What's new

Samplemodeling Solo & Ensemble Strings Released

Yes, absolutely. I think it's the noise of the bow against the strings. SM Strings is most likely recorded closer than the Schindler's List recording which I would say contributes to the noise and a more close and detailed sound. Not sure if detailed is the right word. Anyway, I would venture a guess and say that it's CC21 that determine the noise I'm thinking of.

I made a quick mix of your SoundCloud file to get it a little bit closer to the original. The noise is more noticeable in my mix than yours since I raised the highs a bit. But it's still noticeable in your mix.

The noise can be heard through out. It's somewhat noticeable at the beginning . But it's very noticeable at exactly 35s in the file I attached.

Ah yes, I also noticed that! I asked about the noise earlier, and it seems like the noise is there even as I reduce bow-noise to a minimum. Possibly a consequence of the recording technique/distance when the SM team was recording this? I'm not sure there's a way to remove this from the natural sound via the GUI (at least I can't find one), so I'm assuming it'd need some kind of external plugin to do it. Fa kindly suggested something and I'm going to look into it.
 
Page14, CC21: bow noise
+/-6dB from the original recording...

Edit : I found just one note (A=880Hz) very strident , in the first half of the Soundcloud file (on both headphones and monitors), but not in the second half.
Is it me, or my soundcard, or summat?
 
Last edited:
No, help is good, and if I can get it I do want it. I keep trying the suggestions and the more I mess with it the less I like it. In fact, the converse is true: The more I mess with it, the more I like the out of the box sound.

I have not tried any external plugins other than other 'verbs. I am literally out of money, so anything I don't already have I won't be getting for a while. Most of my attempts have been centered around the attack, bow noise, timbral shaping, overtones, and IR ... although again, I dont' really hear the IR differences???

I DO like the out of the box sound of the SM Brass! THen I step back and pick up my euphonium or trumpet (neither of which I play well enough to record anything more than basics) and then back to the SM brass, and with the ONLY thing wrong I'm hearing/feeling with the SM Brass being the fact that the tail end of the note gets truncated when using breath control, it's as realistic as I want.

I am not a rank beginner in either mixing or recording, not to say I'm pro/talented, but my name is on plenty of records for whatever that's worth. Newer, but not totally unfamiliar with editing MIDI parameters, and more blockhanded at that than real recording. (I was a better tracking engineer than mixing, that's for sure)

I am not interested in doing mockups. I wonder if I SHOULD? Maybe try the Bach Cello Suite 1 Prelude as example, since that is something I can occasionally actually play for real.

It is also very possible that my perceived issues are a matter of perspective. I enjoy the instruments more when I hear others' work ...

But after this busy time I'll try to get something so we can work on specifics rather than abstract "I just don't like it" stuff.

Thanks.

So you don't want help? Right now it feels like your just complaining without wanting a solution. Based on your previous comments about the sound I think of most us are already excepting it to sound shit, so I would say don't be discouraged to post because of that.

I understand you might be frustrated and wanting to vent for paying what is, for most of us, a lot of money for something that is not the way you want it. But it would really help to hear what your hearing to understand the problem -- if you want a solution.

We all have different preferences. I wish the solo Violin would sound like the solo Violin in Assassin's Creed Syndicate soundtrack, or like the Violin sound Ólafur Arnalds often use, or like the Violin in Schindler's List (The original performed by Itzhak Perlman. Looking forward to I like music 's mock-up.) And to be honest I think Sample Modeling Strings is the only one that might be able to achieve some resemblance to all of them because of how flexible it is. And, as you've stated before, it will hopefully only get better with future updates.

If I remember correctly you own SM Brass and really liked it. Do you think it sounds the way you want out of the box? For me it dosen't, not even close. It takes a lot of time to get it sounding right, and even more time to be able to play it well.

It would also be good to know what you've tried to get that tone? EQ? Timbral-Shaping? Custom IR? Verb? Staturation? Distortion? Trax (as suggested before)?
 
Page14, CC21: bow noise
+/-6dB from the original recording...

Edit : I found just one note (A=880Hz) very strident , in the first half of the Soundcloud file (on both headphones and monitors), but not in the second half.
Is it me, or my soundcard, or summat?
Page14, CC21: bow noise
+/-6dB from the original recording...

Edit : I found just one note (A=880Hz) very strident , in the first half of the Soundcloud file (on both headphones and monitors), but not in the second half.
Is it me, or my soundcard, or summat?
I think I know which one you mean from memory. There WAS one which was strident (best description for what I was wrestling with) so I'm assuming it is the same. I'll look at it and try to tweak.
 
Bow noise is present for the violinist, more oso for the cellist,
but is less audible from a from a distance.
 
Not yet there, but getting closer by the day to what I expect from these strings. I made this basically as a bowing/phrasing etude, just to learn the basics of the library, so no fancy things yet soundwise (no trimbral shaping, no external ERs/reverb, no EQ..., everything sounding right out of the box, with just a bit of exciter and multiband compression in the master bus). Want to learn how to play these instruments, and focus on the performance first; I'll take care of the sound later. Even so, this library is already giving me things that no other library is capable of.

 
Have I told you how much I adore Soundcloud?: "It looks like your track "Samplemodeling Strings (W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto)" might contain or be a copy of "3. Presto" by Saito Kinen Orchestra, Seiji Ozawa, which is owned by owned by Decca Music Group Ltd. in certain territories. As a result, your track has been removed from your profile for the time being."

While soundcloud resolves the copyright dispute, here is a dropbox link:

W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto
 
No, help is good, and if I can get it I do want it. I keep trying the suggestions and the more I mess with it the less I like it. In fact, the converse is true: The more I mess with it, the more I like the out of the box sound.

I have not tried any external plugins other than other 'verbs. I am literally out of money, so anything I don't already have I won't be getting for a while. Most of my attempts have been centered around the attack, bow noise, timbral shaping, overtones, and IR ... although again, I dont' really hear the IR differences???

I DO like the out of the box sound of the SM Brass! THen I step back and pick up my euphonium or trumpet (neither of which I play well enough to record anything more than basics) and then back to the SM brass, and with the ONLY thing wrong I'm hearing/feeling with the SM Brass being the fact that the tail end of the note gets truncated when using breath control, it's as realistic as I want.

I am not a rank beginner in either mixing or recording, not to say I'm pro/talented, but my name is on plenty of records for whatever that's worth. Newer, but not totally unfamiliar with editing MIDI parameters, and more blockhanded at that than real recording. (I was a better tracking engineer than mixing, that's for sure)

I am not interested in doing mockups. I wonder if I SHOULD? Maybe try the Bach Cello Suite 1 Prelude as example, since that is something I can occasionally actually play for real.

It is also very possible that my perceived issues are a matter of perspective. I enjoy the instruments more when I hear others' work ...
[...]

I see. It sounds like you're at least a somewhat competent mix-engineer, and should be able to figure out the mixing aspect of your problem. That's why it's so important for us to hear an example. I've seen people complain about library saying it won't get loud enough even when at the highest Velocity and CC. The problem turned out to be they used CC7, which is standard for just Volume control, to try and control dynamics.

But since you own SM Brass already and know how use that one I would guess your problem is not something that obvious. SM Brass and SM Strings should be somewhat the same when it comes to controlling them.

[...]
But after this busy time I'll try to get something so we can work on specifics rather than abstract "I just don't like it" stuff.

Thanks.

That would be great. Looking forward to it.
 
Have I told you how much I adore Soundcloud?: "It looks like your track "Samplemodeling Strings (W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto)" might contain or be a copy of "3. Presto" by Saito Kinen Orchestra, Seiji Ozawa, which is owned by owned by Decca Music Group Ltd. in certain territories. As a result, your track has been removed from your profile for the time being."

While soundcloud resolves the copyright dispute, here is a dropbox link:

W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto

Yeah, SoundCloud is as bad as ever.

It sounds alright. The performance is quite good, it could use some work at places but I'm not that familiar with the piece so can't say all too much. Also, the recordings I found of it online where of a quartet playing, not a small chamber ensemble, which I suspect your version is from how it sounds. How big is the ensemble?

