@mech289 said:

Wouldnt changing octaves be easier, and offer more deep sound to them, or am I wrong....

Mech289-
Yes, you are wrong. Every string has its own unique character and sound, which you want to preserve. If you shifted by an octave, for example - the entire low octave of the violin would be 'played' on the low g string. Not only that, they would all be the same exact note, just transposed. So in the low octave, you would get all the same phasing problems. However, if your instrument is not chromatically sampled, it would be a good idea to transpose by the lowest common denominator. For example, 3 half steps, if your instrumnet was only sampled every 3 half steps. This avoids phasing in all registers. Also, samples become shorter as you transpose them higher, and vice versa. That would be way too much transposition and would sound completely artificial.
-mvanbebber

@jc5 said:

That is good thinking mvanbebber.
And if each 'new' section/instrument is simply programmed as a different variant in the same giga bank, then there won't be any extra ram usage.. so one can feel free to use as many variants as needed.

Yes, you are correct - a VERY good side effect to this is that it requires no more ram usage, so you could have: trpt.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 all with the same ram usage. Wonderful trick.
-mvanbebber

@homebilly said:

so do you mean detune the samples 1/2 step then transpose them 1/2 step.

can you explain the procedure a little more fully for the hard of hearing [:)]

i'm using EXS in logic on one mac triggered by DP on another mac.

Homebilly-
No, I don't mean detune then transpose. Giga editor 'knows' when to detune and how much when you drag notes in the keyboard window.
- Open the giga editor.
- Open the giga file you want to edit
- Right click on it and click 'duplicate instrument'
- Go to the duplicated instrument and click on it.
- Select all the notes in the keyboard window.
- Drag them all to the right one half step.
- Select the lowest note only and drag it to the left by one half step - to where it was originally.
- Rename the instrumnet "Violin 2", for example.
-Save the file and exit. You will notice that you giga file is only slightly bigger (less than 1 megabyte!)

hope this helps,
-mvanbebber

http://community.vsl.co.at/viewtopic.php?t=5564

All time favorite topic it seems... See my post somewhat later with lots of links to the many opinions on this topic.

I believe this topic is also controversely discussed with real orchestras - do the second violins have to have their own character or should they have the same sound as the second but play another voice? Isn't the strings section like a choir with soprano, alt, tenor, bass? Actually it's hard to tell where they sit... What are the violas for then following this analogy? I like it they way it is and I didn't findany problems with it yet but am amazed at the many articulations I can choose from (and even wish for a few more!), even with Opus 1.

All the best,
PolarBear

vn 1 = soprano, vn 2 = alto, va = tenor, vc = bass

db = vc?

@PolarBear said:

db = vc?

yes and no. range is the issue because when considering satb part writing, basses sound an octave lower (thus creating parralel octaves). in that sense, they are really an extention instrument of the cellos. up until the romantic period, this was the norm, and it remains entirely consistent to omit them from classical works without any detriment to harmonic structure. it was later that composers began to exploit the basses' individuality. it's interesting to read piston suggesting that the basses have little sustaining power and thus are best used as puntuation, while adler inexplicably suggests that the cellos now play the tenor part (leaving the bass to the basses!?!?). I think adler was out to lunch telling that to new students precisely because it blurs orchestration rules with harmony/counterpoint and creates a confusing ssatb or saatb model for string writing which is inconsistent with four part music.

Quite right too, Martin.

