So, some thoughts -
Of course, this comparathon takes place "on Adventure Strings' turf" as the phrases were designed to show off AS's capabilities. In particular I wasn't expecting Trailer Strings to do very well, since if TS could do everything AS could do there would be no point to Musical Sampling offering both libraries
However, it's interesting to compare the sounds of these three options.
Both of Musical Sampling's libraries are drier than CSS's standard mix - and even CSS's close mics alone (not shown here) don't sound as
close to the instruments as the out of the box mix of the other two. AS and TS also sound quite bright and have shorter tails. These are definitely instruments you'll have to place into your mix, but that's not a bad thing!
Performance patches - these were AS's standout feature, I think. The sound is lively, energetic, aggressive and consistent. Any kind of "action melody" strings writing (e.g.
How To Train Your Dragon, Star Trek, Harry Potter) is gonna sound great with these patches. Because of the close micing, the clarity and specificity of the sound is unbeatable. TS has a broader, gentler attack but turns in musical results as well. Using CSS I struggled with the balance between the underlying marcato sustain and the spiccato overlay, particularly with the violas and basses.
Full patches - shorts: I thought the libraries were quite on equal footing here. Just depends what sound you like. I'm a fan of CSS's dark tone.
Full patches - pizzicato: They're both good and I prefer the pleasant, mellow tone of CSS, but AS has an astounding level of realism IMO. Capturing these samples as parts of performed phrases has really paid off.
Full patches - sustains: Adventure Strings sounds
perfectly balanced across the keyboard. You can really tell that Aaron put a lot of work into these timesaver patches, as he mentioned in the walkthrough. Trailer Strings is good too. CSS is the best of the bunch with a beautiful, romantic tone! It just oozes emotion! But notice how the range just below middle C, where viola/violin overlap, tends to pop out of the mix. I tend to avoid this patch with CSS (not least because you can't take advantage of the wonderful legato).
Full patches - marcatos: the other libraries can't keep up with AS here - TS's oneshot marcatos are shorter, and CSS's spiccato overlay trick doesn't work here (as a real marcato downbow has a more bitey, but broader, attack).
Section patches - shorts: TS is broader and less subtle than AS. But my favorite is CSS. Because CSS has
three short articulations (spiccato, staccatissimo and staccato) it's possible to really sculpt the phrases, and the three articulations sit side by side very nicely. I like starting with spiccato and moving to staccatissimo when a phrase gets louder/broader, as the players naturally stay on the string a little longer. You get the most nuanced performance from CSS, I think.
Section patches - sustains/legato: Not really a contest. AS sounds great. I really like the low dynamics on TS. But come on, CSS is
the library for this stuff. Notice the perfect legato transitions, and how you can hear all the inner parts of the arrangement so much more clearly. There's something about CSS where all the sections just glue together beautifully.
There's no question that AS is a peer of CSS (which makes it a damn good library!) and it offers composers an extremely dry, close and controllable tone with very idiomatic and realistic samples, not to mention timesaver full-string-orchestra patches that are balanced to a tee. On the other hand, CSS has gorgeous legato, a very attractive dark tone, and oozes emotion with every note. So - after doing this experiment - I am
veeeery keen on those AS performance patches, but I think I'm happy sticking with what I currently own