It also needs more bite. It's a little tame and on the soft side, making it sound too sterile in my opinion. Did you try using CC21 and CC22 for Bow Noise and Overtones? And maybe CC28 for attack detuning? Otherwise you should be able to use the pitch bend to add very subtle pitch fluctuations in the runs for example. Is it possible to get more bite on the attack as well?

Might be because of the lack of mixing though as you mentioned. I'm not sure. But I think it sounds pretty good for a out-of-the-box sound.

I also agree that I doubt there's many libraries out there that could handle this type of piece and still sound this good.
 
Last edited:
Have I told you how much I adore Soundcloud?: "It looks like your track "Samplemodeling Strings (W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto)" might contain or be a copy of "3. Presto" by Saito Kinen Orchestra, Seiji Ozawa, which is owned by owned by Decca Music Group Ltd. in certain territories. As a result, your track has been removed from your profile for the time being."

While soundcloud resolves the copyright dispute, here is a dropbox link:

W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto

Hah, Soundcloud. I like this. I can't see other libraries being able to do this phrasing. Could you tell us about what size ensemble you used here?
 
This actually sounds really good! Thank you for sharing!
Can you tell us what parameters you used for this result? I guess it goes with out saying that CC11+CC1 are the default, have you used any other CCs to "sculpt" the performance?

What's funny is how responsive the strings are to a number of those cc inputs (e.g. if you slow the tempo down a tiny bit on a note and then add some vibrato just in those few milliseconds, it has an effect). I'm only talking about the solos, but so far, very impressed. And yes, I liked that Mozart a lot. Have you got the strings?
 
What's funny is how responsive the strings are to a number of those cc inputs (e.g. if you slow the tempo down a tiny bit on a note and then add some vibrato just in those few milliseconds, it has an effect). I'm only talking about the solos, but so far, very impressed. And yes, I liked that Mozart a lot. Have you got the strings?
No, I don't have them yet, I really wish to convince my self to buy them, but my financial state at the moment dictates me to be obselutly sure that I won't regret it afterwards...
If I get them it will be for using them as a main string library, replacing CSS +CSSS, which are my default goto strings, and I am comfortable with them, I have to be sure that investing time and money in SM strings will worth it.
You see, I own the previous solo strings (now under audiomodeling's care) and I don't use them at all. I tried to like them but the timbre is throwing me off. I fear the same might happen with SM Strings and I just can't afford it.
That is why I am hoping for a walkthrough video to better understand how this library might fit my needs and workflow.
 
Have I told you how much I adore Soundcloud?: "It looks like your track "Samplemodeling Strings (W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto)" might contain or be a copy of "3. Presto" by Saito Kinen Orchestra, Seiji Ozawa, which is owned by owned by Decca Music Group Ltd. in certain territories. As a result, your track has been removed from your profile for the time being."

While soundcloud resolves the copyright dispute, here is a dropbox link:

W. A. Mozart: Divertimento KV. 136 - III. Presto


I have not read the whole thread and not listend to all the demos, but this one sounds really really good in my ears!!
 
It also needs more bite. It's a little tame and on the soft side, making it sound too sterile in my opinion. Did you try using CC21 and CC22 for Bow Noise and Overtones? And maybe CC28 for attack detuning?


Maybe, but you know, after all it's Mozart, so I went more for bouncing spiccati rather than heavy attacks here, trying to make it sound spirited, and natural, not too hyped (same with vibrato, articulation, timbre, ensemble size, etc.). Anything but dogmatic, though definitely a bit in the direction of a historical performance. In any case, you might be right about sounding sterile of course (it's just a deliberate, stylistic choice here, not a library issue). CC21 & CC22 wouldn't make such a big difference here though, imo (CC21 controls the bow noise during the bowing, not affecting the attack particularly, and the kind of sonic artifacts CC22 brings about to the sound doesn't help with bite either; both CCs change the timbre considerably during the sustain, but have little to no effect on the attacks, at least to my ears). But it's certainly possible to get more bite with a little more bow contact on the strings (i.e. slightly longer note durations) and higher CC11/vel values, though the quality of the sound could be easily lost (on-string staccato lacks the resonance of the vibrating strings that off-string spiccato produces, and SM strings mimic that behaviour quite convincingly). CC28 could help for sure with the "realism" of fast passages in solo performances, but in ensembles I find the built-in detuning does the job by itself. In any case, for sure you could play with these things if you find it too "clean" for your taste (this, in fact, is what I love about this kind of libraries, that you can do almost whatever you want with them)

Hah, Soundcloud. I like this. I can't see other libraries being able to do this phrasing. Could you tell us about what size ensemble you used here?

