Why so many violins in an orchestra?

In article <uLBYj.4216$Uf1.604@trndny08>, peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
>sound?

It's an instrument. All instruments are that way. You put a dozen horn
players together and it sounds very different than just one horn.

>Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
>needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
>and different rate of vibrato.

Probably. You can double-track too. Funny thing, though, double tracking
doesn't make it sound like a coherent integral string section.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

peter wrote:
> What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
> sound?
>

Totally different thing. Think of a choir singing softly and a soloist
singing loudly.

> Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
> needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
> and different rate of vibrato.
>
>

Yup. It is an effect called chorus. It shifts the pitch and timing of
the original sound, then drops it somewhere across a panned sound stage.
You can multiple-chorus to many locations and end up with something that
sounds almost entirely unlike a string section.

d

On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:03:54 GMT, "peter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
>sound?
>
>Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
>needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
>and different rate of vibrato.
>
Really great orchestras have the players with very good pitch and
timing so the are really virbratoing and tuning very precisely, but
every instrument has it's own voice and it's own placement in a large
space that is needed to fit an orchestra. The closest I've come to
faking it is to double track a string trio and and then backup their
parts with a good sounding string pad played by someome who can really
understand what the strings are doing.
But you might find the trio is charming and all you really need.
Here to you need a good space to record them in. Strings are difficult
to record in a confined space.
Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

> Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
> room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
> That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

if so why?

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
change distance?

Mark

Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
>> room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
>> That's my 2 kilobits.
>
>interesting...is that really true?

Of course.

>if so why?
>
>why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
>change distance?

Because all kinds of different sounds come out of the violin in different
directions. They all strike the room and bounce around and mix to become
a still different sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
>> room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
>> That's my 2 kilobits.
>
>interesting...is that really true?
>
>if so why?

The same reason close micing a voice gives more lipsmacks and breath
noise.
These sounds don't project and bounce off surfaces the same as the
tones your really after, but they are right in your face when close
miced and unlike a breath or lipsmack that may come between words the
bow noise is continous and can't be separated. Some players also tap
down with an audible noise on the fingerboard, which is also something
to avoid.
If your an electrc guitar player think of it as a noisey amp which
also works fine from a distance but can be downright ugly with a mic
stuck against it.
There is no substitute for good instruments, technique, and space.
You can find wonderful ambiance from a convolutions program, but you
can't really move the mic in vitual space, it really has to happen
when you record.

>> Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
>> room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
>> That's my 2 kilobits.
>
> interesting...is that really true?
>
> if so why?
>
> why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
> change distance?

Perhaps the scraping sound is a point source which decreases at distance ^ 3
and the string is a line source (or area source because of the resonant
chamber) which decreases at distance ^2 or slower.

On May 20, 6:16 pm, "peter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
> >> room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
> >> That's my 2 kilobits.
>
> > interesting...is that really true?
>
> > if so why?
>
> > why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
> > change distance?
>
> Perhaps the scraping sound is a point source which decreases at distance ^ 3
> and the string is a line source (or area source because of the resonant
> chamber) which decreases at distance ^2 or slower.

I like it...that's a very good possibility..

The other comment about vocals i think is mostly due to the fact that
people speak louder when the mic is far and softer when it is close so
the mouth noises are more prominent when the mic is close and people
speak soft...

and Scotts commnet about the various angles of radiaion..OK that's
probably true but then you could get the same reduction in scrape
sound by placing the mic at the propoer angle away from the instrument
rather than at a greater distance...

I'll go for the 1/r^2 from a line source vs 1/r^3 from a point source
theory...I like it...... thanks

Mark

Mark wrote:

> On May 20, 6:16 pm, "peter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
> > >> room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
> > >> That's my 2 kilobits.
> >
> > > interesting...is that really true?
> >
> > > if so why?
> >
> > > why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
> > > change distance?
> >
> > Perhaps the scraping sound is a point source which decreases at distance ^ 3
> > and the string is a line source (or area source because of the resonant
> > chamber) which decreases at distance ^2 or slower.
>
> I like it...that's a very good possibility..
>
> The other comment about vocals i think is mostly due to the fact that
> people speak louder when the mic is far and softer when it is close so
> the mouth noises are more prominent when the mic is close and people
> speak soft...
>
> and Scotts commnet about the various angles of radiaion..OK that's
> probably true but then you could get the same reduction in scrape
> sound by placing the mic at the propoer angle away from the instrument
> rather than at a greater distance...
>
> I'll go for the 1/r^2 from a line source vs 1/r^3 from a point source
> theory...I like it...... thanks
>
> Mark

The radiation angles and dispersion change from note to note,
thus there isn't any single "propoer angle away from the instrument."


Later...

Ron Capik
--