# CineBrass 1.5 early impressions



## Lex (Mar 8, 2013)

Just finished a quick test run and I am very happy. It's a big improvement and now it really feels like everything works as it should have, plus the new 2horn section patches are amazing! Thank you CineSamples. And the amount of usable control you have over patches is out of this world now, especially on legato instruments. 

The cross fade between mp and f on the 6Horn legato feels very new, and I think I preferred the dynamic cross much more in 1.1, but the tuning and the legato are infinitely better in 1.5. 

I don't understand why the new 6Horns fff patch went to PRO, when it's the part of the CORE together with the rest of the 6 horn patches by any logic? Or even better why wasn't this layer incorporated in the existing 6horn patches? 

Multis work awesome, the splits are great....Interface and presets a great improvement. 

Thumbs up guys. 

alex


----------



## dedersen (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm still downloading. Very anxious to my hands on this, judging by the videos they have really listened to our feedback. Has anything been altered as far as the dynamic range of the patches go? I prefer primarily riding CC1 alone, but I felt I always had to use expression as well for Cinebrass, in order to get the proper dynamic range for the instruments.


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 8, 2013)

Thanks all. Note that the update hasn't been officially announced, (can always count on VI-Control to be the early adopters!) 
 
We're still populating the update database, so some folks may get an error with the order ID. Standby!


----------



## Blakus (Mar 8, 2013)

Quite impressive!! Just watched the update videos! PRO downloaded here, just waiting for my CORE order ID to be populated! :D


----------



## dedersen (Mar 8, 2013)

Yeah, I got an error with the ID at first, but support handled it swiftly as always.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 8, 2013)

Looking great so far. So nice to have the new interface, the old felt really claustrophobic (if you know what I mean). Overall the patches play very nice.

Anyone else notice missing keys in the 2 horn patch? The top octave and half or so of shaded blue keys don't play for me. I've got hard drive issues though and I seem to have more problems with most things than others so I'm curious if it's unique to my system. Also I seem to missing some legato intervals with the solo horn. Again, might be just me.

Levels are much better between shorts and longs. The 1/8s are still generally far louder than the longer shorts, but I've grown to like it this way with the inverse mapping. 

I have to agree it's strange that the new horns and trumpets (30 and 31) are in Pro rather than Core, but I've got both so no biggie. I hope those get merged into the full patches though too.

Off to experiment more...


----------



## Blakus (Mar 8, 2013)

dedersen @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Yeah, I got an error with the ID at first, but support handled it swiftly as always.



No kidding! Dan's fixed it already! :D 
Thanks Dan <3


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 8, 2013)

Did emails to out? I never got a notification.


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 8, 2013)

I can't wait!! well, I can wait, but I don't want to.....


----------



## Ryan Scully (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm up and running on both too - Spectacular update from an initial run through! Great support this afternoon from Dan as well : )


The 2 Horn Patch sounds and plays brilliant - all within a free update too - Cinesamples continues to be a class act through and through!




Ryan :D


----------



## kclements (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't think the emails have gone out yet. I haven't gotten one yet either. I expect they will go out soon.

Looking forward to the update

cheers
kc


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 8, 2013)

Echoes - haven't noticed anything missing. Dcoscina - I think it's still not officially released, but here's the link: http://dist.cinesamples.com/cinebrassupdate/

Got both Core and Pro now, Core links didn't immediately work, but Dan sorted it in around 10 mins. Fantastic service on an unannounced product!  

I didn't have too much time to play, but had some early impressions. The new 2 horn patch is a real triumph, I think its the jewel in the crown. Super smooth velocity transitions, and the legato sounds great. This will get a lotta use.

In general, the legato is very snappy, you can play really fast with it. I need to spend more time with it, some of the patches didn't seem to flow quite as nicely as 1.0 / 1.1, such as 12 horn legato, but I need to spend more time with it to be sure. I noticed that by default the sampled Bricasti reverb is on for the legatos, and it certainly helps - indeed I pushed it a little more as a rough and ready smoother.

Tuning sounds great across the board.

Programming defaults are a little curious, as there are a few different sorts. Some patches have shorts and sustain on pedal down, others have velocity based stuff. In general I prefer keyswitches, but you can customize how you like. I'll spend more time with it to see which works best.

No 1.5 manual bundled with the downloads, I guess these will come separately.

Anyway, thanks v much to Cinesamples, there's heaps of good work gone into this. And even if I end up preferring a few patches from earlier versions I have them anyway, so all is good there 

EDIT - new manuals up on the product pages on the website.


----------



## james7275 (Mar 8, 2013)

Holy Cow that two horns patch sounds incredible. Still waiting for the email update as well.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 8, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Echoes - haven't noticed anything missing. Dcoscina - I think it's still not officially released, but here's the link: http://dist.cinesamples.com/cinebrassupdate/
> 
> Got both Core and Pro now, Core links didn't immediately work, but Dan sorted it in around 10 mins. Fantastic service on an unannounced product!
> 
> ...



So you can play right up to A4 on Two Horns patch? My two horns patch ends at F#3 but the keys are shaded until A4.

And as for the legato intervals, I believe that the 12 Horns and Solo Horn in Pro are missing legato, the transition are completely abrupt. Also the Solo trombone I think. I've compared all of these to the previous patches and the previous ones sound much different and seem to have the legato samples present. It's a huge difference. It's interesting that you say the new 12 horns don't seem to flow as well though, which makes me wonder if you're seeing the same thing. The Solo Horn and Trombone and 12 Horns legatos aren't really usable for me at the moment, but I figure it's my SSD which does weird things. I've seen certain velocities missing for certain key ranges in other libraries, or weird things like in LASS where in some multis, no legato is triggered when playing downwards. I think my SSD is really screwing with me.

Have you compared your old patches of the horns/horn in pro to the new ones?


----------



## dannegovan (Mar 8, 2013)

Hey Echoes - feel free to submit a support ticket about the issue. I suspect something is wrong with your script files (the info files). I would redownload the update and see if that helps?


----------



## Casey Edwards (Mar 8, 2013)

Bravo, CineSamples! These libs have never left my template, but they definitely have a new life! The patches sound AND feel amazing. I'm also quite astounded at all the new patches and samples. Big thanks!


----------



## dannegovan (Mar 8, 2013)

Not the info files, sorry, the nkr. Maybe both.

Also I work over here at CS if that wasn't clear!


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 8, 2013)

dannegovan @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> Not the info files, sorry, the nkr. Maybe both.
> 
> Also I work over here at CS if that wasn't clear!



Thanks man. I just removed the libraries and then replaced the content with my downloaded files again and added the libraries back. The 12 horns now have proper legato again, which is great. However the solos don't sounds right. Adjusting the legato volume has no effect so they must be not triggering legato samples.

I'm not going to bother you guys with a support ticket though because I've realized that weird things like this are happening with many of my sample libraries. I've got to replace my hard drive and then see how things go. thanks again.


----------



## dannegovan (Mar 8, 2013)

Ok keep me posted! You could try running from a different drive temporarily, maybe isolate the issue.

We use some midi CCs in the background of the script like 100 & 101, so sometimes if people have lots of midi controllers or weird custom midi things going on it can make the library behave whackily.

Also try with Kontakt both as a plugin and standalone and see if there's a difference. If you're in standalone mode check the midi preferences for any extraneous signals coming in.

Dan


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 8, 2013)

The update is fantastic. Just a question- I'm not hearing the difference between short and longer notes on the 2 horns. I tried adjusting the velocity and such but it sounds like no matter how hard I strike the key, one doesn't get that longer note as found on the other section patches. I have CineBrass Core BTW.

BUT- let's be clear- this is a wonderful update. The legatos feel natural and sound terrific. I always enjoyed and used CB so this is just icing on the cake. It's a really terrific update guys and gals from CineSamples. Thanks so much!


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 8, 2013)

dcoscina @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> The update is fantastic. Just a question- I'm not hearing the difference between short and longer notes on the 2 horns. I tried adjusting the velocity and such but it sounds like no matter how hard I strike the key, one doesn't get that longer note as found on the other section patches. I have CineBrass Core BTW.
> 
> BUT- let's be clear- this is a wonderful update. The legatos feel natural and sound terrific. I always enjoyed and used CB so this is just icing on the cake. It's a really terrific update guys and gals from CineSamples. Thanks so much!



That's because there's only 1/8 shorts in the 2 Horn patches. So there's just the one short and then longs/legato with pedal down. You can see what articulations are in a given patch by going to the mapping tab.


----------



## Pontus Rufelt (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm having some trouble with the update. It says that I can't be found in the database when I put in my ID and email. Is this because it's not fully rolled out yet? Should I just wait a bit and try again?


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 8, 2013)

I've submitted a ticket, but in the meantime maybe someone could put my mind at rest that this is not intended behavior of the Solo Horn patch in Pro. In the following audio file, the first phrase is with the old solo horn legato in pro, the second with the new solo horn legato in pro and the third with the core solo horn legato. The old pro legato sounds good, the new one sounds bad, like it's missing legato intervals (hopefully my computers fault). The new core horn sounds fine though in terms of legato as well, so I'm hoping it's not a change they made to legato behaviour in Pro. I don't think so but sometimes I can't tell if the legato samples are missing or just much less. The legato volume is at max by the way in all.

Horn Legato Test.mp3

Here's a zip with the midi file if anyone's interested to try:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?a5h57w9csdf2yf6

thanks


----------



## maest (Mar 8, 2013)

@Echoes -

This is definitely NOT the intended sound. When I get back to the studio tomorrow AM, I will test to make sure there is not an unintended bug in the encoded script on that instrument. In the meantime try moving the legato volume knob on the settings page, ALL the way up, does that affect the transition samples?

Best,

Sam Estes
Manager, Cinesamples


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Mar 8, 2013)

Pontus Rufelt @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> I'm having some trouble with the update. It says that I can't be found in the database when I put in my ID and email. Is this because it's not fully rolled out yet? Should I just wait a bit and try again?



I'm having the same issue. I'll try again in the morning, and hope it's just the database freaking out.


----------



## PMortise (Mar 8, 2013)

I doubt it's your computer. I get a click with every note on/off for the true legato and articulation legato patches, but when I switch back to vers 1.1 it's gone. I've submitted a ticket as well.


----------



## maest (Mar 8, 2013)

Guys, again - please be patient, if you purchased CineBrass Core OR Pro you will be receiving emails as our server encodes them. (We have a direct Starbucks IV to our Hamsters... may step it up to Kona Coffee soon... )

This is not a fully public release yet, after all the emails go out we will be announcing the update.

Best,

Sam Estes
Manager, Cinesamples


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 8, 2013)

maest @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> @Echoes -
> 
> This is definitely NOT the intended sound. When I get back to the studio tomorrow AM, I will test to make sure there is not an unintended bug in the encoded script on that instrument. In the meantime try moving the legato volume knob on the settings page, ALL the way up, does that affect the transition samples?
> 
> ...



The volume is all the way up for legato already. Thanks for confirming that's not how it's supposed to be. Some of the solo legatos are easy to tell they sound wrong, but some are harder to tell but don't feel right. Probably my computer being weird. Unfortunately nothing changes when I have issues like this when I change to another hard drive, but something up on my system.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 8, 2013)

UK Morning all,

OK I'm back and testing again. First thing to say is that I appreciate these aren't fully released yet, so with that in mind I'm just in diagnosis mode to see if anything isn't quite as it should be with the update.

First of all 2 horns. I definitely have the full range here, and eveything sounds fantastic. TBH, having only the 1/8th and legato / sustain is a fair trade for me, I often use the legato patch for the mid-length notes anyway.

I have banged on about the legato issue for years with regard to ambient libraries in general and CB in particular. This is pretty much the best legato patch I've heard anywhere from an ambient library. Mike said in the video that there has been a lot to learn, and I appreciate the candour... I've always been able to see just how hard it is to pull this stuff off. Wheraas famously some issues that get people worked up - like 16/24 bit - I could not possibly care less about, this is one that clearly I'm more sensitive too than others. I recently bought Sable, and they've done a good job on their legato too, but to my ears it's not as smooth and effortless as this (when I say effortless - I mean in sound, not in terms of grief to achieve it!).

So that's the good news - I have a new gold standard. The perhaps less good news - and it pains me to say it - is that the rest of the library isn't quite living up to it. In general its more refined than 1.1 (though there are perhaps some exceptions), and there's a real consistency here that demonstrates the sheer number of man hours that has gone into it.

Let's take the trumpet ensemble legato in Core (for all these using mono mode). You can play super-quick now, even as fast as a trill really, and that's impressive. I also don't hear any sudden truncated tails, which I often do in other libraries - this is great. But I think I do hear the trick, the trade off. The space itself seems to shrink. Since I can, I play a quick trill. It sounds clean, it sounds ok. Then I release the note - vooom, I then hear the space that the real instruments are in. It's a kind of schizophrenic nature of big space / small space. It's smooth and well executed, but it is there.

Comparing with 1.1, the 1.1 transitions sound smeary and lack focus. You can't play as fast as a trill without it sounding awful, but a normal sprightly pace actually sounds very good, the lack of definition actually helps to my ears to create the illusion of playing in one space. The other notable difference is that the normal release is quicker in 1.1 - that lovely Sony tail has been curtailed (if you will). That's a great shame, but it makes the whole more cohesive. I'd normally add tail to the whole patch to make it all sit together, but then it works very well.

Some patches - like the Pro Solo Horn - exhibit a slightly different effect, which I also hear in Echoes' mp3 example, to which Dan says definitely isn't right so this could be a scripting glitch. It's hard to describe in words, but I hear a kind of consistently fake MWEH at the front of each note. On some note intervals I can hear a slight difference as I turn the legato volume up and down (and I can see the difference on the Kontakt volume meter), but it is subtle. Yet on some I can't for the life of me detect any difference at all - for example G1 to D#2. That perhaps does suggest that something is awry.

The legato speed knob works extremely well in the new 2 horns patch, whereas for many of the others I can't hear it working at all.

So in terms of feedback, I guess I'll stop at this point and see if the good CS folks think that something isn't quite right yet with our pre-release versions. In all other ways this looks like a terrific update, and as a free one it is testimony to CS's fantastic customer support.

EDIT - one last observation / request for 1.6 (I know, I'm gonna get shot...) - I'd love a toggle switch to turn off the ability to release JUST the shorts. I know a lot of folks asked for this and it was in 1.1, but don't like it, the release on shorts don't sound natural to me and I'd rather they always triggered the full length sample.


