babylonwaves
Darth Fader
print to audio -> quantise audio. works pretty well...That's cool. I wish I had the time and patience for such a task.
print to audio -> quantise audio. works pretty well...That's cool. I wish I had the time and patience for such a task.
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.print to audio -> quantise audio. works pretty well...
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.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?
******* 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. ******.
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.
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 !
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.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
Sounds like and STD ... I wouldn't go near it ...What is SStS?
being curious if they plan to sell the "staccato" patches in a modular way...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."
I believe this may be an example of what @NoamL is talking about.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.
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
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.