Spitfire introduces their Studio Series with Spitfire Studio Strings

[NoamL]

I'm looking forward to the winds with some interest, but TBH I'll probably just snap up the first product that launches out of these 4 - Adventure Woodwinds, Cinematic Studio Woodwinds, Hyperion Winds and Spitfire Studio Winds - and call it a day. Unless it's really bad

[tack]

I predict that by the end of 2019 you will own 3 out of 4 of those.

[NoamL]

Hah! I think Berlin Brass was my last preorder ever from now on I'm happy to wait for the standard price... if it comes with user reviews, like Piet's. Thanks for the detailed review.

[Guy Rowland]

Meanwhile I'm thinking this year I'll just have to get CSS. Apart from me not needing it, there is simply no excuse not to get it.

[Lawrence]

+1, Guy. Too many superlatives to ignore, unless....Piet? You could save us ....

[prodigalson]

Didn't Spitfire ackowledge that the "full sections" are in fact a combination of stacked samples from the divisi sections?

e.g. the main violins patch is 8 players, broken down to 4 and 4 in the divisi patches. So the 16 player patch is actually the 8 player samples balanced with the recordings of both divisi sections?

[prodigalson]

I feel like this library has given evidence to a theory Ive had for a while that with the amount of libraries they've been releasing of late there is simply no way for them to stay as invested in the return each library is giving to their customers. How could they take a breath for a second to ruminate on this release when they have, what, 3, 4 more major releases to come this year? (I say that without knowledge, just a guess). On the one hand I'd like to say we we should keep them aware of the concerns we have about this ( and other) products. However, I just simply don't think they're listening. Why would they take major criticism of a library on board and implement any changes when their business plan is to crank things out? One only has to watch a handful of Christians vlogs to get a sense that they don't exactly take forum opinions seriously. (And to a large extent I undersand that, the internet is a snake pit).

I also think its important to view these libraries through the lens of who is creating them. It's clear that Christian and Paul's workflow and stylistic preferences doesn't necessarily reflect the workflows of some of the more discerning members here. When Christian writes all of his music by conceptually separating shorts from longs and recording them as such, is it much of a surprise then that we don't get libraries conceptualized to attain the zenith of playability and technical achievement or legatos capable of playing anything more than what you might hear the latest "scandi noir" TV series?

[Lawrence]

Business is about making money. I'm fine with that. The evangelism ( "we do it all for you because we're so passionate about our craft", etc.) has always struck me as a little curious. Cranking out product that sells and selling it would seem to be the goal, no?

[Aoiichi]

If anybody is interested in the sound of competitors Studio Strings, here is a phrase rendered with various Studio Strings libraries, each to the best of my abilities (meaning individually tailored midi data for every library).

Light & Sound Chamber Strings, with reverb added but no other processing:

https://app.box.com/s/985ltv0pomza1o6l9ksez5ktvim3cddb

Century Strings, with reverb and panning added but no other processing:

https://app.box.com/s/9tnu0whndbtc49d5a12lk276b89f1sx2

Dimension Strings, heavily processed (eq, panning, reverb etc.) :

https://app.box.com/s/4u758cn1b45al0vi3xt45lwrgmqgfke4

Cinematic Studio Strings, out of the box:

https://app.box.com/s/tq84bwx3mard258tvlt0jvqfcp0jzpmz


Gosh, I am a fan of Light & Sound's sound signature. In this case I even prefer it over CSS, which I originally used to mockup this piece.

I'll probably rather not hear this phrase rendered with Spitfire Studio Strings, but if anybody wants to have a go I'll happily provide the score and/or the midi file.

Piet, yes, there is that phasing-ey sound again in Homay's video. I must say that whole part you highlighted does not live up to Spitfire's usual standards in my opinion.

Linos, I'd like to have a go at this - also will have a go at it with SSS for comparison, seeing as that is (one of) the other major string offering(s) from Spitfire. If you'd generously like to share the score and MIDI file, that would be great.

[paoling]

I have another question for Piet: what made you buy the library in the first place, considering that you don't even like the sound of it in the Spitfire videos?

I'm asking because any recent string library has been released recently has been received with a lot of criticism, so in the remote case we are going to make one (who knows?) I would really be happy to save me the emotional stress to face the forum complaints as much as possible...

