What's new

Samplemodeling Solo & Ensemble Strings Released

Actually I assign CC1 to my modwheel to control dynamics. So I actually don't have any physical knobs to control the vibrato parameters and I just set them by mouse. Yet I still get this issue randomly

I strongly suggest to control dynamics with CC11, even if driven by the modwheel. I also suggest to control vibrato intensity by CC1, even if remapped to any other CC. Under these circumstances vibrato delay properly works. You say that in your case vibrato intensity is controlled by mouse. I can thus assume that it is still linked to CC1. This may introduce conflicts, since CC1 controls both dynamics and vibrato intensity. Please try to remap vibrato intensity (drop down menu CC remapping 1) to some non used CC, for example CC50. This should allow driving CC50 by the mouse and solve the problem. Otherwise, please PM me.
 
I can thus assume that it is still linked to CC1. This may introduce conflicts, since CC1 controls both dynamics and vibrato intensity. Please try to remap vibrato intensity (drop down menu CC remapping 1) to some non used CC, for example CC50. This should allow driving CC50 by the mouse and solve the problem. Otherwise, please PM me.
No it's not the case and I remap all vibrato controls to something that I don't use (CC0). Will PM you.
 
First Contact by Jerry Goldsmith, middle section mocked up by SM Strings. Still a lot to learn on this, and I still need to do a lot of work on the general mixing, but if anyone cared to hear how they strings may sound in a 'cinematic' context, this could be helpful. Simply fed them through Cubase's stock reverb.

 
First Contact by Jerry Goldsmith, middle section mocked up by SM Strings. Still a lot to learn on this, and I still need to do a lot of work on the general mixing, but if anyone cared to hear how they strings may sound in a 'cinematic' context, this could be helpful. Simply fed them through Cubase's stock reverb.



I was just about to ask if anybody had done anything with the library since it's been out for a while now, and here you are.

Really nice, I like it.

There's a few things that I would point out, but nothing major.

Everything sounds rather cohesive, but I would put the strings back just a little bit to make them sound like they are more in the section/room, and not on top of the orchestra. This is especially noticeable to me @1:24 where the strings take over the melody. I think either more reverb (especially early reflections), or EQ to take away some of the high end, would work fine. I would go for the EQ in situation since the strings already sound like they are in the same room as the other instruments, just a little too close. Adding more tail reverb could mess up the perception of them being in the same room.

The whole track is missing a bit of bottom, so it's not as full as it could be and a little bit too bright for my taste. This probably contributes to the strings sounding like their on top of the orchestra as well.

Same with the harp run at around 1:24, it sounds like it's not really apart of the orchestra. I would try and add some more early reflections to it maybe. Or, maybe I'm just not a fan of the harp used.

Keep in mind; all of these suggestions are, of course, just my personal preference so if you are happy with the way it sounds, then I'm happy.

Overall I really like it, good job. Hope you post more. And anyone else who's done anything with the library for that matter.
 
I was just about to ask if anybody had done anything with the library since it's been out for a while now, and here you are.

Really nice, I like it.

There's a few things that I would point out, but nothing major.

Everything sounds rather cohesive, but I would put the strings back just a little bit to make them sound like they are more in the section/room, and not on top of the orchestra. This is especially noticeable to me @1:24 where the strings take over the melody. I think either more reverb (especially early reflections), or EQ to take away some of the high end, would work fine. I would go for the EQ in situation since the strings already sound like they are in the same room as the other instruments, just a little too close. Adding more tail reverb could mess up the perception of them being in the same room.

The whole track is missing a bit of bottom, so it's not as full as it could be and a little bit too bright for my taste. This probably contributes to the strings sounding like their on top of the orchestra as well.

Same with the harp run at around 1:24, it sounds like it's not really apart of the orchestra. I would try and add some more early reflections to it maybe. Or, maybe I'm just not a fan of the harp used.

Keep in mind; all of these suggestions are, of course, just my personal preference so if you are happy with the way it sounds, then I'm happy.

Overall I really like it, good job. Hope you post more. And anyone else who's done anything with the library for that matter.

