What's new

SPITFIRE - Announcing Spitfire Studio Strings! 24 Hours LEFT on Promo Price!

Did you add artificial reverb to Studio Strings to make it blend/match the other SF libraries? I like the composition but to me the amount of reverb seems unnatural.

I used VSS3 on the strings. Just the choice I used on this piece. I was going for a bigger sound.
 
In SStS Professional version, is it possible to load majority on SSD and place some Mic content on HDD to access when desired?
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the demo at 2 minutes everything before is just random writing and noise to me. But at 2 minutes..its getting a few pretty cool! Apart from that: Where are any Andy Demos for that library? Would be interesting to hear something from him..curious why they had none from him there, he is really good and did some really great stuff for other sf libraries.
 
Me too. Confusing times. The threads on this forum about this library have been a combination of legit complaints (with sound examples of excess noise, inconsistencies, and tuning issues), but also compositions featuring the library that are among the best I've heard.

I think all of those artifacts and imperfections which are obvious in spotlighted isolation just don't have much of an effect in the context of actual music.

I've worked with libraries that have far more glaring inconsistencies than what's been demonstrated from this one, and still managed to make music with them which is just fine (sonically; can't speak for my abilities as a composer).

If anything, slightly unpolished samples are what add humanity to our world of musical illusion, provided that they aren't totally compromised in playability, or obviously repeated in round robins. I have no reason to feel that either is the case here, unless you insist on using regular longs as detachés, I'll concede. ;) Although, I bet that could be done fairly convincingly with a breath controller.

I think SStS, and the series as a whole, will ultimately fare very well, and I'm following it quite closely....
 
Last edited:
Yes. You put the samples on the hard drives where you want them and then do a batch resave and it saves all the patches with the correct location of the samples on different drives.

Thank-you! Only ~ six days to decide whether to go with Pro vs Core … and such major content size difference.
Hoping this approach will be viable until more SSD space can be added.
 
So what then are you supposed to use in this library if you want a note that’s in any way longer than a tight spiccato?

That's not an inconsistency though, it's just an articulation that's not there. The spiccato seems to do what it should do.

Plus, the TM patches give some pretty wide flexibility with the shorts.
 
Last edited:
Thank-you! Only ~ six days to decide whether to go with Pro vs Core … and such major content size difference.
Hoping this approach will be viable until more SSD space can be added.
You can buy the core version for $199 then if you want to upgrade to the professional it is $200. I bought the core version last week and just upgraded to the Professional for $200 and am downloading now. I think it’s better to own both as it’s the same price so you can maybe keep the core version on your SSD then the professional on another drive.
 
That's not an inconsistency though, it's just an articulation that's not there. The spiccato seems to do what it should do.

Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.
 
Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.
You're not forced. The articulations were right there for everyone to read.
 
Huh? I never said it was an inconsistency. I'm addressing the comment that was clearly in reference to re-peats demonstration of trying to use longs to simulate detache shorter notes. The comment, IMO, obfuscated the point re-peat was trying to make: that because there are no short notes longer than spiccato, you are forced to use the longs which is impossible to do due to the...inconsistencies.

Well my post was about inconsistencies and how they affect the end sonic result, so I figured that's what you were responding to.

I wouldn't want to have obfuscated re-peat's point, but rather dispute it, as I don't really agree that you're "forced" to use anything. That's why people have dozens of libraries that do different things in different ways, isn't it? Sure, I'd love to have one master option, but it isn't exactly surprising for a new library to not live up to that. It is odd to not include a staccato option, but like I said above, the TM patches get you close, and I think that was probably what SF had in mind.

"Why didn't Spitfire include x, y, and z articulations?" is totally understandable. "Why don't these patches intended to do one thing work when I do something totally different with them?" is... less understandable. Again, isn't that why people have all of these different libraries? It just doesn't seem like a substantial criticism. I can appreciate that re-peat may wish to push that point in order to encourage some change in the not-quite-comprehensive way that VI's are normally put together, though.

I guess I just feel like the proportion of re-peat's reaction to what he was actually reacting to was a little silly. That's not surprising though. He has a different brain and different ears than the ones I have. Clearly he wanted to like it very much, and I'm let down for him that he doesn't. I've been there enough times myself.
 
Last edited:
I think all of those artifacts and imperfections which are obvious in spotlighted isolation just don't have much of an effect in the context of actual music.

I've worked with libraries that have far more glaring inconsistencies than what's been demonstrated from this one, and still managed to make music with them which is just fine (sonically; can't speak for my abilities as a composer).

If anything, slightly unpolished samples are what add humanity to our world of musical illusion, provided that they aren't totally compromised in playability, or obviously repeated in round robins. I have no reason to feel that either is the case here, unless you insist on using regular longs as detachés, I'll concede. ;) Although, I bet that could be done fairly convincingly with a breath controller.

I think SStS, and the series as a whole, will ultimately fare very well, and I'm following it quite closely....
Well normally I'd agree with you. As a recording guitarist where extraneous noise is a given, I'm used to the benefits of masking imperfections.
But when I heard that guy (Piet is it?) play the out of tune descending notes, I thought "well that's going to be hard to get past". But again, great music has already been made with this library, it's hard to argue that point too.
But for me, the absence of staccatos is a deal breaker for me. I've read the argument that spiccato isn't a true articulation or something like that, but hey, I don't care what they call it. They could call it super spiccatos for all I care, as long as they're in there. An inexcusable omission imo.
 
Well my post was about inconsistencies and how they affect the end sonic result, so I figured that's what you were responding to.

I wouldn't want to have obfuscated re-peat's point, but rather dispute it, as I don't really agree that you're "forced" to use anything. That's why people have dozens of libraries that do different things in different ways, isn't it? Sure, I'd love to have one master option, but it isn't exactly surprising for a new library to not live up to that.

I guess I just feel like the proportion of re-peat's reaction to what he was actually reacting to was a little silly. That's not surprising though. He has a different brain and different ears than the ones I have. Clearly he wanted to like it very much, and I'm let down for him that he doesn't. I've been there enough times myself.

lol, of course you're not FORCED to. Of course you're able to use as many libraries as you need but we're talking about one specific library here and it's inherent utility. You could just as easily say 90% of a library is useless but 10% is not so "hey you're not FORCED to use 90% of it". I like to layer and use as many libraries as I need, however, personally I've never needed to swap in basic (non-spiccato) short notes from different libraries to make a basic phrase work. But thats just me.
 
Top Bottom