Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Mockup of The Starkiller by JW - CSS (Now with Spitfire Appassionata)

Nando Florestan said:
Hello there, great mockups, you're becoming my hero. You must have overlooked this, you can configure the dynamic range in MSS to whatever you want. I set the dynamic range to 39 dB and that actually delivers 36 dB.

I really like the sound of the MSS mockup (as the others) but I think this time you used portamento too much. The original recording doesn't have any portamento that we become conscious of. It's calling too much attention to itself.
Click to expand...
ha, I'm no hero, I just like string libraries a little much maybe... seems like we are similar in that way :)
The library is so deep, I know these things are possible like the dynamic range tweaks, just kind of taking one step at a time configuring it to my liking. Thanks for that tip on the setting. Totally agree on the transition/ portamento thing... I've had a little more time with MSS now and plan to revisit this as I get more comfortable with it. Thanks for your feedback! Looking forward to checking out your comparisons.
 
happy friday

This cue has become a nice way for me to give new string libraries a solid legato spin around the block. Now with Spitfire's new Appassionata Strings:


View attachment The Starkiller - SF Appassionata - JCrane Mockup.mp3


While I enjoyed not dealing with as much delay as CSS has, other things were more difficult to manage I thought, like re-bows of the same note, and interestingly dynamics were not as simple to wrangle. The ported over CSS dynamics were useless, made the performance feel totally flat and so I re-performed all the dynamics as well as retimed every note pretty much. I'm still doing a lot of mixing, the library is too dark for my taste out of the box and so I'm using various things to liven the sound. I'm using Mix4 here with a little tree mic peppered in. I feel like I have a lot more to learn with this library ... ie I actually didn't find a ton of use for the hairpins, just a few spots where they make an appearance. I think the mockup could benefit from some solo instrument layering which I haven't done here.

This ensemble is too small for this piece but I'm glad I gave it a go and I look forward to using this library with my SSO and SCS projects. And I think I do prefer it over the other non-CSS versions I've done, although I also gave this a little more attention. I think in terms of programming expressive romantic strings I still prefer CSS... there is just more texture in the performance at low dynamics, a little more explosive emotion at the top, and I prefer the legato sound ever so slightly.... but I know this new collection from Spitfire will get some use. Interested in what you think!
 
Great stuff Judson! As always.

I would be super interested to hear your mockup exported with just outriggers? or maybe outriggers+Stereo Room, if you could be so kind!... Most of the mixes have a ton of close signal mixed in it seems like, not sure that's right for big JW/cinematic pieces. Indeed your CSS demo was wider in the stereo field than the Appassionata one!

I downloaded all 4 demos and blind tested them. Appassionata is a close 2nd behind CSS for this mockup... I felt the least good was the Berlin. Really restrained or flattened expression, yet paradoxically the library also has these super exaggerated portamentos - and if they don't fit in this piece where on earth would you use them, eh? Modern Scoring Strings also seemed less consistent and balanced than Apassionata. Your 4 demos as a group, I reckon, show that 30-40 player ensembles like CSS and Appassionata are maybe best at capturing samples which can be expressively programmed. The larger ensembles kind feel flat and generic by comparison. They are more authentic to the original recording in that 1 respect of ensemble size but the musicality of CSS and Appassionata is superior.

Definitely felt CSS was better at doing phrasing down at the very bottom of the dynamics. Perhaps that's because CSS has "built in CC11" insofar as it has a fade to niente between 20(-ish?) and 0. So Appassionata might need a 2-controller approach to work at those dynamics.

Biggest disappointment with Appassionata (keeping in mind that I love the library) is that the cellos don't go quite so intense as CSS which you can clearly hear at 1:07 in both mockups. On the other hand the CSS vibrato, especially on those cellos, is intense and wide throughout its dynamic range which is sometimes excessive depending on the musical material.
 
NoamL said:
Great stuff Judson! As always.

I would be super interested to hear your mockup exported with just outriggers, or maybe outriggers+Stereo Room, if you could be so kind!... Most of the mixes have a ton of close signal mixed in it seems like, not sure that's right for big JW/cinematic pieces. Indeed your CSS demo was wider in the stereo field than the Appassionata one!

I downloaded all 4 demos and blind tested them. Appassionata is a close 2nd behind CSS for this mockup... I felt the least good was the Berlin. Really restrained or flattened expression, yet paradoxically the library also has these super exaggerated portamentos - and if they don't fit in this piece where on earth would you use them, eh? Modern Scoring Strings also seemed less consistent and balanced than Apassionata. Your 4 demos as a group, I reckon, show that 30-40 player ensembles like CSS and Appassionata are maybe best at capturing samples which can be expressively programmed. The larger ensembles kind feel flat and generic by comparison.

Definitely felt CSS was better at doing phrasing down at the very bottom of the dynamics. Perhaps that's because CSS has built in expression insofar as it has a fade to niente between 20(-ish?) and 0. So Appassionata might need a 2-controller approach to work at those dynamics.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I'll experiment with the mics and post for sure. I started with mix 1, but it felt just a little flubby and non-detailed, so moved to this as a second approach without doing any more testing really. lots of options with this library in this regard for sure. Interestingly I even widened the stereo field in the Appassionata version - panning vln1 a little further left and cello further right, and also used the width control in the interface. the CSS version benefits from a little wide solo violin but its subtle and I think overall CSS is just a wider experience. Which is kind of crazy if you've ever recorded at Air... I mean there is so much room to really push that shit out to the stratosphere... hopefully some additional diving into mics can help me find that. But I am always having to work to get my libraries to get at all any where near to the kind of width you feel in a real scoring session in a great room.

I am using tons of cc11 along with the cc1 for dynamics here, although I'm not matching them exactly. I think its all about the musicality that is built into those CSS sample performances. its just there and you can't fake it. But these two libraries are not too far off as you've commented.

I think one reason the MSS mockup doesn't live up because its such a deep library and I don't have control of it yet. I did try and revisit that one removing most of the more exaggerated portamento, but still was feeling I had to drive that bad boy a little longer before this race :-D

Thank you for taking the time to compare!
 
It’s great to not hear the CSS baked-in vibrato in the high notes here, but OTOH I miss the “extra” emotional value CSS brings compared to SAS.

Edit: At 0:46 / 0:47 for example
 
Last edited:
Henrik B. Jensen said:
It’s great to not hear the CSS baked-in vibrato in the high notes here, but OTOH I miss the “extra” emotional value CSS brings compared to SAS.

Edit: At 0:46 / 0:47 for example
Click to expand...
Spot on! it should be noted that this baked in stuff in CSS can get in the way sometimes, while in other instances it can be just the right thing. It is nice having this more controlled spitfire sound. The vibrato in SCS and SSS is similarly often way too much as well so I like what they've done here.
 
Ok, an improvement I think. @NoamL 's mic suggestions really opened this up I feel, plus a little help from some soloists, a little more reverb and other misc mix adjustments. starting to get closer to what the CSS version accomplishes perhaps on some level. This is using the Outriggers plus some stereo room.

View attachment The Starkiller - SF Appassionata V2 - JCrane Mockup.mp3

PS this is my first outing with Studio One as well... good stuff, getting the hang of it!
 
And after AB'ing some more I think I'm preferring this new version now. The CSS version may feel a little "sweeter", but this is starting to feel more modern cinematic and more similar to what I'm familiar with in terms of film scoring sessions. The new version is louder which is maybe not totally fair, but I'm trying to mix to the sound and that seemed to be working well here. thx for the feedback on the mics @NoamL !
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTS
studioj said:
Ok, an improvement I think. @NoamL 's mic suggestions really opened this up I feel, plus a little help from some soloists, a little more reverb and other misc mix adjustments. starting to get closer to what the CSS version accomplishes perhaps on some level. This is using the Outriggers plus some stereo room.

View attachment The Starkiller - SF Appassionata V2 - JCrane Mockup.mp3

PS this is my first outing with Studio One as well... good stuff, getting the hang of it!
Click to expand...
The high velocity, high range notes sound like something from LOTR the first 25 seconds (tone) 🙂 At 0:46 - 0:49 it becomes too shrill for me, it‘s like the high strings “stand still”, like a snapshot, for a few seconds. Edit: Same with 1:13 - 1:17.
 
That sounds really good now! And yeah the dynamic range is huge on this library, this particular piece might not need the loudest layer. There's a lot of motion and expression possible even without it.
 
Thanks for continuing to do these mockups! Yours is definitely the best mockup I've heard from SAS, including the official demos.

I still like the CSS mockup better, but SAS is a close second, whereas I didn't love the Berlin or MSS mockups (not your fault, they're certainly not bad, just not my cup of tea).

I may have to pick up SAS now...
 
I tend to like things a little zingier and extreme but yes those places are intense. Here is an attempt to curb those spots a bit. Basically to get the lower dynamics to buzz where I want them, its just too much for the top so it takes some additional moves outside of dynamic curves. and yes there is maybe an approach where I don't need to reach for the top on those explosive moments! thanks all

View attachment The Starkiller - SF Appassionata V3 - JCrane Mockup .mp3
 
studioj said:
I tend to like things a little zingier and extreme but yes those places are intense. Here is an attempt to curb those spots a bit. Basically to get the lower dynamics to buzz where I want them, its just too much for the top so it takes some additional moves outside of dynamic curves. and yes there is maybe an approach where I don't need to reach for the top on those explosive moments! thanks all

View attachment The Starkiller - SF Appassionata V3 - JCrane Mockup .mp3
Click to expand...
I think this takes away a lot of the great LOTR tone of the first 25 secs of the first version. Edit: The high velocity high notes in first 25 secs sound a bit constrained here compared to in the first version.
 
Henrik B. Jensen said:
The first version up until 0:45 really sounds magical, listening to it again now. Holy cow :)
Click to expand...
:) I just took a quick listen to some of that, you're right the tone is really similar!! You're talking about V1 of SAS? or V2 of SAS (with the new mic selection)?. I think that is when you first commented on the similarity to LOTR. it is a tricky balance with such a large dynamic range. I messed with soothe2 on this last pass and curbed some tape saturation I was using, all probably having negative affects on the first half. thanks for your feedback!
 
studioj said:
:) I just took a quick listen to some of that, you're right the tone is really similar!! You're talking about V1 of SAS? or V2 of SAS (with the new mic selection)?. I think that is when you first commented on the similarity to LOTR. it is a tricky balance with such a large dynamic range. I messed with soothe2 on this last pass and curbed some tape saturation I was using, all probably having negative affects on the first half. thanks for your feedback!
Click to expand...
Version 1 🙂 It does, doesn’t it! During Version 2 I was reminded of the music for X-Files, think it’s Mike something, the name of the composer.
 
liquidlino said:
SAS sounds good, especially the second reworked version. But then I listened to the CSS again, and, for me, CSS sounds magical and better for this piece. Berlin is ok, but the portamentos aren't right phrasing for the piece. MSS has lovely yearning quality to it, but again, flick back to CSS and it just suits the piece best of all. But all the libraries sound great really, none are objectively bad, it's like the final 2 percent differences is all. Great to hear them all demoed with such care and attention.
Click to expand...
Its true huh. Chasing the unchaseable here perhaps :) listening to the CSS version, as I think someone else commented here, you get a little more lost in the music and are less tuned into the details of the mockup. I guess that's the goal, idn'it.
 
Honestly just "roughly as good as CSS" is very high praise, if a library came out every week that was "roughly as good as CSS" but with a slightly different emotional tone I would be one happy camper!! CSS, CS2 and Appassionata are top tier imo, each usable for different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom