Even now as I have newer and better things with everyone's favorite child Kontakt 5, I still end up using EWQLSO for a lot of my orchestral needs. This has also been my experience - I've had Play (well, an archaic version of it by now) for quite a long time and I've had pretty minimal fuss with it. So because you've never had a problem with it that means it's good software?Дon't you love when people pull this website out just to be asinine and smug in the laziest way possible? It's kinda hard to relate and agree that PLAY engine is horrible if you've never had the experience of it being horrible to you personally in a topic that asks for your opinions and experience with cinematic samples. I think I'll go with CSS because the price is right and I love Kontakt, works very well I think. I expressed myself badly, I meant I wanted a library with a lot dynamic range, that can do both subtle and grand sounding things. I do agree that a specific string library is not cinematic, you make it sound cinematic with the composition and mixing. Most libraries these days seem to cater to option 2. There's also 2 kinds of 'cinematic', in my opinion.ДЎ) The 'Old Hollywood' sound, characterized by soaring strings and brass with lots of woodwind flourishes, fx andВ ornaments and fast string runs within the lydian mode.Дў) The 'Hans Zimmer' sound which is largely ostinato based and as such, those close mics are important. The only thing that makes a real difference with the samples is if they were recorded on a scoring stage instead of a hall. I'd argue that no library inherently sounds 'cinematic' as that sound is more just a style of orchestration and including ethnic percussion and sound design in the music.

Zubaru wants strings with a 'cinematic' sound. Even with Symphonic Orchestra, the 'lyrical' and 'expressive' patches are really great. That being said, East West does do a fantastic job with their samples and those libraries usually contain unique samples not found too often elsewhere. Most guys I know who use it are using slave machines.

In fact, the only reason I wouldn't recommend Hollywood Strings is because of the price and it's the Diamond Edition that gives you all of the Mics and it's a pretty demanding setup. So I would not use PLAY (aside from the ilok) as a reason NOT to get Hollywood. The PLAY engine works great I've never had a problem with it in the years that I've been using it. Not trying to 'start anything', but I've seen this complaint for years and I still don't get it. I'm not gonna note on Hollywood Strings since ewql play engine sucks balls Here's a tone comparison published on SLR: CS2 was my favorite string lib for a while, and CSS just improves on its spirit by magnitudes. If you're spending in the ballpark of this range of money you should invest in something really good so you're not left wanting more and spending more later.

CSS, on the other hand, has it.Д¬SS also has marcato, which is LEGATO enabled which is FANTASTIC because it means you can do legato phrases with sharp, bite-y playing instead of just the normal lyrical stuff you hear in most libs. Spiccatos is a really common short for strings in modern popular music, so not the best omission. CSS has 3 distinct speeds of legato (which all sound very, VERY good) and it depends on note velocity.Д¬S2 has staccatos and staccatissimos, but no spiccatos. CS2 kind of touches on all the main articulations, but doesn't really cover them that adequately.ДЇor example, CS2 hasВ legato but it's very subtle, and there's no control over it. CSS is better for a beginner because it covers more and has better playability.

Cinematic strings 2 discount