# Berlin Strings First Chairs vs CSSS?



## WindcryMusic (Apr 6, 2018)

From the email that I just received, it appears that Berlin First Chairs is getting what is described as "better legato performance", some sample fixes and a first chair double bass, in version 2.0. Furthermore, it is on sale for a couple of weeks for €199.

I'm wondering how this compares to Cinematic Studio Solo Strings, which I already have? Can anyone who owns both comment on this? My experience thus far with CSSS is that I feel it is quite effective when mixed into a full section, but at times doesn't sound very natural when it is more exposed.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Apr 6, 2018)

I’d love to know this too! I own CSSS as well.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 6, 2018)

I own, and use CSSS, and I love it. But from the demos (limited though that is) I get the impression one can write more complex/detailed parts for the OT First Chair library. Just how often that is necessary escapes me, but I am really impressed. For $250 USD I might take a leap of faith.

By comparison, I also own, and use, Embertone's solo string players. I find them more difficult to sequence/play, but I do like the sounds. I still think (again based on demos) that the OT First Chair library is more capable - in the hands of someone that can really use it.


----------



## muk (Apr 6, 2018)

Own both, and before the 2.0 update on Berlin Strings First Chairs I was very disappointed with that library. It had way too many inconsistencies to be useable for me for anything but basic layering duties. The 2.0 update is a complete redownload, so I hope that many of the issues I had with it are resolved. I am still downloading the update and then will take some time exploring it, so it'll take a while before I can compare in any meaningful way.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Apr 6, 2018)

muk said:


> Own both, and before the 2.0 update on Berlin Strings First Chairs I was very disappointed with that library. It had way too many inconsistencies to be useable for me for anything but basic layering duties. The 2.0 update is a complete redownload, so I hope that many of the issues I had with it are resolved. I am still downloading the update and then will take some time exploring it, so it'll take a while before I can compare in any meaningful way.


Would love to hear your thoughts after you’ve had some fun with it!


----------



## muk (Apr 6, 2018)

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Would love to hear your thoughts after you’ve had some fun with it!



Ok, I'll let you know.


----------



## muk (Apr 7, 2018)

After not having remotely spent enough time with the 2.0 update to make a final judgement, after a first test run it is not looking good. Many of the inconsistencies are still there - some can not be fixed without new recordings, but others could have been. And I am not too sure about the legato. Here is an example:

Just a very simple line, staccato patches, out of the box - Vl 1, Vl 2, Vla, Vlc, Kb:

https://app.box.com/s/kz2isxvz66esiopnzs1ar52o8cy0lnxi

The first violinist has a somewhat cautious interpretation of a staccato, and the difference to the second violinist (much crisper and shorter) is pronounced. I have no idea what happened with the viola, but yes, that is the staccato patch out of the box. It's much rather a portato what we are hearing, but there you go. So that's just loading up a staccato patch for each instrument and playing the same line - three players had a similar understanding of the articulations (Vl 2, Vlc, Kb), two had their own unique take (Vl 1, Vla). Of course you can reach for the spiccato patch in the Vla to get closer, or pull out the Time Machine patches and start fiddling, but that's just really tedious and slow if you already have to do that for something basic and simple as this.

And the first violinist has a different grasp on playing than the other instruments throughout. It's much more a section player approach, cautiously blending in. I wouldn't even call that a first desk or section leader, much more a section player at a more remote desk. The second violinist played much more proudly and with more intent. No matter how much finetuning you do, this difference won't go away.

Another example. The pizzicato patch out of the box, first Vl 1, then Vl 2:

https://app.box.com/s/66z3zumx0a1g9a8wsvq47r74jxinbw54

There is a stark volume difference, eventhough the midi data is exactly the same, and both patches are out of the box. Here's how the waveform looks like.






I understand that Orchestral Tools was trying to preserve the natural volume during post production, and that is a good thing. But then they should have made sure during the recording process that the playing and the volume match more closely in my opinion. As they didn't I was constantly fighting these inconsistencies during playing and mixing with the original release, and it seems that won't go away with the 2.0 update.

As it stands I am probably not going to use the 2.0 update for string quartet writing either. And for layering only cautiously. I can see me using individual instruments where needed. But together they don't cut it for me personally, which is a real shame. They do not sound like four (now five) players used to playing together, like a string quartet has to, but like individual instrumentalists who all have their own take on how to play.

