Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Sample Talk Thread: OT Benjamin Wallfisch Strings

jbuhler said:
I think if this is what OT advertised—two legato types—there wouldn't be an issue. But they advertise the upbow and downbow legato as enhancing the realism, which only makes sense to me if you are hoping to capture more of what real section bowing sounds like. And from my experience with the viola divisi A (the only section I own), I can't say that it succeeds at replicating the dynamics of bowing appreciably better than other string libraries. That said, it is certainly nice to have two variants of legato, and I get two different performances from it. And often the connection of non-legato notes sounds very good as well. (I'm also more convinced than I thought I would be by the advantage of the non-looped sustains, especially in accompanying parts.) So maybe it is a marketing problem more than anything, where OT hasn't yet been able to articulate the advantages to the two forms of the legatos they offer.
Click to expand...
Agreed about the marketing, it looks like a special use library masquerading as a workhorse. I think that's true of a lot of special use libraries. Maybe I've been doing this too long to notice marketing though. I skip to walkthroughs and user dialog/examples
 
Casiquire said:
Yeah the cynicism here is unreal. We're calling the library a failure for not including yet another legato type, rather than seeing the second pass with a different color as an extra feature other libraries don't offer? We're complaining that shorts aren't recorded in divisi even though short notes aren't generally where note stacking is as obvious, rather than appreciating that we can write long, dense chords with better clarity? I even saw disappointment about the dynamic range even though that's another standout of this library, at least from the examples that are out there both officially and from the public.

I agree the legato sounds weaker than in even their older, recently updated products. I felt the same about Berlin Symphonic originally and didn't buy it until after that was fixed. That might be my strategy here too. But I'm interested for the dynamic range alone, and I can see those other features compelling me to reach for the library for a handful of needs
Click to expand...
jbuhler said:
I think if this is what OT advertised—two legato types—there wouldn't be an issue. But they advertise the upbow and downbow legato as enhancing the realism, which only makes sense to me if you are hoping to capture more of what real section bowing sounds like. And from my experience with the viola divisi A (the only section I own), I can't say that it succeeds at replicating the dynamics of bowing appreciably better than other string libraries. That said, it is certainly nice to have two variants of legato, and I get two different performances from it. And often the connection of non-legato notes sounds very good as well. (I'm also more convinced than I thought I would be by the advantage of the non-looped sustains, especially in accompanying parts.) So maybe it is a marketing problem more than anything, where OT hasn't yet been able to articulate the advantages to the two forms of the legatos they offer.
Click to expand...
Hi @Casiquire, as @jbuhler has rightly restated the sentiment that you write about. I think you misunderstand most of the criticism that you call unreal. Yes, the amount of dynamic layers is a plus, as are the unlooped sustains. Few if any have disputed that in principle. Most of us simply underlined, that OT did not market and price this as a library that "only" adds additional dynamic layering and more realistic long note accompaniement through those unlooped sustains. For that they could have gone the Sonixinema route and released dedicated one-trick-pony-instruments at an appropriate price point (regardless of what one thinks of their merit vis-a-vis similar products in the market). Instead, OT went ahead and marketed their library as the next (r)evolutionary step especially in terms of legato realism but also generally as a scoring work horse due to the dynamics and unlooped sustains and divisi sections. Which themselves are not unique but would have added up to justify the price point indeed, if they had matching articulations. That criticism is to be seen in the context of what is available on the market even at lower price points.

So what most of us point out is that regardless of what aspects BWS gets right, compared to the advertisement it is a factually limited and in some respects conceptually flawed standard articulation set. It adds unlooped sustains with 1-2 more dynamic layers than most of the competition. Plus it adds limited divisi and limited legato with a couple of nice mix options to your pallet. That discrepancy in marketing vs. actual content is what causes most people to speak of faulure, not the actual added value the library does contain. Of course you can still write great music with the parts of the library, that OT got right, as advertised.

On a different note, regarding the dynamics I can only speculate: In my experience, paradoxically, more dynamic layers can sound more flat than fewer dynamic layers that have baked-in dynamic/vibrato-arcs in the sustains. Simply a matter of not being used to write with the less expressive sample set and a lack of practice employing the added dynamic layers instead. Therefore using the modweel or drawing waveforms the way one is used to with other libraries, can feel like oversteering. Giving the impression that there are fewer layers when in fact there are more. Something I believe VSL Synchron Strings 1 user reviews also were affected by.

Still, it is great that people are as engaged as to upload examples for us. After all, many of us are simply trying to decide whether to spend their hard earned money on one library or another. In that light I want to respond to your quesion:

You ask why people don't just focus on whether they get yet another legato regardless whether it does what it is advertised to do or not. Well, if I don't get a return policy or demo, then I want to make sure that what I buy is what it sais on the packaging. Especially at that price point. It is your right to feel the price is justified by the unlooped sustains alone, indeed. Nonetheless it is also everyone elses right to think that selling a full fledged revolution in orchestral string sampling and delivering only partially on the USPs, let alone on the work horse premise, is inapropriate, at least.

One might also ask why we are sold a superficially full orchestral library that is not that full at a closer look, when a series of stand alone expansions for the already fully fledged Berlin strings series was possible. That might have added novelty and staying power to Berlin strings by adding the perks of BWS without the need to sell it as a full library by use of a marketing smoke-screen.
 
Last edited:
I remember seeing some discussion about possible rebows within each sustained note and as I just stumbled upon this in Claire's walkthrough, I'll link to it below if anyone's interested.

"...but there's no loop point so you actually get authentic bow changes within a sustained note, like a string section would play, because they can't just go on forever."

 
The spiccatos are cut too tight for -50ms, IMO. I find -20 for spiccs, -35 for staccato and -50 for marcato sounds right.

I generally don’t use track delays for sustains but can’t see why they would need such a long delay without the legato transition. -50 would probably do u there.
 
prodigalson said:
The spiccatos are cut too tight for -50ms, IMO. I find -20 for spiccs, -35 for staccato and -50 for marcato sounds right.

I generally don’t use track delays for sustains but can’t see why they would need such a long delay without the legato transition. -50 would probably do u there.
Click to expand...
Thanks! will try those settings out as well:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom