# A Stupid But Necessary Question: How Best To Simulate Divisi Strings Without Divisi Samples?



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

Yes, Jemima, there IS such a thing as a stupid question, and I'm going to ask it.

It is my understanding that professionally and technically you cannot simulate divisi strings adequately without a sample library that supports it, one with samples of partial string sections. I get it that 2 x 12 = 24, or 2 x 16 = 32. I fully expect to be reminded of the problems inherent in using full string section samples to simulate divisi. And I don't mind that, because there may be aspects of it I do not understand.

At this point I figure the problems are:

1. Sonic (the sound of a full section is not the same as a partial section).
2. Spatial (the spatial placement of individual partial sections is different than that of a full section).
3. Phasing (multiplying full section sample will cause phase cancellation or distortion).
4. Weight (I use this term to capture problems of volume, thickness and "heaviness" in orchestral string lines). 

So, given all this, and given that I am a hobbyist not a professional, and given that I do not expect soon to be in a position to order LASS or Dimension Strings, how do I use what I have (VSL SE Vol 1 and PLUS library and MIRx) to do the best I can to simulate divisi?

I am new to MIRx, and I see that for Orchestral Strings it has, in addition to presets for Violins 1 and Violins 2 sections, general purpose ensemble presets for front, mid and rear, so I expect that to be useful. But I expect that this will probably need to be combined with other tools (like stereo width?) to achieve an optimal effect.

Not being an audio engineer, I've read about phasing but my concepts of it are rather vague. As I understand it, though, if I do enough altering of the samples with MIRx and any other audio effects, phasing problems should be reduced or eliminated, since the audio is no longer identical. In addition, unless you have separate divisi sections playing the same note (and this seems to defeat the whole point of divisi), phasing should not be an issue. I expect and hope that any misunderstanding I have will be corrected here.

Finally, I wonder how helpful it will be to simply separate out the divisi parts in separate tracks and reduce the volume of each to help solve the problems of Weight mentioned above.

So have at it people. In this case I hope that asking a Stupid Question gets answers, comments and suggestions that are of a far higher quality than the question.

I will be experimenting with this problem over the next few weeks, so I'm hoping I can generate some solid avenues for exploration.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jul 10, 2014)

You sound like you understand it all pretty well to me 

As for myself, I just don't worry about it as long as it sounds good. Why spend weeks experimenting with it, when you could spend weeks writing some music instead?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 10, 2014)

DaddyO @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> At this point I figure the problems are:
> 
> 1. Sonic (the sound of a full section is not the same as a partial section).
> 2. Spatial (the spatial placement of individual partial sections is different than that of a full section).
> ...



1. True, but layering two full sections on top of one another in an attempt to create div. is not incredibly different, bigger, thicker, nor more weight-yer. Some yes, and noticeable yes, but there really isn't a huge difference.

2. True, but nothing that you really need to be that concerned with. As with #1, the difference is extremely minimal.

3. No. Multiplying full sections will NOT cause phase cancellation nor distortion.

4. See #1

Here is an ex:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/div-ex.mp3

Cheers.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> You sound like you understand it all pretty well to me
> 
> As for myself, I just don't worry about it as long as it sounds good. Why spend weeks experimenting with it, when you could spend weeks writing some music instead?



Stephen,

Thanks for your comment. Normally it takes me weeks to do anything useful. Chronic health-related issues. Also, our daughter's wedding is coming up soon, and quality time for writing will be at a premium. This next few weeks is a good time for me to experiment and get all set up with my new computer (32 GB, yeah!), new MIRx, and a revised template. I'll still do snippets of writing, but nothing sustained. 

That said, I know there are plenty of people who approach it like you do, and that's perfectly legit. . Me, I'm not built that way. I like to learn from others who have traveled the same or similar path. I'd do the same if I was young and healthy.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> DaddyO @ Thu Jul 10 said:
> 
> 
> > At this point I figure the problems are:
> ...



RiffWraith,

Thanks for the comments and example. 

Good to hear some feedback that #3 is not a significant problem. I wondered.

Re: 1 and 4, Looks like you think it's a minor problem. I'm hoping some downward volume adjustment can take care of this. As for 2, again, I'm hoping some stereo width adjustment can take care of it.

No one will be happier than me if it turns out the problems are minor. I will certainly experiment with these things in actual orchestrations. What I intend to do is set up specific divisi tracks in my template with all the needed tweaks. I think I'm going to start with using the MIRx front, mid, rear settings on different tracks, and figure out how to set a percentage volume reduction for each track. Sounds like a starting point.


----------



## muk (Jul 10, 2014)

One thing you could try: double all the sections from the start! This way you'll be able to actually divide a section when you need to. The thicker sound may or may not be a problem depending on the piece and your mixing skills.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jul 10, 2014)

I admire your perseverance and attention to detail DaddyO 

Sorry to hear about your health issues. Wishing you all the best.

Stephen


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

muk @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> One thing you could try: double all the sections from the start! This way you'll be able to actually divide a section when you need to. The thicker sound may or may not be a problem depending on the piece and your mixing skills.



Yeah, I should clarify that I do not do film scores; instead, it's pretty much classical-style work.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> I admire your perseverance and attention to detail DaddyO
> 
> Sorry to hear about your health issues. Wishing you all the best.
> 
> Stephen



Thanks a bunch for the good wishes, Stephen. 

When I get a few hours with some "oomph" to do anything productive, immersive hobbies like this really help.


----------



## Simplesly (Jul 10, 2014)

DaddyO, 

If you use Vienna Ensemble I can send you my divisi string section VIframe presets for VSL special edition. 

Alternatively you can do this as outlined by mr. Kaufmann:

http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/vi-tips--tricks-2/index.php#7222669d04101e406 

The way I do the pitch bending is as follows:

Vln 1a (no pitch bend)
Vln 1b (+2)
Vln 2 (-2)

Vla 1 (+0)
Vla 2 (+2)

same as Vla for bass and cello

you could do for every section as I did with the Violins, but I found that most of the time im just doing divisi writing in the violins. What is interesting about the VI player is that it has as bug that "freezes" the pitch bend in place so you can fool it into thinking it is always bent. All you have to do then is set up the individual midi tracks to transpose back to normal pitch.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 10, 2014)

Gotta be careful with the pitch shifting. Most string libs are stretched over 1 whole step. If you stretch, say, +2, and play the note that is already stretched, you are technically stretching +3. 

Not sure why anyone would stretch, anyway. With most libs (as mentioned), other than a div. 1/2 step, you wouldn't be playing the same note. And even if you do a 1/2 step div. and wind up playing the same recorded note - it really doesn't make a difference.

Cheers.


----------



## Simplesly (Jul 10, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Gotta be careful with the pitch shifting. Most string libs are stretched over 1 whole step. If you stretch, say, +2, and play the note that is already stretched, you are technically stretching +3.
> 
> Not sure why anyone would stretch, anyway. With most libs (as mentioned), other than a div. 1/2 step, you wouldn't be playing the same note. And even if you do a 1/2 step div. and wind up playing the same recorded note - it really doesn't make a difference.
> 
> Cheers.




I didn't explain very well - what I mean by +2 is that you need to transpose +2 in your sequencer and pitch shift -2 in the VI engine. VSL SE is sampled in whole steps, so you need to go two steps in whatever direction. It actually sounds pretty good to me, especially when you layer the results. Phasing is minimal.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

Simplesly @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> DaddyO,
> 
> If you use Vienna Ensemble I can send you my divisi string section VIframe presets for VSL special edition.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Simplesly. I do use Vienna Ensemble (not Pro, yet). Feel free to PM me with your frames and I will take a look at them as soon as I can. I have referenced Beats-Kaufmann's excellent site.

I'm hoping MIRx will obviate the need to do the pitch shifting. In Peter Alexander's review of MIRx, he suggests that it might make the transposition trick unnecessary. As I recall, he notes that a VSL representative said it might, but not necessarily in all cases.

A few minutes ago I started tinkering with creating separate Cubase Group Tracks for divisi violins 1, violins 2, viola, and cello, as an initial routing for individual divisi tracks A, B, C for each. I will likely be using divisi frequently in both Viola and Cello sections in addition to Violins. 

My thinking is that I can adjust A, B and C for each section relatively at the track level, then adjust the entire divisi sections relative to each other. Finally, I will have a Strings Divisi Group Track to sum up each section, which will then route to my overall Strings Group Track. Sounds complicated, but really it's not, and it seems to give me the flexibility to make things come out right in the overall orchestration. If I hear something not quite right, I would have the specific tools to isolate the offending problem and fix it rather easily, I think. This approach will take some time to set up, but I'm hoping that once it's in my template it will be easy to work with.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 10, 2014)

Simplesly @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> I didn't explain very well - what I mean by +2 is that you need to transpose +2 in your sequencer and pitch shift -2 in the VI engine.



But why? If I am doing VI div., and I want E and G... why pitch shift either note in either direction?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 10, 2014)

What Peter Said! If you have Vienna Instruments Pro, they have programmed a second violins for you. There is also a second violins programmed in MirX which will position the strings and other instruments for you. 

@Jeffrey - per the VSL folks, when using the transposition trick best to use a whole step for the legato.


----------



## Simplesly (Jul 10, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Simplesly @ Fri Jul 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't explain very well - what I mean by +2 is that you need to transpose +2 in your sequencer and pitch shift -2 in the VI engine.
> ...



The transpose/pitch shift trick artificially gives you timbrally different sections to play with. You're not technically pitch shifting anything, but for example, if I want Vlns 1a +1b to do a unison on a middle "C" the 1b section is transposed up +2 then pitch bended down -2, which is effectively using the "D" sample to play a "C". When splitting out to divisi lines it's like you're using two different sample sets. But really it's just the one.

