What's new

SF Studio Strings V CSS??? - Opinions

Salorom

Member
Thanks for the links Consona, although I mainly hear staccato/spiccato patches playing fast in “runs”.

What I have in mind is actual legato playing. I posted an example in a thread I conveniently named Agile legato... ;)
 

Pixelpoet1985

Active Member
LASS has more sections than most string libraries except Dimension Strings and covers all major bases plus has way more under the hood than most libraries. This conversation confuses me. You literally get a feature where you can move each section on a stage similar to MIR plus you can color the library to get the impression of different films. Auto-divisi and a rhythm tool and custom keyswitches...plus the ARC where you can automate all these things across all your sections simultaneously, this library is a programming beast.
I totally agree. It's by no means overpriced, even with the sordinos in a bundle. Because you have all these great features which @Casiquire mentions. I love the Stage & Color feature. And the most important thing overlooked by many is that you actually have three (!) full divisi sections with all the same (!) articulations plus separate first chairs. So, you end up with four string libraries in one, all can be played separately. And the programming is top notch, you also can play realistic fast lines.
 

procreative

Senior Member
I bought the Sable bundle in 2015 for $1100 USD. And that was with a Black Friday discount (Spitfire's first, I believe) -- the original price was around $1900 USD.

Compare that to their new Studio Strings which is $399 USD. I'm sure there is some economies of scale at play here, but I have to believe the price difference reflects in the amount of investment they're putting into these products.
Granted, I paid £700 (early adopter but you also got a generous 25% coupon). This is £349 intro, so half the price.

In my guesstimation the recent slips in QC seem to have co-incided with my theory that since their exponential growth, Paul and Christian probably have a less hands on control of day to day operations and command the overall business strategy and production decisions (than they used to).

I mean both live in remote rural locations, so visits to HQ are probably less frequent that in the beginning.

The cost of this package is lower, granted. But a better approach would have been to split into two volumes and make the bread and butter stuff absolutely spot on.

I would rather have a good selection of basic articulations and very good legato, than loads of esoteric ones at their expense. I mean grace notes and super sul tastos are very nice and all, but not if the core articulations suffer.

My other suspicion is that part of the reason the cost is lower is that it got shared with the BHT sessions (I could be wrong, but it would seem silly to use the same setup/producer/room/mic setup twice).
 
I wish Spitfire, and others, would implement a scripted legato for all their longs other than the real legatos, like CSS has (unless I misunderstand that feature). No, it's not the real thing, but they sound just fine in context and better than gapped notes.
Maybe you can ask @Rob how he recently added a legato script to a library purchase.
Maybe its also possible for the lib you refer to?

PS: a rarely visiting member with an (in)famous but well resepected reputation on ears and skill, more or less condemned ssts to bits.
Some of the comparisons made on the “other forum” between ssts and SCS do indeed speak for themselves......
 

Raphioli

Active Member
I also don't think you can really compare GBs and programming.
Even if the library is small, there are libraries like sample modeling trumpet which sounds really good, but is a really small library.
I'm assuming a lot of work went in to inventing the script and we are paying for the scripting "skill" as well.
We can't simply compare the cost of talented/skilled programmers.

Sure if you simply compare the man power (how many people were involved), you have the musicians, engineers and many other people involved in playing & sampling lots of samples.
But you can't devalue the skills/intelligence of the programmers.
Lots of amazing plugins are all small in size, but some cost even $1000+ (e.g SPAT).
Because skilled/talented programmers invented a unique piece of program/script which other could not.

I unfortunately don't own LASS, but I've heard and read about what it can do. And I don't think its fair to just consider it overpriced just because the size of the library is small. Programming is not cheaper than sampling, especially when the programmer is talented and has invented something that no other developer has.
In that regard, I wouldn't be surprised if CSS cost a lot more, not because of the size of the library, but because of the genius legato/portamento scripting it has.

And finally on to the topic, I wish Spitfire put more time in to improving their scripting further.
They did a really good job with the Performance Legato patch in SCS. I personally really like it.
And if this is a new chapter, I personally would have loved if they came out with next gen "Performance Legato 2".
But kind of disappointed they don't even have the original Performance Legato patch included in SStS.

Sorry for the long post.
 

SoNowWhat?

realised I can type here
I see a line like "an incredible versatile pro-end dry stage library" to be just a bunch of copywriting and personally avoid reading it. I think Spitfire actually did a good job presenting the library in a honest, raw state in their walkthrough.
I will say this for Spitfire, I feel that they always present their libraries just as they are in walk throughs. I have never gotten a nasty surprise when purchasing from them. And to this point I love everything that I have from them, but I don’t have SStS and won’t be getting it. It doesn’t offer what I’d hoped it would at the start and I have most of this covered already.
 

StatKsn

Active Member
Re-peat has shared a very comprehensive review in the other forum. IMO legatos do need a fix, or they are quite a step down from other SF libraries. I can clearly hear pops/clicks, same attack artifact transposed/machine-gunning etc. Transposed samples are mostly fine with slow attack sustains, but should not be used with legatos/something that should do a melodic flowing line.

https://www.thesoundboard.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3077&start=50

Unlike him, I honestly liked the timbre. It is harsh and filthy (in a good way). But I mostly do hybrid stuff rather than orchestral.
 

Casiquire

Senior Member
I do also like the timbre despite many here having mixed feelings. My interest is still sort of aroused, they're right on the cusp of getting me to buy into the Spitfire world, but falling just slightly short. I think I'll keep my eye out, but I don't have a good feeling that the library will get any significant updates.
 

Gerbil

Active Member
These two sound nothing alike so it's a chalk and cheese scenario.

I think the Studio Strings could be really good after an update or three. I've just spent some more time with it and do find it quite enjoyable to play. There is a lot of expression in there. What I do like is that it also seems to fit well with a few other libraries I opened up such as cinewinds and VSL winds.

CSS is the finished article. It would be a far wiser purchase if you want a base string library but Studio Strings have enough material in there to make it a very useful additional library.
 

sostenuto

Big NKS Fan !
Gonna purchase now despite its warts and all.
Join those who indicated strong preference to pay slightly more for Core and receive another Mic or so.
 

LHall

Active Member
I was about to reach for my wallet when I started looking at Studio Strings. Then I perceived from the video that legato portamentos were only included in the full sections and not the divisi sections. Huge oversight when they spent so much time on articulations I'd only use once in a blue moon. Differing amounts of portamento in divisi sections are wonderful in getting extra realism in runs and many passages. Hope they add those at some point.

By the way, I'm a user of LASS almost since it was first released. It's definitely not over-priced. Considering the work it has allowed me to do, it's really worth far more than I paid for it to me.
 

Eptesicus

Senior Member
I was about to reach for my wallet when I started looking at Studio Strings. Then I perceived from the video that legato portamentos were only included in the full sections and not the divisi sections. Huge oversight when they spent so much time on articulations I'd only use once in a blue moon. Differing amounts of portamento in divisi sections are wonderful in getting extra realism in runs and many passages. Hope they add those at some point.

By the way, I'm a user of LASS almost since it was first released. It's definitely not over-priced. Considering the work it has allowed me to do, it's really worth far more than I paid for it to me.
Yes that is another failing of the library in my opinion. Not much point in the divisi sections if they have such limited articulations in comparison.

I would prefer to pay a bit more but have proper full divisi sections.
 
Top Bottom