Natural/real orchestra string sound
- Thread starter piterh
- Start date
Cheez
Moderator
That's VERY subjective! To me, NONE of the keyboards give natural sounding strings - all are artificial! Only samples give the most reaslistic sounding strings - by that I mean samples loaded into softsamplers.
But then, the best of all keyboards (for natural strings, not pads and synths), is probably Roland. They have the better sounding orchestral sounds compared to Korg and Yamaha. Still, compared to samples, they are a far cry away...
But then, the best of all keyboards (for natural strings, not pads and synths), is probably Roland. They have the better sounding orchestral sounds compared to Korg and Yamaha. Still, compared to samples, they are a far cry away...
If you have the cash, East West Symphonic Orchestra is supposedly the best. It also comes in different resolutions to suite your needs.
There're actually quite a few on the market today and you'll soon feel spoilt for choice. Here're the popular ones:
- East West Symphonic Orchestra
- IK Philharmonik
- Steinberg HALion Symphonic Orchestra
- Motu Symphonic Instrument
- Garritan Personal Orchestra
- Reason Strings Refill
Google the above and do your homework - listen to samples on their sites, try out demos, search for reviews etc...
Your Personal taste will ultimately be the deciding factor
There're actually quite a few on the market today and you'll soon feel spoilt for choice. Here're the popular ones:
- East West Symphonic Orchestra
- IK Philharmonik
- Steinberg HALion Symphonic Orchestra
- Motu Symphonic Instrument
- Garritan Personal Orchestra
- Reason Strings Refill
Google the above and do your homework - listen to samples on their sites, try out demos, search for reviews etc...
Your Personal taste will ultimately be the deciding factor
lousybassist
New member
but all of the above are samples right?
lousybassist
New member
how abt midi string sounds?
lousybassist
New member
erm as in use with a midi controller. is tt wad the softsynth thing is abt?
Cheez
Moderator
lousybassist said:
"Midi string sounds" tend to mean those cheesy midi soundbanks built into soundcards. If you meant softsynths, we usually call them softsynths. Actually, you'll probably mean softsamplers - of which stalefish is talking about. Stalefish gave some links. It's off topic from the main discussion - but in short, softsamplers either come as libraries or with their own dedicated standalone engine. The libraries Stalefish suggested are some (although IK Philharmonic is really Miroslav which is one of the oldest sample library - about 10 years old; and MOTU Symphonic is quite terrible). Let's disucss this on a new thread less other miss out since the topic is different. Lousybassist, you can start and we'll chip in.
I read in another forum they debating about Yamaha Motif & Korg Triton Extreme....
Which one has the most realistic strings sound?
I do acknowledge that this is about personal taste... but pls post some lil' review about those 2 gears....
Well, I guess I have to visit the nearest music store in my town to taste one....
Which one has the most realistic strings sound?
I do acknowledge that this is about personal taste... but pls post some lil' review about those 2 gears....
Well, I guess I have to visit the nearest music store in my town to taste one....
piterh said:
What your intended purpose for the keyboard? Live shows or studio work?
If it's live performance i can vaguely understand but if you're gonna produce tracks with 'real' strings and such, software is the way to go - the cash is better spent on a decent midi controller (which is less than half the price of your hardware synths) and some software samplers and softsynths/drum machines... there are even people who play live with just a laptop and their favorite softsynths nowadays.
church rite? Ok means got $$$... 8O
Get one of those soft samplers and a midi controller as that guy recommended, and get the Muse Research Receptor. With that you don't need a laptop or a plugin host to run the s.s., it comes with its own hard disk, display panel, audio in/outs.....you get the idea.
Then you can have the best of both worlds: Live, portable, reliable rig with low latency and the realism of string samples only developed for DAW platform.
Hallelujah liao lor.
Get one of those soft samplers and a midi controller as that guy recommended, and get the Muse Research Receptor. With that you don't need a laptop or a plugin host to run the s.s., it comes with its own hard disk, display panel, audio in/outs.....you get the idea.
Then you can have the best of both worlds: Live, portable, reliable rig with low latency and the realism of string samples only developed for DAW platform.
Hallelujah liao lor.
Cheez
Moderator
As most people in this forum know, I'm a software/softsampler/softsynth guy. But for once, I'm going to differ in my opinion here.
For live church use (particularly if your needs are strings), I will suggest getting a ROMpler instead of software. Many reasons for this:
1. Softsampler strings are usually not playable live. You need to program them extensively (ie sequencing). There are loads of articulations, which means for one string part, you may need to load 3-4 different articulations. Although there may be full strings samples available, most exist in different sections (ie violins1, violins 2, violas, cellos, double bass). Each part need to be sequenced to sound as one - you can't play full strings since each section has a limited range according to the real instrument. If you don't do your homework in sequencing them properly, they will not sound real as what many thought. Most people who thinks that softsamplers sound "real" heard the sounds from demos off the websites - they don't realise the hours and weeks spent in tweaking and sequencing. The only playable string is the Stradivari by Garritan, but that is a solo string which is not very useful for church use.
2. Time constriants. I use my softsamplers for many live situations - but I need a few weeks to sequence a 30-45 minute session. I can do it in one week - but it will take up a lot of my time (unless I do what I call "speed sequencing" - which is usually for demo purposes and will not have very good effects). In church, you need to play EVERY WEEK - imagine doing that every week. I did it in church before - but it takes planning and a few weeks to realise the whole thing.
3. Sequencing in church service has a problem - you will not be able to change things on the spot. Once sequenced, the seqeunce of events are fixed and you have to organize with the worship leader/singers - a lot of practice needed. It's OK to do it once in a while - for some big events. It will limit your freedom to change things. Ableton Live is a possibility - but it is troublesome with softsamplers using many articulations.
4. ROMplers' strings are generally OK if played through loud speakers and live. Most people don't bother and generally speaking, it sounds realistic enough. It's also playable live. Setup is faster - which is important in a setting where you play regularly every week.
I use softsamplers mainly for studio recording purposes - of which the realism is important when you listen to hi-fi speakers/headphones/monitors etc. Once you broadcast over loud speakers, you lose some definition. I used softsamplers for many live situations and the effects are still better But over loud speakers, the difference is not that great. And taking all the above things into consideration, it is not worth it (in your case).
For live church use (particularly if your needs are strings), I will suggest getting a ROMpler instead of software. Many reasons for this:
1. Softsampler strings are usually not playable live. You need to program them extensively (ie sequencing). There are loads of articulations, which means for one string part, you may need to load 3-4 different articulations. Although there may be full strings samples available, most exist in different sections (ie violins1, violins 2, violas, cellos, double bass). Each part need to be sequenced to sound as one - you can't play full strings since each section has a limited range according to the real instrument. If you don't do your homework in sequencing them properly, they will not sound real as what many thought. Most people who thinks that softsamplers sound "real" heard the sounds from demos off the websites - they don't realise the hours and weeks spent in tweaking and sequencing. The only playable string is the Stradivari by Garritan, but that is a solo string which is not very useful for church use.
2. Time constriants. I use my softsamplers for many live situations - but I need a few weeks to sequence a 30-45 minute session. I can do it in one week - but it will take up a lot of my time (unless I do what I call "speed sequencing" - which is usually for demo purposes and will not have very good effects). In church, you need to play EVERY WEEK - imagine doing that every week. I did it in church before - but it takes planning and a few weeks to realise the whole thing.
3. Sequencing in church service has a problem - you will not be able to change things on the spot. Once sequenced, the seqeunce of events are fixed and you have to organize with the worship leader/singers - a lot of practice needed. It's OK to do it once in a while - for some big events. It will limit your freedom to change things. Ableton Live is a possibility - but it is troublesome with softsamplers using many articulations.
4. ROMplers' strings are generally OK if played through loud speakers and live. Most people don't bother and generally speaking, it sounds realistic enough. It's also playable live. Setup is faster - which is important in a setting where you play regularly every week.
I use softsamplers mainly for studio recording purposes - of which the realism is important when you listen to hi-fi speakers/headphones/monitors etc. Once you broadcast over loud speakers, you lose some definition. I used softsamplers for many live situations and the effects are still better But over loud speakers, the difference is not that great. And taking all the above things into consideration, it is not worth it (in your case).
AnalogPurist
New member
Sometimes, you may want to try a 70s cheesy sounding string ensemble...That's where the ARP Solina excels ! For cheaper options, try the KORG PE1000 or PE2000. Thank God I've had the opportunity to mess with them all at one point and my personal preference is the Solina, although that's the only thing it does...! Strings.
Prior to soft synths or samples and still sticking to programmable synths with memories, many musicians, producers and engineers whom I know of preferred the sounds from the older synths and modules; SCI Prophet VS, Roland JD series, Roland JV-1080, JV-2080 and the more recent XV series, Roland JX8P or Super JX, etc. For programmable polyphonic analog synths, the Oberheim Matrix 12 sounds real fat and heavy, and so does the SCI Prophet 5 (although there has been many arguments on which Rev sounds most authenthic, my Rev 3.2 sounded great to me)
It may seem that the presets from these synths/modules sound unreal and unexciting. Try putting them thru a good reverb and maybe a chorus, with a slight lick of delay and the sounds will all bounce up with life...! Not very advisable to use the on-board effects although that's the cheapest alternative not to route them thru any external effects.
Cheers...
Prior to soft synths or samples and still sticking to programmable synths with memories, many musicians, producers and engineers whom I know of preferred the sounds from the older synths and modules; SCI Prophet VS, Roland JD series, Roland JV-1080, JV-2080 and the more recent XV series, Roland JX8P or Super JX, etc. For programmable polyphonic analog synths, the Oberheim Matrix 12 sounds real fat and heavy, and so does the SCI Prophet 5 (although there has been many arguments on which Rev sounds most authenthic, my Rev 3.2 sounded great to me)
It may seem that the presets from these synths/modules sound unreal and unexciting. Try putting them thru a good reverb and maybe a chorus, with a slight lick of delay and the sounds will all bounce up with life...! Not very advisable to use the on-board effects although that's the cheapest alternative not to route them thru any external effects.
Cheers...
Cheez
Moderator
I guess it depends on the type of music one is writing for. The analog sounds are great for certain type of music. I do have some Arp, Oberheim and Prophet samples somewhere - not that I use them very often.
As for realistic string sounds, modules are still quite limited. OK if making some pop song. But before the days of softsamplers, I believe many people had to go for real recorded chamber strings to attain that sound. No matter how hard we try, modules strings will always sound like it comes from a box. Even softsamplers, even though they are now pretty close the real thing, is still not 100% realistic. Otherwise all the Holywood soundtracks will have gone totally softsamplers. But as yet, many movie composers still record the music from a live orchestra. But then, softsamplers is the closest thing we can have at a lower price (short of paying an entire orchestra for recording).
As for realistic string sounds, modules are still quite limited. OK if making some pop song. But before the days of softsamplers, I believe many people had to go for real recorded chamber strings to attain that sound. No matter how hard we try, modules strings will always sound like it comes from a box. Even softsamplers, even though they are now pretty close the real thing, is still not 100% realistic. Otherwise all the Holywood soundtracks will have gone totally softsamplers. But as yet, many movie composers still record the music from a live orchestra. But then, softsamplers is the closest thing we can have at a lower price (short of paying an entire orchestra for recording).
AnalogPurist
New member
Cheez said:
Actually, you are right! It really depends on what music you do. But did you know that prior to soft samplers and ROMplers, some engineers were using the more "professional" samplers to recreate a string ensemble (instead of paying big bucks for an entire orchestra). Some examples are: CMI Fairlight, NED SynClavier, EMU Emulator I, Emulator II and Emulator III ? Then along came the more affordable Ensoniq Mirage and Akai decided to dominate the "economical" sampling market with their S900, then the S1xxx series and finally the S3xxx series ?
As technology advances, not only can you have an entire orchestra playing from your laptop, you can even build your own recording studio suite into your laptop ! Dweezil Zappa (son of Frank Zappa) has an entire rack of PCs just used as host for samplers for recreating an entire orchestra...!
