Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Legato String Library Help (Mainly Violins and Celli)

I think CSS might be a great choice for you, with a couple caveats:

1) Some people struggle with the legato system. Personally, using one track per articulation, I actually appreciate how consistent the editing is because it's easy to make the library sound in time. You can set up input transformers to force the velocity of the legatos to a single speed, or use the low latency patches. I believe most of the offsets are listed in the manual and here. But if you use keyswitching or articulation mapping and need it to be playable, it can be a lot less fun, because note starts need to be so far ahead of the grid for the legatos.

2) I don't care for the room it's recorded in. It's not so much the "dark" sound, which is beautiful in its way, but the resonances that build up in certain frequencies. I usually notch out pretty heavily around 2.6-2.8K, and toggling my EQ on and off really emphasizes how unpleasant that frequency especially is, at least to my ears. So I would just suggest listening carefully to some walkthroughs to be sure this isn't a dealbreaker for you. For me it's a tricky balance to tame the resonances in this library and not have it sound sordino-like. (Side note — I think the library sounds best with the CS emulation turned on).

But overall it is a really excellent library, so incredibly musical, the legato is one of if not the best that I have or have heard, and I think the chances of buyer's remorse are pretty low.
 

Attachments

  • CSS with mutes on and some other samples too.mp3
    1 MB
Henrik B. Jensen said:
I wish I could understand the love for ARO First Violins and Cellos.

The sound does not give me any emotional reaction at all.

It's not a question of me preferring the more romantic string sound of CSS, because I also love the sound of SSS and SCS.

However ARO strings to me sound stale, without movement. Polished, but without soul.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. After listening to the Vista II teasers that JB puts out, ARO Violins 1 and Cellos sound dead in the sustains. The legatos are impressive, gotta say... but the sustains that follow the legato sound so dead and dull. Which is why Pacific Ensemble Strings has become my main strings library of choice, probably until Vista II releases :) Also CSS, with the new Vibrato controls (and Auto-Vib from grumpymonkey) sounds a lot more livelier than ARO.

I tend to use AROOF for the hall mainly. and layer it over with more expressive and detailed libraries like Pacific and CSS. Can't wait for Pacific Brass and Solo Strings.

Edit: Also, if anyone says that it's all up to the programming, my biggest example is the demos for Pacific Ens Strings and ARO Violins that Blakus has. Both pieces are lovely, but you can make out those static sustains in the ARO V1 demo.
 
Henrik B. Jensen said:
I wish I could understand the love for ARO First Violins and Cellos.

The sound does not give me any emotional reaction at all.

It's not a question of me preferring the more romantic string sound of CSS, because I also love the sound of SSS and SCS.

However ARO strings to me sound stale, without movement. Polished, but without soul.
Click to expand...
This is a pertinent point, and one that gets brought up a lot as a point of comparison.
ARO is not an instant-gratification library. You do have to actually work to make it "sound good" in that sense.
Sometimes we want our samples to 'inspire us' to write with them, and the ultra-expressive samples do this much better than ARO. But sometimes we want the sample library to just be a reliable tool that can do what we ask of it. That is more ARO's strength. Will it always sound better than the competition in the end? No. But sometimes the experience of using the tool is what makes it valuable, too.

It does require your music to elicit the emotional response, and not rely on expression that is embedded in a sample.
It's a similar philosophy behind Hollywood Strings, or even the Berlin series.
Admittedly, it requires a higher level of skill/work/time in order to achieve an equally satisfying result for a lot of people, so it won't be suitable for everybody. But as a tool, it plays a specific role, and is not really meant to compete with others that ultimately fulfill a different role.
 
Jdiggity1 said:
This is a pertinent point, and one that gets brought up a lot as a point of comparison.
ARO is not an instant-gratification library. You do have to actually work to make it "sound good" in that sense.
Sometimes we want our samples to 'inspire us' to write with them, and the ultra-expressive samples do this much better than ARO. But sometimes we want the sample library to just be a reliable tool that can do what we ask of it. That is more ARO's strength. Will it always sound better than the competition in the end? No. But sometimes the experience of using the tool is what makes it valuable, too.

It does require your music to elicit the emotional response, and not rely on expression that is embedded in a sample.
It's a similar philosophy behind Hollywood Strings, or even the Berlin series.
Admittedly, it requires a higher level of skill/work/time in order to achieve an equally satisfying result for a lot of people, so it won't be suitable for everybody. But as a tool, it plays a specific role, and is not really meant to compete with others that ultimately fulfill a different role.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean and I see your point, however you’re talking about ARO in comparison with what you call ultra-expressive samples. But it’s not just about that, at least not for me.

For example SSS sounds fantastic IMO and it’s not a library most people would group along with CSS, Vista and other similar very expressive libraries.

Interestingly I also hear OT’s new Benjamin Wallfisch strings as sounding stale and dead, perhaps even more so than ARO. *)

*) I mean the sustain part.
 
Jdiggity1 said:
This is a pertinent point, and one that gets brought up a lot as a point of comparison.
ARO is not an instant-gratification library. You do have to actually work to make it "sound good" in that sense.
Sometimes we want our samples to 'inspire us' to write with them, and the ultra-expressive samples do this much better than ARO. But sometimes we want the sample library to just be a reliable tool that can do what we ask of it. That is more ARO's strength. Will it always sound better than the competition in the end? No. But sometimes the experience of using the tool is what makes it valuable, too.

It does require your music to elicit the emotional response, and not rely on expression that is embedded in a sample.
It's a similar philosophy behind Hollywood Strings, or even the Berlin series.
Admittedly, it requires a higher level of skill/work/time in order to achieve an equally satisfying result for a lot of people, so it won't be suitable for everybody. But as a tool, it plays a specific role, and is not really meant to compete with others that ultimately fulfill a different role.
Click to expand...
SamTheAudiocrat said:
Edit: Also, if anyone says that it's all up to the programming, my biggest example is the demos for Pacific Ens Strings and ARO Violins that Blakus has. Both pieces are lovely, but you can make out those static sustains in the ARO V1 demo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i understand it might need more work, but at least in my eyes, the demos that Blakus wrote for both Pacific and ARO V1 demonstrates that. Blakus, as we know, works tediously ensuring everything is right, and on it is a brilliant piece, that ARO V1 demo... but you can make out the deadness for sure. At least to my ears...


Henrik B. Jensen said:
Interestingly I also hear OT’s new Benjamin Wallfisch strings as sounding stale and dead, perhaps even more so than ARO. *)

*) I mean the sustain part.
Click to expand...
Yes I hear that too.
 
All this talk of "stale" and "deadness" feels a bit like somebody saying that soda is not sweet enough because they're used to drinking maple syrup.
There might be some skewing of tastes based on what we consume regularly, which tbh is to be expected I guess.

I just had a listen to Skyward by Blakus again, and boy howdy "dead" is certainly not a word I'd use to describe it.
"Controlled", maybe? It's not an OTT sound but it's certainly not stale, and very much what I'd expect from a live session, unless you really emphasise molto espressivo to the players.
The melody could be made more rich and lively if orchestrated with a Violins 2 section, but obviously that wasn't available. Despite the sound of the end result, Blake still seems pretty dang positive and excited about it in his video. So that might be worth something to you too.

From my own experience I would agree that the section by itself might sound a bit 'thin' or 'focused', as opposed to a sound that sort of envelopes your ears and is full of richness, but that's also been what has made it so incredibly easy to drop into a mix without faffing with it. It might sound counter-intuitive but all that syrupy richness of some other samples is exactly what I'm forced to control or take out if fitting it into a dense mix with other parts. If I want ARO to sound richer and lively, I can add that on top very easily. But taking those qualities out of something is sometimes impossible.

Anyway.. that's my piece on the matter. I'm still glad I own a dozen other options!
 
Why do you keep talking about “maple syrup” and “syrup richness”?

I’m assuming you mean CSS, Vista etc. with those terms.

But I’ve said twice now that - for me at least - this is not a question of very expressive samples vs. more neutral samples or whatever one would call it.

I like both Spitfire Symphonic Strings and Berlin Strings. The sound of those libraries reaches me emotionally.

It’s not a question of requiring more work or less work either; it’s that ARO as well as OT’s Benjamin Wallfisch Strings just sound flat and lifeless to me. Technically they are super well recorded etc. but I don’t feel much when listening to the sound. It’s a polished but character-less sound drained for any life to my ears.
 
Last edited:
LiamHKW said:
I know I'm oh so special coming here to ask about strings sample libraries, but I want to throw my situation into the ring:

Despite being a college student with times when I'm financially stable enough to buy new libraries being few and far between, I've amassed a decent-sounding virtual orchestra over the years comprised of multiple libraries. I mainly like to write with a romantic-era/John Williams-type- sound, and most of my sample libraries do the job when it comes to achieving relative realism, but the one section where it seems to fall apart is the strings, specifically the legato patches. I have BBCSO Core and the CineStrings complete collection and they sound great with most of their articulations, but CS Core's legato can be kind of weak with not the smoothest transitions between notes (talking ensemble patches, the solo sounds great), and BBCSO sounds a bit better but some of the legato transitions can be a bit inconsistent. This mainly becomes noticeable in the violins and the celli sections.

I know I need to upgrade my sections at some point, but I have to be careful about what I put my money into, especially things like sample libraries. The things I see most people raving about when it comes to smooth legato patches are Performance Samples' Vista and CSS. I am in love with the legato transitions of Vista, but it seems a bit pricey for what it is (and I see Vista II is going to be even more expensive) especially with the lack of 2nd violins, and CSS from what I've heard also sounds great and the student discount is nice, but I haven't heard enough demos to tell if it's right for what I like to write. And with both libraries, I'm worried buying whole new sets of ensembles might be overkill if I'm mainly looking for improvements with the violins and the celli and want to be smart with my purchase so I won't have to end up replacing them again in a short time.

So, for those who have experience with some or all of these libraries, what are your thoughts? Are there maybe some alternatives out there that are either cheaper (without sacrificing quality) or reflect my situation more? Or is CCS/Vista just THAT good and I'll need to just buckle down and get one of them?


TL;DR, I like to write in a John Williams-ey style, and am unsatisfied with the legato articulations of the string libraries I own, CineStrings Core and BBCSO Core. Looking for a library that can either substitute the legato or layer well with them.
Click to expand...
As a pro violinist CSS is the best legato for me mate.Its in perfect spot between hollywood and real orchestra sound.And easy to play with.
 
Jdiggity1 said:
All this talk of "stale" and "deadness" feels a bit like somebody saying that soda is not sweet enough because they're used to drinking maple syrup.
There might be some skewing of tastes based on what we consume regularly, which tbh is to be expected I guess.

I just had a listen to Skyward by Blakus again, and boy howdy "dead" is certainly not a word I'd use to describe it.
"Controlled", maybe? It's not an OTT sound but it's certainly not stale, and very much what I'd expect from a live session, unless you really emphasise molto espressivo to the players.
The melody could be made more rich and lively if orchestrated with a Violins 2 section, but obviously that wasn't available. Despite the sound of the end result, Blake still seems pretty dang positive and excited about it in his video. So that might be worth something to you too.

From my own experience I would agree that the section by itself might sound a bit 'thin' or 'focused', as opposed to a sound that sort of envelopes your ears and is full of richness, but that's also been what has made it so incredibly easy to drop into a mix without faffing with it. It might sound counter-intuitive but all that syrupy richness of some other samples is exactly what I'm forced to control or take out if fitting it into a dense mix with other parts. If I want ARO to sound richer and lively, I can add that on top very easily. But taking those qualities out of something is sometimes impossible.

Anyway.. that's my piece on the matter. I'm still glad I own a dozen other options!
Click to expand...
Well agree to disagree I guess. By dead I do mean a little too controlled, especially for a live strings sections. There's a reason why samples never match up to live strings, because there's just that movement and life present when playing music that you cannot get by asking a Strings sections to play single sustain lines for each note. Music is emotion, and it is extremely hard to capture that when being asked to play single note sustains. JB's performance based sampling just works for legatos and long lines. Hard to point out but I just feel more life in his samples compared to other developers. It still can't replace a live string section for sure, but it quite close. I think Pacific layered with ARO V1 might be just the thing. I don't have ARO but would love to hear some examples of ARO alone, and ARO with Pacific combined :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom