SF Studio Strings V CSS??? - Opinions

chapbot

omnivore
I have a feeling many people here are listening to the new studio strings with classical ears and it's really meant more for pop music. I anticipate the timbre is really going to sit well with drums and guitars - my download just finished tonight and I'll test it out over the weekend.
 

SoNowWhat?

realised I can type here
You can get the SCS Pro already now which is pretty much the main library + expansion.
Ah, I misunderstood (or rather, I failed to actually read the post properly). I have the SCS pro, and got the expanded mics for Woodwinds which is the only other Symphonic set I have from SF. The expanded mics for the symphonics (apart from SCS pro edition) are no longer available.
 
Last edited:

Consona

Senior Member
I was listening to the walkthrough again. The sound is rather stark. I'm surprised this was recorded in the same studio as Herrmann Toolkit. I want to hear it with some softening EQ and nice reverb. Plus I want to hear legato playing runs and stuff.
 

SoNowWhat?

realised I can type here
I was listening to the walkthrough again. The sound is rather stark. I'm surprised this was recorded in the same studio as Herrmann Toolkit. I want to hear it with some softening EQ and nice reverb. Plus I want to hear legato playing runs and stuff.
It’s always the “stuff” that can really bring a Library down.
 

Consona

Senior Member
Or can show how great it can handle things like that. CS2 can do pretty great playable runs and can even do that via multiple different ways, why couldn't others do that as well?
 

keepitsimple

Active Member
It's interesting how SF aimed their cannons at pretty much every single direction with this release.

- Divisi = LASS
- Number of players = CSS
- Intro price for the core version= VSL SE Strings, some 8dio libraries etc...
 
Last edited:

Vik

Scandi Member
strange times, VSL going wet and Spitfire dry
Yes and no... they both know that we need both dry and wet libraries. :)
my current ignorance makes me puzzled by CSS ~34GB and SStS Pro ~210GB.
Don't forget that SF offers all those long sul tastos, true con sords, flautandos and more.
I simply can't understand why the divisi sections only have the basic articulations. Makes no sense offering them, isn't it?
Sable/Mural offered several paid updates (Sable 1, Sable 2 etc). Maybe we'll see the same with SStS.
The library really feels like something made for modern scandinavian TV drama rather than concert or classical music or whatever.
There are other SF libs that IMO are more suitable for 'scandi'. :)

I have listened to some demos and seen the comments in this thread, but I don't have the library (yet?). My initial thoughts is that it's really great that they now offer a mid sized library - with divisi and a somehow modular approach, recorded at a location as wet as Air... and that the next big thing in string libraries will be about the tone/about how good they are at creating the illusion that the players feel something when they play each of the notes that are being sampled.
 

NoamL

Winter <3
Impressive work.

And you are still considering selling it?
Or is that a current version that you presented as donationware some time ago?

(You are building a serious piece of software for this niche market)
Will sell eventually... when it's 100% bug free! I also haven't joined the legato and spiccato modules into one big piece of code yet. I don't want to hijack the thread so let's leave it there ;)
 

Pixelpoet1985

Active Member
It's interesting how SF aimed their cannons at pretty much every single direction with this release.

- Divisi = LASS
- Number of players = CSS
- Intro price for the core version= VSL SE Strings, some 8dio libraries etc...
The number of divisi players are also identical to LASS (for the violins).
 

jamwerks

Senior Member
I don't think eq would be of any use for the things people aren't liking. It's a broad band issue.

Whether it be Pop, Classical or other, you shouldnt be able to hear the signature (size) of the room so prominently. With SstS the early reflections are quite loud, kind of like the VSL Silent Stage recordings. With CSS, Century Strings and others, the size of the space is undistinguishable, just sounding "good".
 

AlexanderSchiborr

Senior Member
I still hope that sample devs go more into fewer articulations but with the approach of more content to create fluidity in music. I actually transcribed a bit from Williams Olympic Fanfare and this I mean, not perfect but you get the idea: fluidity and expression which is imo the most important part. Something like that for strings ensembles would be neat..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsqy6twgxxkedvf/JW_Olympic_Transcription_Studies_Mockup.mp3?dl=0
 

Consona

Senior Member
I don't think eq would be of any use for the things people aren't liking. It's a broad band issue.

Whether it be Pop, Classical or other, you shouldnt be able to hear the signature (size) of the room so prominently. With SstS the early reflections are quite loud, kind of like the VSL Silent Stage recordings. With CSS, Century Strings and others, the size of the space is undistinguishable, just sounding "good".
Yeah. You can eq and reverb the strings but their inherent nature won't disappear.
 
Last edited:

SoNowWhat?

realised I can type here
Or can show how great it can handle things like that. CS2 can do pretty great playable runs and can even do that via multiple different ways, why couldn't others do that as well?
You are quite right. I didn’t mean to cast this new Library in a negative light or to infer it couldn’t do this. I should have approached my comment from the positive not the negative.
 
What did you guys thing of the "rocking motion" bit at 17s in the candlelight seduction section? Bit loud but sounded smoother than some of the other libraries I have....
 

MA-Simon

Senior Member
Did not like the sound too. Unfortunally Missing Staccato shorts and again short bowed repetitions (which no one EVER samples...). Definite skip for me on this one.
 

Consona

Senior Member
You are quite right. I didn’t mean to cast this new Library in a negative light or to infer it couldn’t do this. I should have approached my comment from the positive not the negative.
Well I'm quite curious whether this new library can do this. There's not many libraries that can handle good sounding playable runs. Yet with CS2 you have more than one way to do them and all sound really good. Even CSS, which is a newer library from the same developer, cannot do that, interestingly enough. The fluid moving textures you can do with CS2's normal articulations thanks to the Live mode are quite amazing.