Here is a short snippet for the legatos. First Vl 1 v2, then Vl 1 before the update. v2 is considerably quieter and I didn't tamper with that. Again, it's just the legato patch out of the box for both versions, with the exact same midi data. Then Vl 2 v2, and vl 2 v1:

https://app.box.com/s/pcvvzykf1lbiqvlfj1hl0kuzgatsnh2j

(I couldn't make the 'niente'-function work in v2, so I didn't turn it on in v1 either. Usually I would be using that to create fades from and to silence). There is nothing glaringly wrong with these lines to my ears, but they are nothing to write home about either. Probably this line can be made sound much better in more capable hands. But personally I just don't connect to the samples and/or the way they are programmed, so I am never quite happy. Neither while working with the library, nor with the end results. Seems that even apart from the inconsistencies that this library is just not for me.

To end on a more positive note, the new solo double bass seems to be really wonderful. I'll be using that whenever I need one.

That's just my personal experience after a lot time spent on the original release, and only a little time on the 2.0 update. Your experiences may be completely different.


----------



## Lassi Tani (Apr 7, 2018)

muk said:


> Just a very simple line, staccato patches, out of the box - Vl 1, Vl 2, Vla, Vlc, Kb:
> 
> https://app.box.com/s/kz2isxvz66esiopnzs1ar52o8cy0lnxi



That's very very weird, it almost sounds like different articulations. The first violinist's interpretation of staccato is quite cautious, but the length of the notes is right IMO. The second violinist's staccato is much shorter, almost like spiccato. The violist's staccato is similar to the first violinist's, but very quiet.



muk said:


> Here is a short snippet for the legatos. First Vl 1 v2, then Vl 1 before the update. v2 is considerably quieter and I didn't tamper with that. Again, it's just the legato patch out of the box for both versions, with the exact same midi data. Then Vl 2 v2, and vl 2 v1:
> 
> https://app.box.com/s/pcvvzykf1lbiqvlfj1hl0kuzgatsnh2j



There must be a very differently controlled dynamics between the previous version and the v2? The v2 snippets are very quiet. There's also a strange pumping effect in the v2 legatos with the 2nd violinist legato playing.

Maybe the playing style (legato) and CC1 has to be changed for 2.0 version?

Thank you very much @muk of these tests. Hope to hear more demos soon!


----------



## WindcryMusic (Apr 7, 2018)

muk said:


> After not having remotely spent enough time with the 2.0 update to make a final judgement, after a first test run it is not looking good.



Thanks very much for your considered thoughts, and for taking the time to post those comparison audio files. That 2.0 legato in particular doesn't seem to be nearly as smooth as I'd hoped it might be, and the difference in the staccato articulations is kind of shocking. CSSS is starting to look better to me in comparison - while I haven't 100% made up my mind quite yet, there's an excellent chance you may have just saved me a couple of hundred bucks.


----------



## muk (Apr 7, 2018)

sekkosiki said:


> The violist's staccato is similar to the first violinist's, but very quiet.



Yes, that's another instance of inconsistent volume. It happens between instruments and between articulations. It's certainly not a very well balanced library out of the box.



sekkosiki said:


> Maybe the playing style (legato) and CC1 has to be changed for 2.0 version?



That's very much possible. I haven't had enough time with the update, so a certain degree of user ineptness is certainly inherent to the example. Just how much better it can get after more experience with it I can not say.




WindcryMusic said:


> CSSS is starting to look better to me in comparison - while I haven't 100% made up my mind quite yet, there's an excellent chance you may have just saved me a couple of hundred bucks.



It's a pity, because I really like the tone of the Berlin Strings First Chairs. Too bad there is no way to try before buying. I would not have bought this library if I could have, but you very well might. After all we all work differently and have our own preferences. I like Berlin Strings tone better than CSSS's, but I like working with CSSS *a lot* more and there are a lot more things I can do with it satisfactorily.

By the way, my favourite solo library is Emotional Cello at the moment. I like the tone, and I find the concept, recording, and programming to be much more consistent than BST FC. Emotional Violin and Viola should be released in the not too distant future.


----------



## N.Caffrey (Apr 7, 2018)

I think we wouldn't buy so many things if we could try them before buying! CSSS is great and to me the value is a lot in combining it with CSS, it really makes it shine! The only thing I wish is that there was a crossfade for the vibrato. Naturally is very lyrical, even too much, and you have it or no vibrato, no things in between. But I find it really good in general. 

Regarding BS First Chair, I thought Sasha's demo was indeed good, but listening to this example I'm like WHAT.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Apr 7, 2018)

muk said:


> After not having remotely spent enough time with the 2.0 update to make a final judgement, after a first test run it is not looking good. Many of the inconsistencies are still there - some can not be fixed without new recordings, but others could have been. And I am not too sure about the legato. Here is an example:
> 
> Just a very simple line, staccato patches, out of the box - Vl 1, Vl 2, Vla, Vlc, Kb:
> 
> ...



Thanks for this. That’s disappointing to hear, was looking forward to another highly successful upgrade by OT.


