What's new

Spitfire Studio Brass

HelixK

Active Member
Helix, you've been a member here for one month. Perhaps, you could cool off on the dramatic condemnations of other members and sweeping judgements about who gives more to the "community".

That's a flawed argument on so many levels. If membership time was any indication of character and value, you wouldn't see the forum's most liked member running away with cash.

We all have to start somewhere. I've helped a lot of people during my short period here. Or do I need to attach a 20+ year résumé working at BioWare and Ubisoft to my signature to add weight to my words? I don't believe in a dick waving, that's not why I've signed up for.

If I learned one thing in this industry is to show professional courtesy and sympathy towards people who are willing to stick their necks out there, as Christian and Paul often do. Seeing their hard work, that we all benefit from, tagged as "gross" is truly disconcerting and I will call bs whenever I see it. Feel free to disagree :)
 

Consona

Senior Member
I would love it if developers started using actual excerpts from classical pieces or scores (as long as it isn't the Force theme) for each instrument to show them in their natural habitats
They can't do that since it would be rather fricking embarrassing. :grin: (I'm all for proving me wrong :thumbsup:.)

The only brass sample library I've heard that sounded really close to a real thing was Sample Modeling Brass. I mean...
 

funnybear

Active Member
Just did a back to back listen to the SStB and CSB walkthroughs.

Obviously SStB has more articulations compared to CSB but so far CSB is hands down the winner for me simply because when it comes to brass, melodic lines are key for me.

For strings you get away writing clusters and long sustains but most of my brass stems are actually melodic. So Spitfire's product formula seems less effective here.

Maybe once there is more info / demos / etc. for SStB I can reassess, but so far SStB does not appeal to me.
 
Last edited:

HelixK

Active Member
They can't do that since it would be rather fricking embarrassing. :grin: (I'm all for proving me wrong :thumbsup:.)

The only brass sample library I've heard that sounded really close to a real thing was Sample Modeling Brass. I mean...

That channel was the sole reason I got into Sample Modeling. I remember telling Giorgio to give a cut of his profits to Sample Control :rofl: I know a lot of guys that bought his libraries because of those videos... too bad they didn't come with SC's programming skills.
 

prodigalson

Senior Member
That's a flawed argument on so many levels. If membership time was any indication of character and value, you wouldn't see the forum's most liked member running away with cash.

We all have to start somewhere. I've helped a lot of people during my short period here. Or do I need to attach a 20+ year résumé working at BioWare and Ubisoft to my signature to add weight to my words? I don't believe in a dick waving, that's not why I've signed up for.

If I learned one thing in this industry is to show professional courtesy and sympathy towards people who are willing to stick their necks out there, as Christian and Paul often do. Seeing their hard work, that we all benefit from, tagged as "gross" is truly disconcerting and I will call bs whenever I see it. Feel free to disagree :)

no one said membership time is an indication of character so thats a straw man argument. You're welcome here and your value is shown by your posts. However, there is something to be said for the common sense and etiquette of a newer member reprimanding older members and deciding who does or doesn't provide value to the forum.

This is a sample talk thread. Everyone is free to provide their opinions, positive or negative. You and I may disagree with @DarkestShadow s wording of his opinion but he doesn't owe Spitfire any deference simply because they made a library.
 

AoiichiNiiSan

New Member
I've spent a good amount of time today comparing the material for SStB and CSB and I'm sure now that I'm going to be passing over SStB. The workflow and ease of use efficiencies present in CSB, combined with CSS, is an incredible ease of use/quality of life feature. For that, I can sacrifice a couple of extra instruments. I've also been frustrated by the inconsistencies between many of Spitfire's other released libraries, but Alex has displayed his ability to make things work in a smooth, intuitive and consistent manner.

Just did a back to back listen to the SSB and CSB walkthroughs.

Obviously SSB has more articulations compared to CSB but so far CSB is hands down the winner for me simply because when it comes to brass, melodic lines are key for me.

For strings you get away writing clusters and long sustains but most of my brass stems are actually melodic. So Spitfire's product formula seems less effective here.

Maybe once there is more info / demos / etc. for SSB I can reassess, but so far SSB does not appeal to me.

My thoughts exactly.
 

NoamL

Winter <3
Just did a back to back listen to the SStB and CSB walkthroughs.

Did the same (while waiting for CSB to download so I already made up my mind LOL)

IMO the rooms and mics are not really a contest. SStB wins hands down. I love the sound of Air Studios 1 for this library, it's controlled but not too dry, and clearly very versatile.

I know from years of experiments with CSS that I can probably get CSB to sound like I want, but out of the box, I think it's not as great as SStB. The sound is very present and close while at the same time making the room feel quite small too. I'm still downloading but I expect to probably template it out with just the room mics?

I also think from all appearances this is one of the best programmed (on release) libraries that SF has done. They are going from strength to strength recently. I totally disagree with those who thought the walkthrough revealed programming flaws.

