# Cinematic Strings 2 vs Hollywood strings



## gsilbers (Aug 20, 2012)

im sure there are several threads about but didnt find them :(

both are now about the same price level. 

both have a cinematic sound. 

anyone have both and care to share some opinoins?


----------



## Blakus (Aug 20, 2012)

I'd be interested in some comparisons/opinions too!


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 20, 2012)

uuuu.. samples as well. 

like a stacc vs stacc and leg vs leg


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 20, 2012)

Long hair vs short hair...?!


----------



## antoniopandrade (Aug 20, 2012)

Don't have any samples with me atm, but I can give my 2c, since I'm using both heavily in a project atm:

CS 2

pros:

- Easy to use
- Gorgeous sounds out-of-the-box
- Excellent legatos and short articulations
- Excellent programming to create articulations that weren't traditionally captured.
- Programming flexibility (you can use KS or just load up several instances of each patch and load your preferred articulations.
- Kontakt

Cons:

- Only the quick and dirty articulations (portamento is sorely missed here).
- I get note stuck errors ALL THE TIME (not a game-breaker but a little annoying).
- Noise can be troublesome (I recommend turning off the releases if it becomes overbearing). Do not overcompress this library, you'll get A LOT of noise.
- No divisi
- No Sordino

HS

Pros:

-Flexibility with several mic positions, all of which sound very nice by themselves.
- A plethora of articulations.
- Divisi (ok, it is simulated, but still useful, I definitely find myself using it).
- Great variety of choices in patches. This can be cumbersome at first, but after you learn the library and test out it's several patches, you will be grateful for the variety of choices.

Cons:

- PLAY is terrible at resource management, and I say this owning a slave PC w/ 64GB of ram. Just my HS template occupies 20+GB. 
- HS SORELY needs a mix option.
- Legato patches (esp the bow change ones) are quite sluggish and impossible to play live.
- Short articulations can be jumpy and unfocused.
- Some jumps and inconsistenices in volume in legato patches makes my skin crawl. It seems like pretty obvious error to let slide for so long.

Bottom line: Both are great libraries, and have their uses. I find CS2 to be slighty more fit for lead lines, whereas HS lends itself very well for backgrounds and accompaniment figures.

Hope this helps!


----------



## choc0thrax (Aug 20, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> Long hair vs short hair...?!



Both!!

Sorry, that's my way of providing the common useless reply of "Just get both". Sorry fellas, I got to it first!!!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 20, 2012)

Well, since I know you are all dying for my unbiased opinion....... :twisted:


----------



## playz123 (Aug 20, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> Well, since I know you are all dying for my unbiased opinion....... :twisted:



I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion, Jay! Just because you are associated with EW doesn't mean you are incapable of supplying a balanced assessment of these two libraries if you've worked with both. Like others, I'm interested in hearing comparisons as well because at present I only own one of the two (HS), but am also interested in purchasing CS someday soon.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 20, 2012)

Hello,

In case it's useful to your comparison, I discuss some relevant points between Cinematic Strings 2 and its primary competitors (including HS) in my recent review of the library here:

http://composerfocus.com/reviews/cinematic-strings-2/

I tried to be as comprehensive as possible, hence the extensive audio examples and length — but I hope it gives you some more information to work with.


----------



## Ed (Aug 20, 2012)

gsilbers @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> im sure there are several threads about but didnt find them :(
> 
> both are now about the same price level.
> 
> ...



I have CS2 but not HS. I love CS2, its a gorgeous library. Its the richest, warmest sound Ive ever heard from commercial orchestral string samples. It probably does some things better than HS, but I dont have HS to compare to verify it myself. HS has lots of things that CS2 doesnt have, however CS2 is Kontakt and very easy to use, some some great video tutorials to help you get more out of it, and Alex is a really nice guy too vs HS in Play and a gazillion monstrously hard to use patches (or so we are told by tons of users)


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 20, 2012)

playz123 @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Aug 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, since I know you are all dying for my unbiased opinion....... :twisted:
> ...



