Sample Talk Thread: OT Benjamin Wallfisch Strings

Lee Blaske said:

Okay, I was questioning whether I needed another string library, but finally decided to buy it before the introductory price vanished. I spent a lot of time listening to the demos, especially the approximately 40 minute walkthrough. I listened to the walkthrough sounds vs. some of the libraries I own and really like. What I hear from BWS that really sells me on it is the five dynamic levels of sampling. I can really hear that. Soft really sounds like a softly played sound, and not just a sound played at a medium dynamic, but played back at a lower volume level. The ability to start very softly and swell to a huge, full volume is a dramatic effect, and this library seems like it can really do that better than a lot of others.

Click to expand...

I agree. Most orchestral strings are in a tight dynamic box, tonal sense. BWS is so enveloping, nuanced. Enjoy your new instrument!

Lee Blaske said:

Okay, I was questioning whether I needed another string library, but finally decided to buy it before the introductory price vanished. I spent a lot of time listening to the demos, especially the approximately 40 minute walkthrough. I listened to the walkthrough sounds vs. some of the libraries I own and really like. What I hear from BWS that really sells me on it is the five dynamic levels of sampling. I can really hear that. Soft really sounds like a softly played sound, and not just a sound played at a medium dynamic, but played back at a lower volume level. The ability to start very softly and swell to a huge, full volume is a dramatic effect, and this library seems like it can really do that better than a lot of others.

Click to expand...

Yeah, after playing with the Violas a bit I think the dynamic range seems to be this library's strength.

Casiquire said:

Thank you for these insights. I appreciate your posts, and the things you say about Berlin Strings strongly echo my own feelings and the reasons why I think it's an invaluable workhorse.

One thing I wonder, couldn't we make a polymap to change bow direction via velocity?

Click to expand...

it took a while for me to process what you meant and then OT clarified but yes we can do this!

So one of the more curious things about BWS, at least the viola divisi A that I have, is that the regular sustain often makes a smoother connection than the legato, at least at soft dynamics. I haven’t done any work on adjusting the volume of the legato interval to see if that’s the culprit, but often enough it sounds smooth and connected just continuing the bow in the same direction, so I don’t even need to bother with the legato.

I think the viola divisi A sounds especially striking at low dynamics, very delicate, very fragile, so much so that I’m tempted to buy a couple other divisi sections just for these quiet dynamic layers. (Suddenly I’m wishing these divisis included a whisper tremolo snd trills more so than shorts for doing shadowy divisi accompaniment stuff.) At the softest layer, the closest match in the strings I tested has been SCS flautando, which is also a gorgeous patch. I’ve also looked at PVS whisper sustains, Berlin Special Bows sul tasto, SF Appassionata, and HZS flautandis, and they all sit in a proximate space, with all but HZS being a similar sized ensemble, but BWS occupies its own place in that.

As expected, the noise floor is quite high at these low dynamics (or rather than gain you will likely apply to the low level of the recording will make the ordinary noise floor quite audible). That’s a general tradeoff for these sorts of sounds since any further noise reduction tends to also harm the tone.

So here's a comparison between BWS Viola Divisi A (in two parts) and SCS Viola flautando (mostly legato, but also a few sustains). This is a two part, semi-improvised viola noodle, mostly on the lowest dynamic layer of BWS, and in each case one of the viola sections is flipped in the stereo field. This was made with BWS then ported to SCS, with some midi fixes to get it into the ballpark, but not really polished (neither version is fully polished).

BWS (Raw mics, Close and Outriggers):

View attachment BWS Noodle 3 1.1.mp3

SCS (Stereo mix M):

View attachment BWS Noodle 3 1.1 SCS.mp3

One thing I note is that there's quite a lot of subtle color distinction between the four options available in BWS: downbow and upbow but also legato and sustain. By comparison, the difference between SCS flautando legato and sustain is quite pronounced, almost to be point of being too great for something like this. I tried to tame it down some, but mostly I ended up just using legato for most of it, even when the notes are detached. But it also means there isn't the same play of colors you get with the BWS divisi patch.

The final long sustained chord is also much more delicate and maybe holds the attention better in BWS. It's one of the few places in playing around that I've found the non-looping sustain seems to matter much.

handz said:

Probably the most lifeless sample library I have ever heard, this is just not sounding good, BSS sounds way better.