----------



## marcotronic (Mar 9, 2013)

That's awesome news. Would somebody tell me how big the updates are (in MB/GB)?

Thanks
Marco


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 9, 2013)

marcotronic @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> That's awesome news. Would somebody tell me how big the updates are (in MB/GB)?
> 
> Thanks
> Marco



About 1.8gb gb for core and about 1.1gb for pro.


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 9, 2013)

Love the update. I can't stop playing around with the 2 horns patch, you really get that gorgeous hollywood feel. 

Here's a very very quick 2 Horns legato demo soaked in 2 instances of Spaces:

[flash width=450 height=110 loop=false]http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F82460523&secret_url=false[/flash]

I'm really looking forward to CineStrings, thanks cinesamles!


----------



## Lex (Mar 9, 2013)

Is it possible to use both 1.1 and 1.5 patches in the same time? I would like to have a choice like I do with Albion 2....anyone figured it out?

alex


----------



## Caedwallon (Mar 9, 2013)

Holy moly! That sounds awesome. :O

I especially love all the video walkthroughs over at the CineSamples website. They're a treat to watch.


----------



## marcotronic (Mar 9, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> marcotronic @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > That's awesome news. Would somebody tell me how big the updates are (in MB/GB)?
> ...




Thanks a lot, mate.

Marco


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 9, 2013)

Lex @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Is it possible to use both 1.1 and 1.5 patches in the same time? I would like to have a choice like I do with Albion 2....anyone figured it out?
> 
> alex



Sure - when you install 1.5, you put the old patches into an archive folder. You'll probably need to batch resave to relink the samples from the instruments' new location, but otherwise all works. I think I'll still be using one or two 1.0 patches.

If I get myself organised with Greg's keyswitch router in the multi - http://www.orangetreesamples.com/blog/2 ... ltiscript/ - it should be possible to have different versions of the legato on different keyswitches on the same midi channel.


----------



## Lex (Mar 9, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Lex @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible to use both 1.1 and 1.5 patches in the same time? I would like to have a choice like I do with Albion 2....anyone figured it out?
> ...



Thank you Guy! Yes it works as it should, no idea what I was doing. 
Now just to figure out how to make 1.1 legato 6Horn tuned like the one in 1.5

alex


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 9, 2013)

Do you prefer the 1.1 legato for the 6 horns Alex? That was always a really problematic patch for me. 1.5 is better I think, but 1.0 might work best for slower lines. I think multiple keyswitches for the different versions might be the answer here you know, using Greg's multi script, then use whichever works best for any given part.


----------



## Lex (Mar 9, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Do you prefer the 1.1 legato for the 6 horns Alex? That was always a really problematic patch for me. 1.5 is better I think, but 1.0 might work best for slower lines. I think multiple keyswitches for the different versions might be the answer here you know, using Greg's multi script, then use whichever works best for any given part.



Legato is certainly much better in 1.5, but the thing is that 6Horns legato patch in 1.1 and 1.5 sound so vastly different that it's unfair to call it update, it's a change, a new additional patch. I love them both, 1.5 is first and foremost tuned, smooth, flexible and very easy to work with. 1.1 is badly out of tune, has more presence and less control, but it has a very different dynamic cross fade. With 1.1, if you learn how to ride it (which is not easy) you can do these f accents on some notes, and nice dynamic swells that end in a glorious f. You can't do this with 1.5, same way as you can't make 1.1 sound as smooth and buttery as 1.5. 

So I love them both, and I need them both, but 1.1 remains so badly out of tune that I don't really have a choice. Maybe it would be easier to apply the dynamic cross fade from 1.1 to 1.5 thus making a new. additional 1.6?

I never tried 1.0 patch, how is the dynamic cross there?

This is also why I don't understand the logic behind putting 6Horns fff layer as a separate patch on PRO instead of adding it as a top layer to 6Horns in Core where it belongs.

alex


----------



## Blakus (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm fairly sure the FFF bonus patch in PRO isn't 6 horns. Hence why it probably isn't in core.


----------



## Lex (Mar 9, 2013)

Blakus @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> I'm fairly sure the FFF bonus patch in PRO isn't 6 horns. Hence why it probably isn't in core.



No? What is your guess then, 8?  

alex


----------



## Blakus (Mar 9, 2013)

4


----------



## Lex (Mar 9, 2013)

Blakus @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> 4



ah...could be, could be. 

alex


----------



## IFM (Mar 9, 2013)

Hmm, my Cinebrass Core instrument file is corrupted. It fails unzipping and have tried several times. All the other files for Core/Pro worked.

EDIT: It seems that it isn't actually downloading from the server. I've submitted a ticket...hope this can get resolved as I'm looking very much to see what's fixed.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 9, 2013)

Alex - 1.0 responds in a similar way 1.1 for velocity. Truth told, the ff layer doesn't work well in legato in any incarnation, but I know that's one reason why they did the 12 and I guess now the 2 as well. Here's a neat trick though - you can layer the 6 horn 1.5 with the 2 horn 1.5, and then turn the legato volume in the 2 horn patch way up to max, which helps fill the gaps in the 6 horn. Works really well actually - that's far and away the best legato horn ensemble from Core I've heard.

Of course, if you want to go really ffff and you have Pro, then you can layer the 1.1 12 horn patch! 20 horns... BRAAAAAAAAAAM............

EDIT - Dragon, I've seen other people with problems this morning with that file. I'm sure Dan / Sam will sort it when they wake up!


----------



## Caedwallon (Mar 9, 2013)

Developers should really make better use of archive recovery records; that'll save 'em a lot of time dealing with consumers who've ended up with partially corrupted files.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 9, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> EDIT - one last observation / request for 1.6 (I know, I'm gonna get shot...) - I'd love a toggle switch to turn off the ability to release JUST the shorts. I know a lot of folks asked for this and it was in 1.1, but don't like it, the release on shorts don't sound natural to me and I'd rather they always triggered the full length sample.



I agree, the one thing I've noticed so far with the update is that the releases on quarter note shorts and tenuto are pretty inconsistent. Depending on how long the key is held, sometimes they sound fine but sometimes the release sounds abrupt. I assume that's because the note has a bit of a shape to it instead of being at the same volume for the whole note (which sounds good, it just makes the release tricky). If I had the option, I'd have the release for just the half note shorts and have the quarter and eighth always play full length.

I'm also a bit confused about the tenuto trumpet and FFF horns, could someone from CS give us the scoop on the strategy behind those? I was surprised to see that they use existing samples, they're just newly programmed patches, not new recordings. Why are these new separate instruments instead of just expanding the horn and trumpet main patches?

And finally, I just want to say thanks for a great update to a great library. It's always with mixed feelings that users have feedback and suggestions after such a big update like this. I think the reality is that now that libraries are this big and deeply scripted, any time there's a huge 1.5 update, it's almost inevitable that there will be a few things here and there that would justify a 1.5.1 (at least on some patches). It probably would make sense for developers to plan for that in the first place, make the major release knowing that once it's out in the wild there will probably be a minor set of tweaks to follow it up. Either that or do a beta once the patches are just about ready, either public or a pretty big group of users.

Thanks again and know that feedback is given in the best spirit, more and more libraries these days are getting so close to the ideal ones we picture in our heads, and we just want to see them go that last step to feeling just right. And know that these major updates are a big selling point compared to libraries that just stagnate - I know it sucks to release something and immediately get requests for more tweaks, but the reason these libraries are so good is because of listening to user feedback.

Cheers.


----------



## IFM (Mar 9, 2013)

Found something else...can anyone confirm: Monster Low Brass has drastic volume differences in the mics. Full Mix is loud, close and mids are very low (just shorts on Mids), surround is loud. 
Chris


----------



## Tatu (Mar 9, 2013)

When I download the CineBrass_CORE.zip it's zero bytes and produces another zip of somekind.. :roll: 
Fail.


----------



## IFM (Mar 9, 2013)

Tatu @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> When I download the CineBrass_CORE.zip it's zero bytes and produces another zip of somekind.. :roll:
> Fail.



That's the issue I am having.


----------



## Consona (Mar 9, 2013)

Dragonwind @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Tatu @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > When I download the CineBrass_CORE.zip it's zero bytes
> ...


Same here.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 9, 2013)

Michael Chrostek @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Love the update. I can't stop playing around with the 2 horns patch, you really get that gorgeous hollywood feel.
> 
> Here's a very very quick 2 Horns legato demo soaked in 2 instances of Spaces:
> 
> ...



Could you try substituting the trumpet ensemble in that passage? I'm having trouble with most of my legatos I've realized. Here is an example of the 1.1 trumpet ensemble legato in Core vs the new 1.5. 1.1 is first and sounds good, 1.5 is second and sounds wrong. I hope this is glitch but I'm not sure because I am hearing some legato it's just totally wrong sounding and got a "sucking" sound:

Trumpet Legato Test.mp3


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 9, 2013)

Standby guys - again we haven't officially announced. This watermark system is quite complex behind the scenes - working through the weekend to make it perfect for release next week. Thanks to the early adopters for jumping in to test. 

Standby. 

Mike


----------



## Lex (Mar 9, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Michael Chrostek @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Love the update. I can't stop playing around with the 2 horns patch, you really get that gorgeous hollywood feel.
> ...



Try changing the legato speed..

alex


----------



## devastat (Mar 9, 2013)

Thanks for the really great updates! Any news on the Cinewinds updates yet?


----------



## dedersen (Mar 9, 2013)

CineSamples @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Standby guys - again we haven't officially announced. This watermark system is quite complex behind the scenes - working through the weekend to make it perfect for release next week. Thanks to the early adopters for jumping in to test.


Just wanna make sure, this comment only applies to the problems people have been having with getting download links, right? You're not tweaking patches anymore? Just wanna make sure I don't have to redo my template again some time next week if I go ahead and installl the new v1.5 now.


----------



## PMortise (Mar 9, 2013)

PMortise @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> I doubt it's your computer. I get a click with every note on/off for the true legato and articulation legato patches, but when I switch back to vers 1.1 it's gone. I've submitted a ticket as well.


I had my buffer set ridiculously low..._percussionist low_. /\~O Once I raised it to a "reasonable" 64 all issues went "poof". :mrgreen: Chalk that one up to "user error". :roll:

Thanks CB Team - you guys rock! _-)


----------



## PlasticMoonRain (Mar 9, 2013)

Just want to add that I am running through 1.5 now and it's really a giant leap ahead in quality, control and sound. Big kudos to CineSamples!


----------



## dedersen (Mar 9, 2013)

Is anyone else seeing a substantially larger memory footprint for v1.5?


----------



## noxtenebrae17 (Mar 9, 2013)

Congratulations and thank you Cinesamples guys. Terrific update. The 2 horns update sounds pretty fantastic.

*Would still love to see a 2 trumpets and euphonium patch in the future.*  Especially since the 2 horns patch definitely shows that you guys have really nailed down the sampling of brass.


----------



## Steve Steele (Mar 9, 2013)

I was just about to buy CineBrass Core. Before I do is there going to be a sale for the 1.5 release?

Thanks


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 9, 2013)

So I got word that my patches are playing normally. And it sounds like some others are seeing similar sounds to what I'm talking about. Personally, I think many of the legatos are ruined in the update. Not just in Pro solos but many patches. Here are some tests comparing the exact same patches in the two versions (legatos are turned all the way up in 1.5). These always have the old 1.1 patch first and then the new 1.5 patch second. In the solo horn, it also has the Core solo horn for comparison, which interestingly still has good legato.

Solo Horn (Pro 1.1/Pro 1.5/Core 1.5):
https://soundcloud.com/echoes-in-the-at ... egato-test

Trumpets (Core 1.1/Core 1.5):
https://soundcloud.com/echoes-in-the-at ... egato-test

12 Horns (Pro 1.1/Pro 1.5):
https://soundcloud.com/echoes-in-the-at ... egato-test

There are many improvements in the 1.5 update, but I don't know how you could be happy with the new legatos. There is an awful gap too often and they sound like just monophonic brass with slow attacks and have a brutal sucking sound. They used to be smooth and seamless. Now most are just not enjoyable to play. I'm not trying to make them sound bad in the examples, it's just how I'd play many things normally.

Support is great though and they've already sent custom patches with tweaks. A Horn patch was a little better so I'm hoping others can be improved too.


----------



## Ed (Mar 9, 2013)

Thats weird Echoes, does everyone else have this problem?


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 9, 2013)

Ed @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Thats weird Echoes, does everyone else have this problem?



Cinesamples has confirmed that the solo horn pro plays the same for them as for me (I sent audio file and midi file). The trumpet ensemble and the 12 horns are further examples I've compared since.

With some patches it sounds ok when I put legato to max volume and the speed to the slowest, strangely making it seem a bit smoother sometimes like 1.1, but still not good. I'm a little gutted, I was really looking forward to this update. The new interface is great and some other fixes are nice, levels are more even, but for me the big deal has always been the polyphonic legato and the legato is just ruined in most of the new patches. It used to be so good. It doesn't even seem like legato anymore a lot of the time. Just feels like playing with bad latency.

The Cinesamples guys seem pretty great though so I'm sure they'll do everything they can.

PS I wish I knew how to embed the soundcloud player directly in the forum post.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 9, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> So I got word that my patches are playing normally. And it sounds like some others are seeing similar sounds to what I'm talking about. Personally, I think many of the legatos are ruined in the update. Not just in Pro solos but many patches. Here are some tests comparing the exact same patches in the two versions (legatos are turned all the way up in 1.5). These always have the old 1.1 patch first and then the new 1.5 patch second. In the solo horn, it also has the Core solo horn for comparison, which interestingly still has good legato.
> 
> Solo Horn (Pro 1.1/Pro 1.5/Core 1.5):
> https://soundcloud.com/echoes-in-the-at ... egato-test
> ...



Yes, this is pretty much what I'm getting. I think we're hearing the trade off for being able to play at very fast speeds now, but personally I think it's gone way too far. An idea for a future update - not sure if this is possible, but having a "slow legato" keyswitch option, which is essentially the previous scripting but the modern tuning, might be the fastest solution (so you'd have 1/8th. 1/4. 1/2, fast legato, slow legato). That and the ability to turn off the releases on shorts only would be my main wishes, and hopefully wouldn't involve any horribly forensic editing and programming work.

Thinking about it, my idea of using Greg's multi script won't quite work, because it only works on sequential midi channels, and I'd want to use 4 keyswitches from one patch, and one from another. I could add 4 separate instances for each instrument, but it's kinda clumsy.

I think for now I'll selectively add some of the new 1.5 patches to the majority of 1.1 and 1.0 ones - the stupendous 2 horns obviously, the trombones sound way better (I used to get strange glitches with the old one too). I think all the tuning and interface work in 1.5 is stellar, along with the new patches, but unfortunately there's still a way to go on the legatos.

BTW, someone mentioned memory use - yeah, I noticed that too. Legato patches take between 1.5 and almost 4x more RAM than the old ones it seems. My old 12 horn legato patch was 27mb (I use low preload buffers) and the new takes 98mb.

Will be interested to hear other folk's experiences and get CB's feedback. It such a fantastic library, but the ultimate incarnation of it seems forever elusive...


----------



## Conor (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm having this problem too. I think it may have something to do with the dynamics being played. For example:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2319542/CinebrassTrumpetLegatoProblem.mp3 (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2319542/Cinebr ... roblem.mp3)
This is the exact same MIDI data, on the same v1.5 Trumpet Ensemble patch. First time is with CC1 = 127, second time with CC1 = 0.

(If the phrase sounds familiar, I copied it from the walkthrough video to see if it sounded the same on my machine. No noticeable difference there, but in the video it looks like it's at 127.)


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 9, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Yes, this is pretty much what I'm getting. I think we're hearing the trade off for being able to play at very fast speeds now, but personally I think it's gone way too far.


Huh? I think playing fast is even harder now. In the examples I posted, playing faster would only lose more of the notes, those gaps don't allow for fast transitions. The parts where I play faster are the parts that stood out more as being messed up.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, this is pretty much what I'm getting. I think we're hearing the trade off for being able to play at very fast speeds now, but personally I think it's gone way too far.
> ...



Well I could be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like they are going for clean transitions that work at speed. Here's an example I made to demonstrate:

https://www.box.com/s/5nzuga5ig0d7ah1p0a4w

This is the Trumpet Ensemble articulation in 1.1, followed by identical midi data for 1.5 (default legato volume and speed), all at cc1 127. It's just a C and D rocking back and forth and speeding up almost to trill speed. It's an artificial exercise admittedly, but I think 1.5 is cleaner for those very fast turns. However at the start speed, it sounds more jarring and less like genuine legato.

Here's another thing I noticed - listen to the final note in each example. In 1.1, there's a crescendo which isn't present in 1.5. That's only present on the transition - they both sound pretty much the same on a single note strike. That demonstrates partly what is going on I think - with 1.1 we're hearing a crossfade from a mf or something that lasts a second. Clearly that wouldn't always be desirable. In 1.5, the transition is clean into the ff sample - however, arguably this has been at the expense of a natural transition in the first place. I think the smearing effect in 1.1 is actually a good thing in normal use.


----------



## dedersen (Mar 10, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Thinking about it, my idea of using Greg's multi script won't quite work, because it only works on sequential midi channels, and I'd want to use 4 keyswitches from one patch, and one from another. I could add 4 separate instances for each instrument, but it's kinda clumsy.


You're still on Cubase, right? Can't you use vst expression maps for this sort of thing? I am planning to try approaching the issue that way. It seems like the Cinesamples crew are really struggling to get this right (I mean this in a good way), but every time we gain something we lose something else in the process. I think the idea of having different legato tweaks might be a good compromise. The new two horns patch proves that they have definitely learned a LOT about doing legato at Sony; that patch is gorgeous!



Guy Rowland @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> BTW, someone mentioned memory use - yeah, I noticed that too. Legato patches take between 1.5 and almost 4x more RAM than the old ones it seems. My old 12 horn legato patch was 27mb (I use low preload buffers) and the new takes 98mb.


Yeah, that's exactly what I am seeing. I wonder if this is an error, or if it's related somehow to the new legato tweaks. I seem to remember seeing significant memory increase for non-legato patches as well though.


----------



## Lex (Mar 10, 2013)

Did more testing today. I can confirm that legatos sound like that on my end as well. I wouldn't call them worse just very different (maybe we should experiment more with the release settings in 1.5??), the more I play the more I realize that I need both 1.1 and 1.5, they have different strengths and uses. Unfortunately, 6Horns in 1.1 stays badly out of tune. 

Also, over here all the patches take twice as much RAM compared to 1.1, no idea why.

alex


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

dedersen @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> You're still on Cubase, right? Can't you use vst expression maps for this sort of thing? I am planning to try approaching the issue that way. It seems like the Cinesamples crew are really struggling to get this right (I mean this in a good way), but every time we gain something we lose something else in the process. I think the idea of having different legato tweaks might be a good compromise. The new two horns patch proves that they have definitely learned a LOT about doing legato at Sony; that patch is gorgeous!



Yeah, the 2 horns really are fab.

I've tried various tweaks so far but nothing that really sounds very convincing - it sounds more of a fundamental problem to me.

I did think about Expression Maps because yes I use Cubase. I've never really liked them though, I'm trying to eliminate them from my next template - also I'll have a stripped down laptop template that's just on Cubase Essentials that doesn't have them, so for neatness I'm trying to find other solutions if pos.


----------



## adg21 (Mar 10, 2013)

If people are using bits and bobs from 1.0, 1.1 and 1.5 that is not so good. It might be very very presumptuous of me but it seems like they might need more ears on board with these updates. I think Cinesamples are really great at listening to folks especially here. It must be hard to hear "the legato just sounds wrong" and I dread to think what hours / months / years investing in that very thing must do to one's perspective. Hearing "this version or that version was better, it has a sucking sound, legato too slow....etc from composers and players - can't be very useful to them and I imagine they probably ignore those kind of comments now anyway. I just wonder whether they collaborate / get more people on board for short bursts on the crucial decisions - not composers and players - developer-minded ears, perhaps another legato expert with fresh ears e.g. teaming up with the embertone guy (don't see why not) - basically those actively involved in making it better. I just hope the team isn't too closed away for the crucial decision-making which then goes on to take months to implement only not to get it 'perfect', or even worse, and then trying again (like mixing a track for eternity)...


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

adg21 @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> If people are using bits and bobs from 1.0, 1.1 and 1.5 that is not so good. It might be very very presumptuous of me but it seems like they might need more ears on board with these updates. I think Cinesamples are really great at listening to folks especially here. It must be hard to hear "the legato just sounds wrong" and I dread to think what hours / months / years investing in that very thing must do to one's perspective. Hearing "this version or that version was better, it has a sucking sound, legato too slow....etc from composers and players - can't be very useful to them and I imagine they probably ignore those kind of comments now anyway. I just wonder whether they collaborate / get more people on board for short bursts on the crucial decisions - not composers and players - developer-minded ears, perhaps another legato expert with fresh ears e.g. teaming up with the embertone guy (don't see why not) - basically those actively involved in making it better. I just hope the team isn't too closed away for the crucial decision-making which then goes on to take months to implement only not to get it 'perfect', or even worse, and then trying again (like mixing a track for eternity)...



It's very tough. Being as I'm difficult loud mouth, I offered to beta test a while ago but I guess they must have folks.

Thing is, the 2 horn patch shows that they can beat all-comers at this. I don't know what the differences were in recording that vs the others, but it's obviously significant. But then again, the trumpets, 12 horns etc were working better in 1.1. Perhaps the methods used for the newly recorded 2 horns just don't work as well on the existing material?

First of all I thought it might just be me being difficult as usual, but if the consensus all round is that this doesn't work so well for people, perhaps it might be worth thinking the unthinkable and delaying the official release until some more tweaks are done?


----------



## dedersen (Mar 10, 2013)

Re those last posts, I want to clarify something. I think Cinebrass 1.0 was an amazing product. It had a sound that was way better than any other product I had heard at the time, and the playability was excellent. I loved it immensely, and it (and the Pro version) has been responsible for 90% of my brass since then. Now, there were some issues with the legato in certain situations, where the drawbacks of sampling in a place like Sony, with a relatively large reverb time, were more evident. I also had trouble with the limited dynamic range, prefering to stick with using CC1 mostly. 

However, I also realize that these issues are in some sense subjective and it didn't stop Cinebrass 1.0 from being absolutely top notch. Also, in the world of virtual instruments there will ALWAYS be some compromise, I think. That is to be expected. What I feel was NOT necessarily to be expected is the amazing willingness the Cinesamples crew have shown in constantly tweaking and improving their libraries, and adding tons of new free stuff in the process. I think they took customer interaction to a new level at the time, and really invited critical feedback. It's also clear that they have really tried hard to listen to all comments and improve this already wonderful sample library. 

Of course, by now we have kinda grown accustomed to this level of interaction. So all comments - from me at least - should be taken in that spirit; I love the library, and realize that it is far from easy satisfying everyone. It's notoriuously difficult to gauge the "feel" of posts on forums. Suggestions and comments very easily come across as very critical and ungrateful, when they are anything but. I think of it more as a collective effort to really make the library shine, even more than it already does.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

dedersen @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> So all comments - from me at least - should be taken in that spirit



Yes, and me. Great post, Jesper.


----------



## Conor (Mar 10, 2013)

adg21 @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> If people are using bits and bobs from 1.0, 1.1 and 1.5 that is not so good.



I'd actually like to see this sort of thing built into the UI. For example, in the legato settings, an option to select between "clean" (1.5 behavior) and "smooth" (1.1 behavior). Or even just call it "normal" and "legacy."

At the moment I'm experimenting with multis using both old and new patches... unfortunately RAM usage is skyrocketing even though both 1.5 and 1.1 patches are pointing at the same samples. Not sure if that's unavoidable or if I'm doing something wrong.


----------



## Conor (Mar 10, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Well I could be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like they are going for clean transitions that work at speed. Here's an example I made to demonstrate:
> 
> https://www.box.com/s/5nzuga5ig0d7ah1p0a4w
> 
> This is the Trumpet Ensemble articulation in 1.1, followed by identical midi data for 1.5 (default legato volume and speed), all at cc1 127. It's just a C and D rocking back and forth and speeding up almost to trill speed. It's an artificial exercise admittedly, but I think 1.5 is cleaner for those very fast turns. However at the start speed, it sounds more jarring and less like genuine legato.



As a point of comparison, here's a quick and dirty recording with an Altiverb slapped on. :mrgreen: 

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2319542/TrumpetLiveDemo.mp3

To my ears, the "cleaner" 1.5 legato in your example is actually TOO clean and seems artificial for that reason. I think my preference would be to start with 1.1 and then turn the legato down just a touch.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> As a point of comparison, here's a quick and dirty recording with an Altiverb slapped on. :mrgreen:
> 
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2319542/TrumpetLiveDemo.mp3



That was just the first part, wasn't it? That's 1.1. I tend to agree though, that 1.1 with some tail is preferable to 1.5 at the mo. But at this stage I'll leave it to see what the good CB folks have to say - if they're happy then I'll just add the new patches and a few odds and ends, but if they want to tweak some more I'll hold fire on the template building. The brass is the last bit for me to do....


----------



## Conor (Mar 10, 2013)

Wait. What?

That was me, playing my trumpet. :D If the legato sounds just like the 1.1 to you, then I guess I've made my point!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Wait. What?
> 
> That was me, playing my trumpet. :D If the legato sounds just like the 1.1 to you, then I guess I've made my point!



That's hilarious! That'll teach me to listen on my laptop. It was the final little crescendo that made me think it was the 1.1 patch. Doh!


----------



## kb123 (Mar 10, 2013)

I think a lot of the comments here are as result of people getting used to a particular sound quality present in the initial to latest release variants.

To my ears 1.5 is much better, but then I'm a supporter of the "real" sound rather than the "pad" sound and as we have seen on previous threads, everyone has their own preference.

In this particular instance, I don't believe there is a right or wrong.


----------



## Ed (Mar 10, 2013)

kb123 @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> To my ears 1.5 is much better, but then I'm a supporter of the "real" sound rather than the "pad" sound and as we have seen on previous threads, everyone has their own preference.



lol what does this have to do with "pads"? This has to do with legato transitions and how legato transitions in the update aren't sounding as good. Do you know what pads are? Its not just something you say when you dont agree with someone. There's been examples given. Either its user error or there's a problem with them.


----------



## kb123 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ed @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> kb123 @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > To my ears 1.5 is much better, but then I'm a supporter of the "real" sound rather than the "pad" sound and as we have seen on previous threads, everyone has their own preference.
> ...



Lol and guess what, I just knew that my most diplomatic of posts would be shot down by someone .. and top of that list would have to be you Ed.

You have completely missed my point. Pad = synthetic type sound, 1.5 update = real type sound .. clear enough for you?


----------



## dedersen (Mar 10, 2013)

What a marvelously arrogant comment.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 10, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Wait. What?
> 
> That was me, playing my trumpet. :D If the legato sounds just like the 1.1 to you, then I guess I've made my point!



Exactly. 1.1 legato sounds natural. Most 1.5 legato patches sound very unnatural and robotic, particularly in Pro. The legatos often seem completely absent, with a gap instead. The real bummer is that often they've improved the dynamics and made good changes to tuning etc., so I want to use the new ones for that, but I can't use the new legatos in most patches. I did receive a customized solo horn patch which is significantly better over much of the range, but still not as good as 1.1, even with maxed out legato and at any speed. 1.5 has much better dynamics though and can go much brighter so I'd love to be use it if it only had the same legato as before. I will continue to work with them and see if there's anyway to restore the former glory of the legatos before giving up...


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 10, 2013)

kb123 @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> You have completely missed my point. Pad = synthetic type sound, 1.5 update = real type sound .. clear enough for you?



Have you listened to my comparison examples? I've posted three so far. I don't mean to say your preference is wrong, certainly to each their own, but I'm not sure how these 1.5 examples can be regarded as even slightly realistic, especially compared to 1.1, but even on their own. Some legatos sound ok in 1.5, mainly in Core they are ok (but still some problems there). Pro has many problems. If they work for you that's great, but I don't really think you can say that people want some pad like sound or something. If I did I could just use sustains. I don't like the new choppy robotic legatos in 1.5, as shown in my examples. These certainly sounded more natural in 1.1.


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 10, 2013)

I just watched Mikes video for CBP1.5. When he hit a fat chord with the monster brass, my 6 yr old daughter screamed. Well done Cinesamples, well done!


----------



## Ed (Mar 10, 2013)

kb123 @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> You have completely missed my point. Pad = synthetic type sound, 1.5 update = real type sound .. clear enough for you?




EDIT: Just to lol


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 10, 2013)

Thanks guys, this is all very interesting to read.

This is such a huge update, that it can almost be considered a 2.0. All feedback is welcome as always. We really do read and consider every single word on threads like this.

But please, let's continue to keep things positive and constructive. 

Ed, we love you. <3


----------



## Lex (Mar 10, 2013)

Ah the curse of VI, now that the matters are finally put in to "what sounds better or more real" category we can start bickering for the next 20 pages, making sure that developer doesn't take any of this seriously. 

Isn't it as simple as agreeing that we would all like to have 1.1 patches with 1.5 tuning and thus have a choice between the two flavors of legatos?

alex


----------



## sluggo (Mar 10, 2013)

I think it is a real testament to the passion and perfectionism of the Cinesamples team that they are working through the weekend to address issues arising from early adopters of an update which wasn't even announced. 
Personally, I can't afford to get in this early and possibly have tech problems. I wait until well after an official announcement. But that's just me. Regardless, a heroes salute to Cinesamples for slaving through this 1-hour shortened weekend when they could be relaxing like the rest of us. 
Cinebrass, new or updated, remains one of the best libraries in my arsenal.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 10, 2013)

Lex @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Ah the curse of VI, now that the matters are finally put in to "what sounds better or more real" category we can start bickering for the next 20 pages . . .


Remind me to never do an orchestral library.

:mrgreen:


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 10, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Lex @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah the curse of VI, now that the matters are finally put in to "what sounds better or more real" category we can start bickering for the next 20 pages . . .
> ...


----------



## Conor (Mar 10, 2013)

Lex @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Isn't it as simple as agreeing that we would all like to have 1.1 patches with 1.5 tuning and thus have a choice between the two flavors of legatos?



Yes.

... but add the option to switch between the two legato flavors into the UI. *duck*


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 10, 2013)

Lex @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Ah the curse of VI, now that the matters are finally put in to "what sounds better or more real" category we can start bickering for the next 20 pages, making sure that developer doesn't take any of this seriously.



Hopefully it won't come to that. In general there is agreement that they've made some great changes and done some nice fixes. For the examples I've posted however, I don't think there can be any argument as to what sounds more real. There are serious problems there. I started assuming that it was due to my hard drive issues causing legato transitions to be missing. But these are of course certain patches played a certain way which I happen to find important. Some might not. I think as long as we stick to certain examples, we'll agree for the most part. Cinesamples have been helpful as always, so we'll see how it goes.



Lex @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Isn't it as simple as agreeing that we would all like to have 1.1 patches with 1.5 tuning and thus have a choice between the two flavors of legatos?
> 
> alex



I'm be down with that. And the new interface as well. I find the 1.5 interface so much nicer to work with. I did specifically ask if there was any way to have the 1.5 patches but with 1.1 legatos. Fingers crossed! The fact that we even feel like we can engage with Cinesamples this way speaks to how great their customer service is. You wouldn't get this out of most sample library developers.


----------



## Conor (Mar 10, 2013)

Come on Cinesamples, make it happen... you can market the update as including a whole new legato option, not just a tweak... here, I even did the art for you...







Smooth = 1.1, Clean = 1.5... Eh? Eeeehhhhhhh?? 

:lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Smooth = 1.1, Clean = 1.5... Eh? Eeeehhhhhhh??  :lol:



Ha ha - genius!

I'd guess this is easier to do - to add the old script to the new patches has got to be easier that fixing tuning and all that in the originals.

And Conor - clearly you're a photoshop whizz, so the release trigger button bottom RHS to have a third position for Longs Only, and it's nirvana!

Again, major kudos to CS for listening to us lot. Thanks to you all.


----------



## Steve Steele (Mar 10, 2013)

Working with the 12 Horns Ensemble True Legato in Pro, my main trouble is with dynamics. CC1 at 1 on 1.1 was _pp_, but on 1.5 it's more like _p-mf_.

I've tried everything I can think of, but I can't get soft dynamics out of the horns.

Here's a sample..

http://soundcloud.com/thenightwatch/cin ... s-ensemble


----------



## quantum7 (Mar 10, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Remind me to never do an orchestral library.
> 
> :mrgreen:



Hey Mike....Don't ever do an orchestral library!


----------



## musophrenic (Mar 10, 2013)

Have you guys checked out the patches under the hood (i.e. opening it up with the wrench/spanner icon)? The first thing that comes up is the script editor with a samples script, and, unlike the previous incarnation, these have a bunch of controls that affect how the patch behaves. I think that most legato issues you may face can be overcome, or at least worked around, by tweaking these to your heart's content (and you can just save the patch how you like it).


----------



## Blakus (Mar 10, 2013)

I've got nothing but praise for the Cinesamples team. So many improvements in this update, I'm loving the consistency in dynamics, the improved tuning, and the 2horn patch is a pretty generous inclusion!

Really appreciate all the hard work.


----------



## david robinson (Mar 10, 2013)

yeah, it's better....sort of....... j.


----------



## david robinson (Mar 10, 2013)

libraries? should be utilities...........
not star makers.
flexibility is key. j.


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 10, 2013)

@musophrenic (and anyone else who likes to tinker)

Feel free to go under the hood, but we spent a lot of time adding some backend script to do what I wanted the samples to do, that we felt were "too tweaky" for the general GUI. Feel free to tweak to what will work for you and in the style you like to compose, but PLEASE upsave your patches - or archive the original set we sent you. These backend controls can severely mess up the patches if not set right. 


Best,

Sam Estes
Manager, Cinesamples


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 10, 2013)

CineSamples @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Thanks guys, this is all very interesting to read.
> 
> This is such a huge update, that it can almost be considered a 2.0. All feedback is welcome as always. We really do read and consider every single word on threads like this.
> 
> ...



+1 on the positive! Easy to lose sight on what's been accomplished. Cinesamples is pushing the boundaries for us, let us not forget.

On the other hand I have been a beta tester for a DAW for 20+ years and I know that there is a certain amount of "yeah yeah, enough of the niceties, now make it perfect, and when I say perfect, I mean perfect for ME!" Sentiment here. You have to read between the lines to find the love. Which, my good friends at Cinesamples, IS here for you, buried under our "what have you done for us lately" attitude.

This isn't really a beta forum, but it feels an awful lot like one at times, one of the reasons I like it hear. But remember this is a public forum and I'd hate for people to get the wrong impression about anyone's product here, where we hold the bar so very high. 

Please let's keep it a place where any developer needn't be worried about comments that negatively impact their ability to put food on the table, and vi's in my template so I can do the same.


----------



## musophrenic (Mar 10, 2013)

CineSamples @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> @musophrenic (and anyone else who likes to tinker)
> 
> Feel free to go under the hood, but we spent a lot of time adding some backend script to do what I wanted the samples to do, that we felt were "too tweaky" for the general GUI. Feel free to tweak to what will work for you and in the style you like to compose, but PLEASE upsave your patches - or archive the original set we sent you. These backend controls can severely mess up the patches if not set right.
> 
> ...



Touche, Sam  I was actually praising the fact that this option is available, since sometimes it takes one or two minor tweaks for a patch to be 'perfect for me'. There's no one size fits all, of course. 

But Sam's right - UPSAVE!


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 10, 2013)

musophrenic @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Have you guys checked out the patches under the hood (i.e. opening it up with the wrench/spanner icon)? The first thing that comes up is the script editor with a samples script, and, unlike the previous incarnation, these have a bunch of controls that affect how the patch behaves. I think that most legato issues you may face can be overcome, or at least worked around, by tweaking these to your heart's content (and you can just save the patch how you like it).



Good catch! I'm already noticing that I can smooth out some of the worst legato offenders by simply raising the sus.in control (whatever that is). It has an unfortunate effect of causing a slight crescendo (like it did in 1.1 sometimes), but it does make it similar to 1.1 by raising that. Hopefully these functions will be documented. This might the way of being able to get the best of both worlds...


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 11, 2013)

Good spot Meena, thank you. And all warnings definitely heeded. LASS has had tweakable legato parameters since forever, but I've always been too terrified to go near them (and never needed too anyway).

I might have a play around with these later to see if I can make any sense out of them...


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 11, 2013)

Well, I tried with the wrench. I made some 6 horn changes that seemed to improve and smooth it, but on the 12 horn I selected Full Mix, legato and legato 2nd layer (which I see in edit groups) but I wasn't affecting the sound. Rather than fumble around with something I don't really understand, I think I'll leave as is.

But to pick up on nightwatch's post - I agree the mp dynamic in the 12 horns patch has vanished. Have to say I think the 1.1 patch for 12 horns is spot on in all ways (I remember it was a selling point at the time for how much improved it was over the old 6 - it was and it is) No amount of fiddling under the hood - or on it - by me can make 1.5 sound as good as 1.1.

So for me, decision made for now - I'll add in judicious 1.5 patches such as the bones, the magnificent 2 horns and a few others, and keep my 1.1 patches for most of the template. I'll keep watching of course, if there is ever a 1.6 I'll be looking again immediately.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 11, 2013)

nightwatch @ Sun Mar 10 said:


> Working with the 12 Horns Ensemble True Legato in Pro, my main trouble is with dynamics. CC1 at 1 on 1.1 was _pp_, but on 1.5 it's more like _p-mf_.
> 
> I've tried everything I can think of, but I can't get soft dynamics out of the horns.
> 
> ...



Nightwatch, you can open the wrench and edit the LP Filter adding CC 1 mod to get the dynamics again (set LP1 to 201Hz). However, when you save the patch, it seems the script automatically turns the bypass on for the LP. So you simply need to open the wrench and manually turn off the bypass each time. :( Kind of a PITA, but that's the way it is it seems unless Cinesamples is willing to offer an alternative.

I'd gladly send you the patch, although I was warned before that these contain my personal watermark ID so I can't simply send out the patch. However, if you have trouble, you can e-mail me.

*@Cinesamples -* Thanks for the update guys, its really fantastic! However, I also really wish we could make simple edits such as I mention above and be able to save these again. Is there any way this is possible? As it is now, it seems your script is over-writing some of the edit changes that I make requiring manual resetting each time which is rather tedious and easy to forget or overlook. Is there a good solution to this problem?


----------



## Patrick_Gill (Mar 11, 2013)

Just to feedback I'm also receiving the same legato issues here. The tone/tuning of the instruments from what i've heard sound great now! Huge improvement. 

However the legato transmissions in 1.5 need a little attention. I've certainly noticed the issue with the 6 & 12 horn patches. 1.1 is much smoother. Hopefully soon this can be addressed. Kudos to Cinesamples regardless for their huge effort! Great work.


Patrick.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 11, 2013)

Patrick_Gill @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Just to feedback I'm also receiving the same legato issues here. The tone/tuning of the instruments from what i've heard sound great now! Huge improvement.
> 
> However the legato transmissions in 1.5 need a little attention. I've certainly noticed the issue with the 6 & 12 horn patches. 1.1 is much smoother. Hopefully soon this can be addressed. Kudos to Cinesamples regardless for their huge effort! Great work.
> 
> Patrick.



For patches where you're having issues with the legato and noticing that huge gap and sucking effect at legato note start that many of them have, do this: First set your legato to Max (in 1.1 it was at max by default, not sure if the range is the same, but max is the first thing I do). Then hit the wrench and find the knob "Sus.in". You'll probably notice it's set around 300-400 ms. Set this up to 800-1000 ms until it sounds good. Viola, like magic the legatos are pretty smooth again. Now adjust legato volume and speed to taste. You can usually get something pretty comparable to 1.1 in terms of smoothness. 

This tweak is absolutely essential imo for the 12 horns and the solos in pro. I found those 1.5 patches basically unplayable before this (tuba default wasn't too bad though), now I love them. It also helps with the trumpet and 6 horns in Core significantly.

I have no idea what Sus. in actually does but I'm sure glad I found it. Cinesamples actually suggested tweaking the legato fade but I didn't find that to help. They didn't mention the Sus.in so hopefully I don't find that it totally screws up something else. Seems ok to me.

I'm not Cinesamples but I approve this message.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Patrick_Gill @ Mon Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to feedback I'm also receiving the same legato issues here. The tone/tuning of the instruments from what i've heard sound great now! Huge improvement.
> ...



Echoes - I couldn't affect any change on 12 horns, but I could on 6. As well as the controls, you have those drop down tabs. I was adjusting what I thought was correct - legato 2nd layer - but I couldn't make any difference. Must be doing something wrong...

I've put in a support ticket to officially register a few issues. I spent a few hours yesterday combining 1.5 with 1.1 patches into the new template. I used more than I thought of 1.5, partly because I found a glitch with 1.1 Core where I was unable to manually select different keyswitches (it just defaulted to C-2 whenever I pressed any key at all). By co-incidence, this is the first time I've tried to change them - I was always using the defaults before, but now I want to harmonise everything across different libraries on a separate NanoKey keyboard which is purely for articulation switching. Have to say, the combination of 1.5 artics and 1.0 / 1.1 legatos broadly seemed to work well, though I'd love to get rid of the releases on the 1.5 shorts.

I also found a glitch on Bones articulation sustain - C3 / C#3 on FF cuts off abruptly for me after 1s. Funnily enough, the old Bones patches often caused me problems, so it's possible I may have some sort of corruption there - grateful if someone could confirm / deny.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

> Echoes - I couldn't affect any change on 12 horns, but I could on 6. As well as the controls, you have those drop down tabs. I was adjusting what I thought was correct - legato 2nd layer - but I couldn't make any difference. Must be doing something wrong...



I actually didn't touch the drop downs at all. I don't even know if they pertain to the sus.in setting I tweaked. I just know that tweaking only that parameter helped a lot. I think the drop down is on first legato layer by default. Is 1st layer the loudest one? I don't even know. I didn't really have a problem with the soft dynamics legates, just the the louder ones, so maybe I'm only tweaking the loud dynamics, not sure. I don't even know how many dynamic layers there are. I asked cinesamples support if there is any documentation on these settings.


----------



## Patrick_Gill (Mar 12, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick_Gill @ Mon Mar 11 said:
> ...




I've just tweaked the ''Sus.In'' as you suggested and I can actually hear the Legato now on the 12 horns. Awesome, thanks man!

When you say ''set your legato to max'' are you talking the 'Volume/Speed' dialler ?

Best,

Patrick.


----------



## mpalenik (Mar 12, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Patrick_Gill @ Mon Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what Sus. in actually does but I'm sure glad I found it. Cinesamples actually suggested tweaking the legato fade but I didn't find that to help. They didn't mention the Sus.in so hopefully I don't find that it totally screws up something else. Seems ok to me.



I haven't downloaded the update yet, but I wonder if Sus.in is either the fade in time for the sustain sample or delay before the sustain sample is triggered after the legato transition begins to play. A shorter value would make fast passages more playable but make the legato transitions less prominent.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

Patrick_Gill @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> I've just tweaked the ''Sus.In'' as you suggested and I can actually hear the Legato now on the 12 horns. Awesome, thanks man!
> 
> When you say ''set your legato to max'' are you talking the 'Volume/Speed' dialler ?
> 
> ...



Great, glad to help. And yes sorry, I meant turn the legato volume to max. The default at half way is pretty quiet. Cranking it up helps determine how much you need to raise the [sus.in] control to get a legato feeling. Speed remains totally a preference for the given situation/phrase.

As you say, you can actually hear the legatos after tweaking that, which seem completely absent in some patches before that. I couldn't help but wonder if it was somehow different on different computer systems because I don't know how people could be ok with some patches at the default. I also wondered how I didn't notice in the new walk through videos so I watched them again. Turns out all the ones with seemingly missing legato intervals were only being played at soft velocities, where there isn't an issue, so the I can't tell for sure if the problematic patches play the same for everyone. I have a hard time believing it, although Cinesamples did confirm that at least the pro solo horn played the same as in my example. Maybe people play softer dynamics mostly with legato and it wasn't noticed, don't know. But I'm glad at least a few people have noticed the same thing and are seeing the same fix working. I feel slightly less crazy now.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

mpalenik @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what Sus. in actually does but I'm sure glad I found it. Cinesamples actually suggested tweaking the legato fade but I didn't find that to help. They didn't mention the Sus.in so hopefully I don't find that it totally screws up something else. Seems ok to me.
> ...



That's what I would guess by looking at the name but interesting, the opposite seems to happen. Short values seem to leave more of a gap before the sustain. But this might be in perception only. I.e., the full volume of the attach might come sooner thereby making it seem like a sudden swell, pronouncing the soft transition. Whatever it does, increasing this value really smooths it out and I think still allows fast transitions, depending on the legato speed knob on the main page. It seems like raising sue.in by the amount I suggested makes the transitions better for all speed settings actually.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> > Echoes - I couldn't affect any change on 12 horns, but I could on 6. As well as the controls, you have those drop down tabs. I was adjusting what I thought was correct - legato 2nd layer - but I couldn't make any difference. Must be doing something wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> I actually didn't touch the drop downs at all. I don't even know if they pertain to the sus.in setting I tweaked. I just know that tweaking only that parameter helped a lot. I think the drop down is on first legato layer by default. Is 1st layer the loudest one? I don't even know. I didn't really have a problem with the soft dynamics legates, just the the louder ones, so maybe I'm only tweaking the loud dynamics, not sure. I don't even know how many dynamic layers there are. I asked cinesamples support if there is any documentation on these settings.



Ah ha - yes, it's the first layer for fff and yes that's waaay better, thanks! In the case of 12 horns I still miss that lower dynamic so I'll stick with 1.1 for now, but I'm sure it'll help other patches.


----------



## reddognoyz (Mar 12, 2013)

I just updated and poked around a little. My first impression is that this is an amazing achievement and a tremendous update that improves the playability of the earlier versions. I find the legato to be vastly more manageable and more realistic sounding overall. I think there had been an effort to tame it a bit and that may be the cause for some of the grousing about it here. This is certainly a harsh environment for any developer and I would advise a thick skin here (Mike and Mike)because you've got some uncompromising rabid power users here!


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

reddognoyz @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> I just updated and poked around a little. My first impression is that this is an amazing achievement and a tremendous update that improves the playability of the earlier versions. I find the legato to be vastly more manageable and more realistic sounding overall. I think there had been an effort to tame it a bit and that may be the cause for some of the grousing about it here. This is certainly a harsh environment for any developer and I would advise a thick skin here (Mike and Mike)because you've got some uncompromising rabid power users here!



You think it's harsh here? You should see KVR! People trash anything that hasn't even been released over there. Or DAW forums like Abletons. I think any issues raised here are legitimate and good feedback. And for the most part people seem pretty respectful. Users of scoring libraries are a good bunch I think, compared to say the synth crowd.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

synergy543 @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> nightwatch @ Sun Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Working with the 12 Horns Ensemble True Legato in Pro, my main trouble is with dynamics. CC1 at 1 on 1.1 was _pp_, but on 1.5 it's more like _p-mf_.
> ...



Just thought of something. Are you sure the bypass turning back on for filter isn't because the button is set to "Off" in the GUI? I would guess that the button state would overwrite manual changes that you make under the hood, if the filter in the effects section is the LP filter you tweaked. Maybe you just need to turn it on in the effects section?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 12, 2013)

Echoes, thanks for finding those settings, that legato sounds much better to me. For comparison, the two horns legato has Sus In defaulted to 524 instead of 300ish in the others. And I actually prefer it set a bit higher like you said.

If the CB guys prefer the 1.5 legato and users are split between that and the earlier one, I wonder if it would make sense to add a dropdown menu in the legato settings that makes it easy to switch between the two (and maybe even include load/save legato settings to make user tweaking more flexible).



Echoes in the Attic @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Just thought of something. Are you sure the bypass turning back on for filter isn't because the button is set to "Off" in the GUI? I would guess that the button state would overwrite manual changes that you make under the hood, if the filter in the effects section is the LP filter you tweaked. Maybe you just need to turn it on in the effects section?



I think I figured it out. Besides mapping the frequency to modwheel in the wrench page, you have to turn the button on and set the frequency in the GUI, otherwise it defaults to off and 20k. The knob doesn't show values, but two ticks above 9:00 is 210hz - once you set the knob you can hit the wrench and see the actual frequency value on that page.

Guy - to get quarter notes held full length, you can go into the wrench page, select all the short 2 groups, then go down to the bottom and turn the release knob all the way up. It's definitely a hack and I'd prefer an official option built into the GUI, but it's something.

One other thing I noticed - on the trumpet solo articulations (pro), the half note short used to have a hard attack, now it really sneaks in like the new tenuto patch. I'd like having that as a new articulation added to the instrument, but I miss having the old hard attack half note. I haven't noticed that change in the trumpet section articulations or any other instruments so far so it's hard to tell if it's intentional or not.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2013)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Guy - to get quarter notes held full length, you can go into the wrench page, select all the short 2 groups, then go down to the bottom and turn the release knob all the way up. It's definitely a hack and I'd prefer an official option built into the GUI, but it's something.



Thank you Mike - I did try this a couple of days ago actually, but I managed to make something go into mega-sustain. Are you talking about the edit groups themselves as opposed to the tweak knobs at the top of the script page?


----------



## maest (Mar 12, 2013)

Hi All-

Couple quick notes here, since you guys are very determined to get it the way you want (which is very good, love to have tweakers out there!!! I am one as well!)

This will NOT be documented in the manuals, since we really do not want people tweaking too much and then having to send new patches:

1) Sus.in - this is the time it takes for the sustain note (ending note after the legato transition) to fade in. This was to fix some of the "increasing" volume on the legato playing...

2) Leg.out - this is the time it takes for the legato sample to fade out. This is for blending/pitch alteration reasons.

3) DO NOT adjust the Attenuation percentages - they will severely mess up your patches. 

4) DO NOT touch the pull down menus to the left of the leg.out or sus.in you will mess up your patches... 

You can adjust the Sustain/Legato/Release Attack and release pull downs if you wish.

Again none of this is advisable, nor do I advocate/advise to use these - BACK YOUR PATCHES UP!

Also-

In regards to the 12 horn patch... we had lots of notes that the pp layer was too quiet for "12 horns" so I evened out the dynamics to match accordingly to the other patches both in "size" of ensemble and dynamic played. The samples have NOT changed, all you need to do is use your expression controller (cc11) in conjunction with your MOD (this is how we program our samples here) - it is ALWAYS easier to bring down volumes then to bring them up in kontakt (if you are at CC7 and CC11 @127, can't make those soft dynamics any louder, without a lot of post-processing, or serious group leveling) 

@ synergy543 - not quite sure what you are asking here - With the Low Pass filter, please look at the settings page - you turn it off/on and adjust it for the entire patch - this will also save to the instrument when you close - DO NOT ADJUST internally, the script WILL NOT SAVE it. You can also add Mod here too, but I would not advise it, we have Mod doing ALOT in these patches... If you are having issues, please submit a ticket at our page so we can directly address it, I miss things occasionally here on the boards.

CC note: Do not use CC100, CC101, CC1, CC11, CC7 to apply to the controls, while they may work on the surface, they will mess with internals.

Best,

Sam Estes
Manager, Cinesamples


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 12, 2013)

Guys, this is an awesome update - thank you so much!


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 12, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Thank you Mike - I did try this a couple of days ago actually, but I managed to make something go into mega-sustain. Are you talking about the edit groups themselves as opposed to the tweak knobs at the top of the script page?



Yes, I selected a bunch of edit groups then tweaked the release envelope on them. And I did also get a stuck note later after that, maybe I selected one of the wrong groups by mistake or maybe trying that breaks something.

Sam, thanks for the info.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

Sam, thanks for the descriptions and warnings of what not to touch in the wrench setting. I actually don' t like to tweak what i shouldn't, if I can help it, but I was happy that the legato fix was so easy.

Just one other question if you do happen to read this. Someone from Cinesamples posted here that the patch names/numbers were used by scripts as well, but they didn't say how. I was just wondering if there's anything I should be concerend about if I save an alternate copy of a patch and store it alongside the factory patches. For example if I have saved "06 Horn Solo True Legato PRO - Custom" next to "06 Horn Solo True Legato PRO", will this have any negative consequences?

I'd rather save custom patches alongside the originals for easy access and comparison.

Thanks!


----------



## maest (Mar 12, 2013)

@Echoes, was about to close down the VI when I saw your post,

Answer to your question: yes you can rename your patches, it will not mess with the script now that you have it.

The numerical naming has to do with our internals and how we organize when we are building/scripting patches, if we changed the numbers, it would have messed with our initial scripting process. Once our patches are done and to you, can rename to your heart's content. 

-Sam


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

Fabulous, thanks Sam!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2013)

Thanks Sam for the super-useful info.

And I know you guys are damned if you do, damned if you don't with some of this stuff - folks told you the pp layer in 12 horns was too quiet, and I very much disagree with them! I can't get the same effect in 1.5 of that smoothness and none of the f buzz in there at all at cc1 - reducing cc11 of course doesn't change the tone. I always loved that softness with reigned in power. But if you and other folks are happy with the louder softest dynamic, I'm quite happy to stay on 1.1 for that one - it was always a really good patch for me.

Is there any sanitary way for us to tweak away the short note releases, perchance?


----------



## maest (Mar 12, 2013)

Okay last post for the day, then I need to get back to making/fixing things for you all...

Guy- I will look into this, [email protected] should have no buzz... I made it to where you could use cc11 to change the volume and create rides that way, then use cc1 to change timbres...

Think of CC1 as the Timbre shifts and CC11 as volume shifts, and using both creates dynamics... it gives SO much more life to programing this way, not to mention making mixing easier. (FYI - CC7 is volume trim in my pallet) I know it sucks if you are used to just Mod Wheel doing both. I used to be just a "Mod" user too, and the adjustment takes a bit, but after working on some of the top films and making samples and programming for them - trust me, it makes sense to think of it in this way.

Best,

Sam Estes


----------



## rJames (Mar 12, 2013)

JUST ABOUT TO CRY!

Why? Because I've been quietly requesting in every thread about Cinebrass and the upcoming update that it would be great (really quite necessary) to have the short articulations that are added to the sustains to create a sFz patch at higher velocities be blended in so that at vel 100 there is a slight additional attack. At 110 there is a medium additional attack and at 127 there is a full sFz.

Simple. If there was no script, I could have corrected it in 25 seconds or less. But now it has been one year and I've asked for this over and over.

Does no one else recognize that it is nearly impossible to match the attack of a short with that of a sustain except at very loud attacks???

Has anyone else figured out how to play an mf da-da-da-daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Mine always go either DA-DA-DA-daaaaaaaaaa or da-da-da-DAaaaaaaaaaaa.











...otherwise, nice update.


----------



## hector (Mar 12, 2013)

maest @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Think of CC1 as the Timbre shifts and CC11 as volume shifts, and using both creates dynamics... it gives SO much more life to programing this way, not to mention making mixing easier.


in my opinion this is complicating with something like the brass you will never have a volume shift exclusive to timbre shift, and vice versa


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2013)

maest @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Okay last post for the day, then I need to get back to making/fixing things for you all...
> 
> Guy- I will look into this, [email protected] should have no buzz... I made it to where you could use cc11 to change the volume and create rides that way, then use cc1 to change timbres...
> 
> ...



Thanks again, Sam. Like Hector, I'd prefer the dynamics and timbre integrated (and mix anything left over than needs it), but I get that its by design. Regardless, see what you think about that lower 12 horn layer - just can't get rid of the buzz any which way.

I keep forgetting to ask btw - what do you make of the RAM use being up to 4x 1.1?


----------



## Patrick_Gill (Mar 12, 2013)

Thanks Sam for the info and clarification!

The 'Sus.in' tweak doesn't seem to effect the 6Horn patch too much, it's a little snappy. I just did a straight comparison with the two horn patch - which is instantly more pleasing to the ears. Very smooth and great to play.

The tone now of 1.5 is right on for me. Superb! I think once a few things are sorted and the legatos are all consistent it'll be perfect. I can see myself staying with Cinebrass for a long time. I'm a big fan of the living libraries and any 'constructive' criticism/support here is great if it means that things will improve. Looking forward to further updates. Thanks again guys.

Best,
Patrick.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 12, 2013)

rJames @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Because I've been quietly requesting in every thread about Cinebrass and the upcoming update that it would be great (really quite necessary) to have the short articulations that are added to the sustains to create a sFz patch at higher velocities be blended in so that at vel 100 there is a slight additional attack. At 110 there is a medium additional attack and at 127 there is a full sFz.



I agree, I don't understand why a short overlay that only plays at one volume or not at all, as opposed to the overlay volume controlled by velocity. Velocity doesn't do anything else when playing the legato, right? Or instead of having the switch be just off/on, it could be off and a list of choices of which parameter controls volume of the overlay note.

Also, it seems like it would make sense to have the overlay option in the legato instruments and not just in the legato part of the full artics patch.


----------



## Conor (Mar 12, 2013)

Sam,

Thanks so much for all your hard work on this, and for being willing to communicate so directly with the community. It gives me a lot of confidence in Cinesamples' products going forward.

Right now, I feel like I'm at an impasse with my template-building. 1.5 is a great update in so many ways. But for me personally, the 1.5 legato just isn't working. I'm not comfortable mucking around under the hood with Kontakt if you're advising against it, so my options are to use patches from both versions side-by-side (very inefficient), or to wait and hope for some sort of "legacy legato" update.

Can you clarify your intentions here? Are you interested in giving us that update and officially supporting both legato styles? Or will us dissidents just have to make do with old patches and tweaking? 

Thanks,
Conor

_P.S. -- I've also started to realize I may be expecting more lyricism out of Cinebrass than it was designed to deliver. So, I have more long-term suggestion: If you were to record just legatos/tenutos/sustains from a true ppp (that gentle, breathy sound when you're blowing barely enough air to vibrate the mouthpiece), through p-mp with a nice warm, round tone, and up to mf-f with a full, open sound (with just a hint of that aggressive buzz at the very highest dynamic layer); if you were to add some expressive touches like vib./non-vib. for the solo patches and "portamento" for the trombones; and if you were then to package all of this as a new expansion alongside CORE and PRO; I would happily pay $350-400 for it yesterday._


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> Sam,
> 
> Thanks so much for all your hard work on this, and for being willing to communicate so directly with the community. It gives me a lot of confidence in Cinesamples' products going forward.
> 
> ...



Hey Conor, I certainly don' t mean to speak at all for Sam here but as someone who had a similar feeling on the new legatos as you, I highly suggest that you try the tweak I suggested. You don't overwrite the old patch, it should always stay there untouched, just save another version of it. It's literally just turning one knob barely a quarter turn or less. That mixed with raising the legato volume does wonders. Seriously, I was so unhappy with most legatos in Pro that I was about to ask for a refund, but now I'm quite thrilled with it, just from that one tiny tweak.

And just so you know, Cinesamples support did mention that they were gathering feedback currently on the new legato from users to see if they could make any tweaks that would make everybody happy. But they did also say that there was no way they could simply provide a legato 1.1 setting in 1.5 because they made too many changes. However I don't even think that's necessary with such an easy tweak to make it sound great. I think you'd be happy with that Sus.in tweak. In many cases, legato works even better now with that than in 1.1.

And I also just want to second the thanks again to Sam for taking a minute to answer a few questions and give us those descriptions of the wrench parameters and what not to touch. Unfortunately Cinesamples support would not even tell me anything about those parameters because they are unsupported, so without this thread I wouldn't have known which parameters to leave alone.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 12, 2013)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> rJames @ Tue Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Because I've been quietly requesting in every thread about Cinebrass and the upcoming update that it would be great (really quite necessary) to have the short articulations that are added to the sustains to create a sFz patch at higher velocities be blended in so that at vel 100 there is a slight additional attack. At 110 there is a medium additional attack and at 127 there is a full sFz.
> ...



Agreed on these points. However you can work around this by adding your own split patch with just the shorts you want responding to velocity. One idea I just thought of, which I haven't tried is to load the shorts over the legato patch and either use velocity inverse on shorts or keyswitch plus velocity to dynamics for shorts while mod wheel still controls dynamics on the legato. Might achieve what you want?


----------



## Wunderhorn (Mar 12, 2013)

So far, I really like this update. Thank you CineSamples for the hard work and giving us the feeling that this isn't going to be "Abandonware" any time soon.
That in itself makes me feel like I invested in the right brass library!



CobraTrumpet @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> _... more long-term suggestion: If you were to record just legatos/tenutos/sustains from a true ppp (that gentle, breathy sound when you're blowing barely enough air to vibrate the mouthpiece)..._



I would love to see more attention - e.g. additionally recorded layer - to the _ppp_ expressions. E.g. I am working on a piece where 2 solo trumpets and 2 solo horn together play _ppp_. It needs EQ-ing and I had to manually lower the volume on the legato transitions by... a lot!
Anyway, more dedicated _ppp_ would be a welcome addition. Even as a paid upgrade.


----------



## BachN4th (Mar 12, 2013)

I don't know if I've screwed something up to cause this or not, but when I load the new Cinebrass 1.5 patches into Kontakt INSIDE of VE Pro 4 v4.1.11889, all pages of the UI are layered on top of each other in one garbled mess. 

The Mapping, Mixer, and Settings tabs change color when selected, but the UI remains garbled and unchanged. Playing with this outside of VE Pro, there is no problem.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Conor (Mar 12, 2013)

BachN4th,

I noticed this too. Is the problem fixed when you actually connect your sequencer to that VE Pro instance?

I had a similar experience with LASS. LASS's UI appears frozen when in a disconnected VE Pro instance, but works fine the moment you connect it. I believe it relies on the audio engine, which is only technically running while the instance is connected, or some such thing... Bottom line, it's a slight annoyance when first setting things up but otherwise it resolves itself. I'm assuming something similar is going on here.


----------



## BachN4th (Mar 13, 2013)

CobraTrumpet @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> BachN4th,
> 
> I noticed this too. Is the problem fixed when you actually connect your sequencer to that VE Pro instance?
> 
> I had a similar experience with LASS. LASS's UI appears frozen when in a disconnected VE Pro instance, but works fine the moment you connect it. I believe it relies on the audio engine, which is only technically running while the instance is connected, or some such thing... Bottom line, it's a slight annoyance when first setting things up but otherwise it resolves itself. I'm assuming something similar is going on here.



Yup, that's exactly it. It's remarkable that my brain, like VE Pro, works better when it's actually connected.


----------



## dannthr (Mar 17, 2013)

It's a really great update, thank you CineSamples!

Grail Theme Test: 

[mp3]http://www.dannthr.com/temp/CineBrass_Brass_Choir_Test.mp3[/mp3]


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 17, 2013)

Nice Dan!

Yeah, guys, regarding VE PRO, you have to make sure the instance is connected, or else you get that lovely jumbled interface.


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 18, 2013)

I'd like to re iterate that the addition of the two horn patches is awesome! I used them all the time now. 

Thanks CineSamples. =o


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 18, 2013)

If I want to keep using both the old and the new version, how should I install the update? It's because I have many projects that are not ready yet and use the 1.1. I don't want to mess those but for the new projects I want to use the 1.5.

-Hannes


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 18, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> If I want to keep using both the old and the new version, how should I install the update? It's because I have many projects that are not ready yet and use the 1.1. I don't want to mess those but for the new projects I want to use the 1.5.
> 
> -Hannes



Just follow the instructions here - http://assets.cinesamples.com.s3.amazon ... nstall.pdf - or in the video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PhfxeQBy88U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... hfxeQBy88U) . You'll have access to the original patches in the archive folder if you prefer them (you might have to batch resave these) and all old projects will just work as they always did.


----------



## Tatu (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm enjoying the update as well!

PS: Thanks to CS support for quickly fixing my small dl-issue!


----------



## jamwerks (Mar 18, 2013)

dannthr @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> It's a really great update, thank you CineSamples!
> 
> Grail Theme Test:



Yes very nice tone !


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 18, 2013)

Thanks Guy for a fast reply. You rock!

-Hannes


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 18, 2013)

Quick playthrough with the new patches and I have to say I am not really impressed. The tuning and overall sound is better but almost everything else has taken a step backwards. Legato doesn't sound natural to me at all and the sus.in trick did help with it. But the big thing for me is the dynamics. The new two horns patch seems to be the worst having almost no difference in the volume only having different timbre in the modwheel. Whats with that? That's one of the things I really loved in CineBrass. It's a lot easier to control the dynamics with your modwheel only, not with two different cc's and complicate things. Now the volume stays almost in the same in the low half of my modwheel and after that rises just a bit. All the swells sound unnatural like opening a filter. With trumpet ensemble modwheel down it shows -24db and with fully up it shows -15db. Actually looking my Voxengo SPAN I can see that the volume in the mid frequencies stays the same and the highs only come in and raises the volume. Not my idea of a trumpet ensembles dynamic range. I had really high hopes on this update but now it seems I have to keep using the good old 1.1.

-Hannes


----------



## Simon Ravn (Mar 18, 2013)

Hanu, the dynamic problem has always been a problem with CineBrass I think. That the p/mf layer sounds way too loud compared to the f/ff...


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 18, 2013)

Now it's a lot worse than what it was in the 1.1. Trumpet Ensemble E4 is -15db in the modwheel down and -9db full up. In the 1.1 same note is -18db modwheel down and -7db up. There's not so much noise in the softer dynamics anymore, but it really didn't bother me, but this just ruins the library for me. Bummer.

-Hannes


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 18, 2013)

Hanu_H,

While I agree with you that most of the legatos are very unnatural at their default now, I think the modhweel behavior is probably the most versatile for all users. The combination of wod wheel and expression allows the user to dictate how quiet the level actually gets with softer dynamics. Many people like to use both controls on faders simultaneously. And for those who want to only use the mod wheel, it's actually very easy to map the level to mod wheel as well (CC1). So then you'll be controlling both dynamics and volume with the mod wheel. It's much easier to do this then if you want to maintain louder volumes for soft dynamics, then you need some kind of inverted volume mapping on the mod wheel, it's a little trickier. So I think the way they handle mod wheel is ok as if you're playing softer dynamics you don't lose all the volume and have to make it up with other gain/level controls.

As for the legato, hopefully they tweak those.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 18, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> So I think the way they handle mod wheel is ok as if you're playing softer dynamics you don't lose all the volume and have to make it up with other gain/level controls.


I think it's just the opposite. It's a lot easier to raise the volume with compressor or even with CC11 if the p layer is too quiet, but to run it all the time is just annoying. Especially when using multiple libraries and the others don't need it. It's just a waste of time and will never sound right. I remember having this conversation in one of the earlier CineBrass update suggestion threads with few people agreeing and asking that the modwheel would go down to silent so you wouldn't need to ride CC11 at all. I also remember some positive comments for the idea from CineSamples team. Curious what happened to that?

-Hannes


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 18, 2013)

The update is awesome - Bravo to the cinesamples team! =o


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 18, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > So I think the way they handle mod wheel is ok as if you're playing softer dynamics you don't lose all the volume and have to make it up with other gain/level controls.
> ...



Just for my own curiosity, what is the problem with assigning volume to modwheel? A single action that takes 3 seconds, re-save the patch and your wish is met right? I don't think it gets much easier than that. Certainly much easier than going the opposite way.


----------



## gregjazz (Mar 18, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Just for my own curiosity, what is the problem with assigning volume to modwheel? A single action that takes 3 seconds, re-save the patch and your wish is met right? I don't think it gets much easier than that. Certainly much easier than going the opposite way.


The problem with automating volume directly to the modwheel is that changes aren't smoothed out. You can pretty much follow this tutorial I made, but using CC #1 instead of CC #11: http://youtu.be/LXee-WBNkbU

And that way you can set exactly how much the volume gets changed, too.


----------



## Tyderian (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm liking the new update, makes it easy to get a great sound right out of the box. Here's a little test with the 1.5 update:

http://soundcloud.com/chris_harris/kingdom-of-valour

Chris


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 18, 2013)

gregjazz @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for my own curiosity, what is the problem with assigning volume to modwheel? A single action that takes 3 seconds, re-save the patch and your wish is met right? I don't think it gets much easier than that. Certainly much easier than going the opposite way.
> ...



Good tip. And yeah actually I was thinking amp as well rather than instrument volume, but select all groups is important there. I was thinking there was another level that could be use on an isntrument level, rather than group. A modulated gain effect or something?


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 18, 2013)

gregjazz @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for my own curiosity, what is the problem with assigning volume to modwheel? A single action that takes 3 seconds, re-save the patch and your wish is met right? I don't think it gets much easier than that. Certainly much easier than going the opposite way.
> ...


Greg, I wanted to use a similar method to use a CC to control the LP2 filter. The reason is that the filter gives me additional dynamic and expressive control. However, when I turn the filter on in Cinebrass (initially its set to Bypass) and save the patch, it doesn't get saved. When I open the patch again, its always reset to Bypass. Is there a way around this problem?


----------



## gregjazz (Mar 18, 2013)

synergy543 @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Greg, I wanted to use a similar method to use a CC to control the LP2 filter. The reason is that the filter gives me additional dynamic and expressive control. However, when I turn the filter on in Cinebrass (initially its set to Bypass) and save the patch, it doesn't get saved. When I open the patch again, its always reset to Bypass. Is there a way around this problem?


Yeah, you could definitely use the same method with a LP filter, since it'd just be a modulator on the filter frequency. I'm guessing that CineBrass is resetting the effect to 'bypass' because it's updating the effects when you load the patch? Is the "lowpass" filter in the effects section of the GUI enabled?


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 18, 2013)

gregjazz @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> synergy543 @ Mon Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Greg, I wanted to use a similar method to use a CC to control the LP2 filter. The reason is that the filter gives me additional dynamic and expressive control. However, when I turn the filter on in Cinebrass (initially its set to Bypass) and save the patch, it doesn't get saved. When I open the patch again, its always reset to Bypass. Is there a way around this problem?
> ...



This came up before. The script on/off button will overwrite it, which makes sense. So either use that are add a different filter thats not already on the GUI.


----------



## gregjazz (Mar 18, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> This came up before. The script on/off button will overwrite it, which makes sense. So either use that are add a different filter thats not already on the GUI.


Is there a "Sends" group effect in the last slot? You might try replacing that with a filter of your own, provided you don't mind not using any of the send effects. Might be worth trying, at least.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 18, 2013)

gregjazz @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > This came up before. The script on/off button will overwrite it, which makes sense. So either use that are add a different filter thats not already on the GUI.
> ...


Hey Greg, this last suggestion of your seems to work. However, wouldn't it make more sense to change the script so it doesn't bypass effects that its not currently using? This would allow users to make use of effects with their own edits.

Thanks much for the tip - greatly appreciated.  
Makes this into a total KILLER update!

---------------------------------------------------
Orange ya really glad he answered the question? * YUP!*


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 19, 2013)

Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:


> Just for my own curiosity, what is the problem with assigning volume to modwheel? A single action that takes 3 seconds, re-save the patch and your wish is met right? I don't think it gets much easier than that. Certainly much easier than going the opposite way.


The problem is that the dynamics are not consistent. The first half of the modwheel, doesn't change the volume at all and all the volume changes happens in the upper half of the modwheel making it impossible to control volume in a single CC. Now I have to ride CC11 for all the soft parts because there's no volume difference in the softer dynamic layers. And to make it even remotely real you have to make a different curve than what the CC1 is doing. There's easy ways to make modwheel to send CC11 also I understand that and have used those methods with my old EWSO to give them a bit more dynamics, but it really never works. You can't just control orchestral instruments with volume, it has to be dynamics. I never even touch CC11 anymore. All the mixing I do, comes from the orchestration and the dynamics just like the real orchestra works. If you need to add filters or volume curves it's clear that the instrument doesn't have the right dynamics and will need more work than libraries with the right dynamics. If you play a single note with modwheel down and raise it up, making a swell, does it sound natural to you?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 19, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> I never even touch CC11 anymore. All the mixing I do, comes from the orchestration and the dynamics just like the real orchestra works. If you need to add filters or volume curves it's clear that the instrument doesn't have the right dynamics and will need more work than libraries with the right dynamics. If you play a single note with modwheel down and raise it up, making a swell, does it sound natural to you?



I must admit, that's how I like to work. I get what Sam is saying here, that the design is you're meant to work with CC1 and CC11 in tandem the whole time, but if I may humbly say so, that's rather against the design criteria of the CineBrass range's desire for musicality and simplicity. Patches are designed with different articulations on velocity, elminating clunky old artificial keyswitches - just play (though you can do it the old school way if thats what you prefer, as I do). Poly legato ditto. Yet with this arrangement, I now have to do two passes for a simple line - one with me riding CC1 in the left hand and playing notes in the right. Then a 2nd pass to smooth out the dynamics. That slows me right down, which is against the ethos of the library. I'd far rather the dynamics were a broad approximation to the real instrument, and then do any additional tweaks at mix stage. 

I know the CS guys are following all the feedback here - lots of happy campers, lots of less happy ones, and I know they'll be doing some sort of update (1.6?) I think there needs to be a few more user options to cover the bases. Clearly 1.5 is how the guys at CS like it to sound, but it has fallen out of step with some of us here. So here's a few wishlist suggestions for 1.6.... I think all the hard work with tuning, new scripts and UI is done, so hopefully these are realistically achievable without another year of graft to get there:

1. Legato profiles. Perhaps 2 or 3 different settings for the under the hood legato tweaks for tight / smooth etc that safely preset multiple parameters, rather than a whole load of confusing knobs for us fools to screw up.

2. Dynamics profiles. Same deal, just 2 are needed I think - 1 where dynamics are mostly controlled by CC11 (the current setup), and another where they are mapped along with CC1 to emulate a natural response.

3. Disable release on shorts option.

I may have missed something, but if 1.6 had that lot, I have a feeling VI Control would erupt in communal euphoria. Impromptu street parties would appear across the globe, the Red Arrows would probably do a fly past over LA. Here's hoping...


----------



## Simon Ravn (Mar 19, 2013)

Like Hanu and Guy, I see no reason at all why the dynamics layers in CineBrass should NOT represent the real world - which is what they don't do now. What does simplicity has to do with having all dynamic layers sounding like they are at the same volume? Nothing.

To me this is an incredibly big blunder from CS. Seriously - give me a good reason why it is better having to ride both CC11 and CC1 the whole time, compared to only having to make small adjustments (like gentler attacks/gentler fade outs) in CC11 and relying on CC1 for the naturan dynamic+timbral changes. To me this is taking a huge step backwards. We are used to from most libraries today that "what was recorded is what you get" - but here the p/mp layers have been boosted up to sound like they were playing forte. I don't get it.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 19, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> 1. Legato profiles. Perhaps 2 or 3 different settings for the under the hood legato tweaks for tight / smooth etc that safely preset multiple parameters, rather than a whole load of confusing knobs for us fools to screw up.
> 
> 2. Dynamics profiles. Same deal, just 2 are needed I think - 1 where dynamics are mostly controlled by CC11 (the current setup), and another where they are mapped along with CC1 to emulate a natural response.
> 
> 3. Disable release on shorts option.


+1000 for that!

One of the main reasons why I bought CineBrass Core and Pro was the way it worked. All the articulations in a one patch controlled by a velocity + sustain pedal and dynamics controlled with CC1 only. Really easy and fast way to work. With the update the original idea gets buried in my opinion. I am not sure if I like the concept of living libraries anymore, if the fundamentals don't stay the same and you have to change your workflow after an update. And I am not saying it's impossible to map CC11 to what ever, I am just saying that don't fix something that ain't broken. Majority of the feedback was that we want more dynamic range for the patches and now it went the opposite? I understand that there's a new crew working on these updates and Mikes are not so involved in everything anymore, but to make a living library work you have to now the history really well and make the decisions with that knowledge not with the way you would want it. I know there's a lot of happy campers here also and I am not one of the big pro users, I only do this as a part-time job for my real music gigs, but I have used VST's for many years. And with the likes of LASS, Spitfire, VSL...I've learned that the real dynamics are the only ones that really work. And the fake ones sound...well, fake. And I really don't understand the philosophy with it. Why do you narrow the awesome dynamics you already have? If I would be a sample developer, I would only try to find ways to make my dynamic range bigger, not smaller. It reminds me of these old libraries where you had only one dynamic layer and you made the dynamics with the volume control. That must be the future...


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 19, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> Echoes in the Attic @ Mon Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for my own curiosity, what is the problem with assigning volume to modwheel? A single action that takes 3 seconds, re-save the patch and your wish is met right? I don't think it gets much easier than that. Certainly much easier than going the opposite way.
> ...



Yeah I get what you're saying. Just using the modwheel does sound like opening a filter if used on it's own. It would be cool if they had a toggle as an option for either behavior.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 19, 2013)

Echoes...Just out of curiosity do you prefer this new way over the old?

Hopefully we get someone from CineSamples team to answer here...


----------



## rJames (Mar 19, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> 1. Legato profiles. Perhaps 2 or 3 different settings for the under the hood legato tweaks for tight / smooth etc that safely preset multiple parameters, rather than a whole load of confusing knobs for us fools to screw up.
> 
> 2. Dynamics profiles. Same deal, just 2 are needed I think - 1 where dynamics are mostly controlled by CC11 (the current setup), and another where they are mapped along with CC1 to emulate a natural response.
> 
> 3. Disable release on shorts option.



I've had to ride both cc1 and cc11 in old and new versions. I do wish I only had to write cc1 as I can in LASS. But it is important to be able to play a horn fairly loud without the brassy buzz getting into the sound. I think Cinesamples is just trying to give us that smooth brass sound. 

Unluckily, its hard to get the bones to sound smooth. They go brassy very quickly. ANd that is true for all instruments in the short articulations.

It is impossible to play a soft attack short note with this lib. You can't match the legato attack with a short. And since they have not feathered in the sFz attack with velocity starting at 100 thru 127, you cannot match a short attack with a legato attack.

Yeah, I'm still upset about that.

Are there really only 2 or 3 of us here who wish that they would have feathered the addition of the short attack in the vel from 100-127?

Seriously, has anyone figured out a way to play da-da-daaaaaa smoothly without adding a second line of shorts. If the guiding principle is simplicity, then why did Cinesamples forget to do this ultra, ultra simple fix in their programming?


----------



## rJames (Mar 19, 2013)

rJames @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> Seriously, has anyone figured out a way to play da-da-daaaaaa smoothly without adding a second line of shorts. If the guiding principle is simplicity, then why did Cinesamples forget to do this ultra, ultra simple fix in their programming?



You got me. Seems like it would have been very useful and a simple fix. o=< o=< o=< o=< o=< o=< o=< o=<


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 19, 2013)

Hey guys - is there a way to assign a KS to 'mono or poly' for the legato (not the on/off for 'legato'). Legato behavior seems different on some and want to assigned mono or poly to KS. Thanks for any help.


(Also - CS - just getting around to DL update - have CORE but the PRO links have 'expired'. I sent a ticket over this morning but hadn't heard from anyone - just in case you see this post.) Thanks again.


EDIT: successfully assigned KS to mono/poly using slider ('switch' on controller was giving fits - no worries. Slider is mo betta) :wink:


----------



## synthetic (Mar 19, 2013)

Would be even better if you could assign a CC# to mono-poly, like AudioBro does (CC112 or something?) Imagine if there were _standards_ in sample libraries!


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 19, 2013)

synthetic @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> Would be even better if you could assign a CC# to mono-poly, like AudioBro does (CC112 or something?) Imagine if there were _standards_ in sample libraries!




You can - right click on it - move slider on controller. done.


----------



## maest (Mar 19, 2013)

Hi All-

We ARE gathering all the data here and trying to figure out what we can and cannot do with a *HOTFIX* 1.5.1 update... For transparency sake: we can do a quick patch update, but any script additions have to go back through the NI encoding process, not to mention it is a MASSIVE change in scripting to add GUI functionality, etc, extra key switches, etc... just will start complicating not only the interface but the script as well... We WILL look into these ideas since they are good suggestions, and if it is something we can do as a hotfix we will. In other-words, no guarantees - but you ARE heard! 

If you are not doing so, please submit CS support tickets under "General" Subject: CB v1.5 suggestions/requests. This helps us gather a list, for future updates. 

http://cinesamples.com/support/

CC1 vs CC11 - this has always been in discusion - you guys know where I used to work for MANY years before coming here and helping out the Mikes... I know this seems a little more complicated than before, but trust me, from my experience it is so much harder and there are so many more steps to do post-audio editing to do the mixing needed. It is much better to just copy the CC1 part to the CC11 part and slightly modifying it to give amplitude control (there is around a 12db difference from cc1=0 and cc1=127 though). It may not feel as smooth as it did before on a first record/play-pass, and it does add one more step. I do realize this and adding a feature to have one or the other is a great idea, we WILL look into this. But using both CCs is how MOST (not all) of the Pros in LA work, and it does add a level of flexibility that is needed to program libraries... 

As for the legatos - we are looking into fixing some of these (based on your feedback) we will see how we can *hotfix* them to you... I cannot give you an ETA yet as we have a few other things in the works and we have to do a bit of testing on the fixes...

As for the dynamically feathered short attack overlay... It is being looked at, but at this state not sure what we can do about it, I am sorry - Greg can elaborate here, not even sure it is something we can add in. To be honest we usually just compose with the shorts on a different track, but it is a great idea to get added in, and is definitely on the list. 

Again, keep in mind we made changes based on A LOT of feedback from our customers from hobbyists to A-List. We can't please everyone unfortunately - but we will do our best to get you guys what you need out of the library, or at least help make suggestions to what you guys can do.

NOTE: We do try to keep the interfaces clean and organized, so some of the under-the-hood stuff is great, and encouraged for those who know what to tweak. Every Kontakt Library I own has my own tweaks (including CB v1.5 - see the split patches) to how I like to write and program. But we try to do our best to get you something that works for 90% of the composers out there. 

All the best,

Sam Estes
Manager, Cinesamples


----------



## IFM (Mar 19, 2013)

Thanks Sam! I love the new update and will submit a suggestion on a couple things.


----------



## dannthr (Mar 19, 2013)

Yeah, sending stuff to NI is time-consuming and ridiculously expensive.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 19, 2013)

Thanks very much for the update, Sam, all great to read. If you're able to offer the choice of the way CC1 works, that would be the dream ticket here. And I can totally see why you guys decided to go it alone with NI's Player - what a PITA to have to re-encode for scripting changes.

And thanks to Rob, great thought on assigning CCs to the mono / poly and on / off switches.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 19, 2013)

Thanks Sam, good to hear your working on it. For me the dynamics is the dealbreaker, there's nothing you can do to make it work like I would like in the 1.5 update. The legato is fixable with the Sus.in trick, so that's not a big deal. These suggestions by Guy are the best way to handle this in my opinion.

1. Legato profiles. Perhaps 2 or 3 different settings for the under the hood legato tweaks for tight / smooth etc that safely preset multiple parameters, rather than a whole load of confusing knobs for us fools to screw up. 

2. Dynamics profiles. Same deal, just 2 are needed I think - 1 where dynamics are mostly controlled by CC11 (the current setup), and another where they are mapped along with CC1 to emulate a natural response. 

3. Disable release on shorts option.


----------



## kb123 (Mar 20, 2013)

dannthr @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> Yeah, sending stuff to NI is time-consuming and ridiculously expensive.



Generally speaking, only initially, and script updates don't necessarily require that everything is re-encoded by NI.


----------



## Lex (Mar 20, 2013)

Any chance of giving us 1.1 patches with 1.5 tuning? That should be easy to do?

alex


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 20, 2013)

Lex @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> Any chance of giving us 1.1 patches with 1.5 tuning? That should be easy to do?
> 
> alex



If I'm not mistaken, I think the CS guys have already said it's far from easy (if potentially every note of every velocity has been tweaked and some new samples added, that's got to represent a massive amount of work). I think there's a great plan here that would keep pretty much everyone happy - I suggest we let the CS guys get on with it at this point.


----------



## Resoded (Mar 20, 2013)

I've noticed something that I haven't heard anyone mention yet.

The trombone articulation patches, when I hold down the sustain pedal, set cc1 and cc11 low, play a note softly and then move the cc1 and 11 sliders upwards, the transition is quite crazy from the softer to the brassy stuff. I didn't have this problem in 1.1. Playing harder solves it, but I usually play softly since my keyboard is so noisy. Maybe not a huge issue but slightly annoying.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 20, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> 1. Legato profiles. Perhaps 2 or 3 different settings for the under the hood legato tweaks for tight / smooth etc that safely preset multiple parameters, rather than a whole load of confusing knobs for us fools to screw up.
> 
> 2. Dynamics profiles. Same deal, just 2 are needed I think - 1 where dynamics are mostly controlled by CC11 (the current setup), and another where they are mapped along with CC1 to emulate a natural response.
> 
> ...



Great suggestions, I completely agree with all three of these.

For number 2, here's what I would suggest (and I'd love to see this in pretty much every sample library). Add a knob that tweaks the dynamic range of the instrument. So the default would be in the middle and the loudest and softest samples would play back at the levels they were originally recorded at, the "real" dynamics. Turn it one way and it decreases the dynamic range (all the way would have modwheel only change tone and not volume), turn it the other way and it expands the dynamic range.

