Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

A New Chapter from Spitfire Audio...

Consona said:
I think a lot of composers here ask for "musical" libraries in the age of spiccati patterns and thumpy synths because they are more musically literate than an average TV drama producer, they care about musicality and expression in their music even when using just samples, etc. Maybe composers from Spitfire subscribe to another musical ideology, but for people who like more classical approach, convincing vivid lines is where the music lives, basically.
Click to expand...

yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona ...

Do composers want more "musical" libraries or brand new "sounds"?

From what I can tell... large numbers of people don't want either!

The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.

I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, 2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product, 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.

And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....

I think developers are in a very difficult place with composers who already have the "bread and butter" covered, as so many of us do.

If they made a really deep sampled standard articulations library then people would say "Why should I buy this? I already have CSS/HWS/SSS/OTBS/ChrisHein/whatever."

Instead they went for covering all kinds of unique articulations not sampled before, and now people are saying "Well these are interesting as one-shot samples, but difficult to join together into musical phrases, speaking of which, why did you skimp on the basic articulations like staccato?"

If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.

It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...
 
Last edited:
Adding to what Noam is saying...
I wish some of the big companies would do a kick starter type of project where ideas are discussed and then one can buy in early on. And if they get x amount of money they do 3 dynamic layers and two types of legato, if they reach y amount of money you get 5 dynamic layers with five types of legato, etc. Maybe I am not thinking this through but it would allow a company to know exactly what buyers want and allow us to fund the orchestra we crave. And if they don't reach the amount needed then the project doesn't happen and no money was lost. This is not directed at Spitfire but all of the major sampling companies. For such expensive recording and editing commitments, why not a little more transparency?
 
i would love that someone would offer a modular approach. you only need sustains or spiccatos? buy those. only need new french horns, ok no problem.
choices between different mic positions would round this up.

alot of librarys just often offer stuff someone will never ever use and thats also sometimes a reason not to buy certain librarys. well you get the point :)
 
It's a great idea but I think developers won't do it because they're wary of each other, and to be blunt, specifically of Spitfire.

You can see in Christian's blogs that Spitfire has dozens of people working there. 8Dio is less than a dozen people. I visited CineSamples once, they too had less than a dozen people cutting samples at that time.

The relevance of this is that once you finish a recording session all the work is a matter of man-hours... more people = you finish editing & release the library faster, all else being equal.

Think about Spitfire's 2018 releases, 183 GB of Hans Zimmer Strings, 210 GB of Spitfire Studio Strings, it's a lot of throughput.

Beating everyone else to the market is huge, there's a reason why developers are so secretive, for example we still don't know if Cinematic Studio Brass & Hyperion Brass will be a1/a2/tutti recordings like HWB, Century Brass etc., or if they might be full solos like Berlin Brass.

So if somebody like Jasper or Alex W went on Kickstarter right now and ran a "What exactly do you want" campaign, IMO they'd just be doing market research for Spitfire.

A Kickstarter campaign would also have a timing problem. Why would I pay $400 and not see results for a year or maybe 2-3 years even, when I could buy a pretty good brass library now for that price or even wait a few months and get the libraries that are known to be in the pipeline. Competing with already-announced products just compounds the problem that there's a lot of supply in the marketplace right now.
 
Last edited:
NoamL said:
yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona

The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.

I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, 2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product, 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.

And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....
Click to expand...
That's simply a false statement. Aside from HZ having a stupid number of players what do these products offer that's not on the market already?
 
Looking to get a libaray that can do "pop" strings for singer songwriters, folk/indie, to EDM and everything in between. Already have Cinematic Studio Strings, but i'd like a smaller sound.

Spitfire Studio Strings vs Spitfire Chamber Strings?
 
The only two audio demos posted by Spitfire for this library's Standard version have not impressed me, and no other audio demos of this library seem to exist that are tempting me to even consider it as a purchase option. Maybe some more demos will change that perception.

I will look to other options, i.e. LASS 3, and 8Dios's Intimate Studio Strings whenever they are released.
 
Last edited:
dhlkid said:
Will anyone of u buy this if already have Chamber Strings?
Click to expand...
If Studio Strings can 'sing' as well as the Chamber Strings, I'd rather have Chamber+Studio Strings than Chamber+ Symphonic Strings, because the Chamber + Studio Strings then could serve as a somehow modular library, seen together. SCS is 4 3 3 3 and SSTS Core is 8 6 6 6 4. That would allow 4, 8 or 12 V1s, 3, 6 or 9V2s etc. With the pro version of SSTS, you'd also have two divisi/half sections (4 3 3 3), meaning that you'd have an even more modular library.
 
NoamL said:
If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.

It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...
Click to expand...
It surely must be frustrating! But don't we all want both workhorse and expressiveness (and art)? I do.

The reason we are into music, is that music makes us feel something. Not necessarily in some 'emotional' way, but if music wouldn't make us feel anything at all, we wouldn't have listened to it. I wouldn't. And the great thing about having a composition being performed my a good musician is that s/he can add something to your piece which makes it better. But - since Kontakt doesn't feel anything, the dilemma is that we (!) both want samples that are flexible enough to not limit us when we want to add 'feeling' to our tracks, by using velocity/CCs etc... and samples which may be more limited, but which adds a level of expressiveness to what we write. The outcome of all this is the many of us buy several libraries.

But since libraries already offer many choices: mic choices, dynamic layers, normale/flautando/con sord/sul tasto etc, why can't they (in the future) also, in a more systematic way, so to speak: offer different modes: (romantic, modern/contemporary/artsy, neutral etc)? There must be a better choice (in the future) than keep buy one library after another, often from different manufacturers (with different UIs/workflows etc). I'm writing this because from the SSTS demos I've heard so far, I'm miss hearing the soaring/espressivo aspect that eg SCS, SSS and Soaring Strings has.

There are users in here with 40-50 string libraries and more. And of course that's good, short term, for the developers' economy. But it's time, IMO, to think of more future proof libraries, which can be expanded on in all possible ways (this will ensure that these companies keep getting sales).

Since SSTS doesn't have ensemble patches, I do think we'll see paid SSTS upgrades in the future. And hopefully, at some point, we can invest in libraries which are designed from ground up to be expandable - allowing us to, for instance:

- Expand a three dynamic layer libraries with, say, one or to additional layers
- Add modules (in terms of section sizes)
- Add mic options, of course (SF already is very good at this)
- Add musical modes (add an 'emotional' set of articulations to a 'contemporary' sounding library etc etc).
- Add different types of well sounding samples (not talking about leves of espressivo or articulations here), based on different preamps/signal flow, tape saturation vs direct etc), lush/silky/bite etc etc.

I have no idea how future proof this new SF range is planned to be. But I don't think SF (or any company) or most users can keep affording to make/buy libraries that are as limited as some of the current libraries are, with the risk - both for the user and the manufacturer - of having wasted time and money on something that didn't turn out as good as they hoped it would.

Offering an as flexible concept as I describe above will of course involve a massive amount of work. But maybe not more work than releasing as many individual libraries like eg Spitfire and 8dio offer?
 
Overwhelmingly for me, it's all about the sound and realism. I want my work to sound as close to a real performance as possible.

As an example, I like the work Jasper is doing at performance samples with strings. The legato and realism displayed in con moto and solos of the sea sounds fantastic and once all the sections are released I will likely get them.

The demos of spitfire studio strings leave me cold. They sound like they are done with samples and aren't fooling anyone. I mean, the shorts sound good, but they do in most libraries now.
 
A modular library might be a good idea but I think it's far from applicable. If you want to record a new dynamic layer to an existing library you have to book the same players with the same instruments in the same location. Sounds easy but if you try to there will be probably studio time in 3 weeks but one of the used mikes is defect, one player bought a new (better but different sounding) instrument, one player is sick, another is pregnant and moved to her parents in Wales and so on. So you have to produce a library in one go for all future wishes from users over time (with all the production investment) but sell it in little pieces with most customers just buying one or two major articulations and dynamic levels. I think that will be the slow death of any sample developer company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vik
Valid points, Saxer! I still think we'll see a move towards more more modular libraries.

I guess some of these companies already have a method for adding new recordings later - unless eg the modular Spitfire Sable 1, 2, 3 and 4 (and Mural 1/2/3) was recorded at the same time. But even if that would be really difficult, one could record a full library based on the idea that people could by all or some of it, and expand later. And - since it's quite common to be able to buy more mic positions and articulations later, my idea is basically to not limit the expandability to mainly mics and artics. I really like the SFs Studio String concept, (two divisi sections, pro/core versions etc), and see that 8dios upcoming Intimate Strings also are modular (as in using three modules to allow the choice between 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 players). Also a great solution, if it sounds like music and not like samples. :) Chris Hein Ensemble Strings are also modular, just like VSL Dimension Strings - this isn't something new.

Of course it would be wrong to exaggerate the modular aspect of all this - that would be complicated.

Btw, Apple is apparently also planning a modular Mac Pro for release next year. That sounds like a very good idea as well to me, unless the entrance ticket to get started is si high that people won't buy it. This is where SF gets it right with SSTS: it starts with an inexpensive core module, and there's an upgrade part (to the more modular pro version, with two divisi sections). If the legatos/vibratos are good (or will become good soon), I think SF will sell SSTS to a lot of users.
 
NoamL said:
yes, this is an interesting thought @Consona ...

Do composers want more "musical" libraries or brand new "sounds"?

From what I can tell... large numbers of people don't want either!

The number of people who seem to be passing on all three of Spitfire Studio Strings + 8Dio Century Brass + Hans Zimmer Strings this year feels like a portent of danger for the sample library industry.

I mean, say what you want, 1) these are three huge, flagship, deeply sampled libraries, 2) they each have some significant feature or features that you can't find in any competing product, 3) each one is priced at less than Hollywood Brass Diamond was on release despite nearly a decade of inflation.

And yet lots of the fish are just swimming by without nibbling....

I think developers are in a very difficult place with composers who already have the "bread and butter" covered, as so many of us do.

If they made a really deep sampled standard articulations library then people would say "Why should I buy this? I already have CSS/HWS/SSS/OTBS/ChrisHein/whatever."

Instead they went for covering all kinds of unique articulations not sampled before, and now people are saying "Well these are interesting as one-shot samples, but difficult to join together into musical phrases, speaking of which, why did you skimp on the basic articulations like staccato?"

If you try to make the next workhorse library you get eaten alive by the competition (CSS and Hyperion weren't even publicly known when SStS started development). If you try to make "artsy longs" libraries you get torn apart by the people who want you to make groundbreaking new workhorse libraries.

It must be frustrating to deal with our lack of consistency in stating our demands as consumers...
Click to expand...
Well that is just the game at the moment. There is so many sample developers and that makes competition really hard. If you are gonna make new library you better have everything figured out before you start the recordings. Like I said earlier, I feel that Spitfire is not anymore one of the innovative developers. Their scripting has never been the best, but their libraries have sounded great for certain uses. But with drier libraries it gets even more important whats happening under the hood and I am not really sure if Spitfire has what it takes. It just baffles me that it's year 2018 and they start a new chapter with a library that has interface and scripting that has been used for almost 10 years now. Even Steinberg Iconica(not the best sounding library) has a interface and scripting lightyears ahead of this. And even if it's not a string library, but the things AudioBro is doing with Genesis, is quite amazing. I think that just recording good sounding samples is not gonna cut it anymore, because everyone has a great engineer and access to nice sounding rooms. It's all about the functionality of the samples and how easy it is to get it play what you hear in your head. I got a lot of libraries and enough different timbres for the rest of my life. I will only buy a new library if I think it will get me better results, faster and easier.

It's okay to record unique articulations, but how many flautandos do you need from Spitfire? Spitfire is really good at marketing these "unique" longs but they hardly even touch the legato patches in their walkthroughs. I am more into the developers that are enthusiastic about their legato engine, making the interface more fluid and user friendly. I would be a bit horrified with a patch with 20 keyswitches. If you want to go from sustain note to tremolo, how do you do it with this library without breaking the flow?

-Hannes
 
My first impressions of Spitfire Studio Strings. This is not a comprehensive review. I picked up SStS Professional and gave it a whirl. Here are some early thoughts:

Unlike my usual experience with Spitfire, the programming seems pretty consistent. Some niggles here and there, but overall I wasn't cringing. The legato has minimal latency (a bugbear of mine, and I hate when people call high latency yet expressive-sounding libs 'playable', they're not, but these are). I hate velocity triggers portamento, oh well. Relatively agile but you can't really play a fast line. Or any credible line that's not quarter notes or slower. This is yet another strings-as-color-palette endeavor from Spitfire. Don't get me wrong, the colors are very pretty. But there's a reason the demos are all block pads and chiffing shorts, rather than anything resembling a performance of a string ensemble. I treat (and love) Spitfire libs like a really awesome Mellotron. YMMV.

This lib seems to have a more credible dynamic range than say SCS (which I own, with the extended mics). Even though it's likely the same number of layers, the softs seem genuinely softer (vs volume turned down, which I hate), and the forte genuinely stronger (vs just louder), although Spitfire rarely gets to the aggressive range.

As far as mics, I like tree 2 alone best - mixing tends to cloud things up IMO. Tree 2 is more present than tree 1 for most of the sections. The close mics are ok, but again, once you mix you destroy various realism cues and it sounds more string-like than like strings. I care about this, you might not. And I think the whole ambient/outrigger thing is misplaced in this lib. This is not a great sounding room. The more you use of it the more it sounds like a small basketball court. You are going to want to add reverb and too much of this small room will again thwart the realism and continuity of that. But tree 2 gels really well with additional reverb to my ears.

Tree 1 also sounds very good, not too ambient, and works well with verb, so I think the base package would be just fine for most people - don't lust for mics you won't actually use. As far as the stereo mixes, I don't like them at all in this lib (I have liked them, and their economy, in other Spitfire libs). Really chorused with long sloppy overlapping releases. Shrug.

So, as a drier Spitfire-sensibility string 'palette' +1. If you are interested in strings as colors this is pretty nice. The sound is good, and I think more flexible than the wetter Air libs unless Air is exactly the space you want. I like it, and will probably end up using it more than SCS - as beautiful as SCS sounds the ambience is always a challenge.

As a credible tool for crafting string ensemble performances, I don't think so. I had VSL Dimension Strings up before I took this for a spin and when I returned to DS it was night and day. DS (w/MIR) blows this out of the water for responsive playability, realism, flexibility and sound (except DS misses the softer flautando and brushed areas). Use the right tool for the job :)

Wishlist - actual staccatos (and detache and...), and I wish one each of the divisi sections had the full articulation set. You are not getting a small chamber ensemble in this package via the divisi sections. SStCS? Likely. Guard your wallets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom