Why did they have to name it that?
I’m looking to supplement my library a bit. I’m kind of on the fence - and what I’ve been thinking about is, since I have a lot of fiddly (pun) detailed string libraries, I feel like something a little simpler and closer-to-there would be good.
I’d be adding to SSO, OT Berlin Strings and the MetArks, Adagio, VSL Cube, SampleModeling and AudioModeling. I don’t turn QLSO or HS on anymore.
Looking at CSS with CSSS, which sounds pretty good intonation-wise - except for a few eye-peelers in the solo strings - but then Afflatus started drawing me back in. Poly legato, lots of different ensembles - nice. But it doesn’t feel as in control as CSS - it feels like the pitch is swinging a little wide in places. CSS lacks Afflatus’ character but sounds very consistent, and allows for unfettered splitting out. Afflatus allows divisi splits in some patches. And the play-it-in-and-done promise seems good with it, but I’d like to hear from some users here about how much that actually works out in practice.
As an aside, when I got Berlin Strings, I had a bit of setup to do - quite a bit. The individual patches are often better than their corresponding bits in the multi-patches, but lack some of the capabilities (like adding legato to anything or like being in a single patch that one can make adjustments to covering multiple articulations at once), and not all individuals are available in the multis. Really too bad. So I had to lay it all out in a way that allowed for a mixture of that, and also had to move keyswitches for different sections so they were all in the same octave if I needed to layer and be able to KS. I very much like how it sounds, though I often want to dial the tree back and add close or a/b mics and am looking forward to the new engine so I can make my own mixes folded down to a stereo voice. It’s things like all of this that make me want something quick - full-keyboard patches like Afflatus, or the quick load-the-whole-library scenario of CSS.
All thoughts welcome.