Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Cinematic Studio Strings vs Spitfire Chamber Strings

Cinematic Studio Strings is a "basic palette" of articulations. It will be able to do around 80-85% of standard string writing but it lacks those more esoteric articulations and colors. Spitfire Chamber Strings offers the standard palette plus those extra colors, assuming you would be going for the full range which I recommend as just owning Vol 1 and 2 feels incomplete, especially when you really want to reach for those other articulations.

I've had SF Chamber Strings (Sable) since the beginning so I have a lot of time spent learning it and I can honestly say that it is one of the best string libraries out there. I just started working with Cinematic Studio Strings and it is great. The sound is quite nice and offers that wide scoring sound but is does lack an expansive palette of articulations that I tend to reach for in my work. Cinematic Studio Strings also plays right out of the box and isn't difficult to write with. SF Chamber Strings on the other hand, does sound great but you do need to spend some time tweaking and programming your midi data to get your performances to sound right.

In the end, the price is great for CSS but SF Chamber Strings is a more complete strings library that goes beyond what most string libraries pack in today's market.

If I could only choose one of the two libraries to use the rest of my life, it would be SF Chamber Strings because of the amount of content it offers which in turn gives me more flexibility for what I can compose. I don't consider Cinematic Studio Strings to be inferior by any means though. For what it is and what it offers, it is quite an amazing library. I just love the Measured Trems articulation.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,

Chris
 
Well one point of comparison is where they fit into the section size lineup

16-16-12-10-8 ........ LA Scoring Strings (just four players shy of Wagner's specifications for The Ring)

16-14-12-10-8 ........ Mural

16-14-10-10-7 ........ Hollywood Strings

16-12-10-10-7 ........ CinestringsCORE

12-8-7-7-6 ........ Cinematic Strings 2

10-7-7-6-5 ........ Cinematic Studio Strings

8-6-5-5-4 ........ Berlin Strings

4-3-3-3-3 (fixed!!) ........ Sable (and the new Spitfire Chamber Strings)

The flagship libs are aiming at that huge romantic 55-60 player sound.

A bit lower down you're getting into a more traditional, classical orchestra (30-36). Sometimes even pared down further to get more detail.

Sable is, as far as I'm aware, alone in its tier. 4-3-3-0 is what someone might hire for a "sweetening session" (layering live players on top of samples). I don't know of any pieces in the repertoire that have that section size. I suppose Sable would be good for playing the Elgar Serenade or the Brandenburg Concertos or the Mendelssohn Octet.... if it had divisi....

speaking of divisi, LASS can be any section size you want :P
 
Last edited:
NoamL said:
4-3-3-3-0 ........ Sable (and the new Spitfire Chamber Strings)

Sable is, as far as I'm aware, alone in its tier. 4-3-3-0 is what someone might hire for a "sweetening session"
Click to expand...

This is not accurate as there are 3x Basses in this library and it isn't a "new Spitfire Chamber Strings" it is the same library. It's just re-branded and will be compatible with the Free Kontakt Player (with minor scripting updates and GUI functionality).

My point still stands, even compared to the list above. SF Chamber Strings is by far more complete in terms of articulation lists and features compared to the rest. Mural would be a close second with Berlin Strings. The rest are the standard articulations for Normal bowing types, not to mention the mediocre "scripted" Con Sordino effects. LASS does have an Con Sord expansion but again, basic articulations.

Since the OP hasn't really specified what they need aside from comparing the two, I am stating the obvious. However, if the OP just wants a basic string library, I would suggest Cinematic Studio Strings out of that list above because of how easy it is to use. It is a pro level product at an entry level price.

Best,

Chris
 
Thanks for the section size details -- would anyone know which sizes the Soaring Strings employ?
 
For my taste: not all libraries really represent the sound of their section sizes. Sable and CSS sound bigger as they are, Mural and LASS smaller. I think it depends on the recording room, miking, mixing, layering inside the sampler, the amount of vibrato, the (de-)tuning between instruments, timing, the instruments themselves and mostly the players and their emotional input (or output). That said it's just a personal opinion. Others may feel that completely different.
 
Well I'd say they sound nothing alike. I agree with Saxer that they both sound somewhat bigger than they actually are, but bottom line is, Sable at the bottom of it really is what the name says: chamber strings. CSS is closer to a classical string orchestra, prepped for "cinematic" sound-wise. I wouldn't even write the same type of music with those two libraries. So IMO it really comes down to what type of sound you actually need more and what kind of pieces you intend to write.
 
Contemplating getting both Cinematic Studio Strings AND Spitfire Chamber strings. I already have Albion ONE, but I really do want/need to write in sections, not ensembles at this point I think.

Was contemplating LASS or Berlin Strings, or Mural, but they are pretty pricey. One reason I am considering getting both is the extra articulations found in Spitfire Chamber Strings.

Would getting both kind of be redundant?
 
I don't think they sound anything alike. [edit: must apologise because I misread the post that had the example. I do like the second example but it's not, as someone pointed out, Spitfire, but Cinematic Studio Strings. My mistake.] Spitfire all day for me.
 
Last edited:
NoamL said:
Biggest difference in sound to my ears is the legato transitions.

Click to expand...

I have both (CSS and CS2) and seems like I am one of the few who finds the general sound of CS2 a tad better than CSS, especially for this piece by Samuel Barber.
The statement given above that both are meant to be totally different is a bit over the top. Actually they are not. I have variuos string libs (VSL Orchestral & Appassionata, Adagio,Sable, Soaring Strings, Light and Sound, CS2, CSS) and CSS is by far the one sounding the closest to CS2. Was also a reason for me to buy, because I still adore the sound of CS2. With little tweak you can make both sound identically.

CSS and SCS sound quite different, it is like apples and bananas. So which sound do you prefer.
I would not argue over the amount of articulations. The articulation list in CSS is more than reasonable. SCS will give you a lot of articulations you will most probably never use. Most people fell in love with the flautando of Sable and it is used everywhere. So in the end, you will pick those you like, flautando probably being one of it, and use this selected collection all the time.

That does not mean you should not go for SCS. But don't let the long articulation list be the reason for it.
This long articulation list remembers me of old VSL times with endless tweaking and patch choices. Multi-patches are more favoured today.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Berlin Strings is the right choice then. Lots of articualtions, good sounding out of the box and highly professional. Having all you need in one lib instead of two makes handling much easier. Because for the price of both SCS and CSS you can get BST. Think about it. ;)

I really mean it.

My only problem with this choice would be that I don't like the tone of BST.
 
tack said:
Well that's rather a defeating blow for the recommendation, wouldn't you say? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but maybe only for me. BST is highly acclaimed and many people around here love the tone. I regard myself as one of the few who is not convinced yet. But I bought the Nocturne Cello because I liked that sound and still do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom