anyone use Spitfire Mural?

[kensuguro]

I've always been a fan of how playable Synful orchestra's strings are, but it takes a lot of work to coax a silky sound out of them.. Like in the latest belly dance project, I think 80% of the time was spent making the strings sound the way I want them to. Maybe true with mixing strings in general, but I'm trying to figure out a way to spend less time tweaking this stuff.

Spitfire has a library called Mural that sounds gorgeous. Not so much trailer strings, but more calm and generally a sound I like. Only problem is that it comes in Mural 1 and 2. And they've strategically separated legato into Mural 1, and shorts or detache into Mural 2... so right, I get the message, "get them both". But was wondering if anyone here uses it. If I can get by with just Mural 1, it's a very practical solution. If I need both... I'd have to think about it hard. Obviously I need legato and shorts for it to be useful.

[dawman]

www.vi-control.net

Many cacklings over here.
This forum has so many users of all instruments, you can find examples for most outside of the website, which helps me in making decisions sometimes.

[Nestor]

Please Ken, give a serious try to Cinematic Strings 2, but don't just listen at it through other people’s music, try to play and do something with it for a while yourself and then judge. It is a cheap but neat solution. You will be surprised at the precision and ease of use of this particular sample set coming from one-single-developer.

Throwing at it a professional cold look with a composer mind approach, you may find this set can be one of the most reliable, versatile and fast out-of-the-box solutions in the market. You don’t need to tweak like crazy to achieve good sounds, on the contrary, the set of tools to manipulate the instruments are extremely effective and blazing fast in real life:

http://www.cinematicstrings.com/

[kensuguro]

cinematic strings looks like a pretty good deal. Sounds good for the money, though the sections sound a bit too homogenous for my taste.. but it does sound better than anything I'd get out of Synful.

[Nestor]

I know both pieces of software, and there is no way to compare the first with the second. Cinematic Strings is light years ahead in terms of quality, versatility, precision, etc., etc., AND SOUND, compared with Synful Orchestra.

Cinematic Strings can be tweaked quite deeply too, so it all depends on how you will use it, that is why I would like for you to try the instrument out yourself instate of listening to the demos around, just in case. Perhaps they simply don't match your likes.

[kensuguro]

I take your endorsement quite seriously. Might give it a go since I have a strings heavy project coming up.

[Nestor]

Ken, before this thread was opened, I thought one instrument that could suit you well when you get into this strong funky side you have always had, is “Session Strings”. (But this is not for classical music)

Here:

http://www.native-instruments.com/es/pr ... n-strings/

I am interested in your impression on Cinematic Strings..., I'll wait for it.

[dante]

I use session strings, and it's good for some short pop or R&B passages where I want a realistic ensemble raspiness.

But if you want realistic big orchestral strings without the four digit price tag, the answer is pretty much the same as the one about choirs.

That is, to build up your own ensemble. I would create a Reason combinator of 16 samplers all loaded with various string samples from different libraries(sub mixed in Reason SSL) or layer Session strings with default Kontakt and Cubase Halion strings - solo and ensemble. In days when I didn't have the polyphony in the box, I'd combine with external midi modules. I would generally tweak the attacks to avoid overload, equalise volumes and widen pans (hard left and right works).

For applications that don't need dozens of detailed articulations, but instead a more general impression of a large string orchestra, I would stack this approach up favourably against a single expensive library any day.

[Nestor]

Yes, cool, but you have to still work your way and open lots of things, etc., with Cinematic you load a patch and play, and it sounds as realistic as you want. Thanks to this kind of libraries, it is even hard today to say which is a real orchestra versus a false one, in common passages, you will not distinguish which is which, even been a musician or even an arranger, so good it has become.

[dante]

Of course. But if you want something to sound good - you do the work.

[Nestor]

You're right, good sound need hard work, but I don't see strings equal to choirs in that respect. You do have superb strings today, without the need to overlap.

[dante]

I checked the video dem: http://youtu.be/ub3IamR7NvU

It doesnt beat what I can get currently from layering. Given my layered Reason string ensemble combinator is a reloadable preset, from project to project, it's quick.

At $300 though Cinematic Strings it is undoubtedly good value and a top contender if starting from scratch (no other string libraries). The GUI is very good as well.

Spitfire Mural doesn't seem to offer much more - at twice the price - the demos @ ( http://www.spitfireaudio.com/bml-mural-volume-1) have more percussion which I'm not sure are part of the strings - but for strings alone I haven't heard anything it has to offer over multi-sample layering.

My multi-sample layers include samples from Euphonic Strings, Orkester refill, Sidelavek and others - mix of 16 bit and 24 bit. Add to that Session Strings and Kontakt bundled, and you got some mean polyphony just by a few mouseclicks of duplicating the string track 3 or 4 times.

[kensuguro]

Mural and cinematic strings 2 are stylistically different, the way I see it. Of course, things can be controlled a bit with mic mixing, but to me, Cinematic Strings has a more homogeneous feel. The sections blend together into one homogeneous mass, or at least it seems like that was the sound they were going for. Mural's somewhat on the other end of the spectrum, where there seem so to be a good amount of diversity within the sections, so that if you tried, you might be able to spot specific players. Obviously that's not what the listener is supposed to do, but the characteristics of their target sound is different.

Of course, it's going to take some work to achieve a great sound no matter that library you use. I'd much rather that work be in the arrangement rather than in MIDI twiddling or patch swapping between 50 different articulations. To a large degree, I got into strings writing because Synful automates detache and legato. (helps alot) Cinematic Strings 2 falls in line with the Synful workflow since it's 1 patch per section, although the level of automation is limited to just legato. In that sense, Cinematic Strings 2 actually a better contender than Mural since Mural follows the patch madness tradition.

As for the resulting sound, I'm not necessarily going for epic scale. A moderate size is fine, and possibly even intimate. I also need something that can stand on its own when scoring, and also can exist within fairly busy contemporary mixes. (which I do very often) Although I've been able to make Synful work, with the latest belly dance project I really got a feeling I was spending too much time getting satisfactory results, so that's why I'm thinking of revising my setup.

[dante]

Cinematic sounds the go - if they are 24 bit and half the price of Spitfire they are probably just as good for your purposes.