Spitfire Appassionata Strings vs CSS - A Honest Brief Review

This video takes a brief look at Spitfire Appassionata Strings and how it compares to Cinematic Studio Strings (CSS). It also offers some tips on orchestration.
All music composed by Ben Pit except Anton Bruckner’s Adagio Strings Quintet WAB 112.
- Spitfire Appassionata Strings versus 20 VST Library by Sergey Ivanov: • Spitfire Appassionata ...

[@Jorf88]

A 7.5 minute video about comparing these two... with 15 seconds of played audio from one single excerpt by each, and the mod/expression/velocity information for the two programmings are not shown. I know you said "brief" review, but I don't feel like enough was covered here to call it that. More examples, perhaps varied styles would be appreciated. These are undoubtedly two titans of the string VST realm. I don't own either, but I don't think either are bad, either.

[@dk60ish]

I impulsively got Spitfire A.P. to pair with CSS based on the official video & immediately regretted it; CSS is much, much better, & pairing it with Vista, which I got after Spitfire to compensate, sends the strings to the stratosphere in terms of realism!

[@benpit2762]

That sounds like a great combination!

[@benpit2762]

Also I did too, I mean look at Paul’s face when he was walking us through, the joy on his face, you know you kinda get hooked and yeah bought it as well and kinda regret it to be honest. Just got to remind ourselves: “Do I really need a new string library?” Well no we don’t, just work with what we have. Cheers!

[@snarf1504]

5:55 SF 6:22 CSS

[@ASX2001]

Thank You! Too much Ego-blabla for a 10 sec comparsion.

[@kostyakonstantinoff]

Of course, CSS is a more universal library, but Appassionata was not created as a universal library, but rather as an additional legato library. And in my opinion, it sounds amazing. It is very balanced in frequency characteristics. I think it will go well with Css.

[@abritishaudiophile7314]

Well done Ben. Nice video 😊👍

[@benpit2762]

Thanks Tarun, appreciate it!

[@Gardener7]

It would have been better to show the Spitfire interface so we can see how much modulation and expression was used. Perhaps you just forgot to use MIDI cc for Appassionata?

[@MikeGeorgia]

Both are beautiful in your example. SP sounds a bit more intimate, CSS a bit grander.

[@caseyfulton6932]

Thanks for the comparison. CSS also has nice shorts too.

[@snarf1504]

CSS sounds more muffled and dark, but is much more expressive.

[@benpit2762]

I agree

[@MBynum]

Same. The last few songs I recently started had me using Appassionata in the end. CSS is good if you don't mind how the vibrato and keyswitching is set up.

[@cachelesssociety5187]

Yes, I think CSS solved the issue of legato and shorts through sheer brute force and inventiveness, despite being a single guy with a small budget. Kind of inspiring when you think about it. People complain about the Cinematic Studio Woodwinds dynamic layer issue but even then, if needed you just use volume when directly transitioning (and use different dynamics in a more separate way - only if the phasing is being problematic) - the woodwinds library still rivals anything else out there, as does the brass library. Just a bit difficult without a script to handle timing at first. I guess one develops an instinct after a few days.

[@lmvh6880]

Très beau

[@benpit2762]

Merci!

[@ramoncaubetmusic7991]

CSS is more warm and great

[@matthewstewart317]

CSS is still the better Library overall. Spitfire can continue to overmarket their products but in the end they tend to have more issues, bugs, problems, etc. Then a lot of the other major players in the sample library world

[@grahammetcalfe6679]

Spitfire didn't sound very "Appassionata" to me, just a dull and boring. I agree that the CSS strings sounded a bit more characterfull.

[@whiteyhcha]

Bonne vidéo, meme si ce serai plus simple en Français mdrr

[@benpit2762]

Merci!

[@danchapmanpiano]

CSS is way better