Discussion in 'COMMERCIAL Announcements' started by Alex W, Jun 26, 2016.
Sorry-yeah I think it was in an earlier thread here on Vi-C. Great Library, you won't regret it!
I know everyone praises CSS, is there anything other libraries do better? Not in terms of sound, but playability? Barring the delay issue of course. Lack of articulations I’d imagine being one.
There's no delay "issue". It's a deliberate design, with the idea to provide a more realistic legato behavior. There's also a "classic" legato version that has considerably less lag in favor of a more immediate play feel.
I mean "better" is a broad term. CSS is just great at what it's aimed to be: a no-frills, workhorse, versatile, go-to, absolutely charming sounding strings library that's easy to use and produces good results quickly. Obviously it doesn't come with a bunch of esoteric and weird articulations (CS ponticello played with the teeth and all that jazz), so it's not gonna be the right choice if you place huge value in that sort of thing.
I can't really think of any clear drawbacks, honestly. It might be somewhat limited if you're looking for extremely soft dynamics. It also doesn't have the "I'm stacking 12 string libraries on top of each other" or "we definitely need 36 celli here" trailer and superhero sound. Some people might find the vibrato a bit on the schmalzy side at times. Some people felt it sounded a bit too dark (can be very easily "hyped" with a few dB of a nice, broad colored EQ).
Didn’t mean the delay as an issue that needed fixing, but as something that most find annoying, but necessary for realism.
Thank you for the reply. Sounds like it would be a great addition
Right now I use CS2 + CSS about the same amount. I used to be entirely CSS based but CS2 does a few things better. I like the tremolos, pizz, and staccatissimo more in CS2, granted that CSS has more control over different kinds of short notes. CS2 also has a more open, lush sound while CSS is darker. CS2 has a more neutral playing style while CSS has a bit heavier vibrato and the players are "pushing" the emotion of each note. Of course, where CSS excels over CS2 and most ever other library, is putting multiple lengths of legato transitions into a single phrase and having it feel wonderful and natural. The harmonics in CSS are also some of my favorites in any library. I probably way over-write harmonics just because the ones in CSS are so tasty.
Initially I was really surprised to see JunkieXL uses CS2 (actually CS1.5 or something like that). I thought "Heck, he's a working composer and maybe he's just sticking to an old workhorse library he knows well." But no, CS2 is really a killer library.
Damn, now I have to check CS2 again. It’s also cheaper.
Do you mix them, or just stick to one or the other?
I use articulations from both depending on the cue but I put them both through the same instance of Valhalla Room to glue 'em, with more send on CSS.
Jake: listen to the sound differences, I find they are huge. There is no question of "which is better, but "which is closest to my sound ideal". CSS has a very distinct romantic "50ies" charm and CS2 is for the big cinema, broad and hollywood-like. I don´t use the delayed versions of CSS at all, I am perfectly fine with the "classic patches".
I remember someone posted this a while back.
The one true issue I have with this library is why I've stopped using it, at least for now: it is not friendly for templates that set Kontakt-patch-per-midi-channel. I know I can disable the unused patches, and use an Environment Macro to make sure CC1 only affects modulation and not as a shorts-selector...but that's still over a dozen patches in one multi, each with all of the complex scripting which is not disabled when the patches that use it are. [EDIT: the point of this being that I am loading my RAM needlessly when I can load in Hollywood Strings - Hollywood Strings!!! - in less] I like to balance the volumes of each patch against the others, myself, so I can't just use the macro and keyswitch.
After some more research, seems that CSS has more articulations as well and of course, better legato. I think CSS is probably the one I'm going with...sound wise, they'd both be great...but CS2 kind of sounds like some of the 8Dio libraries I already have.
I don't mind unloading the patches and just saving them as new stripped down patches.
Also, are you saying that the volume between articulations is inconsistent? If I use the one patch and key switch between them?
They are well balanced. Mostly it's what you need, but sometimes in hybrid arrangements you might need some non-real-world balance.
But I think it's easy to get RAM today. And there are less efficient and RAM eating libraries out there. CSS is very effective.
Is it me or do they sound kinda identical?
It is very very you
The shorts are too loud in relation to the longs, in relation to real strings. It’s still a pleasant sound, but it’s not the sound that I’m looking for right now.
Jesus...I really like the sound of the first one...Is THAT CS2? Sounds bigger. Damn...so do I go for sound, or go for the better legato? How do the shorts compare between them?
So generally speaking...is there anything that CS2 does better than CSS? Or is CSS the clear winner across the board...looking for advantages and disadvantages. Thanks
I find CS2 much easier to play live. But 8f you like programming then this isn't a big deal.
Separate names with a comma.