MIR for 3rd party instruments, spatialization optimizing

[javajam]

I keep on working on the setup here so as to fine tune sound, balance and spatialization.

If everythings clear for all my VSL Orchestral/Dim Strings, Woodwinds, Orchestral/Dim Brass and Percs ensembles, I have some questions about 3rd party instruments through MIR.

Here's the setup: Cubase9 on master, VEpro6 on slave, MIRpro plugin in Cubase (master PC).
3rd party instruments (in VEpro) are using close mics only, no effects.
I use VSL Powerpan to focus all 3rd party tracks to center in VEpro. I guess it's the right thing to do, driving the signal to MIR in Cubase and using MIRx General Purpose mic then. Please let me know if I don't miss anything.

- First problem with such a setup :
By turning a stereo source to mono, a significant part of the signal is lost then. Furthermore it can change the overall spectrum as we loose a part of the signal and enhance some frequencies. So I decided to pan every source fully left or right (trying to get the best one of both).

- Second problem : say the 1st violins source i.e., is reduced to a narrow and mono sound (by panning center or using one side only). We'll have a lack of spatialization in MIR then as it applies spatialization to a unique source spot. I had a turnaround, splitting the violins (using divisi patches) in two channels. It gives 2 sources on 2 channels with MIR inserts. I get a better result then, having a wider and more detailed result. BTW this can be done with instruments divisi patches only...

So, my question is : as I don't like that much using one side of the source only, I've been wondering if there's a way to use the initial stereo sound, split it into 2 mono channels (in VEpro or Cubase), and insert MIR on both. By placing the 2 sources quite close, MIR would apply spatialization on both in a more realistic way and we'd have something wider and deeper I guess.

Any idea about Stereo --> 2xMono (is there a way to do that in VEpro?) and what do you think about ?

Thanks,
Alain

[Dietz]

To me, it seems as you're over-complicating things a bit. :-) 

As soon as you put L and R channels close to each other, the effect will be pretty much the same as if you reduce the stereo width to (almost) mono. It might be that you ears get fooled a bit by different levels when comparing the two approaches, but you can't fool the laws of physics (and acoustics, that is). ;-D

The only real difference is that in your desired setup you could have different Directivity Profiles*) for the left and the right signal, but that's something I rarely have felt the need for, honestly.

Personally, I'd suggest to start with a well-balanced stereo-signal sent into a General Purpose Cardioid profile. Like that, the signal will be sent mostly to the MIR Icon's front (marked by its Volume handle), a little bit to the sides, the floor and the ceiling, but almost nothing to the back. Adjust the stereo width of the Icon to feel some of the remaining "dimension" of the input signal. Finally, move the Icon a bit closer towards MIR's Main Microphone if you still want to encrease the perceived stereo-width of the dry input signal.

*) You seem to mistake a Directivity Profile for a (General Purpose) "microphone". But these profiles are about a signal's volume- and frequency-dependent sound emitting properties, not about sound perception.

...  if you really want to split a stereo signal "on the fly", simply send the signal to two busses and use VE Pro's Matrix Mixer to mute one side.

HTH,

[javajam]

Thank you Dietz, I thought I had read somewhere in the past 3rd party instruments should be narrowed or mono. So I went back to stereo sources and built again like you told, seems to be ok.:)

Not sure about what you told about directivity profiles, I'll have a look.

Best,
Alain