I'm going to have to disagree with that. Would recommend listening to full walkthroughs instead and asking yourself if it sounds real. There are countless instances of a product with absurdly good demos that mask a lot of glaring shortcomings.
SPITFIRE - Announcing Spitfire Studio Strings! 24 Hours LEFT on Promo Price!
- Thread starter Spitfire Team
- Start date
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Would recommend listening to full walkthroughs instead and asking yourself if it sounds real. There are countless instances of a product with absurdly good demos that mask a lot of glaring shortcomings.
sostenuto
AKA _ doubtingtom37
Hey Geoff ... your steady replies are helpful and generous.
There is a dominating personal factor which clearly makes things tough for anyone trying to help me; and tougher for me.
In spite of being trained pianist from early age, I am very 'left-brain' driven. I appreciate a very wide range of artists and genres.
I'm a strong sight-reader; but dismal at composing and improvising. The result for this discussion, is that 'more experienced voices' who attack very specific omissions or flaws in libraries like SStS, are much more impactful for me, than for the majority of 'creative' talents here.
I'm left with such a strong concern that these notable flaws may remain unresolved.
Demos, so far, seem to lack full exploration of SStS, but that will surely improve very soon.
Regards
sostenuto
AKA _ doubtingtom37
I take this less as disagreement, but as sharper focus on additional concerns.
Going back over several 'early-adopter' compositions, I hear some creative work, but not much attention to shortcomings noted repeatedly in posted critiques.
You can sort these far better than I, yet your comment here resonates with me.
Geoff Grace
Senior Member
Thanks for sharing that, sostenuto. It makes a lot of sense. I was more right-brain driven at an early age—hence my decision to become a musician—but I was raised by college professors, so my left-brain received plenty of nurturing as well. If you consider the plasticity of the brain, I suggest that you can develop the other hemisphere; but it may be a struggle to learn to focus on it and trust it when the other side is so developed.
Best,
Geoff
Geoff Grace
Senior Member
You're absolutely right, Zhao Shen. Product walkthroughs are the next best thing to hands on experience with a product. My omission of the importance of walkthroughs in my post was unintentional. The bottom line I had intended was to let your ears be your guide.
That said, I like to get a handle on both the strengths and weaknesses of a product before I buy. Audio files from early adopters that demonstrate problems cover one end of the spectrum, while manufacturer demos presumably cover the other; so I like both. I want to know what the problems are and whether they can be worked around or covered up.
Best,
Geoff
re-peat
Senior Member
Can I just say one more time — I explained it already once before — that my reason for posting that earlier example (longs being used for a non-long articulation) seems to be seriously misunderstood by a few people. My point was NOT to suggest that you’re forced to use the longs if you want to play something detaché-like — and my idea was most certainly not to criticize the awful-sounding articulation which you get that way; that would be deeply stupid and highly unfair on my part —, my point was simply that (1) there can be a very inconvenient amount of inconsistency among the samples within one and the same articulation, and (2), that there is simply nothing available in Studio Strings to play any type of medium-length bowing that has a pointed attack (like detaché or martellé or whatever). If you have to make do with what *is* available in the library, forget about trying to play/simulate/evoke any of these types of bowing, unless you want to get *very* bad results (as that audio clip illustrated). That was all — no more, no less — what that example was about.
- - -
That’s a very weak argument, if I may say so, as no sampled articulation, transition or inflexion is ever going to be wholly “representative of how it’s played in an orchestra”, and furthermore: tempo & meter have just as much — I would even say: much more — bearing on the way the long articulations are played (and connected) than on how the short or medium-length articulations are played. (The speed with which the longs in the Studio Strings are bowed, for example, cleary suggests a slow to medium tempo.) It is obviously true that a staccato bowing in a slow piece is something quite different from the same type of bowing in a fast piece, but the exact same thing applies at least as much to the sustains and to just about every other articulation.
- - -
And about the Time Machine: yes, that increases the versatily of the included short articulation a bit. But only marginally and if done very carefully. You certainly can not turn a spiccato into a staccato via time-stretching, and the brushed shorts remain brushed shorts even if showing severe stretch marks.
Here's https://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/SStS_Vlns1_Timestretched.mp3 (a short example) with the ‘Vlns 1 (16) Time-Machine’ patch. (Phrase repeated 3 times: first neutral, then with time-compression and finally with time-stretching. This example shows the extremes of what is possible with the Time Machine, and those extremes don’t sound very good, I know. But please don’t take this again to be an implied criticism or anything, it’s nothing of the sort. This is merely an illustration of how far you can go with the Time Machine. Like I said, for decent results with this technique, and they certainly are within reach, it should be used very subtly.)
_
- - -
That’s a very weak argument, if I may say so, as no sampled articulation, transition or inflexion is ever going to be wholly “representative of how it’s played in an orchestra”, and furthermore: tempo & meter have just as much — I would even say: much more — bearing on the way the long articulations are played (and connected) than on how the short or medium-length articulations are played. (The speed with which the longs in the Studio Strings are bowed, for example, cleary suggests a slow to medium tempo.) It is obviously true that a staccato bowing in a slow piece is something quite different from the same type of bowing in a fast piece, but the exact same thing applies at least as much to the sustains and to just about every other articulation.
- - -
And about the Time Machine: yes, that increases the versatily of the included short articulation a bit. But only marginally and if done very carefully. You certainly can not turn a spiccato into a staccato via time-stretching, and the brushed shorts remain brushed shorts even if showing severe stretch marks.
Here's https://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Examples/SFStudioStrings/SStS_Vlns1_Timestretched.mp3 (a short example) with the ‘Vlns 1 (16) Time-Machine’ patch. (Phrase repeated 3 times: first neutral, then with time-compression and finally with time-stretching. This example shows the extremes of what is possible with the Time Machine, and those extremes don’t sound very good, I know. But please don’t take this again to be an implied criticism or anything, it’s nothing of the sort. This is merely an illustration of how far you can go with the Time Machine. Like I said, for decent results with this technique, and they certainly are within reach, it should be used very subtly.)
_
Last edited:
Michael Stibor
Senior Member
Sounds like an oversimplification of the discussion that's being had here Jim.
Babe
Active Member
We know that the right side of the brain dominates in people who are left handed, and vice versa for right handed folks. That means lefties are the only ones in their right mind.
I'm probably grabbing this tomorrow, and straight away, I'm going to input a few bars I've written that will hopefully decently explore some of the elements that people are concerned about: flexibility of shorts and longs, legato agility, etc.
It'll be in the context of some other elements from the BH Toolkit, as a further experiment with how well the two will play together, but I'll upload the strings on their own too.
I'll try to have this done soon, in case it may help anyone with their decisions before the promo price expires.
It'll be in the context of some other elements from the BH Toolkit, as a further experiment with how well the two will play together, but I'll upload the strings on their own too.
I'll try to have this done soon, in case it may help anyone with their decisions before the promo price expires.
OP
OP
Spitfire Team
Senior Member
kinginknyc
New Member
I've purchased the Pro version and I'm just getting a chance to get into the library and I'm immediately struck by the fact that the full sections have fewer articulations than the smaller sections. WHY DO THAT ??????? There are more than 30 articulations for the 8 player Vln 1 section and there are 6 for the 16 player section. What exactly is the logic behind this? I'd love to hear it because it makes zero sense to me.
Last edited:
Yeh that surprised me and made it an instant no buy for me.
Ned Bouhalassa
Senior Member
Budget? Just guessing.
Vik
Vi-k
If the 16 piece V1 section is created by summing the three other sections (8/4/4), the 16 piece section can only have as many articulations as the divisi (4 piece) sections, but the surprising this is that the divisi sections have 7 articulations:
INDIVIDUAL ARTICULATIONS
VIOLINS 1 (16)
- Violins 1 (16) - Legato (Slurred)
- Violins 1 (16) - Long CS
- Violins 1 (16) - Long Flautando
- Violins 1 (16) - Short Pizzicato
- Violins 1 (16) - Short Spiccato
- Violins 1 (16) - Tremolo
So, based on that list, it seems the the regular longs are missing from the 16 piece section. That's probably just due to how it is presented on their page, because the V1s are also listed here:
ALL-IN-ONE PATCHES
- Violins 1 (16)
....and here:
LEGATO TECHNIQUES
- Violins 1 (16) - Legato performance
(...and here:
OTHER PATCHES
- Violins 1 (16) - Economic Longs
- Violins 1 (16) - Economic Shorts
- Violins 1 (16) - Light resources
- Violins 1 (16) - Time Machine)
gussunkri
Senior Member
I don’t own the library, but a quick look at the list of articulations already suggest an answer. The biggest section is made by mixing the middle size section with the two small divisi sections. The small sections have fewer articulations and thus the biggest section is necessarily limited to those articulations.
EDIT: Vik beat me to it, and formulated it more clearly.
gussunkri
Senior Member
Fantastic work, Henson!
paulwr
Member
When I purchased this, it was meant to be an extension of my LASS library. But things like no legato portamento in the divisi... killing me. Still I've already used this library on a job with rave reviews from the producer, but I dearly hope we get the portamento slides on the divisi. Often doing string arrangements I need to go smaller sections. With LASS I get slides on all sections. I'm a bit taken aback. Still happy I purchased.
