I'm not sure why you pick out the vibrato because CSS has just as much vibrato if my sonic profile from the top of my head is correct. There is no in between full vibrato and zero vibrato. And the zero vibrato doesn't have true legato. So there is no real superiority there, unless you simply prefer the vibrato in CSS, which is subjective of course. I like both equally I think.Allow me to disagree. CSS sounded and will always sound good as it simply sounds like...a real string section with real good sounding legato... so it's hard to be annoyed or bored from something that just sounds natural. yes the tone is dark but can be treated. Now with CM, good luck to avoid being repetitive with the wet environment+bow-change legato+hyped vibrato that you're stuck with in every single note. Not to say that it doesn't sound good by any means, in fact it sounds excellent, but overdoing the natural is in itself something unnatural.That's my personal humble opinion of course
I also don't get the legato thing... CSS has one type of normal legato that can be lengthened and shortened, I don't think those are separate recordings. And then portamento, which doesn't really defy repetitiveness for the most part since it's not an alternative to normal legato, unless the notes are very close by. So, not really much more legato variance...
I also like the wet environment. I don't understand why a natural sounding sample should not be wet since that will be the case with every *typical* real recording as well, which we all try to emulate. And even just on a personal level, I don't like strings close or dry. + Actually they can be dried up and front faced quite well with 2 different types of close mics, one even isolating the first few players giving a very defined divisi/1st chair feel.
And I personally find it very easy to be annoyed by the very same samples being used in every 2nd piece! In fact I'm already rolling my eyes each time I hear CSS in a piece and when I use it I always layer something else to change the sound a bit.