String sounds (1 Viewer)

[Jimmy Magee]

Does anyone know of any decent string sounds (by decent I primarily mean realistic-sounding, but I would be open to good synthy strings too, if it comes to that)?

 

[Beanstalk]

Are you talking about samples, or MIDI/Soundfonts?

I have a Sooundblaster card which supports soundfonts, and I've found some really good free soundfonts at
http://www.hammersound.net/

They're made by enthusiasts so they range from shite to very realistic. You have to have a rute around to find the good ones, but they have a handy rating system which will help you.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

I wuz thinking primarily of samples, I'm a bit wary of soundfonts; the ones I've heard have tended to be fairly ropey. But then perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough. I'll have a gander at that site and see what can be rustled up. Cheers for the tip.

 

[Beanstalk]

In the string ensemble section there is a string soundfont called
"Cadenza Strings" [13.5 MB; 12.4MB] Rating : 9.1 (55)

This has about 6 soundfonts in one...if its the one I'm thinking of, it has a really convincing violin and cello.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Any ensemble recommendations? I've got me the cadenza yolky...

 

[Beanstalk]

There's two ensembles within that soundfont and they're pretty good.

The thing I've found with strings is that the arrangement is nearly more important than the quality of the source. Unless you're looking for a really full sound, you're better off doing a quartet with 4 different lines...it's easier to hide the fakeness if you can distract the listener like that.

It also means you can pan each line and fill up your headspace too, as opposed to depending on a clump stereo ensemble.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

When you say "quartet", do you mean using 4 solo sounds, or are you saying that it is more important to have a consistent 4-part sound (whether it be solo or ensemble), rather than just bashing chords with various numbers of notes out on your keyboard? Or are you saying that it's better to have 4 melodic parts (i.e. with independent movement) rather than just having boring 4-part chords? I hope I'm making myself clear there...(probably not)?

 

[Beanstalk]

I suppose I meant it's better to have 4 melodic parts (i.e. with independent movement) rather than just having boring 4-part chords.

When you have chunks of four note chords (even if they're 4 separate instruments all panned) all moving to a new chord at the same time, the computer execution is so accurate that it sounds fake. I find that if you sustain 1 or 2 of your parts while changing a chord, you won't notice the other parts changing notes. I suppose its a way of avoiding distinct chord changes and gelling everything together.

This is all just personal preference and after a bit of messing around you'll figure out what you think sounds good.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Anyway, more to the point, it's more fun trying to work out four parts.... Cheers for the advice anyway. I'll have to start swatting up my four-part harmony - "dammit are those consecutive fifths??!! "