Click to expand...

It's a curious lack of vibrato in the upper strings which is an odd choice really. The lower strings and viola sound fantastic but the violins lack expression. I was all about to get these at first but the more I listened the more doubt started to creep in.

The tone is fantastic though so I may still get these.

José Herring said:

It's a curious lack of vibrato in the upper strings which is an odd choice really. The lower strings and viola sound fantastic but the violins lack expression.

Click to expand...

There was a very similar complaint about the BSS violins when they were released. Also a similar admiration for the BSS violas and especially the cellos.

jbuhler said:

There was a very similar complaint about the BSS violins when they were released. Also a similar admiration for the BSS violas and especially the cellos.

Click to expand...

Hendrik is a cello player so this must be a deliberate choice as I'm certain he knows what strings can do. Luckily we have choices and maybe in a library like BWS one chooses the viola and cellos to take the lead lines. I actually don't mind that.

Cant argue with these low shorts and pizz.

Shorts


Pizz

Rudianos said:

Cant argue with these low shorts and pizz.

Shorts

Ultimate Low Shorts Thread

Here is Orchestral Tools new strings. Benjamin Wallfisch So many mics. Umm I will leave it at these unless someone has a request. Rudianos - Spiccato - Default Mix (Close, Decca LR, and Decca Center) Soundbed - Spiccato - Default Mix (Close, Decca LR, and Decca Center) Mike Fox -...

vi-control.net

Pizz

Ultimate Pizzicato Comparison Thread

$30 for Kirk Hunter Virtuoso Ensembles at APD 12/23

vi-control.net

Click to expand...

Is this just the Celli and Basses tutti in the Spiccato example?

lukevaljean said:

Is this just the Celli and Basses tutti in the Spiccato example?

Click to expand...

yep

I held the GAS at bay and waited out the intro period for BWS without succumbing. It's a fantastic sounding library (the shorts from the demos and Rudianos's examples are the best I've ever heard), but at the end of the day, the lack of option for stronger vibrato (which is in line with Ben Wallfisch's style) makes me happy to have BSS and looking forward to one day a sale on Peteris Vasks strings.

Maybe this is a cynical question to ask, but I wonder how much having a big name attached to a library adds to its price? No disrespect intended to any of OT’s collaborators, but I think they already have a great handle on making strings libraries and I would rather have a hypothetical new library with 5 dynamic layers and subdued vibrato at a more approachable price point. I don’t need a big name attached.

jbuhler said:

So here's a comparison between BWS Viola Divisi A (in two parts) and SCS Viola flautando (mostly legato, but also a few sustains). This is a two part, semi-improvised viola noodle, mostly on the lowest dynamic layer of BWS, and in each case one of the viola sections is flipped in the stereo field. This was made with BWS then ported to SCS, with some midi fixes to get it into the ballpark, but not really polished (neither version is fully polished).

BWS (Raw mics, Close and Outriggers):

View attachment BWS Noodle 3 1.1.mp3

SCS (Stereo mix M):

View attachment BWS Noodle 3 1.1 SCS.mp3

One thing I note is that there's quite a lot of subtle color distinction between the four options available in BWS: downbow and upbow but also legato and sustain. By comparison, the difference between SCS flautando legato and sustain is quite pronounced, almost to be point of being too great for something like this. I tried to tame it down some, but mostly I ended up just using legato for most of it, even when the notes are detached. But it also means there isn't the same play of colors you get with the BWS divisi patch.

The final long sustained chord is also much more delicate and maybe holds the attention better in BWS. It's one of the few places in playing around that I've found the non-looping sustain seems to matter much.

Click to expand...

IMO, BWS solidly wins in this match up. It has delicacy and air, and sounds believable. I'd instantly be able to tell that the SCS example was made with samples.

ka00 said:

Maybe this is a cynical question to ask, but I wonder how much having a big name attached to a library adds to its price? No disrespect intended to any of OT’s collaborators, but I think they already have a great handle on making strings libraries and I would rather have a hypothetical new library with 5 dynamic layers and subdued vibrato at a more approachable price point. I don’t need a big name attached.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't fault them for it, especially if Benjamin Wallfisch was heavily involved with the library being recorded, edited and mixed (they're supposedly using his processing chain in some of the mixes). Most manufacturers these days seem to want to advertise some distinctive element to their library that might set it apart from the rest (famous composer/producer involved, famous studio used, famous pmusicians, old and expensive string instruments, famous engineer, really expensive microphones and preamps, etc., etc., etc.).

I guess maybe I've been in the biz too long, but the price they're asking for this 1Tb+ library (especially at the introductory price) seems like a crazy bargain to me. What they're asking would barely cover for me paying for just two live string players to come in and play a three hour buy-out session (and that wouldn't include studio time, or paying an engineer). That wouldn't give me a very big orchestra sound.

Lee Blaske said:

IMO, BWS solidly wins in this match up. It has delicacy and air, and sounds believable. I'd instantly be able to tell that the SCS example was made with samples.

Click to expand...

I’d say there’s much finer color gradation in BWS. SCS flautando only has one dynamic layer, but the legato seems processed differently, so one dynamic layer but two sound variants.. In any case, there’s a relatively coarse difference between the legato and sustains in SCS whereas BWS has much finer differences among its four options, but also the overall differences are not so wide. BWS also benefits from being able to crossfade to the higher dynamic layer. With SCS you’d have to do that manually with an overlay. I do prefer the slow gentle vibrato they appears occasionally in SCS. But BWS wins on the final long sustain.

Overall I also prefer BWS on this. The SCS version could be improved and would benefit as well from subtle tempo adjustments that play better to its samples and legato (the tempo was set with the BWS version). But I think even with those changes I would still prefer the BWS version.

Still, I’m not yet sure BWS offers me enough here to justify buying more sections of its divisi. Originally I’d planned to get both viola divisi but now I’m thinking of getting a cello divisi instead. Of course BWS has other sweet spots, And I’ll need to explore those before making further decisions.

Lee Blaske said:

guess maybe I've been in the biz too long, but the price they're asking for this 1Tb+ library (especially at the introductory price) seems like a crazy bargain to me

Click to expand...

Oh yes, from a professional's perspective, I suppose it could be even more expensive and would still be worth it to you, given the alternative of hiring real players. You of course have a job to get done and will get paid using this tool, so it makes sense.

I am looking at it from a non-professional's perspective, where buying the library is a question of spending money, at best, only to make music, but not earn anything from it. From this same perspective, live players are out of the question and thus I’m only comparing it to other libraries on the market. And in that case, I do wonder if the premium of having a famous composer's name attached is worth the added features that composer thought to include (up/down bow, non-looping).

Also, the point about this being a 1TB+ library. I mean, the way I look at it, additional mics and mixes sure can increase data footprint. But it's not like it's 1TB of exotic or exhaustive articulations. Even the divisi is limited to sustains and legato. You'd think that somewhere in that impressive terabyte of samples, you'd find some more fleshed out divisi articulations. The five dynamic layers are a big selling point to be sure though.

Not to complain too much. It's clearly a library for professionals... but that's mainly judging from the price. If only the features and functionality themselves would help to make that distinction more clear to me as well.

ka00 said:

Oh yes, from a professional's perspective, I suppose it could be even more expensive and would still be worth it to you, given the alternative of hiring real players. You of course have a job to get done and will get paid using this tool, so it makes sense.

I am looking at it from a non-professional's perspective, where buying the library is a question of spending money, at best, only to make music, but not earn anything from it. From this same perspective, live players are out of the question and thus I’m only comparing it to other libraries on the market. And in that case, I do wonder if the premium of having a famous composer's name attached is worth the added features that composer thought to include (up/down bow, non-looping).

Also, the point about this being a 1TB+ library. I mean, the way I look at it, additional mics and mixes sure can increase data footprint. But it's not like it's 1TB of exotic or exhaustive articulations. Even the divisi is limited to sustains and legato. You'd think that somewhere in that impressive terabyte of samples, you'd find some more fleshed out divisi articulations. The five dynamic layers are a big selling point to be sure though.

Not to complain too much. It's clearly a library for professionals... but that's mainly judging from the price. If only the features and functionality themselves would help to make that distinction more clear to me as well.

Click to expand...

I think ultimately it is natural to compare the sound and results you can get out of it to other libraries (and cheaper ones at that).

From that perspective, it is clear from the examples in this thread that it hasn't moved the needle in terms of what you can ultimately get out of it.

It might have a different tone/colour to other string libraries, sure. However it is clear that it hasn't taken things further in terms of playability or realism.

The exact blurb from OT is:

"this collection redefines contemporary sampled strings, setting a new standard for realism and expression. Write for strings like you would for a live orchestra—with no compromises"

I think many here (myself included) often get carried away with lofty claims such as these in VST marketing. They all claim to be next best thing/revolution in sampling , yet it is very rare that a product actually delivers that. I know it's marketing, and everyone should be well versed in completely ignoring it, but it can be hard to entirely discount the lofty claims that we are all bludgeoned to death with on every new release.

Lee Blaske said:

I wouldn't fault them for it, especially if Benjamin Wallfisch was heavily involved with the library being recorded, edited and mixed (they're supposedly using his processing chain in some of the mixes). Most manufacturers these days seem to want to advertise some distinctive element to their library that might set it apart from the rest (famous composer/producer involved, famous studio used, famous pmusicians, old and expensive string instruments, famous engineer, really expensive microphones and preamps, etc., etc., etc.).

I guess maybe I've been in the biz too long, but the price they're asking for this 1Tb+ library (especially at the introductory price) seems like a crazy bargain to me. What they're asking would barely cover for me paying for just two live string players to come in and play a three hour buy-out session (and that wouldn't include studio time, or paying an engineer). That wouldn't give me a very big orchestra sound.

Click to expand...

That's impression I get as well... Each of their 'artist products' had keynotes where they discuss originally being approached by the composer to develop a library to fit their needs....

And totally agree... Sample libraries used to be way more expensive, not to mention that Spitfire still sells libraries with noticeably higher price tags. I personally think BWS is very reasonably (and realistically) priced...

Eptesicus said:

I think many here (myself included) often get carried away with lofty claims such as these in VST marketing. They all claim to be next best thing/revolution in sampling , yet it is very rare that a product actually delivers that. I know it's marketing, and everyone should be well versed in completely ignoring it, but it can be hard to entirely discount the lofty claims that we are all bludgeoned to death with on every new release.

Click to expand...

Now that we've arrived at the point we have these highly developed products, we obviously are getting to a point where we will have diminishing returns. REALLY excellent work has been realized with sample libraries for a number of years. Also, I do think we're at a point where these mature products might only achieve the highest level they could achieve when they're in the hands of a user capable of coaxing every last ounce out of them.

I've got some very rudimentary violin playing skill. You could have me play, say, a violin that costs $1,000, and then The Messiah Antonio Stradivari that costs $20 million (highest price ever paid for a Strad), and it's doubtful that you'd hear much difference. Again, with me playing it. It most likely would be a different story with an extremely talented violinist. I think the same would hold true to these very deep sample libraries.

Also, I know we have some very talented people on this forum, but I take many of these just-downloaded-it-and-here's-my-first-quick-test demos with a grain of salt. When I go to the OT website and listen to the fully fleshed out demos made by excellent composers who have already been using these libraries for some time, things sound quite wonderful. I also think that the approximately 40 minute walkthrough really highlighted a lot of details of the library (the license said Sascha up in the RH corner - I assume he was the player of the walk through, and I KNOW he knows what he's doing).

Finally, I think there's an odd kind of dynamic that permeates these threads discussing newly released libraries that are still in the introductory price time period. It often looks to me like people are actively either trying to talk themselves INTO buying the library, or talk themselves OUT OF buying a library. On either side of that divide, I think folks have a propensity to lay things on a little thick, bolstering their arguments and trying to make themselves feel good about their decision to buy or not to buy. It would be nice to get an evaluation from a totally neutral, totally unbiased place, but I'm not holding my breath.

Something else that would be a lot of fun to hear (but I don't ever expect to hear) would be the thoughts and opinions of other major sample library developers when new, major libraries from competitors are released. I would imagine they would buy a copy, just to see what the competition is up to. There must be times when a new release puts fear into other developers, and causes them to rethink their plans and future goals. For instance, now that CH has been cut loose from SA, I wonder what products he's choosing to use on his film score projects. Does he now have libraries from his former competitors loaded up on his machine?