Well, nice to see that at least one person here believes that: )


----------



## devastat (Aug 20, 2012)

CS2 is a great library, but there is no comparison to Hollywood Strings in any other string library commercially available at the moment in my opinion, altho I haven't tried any of the VSL string libraries.

What makes me appreciate HS above others is the sound, and the ability to have a great control over dynamics AND vibrato.


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 20, 2012)

Finally!

A comparison that's interesting.

They both sound good to me, except I think HS has a better tone. I more pleasing romantic tone. Not that it matters to me that much, but HS legato sounds more emotive. Overall, it's the emotion that HS has which makes me love it.

No other string library has done it for me, except HS. I'm quite fussy about strings.

Anyway, just an opinion.


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 20, 2012)

*Cons:

- PLAY is terrible at resource management, and I say this owning a slave PC w/ 64GB of ram. Just my HS template occupies 20+GB.

- HS SORELY needs a mix option.

- Legato patches (esp the bow change ones) are quite sluggish and impossible to play live.

- Short articulations can be jumpy and unfocused.

- Some jumps and inconsistenices in volume in legato patches makes my skin crawl. It seems like pretty obvious error to let slide for so long. *


+1 to all this. Though, I doubt any notice will be taken with these issues because now Nick and Thomas are gone. I don't think I want EW to touch HS, considering listening to the programming on the Woodwinds.


----------



## playz123 (Aug 20, 2012)

Mathazzar @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> Hello,
> 
> In case it's useful to your comparison, I discuss some relevant points between Cinematic Strings 2 and its primary competitors (including HS) in my recent review of the library here:
> 
> ...



That's an excellent review Marius, and I'd read it previously, but what I'd also like to see here is more comparison and less focus on just one of the two libraries. So far, I'm not convinced that either library can be rated as "the only one you'll ever need" (not your quote), and I sense that both libraries have strong and weak points. Maybe we just need to sit down and grab two reviews....one for each library....and compare that way, but it's also interesting to read the opinions of knowledgeable forum participants as well (that includes you, Jay!  )

PS: Yes, Play is, IMO, not ideal and has some problems  ...that's a given, but rather than discuss Play vs. Kontakt again and again, personally I'd rather the focus remained on the actual libraries, not the engines.


----------



## quantum7 (Aug 20, 2012)

I own CS2, and to me it sounds absolutely gorgeous. It is very easy to use, and best of all it uses KONTAKT...... and not PLAY.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 20, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> *Cons:
> 
> - PLAY is terrible at resource management, and I say this owning a slave PC w/ 64GB of ram. Just my HS template occupies 20+GB.
> 
> ...



Just to be clear, Nick and TJ had nothing to do with the development of Play itself. So whatever happens/ does not happen with it would have happened/not happened were they still involved with EW.


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 20, 2012)

Hi Jay

I meant that TJ and Nick were involved with most of the programming for HS, not PLAY. Just to clear that up.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 20, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> Hi Jay
> 
> I meant that TJ and Nick were involved with most of the programming for HS, not PLAY. Just to clear that up.



Some, not most.

Either way, I am assured that there will be more updates for all the libraries in the Hollywood series.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 20, 2012)

There are two Insights articles on CS2 on Sonic Control.TV, one by myself and the other by Jose Herring. Go to this link and scroll down. You'll also find an article covering a unique feature of HS that at this time only SCTV has covered.
http://soniccontrol.tv/insights/virtual_instruments/

This Insights article on HS Gold covers the bowings available with HS which are significant.
http://soniccontrol.tv/2011/05/26/hollywood-strings-gold-part-1-a-professional-orchestration-review/ (http://soniccontrol.tv/2011/05/26/holly ... on-review/)

IF you know your string bowings you'll immediately recognize the advantage that HS has over other libraries. 

@Frank - don't expect professional reviewers to give you what you want to "prove" one way or the other which library is best. Each library serves its own purpose. Each has its own sound, and each has its own quirks. 

I think a more fair and accurate question is of those owning HS and other libraries, which one they use predominantly, or in what situations.

