# Legato discussion - New SOUND test! :-)



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

Hello VI-C

There's a lot of discussion regarding legato – critique, as well as discussion about how nesesarry it is in the first place.

I've done a little test with three different sampled strings. I found a simple Viola line here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP2_6OLummA

Sometimes the simplest lines can be the most challeging...(and that's problably because they are not simple at all!).

The first one is the original, played by the BBC Orchestra of Wales. The rest is attempts to get as close to the legato feeling as possible. Three different String libraries. Added a little EQ and reverb. Only one patch is used. (One of these examples is layered).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%20original.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%201a.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%201b.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%201c.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%202.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%203.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%204.wav


Any thoughts?

I'll reveal wich libraries later. Maybe some of you can hear it anyway, I just wanted to try to let you hear them without preconceptions.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jan 26, 2014)

1b sounds pretty close to my ears if you can excuse the the legato transition at 0:02 where I think the transition is a little too loud for the dynamic the string was going to. (the string was getting softer in to pp range and is sounds like the transition was still at mp)


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

Stiltzkin @ Sun 26 Jan said:


> 1b sounds pretty close to my ears if you can excuse the the legato transition at 0:02 where I think the transition is a little too loud for the dynamic the string was going to. (the string was getting softer in to pp range and is sounds like the transition was still at mp)



Thanks for listening and your opinion!

I should ad that all examples are played, not programmed, and then a small amount of editing is applied (I have not spent hours editing, so they could all potentially get better with some fine tuning).


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 26, 2014)

The first one, titled "Original", sounds really synthy and fake to me. The legato sounds too loud and choppy and it's like the whole thing was recorded using one dynamic layer. Whatever library that was, ask for your money back.

:oP

I sort of like not knowing which library is which, and I'm curious to (eventually) know which libraries are being used just to see how much the truth might surprise me. 201a needs a bit more vibrato, but the tone of 201c is less nasal than A and B which gets it a bit closer tone-wise. 202 is a lot more piercing. 203 is much smoother in tone but the transition from one note to the next is so even that I don't even hear it--not that this is a bad thing because sometimes it's good not to have any obtrusive legato.

One thing that none of the examples really captures from the first example is the slight portamento on a few of the notes. Those are crucial to match the feel in my opinion. Most conspicuously lacking in port and clear articulation of each note are 202-204, but like I said earlier none of them quite get that gentle glide. I think I see the grand scheme of things here, but whether I'm right or wrong I won't go into more detail than that until you're ready to let us know which libraries are which and your own interpretation of the test results. I think I've made my opinion on your implied hypothesis quite clear if I got it right, and I made an idiot out of myself if I got it wrong! :o)


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jan 26, 2014)

Arbee @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Casiquire @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> 
> 
> > The first one, titled "Original", sounds really synthy and fake to me. The legato sounds too loud and choppy and it's like the whole thing was recorded using one dynamic layer. Whatever library that was, ask for your money back.
> ...



Not sure if the sarcasm was missed, or I missed the sarcasm in your comment


----------



## Arbee (Jan 26, 2014)

Stiltzkin @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Arbee @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Casiquire @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> ...


I missed the emoticon and therefore the sarcasm, and then deleted my post while slapping my forehead violently....

.


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

Casiquire @ Sun 26 Jan said:


> The first one, titled "Original", sounds really synthy and fake to me. The legato sounds too loud and choppy and it's like the whole thing was recorded using one dynamic layer. Whatever library that was, ask for your money back.
> 
> :oP
> 
> ...



Well, that's part of my plan - to make as many as possible look as stupid as possible 
No, there's no tricks. No one is an idiot, you hear what you hear. Just listen and judge. I just know from myself that if I know what library is playing I already start listening for the flaws I know or think it has.
So please go into detail 

When you're listening please also pay attension to the volumen you're listening at. I've tried to make them as even as possible...

Yes, I left out the portamento thing...


----------



## brunodegazio (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

BTW, does anyone know what melody the violas play in this example? It's a well-known standard repertoire piece, (Russian?), but I can't place it.

LATER -- found it, it's from Berlioz, Roman Carnival Overture


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

Interesting idea. Typically I hear a few notes and think "hey that bit sounds good" but then there's a glitch of some kind that trips you up. 203 and 204 both sound incredibly similar for example and start very well, but the repeated notes @7s both sound unnaturally bright and spoil the moment.

None of them are terrible, while of course none as effortless as the original. 201c sounds like a lot of first chair layered or something, which sounds kinda real til you realise the actual real one doesn't have that quality at all. 

In general I suspect the way its played is having as much effect as the variations between them. Those 203/204 bright notes at 7s - are they less bright if you play it differently? It would be very hard to call a winner based on this, whereas if you actually played it, you might have a very different reaction.

I've long had the heretical idea that the tone of the library isn't necessarily the most important thing. The tone of all the orchestral recordings I own vary hugely, and I don't especially have a preference. The performance itself is more important to me than the tone. (Of course, when creating a virtual performance, the tone / space needs to be consistent)


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

I did not spend time the repeated notes either.

(Obviously) a lot has to do with how you play or program it (or both). I tried to spend about the same amount of time on all examples and see how well they could sound with a similar effort.

The "bright notes" must be because I triggered another dynamic layer, I guess you could avoid that if you wanted. I'll have a look at it.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 26, 2014)

Casiquire @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> One thing that none of the examples really captures from the first example is the slight portamento on a few of the notes. Those are crucial to match the feel in my opinion.


It's not portamento. It is a position change. Very different in sound and something that is not really controllable in any library, other than Dimension Strings, AFAIK.


----------



## Vik (Jan 26, 2014)

Daryl @ 26.1.2014 said:


> Casiquire @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that none of the examples really captures from the first example is the slight portamento on a few of the notes. Those are crucial to match the feel in my opinion.
> ...


I think Cinematic has a simple string position knob. And I'm pretty sure Hollywood Strings lets you select which string to use.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 26, 2014)

Vik @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Daryl @ 26.1.2014 said:
> 
> 
> > Casiquire @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> ...


Position and position change are not the same thing. One is static. The other implies movement.

D


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jan 26, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Vik @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ 26.1.2014 said:
> ...



Afaik this is correct - although CS2 does have position, changing position mid note and executing a legato change will not perform a separate position transition. Glissando would be the closest thing to replicate this as the finger never leaves the string, but you would need to modify it with speed controller which some libraries provide (eg lass)


----------



## Daryl (Jan 26, 2014)

Stiltzkin @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Vik @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> ...


Glissando would be far too deliberate, and would also imply that the same finger is used for the start note, slide and destination note, which, apart from a few cases, would make the articulation even less use than portamento.

There are libraries where you can clearly hear change of position, but as it's not controllable it causes more problems than it solves.

D


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jan 26, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Stiltzkin @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Sun Jan 26 said:
> ...



Be it portamento or glissando, the speed setting when set to full high would be the same movement as position change, and give the effect needed in that clip (and just swap based on whether you need a fingered legato transition at the end) assuming it's faster than the natural recording with speed at max.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what difference would there be other than that, the finger moves up or down the bow and then there's a legato transition, if it's fast enough it will give the right effect, you just need to know how much of the transition you would need to go up or down the desired finger positions before cutting it off with the legato change :/


----------



## Daryl (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

Paul, there are two sorts of position change (for the way up); French overslide (the most common) and Russian underslide. Changing position using the same finger for start and destination note is a special case, but much of the time this is not used. Portamento is mostly a deliberate Russian underslide and using the same finger for this is also a special case. If you would like me to go into more detail, I can, but it will be extremely pedantic and boring. :wink: 

D


----------



## muk (Jan 26, 2014)

Thanks for that very interesting comparison renegade!

My impressions, and I'm being very nitpicky here (in fact I think all examples sound very good):

201a: slight tuning problems (most notable at the beginning); sudden volume drop at 12s; in the more agile passage at around 24s I the attacks are not entirely convincing to me.

201b: quite like it. The tuning is better - not perfect, but not troubling either; the note repetition at 8s sounds very good; the same unnatural volume drop as 201a at 12s

201c: my favourite one. Nice tone, very good repetitions at 8s, nice legato; only the volume drop with a slightly unnatural (to my ears) release at 12s that I don't like too much. Other than that very beautiful

202: not a tone that I'd like. To brittle/harsh/metallic sounding for me. But the legato is very nice.

203: too wide and far away for my taste. The vibrato is a bit too loose for me, especially in the release at 6s. The definition of the attacks doesn't convince me. The sound's too big for me.

204: big sounding as 203, but in a way I like much more. Not the sound I'd strive for, but very nice and lush. Only thing I didn't like too much is the repetitions at 7s.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

dimension strings sul-g/d/a legatos have this position change transitions.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*



Saxer @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> dimension strings sul-g/d/a legatos have this position change transitions.


As I said. :wink: 

D


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

(Info added to original post too)

*1a* Sable viola. Legato slider set to _fast_ transistion. This is the one I personally like the least. Some weird bumps after note change... 

*1b* Sable viola. Legato slider set to _slowest_ transistion. This was quite an eyeopener for me. A different league to my ears. It's all a lot better connected and natural sounding. But you can't play the part with this setting, because of the transition delay.

*1c* Same as 1b, but with aditional CC tweaks. This is the one I spent most time with.

*2* LASS Viola. This is the one I spent least time with...

*3 * EWQL Hollywood Strings. Also rather fast to get this result. You could make a lot of tweaking, especially if you include a patch or two more. 

*4* 1c + 3 layered. I really like this sound...


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*



renegade @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> *4* 1c + 4 layered. I really like this sound...



I'm sorry for my density…is this 1c (Sable) doubled by using the transposition trick? Or what exactly do you mean here?


----------



## Theseus (Jan 26, 2014)

Listening to it again, I would guess that 1C + 4 means Sable tweaked + Lass (the fourth exemple).


----------



## muk (Jan 26, 2014)

Probably he meant 1c + 3 layered?


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

muk @ Sun 26 Jan said:


> Probably he meant 1c + 3 layered?



Exactly! Sorry for the typo!


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 26, 2014)

ok, got it. 

I'd be very curious to hear 1c layered with the same patch in unison using the transposition trick. The demos of Mural sound great to me but I think if I were to jump into SF strings it would be with Sable. Having the option to double the ensemble size would be great. 

Sounds great. Thanks for these.


----------



## muk (Jan 26, 2014)

+1. An example of Sable layered (could be done once or twice, or preferably even both) with the transposition trick would be awesome.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

Legato?

Ask a spectator of a film if he/she has detected errors in the legato string playing...! 

Much, much more important is the music you wrote! Perhaps a melody what they can remind and hum.....?

o-[][]-o


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

Is this right: Tune down 3 semitones and adjust transpose in Sable menu?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%205.wav


Here's some impro, 4 different libs. No EQ added this time.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Impro%201.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Impro%202.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Impro%203.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Impro%204.wav


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 26, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*



renegade @ Sun 26 Jan said:


> (Info added to original post too)
> 
> *1a* Sable viola. Legato slider set to _fast_ transistion. This is the one I personally like the least. Some weird bumps after note change...
> 
> ...



Well I'm not that surprised with some of these, like how Hollywood Strings was the smoothest and the LASS one was the most nasal. What does surprise me, though, is that I can't hear hardly any legato transition in 2-4. I hear a lot more on my end, even with reverb.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 26, 2014)

Thanks, renegade. I'm not sure which is better, pitching up or down though.


----------



## renegade (Jan 26, 2014)

Well, I've just got HS so I have not yet fully overview over the (many) patches. I just chose a "regular" legato-patch. There are ton of options...

IMO Sable sounds best when played medium tempo. I don't like the slow passages that much, I think the transitions are too obvious. I would probably use the sus patches for that instead. But as I said, the legato sound improves IMO dramatically with the speed knob all the way down (you just can't play them at that setting, that would require a lot of practice anyway!).

LASS is the quickest to play in (needs almost no editing afterwards)...and also the one I have most experience with, I admit. It's rather smooth and behave more or less like I expected.

HS has a great sound and the legato is also rahter predictable, wich makes it fun and easy to play with. There are a lot of patches...haven't had for long enough to know how it is to work with in a "real" composition.


And this is only the viola 

There has been some critique of the Sable legato, would love to from you guys! Here's an opportunity to discuss and maybe bring in some ideas/views.


----------



## muk (Jan 27, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*



renegade @ Sun Jan 26 said:


> Is this right: Tune down 3 semitones and adjust transpose in Sable menu?
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%205.wav



Wow, that's sweeeet. Love this sound. Thanks for uploading.

To me it's Sable I like the most. But this comparison shows clearly how important it is to adjust the legato velocity after playing it in. Didn't Spitfire announce an update which includes automatic legato adjusting depending on the playing speed? Would love to hear how it works.
Lass I like pretty much too (the legato is superb), if only the tone wasn't so brittle and metallic.

Another interesting comparison: Hollywood strings against Cinematic Strings 2. Is anybody willing to render the example with CS 2?


----------



## renegade (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm not a big fan of automatic speed detection... I own Orch tools Wood Exp, and, though the tone is great, I'm not sure I'll ever use the adaptive legato system. To me it's just doesn't feel right.

I think the Sable way of doing legato is a quite good idea (especially for ambient/wet samples I guess). You have a "fast" option for playing. It doesn't sound fantastic (IMO) but it respond fast enough for you to work with it in real time. After you have played the part you adjust the speed knob and you get the whole legato transition. Then you of course need to move all the notes a little forward to match the tempo.

I'm a bit curios, am I the only one who think 1a is the worst of the examples?

I thought the speed knob was designed for slow and fast passages, but I really think it sounds best in the slowest position no matter what tempo...if you need something really fast there are other legato patches for that anyway. Maybe that's idea for the Sable critics to try out?


----------



## renegade (Jan 27, 2014)

muk @ Sun 26 Jan said:


> 201a: slight tuning problems (most notable at the beginning); sudden volume drop at 12s; in the more agile passage at around 24s I the attacks are not entirely convincing to me.
> 
> 201b: quite like it. The tuning is better - not perfect, but not troubling either; the note repetition at 8s sounds very good; the same unnatural volume drop as 201a at 12s
> 
> 201c: my favourite one. Nice tone, very good repetitions at 8s, nice legato; only the volume drop with a slightly unnatural (to my ears) release at 12s that I don't like too much. Other than that very beautiful



Interesting observation as it's Sable all three. The difference a to b is the speed knob, c has a little more CC tweaking. I also have the impression that the fast setting in Sable legato does something funny...it sounds as if the legato release trail is to loud. It creates "bumps" after each note change. Sounds weird...but it disappears almost entirely when adjusting the speed knob.


----------



## renegade (Jan 27, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*



Casiquire @ Sun 26 Jan said:


> renegade @ Sun 26 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > (Info added to original post too)
> ...



Here they are 100% dry (no EQ and Reverb):

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%201%20dry.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%202%20dry.wav
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Legato%20test%204%20dry.wav


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 28, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion (Sable, LASS, HS)*

Thanks for posting those, that does sound a bit more familiar.


----------



## blougui (Jan 28, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion (Sable, LASS, HS)*

What troubles me is the "ploc" one can hear on each of the Sable parts. @18 and @22 sec - and it's worth in 2-05.
I know by reading reviews and so on that it's part of the willing imperfectness but to me it kills everything. Just because it's repeated and that you can hear it on a naked cue suche as these.

Favorite tone and behaviour is LASS - though I realize one could EQ lass to some extent to tame a bit the brittle side of it. 
I don't own any of these libs. But it's been quite a few times I found myself more convinced by LASS than anyother lib - not to mention online demos wich I think are stellar. 
And I don't like that at all cause Lass is too pricey for my use and it looks like a burden to use properly, especially with a lack of proper musical education and training.

It gives me food for thought as I'm about to plunge for Mural... or not.

Anyway, thanks for this interesting thread !

- Erik


----------



## renegade (Jan 28, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion (Sable, LASS, HS)*



blougui @ Tue 28 Jan said:


> What troubles me is the "ploc" one can hear on each of the Sable parts. @18 and @22 sec - and it's worth in 2-05.
> I know by reading reviews and so on that it's part of the willing imperfectness but to me it kills everything. Just because it's repeated and that you can hear it on a naked cue suche as these.



That "ploc" is not bothering me that much. What bothers me (in general, not Sable specifically) is dynamic inconsistency. That just makes it a pain to work with...



blougui @ Tue 28 Jan said:


> Favorite tone and behaviour is LASS - though I realize one could EQ lass to some extent to tame a bit the brittle side of it.
> I don't own any of these libs. But it's been quite a few times I found myself more convinced by LASS than anyother lib - not to mention online demos wich I think are stellar.
> And I don't like that at all cause Lass is too pricey for my use and it looks like a burden to use properly, especially with a lack of proper musical education and training.



I don't think you need to be rocket scientist to use LASS  But if you know how to use reverb and EQ, that would probably be helpful if you want to experiment with the sound...



blougui @ Tue 28 Jan said:


> It gives me food for thought as I'm about to plunge for Mural... or not.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for this interesting thread !
> 
> - Erik



You're welcome, glad you appreciate it!


----------



## renegade (Jan 28, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

*New blind test!*

Hope you want to participate! This is a medium-fast line with some repititions (pure poison for most string samples!). There are five different libraries represented. Little EQ and reverb (more discreet than the last ones, and almost same amount of reverb on all ex.).

