When I started this site, I thought about what kind of sample libraries I wanted to review here. I looked at the sample libraries I owned and mentally divided them into the ones I wanted to review and the ones I would probably ignore. My orchestral collection from Aria Sounds fell into the category of “ignore” for a simple reason: It was pretty dated and I didn’t see a lot of people mentioning these products anymore.
Then, a few weeks ago, I saw an email in my inbox that told me LSS Solo Strings by Aria Sounds was on sale at a major audio software discount site. I knew I had to write about this sample library now. Why? Because I’d like to keep you from buying it. That’s right; it’s not a good sample library and I don’t want you to buy it.
Okay, you can close this article now. But just in case you want to know why I am so harsh on this library, here’s what’s up: When I started investing more money into sample libraries in 2017, I didn’t really know what was out there. Orchestral library for cheap? Cool! I bought it. Sure, the demo didn’t sound amazing, but how bad could it be? In the worst case, I could still use it for layering, right? Ugh, wrong!
What makes a good orchestral library are things like a good recording quality, consistent samples, a good amount of velocity layers, round robins, articulations, a selection of microphones, effects, etc. At first glance, the LSS Solo Strings libraries seem to check a lot of these boxes. There are five articulations and four mic positions and the recordings seem to have a nice natural sound to them—at first.
The problems arise when you start playing around with it a bit and try to program phrases. There are noisy samples (I am not talking low background orchestral noise, I’m talking loud scratching noises), there are countless out-of-tune samples, and the biggest bummer is the samples are widely inconsistent. Short articulations have different lengths, long articulations often differ in tone from note to note, sample starts vary and velocity can be unpredictable. So even if you don’t want to do fancy stuff with your strings, there will be many things you can’t play because the samples are noisy or inconsistent in volume or just really out of tune.
This is especially bad because these are solo strings. Solo strings are not meant to be drowned out in a mix; instead, they are often featured prominently in sparser arrangement or as standout instruments in a dense mix. The problem with LSS Solo Strings is not that they are just mediocre sounding, it’s because they are pretty much unusable.
Anyway, if you’re not convinced, just take a listen (ideally on headphones or good monitors).
(Note: I was going to post a bass example because it was maybe the most solid legato example of the library, but after closing and opening the project again, the bass notes started behaving weirdly, dropping in and out at random times or increasing their volume suddenly.)
Here is a cello pizzicato line. What’s special about it? The quiet notes have a velocity of 107; the loud ones have a velocity of 108.
Example Cello 2:
Another cello line, this time a spiccato patch. I am only playing one note (which is repeated), so why are we hearing two?
On to the viola. Are these notes supposed to be in tune? Also, please listen to the extreme scratching noise in the last note.
Example Second Violin:
It’s hard to believe, but I’m repeating a single quantized note here.
Example Second Violin 2:
Second violin, this time long articulation. The first note has a percussive noise at the beginning of the samples; the second note has another string noise in there.
And, finally, first violin. A simple, quantized line with fixed note lengths:
Example First Violin:
I really didn’t want to write about this library at all, so I’m gonna stop here.
For fairness, I will include this video by ThomCofficial, however. He clearly put a lot of effort into this and shows how you can make the best out of a suboptimal sample library:
Also, here are some more opinions from VI Control.
There are so many great orchestral and string libraries out there these days; you don’t need to settle for this. If all you have is $40 to invest in a string library right now, you can wait, get a Composer Cloud Subscription, or check out one of Spitfire’s cheaper releases. You don’t want to spend that $40 on LSS Solo Strings because you’ll be $40 poorer and still won’t have a decent string library.
natural sound on the first glance
many samples are noisy
very inconsistent performance
overall not on a professional level
Sound quality: 2.5/10
Overall Rating: 2.5/10
Value for money (at $39.99): 2.5/10
Format: Kontakt 4+ (full version is required) Size: 16 GB
Learn Monthly is a new, innovative course platform that offers classes in creative topics in a 30-day format. Andrew Huang’s Complete Music Production course promises to make you a versatile producer by letting you produce 3 songs over the course of a month. All you need to do is invest 7–10 hours per week. I took the class and want to tell you about my experience with it.
Why I signed up
Producing music is a very complex endeavor and that complexity is what makes producing such a challenge. It’s easy to become overwhelmed and get stuck somewhere in the production process. In my case, the result is that I have hundreds of unfinished tracks and ideas lying around. In the last six months or so, I’ve been trying to find ways to streamline my processes and sail right past everything that usually stops me. What I’ve found most helpful for this is watching other producers work.
Watching an experienced producer make a piece of music can give you a lot of insight into their habits and approaches: How do they structure their songs? How do they choose their instruments? How do they use automation? The processes they use and habits they’ve built help them maintain a consistent output of good music.
Andrew Huang is a well-known music producer in the YouTube universe and has released more than 50 albums of original music. He often receives attention for creating songs in unusual ways like making a track only using carrots as an instrument or writing lyrics where every word has to start with the next letter of the alphabet.
But it’s not just about gimmicky experiments with Andrew Huang; he has written in all kinds of styles and genres and records and plays multiple instruments. Watching someone with such a broad field of expertise produce three different tracks from start to finish seemed like a perfect way to add some know-how to my own production process—and maybe finish some tracks.
Another reason why I wanted to check out this class was because it seemed to be a community-based class. The sales page promised learning in an intimate group atmosphere with around 20 other people and the chance that Andrew Huang would give feedback himself if you submitted on time. That was basically the selling argument for me; I have found small communities very useful as a creator and being one of 20 people made it seem like there was a good chance to get feedback from Andrew too (more about this below).
The 30 days
I signed up 5 days before the official course start. In the days before the start, there are a few posts and videos unlocked as a sort of preparation for the class. You’ll get a long list of what tools you should own (ideally) and get access to a music theory video (I believe it’s the same video as this). Knowing music theory (or learning it through this video) is considered a prerequisite for starting the rest of the course. Not that you have to take a test on that—but it’s the first hint that this course might not be as beginner-friendly as it is sold. It’s also presumed that you get comfortable in your DAW before the course starts. There are some basic videos about Ableton Live included in the course, since that’s Andrew’s DAW of choice (and there is a free 30-day trial).
The class is organized into three parts: Song 1 (day 1 – 12), song 2 (day 13 – 22), song 3 (day 22 – 30). Song 1 is an electronically produced track; song 2 is a track you’ll produce from found sounds that you’ll record yourself and your own synthesized sounds; song 3 is a song with vocals and real instruments (if you have any).
The lessons are provided in video format and can be watched as soon as each part is unlocked. So, for example, on day 1, you can watch all videos about the first song, but you’ll have to wait until day 13 before you can watch any videos for the second song. This is a good system that helps you stay focused throughout the course.
Every few days there’ll be a task that you’ll need to complete, for example write a loop, structure your track or give feedback on the work your peers submitted. The platform allows you to upload audio, video and image posts and even has a screen/video recording option. The only thing that’s missing here, in my opinion, is the option to just create a text post. This would be nice for asking for general advice and other discussions.
In general, the platform is nicely organized with a clean design. There was one time when I uploaded a track to the wrong place, but, other than that, the site is pretty self-explanatory. There’s a feed where you’ll see everything that other class members have posted. There’s also a side bar where all your peers are listed. By clicking on them, you can check out what they’ve been doing in the course, but as far as I know you cannot send private messages to other members.
Now, on to the content. The course consists of eight hours of video content in the well-edited/well-produced logical Andrew Huang style. The lessons are typically kept short, the biggest chunk is reserved for watching Andrew produce in real time.
As a struggling music creator myself, it was pretty awesome to see Andrew deal with those same struggles I face on a daily basis, not because I like watching other people struggle but because I learned a lot by watching him get past these problems. Seeing Andrew applying tedious automation shapes or reworking a lead sound for the fifth time inspired me to dig a little deeper when working on my own track.
It was also interesting to watch Andrew structure his work. I often feel a little lost when working on new music (despite having written hundreds of tracks) and just following along step by step was really helpful. It gave me something to work towards and is the reason why I was able to finish the first two tracks on time.
As I said, most lessons (where Andrew would explain something) were good but also pretty compact. This is understandable because music production is such a complex topic that you can’t dive deep into every single topic.
But, unfortunately, this is something that makes this course less accessible for beginners. There’s not a lot of time spent on explaining music production basics (and if there is, it’s often just a short summary), but there’s the expectation that you’ll be able to apply things like reverb and compressors anyway. Sometimes, Andrew explains a new concept using words that a total newbie wouldn’t know (headroom, waves, etc.). Again, this is very understandable, but it seems unfitting that the class is also marketed towards absolute beginners then.
As someone with more experience, however, I was able to get a lot out of the course, especially in the later videos.
One thing I will say is that I found it hard to complete my tracks in the 7–10 hours per week that were estimated on the class sales page. If you’re okay with more basic results or you’re a fast producer, this might be a good estimate, but for me 12 hours plus seemed more realistic—at least if you want to get the most out of the class.
The social aspect
I already mentioned that you’re taking this class with other people on a shared platform. The sales page sold it as an experience you’ll be sharing with about 20 other people (in fact, the word “intimate” is used in this context twice to describe the group size). In the FAQ section, there’s also a mention of “other peer groups” that will take the class at the same time.
This feature was particularly important to me. 20 people seemed like a good number. It was small enough to support each other and get to know each other a little bit over the course of a month. Also, in a group of 20 people, it would probably be easy to get some feedback from Andrew, right?
When I finally started the course, I found that the peer group aspect wasn’t exactly as advertised. Yes, the participants were separated into peer groups, but all groups were sharing the same feed. So most of the posts I saw on a day-to-day basis were not posts from my own group. I counted more than 60 people in this feed (it could have been more, it’s just when I stopped counting). Keeping up with all those tracks every day seemed impossible. “Intimate” this was not.
A frustrating part of this was that it was easy for posts to get pushed down in the feed quickly. There also seemed more feedback and interaction during certain times—basically when I was still asleep on the West Coast. So while I got some feedback from some very nice people, I definitely would have expected a much closer relationship with my peers. And I simply would have loved to talk more to people from my group, even just to get to know them better.
What about interacting with Andrew Huang? Learn Monthly made sure not to promise anything, but the sales page stated that he would give feedback and answer questions within the student’s peer group. Well, I checked each of my 24 peers’ postings and I found exactly one comment by Andrew:
Yup, that’s all the feedback my whole peer group got.
To be clear, I don’t blame Andrew at all for this. He is a busy guy and he put a lot of work and love into this course. I just think that Learn Monthly promised too much. I saw Andrew post comments a few times a day (although not every day) and in a smaller group this would have been enough to fulfill my expectations. But in a group with dozens and dozens of active students, it simply wasn’t possible for him (or anyone) to keep up.
If Learn Monthly hadn’t been so specific about how intimate this whole experience was going to be and that Andrew would try to “reward” the most active members with his attention, I would feel better about it, I think. But to me it felt like Learn Monthly wanted to make it sound better than it really was.
The lack of community definitely led to a drop in motivation for me. I never submitted anything for the third song, not just because everything took way more time than I had scheduled but also because I felt that it didn’t really matter. And actually there was barely anyone in my peer group who submitted the third song. I can only assume that they felt similarly.
My suggestion for Learn Monthly is to either make sure they can deliver on their promise or simply not promise an intimate group setting. It should be mentioned on the sales page that, due to the group size, it’s very unlikely to get personal feedback from Andrew during the class. That would be honest.
Would I recommend this course to other music producers despite these flaws? Yes! I actually would. The content is insightful and the format is fun and motivating for the most part. It was great to produce two tracks during this month in styles I wasn’t very familiar with. Watching Andrew demystified a lot of things and it was simply a good investment of time to learn from his workflows. I’m happy about the tracks I made and felt empowered at the end of the course.
There are two major exceptions though:
I wouldn’t recommend this course to absolute beginners (except if you’re somehow swimming in money) because it’s not focused on beginner topics as much. You will simply gain a lot more from the experience if you already know how to make nice chords, what a compressor is and how an ADSR curve works. If you’re struggling with these things, the course might feel rushed to you and it might be hard to complete your tracks.
The other exception is if Learn Monthly raises the price for this considerably and you’re really looking for that personal feedback. I take courses in the $300 – $400 range all the time and they usually provide a great deal of feedback and teacher interaction. I paid around $250 for this class (I used a referral code), which was fine for what it offered. But if I had paid $500 for this (which is what apparently some people have paid), this review would be less forgiving. Sorry, I’m European and I like my education to be affordable. 🙂