I can't stand the sound of GP (on my music), and I have both versions. I find that AV has a much better sound, although that could be just a better quality of IRs.

DG

Really? I have not noticed anything like that. To me they are very close, though Gigapulse has given me the impression of being somewhat better. Though yes it may be the specific impulses. Also, I have never A/B'd them. That might be interesting to try though I am too lazy, hence this thread.

BTW DG, as I stated before...

I am very impressed.

By your post count, I mean.

Just to clarify thngs.

After all, we don't want to be imprecise in our statements here.

Or confusing, for that matter.

Though I would not want to state the obvious to you.

I mean, because you are such an erudite and eloquent personage on this fine Forum.

And so loquacious...

That's cheating........!

DG

@William said:

Has anyone an opinion on this topic? My impression after using both is that Gigapulse has a better basic sound (and better interface) though I am not at all sure of that. Also, I have only used Gigapulse within Gigastudio, never in the VST version, and so don't know how that affects it, if at all.

I use to feel the same way, but as I've worked more with Altiverb, I'm leaning towards it. Gigapluse inside of giga panned better for me. Maybe because it was easier to use and the panning just sounded better. But, Altiverb has so much more to chose from and once you figure out a system to working with it, it yelds good results.
One thing I didn't like about giga was that the over all sound of the verbs started to get on my nerves. I would do something, like it and then later on listen to it again and not like it. I don't seem to have that issue with Altiverb, at least for now.

Yeah, the panning was good in gigapulse. though I do agree about Altiverb's sound, and also there are lots of good impulses available.

hehe .. Well AV has been driving me crazy lately. But recently I came up with a mix that seems to work. I haven't had the chanve to try GP yet but I will soon. My biggest gripe with AV is that the panning of instruments using AV doesn't work. I have tried this many ways .. having 9 groups of instruments and using AV to pan them as they should

... And these are the presets that came with AV .. but they just don't work. They sound awful, phased. So it will be interesting to see how GP does with respect to panning.

Though I seem to be getting happier with AV. And hopefully in the future the guys at Audio Ease will figure out a way to get AV to do proper orchestral positioning. Seems to me that AV is primarily for stereo tracks .. or for positioning of specific sounds (vocals .. percussion etc), and not orchestral instrument groups.

I may be wrong there .. but 4 months of trying to get blood from a stone has proven my point for me [:D] Still AV is working nicely now that I have found a grove that works .. thanks also to Beat Kaufmann, Matt Gates and Dietz for advice.

But with all this .. I can't wait for MIR. It will be very interesting to hear the difference.

To have such trouble with panning is really annoying, because it is one of the main things that this software should be doing. As far as I can tell, the entire idea of Altiverb is placement of sound sources within an acoustic environment, so they are both equally important. I only started using it recently, and so I appreciate hearing these comments and experences.

Hetereyn, you probably should try Gigapulse, because I think the panning in that is really good. And it is excellent the way it is displayed in the interface. Though I don't know whether the sound is better or even as good.

it seems there are two basic ways to do the panning in AV - one, with a wide stereo source that is a dry premixed combination of instruments that are already panned and form a line across the stereo image. This is simply put through AV on stereo to stereo setting almost like a hardware reverb wash. Then you can do another, with a farther setting, for instruments that are behind those ones, or nearer for ones that arein front, etc.

The second way is to take single instruments, and using either the stereo to stereo placement with the sources very close together, or mono to stereo, apply the convolution to each one separately.

I get the impression people are doing both of these, and no one feels you "have" to do it either way.

Miklos Power stated that the speaker icons shold not be separated farther than default because it causes problems of some kind. I don't understand this and have not heard any effect, but maybe he is right. Why do you say that Miklos?

Not to put you on the spot, but... [:)]

Aye the first AV situation you described is pretty muchg what the Audio Ease Preset tells you to do. But after trying it several different ways I have not yet achieved a single decent mix. The theory is sound but what you get out of AV sounds terrible.

What Miklos is describing I understand .. at least at the level of "because I know it causes a problem". I think this is because moving the speakers beyond the default positions is like if you were to increase the stereo width of an audio channel all the way to 2 .. instead of 1 (being normal stereo and 0 being mono). And so by moving the speakers entirely left and right you are spreading the stereo image to this "2" region.

Sounds good to begin with .. but later it causes phase problems and all sorts. Beat also told me about this and so I have since learned to keep the speakers within the default distance .. and only spreading them slightly more in cases where I actually want wider stereo ... as with the brass for instance.

I will certainly give GP a go .. I just wish it were possible to combine AV and GP somehow [:D] I like Giga Studios layout for mixing and all.

The panning issue is probably my biggest pain. I've been experimenting on trying the orch settings in Alti. The frist time I slapped it on it sounded like crap. So I've been trying different settings with mixed results. I've just completed a cue with a full string section using mostly app strings, which I figured would be good to experiment because I was only dealing with the strings. I tried printing each string section with a pre pan to approximate the correction section placement using a stereo pan plug in v-stack (dry to an audio stereo track). Then took each audio stereo track and added the orch placement settings in altiverb using only ER and printed that to new tracks. Finally I subed all those tracks and blended it with another aux using a final tail verb in altiverb. The result is pretty good now, but I had to reprint the Vl's with a wider pan because the end result didn't give me the right blend accross the stage. The VL sections sounded a little too seperated off on the left and unatural at frist. I wasn't getting the kind of bleed that I would expect. Also I had to some careful eqing of the VC and DB sections. The low's will really muddy up the mix quickly and just add to the problems.

I'm putting this cue to bed because I have to move on. I'm still not 100% satisfied with the mix. I think it will take alot of experimenting to find the best combo to get realistic placement with the right bleed and blending. Panning is a huge part of this, both with the tracks and inside altiverb. I have yet to try one without any pre paning, just using the altiverb placement to create the pan. In theory, it should work because there is no dry signal. Although, that's another thought as well. I like using dry signal as well to give a section more clearity as well as add to the front to back depth.
Maybe I'll try that on the next one.

One thing about giga was I didn't have to mess around so much with all pan settings. It just sounded right, had the right amount of bleed.

I suppose one could even use Giga pulse to position .. but have it fry .. and then feed the Audio through AV later to add the room depth and reverb. That's if you wanted the best of both.

You might be able to do that. I remember Herb mentioning someone using a Gigapulse hall for placement, then routing that through Altiverb for depth.

Though that is pretty complicated and I am trying to simplify things. Jay Bacal mentioned to me an approach he is using (at least sometimes) with correctly placed dry multitracks that are fed into several different distances of AV.

What bugs me in AV is the fact that the stage icon is not accurate, or you cannot use it within the parameters that are right there in the interface. You are "forbidden" to spread the sources wider. That is stupid! THEN WHY CAN YOU SPREAD THEM ON THE PICTURED STAGE? I find that completely screwed-up programming. In Gigapulse, exactly where you place something is exactly where it sounds from, and there is no "forbidden" placement like spreading the AV sources too wide.

@William said:

What bugs me in AV is the fact that the stage icon is not accurate, or you cannot use it within the parameters that are right there in the interface. You are "forbidden" to spread the sources wider. That is stupid! THEN WHY CAN YOU SPREAD THEM ON THE PICTURED STAGE? I find that completely screwed-up programming. In Gigapulse, exactly where you place something is exactly where it sounds from, and there is no "forbidden" placement like spreading the AV sources too wide.

I always do this, and don't hear any problems.

DG