VE, MIRx and Sibelius mixer panning questions

[Oceanview]

I have a question concerning the 'heirarchy' of panning possibilities in a Sibelius / V Ensemble / VIPro2 / MIRx configuration. Sibelius' mixer has a pan control; V Ensemble has two panning controls; MIRx positions instruments left/centre/right/near/far etc. Can anyone explain the best way of handling these four options so that they work well and do not clash?  - and perhaps the more important question - do any of them over-ride the others?

Also, does anyone think there is ever a situation where, in using multiple instances of V Ensemble, it might be worth partially collapsing the stereo image on the master bus? Or does this just not make sense? I'm thinking of a situation where a piece uses two string groups, one on the left, one on the right. The individual instruments are panned left or right according to which group they're in (and by 'panned' I mean their stereo image has been greatly reduced by power-panning to locate them more in a tighter space). Would it make sense to pull the master stereo image of group 1 away from the right a little, and group 2 away from the left a little?

Thanks.

P.S. I think MIRx was a great idea.

[Dietz]

Once a signal has entered MIR, it's advisable _not_ to use any other means for changing panorama and/or stereo width of the results (i.e. both the positioned dry and the wet signal components) - unless you have a clear understanding of what you're doing and why.

That said, pan and/or balance might be necessary for signals before they enter a MIR Venue, either for spreading our single players within an ensemble (e.g. Dimension Strings), or to counter-act the pre-recorded, "baked-in" panning of 3rd-party instruments.

On certain occasions, manipulating the stereo width MIR's output signal with processors like Waves' S1-Shuffler can give you great results, but again: This is only advisable when you know what you're doing and what you're aiming for.

But in the end, let your ears decide. You know: "If it sounds right, it is right!" :-)

Kind regards,

[Oguz Sehiralti]

I have a follow up question: Does this also apply to the power panning in Vienna Instruments? I mean, should one not widen/tighten with power panning if one is to use MIR or MIRx?

[Dietz]

In case of Vienna Instruments, MIR Pro (and thus MIRx, too) "knows" a lot about the incoming signals and takes several parameters into account, like the distance of the microphones during the recording session, the width of the source (in case of ensembles), and so on. Like I wrote before: Unless you know exactly what you're after, let MIR do its thing. :-)

The main exception from this "rule" (or rather: this basic approach) are ensembles built from single players or individual ensembles, e.g. the general "Strings" section, or Dimension Instruments. If you want to have them inside _one_ MIR Icon, it is of course necessary to organize the positioning of the single elements _before_ they are put on the stage of a MIR Venue.

HTH,

[Oguz Sehiralti]

Great! Thanks for the reply!

[Oceanview]

Dietz, thanks for your comment. But does letting MIRx 'do its thing' therefore mean keep the other panning controls at zero? Also, which effect is being applied first or last?

[Dietz]

@Another User said:

Also, which effect is being applied first or last?

 

I'm not sure that I really understand the question - but in case of the necessary pre-panning _before_ the instruments are sent into MIRx, of course. :-)