Both libraries sound great tonally, with an edge to SStB... but CSB's articulation demos make me feel like I'm in the room with musicians who are really passionate in the moment about playing these samples.

I think busy pro composers will just buy both of these. I mean it sets you back less than $1k total to have two amazing products, you can even throw in Caspian. Pro composers will probably not be satisfied with the zero-frills articulation approach of the CS series and SStB offers a really nice lineup of auxiliary instruments and cool extended techniques.

As someone on a budget (both money, RAM, and time), the compatibility with CSS, and the very generous loyalty discount for CSS owners, is the deciding factor for me along with CSB's innate musicality.
 
Last edited:

Nmargiotta

Composer TV and Advertisement
Did the same (while waiting for CSB to download so I already made up my mind LOL)

I think busy pro composers will just buy both of these. I mean it sets you back less than $1k total to have two amazing products, you can even throw in Caspian. Pro composers will probably not be satisfied with the zero-frills articulation approach of the CS series and SStB offers a really nice lineup of auxiliary instruments and cool extended techniques.
.

Not even a question, Absolutely. I think these libraries are very good compliments, as is CSS and SCS. I use them both heavily I couldn't choose one over the other. Now is the time to take advantage of the intro price and loyalty discounts and get 2 fantastic complimentary set of brass for under $600. Pretty great if you ask me.
 

Mike T

Senior Member
They can't do that since it would be rather fricking embarrassing. :grin: (I'm all for proving me wrong :thumbsup:.)

I think it's completely possible, since I'm usually able to do it myself after gambling and buying a library. It would be nice not to have to gamble, though.
 
Did the same (while waiting for CSB to download so I already made up my mind LOL)

IMO the rooms and mics are not really a contest. SStB wins hands down. I love the sound of Air Studios 1 for this library, it's controlled but not too dry, and clearly very versatile.

I know from years of experiments with CSS that I can probably get CSB to sound like I want, but out of the box, I think it's not as great as SStB. The sound is very present and close while at the same time making the room feel quite small too. I'm still downloading but I expect to probably template it out with just the room mics?

I also think from all appearances this is one of the best programmed (on release) libraries that SF has done. They are going from strength to strength recently. I totally disagree with those who thought the walkthrough revealed programming flaws.

Both libraries sound great tonally, with an edge to SStB... but CSB's articulation demos make me feel like I'm in the room with musicians who are really passionate in the moment about playing these samples.

I think busy pro composers will just buy both of these. I mean it sets you back less than $1k total to have two amazing products, you can even throw in Caspian. Pro composers will probably not be satisfied with the zero-frills articulation approach of the CS series and SStB offers a really nice lineup of auxiliary instruments and cool extended techniques.

As someone on a budget (both money, RAM, and time), the compatibility with CSS, and the very generous loyalty discount for CSS owners, is the deciding factor for me along with CSB's innate musicality.
I’m actually surprised by this! I thought you were going to go full tilt towards CSB based off the the sound alone!
I feel the SStB walkthroughs sound very very synthy. I’d love to hear your thoughts (especially if you disagree!).
 

AlexanderSchiborr

Senior Member
Can somebody who bought ssb do me a favor and mockup 2 things:

1. Trumpet Melody opening bars from the raiders march
2. Imperial March (Tenor / bass Bones + Trumpet in octaves) main melody?

Curious how that will sound. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Karl Feuerstake

Senior Member
I tend to find Spitfire libraries to be better for writing music that isn't John Williams-style.
It's more suited to the likes of other modern composers, like Hans Zimmer, Tyler Bates, Brian Tyler, maybe Marco Beltrami (maybe. Nobody has done a string library that can sound like his string-writing though.) Those kind of guys with their modern sound - Spitfire can do that stuff bang-on.
 

Consona

Senior Member
I tend to find Spitfire libraries to be better for writing music that isn't John Williams-style.
It's more suited to the likes of other modern composers, like Hans Zimmer, Tyler Bates, maybe Marco Beltrami (maybe. Nobody has done a string library that can sound like his string-writing though.) Those kind of guys with their modern sound - Spitfire can do that stuff bang-on.
Yea, that's because you don't need any extra good playability to do those things.
 

Karl Feuerstake

Senior Member
Yea, that's because you don't need any extra good playability to do those things.

Exactly. So the argument comes down to what has great sound vs. what has great playability - and with our current technology, nothing can do both perfectly yet. So you pick what suits you. For me, I don't need to or want to mock up any John Williams or Michael Giacchino; I have no interest in sounding like them. For others that is what they would prefer to sound like, and so they might be more drawn to the sample-modelling stuff.

If you wanted to do John Williams with really great quality sound as well, you'd need to do some serious sampling - it would require an enormous budget, and a large team to prepare the enormous swath of samples, and some serious programming to make it 'work like sample-modelling but sound like real life.' We're getting close now with some libraries beginning to offer various attack-types on notes for sustains, but then they often offer these at a sacrifice of round-robins. This is more because sampling brass is very time-consuming and riddled with challenges - to sample it thoroughly, players need to play an absolute ton of material, and brass players tire quickly. So if you sample 15 pitches of 'sustain' and offer 2x round robins and 3x dynamics, that requires 90 GOOD takes (there may be a few bad.) Now if you offer sustain soft-attack, normale, strong-attack, you're tripling that all. So you cut out the round-robin, maybe even some of the dynamics of certain attacks, to get back down to 90 - which sacrifices some realism and/or flexibility.

Let's not even forget brass players tire quickly. This means they're gonna require breaks, or even for multiple sessions across various days, especially when you get to the really loud stuff.

One day someone might work up the budget and time to do something insane, but for now, Spitfire and Orchestral Tools seem to be on the right path, even if they don't provide everything and the kitchen sink just yet. Play-ability is a whole other ball park and takes a lot of doctoring to get right as well, especially if you want to avoid creating unnatural sounds when blending your recordings.
 
Last edited:

Michael Stibor

Senior Member
Did the same (while waiting for CSB to download so I already made up my mind LOL)

IMO the rooms and mics are not really a contest. SStB wins hands down. I love the sound of Air Studios 1 for this library, it's controlled but not too dry, and clearly very versatile.

I know from years of experiments with CSS that I can probably get CSB to sound like I want, but out of the box, I think it's not as great as SStB. The sound is very present and close while at the same time making the room feel quite small too. I'm still downloading but I expect to probably template it out with just the room mics?

I also think from all appearances this is one of the best programmed (on release) libraries that SF has done. They are going from strength to strength recently. I totally disagree with those who thought the walkthrough revealed programming flaws.

Both libraries sound great tonally, with an edge to SStB... but CSB's articulation demos make me feel like I'm in the room with musicians who are really passionate in the moment about playing these samples.

I think busy pro composers will just buy both of these. I mean it sets you back less than $1k total to have two amazing products, you can even throw in Caspian. Pro composers will probably not be satisfied with the zero-frills articulation approach of the CS series and SStB offers a really nice lineup of auxiliary instruments and cool extended techniques.

As someone on a budget (both money, RAM, and time), the compatibility with CSS, and the very generous loyalty discount for CSS owners, is the deciding factor for me along with CSB's innate musicality.

So what are you saying? They're both good? Can you say that?! ;)
 

Mike T

Senior Member
Exactly. So the argument comes down to what has great sound vs. what has great playability - and with our current technology, nothing can do both perfectly yet. So you pick what suits you. For me, I don't need to or want to mock up any John Williams or Michael Giacchino; I have no interest in sounding like them. For others that is what they would prefer to sound like, and so they might be more drawn to the sample-modelling stuff.

If you wanted to do John Williams with really great quality sound as well, you'd need to do some serious sampling - it would require an enormous budget, and a large team to prepare the enormous swath of samples, and some serious programming to make it 'work like sample-modelling but sound like real life.' We're getting close now with some libraries beginning to offer various attack-types on notes for sustains, but then they often offer these at a sacrifice of round-robins. This is more because sampling brass is very time-consuming and riddled with challenges - to sample it thoroughly, players need to play an absolute ton of material, and brass players tire quickly. So if you sample 15 pitches of 'sustain' and offer 2x round robins and 3x dynamics, that requires 90 GOOD takes (there may be a few bad.) Now if you offer sustain soft-attack, normale, strong-attack, you're tripling that all. So you cut out the round-robin, maybe even some of the dynamics of certain attacks, to get back down to 90 - which sacrifices some realism and/or flexibility.

Let's not even forget brass players tire quickly. This means they're gonna require breaks, or even for multiple sessions across various days, especially when you get to the really loud stuff.

One day someone might work up the budget and time to do something insane, but for now, Spitfire and Orchestral Tools seem to be on the right path, even if they don't provide everything and the kitchen sink just yet. Play-ability is a whole other ball park and takes a lot of doctoring to get right as well, especially if you want to avoid creating unnatural sounds when blending your recordings.

Well said!

Sure, it would be nice to have orchestral VI's with the versatility of real orchestral players. As it is, though, it isn't such a big deal to choose between the different available options based on what best suits your needs, or to just get them all, if you do it all (and can afford it). The choice of better sound or better playability also isn't all that painful, not for me, at least. It's just a reality of what we do, and you have to figure out which you value more.

Everything is a compromise. Virtual instruments are no different. I don't think that will ever change, and I think that's for the best.
 

Henu

Senior Member
Before listening to the Samplemodeling excerpts:

"Woaaah, I'm SO MUCH either getting CSB or this....or both!!!!"

After listening to the Samplemodeling excerpts:

"Yeah, well...I think I'm just going to pass these for now and concentrate seriously learning to use the Samplemodeling libraries better."
 
Top Bottom