Peter A - I dont have MIR or VI pro even, i'm just using the basic, non-expanded VSL SE. The trick can be done with out those tools, but obviously they make things a lot easier


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 10, 2014)

Okay, outta gas from doing it, too much to really test it today, but I've made extensive changes in my template and in my VE Strings frame to implement what I mentioned above, so that tomorrow, hopefully, I can do some more extensive messing around with it. 

I ran an initial test of triads in the appropriate register for each section, Initial sound, though, is good. Front, mid, rear settings in MIRx corresponding to each A, B, C subunit of each section. I don't have a pro's ear to evaluate it, but it sounds okay to this tired soul.

Over and out for today. Thanks to everybody for chiming in.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 10, 2014)

Simplesly @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Simplesly @ Fri Jul 11 said:
> ...



Yeah - still not getting that. Not sure why - if you have properly recorded strings - you would want a different timbre for different notes of the same section, nor why you would want two different sample sets. Personally, I want my MIDI data to be triggering what the players actually played. But, to each his own.

Cheers.


----------



## pkm (Jul 10, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Simplesly @ Fri Jul 11 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:
> ...



The reason is for when you want to artificially create two sections that will play the same notes to prevent phasing between identical samples, i.e. making one flute patch into two that play in unison. Or if you want to create a double-sized Sable section that can split into divisi at any point and back to unison again without phasing.

You're right, there's no real benefit when the two instruments are playing different notes the whole time.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 10, 2014)

pkm @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Simplesly @ Fri Jul 11 said:
> ...



I thought that's what we were talking about the whole time - instruments playing different notes. After all, this thread is about "simulating divisi strings"...

Besides, you don't get phasing when you use identical samples. At least I don't.  

Cheers.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 10, 2014)

DaddyO @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> 1. Sonic (the sound of a full section is not the same as a partial section).
> 2. Spatial (the spatial placement of individual partial sections is different than that of a full section).
> 3. Phasing (multiplying full section sample will cause phase cancellation or distortion).
> 4. Weight (I use this term to capture problems of volume, thickness and "heaviness" in orchestral string lines).



For starters I would reduce the volume by 3 dB for a two-voice-divisi and ignore all other aspects.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 11, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> DaddyO @ Thu Jul 10 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Sonic (the sound of a full section is not the same as a partial section).
> ...



Thank you, Hannes_F. One of the things I hoped for in this thread is this kind of suggestion.

I should add so as not to be misunderstood, that all comments are welcome.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 11, 2014)

What Hannes said, +1.


----------



## pkm (Jul 11, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Ithought that's what we were talking about the whole time - instruments playing different notes. After all, this thread is about "simulating divisi strings"...
> 
> Besides, you don't get phasing when you use identical samples. At least I don't.
> 
> Cheers.



Yep, I'm agreeing with you. Others suggested the transposition trick, which does not completely apply in this case.

The phasing problem, as you know, is when the identical samples are offset from one another.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 11, 2014)

Aren't there times in the literature when separate divisi lines DO happen to merge onto the same note briefly, perhaps for a single note? I'm not sure. I know when I write sometimes this seems like the logical step, mostly at the end of a phrase. Or is this just not done?


----------



## Blakus (Jul 11, 2014)

I have been on this journey before, and I used to swear by LASS because of this reason. But long story short, I now live by the same philosophy that Hannes suggested - happily.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 11, 2014)

Well then, it appears that my initial approach should work well. I can easily adjust the gain of whatever unit or subunit I want with my Cubase Group Tracks. I'll just start with -3db and make any needed changes from there.


----------



## Simplesly (Jul 11, 2014)

Blakus @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> I have been on this journey before, and I used to swear by LASS because of this reason. But long story short, I now live by the same philosophy that Hannes suggested - happily.



But if you play the divisi lines on single track (or two different tracks) and just lower the volume 3db, aren't you still getting the sound of two larger sections rather than one section split in two? 

The Beat K. VSL method obviously doesn't shrink the divisi section size but it does make the two sections _sound_ differently. Not perfect, but I like it. It's subtle, but I notice the difference.

From the group's comments it seems like it's too much of a bother for not much difference to one's ears?


----------



## KevSharpMinor (Jul 22, 2014)

DaddyO @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> Aren't there times in the literature when separate divisi lines DO happen to merge onto the same note briefly, perhaps for a single note? I'm not sure. I know when I write sometimes this seems like the logical step, mostly at the end of a phrase. Or is this just not done?



Yes, this definitely happens in real orchestral pieces.


----------



## DaddyO (Jul 24, 2014)

KevSharpMinor @ Tue Jul 22 said:


> DaddyO @ Fri Jul 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't there times in the literature when separate divisi lines DO happen to merge onto the same note briefly, perhaps for a single note? I'm not sure. I know when I write sometimes this seems like the logical step, mostly at the end of a phrase. Or is this just not done?
> ...



Sorry I didn't see this response until this morning. To me this observation is significant when considering the problems of divisi. There are other significant concerns, but I have to believe maintaining the integrity of separate lines even when they merge has to have some effect on attempts to implement divisi.


Thanks KevSharpMinor.


----------

