What's new

SPITFIRE - Spitfire Solo Strings NEW Virtuoso Violin Total Performance Patch

B.Karloff

New Member
well there are a variety of reasons to use basic long articulations. 1) instruments with prerecorded transitions are more resource hungry so in large templates having every long articulation be "true legato" would be undesirable and unrealistic. 2) In many cases, when writing less polyphonic or intricate music a patch that is not monophonic and can be played more than one note at a time is more desirable. 3) this is arguable but many composers don't believe true legato is all it's hyped up to be.

With regard to your second question, I believe SF simply decided true legato on the bass was less necessary than on the other instruments. With bass, basic long articulations can get you far enough.
Thank you for taking the time in elaborating on my concerns. Regarding 1) I agree that this used to be a valid argument. However does this really matter these days as modern computers have a lot of processing power resources? 2) As the declared purpose of the library is literally promoted to be "Solo" Strings and also is marketed as the right tool for quartet writing I would see the main intention and application as just this: for POLYphonic writing! Therefore the capability of playing a polyphonic arrangement with realistic legato lines is crucial and should be considered the foremost task of the SOLO String library. The application of playing a homophonic patch might be an add on goodie but is kind of odd in that regard as would be certainly be no quartet instrumentation anymore. I hope you agree. Just talking in terms of realism here. 3) I don't care what other composers say if my ears tell me different. I'm a string player and part of a string section myself. The important aspects again are sound AND realism. If the core sound is right but the big throw off is the transition it will ruin the overall performance anyway. Thanks again.
 

prodigalson

Senior Member
Thank you for taking the time in elaborating on my concerns. Regarding 1) I agree that this used to be a valid argument. However does this really matter these days as modern computers have a lot of processing power resources? 2) As the declared purpose of the library is literally promoted to be "Solo" Strings and also is marketed as the right tool for quartet writing I would see the main intention and application as just this: for POLYphonic writing! Therefore the capability of playing a polyphonic arrangement with realistic legato lines is crucial and should be considered the foremost task of the SOLO String library. The application of playing a homophonic patch might be an add on goodie but is kind of odd in that regard as would be certainly be no quartet instrumentation anymore. I hope you agree. Just talking in terms of realism here. 3) I don't care what other composers say if my ears tell me different. I'm a string player and part of a string section myself. The important aspects again are sound AND realism. If the core sound is right but the big throw off is the transition it will ruin the overall performance anyway. Thanks again.
I think you misunderstood my post to be some kind of challenge or criticism. I wasn't trying to engage in an argument or challenge your views with respect to this specific library. I was simply trying to ascertain whether you were trying to get legato transitions from articulations that don't have them (which it seems like you were). And then simply answering your question about why someone would want an articulation that doesn't have legato transitions in the first place on a more general level, not specifically with respect to this library.

Though I will disagree with your last post on two general points 1) yes, the question of resources is still valid even with modern day computing power, though of course this depends on the size of your template. SF are not just catering to those with i9 12-core, 128GB RAM systems. 2) IMO, using a basic long patch to improvise and sketch a quartet does not in and of itself rule out the possibility of polyphonic, idiomatic quartet writing. And it is a perfectly valid and time-tested way of composing just like many revered composers sitting down at a piano to write a string quartet. AGAIN, I'm not suggesting that you should be happy with the basic longs as a way of executing intricate, polyphonic writing in your final version. There are legato patches for that (though you may not be pleased with them). I'm just elaborating on why basic long articulations without transitions are a worthwhile addition for a commercial sample library developer catering to a diverse customer base to add to even a solo strings library.
 

B.Karloff

New Member
I think you misunderstood my post to be some kind of challenge or criticism. I wasn't trying to engage in an argument or challenge your views with respect to this specific library. I was simply trying to ascertain whether you were trying to get legato transitions from articulations that don't have them (which it seems like you were). And then simply answering your question about why someone would want an articulation that doesn't have legato transitions in the first place on a more general level, not specifically with respect to this library.

Though I will disagree with your last post on two general points 1) yes, the question of resources is still valid even with modern day computing power, though of course this depends on the size of your template. SF are not just catering to those with i9 12-core, 128GB RAM systems. 2) IMO, using a basic long patch to improvise and sketch a quartet does not in and of itself rule out the possibility of polyphonic, idiomatic quartet writing. And it is a perfectly valid and time-tested way of composing just like many revered composers sitting down at a piano to write a string quartet. AGAIN, I'm not suggesting that you should be happy with the basic longs as a way of executing intricate, polyphonic writing in your final version. There are legato patches for that (though you may not be pleased with them). I'm just elaborating on why basic long articulations without transitions are a worthwhile addition for a commercial sample library developer catering to a diverse customer base to add to even a solo strings library.
Thank you for your comment. @ 1) Of course I could not claim that the question of resources doesn't matter at all in general. It's always possible to get a system into overload if you try hard enough. Of course it will depend on the project's size which raises the question of how many instances of software samplers you think you need to express a musical idea...However for an average size mock up demo project with a reasonable amount of software and realtime processing requirements today's average computer systems ARE much more capable and solid. I only have a macbook pro with 16GB of RAM and I hardly ever get to the point where the system has to handle too much.
@2) yes, I agree that's why I actually called the longs "add on goodies" myself. However I'd rather live without these goodies options if they had spent the time working to provide a legato patch for the bass instead. By the way the actual long bass sound is absolutely poor and thin. I have made a better sounding library myself with my Zoom Handheld Recorder. Full tone and vivid! This proves a non pro recording with just a few recorded core samples stretched into zones can outdo this high profile Spitfire product? Ridiculous.
In conclusion I'd prefer the "time tested" method to work with a simple piano sound if it's about constructing the functionalities of a polyphonic arrangement - instead of having to deal with blurring and irritating longs which don't do the real instruments's sound any justice.
 

