What's new

What's not to like about Spitfire Chamber Strings?

harmaes

Member
I’d probably reach for SSS when I need something that is naturally bigger. I actually used SSS recently for a snippet of a John Powell mock-up as it was more fitting.
As mentioned in another reaction I also find that SSS has some issues with pumping between notes of medium tempo 8th notes. On the normal as well as and legato patches. What are ways to improve this?
 

thesteelydane

Senior Member
Yes, the pro-version is tempting too, since it is 'only' 150 more tomorrow. I just don't understand what the stereomixes do. I thought all the articulations were recorded 'in situ', also in the core lib? Then what do stereomixes add? I don't think I will use the extra mics that much, but maybe those mixes are useful to me?
They save you resources, that's all. Someone, like Jake Jackson, made a mix with all the available mics, and that mix was bounced as new samples - so you can load that mix, and only get hit wit the RAM footprint of a single mic position. Think of it as another mic perspective, but one that's a mix of all the the other mics.
 

jbuhler

Senior Member
Yes, the pro-version is tempting too, since it is 'only' 150 more tomorrow. I just don't understand what the stereomixes do. I thought all the articulations were recorded 'in situ', also in the core lib? Then what do stereomixes add? I don't think I will use the extra mics that much, but maybe those mixes are useful to me?
Stereo mixes are just Jake Jackson mixes from the other mics, but with a reduced RAM footprint. I often use them as a starting point instead of the core CTA.
ETA: Or what @thesteelydane said.
 

josejherring

Senior Member
I love the demos, but I have to admit that for commercial composition which is the only thing I use samples for, I find that sound of chamber strings to be the least desired sound. I don't really understand why developers have gravitated towards it as their main libraries like Berlin and CSS have.

Do you find much use for these smaller ensembles in film/tv/game/trailer/library music? Or maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way. Maybe in using liver players if I can only afford a chamber ensemble, I should do mockups with a chamber ensemble so as to make a more accurate representation of the final sound.
 

amorphosynthesis

Active Member
Has been a very tempting option for some time. Not SCS, but $120. seems good value.
March 21, SF Apex changes the perspective. :unsure:
To share my own testimony,i have followed chamber strings since 'sable' times....at first no so excited(was an unfinished product back then)...but grew and expanded since then and now it is a colossal,magnificent library(sure it has its flows).
Also Managed to go full on GAS and bought almost every string library out there(except orchestral tools maybe)

8dio's century and all Adagio-agitato-anthology,studio strings
NI Symphony Series,
Hollywood strings,
Cinematic studio strings and cinematic strings 1&2,
LASS,
Spitfire studio strings
Cinestrings

all have their pros and cons,but
along with lass and cinematic studio strings SCS is a real WORKHORSE....i.mean you can go intimate or big,lush or harsh,can have any articulation you maybe can think of...sky (and ambience) is the limit.
 

asherpope

Member
The deal is kinda tempting I gotta say...I may be needing it for some classical Pachebel's Canon kinda stuff, would it be suitable for that lush baroque sound?
 

NYC Composer

Senior Member
I think this could be more of an ear-fatigue but the more I've played with it, the more I could not tolerate its exaggerated vibrato nor the nasal quality of the small sections. But that's just me. If you like the sound already then I think there is no much to dislike about this library.
Out of curiousity, did you mess with the vibrato controls? There’s not a LOT of control but there is some (is it three levels, down to off?)
 

Pixelpoet1985

Active Member
If anyone is so kind, I would like to know two things concerning the legatos in SCS.

1) Note range: I recently bought Studio Strings, and the violins' legato only go up to the high C. The sustains go a bit higher. Is this the same with SCS?

2) Dynamic range: The legatos in Studio Strings go just about, say, 70/80% of the dynamics of the sustains, the fortissimo levels are missing. Is this, again, the same with SCS?
 

jaketanner

Senior Member
If anyone is so kind, I would like to know two things concerning the legatos in SCS.

1) Note range: I recently bought Studio Strings, and the violins' legato only go up to the high C. The sustains go a bit higher. Is this the same with SCS?

2) Dynamic range: The legatos in Studio Strings go just about, say, 70/80% of the dynamics of the sustains, the fortissimo levels are missing. Is this, again, the same with SCS?
The legato violins go from low G to high D...about 3.5 octaves. My Cinestrings goes the full 4 octaves, but they may have generated those extra high samples, and not actually recorded.
 

Batrawi

Senior Member
Out of curiousity, did you mess with the vibrato controls? There’s not a LOT of control but there is some (is it three levels, down to off?)
I keep the slider just above the middle which is the soft vibrato. Below is off and moving up is more intense..so yeah it's 3 levels I think if that what you mean. But even the soft vibrato is so pronounced to my ears (as if all players are playing vibrato in sync which is unrealistic). I think this is again due to the nasal quality of the small section size which is even amplified with the big hall size...A combination that my ears didn't like with time.
 

Mason

Active Member
Thanks, I just spent a lot of time on it is all!

This piece had so many divisi parts that I opted for SCS in the end. The unison moments could have probably benefited from SSS too, however at the time my template was maxing out my RAM enough anyway...

It’s SCS with Solo Strings layered, so no Albion, Symphonic Strings, etc. I’d probably reach for SSS when I need something that is naturally bigger. I actually used SSS recently for a snippet of a John Powell mock-up as it was more fitting.
Great to know! As I don’t own SSS, I wonder if layering SCS 3 times would give a pleasant result? Been waiting so long for a SSS sale :)
 
It has all the typical qualities of Spitfire libraries and all the drawbacks.

Generally I'm a fan of SCS - the sound and character are just unparelleled - but the things I sometimes struggle with are:

1) It really is very very ambient, and it's something you kind of have to live with. You can never really eliminate the rich reverb tail - not even with the close mics.

2) It's not a library that allows combining many different articulations to a fluid, cohesive performance without extensive editing and fumbling around. The note attacks and decays, their general responsiveness, and volume/dynamics I would describe as a bit unwieldy and sluggish, if you're trying to do more nimble, agile, or intricate stuff. The articulations are seemingly meant to stand on their own and often don't really behave as if they were meant to "play together". Sculpting a performance in which you, let's say, alternate between firm, resolute bowings, short notes and softer arcs requires quite a lot of massaging.

3) It's a minor thing really, but the library includes an extensive wealth of articulations, which are spread over several NKIs by a seemingly erratic logic, so organizing the patches you really need is a bit of a mess.
To your third point I agree. I wish spitfire would take notes from some other developers and just put all of their articulations into one patch. Their core ‘workhorse’ patches make a lot of sense but they always lack like 2-3 more articulations I use on a consistent basis. Would make creating articulations maps in logic less of a pain if they just combined everything. I know next to nothing about scripting so I’m sure there’s some method to their madness.
 
Top Bottom