Thanks for the feedback man! And I heard very similar things from one or two other people regarding the bottom end being absent. I can tell you why. I did a huge cut, and I think its because I write in a small cupboard, which meant that without that drastic EQ, all I could hear was the bottom end. Shows the importance of having a good space to work in, doesn't it! I'll definitely go back and look at this specifically.

Regarding strings, thanks again. Good news is I can use Sample Modeling's own placement 'engine' to move the strings back a bit. Currently, my settings have the strings set to as close as possible, so it is good to know that I can give them room to breath!

The harp was an afterthought. I haven't quite figured out how to 'gel' it into the orchestra. Same with my piano. They're giving me major headaches.

If anyone's interested, I've got the full theme mocked up, but I haven't done much tweaking on the start and end sections. Will work on those this week and post the full track. Aaron Venture stuff seems to compliment SM Strings quite well.
 
Thanks for the feedback man! And I heard very similar things from one or two other people regarding the bottom end being absent. I can tell you why. I did a huge cut, and I think its because I write in a small cupboard, which meant that without that drastic EQ, all I could hear was the bottom end. Shows the importance of having a good space to work in, doesn't it! I'll definitely go back and look at this specifically.

Regarding strings, thanks again. Good news is I can use Sample Modeling's own placement 'engine' to move the strings back a bit. Currently, my settings have the strings set to as close as possible, so it is good to know that I can give them room to breath!

The harp was an afterthought. I haven't quite figured out how to 'gel' it into the orchestra. Same with my piano. They're giving me major headaches.

If anyone's interested, I've got the full theme mocked up, but I haven't done much tweaking on the start and end sections. Will work on those this week and post the full track. Aaron Venture stuff seems to compliment SM Strings quite well.

Yes, it does. Sadly, everyone cant afford a good treated space, so we have to make due with what we have. I recently move and now I'm in the worst room I've heard. I'm still waiting to get it somewhat treated, but I will have to be relying on headphones for the foreseeable future. As long as you know your space (even if it's bad) and you have something to reference (good headphones is a good idea) you should still get by nicely. It will just take some time to learn both a new room and a couple of headphones.

I have a close friend who has these amazing Genelec monitors in his studio and he often references his Dr. Dre cans (some of the worst headphones I know) because he knows what the low end is supposed to sound like on them since he's listened to them for a very long time. So even bad gear can be used as a references, and it very often is, even in high end studios, as long as you know the gear and room and you know what you're hearing.

The only way to get better is to stick with it. I looked through the other thread you mention and I agree with what's being said in it. From what I understood you didn't really use the original recording as a reference, just your memory of it. If you want to try and make your mockup sound as real as possible, listening to the original side by side with your mockup is very helpful. I listened to the original and my feedback still stands. Especially with the strings of the original. They are a lot darker and fuller. And the whole orchestra seem to be a tad bit wetter than yours.

Please do post the full mockup when your done with it.
 
Hello everybody ! I'm french so sorry for my bad english language. As the demos and walktrough i could have eared, i find sm strings very versatil, precise and a global beautiful sound. But i can also ear a certain 'static' sound some of you reffered to. I have a suggestion : does anybody could post a little demo with sm string with binaural panning to simulate decca tree and vst like nls by waves or a tape machine to add a certain randomization. Best regards from france
 
Version 1.1 is now out. Haven't tried it yet, but the changelog is impressive (copy/pasted from the email):

What's new in Samplemodeling Solo & Ensemble Strings Update v1.1?
  1. Bugfixes.
    The instruments utilize a series of CCs, namely CC12, CC13, CC17 for internal use. These midi controllers were previously unshielded, and could yield unwanted side effects on dynamics and pitch if transmitted from external midi devices such, for example CC13 used by the TEC breath controller. This has been fixed in this update.
  2. New Cello (Solo & Ensemble)
    The Cello(s) have been completely redesigned, using a new set of samples and IRs, with the main aim of getting rid of some timbral defects, such an overall too nasal sound, and some unpleasantly resonating harmonics.
    Take a listen to these demos by Emmanuel Y. Lazzara:
  3. On-the-string vs. off- the-string attacks.
    This is a new feature, which has been implemented in all the instruments of the series. One can now select on-the-string attack (based on new marcato samples) by setting CC38 above 64. This CC controls the intensity of this effect. The resulting attacks are more gritty and aggressive, as requested by several users. If CC38 is set below 68, the attack will progressively turn into a spiccato. A pristine off-the-string attack will be obtained by playing a short note (less of 120 ms duration) with velocity above 100. This was previously attainable only if the duration did not exceed 40 ms, which was impractical for live playing.
  4. On-the-string vs. off- the-string releases.
    This is also a new feature, implemented in all the instruments of the series. Previously, all note offs yielded an off-the-string release. We have added an on-the-string decay, which is produced when CC27 is below 64. The lower the value of CC27, the shorter the decay. A similar principle controls the length of the off-the-string release, which is roughly proportional to CC27 above 64.
  5. Detaché and Bow Change.
    We made a thorough analysis of real examples of these articulations. Although they may vary enormously, from nearly inaudible to very scratchy, depending on the context, there are some elements which clearly differentiate a detaché from a slurred legato. We improved the reproduction of these articulations, adding and modeling suitable samples, whose intensity is under control of CC38. This controller CC38, therefore, acts on both attacks and bowchanges, making them more or less aggressive. The duration of detaché/bowchange articulation is controlled by the interplay between note-on velocity and CC26. This overall approach yields maximal flexibility and, in our opinion, represents a definite improvement over the first release.
  6. Ensemble Maker.
    The timing of note on & off is randomized according to logical rules. In this update it has been optimized by increasing the time dispersion of the elements of the ensemble, but reducing it above a certain note-on velocity to preserve the definition of the attacks. The dispersion is also reduced in the presence of pizzicato and col legno.
  7. Ensemble Size and Vibrato.
    The perceived ensemble size is still controlled by CC95. However, a more precise definition of ensemble vibrato follows. The ensembles have a final vibrato effect which is quite different from single instruments. For CC95 ranging from zero to about 70-80, the final effect will be that of a senza vibrato ensemble. Above this threshold, a slight vibrato will appear. Vibrato in ensemble can by asynchronous (the normal case) or it may have some synchronous elements (something that is more often present in small ensembles), corresponding to a first chair players. Our ensembles are by default exploiting asynchronous vibrato. This means that if one raises CC1, this asynchronous component will be more and more evident. For this reason the synchronous component (CC99) is set to zero by default. If one wants to add a synchronous vibrato, he should increase CC99. In either case, differently from solo instruments, optimal CC19 values will range from zero to about 40. For small ensembles, CC19 may even be set to normal vibrato values, i.e. 60-90. Feel free to experiment.
  8. Microtuning.
    The previous release used static microtuning. Up to twelve presets could be recalled by simultaneously pressing B-1 and any KS between C0 and B0. The present update adds another new feature for maximum flexibility, namely, dynamic microtuning. If the preset "dynamic" is selected, by simultaneously pressing B-1, the sustain pedal and any note between C0 and B0, the pressed notes will be subject to microtuning. Any combination of detuned note is therefore allowed and switched in real time.
  9. there are additional small fixes and improvements in this new release.
    You may be unaware of them or you may notice that some notes in some instruments sound better. We did our best to improve the overall sound. It took a while, but we believe this time has yielded improvements you will enjoy.
 
Very exciting! I don't seem to have an email...

Didn't quite understand the ensemble size and vibrato interplay. Is it suggesting that small ensembles simply won't have a Vibrato option? Or that the asynchronous component will be supressed and that to achieve Vibrato on very small ensembles, you'd need to act on the synchronous Vibrato setting (cc99)?
 
I won these strings in a giveaway. I was waiting for the update to even start messing about with them because to me, they really didn't sound very good at all from the early demos.


I'm honestly glad I didn't invest any time into trying to learn it. Because the update sounds just as bad. I will give credit where it's due. The expression is good. But that doesn't mean anything at all if the tone and body of the instrument just sounds like something that came out of an old workstation keyboard.

Any way to sell my license?

I am sorry man, but that wasn't the nicest move, don't you think?

