What's new

A New Chapter from Spitfire Audio...

It seems to me that Spitfire Audio is more focused on following trends and trying to set them. They don't focus on releasing libraries that can do classical music because, in the media world, nobody is really writing that music. The same goes for music like John Williams or Goldsmith. SSO can sort of do that but it still has a lot of limitations that the more "bread and butter" libraries can succeed in. That's why I still use SSO in my template and layer it with libraries like CSS and CineBrass. But, at the end of the day, when I'm not working on mockups for a more sweeping orchestral score that's mostly replaced by live players, I'm reaching for Spitfire's more experimental libraries like EVOs and Olafur libraries. They just do things you can't do with traditional orchestra libraries. They help you with the creative side and allow you to experiment. SStS seems like it's trying to fit in both worlds but sort of comes up short at the moment. Again, I can't give a final decision on my thoughts because I've literally only spent 2-3 hours with it and there is a lot of content there.
 
print to audio -> quantise audio. works pretty well...
Like I said, even such a simple task that you've outlined here takes time that I don't really have on a gig. There is not way I'm going to spend the time it takes to write a cue, do conforms and revisions, and then edit the audio to get a better lock to the grid when it's going to be recorded by players after the fact. That's a waste of time. The patience I was referring to was that of building a patch out of the re-edited samples. Why do all of that when CSS has exactly what I need? Again, just a waste of time for me and the work I use these libraries on. To each their own though.

-C
 
I have to admit, I'm a little bit drunk to fully bother myself and read all 16 pages... So, are most of these comments from people that have actually bought SStS and have experience with it or by people that just like typing stuff on the internet?
It's mainly people who haven't bought it who either like the product, don't like it, want more demos/walkthroughs - or a mix of these. :)
 
******* That's why I still use SSO in my template and layer it with libraries like CSS and CineBrass. But, at the end of the day, when I'm not working on mockups for a more sweeping orchestral score that's mostly replaced by live players, I'm reaching for Spitfire's more experimental libraries like EVOs and Olafur libraries. ******.

Very timely and helpful post ! > It led me back to SF site and was totally unaware of Olafur promotional deals ! :inlove:
Will be adding OA Chamber Evos now.

SSO is top of bucket list, but will await SF_Wishlist or BlkFri to purchase.
Your CSS and CineBrass layering comment reinforces other priority titles.

Many THX!
 
Are they really "people" though? haha

Jono my old china, one of the key attributes of any musician is to be able to operate at a high level whilst having imbibed unfeasible amounts of alcoholic beverages.

This is an important skill, and I commend you on your dedication to practicing hard in this area. Keep at it !
 
Jono my old china, one of the key attributes of any musician is to be able to operate at a high level whilst having imbibed unfeasible amounts of alcoholic beverages.

This is an important skill, and I commend you on your dedication to practicing hard in this area. Keep at it !

I implore you to put some lipstick on, and enjoy the professionalism.

5A553B25-9AD1-40DA-A125-8852EEA4BB3E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
That's cool. I wish I had the time and patience for such a task. For me, it's just easy enough to say, "Well, this library can't do what I need it to do, but this one does." I'm trying to figure out what SStS can do differently that my other libraries can't do. Aside from some of the FX patches, there doesn't seem to be a 'worth the price' patch that I've found yet. There is a lot to explore and it will take time though.

-C
Yeah, it took me one day, and after that I used it many times in other projects. At this time, libraries weren't that cheap as today, and; I have learned a lot of things when it comes to produce a sample library.
About short notes:
It is more a conductor thing. For fast notes you have to conduct in a fast tempo. The result is that the players automatically play shorter notes .... . But yeah, I think you know this anyway.
 
somehow I missed 10 pages of this including someone calling Spitfire "just mentally lazy" for not including multiple lengths of shorts and legato transitions. I don't think it's lazy at all. They were working on this for three years. I think it's a question of tradeoffs. Every articulation, every mic, every round robin adds to the final mass of the library, and its price. They had to decide what to put in and leave out.

Anyone out there who expects ANY developer, EVEN Spitfire, to make the "be all & end all of strings" with both a super-deep sampled set of workhorse articulations, plus all the artsy extended techniques, is going to be disappointed. That's an absolutely titanic, company-sized risk. Modular is the future, and it's not like these libraries are hard to blend & balance, especially the drier ones. Just use your ears.

Where this all falls down of course, is that every developer (SF being neither the exception nor exceptional) insists on BRANDING their product as the "be all & end all of strings" instead of saying "Hey this is a cool modular library, but maybe look at our very own [insert other product] if you want multiple shorts and legato styles."
 
somehow I missed 10 pages of this including someone calling Spitfire "just mentally lazy" for not including multiple lengths of shorts and legato transitions. I don't think it's lazy at all. They were working on this for three years. I think it's a question of tradeoffs. Every articulation, every mic, every round robin adds to the final mass of the library, and its price. They had to decide what to put in and leave out.

Anyone out there who expects ANY developer, EVEN Spitfire, to make the "be all & end all of strings" is going to be disappointed. That's an absolutely titanic, company-sized risk. Modular is the future, and it's not like these libraries are hard to blend & balance, especially the drier ones. Just use your ears.

Where this all falls down of course, is that every developer (SF being neither the exception nor exceptional) insists on BRANDING their product as the "be all & end all of strings" instead of saying "Hey this is a cool modular library, but maybe look at our very own [insert other product] if you want multiple shorts and legato styles."
being curious if they plan to sell the "staccato" patches in a modular way...
 
What I mean is that this is would sit in your template side by side with some other library you find more suited to workhorse articulations for chamber strings, such as Spitfire's own SCS, Hyperion, LASS with the smallest section sizes, Light&Sound, CSS, Dimension Strings, etc.
 
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.
I believe this may be an example of what @NoamL is talking about.

Best,

Geoff
 
Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann, find it hard to believe they re-recorded the Strings using the same Room, Producer, Mic Setup etc. The setup in BHT is the same as this ie C1 C2 T1 T2 O.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Actually, there is something wrong with that.

Releasing a new product based, to a large degree, on samples from an old product, without telling your customers? There is something very wrong with that, IMO
 
I’m not sure I ever thought about a drier, studio version of Sable/SCS but I guess that makes sense. SCS sounds great but to me it’s the room (Air) that makes it. Tbh, I’m really all about more evo’s but was also kind of hoping they would tackle a project of connected notes (loures, spiccatos) using something like REX files and/or time machine.
 
Actually, there is something wrong with that.

Releasing a new product based, to a large degree, on samples from an old product, without telling your customers? There is something very wrong with that, IMO

Well firstly I cannot say 100% they did this and it would be wrong to accuse them of that. But logic would tell me it would be stupid to not re-purpose recordings and I doubt its the only time a developer has done this.

I don't see a problem with it because the BHT strings are premixed into ensembles so I think it is perfectly reasonable (if they have done this) to sell the same recordings in different products as they have been mixed differently.

I think Spitfire and any other developer that reacts badly to negative reviews should take a step back, take a breath then realise its a unique opportunity to gain customer insight.

If they truly passionately care about the quality of their libraries, they should be able to (once the emotions have calmed) take a step back and see that many of the criticisms come from loyal customers (in some instances) who rate previous work highly.

The vast increase in releases has definitely impacted on perceived quality for two reasons.

1. Firstly endless revamps of basically the same concepts eg Alternative Solo Strings/LCO begin to create an expectation the new title offers something better and more innovative than the last.

2. Secondly the mad schedule undoubtedly has an impact on quality control and design choices.

The sample library industry has devloped so far in a few years, but our expectations have grown as the choices are now so vast, but yet in many instances new libraries only offer minor advances (if any) and it often feels like commerce over art.

But if you have over 30 staff, you need to pay their wages, the rent, the investors. Thats the curse of growing a business based on artistic endeavour. I have seen it happen time and again my industry (graphic design).

You start off with a core of creative people, then as it grows you add account managers, sales teams, financial officers etc and it becomes a beast that has to generate income just to exist and starts to lose the essence of what made it great.
 
Obviously I am guessing, but I reckon these might be the same samples used in Herrmann, find it hard to believe they re-recorded the Strings using the same Room, Producer, Mic Setup etc. The setup in BHT is the same as this ie C1 C2 T1 T2 O.

Recording multiple string ensembles using the same mic setup/room etc isn't necessarily a bad idea (different players, different concept, different section sizes, different signal chain etc). But if that's what they have done, and I was a Bernard Herrmann Toolkit owner planning to buy SStS, I'd like to know that I'm actually about to buy the same recordings again.

I don't think SF are reselling the BH strings with SStS. But if you are concerned, why not ask them?
 
Top Bottom