Small/medium ensembles (except for the bassi), layered with soloists (to give it more clarity and presence... and as a test for possible phasing issues, I must confess). I find layering also helps to shrink the perceived size of the ensemble (which I was also after). I also wanted to check if the same midi data produces the same results for soloists and ensembles: it does, and I really like that. Layering could bring some issues though, depending on the musical context and/or if you're not careful enough with IRs, etc.

This actually sounds really good! Thank you for sharing!

Can you tell us what parameters you used for this result? I guess it goes with out saying that CC11+CC1 are the default, have you used any other CCs to "sculpt" the performance?

No, just expression and vibrato intensity (vibrato rate is fixed because, at such fast tempi, modulating the rate doesn't make much sense). Every other controller which contributes to the sound/performance was also fixed from start to end.

What's funny is how responsive the strings are to a number of those cc inputs (e.g. if you slow the tempo down a tiny bit on a note and then add some vibrato just in those few milliseconds, it has an effect)

You can say that again: same CC11 value, same note duration... just increase the velocity by 1 in certain ranges and the quality of the sound can change dramatically from a very resonant spiccato to a quite dry staccato. I wish this kind of things were clearly specified in the manual. It takes some trial and error to figure out how the instruments behave. It's clear that, even if they respond extremely well to continuous changes, there're kind of "quantum" leaps in the continuum which somehow resembles the velocity layers of traditional libraries.

I find that legato and "longs" are a pleasure to work with, but detaché and "shorts" are kind of a pain right now for me, precisely for that reason (measured tremoli is something I'm still struggling with, for example). Well, let's see it as a challenge. One thing is clear, though: this is not, say, Jasper Blunk's Oceania, with which you can do only one thing, but you can do it right away extremely well. On the contrary, there's so much to learn to make this library do exactly what you want it to.

If I get them it will be for using them as a main string library, replacing CSS +CSSS, which are my default goto strings, and I am comfortable with them, I have to be sure that investing time and money in SM strings will worth it.

I could have written that myself, eli0s. No doubt CSS(S) has a wonderful sound right out of the box, and a scripting that does wonders with it. I love it. But as good as it is, it's quite limited in certain musical contexts. I would say, SM strings are, to some extent, quite the opposite: takes time to master, but the flexibility it offers is unparalleled. To quote Saxer here:

If you work like: Oh, this sounds really nice, what can I do with it? - Go for SCS. If you work like: This are the things I want them to play, what library can do this? - Go for SM. Better: get both.

I resonated a lot with that, and I think what he said about SCS could also be said about CSS (or any other "traditional", good string library). I also see them (CSS and SM) working sinergetically to some extent. Can't confirm that yet, though.

I have not read the whole thread and not listend to all the demos, but this one sounds really really good in my ears!!

Glad you liked it!

Yeah I think the same, there's no other library out there that could do this without tweaking them as hell (and maybe even if you tweak them).

In a sense, trying to perform a piece of music organically out of different pre-recorded articulations is like trying to recreate a human being out of different body parts: if you work hard enough, know what you're doing, and, above all, avoid writing things that the library can't manage, you can get "the most beautiful Frankenstein" one could possibly dream of. Of course, absolutely nothing wrong with it, quite on the contrary, but the moment you want the monster to stretch... then it hurts.

Pure synthesis allows much more flexibility at the cost of timbral beauty, and elegance. It's like a constant struggle between sound & performance. I guess when it comes to VIs, in the search for "realism", we tend to focus much more on the sound ... but you give me the Lady Blunt Stradivarius and I will show you how "unreal" it can sound in the wrong hands. For me personally it's the other way around, but to sound neutral here, let's say performance is at least as important as timbre for musical expression and beauty.

Although sample based, SM works clearly differently from traditional libraries, allowing much more flexibility. I hope its hybrid approach could someday bridge the gap, and bring to the table the best of these two aspects. That's why I find libraries such as SM or Aaron's Infinite Series much more interesting to follow. But then I listen to Andy Blaney's BBC orchestral demo, and I relax from any dogmatism. Let every developer provide us with the best products they can come up with, and let'us suffer not being millionaires :) I must be a little masochistic, cause I really enjoy each new release, even if I can't afford to purchase it.

I'm glad I got these strings. From the things I tried so far I could see me using it in 3 different contexts:

1) As a NotePerformer "on steroids" (strings only) for the DAW. An example of this is the Sakamoto track I uploaded earlier in this thread. Load the midi file, blow your BC, and enjoy.

2) As a layering lib to enrich the sound of other strings or hide their flaws.

3) As a main library that provides better performance in more complex musical contexts (this Mozart divertimento could be an example)

Next I think I'll try something more lyrical. I'll post it if I can make it sound decent.
 
Maybe, but you know, after all it's Mozart, so I went more for bouncing spiccati rather than heavy attacks here, trying to make it sound spirited, and natural, not too hyped (same with vibrato, articulation, timbre, ensemble size, etc.). Anything but dogmatic, though definitely a bit in the direction of a historical performance. In any case, you might be right about sounding sterile of course (it's just a deliberate, stylistic choice here, not a library issue). CC21 & CC22 wouldn't make such a big difference here though, imo (CC21 controls the bow noise during the bowing, not affecting the attack particularly, and the kind of sonic artifacts CC22 brings about to the sound doesn't help with bite either; both CCs change the timbre considerably during the sustain, but have little to no effect on the attacks, at least to my ears). But it's certainly possible to get more bite with a little more bow contact on the strings (i.e. slightly longer note durations) and higher CC11/vel values, though the quality of the sound could be easily lost (on-string staccato lacks the resonance of the vibrating strings that off-string spiccato produces, and SM strings mimic that behaviour quite convincingly). CC28 could help for sure with the "realism" of fast passages in solo performances, but in ensembles I find the built-in detuning does the job by itself. In any case, for sure you could play with these things if you find it too "clean" for your taste (this, in fact, is what I love about this kind of libraries, that you can do almost whatever you want with them)



Small/medium ensembles (except for the bassi), layered with soloists (to give it more clarity and presence... and as a test for possible phasing issues, I must confess). I find layering also helps to shrink the perceived size of the ensemble (which I was also after). I also wanted to check if the same midi data produces the same results for soloists and ensembles: it does, and I really like that. Layering could bring some issues though, depending on the musical context and/or if you're not careful enough with IRs, etc.



No, just expression and vibrato intensity (vibrato rate is fixed because, at such fast tempi, modulating the rate doesn't make much sense). Every other controller which contributes to the sound/performance was also fixed from start to end.



You can say that again: same CC11 value, same note duration... just increase the velocity by 1 in certain ranges and the quality of the sound can change dramatically from a very resonant spiccato to a quite dry staccato. I wish this kind of things were clearly specified in the manual. It takes some trial and error to figure out how the instruments behave. It's clear that, even if they respond extremely well to continuous changes, there're kind of "quantum" leaps in the continuum which somehow resembles the velocity layers of traditional libraries.

I find that legato and "longs" are a pleasure to work with, but detaché and "shorts" are kind of a pain right now for me, precisely for that reason (measured tremoli is something I'm still struggling with, for example). Well, let's see it as a challenge. One thing is clear, though: this is not, say, Jasper Blunk's Oceania, with which you can do only one thing, but you can do it right away extremely well. On the contrary, there's so much to learn to make this library do exactly what you want it to.



I could have written that myself, eli0s. No doubt CSS(S) has a wonderful sound right out of the box, and a scripting that does wonders with it. I love it. But as good as it is, it's quite limited in certain musical contexts. I would say, SM strings are, to some extent, quite the opposite: takes time to master, but the flexibility it offers is unparalleled. To quote Saxer here:



I resonated a lot with that, and I think what he said about SCS could also be said about CSS (or any other "traditional", good string library). I also see them (CSS and SM) working sinergetically to some extent. Can't confirm that yet, though.



Glad you liked it!



In a sense, trying to perform a piece of music organically out of different pre-recorded articulations is like trying to recreate a human being out of different body parts: if you work hard enough, know what you're doing, and, above all, avoid writing things that the library can't manage, you can get "the most beautiful Frankenstein" one could possibly dream of. Of course, absolutely nothing wrong with it, quite on the contrary, but the moment you want the monster to stretch... then it hurts.

Pure synthesis allows much more flexibility at the cost of timbral beauty, and elegance. It's like a constant struggle between sound & performance. I guess when it comes to VIs, in the search for "realism", we tend to focus much more on the sound ... but you give me the Lady Blunt Stradivarius and I will show you how "unreal" it can sound in the wrong hands. For me personally it's the other way around, but to sound neutral here, let's say performance is at least as important as timbre for musical expression and beauty.

Although sample based, SM works clearly differently from traditional libraries, allowing much more flexibility. I hope its hybrid approach could someday bridge the gap, and bring to the table the best of these two aspects. That's why I find libraries such as SM or Aaron's Infinite Series much more interesting to follow. But then I listen to Andy Blaney's BBC orchestral demo, and I relax from any dogmatism. Let every developer provide us with the best products they can come up with, and let'us suffer not being millionaires :) I must be a little masochistic, cause I really enjoy each new release, even if I can't afford to purchase it.

I'm glad I got these strings. From the things I tried so far I could see me using it in 3 different contexts:

1) As a NotePerformer "on steroids" (strings only) for the DAW. An example of this is the Sakamoto track I uploaded earlier in this thread. Load the midi file, blow your BC, and enjoy.

2) As a layering lib to enrich the sound of other strings or hide their flaws.

3) As a main library that provides better performance in more complex musical contexts (this Mozart divertimento could be an example)

Next I think I'll try something more lyrical. I'll post it if I can make it sound decent.

Great write up! I agree with everything you've said.

And you're absolutely right about the tone/bite of the strings; it's only my own personal appraisal of what I would like the strings to sound like and what I find is missing when listening to a real recording of the same piece.

I actually downloaded the file and listened to it a couple more times and it does sound really good. I added some minor EQ and some more verb and for me it sounds even little bit better. I think the tone I'm hearing would work great for most uses. Although I would still like to hear a demo where the sound has more bite/grit, especially the short notes.

Really looking forward to hearing something a bit more lyrical.
 
Maybe, but you know, after all it's Mozart, so I went more for bouncing spiccati rather than heavy attacks here, trying to make it sound spirited, and natural, not too hyped (same with vibrato, articulation, timbre, ensemble size, etc.). Anything but dogmatic, though definitely a bit in the direction of a historical performance. In any case, you might be right about sounding sterile of course (it's just a deliberate, stylistic choice here, not a library issue). CC21 & CC22 wouldn't make such a big difference here though, imo (CC21 controls the bow noise during the bowing, not affecting the attack particularly, and the kind of sonic artifacts CC22 brings about to the sound doesn't help with bite either; both CCs change the timbre considerably during the sustain, but have little to no effect on the attacks, at least to my ears). But it's certainly possible to get more bite with a little more bow contact on the strings (i.e. slightly longer note durations) and higher CC11/vel values, though the quality of the sound could be easily lost (on-string staccato lacks the resonance of the vibrating strings that off-string spiccato produces, and SM strings mimic that behaviour quite convincingly). CC28 could help for sure with the "realism" of fast passages in solo performances, but in ensembles I find the built-in detuning does the job by itself. In any case, for sure you could play with these things if you find it too "clean" for your taste (this, in fact, is what I love about this kind of libraries, that you can do almost whatever you want with them)



Small/medium ensembles (except for the bassi), layered with soloists (to give it more clarity and presence... and as a test for possible phasing issues, I must confess). I find layering also helps to shrink the perceived size of the ensemble (which I was also after). I also wanted to check if the same midi data produces the same results for soloists and ensembles: it does, and I really like that. Layering could bring some issues though, depending on the musical context and/or if you're not careful enough with IRs, etc.



