Hi Pete, it’s surprising that in this review of Flutes a2, you completely ignore the steep price, especially for such a niche library. While you often emphasize that you used to buy everything yourself, your current situation of receiving these products for free actually makes your bias even more apparent. Encouraging people to ‘get in there quick before the intro price ends’ without critically addressing the cost comes across more like a sales pitch than an honest review. Acknowledging both the value and the financial barrier would add much-needed transparency. Sorry, but for me, this is bias in purest form. And no, you don’t encourage anyone to buy something at the intro price-that’s a decision everyone should make for themselves, especially when you got it for free.
Hello! Thanks for the comment. I'm not really following! It sounds like you've determined already they are not good value for money but that notion hasn't really crossed my mind. I haven't really commented on the value for money but happily will. I recommended them based upon the sound, programming and my compositional experience. I feel the professional library especially offers a huge amount of realism and through the mic mixes, more application. I suppose everyone has different needs and budgets but in all honesty, I'd happily buy them at £199. Really, cost vs utility is something we all think about when we buy something. I don't know what your (the composer) goal is, or your budget so cannot make that judgement call for you. I used the SSO to back up the example of why I buy libraries with extended mics. They add longevity and I'm using the SSO original libraries frequently still. The £1500 or whatever I spent was for me, money well spent. Made a lot of music, opened a lot of doors for me as a composer. As for the "get in quick", the intro runs out actually tomorrow. So it was more info, not a sales pitch! I completely respect your view point and massively appreciate the comment. If this video comes across that way, then this is the trappings of being a small review channel. It's not my intention to be bias, or mislead anyone. I genuinely think they sound great and don't have an issue with the price tag. So really, it's a difference of opinion. It is my opinion, I'm more than open to the fact that any opinion I may form about anything in world may differ to someone else!! Such is life! Thanks for the comment and viewing! Much appreciated! :D
@@thesampleist Hi Pete, thanks for your straightforward response! I get that value for money is subjective and depends on individual goals and budgets. However, my point was less about whether you personally think the library is worth £199 or more, but rather about the transparency of addressing the price for a broader audience. For many, especially smaller composers, such a price is significant, and omitting that discussion can feel dismissive. Regarding the "get in quick" comment, I understand it was intended as informative. But when paired with a review that doesn't critically engage with the price, it risks sounding like active marketing. This is why such comments might feel at odds with the premise of a balanced review. Your expertise and enthusiasm for the library come through clearly, but I believe addressing the price vs. utility more openly (beyond personal opinion) would make reviews like this more authentic. Thanks again for taking the time to reply!
@@d_lydiancheers once again for the message and the feedback. I totally see where you are coming from now! It’s something we’ll look into addressing in future videos :) thanks again!
Cinematic scoring woodwinds? I'd rather wait for performance samples alternative. Cinematic scoring is starting to lose its #1 spot to PS and Tokyo scoring strings with the 2.0 update has a "cinema" mix that sounds like a more detailed CSS. TSS is straight up better in just about every way from the work flow to the flexibility of sound.
I don't know what cinematic scoring woodwinds is, I'm talking about cinematic studio woodwinds. maybe this is what you meant because I can't find it on the web. I'm not convinced that pacific woodwinds is a better alternative as it has way less content, both in terms of instruments and articulations. with pacific woodwinds you are stuck with ensembles, whereas CSW has both solo and a2 instruments. it also lacks alto flute, cor anglais, bass clarinet and contrabassoon compared to CSW. and according to their website, only flutes and clarinets have legato, which I think is a waste because it is crucial to make the instruments sound realistic.
@@leol902 yes it has less content but it will be added after he is done with Vista II for the Pacific series such as Pacific woodwinds articulations. He also just got a new mic array and is already planning on making pacific ensemble strings better with an update too. I'd rather get 8dio Claire woodwinds for way cheaper if you want the missing instruments while having a better non nudging work flow, and waiting for Pacific or Vista II to add other woodwind instruments and articulations. Yes CS is the most popular for a reason at least for strings, but it's losing it's lead to many other libraries as I said, there's plenty of videos explaining this too like Kevin kuschels TSS vs CSS video. Especially with TSS adding a CSS style mix in 2.0 Orchestral tools if they create an artist grade woodwind library, I think it would be the nail in the coffin for CS having any competitive advantage over anyone other than being a series that works together. And CS Percussion sucks. Strikeforce 2, monolith, taiko ensemble by sonica, damage 2, pacific percussion, junkie xl percussion, Berlin percussion (personal opinion) etc, are better.