Many modern composers use the excuse of early 20th century experimentation to justify the overuse of Contrabasses. Far from highlighting this instrument, it's important to use it in context with the rest of the orchestra.
And there's another reason for careful use. Wagner,Beethoven, etc. used the contrabass to create a 'sound picture' for a particular effect, i.e. the Valkeries introduction. In this speciallst use, the Contrabass, like the Bass Clarinet and Contrabassoon shines, as the unique sound stands out from the whole. In pizzicato too, the Contrabass strengthens a harmony block or phrase, the partially percussive effect adding a new sound colour to the whole without taking over.
The Contrabass stock in trade is perceived as doubling below the bass line predominately written (in 4 part harmony) for cellos. To use the contrabass (in your permanent orchestral structure) as a standalone bass instrument with the cellos 'promoted' to a tenor position brings many difficulties for a composer, not least of which, the ponderous nature of Contrabasses overused for bar after bar. It's ok for a brief time for sound colour, and 'aural picture painting', but i've heard many a good tune destroyed with the constant drone of CB's sawing away endlessly, adding porridge to what otherwise might be a good orchestration.
I am an unashamed fan of Beethoven's, both as a source of study, and as a listener. But even he, on a few occasions, overused the CB, and created a muddy sound. With today's superb players, this isn't so readily apparent, but for a young orchestra or ensemble still improving in their skills, it is a trap that is certain to add mud to a performance.
The CB should not be underestimated in it's valuable contribution to an orchestra, but using it continually wil only lessen it's unique place, and tone. There is not another instrument in the orchestra that, poorly used, will effectively kill off the texture and unique tone qualities of other sections and instruments.
In today's world of boom bang bang, it's important not to let this style tendency creep into the orchestra, and risk negating the infinitely variable opportunities for tone and colour. to those who would include the CB every chance they get, do yourselves and the player a favour, and treat him like the unique and creative specialist he is, not a 'bassline robot'.

Regards to you all,

Alex.

I've read much here about 2nd Violins and would like to contribute the following.

I had a stint as the conductor of a theatre orchestra (as i've mentioned previously)

With 10 first Vls, and 8 seconds, the sound was quite reasonable and a reflection of a full orchestra given the restrictions of space, and type of music played. (Think King and I, Kismet, etc.) When i first arrived the morale was low, a result of an incompetent previous baton waver, and a director who's sense of humanity was not related in any way to the rest of us human beings and our perception of civilized behavior. The second Vls were a throughly dispirited lot, having night after night of offbeats, mournful tremolos, and the odd pizzicato to dream of. I began a program of swapping the players around, and with the exception of the top desk of 1st Violins (I paid respect to their seniority and ability as it should be) 1st's and 2nd's were mixed in a pool, working on a rota system. This had two effects. The seconds cheered up considerably, and although some firsts initially resisted this idea, with careful diplomacy they came around. The quality of playing improved immediately, and other sections showed interest. I was building a team, and after two months, my plan was accepted with enthusiasm. The actors and singers joined this fray too, regularly swapping parts, and the improvement in quality, and friendly competition, gave performances a life that filled the theatre, and gave all the performers both an opportunity to shine, and a rest.
The ONLY difference between 1st and 2nd violins was in the orchestration.
1st's tended to be written on the top strings, where the seconds would incorporate the lower strings more frequently. In addition, the seconds would be doubled more often with the violas, and occasionally cellos, and the COMBINATION of tones created a new sound in itself. It's this that creates the impression of 2nd Violins having a 'sound of their own', coupled with the lesser number of players, and in non professional orchestras, a degree of lesser ability. (In this i generalise)
I'm working on a symphony at the moment, that at several points, requires all strings (with the exception of the Contrabasses) to play unison. It's a powerful sound, and directly reflects the lack of difference between the 1st and 2nd violins.

Contrary to much of what has been written about a separate 2nd Vl section in VSL samples, you actually have something that a live orchestra could lack. An equally competent 2nd violin section, unfettered by the possibilty of lesser ability. It's your orchestration that will reflect any perceived 'difference' between the sections, not some 'unique 2nd violin sound.'
To vibrato and others who are starting their musical journey, write well, and you will understand the difference between violin sections is a result of your creative attributes, and don't get bogged down with reflections on what is different or not. It's the notes, articulation, and pitch that make the difference, because the instruments are the same, played the same way. Combined with, generally, two less players in the seconds (i've played in orchestras with equal numbers), your ability and music will reflect the difference without requiring the urban myth of a 'second violin sound.'

Regards to you all,

Alex.

As an addition to the previous post, it's been my experience (as a player and conductor) that the sometimes enthusiastic discussion in orchestras of the differences between 1st and 2nd violins is more a result of the 2nd violin players desire to be in the firsts, and the firsts determination to keep their hard won seat.

This has little to do with a different sound, and everything to do with competitive human nature!

Regards to you all,

Alex.