----------



## muk (Apr 7, 2018)

N.Caffrey said:


> Regarding BS First Chair, I thought Sasha's demo was indeed good, but listening to this example I'm like WHAT.



Yeah, copying midi data from one instrument to another is not working with this library. Sasha's demo sounds very good to me too, and I think that shows what this library is capable of. But after my first impressions I shudder to think of the amount and kind of work needed to get there.



ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Thanks for this. That’s disappointing to hear, was looking forward to another highly successful upgrade by OT.



To be fair some of the things I mentioned can't be ironed out with an update. At least not without new recordings. I assume that the differing playing between the instruments can't be corrected after the fact. But I am a bit puzzled how that happened in the first place. The audible volume difference could have been adjusted though.


----------



## Vik (Apr 7, 2018)

I haven't downloaded the upgrade yet, but there certainly area number of inconstancies in the version I have - in terms of attacks, sound, loops, levels, crispness and more. I bought it mainly to have a number of single instruments to layer with whatever I needed it for, and I see that would be difficult to use it for string quartet writing. For layering, it helps to use only a main mic and add the ambience (or surround/tree mic), and pan as needed. Look forward to download and check out the update, even if what you write, Muk, is bad news - but I'll probably get CSSS as well, not as first chairs for Berlin Strings, but as another option when I needed to add some detail and definition to whatever I use.


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Oct 28, 2018)

Vik said:


> I haven't downloaded the upgrade yet, but there certainly area number of inconstancies in the version I have - in terms of attacks, sound, loops, levels, crispness and more. I bought it mainly to have a number of single instruments to layer with whatever I needed it for, and I see that would be difficult to use it for string quartet writing. For layering, it helps to use only a main mic and add the ambience (or surround/tree mic), and pan as needed. Look forward to download and check out the update, even if what you write, Muk, is bad news - but I'll probably get CSSS as well, not as first chairs for Berlin Strings, but as another option when I needed to add some detail and definition to whatever I use.



have you tried the upgrade?

from other demos, i like OTFC tonally over CSSS.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jun 27, 2019)

muk said:


> I like Berlin Strings tone better than CSSS's, but I like working with CSSS *a lot* more and there are a lot more things I can do with it satisfactorily.


Bumping this to see how the Berlin Strings First Chairs update panned out. @muk's comment about tone vs ease-of-use and consistency really sums up the tug-of-war going on in my head.

Re: Berlin FC vs CSSS I love the raw sound of the Berlin FC shorts! I wonder if it might make sense to use Berlin FC mostly for shorts and bass, CSSS for more expressive longs, particularly on violins?

When OT starts selling instruments individually, I imagine I'd be taking a look at the solo bass from Berlin FC.


----------



## dsblais (Jun 27, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Bumping this to see how the Berlin Strings First Chairs update panned out. @muk's comment about tone vs ease-of-use and consistency really sums up the tug-of-war going on in my head.
> 
> Re: Berlin FC vs CSSS I love the raw sound of the Berlin FC shorts! I wonder if it might make sense to use Berlin FC mostly for shorts and bass, CSSS for more expressive longs, particularly on violins?
> 
> When OT starts selling instruments individually, I imagine I'd be taking a look at the solo bass from Berlin FC.



I have both OTFC and CSSS and don't really like either one very much, to be honest. I was very disappointed with FC as I had high hopes. I'm not sure what's much better however, and am currently using SWAM stuff to add more expressive lead lines but the tone leaves much to be desired.


----------



## Sid Francis (Jun 27, 2019)

Another point: I immediately after download tried to lower the volume of the staccato against the legato in capsule. But seemingly you only can lower the volume of all articulations together? That wouldn´t make much sense....? Or am I just plain blind?


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau (Jun 27, 2019)

Sid Francis said:


> Another point: I immediately after download tried to lower the volume of the staccato against the legato in capsule. But seemingly you only can lower the volume of all articulations together? That wouldn´t make much sense....? Or am I just plain blind?



If you're using single articulation patches, that is of course very easy to do.

If you're using the Multis, indeed you can't. What you can do, is dial the "Volume Range" knob for each articulation. This won't change the volume of the highest dynamic layer, but will make the softer dynamics "softer", resulting in a bigger dynamic range.


----------



## muk (Jun 28, 2019)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> Bumping this to see how the Berlin Strings First Chairs update panned out.



Well, my impressions haven't changed (see my extensive posts above). There are beautiful bits and pieces in this library, but in my opinion it is so utterly riddled with inconsistencies as to render it useless as a comprehensive solo strings library. I'm using it for small things like some solo violin staccatos for example. If I need several solo string instruments or articulations, Berlin Strings First Chair doesn't work for me. The added solo double bass in 2.0 is great. But the update doesn't solve a single one of the glaring issues I have with this library. To be honest I expected much more from Orchestral Tools, and after First Chairs I haven't bought anything from them.


----------



## AEF (Sep 9, 2019)

Im going to take the other side on this, and say I prefer OTFC as first desk for CSS over CSSS.

I also enjoy blending CSSS with OTFC.

With all that said, OT just makes sense to me, and so YMMV.


----------



## Batrawi (Sep 10, 2019)

I don't have OTFC, and honestly wouldn't care about it since I have CSSS which is obsessively consistent. The only case where I might need to look beyond CSSS is when I need to write some exposed/virtuosic lines; a dedicated library for that purpose would then be a more logical option..


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Sep 10, 2019)

I ended up getting Orchestral Tools First Chairs, but haven't spent enough time with it to give any definite judgement, so I'll just share two quick thoughts.

The bad news is that it is quirky and a bit harsh for the stuff I'm currently working on. The good news is that it brings a whole different element of natural sounding definition and, yes, harshness that I don't have with my existing strings. So it gives me a sound I was lacking and am looking forward to exploring, but I just haven't needed it for current projects.

I plan to get CSSS as well, and I imagine that will be my workhorse and I'll know it can reliably get the job done. OTFC will be more for special colors, like "let's try experimenting with adding this and see how it sounds". Also, it'll supply the solo bass that CSSS doesn't have, and be my go-to for certain styles of vigorous attack and crunchy shorts.


----------



## Jophus (Jul 14, 2020)

thinking about snagging one of these two in the next few days. Anyone have any strong feelings one way or another towards either of these???


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 15, 2020)

Jophus said:


> thinking about snagging one of these two in the next few days. Anyone have any strong feelings one way or another towards either of these???


I have CSSS. Overall, it is well balanced, consistent and has nice tone. It’s the best quartet I have at this point.

My problems with it are these-

1. Too much vibrato. This is very subjective, but for me I wish there were more vibrato options. The only option is on or off, and on is too on for me.

2. To me, the second violin is just not as good sounding as the first.

3. I have CS 2, and I really love it, but haven’t bought CSS because of all the comments about the delay. I play everything in in real-time, usually at tempo, so I’m always looking for agile libraries. Playing fast lines in CSSS at tempo really doesn’t work well as the lag is very noticeable.

It’s a good product but not the quartet of my dreams. It seems that fruit remains just out of reach.


----------



## Supremo (Jul 15, 2020)

NYC Composer said:


> 3. I have CS 2, and I really love it, but haven’t bought CSS because of all the comments about the delay. I play everything in in real-time, usually at tempo, so I’m always looking for agile libraries. Playing fast lines in CSSS at tempo really doesn’t work well as the lag is very noticeable.



CSS also includes classic patches that are pretty playable and do not lag in legato transitions.


----------



## muk (Jul 15, 2020)

CSSS has a very particular sound. It is a very romantic, 'dark' sound and style of playing. There is pronounced vibrato. If that is what you are looking for, I think they are the best solo strings library around. But they are not the most versatile. If you are looking for a more restrained style of playing, CSSS won't work.

Berlin Strings First Chair on the other hand have a more classical and versatile sound signature. It's just so utterly inconsistent. See my examples above. A year or two ago I reported a bug that the niente switch does not work at all. OT acknowledged the problem, and never fixed it. They released a major 2.0 update, and the niente switch still doesn't work. Nor were any of the myriad of inconsistencies adressed.
If you look at libraries as a pool of single articulation recordings where you pick some that you like, BST FC might be for you, as it has some beautiful recordings in it. If you look at it as string quartet library, staccato to mean the same thing for every instrument, and have more or less balanced volume, then BST FC is a bad choice indeed in my opinion.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jul 15, 2020)

To me, the rawness of Berlin first chairs is a feature, not a problem. I like the choice of different sound between 1st and 2nd violin. I don't have CSSS but I suspect the excessive vibrato thing can also be a strong feature instead of a limitation.

I like to view these libraries as the occasional individual player that accidentally sticks out from the ensemble especially in vigorous or passionate parts of music. The raw nature, when it's mixed to be just under the main strings, add a very expressive or crunchy enhancement. Berlin first chairs layers very well with Ark 1 or Berlin stings or even Hollywood strings.

What I'm trying to say is that these first chair types of libraries shouldn't be judged too harshly for their exposed sound of the individual players. It's that same rawness which does wonders to the sound when layered.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 15, 2020)

Supremo said:


> CSS also includes classic patches that are pretty playable and do not lag in legato transitions.


If it is equivalent to CSSS, it wouldn’t work for me.


----------