B.Karloff

New Member
well there are a variety of reasons to use basic long articulations. 1) instruments with prerecorded transitions are more resource hungry so in large templates having every long articulation be "true legato" would be undesirable and unrealistic. 2) In many cases, when writing less polyphonic or intricate music a patch that is not monophonic and can be played more than one note at a time is more desirable. 3) this is arguable but many composers don't believe true legato is all it's hyped up to be.

With regard to your second question, I believe SF simply decided true legato on the bass was less necessary than on the other instruments. With bass, basic long articulations can get you far enough.
If SF decided that a realistic representation of the bass was less important for this library they should have completely stayed away from the bass department in my opinion. The bass longs sound cheap, nasal and poor. I wonder how the high profile bass player they recorded these samples with feels about this and if he feels represented well. All I can say is that these basic long articulations will not get me anywhere.
 

Alex Niedt

Active Member
If SF decided that a realistic representation of the bass was less important for this library they should have completely stayed away from the bass department in my opinion. The bass longs sound cheap, nasal and poor. I wonder how the high profile bass player they recorded these samples with feels about this and if he feels represented well. All I can say is that these basic long articulations will not get me anywhere.
I make pretty quiet stuff, and I find the bass flautandos quite nice, though I did switch to them after struggling with the tone of the other longs.
 

B.Karloff

New Member
No problem! I have reproduced the issue, so you're right that there's no need to create a ticket now. Do bear in mind though (and this applies to anyone on VI-Control) that just because it's been reported on a forum, it doesn't mean we're aware and looking into it - there's sometimes a "bystander effect" on forums (or in software usage generally actually) where everyone assumes that someone else reported it.

If you find an issue, do please let us know - if nothing else, when we have two or more issues of seemingly similar priority, the one with the most reports will be looked at first.

Ben
Hello Ben, I noticed there has been a release of an update for SOLO Strings (Version 1.0b30) available for download. Could you please list the issues which have been addressed? Please let us know.
 

SpitfireSupport

Customer Experience
Hello Ben, I noticed there has been a release of an update for SOLO Strings (Version 1.0b30) available for download. Could you please list the issues which have been addressed? Please let us know.
Hi there, we don't publish a full list of the issues that are fixed but examples include - Bowed transitions now trigger at a lower velocity, Violin (progressive) missing tremolo harmonics icon replaced, Cello long sul pont had a range of notes that had a noise on the attack that has been removed.
 

B.Karloff

New Member
Hi there, we don't publish a full list of the issues that are fixed but examples include - Bowed transitions now trigger at a lower velocity, Violin (progressive) missing tremolo harmonics icon replaced, Cello long sul pont had a range of notes that had a noise on the attack that has been removed.
Hello Ben, thank you informing us. That is very valuable to know. From this I conclude that the missing close mic position in the "Progressive Violin long" has not been addressed yet, is that correct? Thanks again!
 

B.Karloff

New Member
I'm checking with the production team on this one, thanks.
Awesome! Thanks for your support here!
Actually I still cannot notice any change in the close mic position after installing the update. If you check with your production team it would be great to know when they intend to fix the issue.
Thanks again!
 

SpitfireSupport

Customer Experience
Actually I still cannot notice any change in the close mic position after installing the update. If you check with your production team it would be great to know when they intend to fix the issue.
We released an update this morning that should fix the issue for you. If you have any trouble at all, please contact us at spitfireaudio.com/support

Ben
 

B.Karloff

New Member
We released an update this morning that should fix the issue for you. If you have any trouble at all, please contact us at spitfireaudio.com/support

Ben
Hi Ben, thank you for letting us know here!
I wonder about the following: on downloading the update into my originally assigned Spitfire Download folder - which is still containing the latest and complete version of Solo Strings - the only option I can see is to download the entire library of 39,83 GB.
Is that really meant that way? I assumed the update fixing that one "close mic missing" issue would be way smaller.
Or should I have just clicked "refresh libraries" (in "Account"")?
Thanks for clarifying in advance!
 

SpitfireSupport

Customer Experience
Hi Ben, thank you for letting us know here!
I wonder about the following: on downloading the update into my originally assigned Spitfire Download folder - which is still containing the latest and complete version of Solo Strings - the only option I can see is to download the entire library of 39,83 GB.
Is that really meant that way? I assumed the update fixing that one "close mic missing" issue would be way smaller.
Or should I have just clicked "refresh libraries" (in "Account"")?
Thanks for clarifying in advance!
We'd have to check your account to make sure, it's possible that the whole library got reset which means that you will download the whole thing. To resolve this and just download the update, please contact our support team at spitfireaudio.com/support
 
Top Bottom