Hi,
I've made this video exclusively for AudioSEX to highlight sound differences among strings sample libraries.
I plan to add more in the future (not just strings)

CSPE uses MIX microphone

This enables you to pick what is useful in your situation.
Personally I like Sables and CSPE.
No FX added
No sound editing done

This is planned to be another cycle besides my upcoming reviews.
Enjoy

24/11/13 17:13 Update - Uploaded horns

Please excuse the amateur look and volume inconsistencies. Thanks!
Since I mixed dry and wet libs, here's list:

Cinesamples Cinebrass Core, Pro - WET
Spitfire Horns vol. 1 - WET
Westgate French Horns - DRY
Sonivox Brass - WET
ProjectSAM Symphobia 2 - WET
ProjectSAM Orchestral Brass Classic - WET
Samplemodeling French Horns - DRY

PS: I'm having tons of problems with non-linear video editor I'm using. Either I'll fix them or the reviews would need to be text only

 

this makes me wanna go out there and just record my own orchestra for the fun and purity of it *yes*

 

(offtopic removed)

 

<----- see that Andrew...I iz sad...

 

Thanks, Andrew.

Did you use the same MIDI-file for all instruments?
It's interesting that the velocities are very different from library to library.

 

Yes, I copied one midi, set 0dB for every instrument and let it play
Right now I'm uploading Horns comparison, which starts with Cinebrass PRO Solo horn with only 2 velocity layers, p and ff, so it's imaginable that the neither dynamic range nor the realism is achieved to the fullest. It actually sounds like f the whole time.

 

The effort you're going through is appreciated.

Keep a few things in mind though: for one, using the same midi data for each library creates very flawed (if not biased) comparisons, since they all react differently to CC data and even note postitions and some require quite a few CCs (LASS and Cinesamples stuff especially) to sound their best. That is, if you're trying to create comparisons of which libraries sound the best, at their best.

It's a valid point to create comparisons of which libraries sound the best when writing very quickly and without any post processing, but it's not the same thing. Especially since you often work with templates in orchestral work, making the setup a one time thing.

Case in point is what you said above for Cinebrass. They have a different philosophy for CC control. It definitely, absolutely has quieter samples than it sounds like you think- you need to use both CC1 -and- CC11 to utilize them. CC1 is basically the tone/timbre control for the brass with only a little bit of volume control, while CC11 is what you really should use for volume. So if you want a true pp sound, you need both CC1 and 11 to be low. The reasoning for this is that with brass, their tone when quiet vs loud is drastically different, and often (for chorales, etc.) you want that quiet -tone-, but not for them to be literally quiet. So to save having to constantly ride the faders during the mix process, they allow the composer to have control over the volume of the p sounds during the recording process. It's annoying at first since it's another step, but it's incredibly handy once you're used to it.

The same applies to your string comparison in many ways- again very handy to compare the sounds at a base level, but it's really not an accurate comparison for real world use. Lass alone absolutely needs the post processing you excluded (it is recorded dry on purpose, and needs a bit of eq), and that's without taking into account its Stage and Color function. You can also hear the issue with a straight copy and paste in the Sable Cello comparison- there are a lot of unintended "ghost" notes because the library's transitions are much different than that of the larger string section libraries.

Again, your time and effort is appreciated though, just want to make sure everyone is listening with the right mindset and understanding.

 

It's difficult for me to make a judgement on the horns. They all sound pretty good. This is highly subjective, but I pick the Westgate version for realism, especially the dual horn sample. Out of all of them it sounds more like two different players combined. The others sound like they just copied one player over again. For the strings, I'll wait for the Embertone cello to make a decision.

 

Thanks for the clarification. My idea was to present unprocessed sound of each library so that one can build a track on the sound they like. Of course, dry and wet lib cannot be compared against each other.

 

On the Sable Strings why did you use the Tree mics only? I think they are for adding ambiance. You should play them with the Close mics first and add the Tree mics flavor to color up the overall sound if you want them sound more realistic.

Thanks for the demo though