No, just expression and vibrato intensity (vibrato rate is fixed because, at such fast tempi, modulating the rate doesn't make much sense). Every other controller which contributes to the sound/performance was also fixed from start to end.



You can say that again: same CC11 value, same note duration... just increase the velocity by 1 in certain ranges and the quality of the sound can change dramatically from a very resonant spiccato to a quite dry staccato. I wish this kind of things were clearly specified in the manual. It takes some trial and error to figure out how the instruments behave. It's clear that, even if they respond extremely well to continuous changes, there're kind of "quantum" leaps in the continuum which somehow resembles the velocity layers of traditional libraries.

I find that legato and "longs" are a pleasure to work with, but detaché and "shorts" are kind of a pain right now for me, precisely for that reason (measured tremoli is something I'm still struggling with, for example). Well, let's see it as a challenge. One thing is clear, though: this is not, say, Jasper Blunk's Oceania, with which you can do only one thing, but you can do it right away extremely well. On the contrary, there's so much to learn to make this library do exactly what you want it to.



I could have written that myself, eli0s. No doubt CSS(S) has a wonderful sound right out of the box, and a scripting that does wonders with it. I love it. But as good as it is, it's quite limited in certain musical contexts. I would say, SM strings are, to some extent, quite the opposite: takes time to master, but the flexibility it offers is unparalleled. To quote Saxer here:



I resonated a lot with that, and I think what he said about SCS could also be said about CSS (or any other "traditional", good string library). I also see them (CSS and SM) working sinergetically to some extent. Can't confirm that yet, though.



Glad you liked it!



In a sense, trying to perform a piece of music organically out of different pre-recorded articulations is like trying to recreate a human being out of different body parts: if you work hard enough, know what you're doing, and, above all, avoid writing things that the library can't manage, you can get "the most beautiful Frankenstein" one could possibly dream of. Of course, absolutely nothing wrong with it, quite on the contrary, but the moment you want the monster to stretch... then it hurts.

Pure synthesis allows much more flexibility at the cost of timbral beauty, and elegance. It's like a constant struggle between sound & performance. I guess when it comes to VIs, in the search for "realism", we tend to focus much more on the sound ... but you give me the Lady Blunt Stradivarius and I will show you how "unreal" it can sound in the wrong hands. For me personally it's the other way around, but to sound neutral here, let's say performance is at least as important as timbre for musical expression and beauty.

Although sample based, SM works clearly differently from traditional libraries, allowing much more flexibility. I hope its hybrid approach could someday bridge the gap, and bring to the table the best of these two aspects. That's why I find libraries such as SM or Aaron's Infinite Series much more interesting to follow. But then I listen to Andy Blaney's BBC orchestral demo, and I relax from any dogmatism. Let every developer provide us with the best products they can come up with, and let'us suffer not being millionaires :) I must be a little masochistic, cause I really enjoy each new release, even if I can't afford to purchase it.

I'm glad I got these strings. From the things I tried so far I could see me using it in 3 different contexts:

1) As a NotePerformer "on steroids" (strings only) for the DAW. An example of this is the Sakamoto track I uploaded earlier in this thread. Load the midi file, blow your BC, and enjoy.

2) As a layering lib to enrich the sound of other strings or hide their flaws.

3) As a main library that provides better performance in more complex musical contexts (this Mozart divertimento could be an example)

Next I think I'll try something more lyrical. I'll post it if I can make it sound decent.

Super post. Given that I have such busy days these days (wtih the day job and the kids) unfortunately I'm not finding enough hours with the strings. I still have the First Contact mockup to do, and there's the middle section where you definitely have a need for that big 'filmic' sound which I'm hoping these strings will be able to do. Those are the kind of lines where the more traditional libraries manage to do relatively well. In fact, one of the best mockups (for anything) that I heard were using Hollywood Strings on that very piece. Anyways, soon as I have the chance, I'll post it.
 
Bought yesterday very satisfied! here is a short demonstration (small set, Tecontrol breath controller and vienna mir pro for spacialization).
 

Attachments

  • ESSAI STRINGS ENSEMBLE.mp3
    622 KB · Views: 192
Top Bottom