For example, say on an instrument the quietest level is 40db lower than the loudest. Default/mid position on the knob would do this. Turning one way could make the quietest level up to say 70db down, going the other would bring the quietest level up, all the way to having no dynamics on modwheel at all. A switch would be better than nothing, but it would be nice to have even more control.

Maybe there are film score guys who work with CC11 doing all the volume change, but for me and obviously others here it's a major step back. No other library I'm using now works that way and I hope none make that particular change. If there really are guys requiring that feature, make it a user selectable option - having a great library make a major change like that because of the requests of a few people is a bit alarming.




maest @ Tue Mar 19 said:


> As for the dynamically feathered short attack overlay... It is being looked at, but at this state not sure what we can do about it, I am sorry - Greg can elaborate here, not even sure it is something we can add in. To be honest we usually just compose with the shorts on a different track, but it is a great idea to get added in, and is definitely on the list.



The instrument already has a separate layer of shorts available superimposed on top of the legatos (longs in some cases). It doesn't really make sense that those shorts would have to be at a fixed dynamic compared to the longs. Why wouldn't it be possible for that layer to have independent dynamics, can't you just map the volume of that layer to a different controller like velocity (which isn't being used during legato performance)? Best case would be to have the controller for that dynamic user selectable.

I look forward to a hotfix with whatever you guys can manage to get in, but at this point it looks like you'll probably need to do a 1.6 and send it through NI. Good thing you guys moved away from locked libraries with the newer ones, shame that didn't happen earlier with Brass so that you guys didn't have to jump through hoops to do updates.

And I'll say it again, it would probably make sense to expand the pool of beta testers, if not a public beta. Particularly if it means getting things really tested before sending a final version to NI. Along those lines, the NI situation is another reason to provide more user options as well as the ability to load/save "profiles" within a patch - tweaks to things like legatos that are just changes to hidden knob settings wouldn't require new scripting and approval from NI, so there would definitely be an advantage to sending out "profile" files (.nka?) that users could just load from the patch.


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 20, 2013)

I know a solution! Hire live players!! 

Thanks for the feedback guys, and for the record you are all giving Sam Estes a heart attack...



Mike


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 20, 2013)

CineSamples @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> I know a solution! Hire live players!!
> 
> Thanks for the feedback guys, and for the record you are all giving Sam Estes a heart attack...
> 
> ...



What's a live player, Mike? 

Tell Sam, I feel his pain.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 20, 2013)

I feel bad this is getting hashed out here, but it is really beneficial for users to be able to discuss specifics of how a library works. Maybe it's time for CS to dust off the old user message board to move the dirty laundry to somewhere less visible to the general public?

Anyway, I think at least some of the user feedback comes a feeling of the library ever getting closer to the status of "the last brass library I'll ever buy". From a recording standpoint, it has been that for me since day one. And I really do feel like you guys can get the scripting to the point where I'm like bam, this is it. It's so close, we just want to see the library make it that last stretch from 95% to 100.

Thanks for the hard work, we know you guys will get there.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 20, 2013)

> one user's "bam, this is it" is another user's "Good Lord, why did you eff it up?"



Absolutely true, but that's the advantage of providing options to the user so that both ways of working are available. And I'd say that's generally one of the strengths of CS.


----------



## Resoded (Mar 20, 2013)

CineSamples @ 20th March 2013 said:


> I know a solution! Hire live players!!
> 
> Thanks for the feedback guys, and for the record you are all giving Sam Estes a heart attack...
> 
> ...



To you Mike, Sam, the other Mike and the rest of the team, your work is greatly appreciated. I love Cinebrass (and Cinewinds) and intend to buy the full Cine-range and the special celeste as soon as I can afford it. The response and feedback you guys receive here is, in my opinion, best taken as love for the product. At least for my part. 

(As a side note, you guys should go and record a piano and harp in SONY)


----------



## Rob Elliott (Mar 20, 2013)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> I feel bad this is getting hashed out here, but it is really beneficial for users to be able to discuss specifics of how a library works. Maybe it's time for CS to dust off the old user message board to move the dirty laundry to somewhere less visible to the general public?
> 
> Anyway, I think at least some of the user feedback comes a feeling of the library ever getting closer to the status of "the last brass library I'll ever buy". From a recording standpoint, it has been that for me since day one. And I really do feel like you guys can get the scripting to the point where I'm like bam, this is it. It's so close, we just want to see the library make it that last stretch from 95% to 100.
> 
> Thanks for the hard work, we know you guys will get there.




Mike(s) - in my humble opinion - this 1.5 update getting us to the '95%' (I agree) has relegated all my other brass libraries to the 'back of the bus' or completely out of the template. This update (as it is) is that good. Congrats.

Having these discussed additional 'user options' would set you guys head and shoulders above the pack. Is it a good business decision to reinvest MORE time and money to it? - me thinks it would.

Even if you decide to tell us to take a long walk off a short pier (nicely of course o ) - I want to personally thank you for this exceptional update.


Quite frankly I need another orch perc library like a hole in the head but BECAUSE of this update (and what it says at multiple levels - to me as a customer) - I just might pick up your Cineperc.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Mar 20, 2013)

Great to hear some options are being worked on. Like others pointed out the dynamic issue is really the big annoyance here. It is just so weird that CS decided to make this library work unlike any other library. When you are working with a lot of different libraries in your template it is just very annoying that you have to change the way you work with one of the libraries - and again, I can't find a single good argument why a horn section playing piano should by default sound almost as loud as one playing f or ff. There is a reason all other libraries use the recorded dynamics "as is" and I really wish the CS guys would get rid of their pride - or whatever it is - keeping them from complying to the concensus of orchestral samples and change how CB/CW works 8)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 20, 2013)

Rob Elliott @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> Quite frankly I need another orch perc library like a hole in the head but BECAUSE of this update (and what it says at multiple levels - to me as a customer) - I just might pick up your Cineperc.



I know what you mean. I feel awful really for not being able to roll out the Mission Accomplished banner for 1.5, but I think the feedback here has been mostly really constructive and the CS guys (poor Sam!) have taken it with good grace. It makes a HUGE difference when planning purchases for me too, and I why I chose CinePerc over other really great libraries.

I really hope that the suggested tweaks don't represent a herculean task - like you Rob I think most of the heavy lifting is now done and it's making those final tweaks that will make all the difference.

Oh and +1 to the beta pool and dynamic control suggestions, Mike.


----------



## Wunderhorn (Mar 20, 2013)

CineSamples @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys, and for the record you are all giving Sam Estes a heart attack...
> 
> 
> 
> Mike




I think all this passionate feedback means one thing most and foremost: People love this library and just want to see it soaring even higher.

I certainly think it is fantastic, and money well spent. And that enthusiasm is just setting the thinking gears in motion of what would make it even better. Great feeling when a library is being developed _with_ its users.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 20, 2013)

Yeah, absolutely. CineBrass has been my go to brass library since it's release, noble sound and really easy to use. Maybe that's the reason why it feels unacceptable that it would not be anymore. Even if all the pro users in the world would say they do it like this, it will not change my workflow. I've done it many years and tried different ways and found this the one that suits me. Hopefully you can easily modify the update, so everyone can be happy with it.

Cheers,

-Hannes


----------



## TeamLeader (Mar 20, 2013)

Just started working with 1.5. Love the new GUI etc. But we are getting pops and CPU spikes where we dont get them with the older 1.1 inst patches. This is on our VEPRO slave Mac Pro. 

Any suggestions? Is this update more CPU heavy?


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 20, 2013)

Just a quick word on the dynamics.

Most importantly the quiet dynamics were indeed recorded pp and fff etc... it is just a question of presenting them in the patch.

There are two schools of thought:

1) Preserve Everything As It was. For example 2 Horns may or may not be equal (at forte say) to two trombones. This is perhaps the natural way but it makes mixing (and especially adding) more difficult. (1.1 school of thought) 


2) Slightly cheat volumes so they are indeed equal. This might take some adding of the quieter dynamics and other general tweaks but it makes for a much smoother and less jumpier dynamic range. It also makes stacking much easier. (1.5) 


We are talking about doing an option for both schools of thought. They are both valid.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 20, 2013)

mikebarry @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> We are talking about doing an option for both schools of thought. They are both valid.


Great to hear! Make sure that with the real dynamics the modwheel down is = to silence. That will make it even easier to use. Waiting anxiously for the next update!

-Hannes


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 20, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Thu Mar 21 said:


> mikebarry @ Wed Mar 20 said:
> 
> 
> > We are talking about doing an option for both schools of thought. They are both valid.
> ...



And just to prove what an impossible to please bunch we are, I'd generally prefer not to absolute silence. In theory its fine, but often you get that frustrating No Sound Syndrome and end up fault finding for ages before realsing its just CC1! Most libs seem to just have a nice soft pp at the bottom end, and that's perfect for me - if I ever need to go pppp that would be a job for cc11 or my audio faders. Also I guess what many of us are after is just a representation of the real instrument playing, so playing to silence is rather artificial.

BTW Mike (if I understand you correctly) - is there a third school of thought? I'd like the instruments internally consistent where the velocity curve emulates real life on a per-instrument basis, but not necessarily so as they all match each other in overall volume - in other words the 2 horns and 12 horns wouldn't necessarily have the same output level, which isn't realistic but fine for me. When setting up a template, that's the time to do an overall balance between instruments imo, and making your different libraries blend right together. I mean you don't necessarily want the default volume of a cabasa equal to 12 French Horns, but even if it was, I wouldn't be too fussed.


----------



## Hanu_H (Mar 21, 2013)

Yeah, we are a bunch.  It's really not a biggie for me and it can be easily done with CC11 so it should be in the maybe list anyway.

-Hannes


----------



## IFM (Mar 30, 2013)

Sorry to drudge up this topic but I'm working on the final track of a project and up till the previous piece I was using 1.1 and loved how 1.5 sounded when I wrote a piece in it. However, one thing that had bugged me and now I really hear the difference is the brightness of the 1/8 and 1/4 notes on the Horn Ens. In 1.1 they were equal and you could write a line that sounded consistent. In 1.5 the 1/8 is bright but the 1/4 and 1/2 are more mellow so now it sounds like two mismatched samples. 

I've gone back to 1.1 for doing anything with shorts at the moment. Has anyone else noticed this? 

Chris


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Mar 31, 2013)

Dragonwind @ Sat Mar 30 said:


> Sorry to drudge up this topic but I'm working on the final track of a project and up till the previous piece I was using 1.1 and loved how 1.5 sounded when I wrote a piece in it. However, one thing that had bugged me and now I really hear the difference is the brightness of the 1/8 and 1/4 notes on the Horn Ens. In 1.1 they were equal and you could write a line that sounded consistent. In 1.5 the 1/8 is bright but the 1/4 and 1/2 are more mellow so now it sounds like two mismatched samples.
> 
> I've gone back to 1.1 for doing anything with shorts at the moment. Has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> Chris



The difference in brightness between the 1/8 and 1/4 (and 1/2) threw me off at first as well, but I haven't found it too be much different from 1.1 to 1.5. I found it strange that the light velocity shorts were so much brighter and more powerful, but once I started reversing the velocity mapping it became much more intuitive, especially with the release triggers because then you can still get softer shorts.

However what I don't like in 1.5 is how they've made the release triggers much more abrupt and they sound more unnatural. I'm now finding for the shorts I'm preferring to go back to 1.1 to avoid the synthy sounding 1/4 and 1/2 releases. I couldn't find a release tail adjustment anywhere, am I missing some way to make the realizes more like in 1.1?

EDIT: I found the release parameter in the wrench settings. Same place as the [Sus.In] parameter. Increasing the release by about 300 ms solved the unnatural releases of the 1/2 and 1/4 notes.


----------



## whinecellar (May 3, 2013)

I'm finally getting around to learning CB/CB Pro and just when I started to get a handle on them (1.1), I downloaded the 1.5 updates. Definitely some major differences.

Having read through much of this thread, I loaded up the 1.1 and 1.5 versions of just the trumpets & 'bones to compare. One initial observation is that the 1.1 versions sounded louder and a tad punchier, so I dug in and found that the 1.1 versions have a phase plugin inserted with the gain turned up. Just wondering what the rationale was for that, and why it was removed in the 1.5 versions?

Got a long way to go yet but I too am finding some things I really liked about 1.1. As someone else said, it would be great to have the option of 1.1 patches with the drastically improved 1.5 tuning. 1.1 does feel in some ways to be a bit more immediately playable, but again, I probably need to just spend more time with them.

Either way, what phenomenal libraries. And indeed, it's probably because they're so good that people are being so picky 

Way to go Cinesamples - truly stunning work.


----------



## Sid Francis (May 4, 2013)

_1. Legato profiles. Perhaps 2 or 3 different settings for the under the hood legato tweaks for tight / smooth etc that safely preset multiple parameters, rather than a whole load of confusing knobs for us fools to screw up. 

2. Dynamics profiles. Same deal, just 2 are needed I think - 1 where dynamics are mostly controlled by CC11 (the current setup), and another where they are mapped along with CC1 to emulate a natural response. 

3. Disable release on shorts option._


That would do it for me too. Great ideas.


----------



## Hanu_H (Jul 7, 2013)

mikebarry @ Wed Mar 20 said:


> We are talking about doing an option for both schools of thought. They are both valid.



Any news on this?

-Hannes


----------



## tomaslobosk (Aug 7, 2015)

Up!
I sent a ticket to Cinesamples' support asking if I could get old instruments when buying the library, they said that old instruments were unsupported.
So, sadly, I'm not buying anything. IMHO Cinebrass (CORE and PRO) is an amazing sounding library an needs to get a better re-scripting ASAP.


----------



## Hanu_H (Aug 7, 2015)

I think that the worst thing that happened to CineBrass was Sam Estes doing the 1.5 update. He didn't really understand the soul of the library. Or the company. CineSamples has always been the most composer friendly company with many possible workflows. 1.5 forces me to work in a way I don't like and I am still using 1.1 thanks to that. I hope Mike's would do an update for it with all the mentioned things in here. Excellent library, but 1.5 is not it's greatest incarnation.

-Hannes


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Aug 8, 2015)

Yeah although I like the new interface and instruments introduced with 1.5, the playability was a huge step backwards from 1.1. It sounded like they were going to release an update to improve the problems introduced with 1.5, especially the legato, shortly after 1.5 was released, but they never did. Consequently I really haven't used 1.5 much at all.


----------