Maybe demos and videos are not enough? I have some ideas on how to discourage a purchase (which I lately tend to do when a customer write me, sometimes suggesting to buy libraries from other developers). I thought about writing a honest pro and cons in the forum would help...
How to blend this honesty with the fun hype of announcing things? Maybe we should avoid pretentious naming like "pro" or "pristine quality" (I remember you hated that on our violin release...)

[Killiard]

I just had a listen on a pair of headphones to your last example Piet, and yes the ‘never far from phasing’ sound drove me mad.

I feel like I'm fairly well covered for strings to be honest. If I need something dryer (which isn't often) then I use the SF LCO library. But really I'm just using Sable quite happily all the time.

[Guy Rowland]

I was thinking about this stacking samples thing - isn't this exactly what LASS is? I have it set up to play the 8 + 4 + 4 ABC +FC sections (violin numbers). I've never detected any oddities with this... maybe its different players and instruments vs the same ones being asked to repeat their performances?

paoling - you're right, bringing any new major product to market is not for the faint of heart, some of the biggest releases have been pretty much ripped to shreds. A lot of people like all the shiny hype and the boggling stats, some people (probably a good proportion of folks here) detest all that and a low key honest approach would work very well for those... almost certainly at the expense of the other group. The main thing I'd say to any dev doing a string library though is... why? Given the vast number of options out there, what can you bring that's genuinely different? The perils of a mature market...

(BTW nice to see you here prodigalson, great post).

[Piet De Ridder]

(...) I also think its important to view these libraries through the lens of who is creating them. It's clear that Christian and Paul's workflow and stylistic preferences doesn't necessarily reflect the workflows of some of the more discerning members here. (...)

Very true, Prodigal, and I have of course no problem to make many allowances for Christian’s and Paul’s view on what a string library of theirs should deliver, but when it reaches the point where that view, or the result from it, is clearly at odds, and even in contradiction with how they market and sell the library, something’s very wrong, in my opinion.

When I buy a library that is claimed by its creator to be “an incredibly versatile pro-end stage sample library”, I expect, and I believe justifiably so, something quite different, and a whoooole lot better, than what the Studio Strings amount to.
I don’t mind that Spitfire’s obsession with gloomy Nordic vista’s, eerie string textures and things-moving-at-a-snail-like-pace is again overly apparent in the library, but I only don't mind as long as it isn’t at the expense of the library being and functioning as what it was sold to me to be. And that is, alas, very much the case here.

But still, if that was all there was to it, I still wouldn’t be nearly as annoyed and displeased as I am. What I mind most of all is the inferior quality of much of the material. Listen to this. These are a few notes with the longs (not legato’s) of the violas. I don’t think I need to tell anyone here that if you put sounds like these in a mock-up, the thing is instantly ruined, and ruined beyond repair. And believe me, Studio Strings contains way too much of this sort of material.

So, not only is this thing not versatile (even if we stretch the term in the most friendly and forgiving way), it is alas also anything but pro-end.

Several years ago, around the time when I expressed an interest in buying the Spitfire Bespoke Strings, Paul elucidated me at length about Spitfire’s vision, principles, work ethic and aspirations. And those words of his rang like a beautiful hymn in my ears: words of passion, dedication, a non-compromising striving for the highest possible quality, and a great love for music. I was totally mesmerized. And when the Bespoke’s arrived, it was proof — despite its several short-comings and an at times frustrating degree of unfinishedness — that Spitfire wasn’t just bedazzling me with beautiful words, no, they actually delivered on them. And I was no longer just mesmerized, but deeeeeply impressed. And then ‘Sable’ arrived, and still later a few very fine BML libraries, all of them further cementing my belief in, and love for the work they were doing. (And let’s not forget the always sensational, at times sublime work that Andy Blaney — one of the finest composers of our day, in my opinion — did with these libraries, work which to me sounded like a celebration of everything that Paul had been talking about all those years ago.)

Since then there have been a couple of releases and direction-changes which have made me raise the eyebrows a bit, I admit, but nothing too worrying and certainly nothing that prepared me for the Studio Strings, the sort of library that is in fact everything that Paul said Spitfire would never make: an all-corners-cut, technically inferior, sonically weak, sloppily assembled and inconsistent collection of samples.

Paoling, I suffer from an injudicious, terribly naive AND very costly degree of loyalty. Seriously, this is no joke. Some company sells me something really-really good — like StraightAhead did, for example, with their drums — and they’re instantly assured that I will buy their next releases too, and sing their praises as often and as much as I can. For that loyalty to stop, something exceptionnaly bad needs to happen. In the case of StraightAhead, it was their criminally flawed Jazz Horns package combined with the insult of the total lack of duped-customer-consideration afterwards. In the case of Spitfire, I fear these Studio Strings might well have put a stop to my hitherto undiminshed affection and respect.

(I also keep buying everything John Williams releases, by the way, even though I dislike most everything he has written in the past two decades. But again: the man has more than earned my undying loyalty, I firmly believe. )

So, when Spitfire announced they’d recorded an all new, pro-end, small-ensemble strings library in a fairly dry space, I was as good as sold. Hooked, lined and sinkered. Just by that annoucement. I honestly thought we were going to be treated to something-Sable-like-but-without-Lyndhurst. Exactly the library, in fact, I have been hoping, for many years, one of the top companies in the business would be making.
And as I mentioned earlier: Studio Strings is not all bad. There’s some very nice stuff in there too. And I did hear enough good things in those demos to justify the decision to buy the library.

_

[NoamL]

Guy, I love combining CSS and Mural.

Here is an example from a trailer track I recently turned in. Not the most inspired melody but you can see the mix, then the Mural submix and then the CSS submix. They combine really well, when properly volume balanced, and it's almost like you can put CSS "in AIR" using the L, T, A, G mics of Mural, while the three CSS mics compensate for the lame legato in Mural (I only have Vol1).



If you use Logic, I'm working on some gadgets that allow you to control CSS and multiple other libraries from a single MIDI track.

[Linos]

Ok, with these viola longs we do enter Kirk Hunter territory. Surprising to hear such sounds out of a Spitfire library. The demos often start to produce undesireable sounds when long articulations are used, while the parts with short articulations tend to sound ok.

Sorry for repeating myself over and over, but I think there is one large gap left open by currently available string libraries. We have all kinds of studio strings now - dry, wet, huge, chamber sized, and everything in between. But we don't have a single one comprehensive strings library that has been recorded in a concert hall, by a classical music sound engineer. All strings currently available were recorded in a studio or a church. Symphobia and the string libraries from Sonokinetic were recorded in concert halls, and what a strings sound they have! But they are not comprehensible librarys in that they are phrase-based or stacked sections only. EWQLSO comes closest to what I envisage. But it is very limited compared to todays standards (no legato, for example). What all these three libraries have in common is that they are widely regarded as sounding very good, so I guess there is something to be gained in this approach.

[Tanuj Tiku]

Thanks Piet for giving an in-depth review. I never liked the demos. It just does not sound very good to me over all. Sorry that you spent money on this.

Yes, it does sound like VSL in places but more so, I just do not like the sound or the playability even from the demos.

Sorry Spitfire!

[paoling]

The main thing I'd say to any dev doing a string library though is... why? Given the vast number of options out there, what can you bring that's genuinely different?

As it happened with the choir is the chance to try to do something in a different way. With scripting, with ideas are and there. Spitfire started with sampling big stuff, we started from the simplest instruments and trying to make bigger projects each time. Since I started Fluffy I wished to be able one day to do an orchestra, or to do a choir. It was a kind of dream and now that we are there I'm happy to explore and discover what we can bring to the table. I don't feel we can easily beat Spitfire, VSL or Eastwest in terms of pure sonic quality (or maybe there's a limit where 500.000$ worth of recording gear is no appreciably different a basic solid quality setup and selection of microphones), but instead I feel that we can have our way to work with the musicians, to get what we would like in terms of musical expression and so on. And also I'm one of the few founder of a sample library company who knows how to script decently, so I can build a totally new script around the sampled content for a library. In general, Guy, I believe that your "why" has a wider meaning in terms of the sampling world itself. I know for sure that, soon or later, this is going to end: how many GBs of libraries are we willing to fill when almost all instruments on the planet have been sampled? Is there another route (a la AudioModeling?). That's why I'm always studying things like Machine Learning, new programming languages, VST programming and so on...

Thank you Piet for your honest answer: it helps me to understand some of the concerns and thoughts of a loyal customer base.

Yes the viola sample is not really good, but I strongly believe that's part of the dryness of the library. You just hear the IRs of the hall and no tail to smooth the sound. People strive for very dry libraries, but they rarely sound as good as their wet alternatives. But I don't know it there is additional processing of some sort.

[Guy Rowland]

Good pitch paoling

As to quality - I think this release and thread is a superb advertisement as to why that extra $500,000 on the highest quality 512 bit DAs and Class A++++++ preamps (which I'm guessing is all present and correct here) is such a waste. If the basics aren't right, I've never believed that last 0.1% of ultra-quality matters a bean. I'd always rather see that cash invested into the stuff that actually makes a difference - players, instruments, skilled technical staff, more time and an original idea or two. So all power to ya.....

[prodigalson]

Ok, with these viola longs we do enter Kirk Hunter territory. Surprising to hear such sounds out of a Spitfire library. The demos often start to produce undesireable sounds when long articulations are used, while the parts with short articulations tend to sound ok.

Sorry for repeating myself over and over, but I think there is one large gap left open by currently available string libraries. We have all kinds of studio strings now - dry, wet, huge, chamber sized, and everything in between. But we don't have a single one comprehensive strings library that has been recorded in a concert hall, by a classical music sound engineer. All strings currently available were recorded in a studio or a church. Symphobia and the string libraries from Sonokinetic were recorded in concert halls, and what a strings sound they have! But they are not comprehensible librarys in that they are phrase-based or stacked sections only. EWQLSO comes closest to what I envisage. But it is very limited compared to todays standards (no legato, for example). What all these three libraries have in common is that they are widely regarded as sounding very good, so I guess there is something to be gained in this approach.

Cinematic Strings 2 was recorded in a concert hall in Sydney. Not the most expansive library but I would consider it comprehensive as a bread and butter string library.

[Piet De Ridder]

(...) The main thing I'd say to any dev doing a string library though is ... why? Given the vast number of options out there, what can you bring that's genuinely different? The perils of a mature market ... (...)

.
A strings library I would, without hesitation, pay $5000 for, is one that can do this (my favourite stringssound, listen all the way through to hear it in all its glory), and/or this.
See, despite the fact that there are tens of dozens of libraries out there, a few pretty good ones among them, there’s no way to get even close the sound of either these examples with any of them.

Sonic Implants got surprisingly close actually in the early 2000’s, even in the wealth and detail of articulations it already provided (alternating up- and down-bows for all the shorts!), which makes it all the more regrettable that that library was produced in what seems now almost the paleolithicum of the orchestral sampling era. But they got the right size ensemble, the perfect venue, the ideal engineers … the only thing that was missing was the technology to turn their work into a ... (cough) ... versatile, pro-end strings library.
Sable came very close too, but here the size of the ensemble is a few heads too small per section and Lyndhurst the wrong choice of space. And to stay in Spitfire Land: the Bespoke Chamber Strings are also very good, but again: Lyndhurst, and also: short on required articulations.
(Several other libraries go in the right direction, not in the least LASS and L&S, but I can’t see myself getting the desired results with any of them for various reasons.)

All of this further explains why I was so excited by the Studio Strings announcement. On paper, that should have been it: a small-ish string ensemble recorded in a smaller and much drier space than Lyndhurst, and produced by the company that gave us the fabulous Sable.

But it’s not just the size and the space that matter of course. Every bit as important is intelligence, musicality and competence on the part of the developer and his/her team. (No worries there if Paoling takes on the job.) Knowing, for example, that a few long bowings with 3 velocity layers and a few short bowings with 3 velocities, plus a handful of additional ‘decorative’ bowings maybe, is simply not enough.
What’s needed is an extensive and very flexible palette of bowings with which innumerable combinations are possible so as to be able to more or less simulate most expressive ‘pronunciations’ & dynamic phrasings. Also, the library has to be faster and more agile than just about any that is currently available. And last not but least, it has to be capable of far more dynamic timbral nuance than what today’s libraries provide. (I mean, if I were the producer, I’d definitely start at 8 velocity layers, especially for all the shorter bowings.)
Sound- and space-wise, it shouldn’t be dry, it can be even quite wet provided the room isn’t too reverberant and has a strings-sympathetic sound — again: the Sonic Implants had the perfect room (somewhere in Boston, if I recall correctly) and the ideal balance of source & space.

_

[Lawrence]

Piet, when you say "faster and more agile" are you talking about the ability to play faster passages smoothly?

[Linos]

Cinematic Strings 2 was recorded in a concert hall in Sydney. Not the most expansive library but I would consider it comprehensive as a bread and butter string library.

Interesting, thanks, I didn't know that. As the title suggests, the aesthetic behind the recording process was a cinematic sound signature. It sounds wonderful though - seems to be a pattern with libraries recorded in concert halls. Should be great for late romantic symphonic style music, even if a bit lacking in articulations.

These strings in the Beethoven example are outstanding. If any library came close to that they would be an instant buy for me. Incidentally, they were recorded in Grosser Aufnahmesaal at the Funkhaus Berlin Nalepastrasse (Steinberg Iconica was recorded in the same Funkhaus, though in the smaller Studio 2). The sound in the Stravinsky is very nice too. A bit more upfront.

Unfortunately not what you commonly hear in tv/cinema at the moment. I suppose that's why sample developers don't go after these sound signatures.

[Piet De Ridder]

Piet, when you say "faster and more agile" are you talking about the ability to play faster passages smoothly?

Yes, that, but I’m thinking more of precision than of smoothness. ‘Smoothness’, in sample speak, is too often the equivalent of a certain smeared inaccuracy. That’s all very well for many styles and stylings, sure, but it’s not what I’m dreaming of. I want my strings to be able to speak not with cotton wool in their mouth, but with crisp clarity and a well-articulated diction. And fast, yes.

Actually, come to think of it, a sound I liked a lot — timbre of the strings, sound of the room, balance between the two — is that of the London Contemporary Orchestra Strings as recorded by Spitfire. I don’t have it, but that seems to be ticking many of the boxes I mentioned above. The reason I don’t have it is because it is focused on a musical idiom I have very little interest in, and to buy it just for its spiccati alone would be a little crazy, even for me. But if they were to bring out “Volume 2 - Common Bowings”, me and my PayPal-smelling finger wouldn’t think twice.

_

[1gc]

Daryl, Eugene Ormandy , in frustration at a rehersal commemorating the music of the since passed
Stravinsky was reported to have screamed at his orchestra-
'Staccato, Spiccato, he's dead, play them short!"

But Daryl, not disrepecting you or denying your greater expertice, but with "Shorts" would you define not just Spiccatos and Staccatos , but also Marcatos, Martellatos, Col Legnos, Bart Pizzes the family of detache bowings short Ponts, richochets and so forth. These all have for me differing qualities of sound.
How does a writer differenciate to an ensemble by instructing it to play "Short" the variations in attack responses and resulting sounds without terms like Staccato- Spiccato et al to define the extreme variables in the quality of sounds demanded?
As a composer, every one of the list here have a different acoustic and sometimes even emotional response.
I have to leave 10 minutes ago, so I won't be able to respond, but I seriously am interested in your feeling. My whole musical life has included the variations of these attacks as part of the orchestrators palette.
Thanks in advance if you respond.
Sorry to bail ---
g.c.

[prodigalson]

I don't think Daryl or Piet are saying not to use terms to specify specialized ways of playing a certain note. A Col Legno is col legno, bartok pizz and sul pont are all specific techniques that need to be marked. The difference is that in a score you don't need to direct an ensemble to play "Staccato". You simply mark the note with the (cough) "staccato" dot and they will play it staccato i.e. short. Now, if you want them to play this articulation off the bow then you would need to mark it "spiccato" OR as many composers do, simply mark it "off the bow". Otherwise, they will default to playing it on the bow (provided its at a slow to moderate tempo. At faster tempos they'll play it off the bow anyway). IMO, that's the point Daryl and Piet are making, Spiccato is a specific bowing technique. Staccato, technically, is not. It's merely a direction to play a note short. It can be on the bow, off the bow, loud, soft etc. etc. Staccato is not in the same category as Col Legno and Bartok Pizz.