase in the end. Good work Alex.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 8, 2009)

re-peat @ Mon Dec 07 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Does it really sound _strange_? Could be, you know, because my studio is a bit of a mess at the moment (re-arranging various bits and pieces) and my monitors aren't positioned like they should be. Still, I've just checked it on earphones and, apart from the inherent and inevitable sonic flaws in what is, after all, a sample library, I can't really say I hear anything that's too disturbing ... But yeah, I certainly agree it doesn't sound much like 'movie strings'.
> 
> _



Well, the best way I can describe it (with my flawed ears!) is that it sounds somehow bandwith-limited, kinda like its using mics and recording equipment from 30-40 years ago. There's a lack of high-end zing and a bit too much presence for my liking. It's just as you say though - that could be a positive advantage to some types of music, and I'm just too conditioned by Hollywood.


----------



## stevenson-again (Dec 8, 2009)

it is an absolutely fantastic bit of music no matter how it is realized. bear in mind that repeat also was leaving them pretty raw and untreated. you do need to massage LASS as well - and anything from VSL i have had to do lots of fitting into a mix as well.

i think you could get a really smooth sound by doing similar things you might do to LASS. eq upper mids, set in some good ER's and then some nice tails, and before you knew it you would be in butter, lightly saute-ing along with some fresh vegetables with a crisp sav blanc to hand, sun streaming through your cottage window.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 8, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Tue Dec 08 said:


> Well, the best way I can describe it (with my flawed ears!) is that it sounds somehow bandwith-limited, kinda like its using mics and recording equipment from 30-40 years ago.



Might be the http://www.thermionicculture.com/products/fatbustard.html (Thermionic Fat Bustard) that you're hearing. I've got the audio of my studio by default routed through that creamy thing of a box, and it does indeed give things a bit of of retro-ish texture. Which I quite like. Anyway, I'll bounce another mix later today, one that bypasses the external hardware completely. Curious to know if you hear a significant difference. If not, than at least we know that StringEssentials is obviously not your type of library.
But, hardware or no hardware, the SE does have a bit of classical, medium-sized 'European orchestra'-type sound to it, that's for sure. Not a sound you'd use for any Autobots adventure.

EDIT:

Gunther, Mahlon, Stevenson, thanks!

Yes, it is as Stevenson says: with some more time, I could make this thing sound a whole lot better. That's always the trouble with these quick 'n rough demo's, isn't it? You do them quickly - as demo's tend to be done -, but precisely because of that, you're not showing the library in the best possible light. The paradox of rough demo's, I suppose.
For instance, I did mostly use ensemble patches here (for all articulations, except the sustained legato patches), whereas, if I were to do this 'for real', I'd definitely assign individual sections to each voice separately. And then properly balance, position & mix the combined orchestra, something which I couldn't do here with these ensemble patches ...

_


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 8, 2009)

I like the sound of this String Essentials. thanks for posting those demos re-peat.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Dec 9, 2009)

BTW: regarding Lass... i just noticed this posted on NS by Thonex :

"Well.... new libraries will be released... but those will be after NAMM.... and there is also LASS 2 on the back burner and another library that no one knows about yet.. it's already recorded... and in development" 

Ooh...very intrigued to see what this is :D


----------



## theheresy (Dec 9, 2009)

Pzy-Clone @ Wed Dec 09 said:


> BTW: regarding Lass... i just noticed this posted on NS by Thonex :
> 
> "Well.... new libraries will be released... but those will be after NAMM.... and there is also LASS 2 on the back burner and another library that no one knows about yet.. it's already recorded... and in development"
> 
> Ooh...very intrigued to see what this is :D



HUH?? What is he referring to new libraries by HIM or does he mean other people and any idea what type...strings or brass or .....?????????????????????????????????????//


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 9, 2009)

theheresy @ Thu Dec 10 said:


> Pzy-Clone @ Wed Dec 09 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: regarding Lass... i just noticed this posted on NS by Thonex :
> ...



OMG! you should totally like have an orgasm like right now!1 

Interesting info though about a library no one knows about. Definitely interested.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Dec 9, 2009)

Let there be brass!


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 10, 2009)

You know, I have been playing with Cinematic Strings over the past few days and...I like 'em. There is a fair degree of control you can apply to them and while I won't be giving up LASS anytime soon, there is a place in my set-up for CS. I like how you can change the vibrato level from none to a whole lot. I think that makes for more realistic sounding string pieces.

Anyhow, I do realize I was a fairly vocal person in a negative way when I first heard Alex's demos and I think his Monster Staccato patch really turned it around for me. Gotta say this again: giving musician's a "try before you buy" scenario will always be an ideal way of doing business as it can grab those % of potential buyers who might otherwise shy away from an expensive purchase without the benefit of trying out the product first.


----------



## Polarity (Dec 10, 2009)

Thonex @ Mon 07 Dec said:


> Polarity @ Mon Dec 07 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope this helps.



yes thanks very much.
I think I have understood better (also after another listening to the video tutorial)
what it focuses on.

So I could perhaps use also the Kontakt arpeggiator together ART for more complex rhyths... (dunno if it works after or before ART in the script chain)
or maybe will be a mess? :D 

However Sequencer integrated arpeggiators are a bit "crap": too easy and limited.
At least I can say about Cubase 4 ones... they're too old style, simple, limited...
and don't work in interesting way as I found in Kontakt (3.5) one.


----------



## whinecellar (Dec 19, 2009)

I haven't read through this entire thread yet but I am interested in both of these libraries. I have a lot of studio upgrades I need to do before year-end, but I can only spend so much, so I have to choose wisely.

That said, Cinematic Strings appeals to me because it's the cheaper of the two, but ultimately I really, REALLY want the advanced features of LASS. The thing that makes it hard to decide is CS' demos: they just don't let me hear what I'm looking for in my next string library, and they're not doing themselves any favors here.

I have almost all of the competitor's libraries, but I'm looking for the next level in detail & realism - particularly in the usual weak spots like flexible & believable legato and really short articulations, runs, etc.

Cinematic Strings talks about these things in their feature list, but ultimately I want to HEAR those things before I pull out my wallet. On the other hand, LASS demos show off everything I'm talking about here, and have me drooling. I'd love to hear similar examples for Cinematic Strings - so how about it? Time is ticking...

Thanks & Merry Christmas!


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 19, 2009)

Nice avatar.


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 19, 2009)

I'd say if anyone here is looking to upgrade, or buy their first new string library, then you should wait for HS to come out, you will then be able to decide from three top notch libraries, LASS, CS and HS, then compare them and make your decision. If you don't like any of them, then there's always other string libraries out there i guess.


----------