With Play, the primary question is whether you have a system that can run HS. If the answer is yes, then through the end of Aug EW has a buy 1 get 1 free sale which includes HS.


----------



## Dan Mott (Aug 20, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 21 said:


> Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Jay
> ...



Oh. Well that clears that up then. Thought they did most of the programming :oops: :mrgreen:


----------



## R.Cato (Aug 20, 2012)

I just had the chance to try out Hollywood Strings and what I experienced is that it has the best Romantic tone available but with so many different articulations which I don't need. So I got the feeling that it is overall a bit too much for me, but this is really a matter of your own taste. If someone would ask me whether I would buy Hollywood Strings instead of CS2 (I am a happy CS2 owner) my answer would be that it depends on what you are looking for. And with both libraries at the same price range the point about to think the most for me would be: What am I looking for? The Romantic tone or the dark lush one from CS2. Tons of articulations or a very quick workflow. It all comes down what supports your way of writing music and your sound the best and after this decision I wouldn't give much about whether it is Play or Kontakt since people write great sounding music using both of them. Just my 2 cents. 

I know there are many folks out there who complain about Play having performance issues though having quite a good machine to run other libraries smoothly, but if you really need this or that library then you have to live with the well known problems until an update fix them. They should be worth the advantage you get from the library for your craft. And if not it seems you searched for the wrong thing. :D


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Aug 21, 2012)

To me the most beautiful about CS 2 is that the sections blend perfectly and give you a balanced sound out of the box. With other string libraries the sections may sound better by themselves but are more difficult to mix.


----------



## Ganvai (Aug 21, 2012)

@ Andreas

Really? I have no problem mixing them with my old EWQLSO-Strings. Sounds pretty good in my ears. And I used it together with Embertones Intimate Strings and it worked well to. 

I think the best thing about CS2 is, that you can work really fast with it. It's not to complex to get good results, even playing it live is really easy. 

But you have to remember that you are missing some articulations. I bought 8dios Adagio Violins to get some more options. 

Also I'm not a PLAY-Fan, the sound of HS is really good and if you get the Platinum-Edition, you have three Mic-Positions to mix. But with Platinum, it's not anymore the same price.

@ Jay: I think that you have a lot of experience using HS and at least, you are a composer too! I can't imagine a reason why not hearing your point of view. Would be very interesting if you have played CS2 too!


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Aug 21, 2012)

Hi Ganvai,

sure CS2 blends also with other libraries. That's not what I meant. If you write a string part with five different lines playing together (Vio1, Vio2, Vls, Vc, Cb) CS 2 gives you a more balanced and dense sound than other libraries. It's only my opinion but to me the harshness of the single sections in other libraries easily adds up.


----------



## Ganvai (Aug 21, 2012)

Hey Andreas,

sorry. Now I've understood you.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 21, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Dan-Jay @ Mon Aug 20 said:
> ...



I was told some, not most, but Nick says all. Either way, I am assured that there will be more updates for all the libraries in the Hollywood series.

To those of you asking for my opinion, you mostly are new here. If Ido so, a bunch of people will leap on me, say, "of course he says that, he works for EW" and the thread will start to be about me instead of the topic.


----------



## R.Cato (Aug 21, 2012)

devastat @ Tue Aug 21 said:


> What makes me appreciate HS above others is the sound, and the ability to have a great control over dynamics AND vibrato.



CS2 gives you the ability to have control over dynamics AND vibrato. You can choose any CC to control the intensity of the vibrato with less than 5 clicks.


----------



## antoniopandrade (Aug 21, 2012)

That may be true R. Cato, but HS' has multiple vibrato options (3 or 4 if on the powerful patches, don't remember too well). Plus, you have the option of actually defining which string on the instrument you want your note to be played on. If there's any word that describes HS, I'd say it is "powerful" quickly followed by "potential"... which few people have actually tapped into (myself included, I had it for maybe 9 months before I actually had the time and patience to go through all patches, mic positions, and actually LOAD them). 

But I do love what Alex has done with CS2, it's probably my favorite sounding string library, and I think most developers should take a peek at how he layed it out, incredibly efficient and intelligently. A joy to work with.


----------



## R.Cato (Aug 21, 2012)

@antoniapandrade: Ok thanks for the clarification.


----------



## devastat (Aug 21, 2012)

Yeah, the amount of control that HS allows you to have on the powerful legato patches makes it able for you to be very expressive in your string writing. More so than any other string library I have tried. Overall I am very impressed with CS2 as well.


----------



## playz123 (Aug 21, 2012)

> To those of you asking for my opinion, you mostly are nowhere. If Ido so, a bunch of people will leap on me, say, "of course he says that, he works for EW" and the thread will start to be about me instead of the topic.



Jay, previous threads have indicated that you are indeed probably 'wise to refrain' shall we say  But on the other hand, as I've said before, it's a bit sad, because your opinions count just as much as others, and from what I've seen, you've proven a number of times you can be quite fair when assessing or comparing a product from a manufacturer other than EW. Just because somebody works for one company doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't comment on the products from another. Heck, some of the other _developers_ here do it, so why can't you? Anyway, I understand your concern, and would probably feel the same way if circumstances were similar.


@ Peter Alexander:  I've been around way too long to believe everything in every review I read, but just like comments here on the forum, I also suggest reviews can serve a useful purpose as well, as long as they are fair. I know you would agree since you write reviews yourself. In any case the comments I'm reading here are basically confirming what I already suspected, so they too are proving most useful, and I am still convinced that having both HS and CS is not such a bad idea. Cheers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 21, 2012)

playz123 @ Tue Aug 21 said:


> > To those of you asking for my opinion, you mostly are nowhere. If Ido so, a bunch of people will leap on me, say, "of course he says that, he works for EW" and the thread will start to be about me instead of the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Jay, previous threads have indicated that you are indeed probably 'wise to refrain' shall we say  But on the other hand, as I've said before, it's a bit sad, because your opinions count just as much as others, and from what I've seen, you've proven a number of times you can be quite fair when assessing or comparing a product from a manufacturer other than EW. Just because somebody works for one company doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't comment on the products from another. Heck, some of the other _developers_ here do it, so why can't you? Anyway, I understand your concern, and would probably feel the same way if circumstances were similar.



Thanks, Frank. Oops Mountain Lion "corrected" my typo, it should have read "you mostly are new here"


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Aug 21, 2012)

is there an audio example of HS being used in such a way that it's hundreds of articulations, mic positions and sample sizes are worth the effort compared to more ...ermm....basic library?

I am yet to hear one and being an owner of HS, would love to hear the benefit. I still just use LASS for everything.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 21, 2012)

playz123 @ Mon Aug 20 said:


> That's an excellent review Marius, and I'd read it previously, but what I'd also like to see here is more comparison and less focus on just one of the two libraries. So far, I'm not convinced that either library can be rated as "the only one you'll ever need" (not your quote), and I sense that both libraries have strong and weak points. Maybe we just need to sit down and grab two reviews....one for each library....and compare that way


Yes, I certainly agree that neither is an all-in-one solution and that separate reviews would be more helpful. I'd love to give you a comparable HS review but unfortunately I do not own a copy of the library, so I'll either have to wait until I have a project that calls for it or for ComposerFocus or myself to be offered a review copy.

In the meantime, I think the biggest deciding factor is usability, both in terms of the actual convenience and manipulation of the samples and in terms of how effectively you can use the libraries on your existing hardware. 

HS has been extensively described as a resource hog, but it's also truly vast in terms of articulations and mic positions, so if you're willing to put in the work to wrangle it (and you like the tone) then I can easily see an argument being made for HS as the closest-to-definitive string library on the market right now.


----------



## DavidAdeyemi (Aug 21, 2012)

As an owner of Hollywood Strings, I'd go for it hands down. I do not know of any other software sampled as extensively. How any other library is going to be such a finely sampled 300+GB is beyond me. Mathematically speaking, it shouldn't even make SENSE for another library to sound better!