@@leol902 it's not going to be better than what already exists as it works on the current interface and work flow which sucks and I'm 100% sure it's already irrelevant, the only reason people would buy it would be to have the entire series. Cinematic studio needs to make a version 4/studio 2 ASAP if they want to be competitive at all. There are so many other libraries that dominate it in every way. There's not a SINGLE thing CS does better than anyone else. And again that string sound is now replicated in a much better modern package and workflow with a lot more detail and expression with TSS 2.0 Cinema mix.
I hate spitfire, they destroyed Hans zimmer strings from what could of been if it were Orchestral Tools. This flute library for the price shows how they want to rip people off too, I personally hate their stock big expression knob interface when it comes to surfing the articulations. Performance samples, orchestral tools, and strezov (they improved afflatus 2 from 1), are a few examples of better companies with better more passionate people behind them with better average quality libraries at least in 2024 than spitfire and with WAY better prices or loyalty options than spitfire (orchestral tools could improve loyalty price strategy a bit more but WAY better than spitfire still). I'll never buy a spitfire library, I'll wait for another hans zimmer strings alternative and chamber strings alternative. Or if they remake their mistakes into second versions and make them actually good that would be amazing cause it would show they know it could of been done better and give people what they originally were hoping for.
Thanks for your feedback but most of that really has nothing to do with this library and we’re really not trying to politicize any of the issues related to personal views on the developer or its competition we are merely looking to objectively provide our own review of a library and have a productive dialogue on it.
@@minder01í want to never buy a spitfire library ever for the price but how they steal most collaborators from other brands and they end up being mediocre like Hans zimmer strings and Ólafur Arnold's artist libraries. I don't like orchestral tools Berlín series but their artist series is absolutely incredible, bleeding fingers moved from spitfire to orchestral tools and made Grimm which is phenomenal. Also I HATE spitfires stock interface, on hans zimmer strings it really sucks, worse though is the inconsistency of it where certain sections of some articulations some others don't. It doesn't sound 344 players big either, performance samples ensemble strings sounds way better in my opinion (yes they are going for a different sound I know), but then you also get the Pacific loyalty code which makes all PS libraries WAY cheaper when they come out. OTs Benjamin Wallfischer and junkie xls libraries are my primary big Hollywood libraries. They made a 300 gb (uncompressed) update for Wallfischer strings making it consistent. Something that never happened to afflatus strings or hans zimmer strings.
@@JohnnyADiI both agree and disagree on these points. This will be a lot of text, my apologies. Spitfire most certainly does not steal collaborators from other brands. I agree that those products more often than not end up being mediocre but that's because I think you and I have overlapping interests in style/genre. Some of these Spitfire collaborations are fantastic- provided you work in the kind of style those libraries were designed for. Spitfire are very skilled at making tools that let's the layman access otherwise difficult-to-create orchestral landscapes. That's why people like Ólafur Arnold keeps collabing with them. Not a huge fan of the Berlin series either but it's still probably the greatest in-depth full orchestral library in the world. That said, the artist series at OT is top-notch. I adore Peteris Vasks strings, it's got that "true" chamber sound that I've waited years for. Disagree with the Spitfire Plugin and I think your leading argument why is moot. Your point about articulations is moot because a) some instruments will generally not have the same articulations available because they're not preferred or essential and b) Spitfire, if anything, are known for the opposite. BBCSO Pro is a great example of this. Nearly all the same articulations are available throughout the wind section, even down to the niche Bb Contrabass clarinet. The only exceptions are the legato omitted from the bass flute because having legato for the bass flute would just be stupid, and the piccolo flute has some additional rip/fall articulations. I am a huge fan of the Spitfire player because their libraries just seem to work better in their dedicated plugin- go figure. Mike Patti (Head of Cinesamples) said himself that Kontakt is a difficult dinosaur to work with and people have gotten better at noticing when things aren't sounding right. I've tried to look into sampling my own things through Kontakt and I do see exactly why companies are moving to their own plugins (Other than halting piracy). Kontakt has its strengths but orchestral instruments are its Achilles heel. I 100% agree with Hans Zimmer's strings and I'll in fact be harsher. It doesn't just sound mid or thin, it sounds like shit. The orchestral essentials pack that comes with Kontakt sounds better than Zimmer strings. I dislike the sound of AIR Lyndhurst and the reinvent-the-wheel mentality some Spitfire libraries have. These numbers, 344 players of which I think 60 are basses- that's insane, stupid and a complete gimmick. They aren't even able to deliver on the gimmick because you're absolutely right, it doesn't sound big. I think this is more down to the physical limitations of Lyndhurst Hall than any errors in production. Hans Zimmer Strings is a joke of a library.
I absolutely love Ólafur Arnold's and I cannot find interest in any of the spitfire collaborated libraries, cells is one of the best things I've heard from spitfire but I'm still unfortunately turned off at the moment. Spitfire DOES seem to hold way more collaborations than anyone else, a lot of spitfire libraries people complain they are hit or miss and the quality is variable. Many people complain not just me for various reasons, zimmer strings is one of the most common examples. Yes I understand some brands like spitfire have improved otherwise nobody would be buying their new stuff. Speaking of improving, Cinesamples interfaces look dinosaur aged and doesnt interest me with their vst offerings at all in terms of being really good at a specific something or better over competitors (from the little I know of them, I did buy Randy's Celeste and 12 horn brass). They feel quite generic, don't know if that's just me or not. The Berlin series needs a new version in my opinion, I think performance samples has out done OT with what he's released so far, as well as OTs own artist series and their newer libraries that didn't go on sale like Monolith, Grimm, and Beaufort which are amazing. Performance samples made a video why he is sticking to kontakt over his own player which is a way to look at it, I wouldn't mind a dedicated player for his stuff because it's not native powered anyway. I guess I prefer sine over the spitfire app. One of the biggest things I hate is searching for articulations with the spitfire default search like in cells or zimmer strings, it's cramped, there's no search bar, and you have to go through a ton of articulations to get to the one you want. I'd assume with their own app they can improve that. And about some sections or whatever not having the same articulations available, orchestral tools fixed Benjamín Wallfischers consistency and strezov fixed the horrible inconsistency of afflatus one and made the designer patches more playable, and Wallfischer strings has the FX add on with tons of soundscaping stuff too. Things like a certain section of violas having an articulation but the other section not having the same articulation, and having to scroll through all the sections on that small little element when they have a whole application window of space to make a proper patch browser. I wish for them to do a hans strings 2 with all new recordings and take all the criticism of their first attempt and make it an actual good library, then I'll see they've actually changed and didn't waste one of the potentially best strings libraries that could of ever been made.
![Spitfire's Abbey Road Strings - [SCORING and REVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GGJ98h04GYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Damn now that's a cool intro lick. Guess I have to step up my compositions. Great work, Pete!
Cheers Robbie! :D all good things!
Hi Pete, it’s surprising that in this review of Flutes a2, you completely ignore the steep price, especially for such a niche library. While you often emphasize that you used to buy everything yourself, your current situation of receiving these products for free actually makes your bias even more apparent. Encouraging people to ‘get in there quick before the intro price ends’ without critically addressing the cost comes across more like a sales pitch than an honest review. Acknowledging both the value and the financial barrier would add much-needed transparency. Sorry, but for me, this is bias in purest form.
And no, you don’t encourage anyone to buy something at the intro price-that’s a decision everyone should make for themselves, especially when you got it for free.
Hello! Thanks for the comment. I'm not really following! It sounds like you've determined already they are not good value for money but that notion hasn't really crossed my mind. I haven't really commented on the value for money but happily will. I recommended them based upon the sound, programming and my compositional experience. I feel the professional library especially offers a huge amount of realism and through the mic mixes, more application. I suppose everyone has different needs and budgets but in all honesty, I'd happily buy them at £199. Really, cost vs utility is something we all think about when we buy something. I don't know what your (the composer) goal is, or your budget so cannot make that judgement call for you. I used the SSO to back up the example of why I buy libraries with extended mics. They add longevity and I'm using the SSO original libraries frequently still. The £1500 or whatever I spent was for me, money well spent. Made a lot of music, opened a lot of doors for me as a composer. As for the "get in quick", the intro runs out actually tomorrow. So it was more info, not a sales pitch! I completely respect your view point and massively appreciate the comment. If this video comes across that way, then this is the trappings of being a small review channel. It's not my intention to be bias, or mislead anyone. I genuinely think they sound great and don't have an issue with the price tag. So really, it's a difference of opinion. It is my opinion, I'm more than open to the fact that any opinion I may form about anything in world may differ to someone else!! Such is life! Thanks for the comment and viewing! Much appreciated! :D
@@thesampleist Hi Pete, thanks for your straightforward response! I get that value for money is subjective and depends on individual goals and budgets. However, my point was less about whether you personally think the library is worth £199 or more, but rather about the transparency of addressing the price for a broader audience. For many, especially smaller composers, such a price is significant, and omitting that discussion can feel dismissive.
Regarding the "get in quick" comment, I understand it was intended as informative. But when paired with a review that doesn't critically engage with the price, it risks sounding like active marketing. This is why such comments might feel at odds with the premise of a balanced review.
Your expertise and enthusiasm for the library come through clearly, but I believe addressing the price vs. utility more openly (beyond personal opinion) would make reviews like this more authentic. Thanks again for taking the time to reply!
@@d_lydiancheers once again for the message and the feedback. I totally see where you are coming from now! It’s something we’ll look into addressing in future videos :) thanks again!
I just got CSW, this doesn't feel worth buying
Cinematic scoring woodwinds? I'd rather wait for performance samples alternative. Cinematic scoring is starting to lose its #1 spot to PS and Tokyo scoring strings with the 2.0 update has a "cinema" mix that sounds like a more detailed CSS. TSS is straight up better in just about every way from the work flow to the flexibility of sound.
I don't know what cinematic scoring woodwinds is, I'm talking about cinematic studio woodwinds. maybe this is what you meant because I can't find it on the web.
I'm not convinced that pacific woodwinds is a better alternative as it has way less content, both in terms of instruments and articulations. with pacific woodwinds you are stuck with ensembles, whereas CSW has both solo and a2 instruments. it also lacks alto flute, cor anglais, bass clarinet and contrabassoon compared to CSW. and according to their website, only flutes and clarinets have legato, which I think is a waste because it is crucial to make the instruments sound realistic.
@@leol902 yes it has less content but it will be added after he is done with Vista II for the Pacific series such as Pacific woodwinds articulations. He also just got a new mic array and is already planning on making pacific ensemble strings better with an update too. I'd rather get 8dio Claire woodwinds for way cheaper if you want the missing instruments while having a better non nudging work flow, and waiting for Pacific or Vista II to add other woodwind instruments and articulations. Yes CS is the most popular for a reason at least for strings, but it's losing it's lead to many other libraries as I said, there's plenty of videos explaining this too like Kevin kuschels TSS vs CSS video. Especially with TSS adding a CSS style mix in 2.0
Orchestral tools if they create an artist grade woodwind library, I think it would be the nail in the coffin for CS having any competitive advantage over anyone other than being a series that works together. And CS Percussion sucks. Strikeforce 2, monolith, taiko ensemble by sonica, damage 2, pacific percussion, junkie xl percussion, Berlin percussion (personal opinion) etc, are better.
@@JohnnyADi what do you mean CS percussions suck? they are not even released yet
@@leol902 it's not going to be better than what already exists as it works on the current interface and work flow which sucks and I'm 100% sure it's already irrelevant, the only reason people would buy it would be to have the entire series. Cinematic studio needs to make a version 4/studio 2 ASAP if they want to be competitive at all. There are so many other libraries that dominate it in every way. There's not a SINGLE thing CS does better than anyone else. And again that string sound is now replicated in a much better modern package and workflow with a lot more detail and expression with TSS 2.0 Cinema mix.
go go whales
I hate spitfire, they destroyed Hans zimmer strings from what could of been if it were Orchestral Tools. This flute library for the price shows how they want to rip people off too, I personally hate their stock big expression knob interface when it comes to surfing the articulations. Performance samples, orchestral tools, and strezov (they improved afflatus 2 from 1), are a few examples of better companies with better more passionate people behind them with better average quality libraries at least in 2024 than spitfire and with WAY better prices or loyalty options than spitfire (orchestral tools could improve loyalty price strategy a bit more but WAY better than spitfire still). I'll never buy a spitfire library, I'll wait for another hans zimmer strings alternative and chamber strings alternative. Or if they remake their mistakes into second versions and make them actually good that would be amazing cause it would show they know it could of been done better and give people what they originally were hoping for.
Thanks for your feedback but most of that really has nothing to do with this library and we’re really not trying to politicize any of the issues related to personal views on the developer or its competition we are merely looking to objectively provide our own review of a library and have a productive dialogue on it.
Sound's like 30$ library
Honestly. Yeah.
This is a very mediocre library- that's 300 dollars.
@@minder01í want to never buy a spitfire library ever for the price but how they steal most collaborators from other brands and they end up being mediocre like Hans zimmer strings and Ólafur Arnold's artist libraries. I don't like orchestral tools Berlín series but their artist series is absolutely incredible, bleeding fingers moved from spitfire to orchestral tools and made Grimm which is phenomenal. Also I HATE spitfires stock interface, on hans zimmer strings it really sucks, worse though is the inconsistency of it where certain sections of some articulations some others don't. It doesn't sound 344 players big either, performance samples ensemble strings sounds way better in my opinion (yes they are going for a different sound I know), but then you also get the Pacific loyalty code which makes all PS libraries WAY cheaper when they come out. OTs Benjamin Wallfischer and junkie xls libraries are my primary big Hollywood libraries. They made a 300 gb (uncompressed) update for Wallfischer strings making it consistent. Something that never happened to afflatus strings or hans zimmer strings.
@@JohnnyADiI both agree and disagree on these points. This will be a lot of text, my apologies.
Spitfire most certainly does not steal collaborators from other brands. I agree that those products more often than not end up being mediocre but that's because I think you and I have overlapping interests in style/genre. Some of these Spitfire collaborations are fantastic- provided you work in the kind of style those libraries were designed for.
Spitfire are very skilled at making tools that let's the layman access otherwise difficult-to-create orchestral landscapes. That's why people like Ólafur Arnold keeps collabing with them.
Not a huge fan of the Berlin series either but it's still probably the greatest in-depth full orchestral library in the world.
That said, the artist series at OT is top-notch. I adore Peteris Vasks strings, it's got that "true" chamber sound that I've waited years for.
Disagree with the Spitfire Plugin and I think your leading argument why is moot.
Your point about articulations is moot because a) some instruments will generally not have the same articulations available because they're not preferred or essential and b) Spitfire, if anything, are known for the opposite.
BBCSO Pro is a great example of this. Nearly all the same articulations are available throughout the wind section, even down to the niche Bb Contrabass clarinet. The only exceptions are the legato omitted from the bass flute because having legato for the bass flute would just be stupid, and the piccolo flute has some additional rip/fall articulations.
I am a huge fan of the Spitfire player because their libraries just seem to work better in their dedicated plugin- go figure. Mike Patti (Head of Cinesamples) said himself that Kontakt is a difficult dinosaur to work with and people have gotten better at noticing when things aren't sounding right.
I've tried to look into sampling my own things through Kontakt and I do see exactly why companies are moving to their own plugins (Other than halting piracy).
Kontakt has its strengths but orchestral instruments are its Achilles heel.
I 100% agree with Hans Zimmer's strings and I'll in fact be harsher. It doesn't just sound mid or thin, it sounds like shit. The orchestral essentials pack that comes with Kontakt sounds better than Zimmer strings. I dislike the sound of AIR Lyndhurst and the reinvent-the-wheel mentality some Spitfire libraries have.
These numbers, 344 players of which I think 60 are basses- that's insane, stupid and a complete gimmick. They aren't even able to deliver on the gimmick because you're absolutely right, it doesn't sound big. I think this is more down to the physical limitations of Lyndhurst Hall than any errors in production.
Hans Zimmer Strings is a joke of a library.
I absolutely love Ólafur Arnold's and I cannot find interest in any of the spitfire collaborated libraries, cells is one of the best things I've heard from spitfire but I'm still unfortunately turned off at the moment. Spitfire DOES seem to hold way more collaborations than anyone else, a lot of spitfire libraries people complain they are hit or miss and the quality is variable. Many people complain not just me for various reasons, zimmer strings is one of the most common examples.
Yes I understand some brands like spitfire have improved otherwise nobody would be buying their new stuff. Speaking of improving, Cinesamples interfaces look dinosaur aged and doesnt interest me with their vst offerings at all in terms of being really good at a specific something or better over competitors (from the little I know of them, I did buy Randy's Celeste and 12 horn brass). They feel quite generic, don't know if that's just me or not.
The Berlin series needs a new version in my opinion, I think performance samples has out done OT with what he's released so far, as well as OTs own artist series and their newer libraries that didn't go on sale like Monolith, Grimm, and Beaufort which are amazing.
Performance samples made a video why he is sticking to kontakt over his own player which is a way to look at it, I wouldn't mind a dedicated player for his stuff because it's not native powered anyway. I guess I prefer sine over the spitfire app. One of the biggest things I hate is searching for articulations with the spitfire default search like in cells or zimmer strings, it's cramped, there's no search bar, and you have to go through a ton of articulations to get to the one you want. I'd assume with their own app they can improve that.
And about some sections or whatever not having the same articulations available, orchestral tools fixed Benjamín Wallfischers consistency and strezov fixed the horrible inconsistency of afflatus one and made the designer patches more playable, and Wallfischer strings has the FX add on with tons of soundscaping stuff too. Things like a certain section of violas having an articulation but the other section not having the same articulation, and having to scroll through all the sections on that small little element when they have a whole application window of space to make a proper patch browser.
I wish for them to do a hans strings 2 with all new recordings and take all the criticism of their first attempt and make it an actual good library, then I'll see they've actually changed and didn't waste one of the potentially best strings libraries that could of ever been made.