*ex 1* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest1.wav

*ex 2* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest2.wav

*ex 3* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest3.wav

*ex 4* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest4.wav

*ex 5 *https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest5.wav

*ex 6* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest6.wav

*ex 7* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/Blindtest7.wav

What do you think :?:


----------



## Lawson. (Jan 28, 2014)

For the first test, I liked 3 the best. I really liked that smooth tone.

Second test, in order of most liked to least liked:

1 and 4 (tied), 2, 7, 3, 6, 5.


----------



## Theseus (Jan 28, 2014)

Number 1 gets really out of tune towards the end of the line, otherwise it sounds pretty decent (suspect it might be LASS with the forced "next note" round robin trick). Repetition do sound ok though.

I like number 4 the best, both in tone and in terms of swells in the repetition. There are some sound artefacts though (or real recording noises hehe !), which are a bit annoying exposed like that.

Number 3, I believe there's a saxophone playing in unison. Player got lost? 

Number 5, repetitions hit the line pretty badly. Don't care much for the tone either.

Number 6, high school orchestra with suuuuper long releases 

Number 7, middle of the road in every aspect.


----------



## renegade (Jan 28, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Thanks for your comments...interesting! I wish I didn't know which was which...

Just updated ex 5. Volume seemed a little low.

*Please pay attention to volume*: Louder often seems better! So make sure all ex are approximately the same level. I've tried to mix them so it's not far from, but it's difficult because of differnt dynamic curves and so on...


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 28, 2014)

Hi renegade,
good idea, however why do you use spaces in weblinks? This does not work for me and certainly for many others too.


----------



## blougui (Jan 28, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion (Sable, LASS, HS)*



renegade @ Tue Jan 28 said:


> blougui @ Tue 28 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > What troubles me is the "ploc" one can hear on each of the Sable parts. @18 and @22 sec - and it's worth in 2-05.
> ...



Sure. I was talking from a listener point of view, after all the hard work is done ; I must agree it's a whole different game when composing !



> blougui @ Tue 28 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > Favorite tone and behaviour is LASS - though I realize one could EQ lass to some extent to tame a bit the brittle side of it.
> ...



Allright then ! I was thinking about ARC. I have followed the recent thread about it and have been to Guy's video tutorials as well to have a glimpse at the beast


----------



## aaronnt1 (Jan 28, 2014)

1 and 4 are both the best here.


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 29, 2014)

I like 1 and 4 a lot as others are saying, but I really like the smooth dynamics in 2. Thanks for posting them a bit more dry because I can pay more attention to the transitions here. 6 sounds jumpy to me, I'd bet that's what Theseus meant when he said "high school orchestra". 7 sounds like it would be really good in a mix with reverb but this exposed it's about average.


----------



## renegade (Jan 29, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Wed 29 Jan said:


> Hi renegade,
> good idea, however why do you use spaces in weblinks? This does not work for me and certainly for many others too.



I don't know! Can you explain how the links should look like (not exactly sure what you mean by "spaces" - to me it just look like "regular" dropbox links)?


----------



## renegade (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

I think maybe (in this example) it's very hard to separate "performance" from "tone"...If it has a good/natural performance, maybe the tone/sound becomes less important? That is if the tone has reached a certain level of quality.

And again there's the working perspective. Some of these examples has definitely required more work than others. So even though one sound slightly better than another, workflow may be decisive for what you choose to work with anyway.


----------



## BenG (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Fun test!
In terms of Legato first and tone second, I would say that I like 1 and 4.


----------



## renegade (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion*

1 + 4 seems to be the favorites...anyone else wan't to comment before I reveal the sample libs used?

Anyone dare to take a gues which is which?

The samples are: 3 x Sable (one with leg speed up, two leg speed down (diff. mic mix)), Hollywood Strings, LASS, Sonic Implants, EWQL SO.


----------



## Erik (Jan 29, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

My 2 cents......

from what I like _best _to _bad_, considering a mix of decent legato performance and sound, which is a bit difficult sometimes.

Fine: 2 (Sable?): nice legato
Almost fine: 1

In between: 7 (EWQL SO?)

So so: 4 (LASS? digital artifacts), 3 (not very convincing legato, soundwise OK, Sable?)

Just bad: 5, 6 (sorry guys, not very relevant)


----------



## muk (Jan 29, 2014)

Nr. 1: quite nice, but slightly out of tune and too slow legato transitions (sounds almost like drunken fiddlers at times, to put it very harshly) -> Sable?
Nr. 2: too wide and far away, slightly nasal. Don't like it much -> HS?
Nr. 3: nice legato, but wierd tone. Panned hard left. LASS?
Nr. 4: like this one best, by a margin. Sable with legato speed down?
Nr. 5: Sable with close mics?
Nr. 6: all sort of inconsistencies, sounds worst to me. EWQL SO?
Nr. 7: nice tone, smaller sound. Where's the legato? Sonic Implants with some reverb slapped on top?


----------



## aaronnt1 (Jan 29, 2014)

I would guess at no.1 being Sable and 4 being HS, 6 as EWSO and 7 LASS....???


----------



## Lawson. (Jan 29, 2014)

aaronnt1 @ Wed Jan 29 said:


> I would guess at no.1 being Sable and 4 being HS, 6 as EWSO and 7 LASS....???



That's my guess as well.


----------



## muk (Jan 30, 2014)

Hey renegade, do you want to solve the blind test yet? I'm curious which one's which.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Oooh I still have time to play...

5 and 6 are my least favourites, their transitions stand out as unconvincing. All the others sound pretty good really, tonally #3 isn't very nice but that could just be in need of different EQ etc. 2 and 4 - on these mixes - sound nicest to me, 1, 3 and 7 honourable mentions.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 30, 2014)

Number 1 and 4 standout. Number 7 has a smooth connection but the tone makes the repeating notes sound obvious. But, 7 is still good. The others either didn't catch my ear or were just not good.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jan 30, 2014)

Wild guesses, but I quite enjoy these things. (disclosure: I don't own any of these libraries)

#1 Sable
#2 EWSO
#3 HS (or LASS)
#4 Sable (fairly organic, the noises give it that natural feeling, but the mix to me has a bit too much ambience, which I find a bit odd in contrast)
#5 SISS (very detached bowing, I'd never call this legato, more of an alternate bowing for each note)
#6 Sable
#7 LASS (or HS)


----------



## renegade (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Thanks for your thoughts!

Ok, here we go:

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

1 LASS div A+B
2 EWQL HS: bow change (mic: main + little close)
3 Sable, "Medium" mic mix (Jake Jackson mixes), alt. bow, speed slider slow
4 EWQL SO: Mix with Sus MOD, Stacc RRx8 (for down bow) and Mart UD marc RRx6 (up bow)
5 Sonic Implants: Alt. Up and down bow + stac patch
6 Sable, Medium mic mix, alt. bow, speed slider set to fast (sounds weird, a bug?)
7 Sable, Mic mix "Broad", alt. bow, speed slider slow


My thoughts:

Good old SO still top of the pops...(surprise?) Yes, but to make it work (or compete with newer samples) you also have to spend some time tweaking CC, layering etc...and maybe be a little lucky  But I must admit I really like sound of the strings in SO. The recordings are still great. The stacc/marc has RR, maybe that did something good to the repetition-problem?
And LASS also among the favorites. If time matters, LASS is the fastest to work with (when setup). Very little CC editing required after playing it in. For medium-fast line it's really good IMO (But this is also by far the samples I have had for longest time and therefor have most experience with!). One little thing: This was only div A+B playing, div C sounded really strange/bad on this line! In general the legato gets ”slower”/more unpredictable with violin - viola – cello – basses, in my experience. Violins the most responsive/fast, basses the least.
EWQL Hollywood Strings, almost as fast to work with. HS has a ton of patches, so in a complex piece you would have to know HS well to find the patch you need for a particular line. I like the sound, big lush and wide, and the legato feels ”right” when you play the patches.
Good performance by Sable as well,* if* the speed knob is turned down that is! You have to play it with the speed slider set near the fastest setting (unless you can play with a very significant lag!). Then move the notes forward (not the CC data) and finally move the first note in each legato line back (the first note in a line is not delayed).This is how I will work with Sable in the future, anyway. I think it gives rather good results. For slower things I may use the ”Long” patches, as they are easier to control. The speed slider is a little strange...the faster the transition, the more room. Slowest: almost no room. Fastest: (waaayyy!) too much room (I should have made one with speed set halfway also, to allow some room).
Sonic Implants...I guess I missed that one! To me it didn't sound that bad. But I think with some TLC you could make it work too...

Guy Rowland, I think you have very good points (your heretical idea!) about the performance element playing a big part of the perception. If you somehow manage to make it musical, it may count as much or maybe even more than the actual sound quality.
That may especially be true in these examples. However, if the strings need to do slow smooth Hollywood chords, you'll need that sound in the samples. HS, SO (Adagio? Don't own it) would probably do the job much better than LASS or Sable, even if the performance is the same.

Regarding HS, Sonic Implants (and SO for that matter): I didn't spend hours looking for the right patches, testing and so on...better results may be possible if you did that. HS is rather new to me, so I haven't got the full overview...

...and most of the performances could use more reverb to my taste! That might also do some of the performances good.

...and none of the performances is really close to the organic performances of real players...Don't know if that's possible with lines like this at all. A little disappointed I couldn't get it better. But in the background in a mix and not the lead melody...maybe it would sound ok.

...and I'm still curious what was wrong with the links? Could someone explain?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Well how jolly interesting. I've heard some phenomenal demos using only SO - but the catch always seems to be a lot of time and a lot of effort. I'm definitely in the camp that wants things to work as well as possible, as fast as possible.

Also interesting on how good - and how bad - Sable can sound, depending on the mix an settings.


----------



## blougui (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Thanx for continuing the game 


Listened a dozen times on my cans (AKG-k240)
5, 6, 7 my least favorites. 5 & 6 far worst. 7 is not bad at all to my hears but the repetitions are more obvious in the 1st part.

1-LASS is not wide, soundwise but no sign of repetition. Quite natural, as is 2- HS
4-SO : yes, a surprise. I own this one. Makes me think about NOT buying a string lib, as I'm about to take the plunge - but I admit I'm not ready to do all the tweaking you did. Not a question of time/deadlines, just because it'ld lower the fun of playing down to zero, and I'm sure I'ld be as patient as you are.
I like the ending vibrato of 3-Sable.

Interesting


----------



## José Herring (Jan 30, 2014)

I think it's time to pull out SO again. I still have the Kontakt version so I'm wondering if layering the patches in konakt might work well. Time to experiment!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



Guy Rowland @ Thu Jan 30 said:


> Also interesting on how good - and how bad - Sable can sound, depending on the mix an settings.



True for all libraries and real instruments.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



renegade @ Thu Jan 30 said:


> 4 EWQL SO: Mix with Sus MOD, Stacc RRx8 (for down bow) and Mart UD marc RRx6 (up bow)



A very cool use of the lib! 

You know, you can built a new patch/instrument where all this articulations are included in this one new instrument. These options do I love in Kontakt Sampler.


----------



## jleckie (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Like I said here:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... t=#3762869

"Buying the latest greatest is so over rated. I was listening to an old film score a friend did YEARS ago for a film. He used *the original EWQLSO* on it but his writing was just so good that you got lost in the album and never really thought about the library."

I think it is still a great library though.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



renegade @ Thu Jan 30 said:


> ...and I'm still curious what was wrong with the links? Could someone explain?



This is a problem:
...dropboxusercontent.com/u/123456/Blindtest 1.wav

because the space in front of the 1 will be replaced on some systems by other symbols.