But hey, whatever works, works. I don't know much about CS2, but irrespective of the gear you own, if your client prefers to the sound of Microsoft GS Wavetable MIDI to Hollywood Strings, CS2, Symphobia, or any other library- who are you to disagree?

Dave.


----------



## greggybud (Oct 25, 2016)

How about an update comparison on HS vs. CS2? It's been 4 years.

Or if anyone feels strongly about another string library that is in the same price range?

Thanks!


----------



## Zhao Shen (Oct 25, 2016)

As a huge fan of CS2, I'd say get HS. It's more versatile and more comprehensive. On the other hand, you also grab Cinematic Studio Strings. It's by the same guys who did CS2 but it has a more versatile tone, less wetness, and mindblowingly good legato transitions. Check it out, it's all but replaced CS2 in my template.


----------



## benatural (Oct 25, 2016)

Dan Mott said:


> Cons:
> 
> - Legato patches (esp the bow change ones) are quite sluggish and impossible to play live.
> 
> ...



+1 The legatos in HWS are, IMO, a pain to program with and it usually isn't worth the effort. It would be one thing if the sluggishness was consistent throughout a single instrument, but the transition time between each note can differ, and this is the case with all the strings. And yes, some of the transitions are very bad. Rebows are often impossible or very hard to achieve, even using the bow change patches. It's too bad because the samples themselves are nice.

CS2's legato is comparatively tight, programming is easier, and the overall sound is lush and expressive.


----------



## Mike Fox (Oct 25, 2016)

greggybud said:


> How about an update comparison on HS vs. CS2? It's been 4 years.
> 
> Or if anyone feels strongly about another string library that is in the same price range?
> 
> Thanks!


I can't speak for CS2, but can definitely say I much prefer the sound of CSS over HS. It has a dark, and lush tone that can't be had with HS. I love the marcato with the spiccato engaged art. The legato is really nice too! They even give you a classic legato option If you just want something quick.

Kinda sucks, because HS is now just taking up hard drive space.


----------



## greggybud (Oct 25, 2016)

Zhao Shen said:


> As a huge fan of CS2, I'd say get HS. It's more versatile and more comprehensive. On the other hand, you also grab Cinematic Studio Strings. It's by the same guys who did CS2 but it has a more versatile tone, less wetness, and mindblowingly good legato transitions. Check it out, it's all but replaced CS2 in my template.



Thank you. And yes I am considering CSS for an additional $100. 
I think I have read and understand most of the comparisons between them. Unfortunately, Google pulls up a lot of old reviews and comparisons, and it seems these libraries are always changing.


----------



## JohnBMears (Oct 25, 2016)

I am REALLY enjoying layering the long patches of both CSS and HS. They work well together. I am mainly only using CSS for shorts though.


----------



## Mike Fox (Oct 25, 2016)

JohnBMears said:


> I am REALLY enjoying layering the long patches of both CSS and HS. They work well together. I am mainly only using CSS for shorts though.



Out of curiosity, how are you layering them since they are from two different engines?


----------



## JohnBMears (Oct 25, 2016)

mikefox789 said:


> Out of curiosity, how are you layering them since they are from two different engines?



Often just simultaneous arming of two tracks, then going back and modifying some CC data. I use MIDI Modifiers in Logic to change cc11 to cc01 and cc01 to cc02 for HS. Then it reacts as CSS does.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 26, 2016)

JohnBMears said:


> Often just simultaneous arming of two tracks, then going back and modifying some CC data. I use MIDI Modifiers in Logic to change cc11 to cc01 and cc01 to cc02 for HS. Then it reacts as CSS does.



Bad idea IMHO. Play in the part in HS, print it out if you need to, and play it again with CSS. Or vice versa. Either way, separate performances. More work but better result.


----------



## MDMullins (Dec 7, 2019)

Reading through the thread, I have to say the EastWest Hollywood is incredibly malleable but you have to coax things. I bought BBCSO and still I think EW will be the core of my string writing. But I'm finding with strings is that I layer many instruments and then shape CC data until it sounds like unified sections performing. Here is my best effort so far. Most of this is EastWest with some BBCSO thrown in.


----------