I don't want to speak for Peter and Giorgio here, but I was the one who initiated that giveaway, so I feel like being "in the boat".

It would have been cool to at least speak to the developers about what you didn't like, but publically defaming a company like this, simply sucks! It wasn't even constructive criticism!

Besides that, there were many people drooling to win these strings!

Maybe next time, be at least that patient and learn that you are able to shape the tone and the body too!
 
Very exciting! I don't seem to have an email...

Didn't quite understand the ensemble size and vibrato interplay. Is it suggesting that small ensembles simply won't have a Vibrato option? Or that the asynchronous component will be supressed and that to achieve Vibrato on very small ensembles, you'd need to act on the synchronous Vibrato setting (cc99)?

Mee too, I was expecting an e-mail about the update but...well...let's update!! I was waiting for this, it seems they improved the library a lot.

I was hoping for a tremolo CC but it seems there isn't here. Well, let's hope for the next patch maybe. Now I'm going to try this update.

Thanks to Giorgio and Peter to bring us this update.
 
I am sorry man, but that wasn't the nicest move, don't you think?

I don't want to speak for Peter and Giorgio here, but I was the one who initiated that giveaway, so I feel like being "in the boat".

It would have been cool to at least speak to the developers about what you didn't like, but publically defaming a company like this, simply sucks! It wasn't even constructive criticism!

Besides that, there were many people drooling to win these strings!

Maybe next time, be at least that patient and learn that you are able to shape the tone and the body too!

You know man, you're right. I have been having a real bad week and it got the best of me. In fact, I'll just be returning the serial number to you so you can give it to somebody else.
 
My feedback here as well:

1. The patches seem to use more than twice the RAM than the old v1.0.1 patches. How that?
2. The CPU print is slightly heavier, which I do not like, tbh, since I would like an update to at least stay at the performance as before.
3. I cannot easily compare the patches with the old ones. I have to rename the whole folder and load the project again. Loading old NKM or NKI files (like mentioned in the manual) does not work. This also makes it impossible to load older projects and somehow "dangerous" to move to this version without losing old projects, in a way.
4. I attached a MP3 here. To me the new patches mainly sound weirder in a way. Maybe it's just me, but especially runs are somehow weird. The violin trill is not even usable, unfortunately. The audio demo is violins first and then cello at around 30 seconds. It plays a motif in the old patches and directly after that comes the new patches.

CC38 and CC27 (as mentioned in the update mail) do not have any audible effect here.

Unluckily I will stick to the v1.0.1 and hope for a next update, what a bummer. :(



Edit:
I now also attached the MIDI files here. They are making use of Reaticulate in Reaper to switch to other articulations, by the way. I did not check to re-import and see if everything works, but anyway: the violin trills are already weird enough, imo. And they work without articulation change.
 

Attachments

  • sm_strings_compare.mp3
    2.5 MB · Views: 174
  • strings_test_cello.mid
    5.7 KB · Views: 20
  • strings_test_violin.mid
    2.9 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
It plays a motif in the old patches and directly after that comes the new patches
That's weird... Are you saying that the first trill (which sounds quite good and realistic) is from the previous version? And the 2nd trill is the update? Because it sounds terrible and "machine gun"-like...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tag
Yes, first one is v1.0.1 and the second trill is v1.1
Bizarre... It's almost like they forgot the round robins...🤔

Can we assume that the whole file plays like that? First phrase 1.0 2nd repeated phrase version 1.1?
 
I did a very few tries but I was able to perform a good thrill with the violin solo. I also tried some other techniques and I find this new instruments more clear. I also like the new Cello. Did you tried the new attack knob?

I must say I still didn't performed performance analysis and the update process is not so easy, especially for actually running projects. I did a backup of the old one to restore it on the fly if I need to.

If I have some time tomorrow after work I will try to post something but I don't guarantee it. I think for tomorrow there will be many other posts about it anyway.

EDIT

I didn't understand how to preserve settings from the old instruments, I take a snapshot and then I will be able to load it in new instruments, am I right? I save all the snapshot and then...could I delete the old library folder?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom