What's your opinion on Light and Sound Chamber Strings?

nolotrippen

Active Member
What's your opinion on Light and Sound Chamber Strings? 2.0 at this point and half off. But how do you all like it?
 

jbuhler

Senior Member
I like it, and I've worked with it primarily as a complement to SCS. I haven't yet had as much of an opportunity to explore it as I hoped when I picked it up in December, since dealing with the pandemic has cut into the time I have for composing. I've found it to have a very nice sound overall, and an excellent legato. It also has some nice arcs.
 

szurcio

Still searching
Are they still planning to update it with more short articulations? I seem to remember they once talked about it. The thing that bothers me is the lack of any trills.
 

Stringtree

Senior Member
No disco falls? Lol.

I'm waiting for the Spring Wish List to make a decision about whether this will make me happy, or if I can have the one I've been waiting for.

This history is good. The first version was all fixed up responsively by the developer, and many call this a hidden gem. On the other hand, the other one was made of Sable and other goodies, with performance legato patches.

It's extraordinarily tempting.

Greg
 

muk

Senior Member
Have it, like it a lot. It's the string library that is closest to the classical concert hall sound to my ears. It sounds open, transparent, and clear without being overly bright or harsh. What is there is of great quality and works very well. The only downside it has for me is that I would wish it had more articulations. Particularly portamento, and more variations of short articulations. The scope is somewhat limited there, and it gives you many options for slower paced music (the coming in from zero and fading out to zero with the sustain pedal sound gorgeous and works very well). For faster music, there are not enough short articulations to choose from. At that price you can't expect more though, and the sample and programming are of the highest quality.

It's one of my favourite strings libraries. I particularly like their timbre and sound signature.

Here are some mockups I made with this library:


 

ism

Senior Member
One amazing sweet spot of this library, that I don't think is ever fully foregrounded in the demos is just how lyrical it gets when you really learn to use the arcs.

Whenever you hold the sus pedal you get recorded crescendos and decrescendo. It takes a bit of practice to figure out how to really use this subtly, but I find it really opens up a very lyrical space that I can't get with any other library.
 

ism

Senior Member
Have it, like it a lot. It's the string library that is closest to the classical concert hall sound to my ears. It sounds open, transparent, and clear without being overly bright or harsh. What is there is of great quality and works very well. The only downside it has for me is that I would wish it had more articulations. Particularly portamento, and more variations of short articulations. The scope is somewhat limited there, and it gives you many options for slower paced music (the coming in from zero and fading out to zero with the sustain pedal sound gorgeous and works very well). For faster music, there are not enough short articulations to choose from. At that price you can't expect more though, and the sample and programming are of the highest quality.

It's one of my favourite strings libraries. I particularly like their timbre and sound signature.

Here are some mockups I made with this library:


Might have said this before, but I love these mockups.

Especially the Elgar. There are ways that I vastly prefer it even to Noam's CSS mock ups. (Although of course there are things that CSS is better at too).
 
  • Like
Reactions: muk

Stringtree

Senior Member
Hey muk,

Really nice mockup of the second movement of the Elgar. When compared with the real deal, there is that amazing and passionate dynamic range that the real ensemble exhbits, and is pretty good in your version. This has been an ongoing decision for me, but it comes down to the number of the articulations in the leading brand. I'll have to seek out a representation of that piece with said brand before I decide.

Greg
 

ism

Senior Member
Light and Sound.

Hyperion is a hybrid sound, lovely if you like that sort of thing. But in no way comparable to LS.

CH - lots to love about it, but dry as a bone.

LS may be recorded dry, but the 7 mics give you really space and dimension to work with. Absolutely crucial for what I love about LS.

You'll need to add a long tail reverb to LS, but you have huge control over the early reflections. I generally prefer wet libraries, because I just don't think that a certain quality of "embodiment" in a space can be simulated for strings into anything I find remotely satisfying. CH does amazing thing at the level of modelling and programming that the done dryness lets you do and that you probably couldn't do with 7 mics. But in LS it's not just a sound and reverb ambience that the 7 mics give you control over, but an embodiment, and I think ultimately a lyricism, that hinges on the dimension and spatiality of the various mics, as well as a definition that arises from being able to mix in the close mics.
 
Last edited:

szurcio

Still searching
What would be a good library to pair with LSCS to provide more short articulations and portamento? And one that would blend well with Light and Sound?
 

muk

Senior Member
Hey muk,

Really nice mockup of the second movement of the Elgar. When compared with the real deal, there is that amazing and passionate dynamic range that the real ensemble exhbits, and is pretty good in your version. This has been an ongoing decision for me, but it comes down to the number of the articulations in the leading brand. I'll have to seek out a representation of that piece with said brand before I decide.

Greg
Thank you Greg. If you are alluding to Spitfire Chamber Strings, @tack did a fabulous mockup of the same part with it here:


Spitfire Chamber Strings have many more aticulations, and thus are more flexible. Personally I much prefer the sound of Light & Sound though. SCS sounds dark and a bit nasal to me in comparison, while Light & Sound is wonderfully open and clear. Might just be personal preference though.

@nolotrippen I concur with @ism. If I had to choose between those three, I'd easily pick Light & Sound. Hyperion is not on the same level qualitywise in my opinion. Chris Hein is more flexible, but again, soundwise I much prefer Light & Sound.

@szurcio In my Elgar example, in the beginning, where only the first violins play, there is one portamento transition. That portamento is from Centery Strings. Only that transition is layered with Century strings (and a second portamento later on in the piece). The whole rest is purely Light & Sound
Very unobtrusive and hard to notice if you don't know it I find. So Centery works fine, for instance. But I have a feeling that other libraries will work well too.
 

Stringtree

Senior Member
Man, that's really hard. You have not made this any easier. There is something so nice about the SCS, muk. Those little details make it sound so very regal and emotional. I can almost see the players. Each additional articulation points to fingers on strings.

Thank you for that. And @tack, to whom a bit of cheers are to be lavished on.

Greg
 

jbuhler

Senior Member
In my little bit of playing around, I've found SCS and LSCS work together reasonably well. I haven't yet had an opportunity to test the combination at length though, so I don't know yet whether I can use the two libraries over the course of a piece and maintain the illusion of the sound of a single string section. I've found SCS in general to be a library that layers quite well with other libraries. @muk is right about SCS's nasally tone, which I like, but it's the thing that I always warn potential buyers about because it's not to everyone's taste. LSCS's legato is optimized to handle a different kind of material than SCS so that makes it a good complement as well. Also one can never have too many string libraries.
 

Stringtree

Senior Member
In my little bit of playing around, I've found SCS and LSCS work together reasonably well. I haven't yet had an opportunity to test the combination at length though, so I don't know yet whether I can use the two libraries over the course of a piece and maintain the illusion of the sound of a single string section. I've found SCS in general to be a library that layers quite well with other libraries. @muk is right about SCS's nasally tone, which I like, but it's the thing that I always warn potential buyers about because it's not to everyone's taste. LSCS's legato is optimized to handle a different kind of material than SCS so that makes it a good complement as well. Also one can never have too many string libraries.
Yeah, okay, buy 'em all. Thanks, jbuhler, there are now two hand-sized clumps of hair: one on the couch cushion next to me and one that's on the floor. :dancer:

All this renewed discussion on the LSCS has seriously renewed my interest. Especially that pedal trick to trigger swells.

I'm a very simple person. I heard a Britten thing live when I was a kid, and then the Ravel String Quartet, and I have been dying to play cat's cradle with something of this in my hands for a long time.

Greg
 

Stringtree

Senior Member
Oh, yeah, nolotrippen. Had I not purchased the Loegria when I had the chance.

That and Tundra are my go-to "ahhh" happy libraries.

My wallet ran and hid. I hear tiny muffled squeaking sounds. (Oh yeah, that's actually Tundra.)

Greg