Dear Samplemodeling Friends,

after the release of the major update v. 2.0.1 as of December 17th 2021, we have been working to achieve greater playability and easier control of attacks. The result is this v. 2.0.2 update, which also includes several optimizations and bugfixes.

Solo, Chamber & Ensemble Strings v. 2.0.2 is now available as a new product or as a free update for previous customers.

For a detailed description, please visit the Strings product page.

To download this version, just follow the steps described below.

For new customers:

To purchase, please click on the BUY link of the product page.

The retail price is 299 EUR (+ VAT if applicable).

In addition, all Samplemodeling customers are entitled to a time-limited 10% discount. Please note that this offer expires on April 30th, 2022.

To obtain the discount code:

Please send an email with the subject "Strings discount" to: strings-discount@samplemodeling.com

supplying the name and one serial number or license key of any product you purchased from Samplemodeling.

In return, you will get a personal, non transferable code number. It will allow you to purchase the Solo & Ensemble Strings for 269,- EUR instead of 299,- (+ VAT if applicable).

For owners of previous versions of the Strings:

The download of the Strings Update is a "dummy purchase" of the product file for 0 EUR. To accomplish that, please follow this link, or click on the button UPDATE in the Strings product page.

What's new in Samplemodeling Solo, Chamber & Ensemble Strings v. 2.0.2?

Improvements:

1. Activation of both spiccato and marcato attacks by CC38 now takes place at any velocity above 40, instead of 100. This results in a much better playability. The intensity of these attacks is under control of CC38 and velocity.
2. The CC11 ramps mimicking the progressive acceleration of the bow on attacks have been optimized.
3. For more realistic effect, changing the ensemble size of the chamber instruments does not affect anymore the instrument volume.
4. Proper handling of release-triggered notes on staccato and marcato has been accomplished.

Bugfixes:

1. Stopping playback on some sequencers or notation programs (like Finale) occasionally produced hanging notes. This has been corrected.
2. Changing the setting of the button "mapping" in the velocity mapping page was not propagated through the modules of chambers and ensembles when pressing "Synchronize Ensemble". This has been corrected.

All the best,

Giorgio & Peter.

--Neil

I just can't find where I can update the Solo Strings to ver 2.0.3 , any help/feedback on this would be appreciated.

Thanks & Happy Holidays,

Muziksculp

Created by Giorgio Tommasini & Peter Siedlaczek.

Until now, Samplemodeling Strings were available only as a complete bundle, including Solo, Chamber & Ensembles. As a Christmas present, we decided to offer our Solo instruments as individual items, namely Violin, Viola, Cello & Double Bass, as well as a Solo Strings Bundle, at a special introductory price. This may give anyone the possibility to appreciate these products at little expense, and to upgrade to the full bundles at a special price if you choose to.

NEW! Please note that these Solo Strings version 2.03 instruments will only run on Kontakt 7 and later. They are NKS compliant. This feature will be much appreciated by Komplete Kontrol and Maschine users.

The new series 2.03 includes some minor bugfixes. Please check the readme file.

For a detailed description, please visit the Strings product page.

Your Samplemodeling Team.

Any ideas, guys?

Although I have considerable experience on using sample libraries I am new to Sample Modelling and Kontakt.

What are the three blank tracks beneath the instruments in Kontakt shown in my screenshot below? Are they necessary or can they be removed?

Thank you.

The challenge came to an end, leaving us overwhelmed by hundreds of submissions! 

We are grateful to all of you for participating and dedicating time to this unique challenge.

We have analyzed all the answers and we finally have the names of the 3 winners: 

Congratulations to:

1st: Christopher Cook

2nd: Jason Zaffary

3rd: Robert Osztolykan

To reward their excellent performance, we decided to give the prize to two further participants who scored like our 3rd winner, but with a very slight delay: 

4th: Johannes Hubner

5th: Matteo Mizera

To select the winners, we used the following criteria:

1)     Correct identification of real vs. MIDI

2)     Overall deviation in seconds from the correct values, which are reported below:

The piece starts at 00:28 with REAL

At 00:32 it switches to MIDI

At 00:38 it switches to REAL

At 00:44 it switches to MIDI

At 00:54 it switches to REAL

At 00:58 it switches to MIDI

At 01:05 it switches to REAL

At 01:10 it switches to MIDI

Here are some interesting data from the analysis of the responses:

0,00% of the participants spotted ALL the switches!

3,55% of the participants were able to hear the 7 switches with a total deviation of 7 seconds or lower

45,56% of the participants were unable to distinguish between the REAL and the MIDI sections, quite a remarkable result!

 Here is the link where you can find the material we used:

ttps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bUTQgt_i8Z5cCfWRIL2EP-TEnmO22Br5?usp=sharing

It contains:  

The audio file of the complete recording of the Real quartet (renamed Samplemodeling - REAL

The audio file of the complete performance of the MIDI quartet (renamed Samplemodeling - MIDI)

The audio file of the challenge

The separated MIDI files (and a PDF files showing some more information)

A video showing the precise position of the cross-fades

Such a nice feedback greatly motivates us to work hard and further improve our instruments.

Follow us to stay updated on any new content, tutorials, or challenges!

 Thanks.

The Samplemodeling Team

Please let us know about your impressions about this initiative and the final results. Constructive criticism is most welcome.

Giorgio & Peter

How exactly do they work? I know they're supposed to take care of the "ensembling" (with respect to small, more commonly smaller numbers as typically seen in brass, of course) by varying the timing, pitching, attacks -- etc, all the things necessary for a true ensemble effect -- for us, automatically.

It would be really cool if this functionality could be extended or somehow utilized in the strings, allowing us to build small clusters of 2 or 3 or 4 "Violin Is" that can be driven from the same MIDI or optionally overridden across multiple channels for divisi. The primary benefit would be keeping physically accurate (both spatially and in terms of sound pressure) balance when divisis do (as so common in strings) occur.

Note: I'm not talking about an auto-divisi function and what I'm talking about is also probably not useful at all for people that want to play in real-time/use controllers, but, I'm talking about implementing a much faster way to something that can already be done (albeit somewhat cumbersome) like such:

-Loading multiple "Violin I Ensembles" (say, 2 or 3, or 4 depending on the nature of your divisi)

-Driving each instance of the ensembles either from separate midi tracks or the same, but on different channels

-Currently we have to stick with manually humanizing/anti-carbon-copying the Midi Data (e.g. timings and other CCs) of all the unison ensemble (basically, is going to be 90% of the music) when using this "more accurate" approach. The brass instruments have multis that basically allow us to implement this kind of workflow already built-in, except without this 3rd step of having to manually anti-"alike"-ify all the common (unison) parts of the music.

I have achieved what me and colleagues like to call a "Classic Hollywood" sound, and I am incredibly pleased! Linked below:

Before :

https://soundcloud.com/wesley-trentacosta/sme-strings-demo-before-tlc/s-kvR8EpoNsE4

After:

https://soundcloud.com/wesley-trentacosta/sme-strings-demo-after-tlc/s-WqwtlZXyfzS

No CC11 usage, so focus is on absolute sound quality.

Used:

-An Instance of the solo violin on top of the Large Ensemble, Body 2. SKYROCKETS intimacy and will boost your attacks! Needless to say, make sure to cut its volume, and pan a little bit to the left.

-VSS2 To unify within a space, making it a little easier to EQ, and even easier to mix. M7 Reverb.

-Fab Filter Pro EQ To cut out the MASSIVE mid frequencies in Body number 2.

-REQ (Waves) On Low-Mid problem frequencies.

-A tiny dash of Fresh Air, when the context needs a less dark string sound.

As for CC1s, I like to START at max vibrato and then work my way down as need be.

This will make your sound more "golden age," and intimate, something no other library can consistently automate and replicate.

I honestly am a huge fan of the out of box sound, because it allows many possibilities with sculpting.

What kind of sounds are you all achieving in this VST?

For a library that is capable of profound realism, I'm not seeing much people really tap into it's inner potential...oddly enough.

Since then from audio modeling or what ever SWARM products.. I AM LOST. I'm a professional. I use thousands of vsti and I need to produce and release work. Each time I install a new computer or just update something sample modeling is an absolute nightmare. From My Commerce to "Dummy license" you have to buy an update with a discount to 0€ ? seriously wtf is this.

How ever it sounds or work.. Through the years I hardly use all your products because I can't follow up and work peacefully without taking the risk of having sessions not opening because of all this mess.

PLEASE SIMPLIFY YOU SYSTEM.

allow people to login on your website, see there products, download direct or download tool , add online payment and automatic updates ! all serious libraries have this now. Your website looks like a webshop 2.0 for mugs and tshirts not for pro composers using serious tools for broadcast.

Some issues I'm having though: (My daw is REAPER, and I suspect it may be a culprit)

I'm noticing CC 95 (ensemble size) (maybe I'm getting the number wrong, I'm typing this from memory, but it's the one for ens. size) -- resetting itself. Like, even if I have drawn the CC lanes manually for it in my sequencer to keep it at one static setting (I'm not trying to modulate it, mind you, just keep it in one place..) I've definitely noticed it happening in the 2nd violins ensemble (even with the latest update).

Also, I've noticed 'horror movie clusters' and weird glissandi portions which come out of nowhere from some instruments while my DAW is paused from some of the multi's split instruments (I've noticed this on both V2 and Va, also both with latest update). Think of pausing and playing a lot when working in a piano roll on a MIDI trying to draw in all your CCs, the constant stopping and replaying to hear your changes, then it starts to happen. Killing all midi signals with reaper's F3 shortcut doesn't change it, and also saving, exiting the DAW, and re-opening the session does not fix it. This issue in particular has been very, very frustrating.

Otherwise, lovely amazing software, loving the recent update. Would really love some help though in resolving this, I've tried reaper's midi settings but there's a lot of them. I'm trying to find triggers to troubleshoot this but it's hard to replicate exactly, right now.

As I use the Seaboard with MPE enable sounds (by Equator) as well, it is set to MPE. In order to decently feed the solo violin, I did a Midi filter plugin, that coverts MPE to standard Midi.

Now the Violin features duophonic, and it would be nice (and natural) to control (e.g the pitch bend of) the two running notes independent from the Seaboard. Hence using the violin in two channel MPE mode.

Any chance ?

-Michael

I'm a long term customer of all things Samplemodeling. I'm currently enjoying the 2.01 Strings update - thanks for that! I understand how to use the product and am writing this message to make a suggestion/request.

Currently it is documented, in many places, that legato/portamento is triggered via an "overlap". This is a common technique, and has been a feature to support live performance for as long as there have been electronic keyboards for synthesizers.

However, what is currently implemented is not legato triggered by overlap, an overlap being when the second Note On occurs before the prior Note Off, but instead is triggered by any gap shorter than a particular duration, by my observations in the realm of 8-10 milliseconds.

I understand why you might offer this mode (e.g. wind controllers can't overlap notes the way keyboards can). Nevertheless, this creates a number of problems:

a) It makes it difficult to just "pencil in" (either in a DAW or notation program) consecutive notes and have them each be bowed, which should be the default for non-slurred notes, because such pencilling in will create full-length notes that abut (no gap, but _do not_ overlap). Having to go through and change the duration of the note preceding every bowed note is tedious.

b) Tying the attack of one note to the duration/adjacency of the prior is a misfit for articulation/expression map systems. These systems treat each note's articulation in isolation by sending control messages prior to that note. They can't go back and shorten the prior note. Where they offer support for shortening notes at all it is usually via a (whole number) percentage. Using such a feature to try to create gaps between all notes in order to avoid triggering legato, besides being silly, creates gaps that are too large as notes get longer.

c) Any gaps created to force a fresh bow are at risk of changing duration should the tempo need to be changed. That means that rebows can become legatos on tempo increases and vice-versa. People working on production deadlines need to be able to change tempos without auditing for these kinds of errors in large scores. Note that, by contrast, overlapped notes always remain overlapped despite tempo changes, because they depend on the _order_ of events, not the timing.

The current detache mode is not a solution to this problem. It doesn't support the full range of attacks, and poses even bigger problems for expression maps since it requires sending CC64 On during one note, and Off during another, a coordination not supported by expression maps.

What is needed is a way to force the bowing/legato via a message rather than by timing. I am not suggesting you remove or change what you currently offer, but that you might add some sort of explicit bowing control. It could, for example, take the form of one of the following:

1) a strict/keyboard mode for interpretation of "overlapped", generating legato only during actual note-on/note-off overlaps. It is much easier to get expression maps to make all legato notes overlap than to make all non-legato notes be preceded by a very small but not too small gap, as legato notes are marked via slurs (and thus have emap triggers) where fresh bows are not (they are the default in string scoring). It's also easier to create legato by hand by dragging for overlap, as the overlaps need not be precise since you don't hear them.

2) a new switch CC that toggles between bow-all (never legato) and the current legato sensing logic as-is.

3) a new interpretation of the portamento/legato CC 5 value 0 == bowed (non-legato)

I hope that makes sense. I am happy to follow up to clarify.

Thanks for your consideration,

Rich

In our continuing efforts to push the boundaries of conventional libraries, we decided to offer the possibility to win our instruments by participating in this unique challenge to celebrate the upcoming Samplemodeling Solo, Chamber & Ensemble Strings v2.02.

We hired a string quartet and asked them to play a piece of music from Sergei Rachmaninoff, String Quartet n.1. Then we performed the same piece with the new Samplemodeling Virtual Instruments, trying to get as close as possible to the real performance. So we decided to create this unique challenge:

You will hear a series of music snippets, some taken from the real string quartet, some from the mockup done with ‘Samplemodeling Solo, Chamber & Ensemble Strings’ Virtual Instruments.

We switched seven times between the REAL and the virtual quartet and vice-versa (we don’t reveal how do we begin ). We did some short cross-fades (about 200ms) to make any change not too obvious and we eventually synchronised the resulting audio file with the video of the performance.

>>> INFO & RULES <<<

- You can try to hear the difference between REAL and MIDI by pressing ‘play’ on the video found in the challenge page (link here) : https://www.samplemodeling.com/challenge or by watching the same video posted on our Social Network (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram or Vimeo).

- You can participate in the challenge by filling out the form and pressing ‘SUBMIT YOUR ANSWER’

- The piece starts at 00:28 and ends at 01:17. Fill out the blanks with the timecode (mm:ss) corresponding to the switches you hear. A small tolerance will be accepted (e.g. 1-2 seconds before and after the cut). The important goal is to get the section. The more accurate you are, the greater the chances of winning :)

>>> AWARDS <<<

- The challenge will end on February 26th, 2022 at 11:59 pm (CET).

- We will select the 3 participants who come closest to the correct answer. In case of a tie, the first who gave the correct answer would win.

Your Samplemodeling Team

-Michael

we are very happy to announce that a new version of Samplemodeling Solo, Chamber & Ensemble Strings, created by Giorgio Tommasini & Peter Siedlaczek, is now available as a new product or as a free update for previous customers. This 2.0.1 major update brings several enhancements that we believe you will enjoy.    

For a detailed description, please visit the Strings product page.

To download this version, just follow the steps described below.

For new customers: 

To purchase, please click on the BUY link of the product page.

The retail price is 299 EUR (+ VAT if applicable). 

In addition, all Samplemodeling customers are entitled to a time-limited 10% discount. Please note that this offer expires on March 31st, 2022.

To obtain the discount code:

Please send an email with the subject "Strings discount" to:

strings-discount@samplemodeling.com

supplying the name and one serial number or license key of any product you purchased from Samplemodeling.

In return, you will get a personal, non transferable code number. It will allow you to purchase the Solo & Ensemble Strings for 269,- EUR instead of 299,- (+ VAT if applicable).

For owners of previous versions of the Strings: 

The download of the Strings Update is a "dummy purchase" of the product file for 0 EUR. To accomplish that, please follow the link https://www.samplemodeling.com/products/stringsv2/discount.

Or click on the button UPDATE in the Strings product page.

What's new in Samplemodeling Solo, Chamber & Ensemble Strings v. 2.0.1?

 1)   This version employs a different approach to the instrument body impulse response, more adherent to the acoustics of real instruments.  The result is a much more defined sound, with sharper attacks and transients. 

2)   The effect of note-on velocity is manifold. Generally speaking, it controls the intensity and  the steepness of attacks. On overlapped notes, it controls the speed of legato/portamento. In the range 1 -> 100, velocity mimics the acceleration of the bow, creating a kind of   crescendo pattern, starting from a lower initial dynamics and progressively rising to the target dynamics dictated by CC11. The steepness and extent of this crescendo are linked to the velocity. As far as velocity approaches 100, the original attacks will be played. If above 100, note-on velocity activates an additional attack, whose type and intensity depend on the settings of CC38. (See below). 

3)   Spiccato (off-the-string) and marcato (on-the-string) attacks can be added, and are under player’s control. For this purpose, the function of CC38 has been revised. If CC38 is around 64, the original sustain samples are played. For velocities above 100 either Spiccato or Marcato are added, depending on CC38 settings. Higher CC38 values (>64) introduce progressively more intense Spiccato, while lower values (<64) introduce more intense Marcato attacks. The length of the spiccato release can be controlled by CC27, the duration of the marcato attack - by CC26. 

4)   Legato/portamento/detaché and bow changes have been optimized. Portamento is now more easily engaged at velocities around 30 instead of 12, difficult to play on some keyboards. 

5)   Chamber Ensembles have been added. They simulate a small group of players starting from four solo instruments up to small sections.  Chamber Ensembles differ from large Ensembles in many respects, the most important being the ability to play a very expressive, nearly synchronous vibrato. In our large Ensembles instead, expressive vibrato is both under control of CC1 and CC99, which act to recreate the richer sound of asynchronous vibrato. They can be used as a standalone multi (for chamber music) or in combination with the corresponding large Ensemble (for symphonic music): this combination has a richer sound, and adding the more soloistic vibrato of the Chambers to the Ensembles yields a much greater expressiveness.  

6)     Further smaller optimizations and bug fixes

All the best,

Giorgio & Peter.

However, I'm struggling getting really tight and neat spiccatos with the chamber section, particularly mp. There seems to be almost a double accent on them. Have read the manual but tweaking the various CC's still hasn't quite got me there. Any tips?

Happy to be pointed to a video ....

When programming straight quarter notes at approx 86 BPM, I'm finding myself correcting the basses and cellos about -25ms (on top of the conv reverb insert which I correct by a further -12ms (just to match the DAW click)) without even touching the V1-V2-Va tracks besides the entire IR compensation.

Would love to hear what you guys are doing about these things. I personally use a largely non-controller workflow so I'm constantly working with DAW&Midi&Mouseclick&That's It, so esp. those who identify with a similar workflow I'm especially interested in hearing from.

P.S. Yes I've been checking CCs 26&27. They certainly help in the amplitude shaping but really don't have an effect on what I'm talking about, as far as I can tell.

It seems like the sub-instrument design of the software would potentially allow for an easy approach to at least 2 part or 3 part divisi with accurate "reduction" in ensemble size/volume, but I'm assuming a lot about the functionality of those sub-instruments, and we know what assuming does .. ;)

Has anybody had luck with turning down the ens. size CC and running multiple, say 3 tracks of Violin 1 to allow for more complicated/less physically inaccurate divisi writing? My main concern is phase issues that might arise via such an approach. I'd imagine the phasing is lessened if the "temporal dispersion" is slightly different per divisi section (e.g. slightly different values for ens. size CC)

If anyone has done the above mentioned process, I'd love to hear their results, and anyone else's general ruminations on the matter.

Just curious if we can expect an update for Solo & Ensemble Strings next month (JUNE) ?

Thanks.

Another weird behavior is that the Volume slider is set to 0.0 and WILL NOT MOVE regardless of CC values sent to it. If I try to drag it, it snaps back to 0.0.

Windows 10, 48G Ram, i7

P.S. I have SM Brass, too, and they work as expected.

I just bought the strings library and think it's awesome but i'm not on the best Macbook pro and I'm getting lot of dropouts. I'm trying to figure out what I need to change

Cubase 11 @ 256 buffer setting

MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)

2.5 GHz Intel Core i7

16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3

External 2T SSD drive on USB3!!

I don't know if this library uses Kontakt's Direct From Disk Feature, if it does would changing the drive to Thunderbolt SSD help?

Thanks:)

Is there any plans in the future to give them some love?

I was watching this video showing the SM Solo Violin in action. So, I'm trying to make sense of some of the parameters in the automation curves shown in the video, and how they are being used in making this track sound realistic, and alive.

Automated parameters shown are : Expression, Overtones, Modulation, Pitch, Detache, Timbral Shaping. 

i.e.

What are the 'Pitch' automations doing in this track ? I'm guessing it is modulating the pitch in small amounts, but why ? and how important is it to apply this type of modulation ?

'Detache' Automation is turning it ON-OFF, how important is this ? Would it sound very different if it was not used ?

'Overtones', I'm guessing this is to add some color, and shine to the bowing sounds, especially when playing fast bows.

'Timbral Shaping' , adding more color, and timbral variation to the sound of the solo violin.

'Modulation' , controlling the vibrato amount.

Any feedback from SM-Solo & Ensemble Strings users on this track, and the automation parameters being used, and in general when using this library would be very interesting, and helpful.

Thanks,

Muziksculp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec2avppVLQA

I'm at a particular passage I am trying to recreate from my score that involves a smooth continuity of sound from the string players via slur/fingered legato, however, the SMS&ES seems to rely solely on a transition/bow legato style.

This legato style DOES sound good and quite realistic, however, achieving the aforementioned style of legato would open endless possibilities of expression and realistic sound, which leads me to two questions:

1. Is it possible to obtain this type of legato in the current iteration of the VST? It's much like SWAMS default approach to legato, and will post a helpful reference below to the kind of performance I'm looking to match :)
2. If not, would it be possible to add this style of legato to the library? Slur/Fingered legato is incredibly prevalent in expressive orchestral work, so would be absolutely elated to see it in what is a near perfect, do-it-all VST.

An example of this legato can be heard right away from the ever so iconic Bach Partita No.2 Gigue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eXzlg2Xcgg

(And a slower performance)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv9ofibOSpo

It is also an essential component of Schindler's List

So I purchased SM Solo and Ensemble Strings several weeks ago and I'm hitting an absolute roadblock with legato. I would love your input because (as much as I love the library), I'm so close to just shelving it and writing it off as a loss.

I simply cannot get a realistic legato sound. I've read the manual forwards and backwards and made a huge matrix of all the variables involved (note velocity, note overlap, CC26, CC27, CC38, etc). I've been painstakingly going through variable by variable and I simply cannot get a smooth, bowed, unbroken legato sound.

If you will indulge me, someone please share the settings you use to get a true legato sound. Let's say I simply want to walk up and back down a C major scale starting at middle C. 1/4th notes at 120 bpm. What settings would I use for the following variables?

1. Note-on velocity
2. Note-on overlap (in miliseconds)
3. Attack Time (CC26)
4. Release Time (CC27)
5. Attack Intensity (CC28)
6. Portamento Time (CC5)
7. Any other setting you think would help.

I am so grateful for your help!