These work:
...dropboxusercontent.com/u/123456/Blindtest_1.wav
...dropboxusercontent.com/u/123456/Blindtest-1.wav
...dropboxusercontent.com/u/123456/Blindtest01.wav

AND
if you should ever have a havoc on your hard disk and try to restore files you will notice that every file with a space in its name and also every content of folders with a space in their name will most likely not work.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

So is Albion's legato sub par to LASS and HS?


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 30, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



Jeffrey Peterson @ Thu 30 Jan said:


> So is Albion's legato sub par to LASS and HS?



Not to be pedantic, but Albion isn't used in the examples, it's Sable. Just clarifying ;o) but I wouldn't say the legato is sub par, I think it just highlights the importance of knowledgeable utilization of the legato parameters included. Sounds to me like renegade is a pro at this.


----------



## TSU (Jan 30, 2014)

renegade, can you post a midi of the second test please?


----------



## renegade (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



Hannes_F @ Fri 31 Jan said:


> renegade @ Thu Jan 30 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and I'm still curious what was wrong with the links? Could someone explain?
> ...



Thanks for clarifying! Filenames corrected and new links.


----------



## mozart999uk (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Just out of interest, what articulation in sable where you using to get the repeated legato note in the earlier example?


----------



## renegade (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Thanks again for all who commented on this little test.

SO required some effort, but that may also be the reason it succeeded rather well – I had to work for it  But I don't think it was overly time consuming (as I said: maybe I was just lucky to choose a good solution for this from the start). Because SO do not have legato you are forced to experiment and use your ears even more carefully than if some script or prerecorded intervals do the work for you. That also means you have more options. If you like to experiment, SO is really a nobrainer.

@Gunther: I got the PLAY version, so no kontakt editing for me I'm afraid...

As far as buying new stuff vs. sticking to old: I think this test is not (anywhere near) substantial enough to conclude anything about that. This is a short line, only a few notes, same note length. I think you can conclude that _sometimes _old can do as well as new. SO is recorded in a great hall using great equipment, has a lot of useful articulations – so why not?

Of course, the more samples you have at your disposal, the more options you have to make just the sound you want. And, in my experience, you just get tired listening to the same samples. I could not just own LASS, I need to have options and be able to switch to a different sound/feeling sometimes. If I haven't used SO in a while it's great to go back to just to hear some “fresh”/different sounds.

I guess you don't need to worry that much about section size? Judging from the guesses, it seems rather difficult to spot the exact number of players. Sable is 3? SO is 10 (and even layered on top of that). LASS is 6 (3+3), HS is 10. If the number of players were easily heard, it would be a lot easier guessing which was which.
That said, I would also think that in a different context it would be more noticeable. If there was more long notes in particular.

@Jeffrey Peterson: regarding Albion: good question...It could have been in the test as well. Didn't think about that.

-RG


----------



## renegade (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



mozart999uk @ Fri 31 Jan said:


> Just out of interest, what articulation in sable where you using to get the repeated legato note in the earlier example?



Just regular legato patch, release note, press note  Nothing special.

The place it says: daaa-da-daa-daaaaaa....(7 sec.) I actually play daaa-daaaaaaaaaaa... there is a tiny bump in the sample (and your brain does rest of the work...) that sounds like the note repeated were it's not. Convenient coincidence!


----------



## mozart999uk (Jan 31, 2014)

Cool. Thanks for explaining


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



renegade @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I guess you don't need to worry that much about section size?



Yes, I agree in the sense that you can get away with an awful lot, and your test showed that very well. People didn't immediately spot Sable, although its a fraction of the players. The exception I think is using big libraries to play block chords - 48 1st violins for a triad ends up no so much sounding huge as a bit synthy. I think Berlin were quite smart to build their samples around a sort of half size - you don't seem to notice the smaller sections, you save a packet on recording costs, and you could probably get away without divisi for chordal stuff a lot better than a full sized symphonic library.


----------



## mozart999uk (Jan 31, 2014)

I think the violas sound quite rich for such a small number of players. Personally I feel it becomes a bit more obvious with the 2nd violins. For some reason they sound very small and not particularly homogenous.....


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *



renegade @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I guess you don't need to worry that much about section size?


Also the result of how libraries are recorded, how the conductor let the musicians play. 

For example: If the conductor counts: One, two, three, four and then the musicians play a short spiccato, it often sounds like a shot. Whether with 4 musicians or whether with 20. 

When u use this recordings later at a fast tempo, a recording, done with 20 players, it often doesn't exactly sound like 20 players. There is not a big sound difference as it was recorded with 10 musicians.


----------



## renegade (Jan 31, 2014)

TSU @ Fri 31 Jan said:


> renegade, can you post a midi of the second test please?



Here's the midi for the Sable legato:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/LegatolineSable.mid


----------



## renegade (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Legato discussion - New blind test! *

Ok. Last one. This one took way to long time to do!  No legatopatches this time, only longs. And even then the sound seems very depended on performance rather than how the samples sound. I've done my best to make a fair comparison...but take it with a grain of salt, anyway.

I've always loved how strings can do these silky chords underneath a melody and with this test I'm trying to see how close I can get with various string libs.

This is only ”long” patches, and yet it was even harder to do than the last one. It's like when you play the piano. Sometimes a c-major can just sound heavenly because you hit the C E G with just the right amount of force, in just the right context. Sometimes it sounds like sh.. for the opposite reason.

Here 5 string sections has to play together, and the fact that no sample library react the same, and all have their small or big irregularities, makes it incredible hard to hit that sweet spot where it sounds just right (and I didn't! I did my best though). I can't say I did all libraries even justice. But if I had to work more on this I would probably go crazy 

Seven short excerpts from Joe Hisaishi's Opening from Howls Moving Castle (such a lovely little melody?).

Seven diffrent string sample libraries:

*1* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC1.wav

*2* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC2.wav

*3* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC3.wav

*4* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC4.wav

*5* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC5.wav

*6* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC6.wav

*7* https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC7.wav

Enjoy! And feel free to express your opinions and observations. What do you think?


----------



## TSU (Jan 31, 2014)

renegade @ 2.1.2014 said:


> TSU @ Fri 31 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > renegade, can you post a midi of the second test please?
> ...



Thank you


----------



## José Herring (Jan 31, 2014)

number 1 sounds off
number 2 is very nice
number 3 the strings have to much energy and quickly overtake the lead line.

number 4 seems nice. Nice tone to the strings. 
number 5 seems to have connection problems at the begining but then is ok. Not sure of the tone, seems to lack air or has an artifical high end.

number 6 is pretty nice imo. Has some flaws but the string sound is really detailed.

number 7 just isn't connecting well. Tone is fine though.

This one is tough because they all seem to work well enough to pass.


----------



## dimtsak (Jan 31, 2014)

I am not experienced to judge the details,
but to my ears, the HMC1 is stunning.

Probably because it sounds like a smaller section, and that fits with this melody.

And it has much fuller low end that the others.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 31, 2014)

I think this test is just going to come down to a matter of taste. They all sound fine.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jan 31, 2014)

josejherring @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I think this test is just going to come down to a matter of taste. They all sound fine.



These all sound good in different ways to me. Just a matter of taste as Jose says.

It is a great film. I'm really sorry Hayao Miyazaki has retired.


----------



## kavinsky (Feb 1, 2014)

Wow, always loved blind tests, puts a really different perspective on things you already familiar with.
2 and 6 are winners for me, the lines move smoothly and all notes connect really nice without any bumps.


----------



## renegade (Feb 1, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri 31 Jan said:


> josejherring @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this test is just going to come down to a matter of taste. They all sound fine.
> ...



Thanks!



Stephen Rees @ Fri 31 Jan said:


> It is a great film. I'm really sorry Hayao Miyazaki has retired.



He has? That's too bad...



kavinsky @ Sat 01 Feb said:


> Wow, always loved blind tests, puts a really different perspective on things you already familiar with.
> 2 and 6 are winners for me, the lines move smoothly and all notes connect really nice without any bumps.



Thanks for your opinion! Remember that the performance part is nearly impossible to get even across the examples without having to spend an unrealistic amount of time...


----------



## renegade (Feb 1, 2014)

I read somewhere (I think _Incognito_ by David Eagleman) that our minds perception of the outside world is heavily based on preconceptions. And we can easily be tricked to hear something if someone tells us what to listen for in advance. Eg.: “listen to this great hall, all the best microphones, and best sound engineer”. When we are presented with demos we are already tuned in to hear exactly that (unless the tone is complete disaster, of course!). Already knowing, our brains are more than willing to give us exactly that expected experience. Especially if we want to (eg because we would like to justify an impulse buy...  ).
In a blind test, the brain is left in the dark (unless something specifically in the sample reveals the truth, and your back to your preconceptions. Like that the LASS viola had a more loose tuning than some of the others). When you hear the first notes you have no idea what to expect. I think it's a good exercise from time to time.

(Btw. this is NOT to say “don't buy new stuff”. I'm also not saying that new samples cannot potentially sound better. Maybe. But this test indicates (again: this test is far from comprehensive enough to make any final conclusions) that the difference in sound may not be that great. Newer sample libraries of course offer newer technologies and more/different features, improved workflow and so on).

This test is about tone. Most would think they'd _clearly_ love Spitfire's Albion more than LASS in a test like this? But are you able to tell wich is Albion? How big is the difference if you can?
Yes I have applied EQ and reverb, but not much, and only to try to make all participants look their best.

Like you would probably think that SO was one of the worst in the legato test. I did not have the SO as my personal favorite...but maybe that was only because I knew what it was and therefor unable to hear what most of you heard? My brain just couldn't accept that SO was able to compete with newer samples with legato (thanks for prooving me wrong btw).


Some of you mentioned the connection between notes. If you can you may try to ignore that – if I wanted to spend more times with this, I think all could be fixed with some simple attack/release adjustment or finetuning note starts and ends.

If you can, also try to distinguish between performance and sound (if that's even possible). I've done my best with the performances...and failed (more or less, anyway)!


----------



## Gusfmm (Feb 1, 2014)

#1 probably my preference, more intimate sound, more organic
#2 larger size, not bad
#3 not a lot of dimension in the sound, lacks a bit of high end sheen
#4 Vibrato sounds artificial.
#5 & #6 issues having some connections sound natural.
_____#5 nice fuller tone, larger size, maybe my 2nd best
_____#6 not as balanced ensemble sound as #5
#7 fullest sound to me, not necessarily the best though.


----------



## blougui (Feb 1, 2014)

This is a tough one !
Almost all sounds nice to me after several plays on my cans. Here and there a small question of connexion but tone wise, they all sound very nice.

Love the vibrato on 1.
1 & 4 the biggest low end, in a pleasant way
5 : intro and general sound a tad too muted, no sheen enough ?

I found myself having attention focused on the first 4 notes - strings are isolated, may be that's the reason - and then I went with the flow of the music, like I couldn't find any definitive difference to make me decide wich one I really do not dig.
Sometimes it's a question of connection between notes but that criteria is'nt as relevant here as you as in the previous test

Now I really want to know which is what !!! Before I make a purchasing decision in the coming days :wink: i've got a budget settled for a string lib as I said earlier and any info is much coveted... and used :D 

Thanx again, really interesting !


----------



## blougui (Feb 1, 2014)

Gusfmm @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> #1 probably my preference, more intimate sound, more organic
> #2 larger size, not bad
> #3 not a lot of dimension in the sound, lacks a bit of high end shine
> #4 Vibrato sounds artificial.
> ...



Well I "feel" almost like this, - though not bothered by n°4 vibrato.
So, I would go n°1 then n°4, if I had a gun on my head and had to make an instant decision (well, if 10 listenings _is_ instant decision) Might change after a couple more of plays.
But n°1 still my fav though, in this exemple. The slimmest apparent number of players suits very well the intimate melody and melancholic mood.

Erik


----------



## Lawson. (Feb 1, 2014)

Listened to these a whole bunch of times, and here are the results of my careful evaluation D) from best to worst: 6, 2, 5, 1, 7, 3, 4. 6 has by far the nicest legato and the best tone (IMHO); however some of the notes seem to cut too early. A little MIDI tweaking can easily fix that, though. 4 just sounds synth-like, and the middles ones sound nice, but not as good as 6.


----------



## renegade (Feb 2, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your inputs!

I'll say that your favorite may also depend if you focus on the high 4th chords in the beginning or the soft lower chords that follow?

(I should have made one with mixed/changing libraries...also to see if anyone would even notice)


----------



## blougui (Feb 2, 2014)

renegade @ Sun Feb 02 said:


> Thanks everyone for your inputs!
> 
> I'll say that your favorite may also depend if you focus on the high 4th chords in the beginning or the soft lower chords that follow?
> 
> (I should have made one with mixed/changing libraries...also to see if anyone would even notice)



I'm sure i would not notice - may be at the exception of one which seems to have more reverb but can't remember wich one anyway.

- Erik


----------



## renegade (Feb 3, 2014)

Ok, here's the completely dry versions (This means that the connection between notes most likely will become even more noticeable)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC1dry.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC2dry.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC3dry.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC4dry.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC5dry.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC6dry.wav

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12948366/JH_HMC7dry.wav

The samples used are:

Albion II, Cornucopia Strings, EWQL SO, Hollywood Strings, LASS, Sable and Sonic Implants.

Anybody want's to guess?


----------



## renegade (Feb 5, 2014)

Before I'll reveal the shocking truth (in few hours) one last chance if anybody wants to guess. No prices, only the chance of looking awesome (if you'r right....)


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 5, 2014)

I do not own any string library, so I can not compare. 

But I am very excited!


----------



## aaronnt1 (Feb 5, 2014)

This is more close, none sounds terrible, all pretty decent actually. I think my favourites are 1, 6 & 4. I suspect 4 is Sable, sounds like less players?


----------



## renegade (Feb 5, 2014)

In general I think the vibrato intensity is very important part in this piece of music (or even in general?). So libraries that do not have the right amount (too little), do not sound as good as the ones that have.

Here's the samples used. I made my own quick notes/opinions to each of them.

*1 Sonic Implants*

Really good for this. Good ensemble size, nice vibrato, good sound.

*2 LASS*

Too little vibrato for my taste, not “large” enough sound (not the section size, it's the recording/mixing). One thing you could try though, was to experiment with the different sections. I think there's some difference in vib intensity between the A, B and C sections. And use the ones with most vib. EQ and reverb required! Or it just dies...IMO 

*3 SO Strings*

Ok, but not great. Maybe you could try some other patches, other mics to get it better...there's plenty possibilities for improvements.

*4 Sable*

I'm afraid I made a mistake with this one as I overlooked there was a “molto vib” for cello also. It could maybe have improved the sound a little – the big problem is: not enough vibrato. If you use the regular long/legato patches for all sections it really lacks the life and intensity needed. I used the 1. violin “molto vib” patch, but together with the others it sounds “funny” (someone said “artificial vibrato”, that's maybe what you heard?).
Anyway, still you would need more vib on 2. violin and viola (in an update maybe???).

*5 Hollywood Strings*

Great sound, but maybe too large sections for this job. As with SO you could try experiment with mic positions and patches. I used longs nonvib-vib patches.

*6 Cornucopia Strings*

Nice lush vibrato, good soft and silky sound. For the chords (13 sec) they are very good and easy to work with. In the future I will definitely be using them more often for this kind of sound!

*7 Albion II*

I don't know... Used the half section for intro “4th chords”, full section for the rest. For this, too little vib to my taste. The sound/dynamics is a little harder to control than with Cornucopia. Maybe because it's more wet. And because of the jump around CC1 = 64 (I think).


I would love to hear 8DIO Adagio do this. I have a feeling it would sound really nice...


----------



## TSU (Feb 5, 2014)

Thank you. This was very interesting


----------



## blougui (Feb 5, 2014)

Thanx, interesting topic - though I'm sure it's far more interesting for you, experimenting to nail the sound you're after.
As I said, Ifound nothing wrong in any of these tests and they quite sound satisfying. And if I've came across any of them in the context of an album, they'ld all have made it for me  

o-[][]-o


----------



## mozart999uk (Feb 6, 2014)

Which version of lass did you use? Did you try the nv-vib patches in 2.5?


----------



## renegade (Feb 6, 2014)

Well, I've done my part of lurking around here, learning tricks and getting inspiration, here's something in return 

Yes, it was indeed interesting at educational for me as well. How do you get the best sound as easy as possible and get as close as possible to a certain sound. Glad some of you found it interesting too!

IMO you cannot underestimate the power of blind tests. You just hear things a complete different way. Here's opportunities to learn what we actually can hear and not what we think, or even are utterly convinced, we can hear. Or maybe we hear that differences we thought was huge was not huge at all. Or differences that seemed small turns out bigger than expected.

*@Mozart999uk*: I use LASS 2.5, but I'm still using it as 1.0. I never use the coloring or placement tools, because I think the sound is as good or better with the right EQ + reverb treatment. I have not blindtestet that however


----------



## mozart999uk (Feb 6, 2014)

renegade @ Thu Feb 06 said:


> *@Mozart999uk*: I use LASS 2.5, but I'm still using it as 1.0. I never use the coloring or placement tools, because I think the sound is as good or better with the right EQ + reverb treatment. I have not blindtestet that however



Thanks for your reply. Just wondered if the 2.5 nv - vib patches may have given you the vib you felt was missing....


----------

