Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Cinematic Studio Strings 1.7 - audio examples and general discussion

Ian Dorsch said:
I often layer other strings libs with CSS! As mentioned CSSS has been the no-brainer layering lib, but I also often layer with Adagio/Agitato if I need shorts with more bite or schmaltzier legatos. I also really love the sound of Tokyo Scoring Strings violins layered with CSS, for a little more intimacy and detail.

For example - CSS (previous version, not 1.7) is the backbone of the strings here, but I'm also layering in Adagio shorts, Agitato Violin legatos and Agitato Cello con sord legatos on some exposed passages, TSS violin 1 layered in to add air to a few of the melodic phrases in the first half, etc. There's even some CS2 pizz layered in there!

Click to expand...

Phenomenal! And even better when watched with the unreal demo.
 
Scamper said:
The vibrato is the same now, except it works better.
Apart from the changes of all the articulations, I got the impression that the change of the sound just applies to the mix mic, doesn't it? So with a custom balance, as it was before, couldn't you just get pretty much the old sound?

I get the feeling what made it a bit more magical and smoother before was for one, the sound, which was less clear and duller in the old version and also the hiss as a sort of glue, which is now gone.
Those things, I don't miss though and I think with a dose of reverb, this might also be better.

Same with the spiccatos, that end pretty abruptly now. CSB and CSW are the same, but with a bit of reverb, this is a non issue.
Click to expand...
My guess is what probably affects perception the most. The scripts for legato have been changed, now they work differently. Transitions during intervals seem to sound quieter, they have become less pronounced. And on the interface, the inscription (slow or medium) temporarily disappears during intervals, this does not happen in the original.
 
Pier-V said:
Thank you for doing the conversion this way, this is probably the most helpful approach during this first phase. Alex wasn't joking when he said 1.7 mics have a roomier sound! For this mock-up, I think I prefer the original version, mainly because the main melody tends to disappear towards the beginning, but after what I've heard from other examples I'm sure that the right tweaking will solve this issue in the blink of an eye.
Click to expand...
For sure. This was sketched up on 1.5 whilst I waited for the last 15% of my download to finish, and I would definitely massage the dynamics.

I also miss the hiss in terms of what I’m used to hearing. Adding a little noise floor back in would add some realism back in, but without the lumpiness of the old CSS noise stacking up in denser arrangements.
 
Vladimir Bulaev said:
My guess is what probably affects perception the most. The scripts for legato have been changed, now they work differently. Transitions during intervals seem to sound quieter, they have become less pronounced. And on the interface, the inscription (slow or medium) temporarily disappears during intervals, this does not happen in the original.
Click to expand...
True, the legato transitions are a tad quieter now. I don't get that disappearing legato label on the interface though. Is this just with some patches?

Another thing I noticed, when comparing the playability is the velocity response for the short notes. In the old version, the low end of dynamics seemed to have a larger range of velocity, which made it easier to control. Now the velocity response curve feels more linear, but maybe that's just something to get used to.
 
No, but for real, whats up with the majority of the posts here with really negative phase correlation, esp with basses...?
 
muk said:
A direct comparison between the original CSS out of the box, vs v1.7 out of the box. No tweaking applied, it's both the exact same midi data:


CSS original

View attachment Emotional Strings CSS original.mp3



CSS v1.7

View attachment Emotional Strings CSS v1.7.mp3
Click to expand...
Beautiful. And part of what's keeping it bright and airy, is the arrangement - I too have been learning to keep it all out of the muddy range, especially with CSS, because that lovely CSS warmth and fullness can come at a price if not careful. Good four/five part harmonies are essential, with lots of space between bass line and rest of instruments. This sounds so lovely, great control of the dynamics to really tug those heart strings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muk
holywilly said:
Quick question to css owners, do you use CSS solely or layer it with other strings libraries?
Click to expand...
Nowhere near as good as some of the examples so far on this thread, but I just bought Synchron Strings Pro (SSP) and just downloaded CSS update. I was working on this little exercise last night as a way of getting familiar with SSP workflow and setting up template, reaticulate etc. So three ways below, on their own and then layered. Also features OT Ronroco and the new free MG Sweet Uke from Pianobook, and the Tubes Isolation Piano from pianobook.

SSP Only
View attachment 2022-08-30 SSP Try-out.2022-08-30 23_08_08.mp3
CSS Only
View attachment 2022-08-30 SSP Try-out in CSS.2022-08-31 10_04_35.mp3
Layered
View attachment 2022-08-30 SSP Try-out.2022-08-31 11_45_57 CSS+SSP.mp3
EDIT: Updated the layered version, CSS was too quiet in the mix, and V1 was too quiet - bumped up the velocities on V1.
 
Last edited:
Scamper said:
The vibrato is the same now, except it works better.
Apart from the changes of all the articulations, I got the impression that the change of the sound just applies to the mix mic, doesn't it? So with a custom balance, as it was before, couldn't you just get pretty much the old sound?

I get the feeling what made it a bit more magical and smoother before was for one, the sound, which was less clear and duller in the old version and also the hiss as a sort of glue, which is now gone.
Those things, I don't miss though and I think with a dose of reverb, this might also be better.

Same with the spiccatos, that end pretty abruptly now. CSB and CSW are the same, but with a bit of reverb, this is a non issue.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 1.7 is less “furry” but there is a bit of air gone with the denoising. However the tone comes through more. It sounds great- but not necessarily better than 1.5. Just different. Feels like I’ll use a touch more reverb with 1.7.
 
Hey folks, some very nice examples in here, keep it up! Love your mockups, Noam - thanks a lot for posting. :)

Guys, I need to stress this point: taking an old piece and subbing out the old patches for the new ones is a misleading comparison. CSS v1.5 will win in all of those cases, hands down - because the piece was written for 1.5, but that does not mean that 1.5 is therefore better.

CSSv1.7 may use the same original recordings as 1.5, but there are so many subtle differences between the two, and these differences compound very quickly, resulting in a completely different sounding "performance" of the piece. Every choice you make while composing - every little movement of the modwheel, the legato speed, the dynamics, timing etc - these choices are all based on what you're hearing while you're recording a passage. What you're hearing in the violins part will directly influence how you then perform the cello parts, the viola parts, and so on. It's an extremely important aspect of the composing process, and yet it is being completely bypassed in these comparisons.

It hasn't even been 24 hours yet, so please try to resist jumping to any conclusions. It's a deep library, and will require a brief period of adjustment so that you can learn to appreciate and benefit from the countless subtle improvements. Try this: do some experimenting with the spot mics, customise your own mix, then try writing some brand new music with the low-latency legato, new marcato, new spiccatos etc. Give it a few days, I'm confident that you'll come to see how much better it is.

If, after working with the new version for a while and creating some new music with it, you still prefer the original version, of course you are very welcome to keep using that. I'm just encouraging you to give 1.7 a fair go first.

-Alex
 
holywilly said:
I really miss the "Classic Legato Patch", should also included in 1.7.
Click to expand...
I noticed the 'Classic Leg. Patch' was not mentioned/included in 1.7, although it wasn't the patch that many users praise a lot for its legato, or use it much. It was mostly the Standard, and the Advanced Legatos that were the stars of the legato in 1.5 .
 
I plan to delete CSS 1.5 and install CSS 1.7 when I'm back in my studio in a few days from now.

I don't need 1.5, and like everything That 1.7 offers, and would most likely use the low-latency mode most of the time. Something 1.5 didn't deliver. Listening to Alex W.'s demos, and video I really like the sound of the new Marcato, and shorts much more than ver 1.5. The legatos sound very very good in 1.7
 
Sunny Schramm said:
Same here. If I have to describe it: 1.5 sounds more lush to me. It has more guts and much more romantic emotions in the sound. Maybe there is less vibrato in the new version by default? (just speaking for the ensemble sustains and legato)
Click to expand...
It absolutely sounds more lush and romantic, and coherent too IMO. That sweetness in the sound in 1.5 is so beautiful!

Edit:
Posted this before reading Alex’ comment above :)
 
Last edited:
I don't get the focus on the low latency mode. IMO it doesn't compare to the mode with the full transitions when comparing, at least for some things I play.
There is such a distinct change of sound happening before the actual transition. I'm not a string player but I think they stop playing vibrato before changing the note... figure you can't vibrate when you switch to another note - so the vibrato drops before the interval. Which is nicely captured in the full/expressive mode but cut away in the low latency mode. There is just no time for the full interval with that change to play out.
Of course it can be a problem when playing faster but for that it has shorter legato time when ramping of the velocities.
I only hope that future string projects will still come with the full intervals as option rather than succumbing to the universal lazyness of users wanting something that requires zero effort to use, even if it's just some amount of delay, which anyone learning an actual instrument would probably laugh about if that's the only challenge.
Although it's actually not that little delay either.

Well I'm glad it's still there so everyone can use what they want. But when this mode has now become kind of a sidekick it might have received less care than it should, but I haven't really played yet so it's just a concern. Mostly just meant to leave an overall comment on the backwards trend leading away from what IMO is the main quality of CSS and almost unique in the sample world legato-wise, except maybe 2-3 other libraries.


AceAudioHQ said:
I've been downloading for 12 hours now and I still have 6½ to go :)
Click to expand...

Scamper said:
Finally after 10 hours my download is done.
Click to expand...
If not tried yet I'd recommend to call the provider and let them reset the connection. That can resolve speed issues. Mine was ridiculously slow. After a robot reset the connection it was as fast as it gets all the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom