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

@William said:

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.

I agree .. I find the same problem. DG is doing something we aren't [:D]

But yes .. recording the audio through GIGA as a multirtrack and then feeding it through AV later is what I had in mind in my above post .. I just didn't articulate it very well.

@hetoreyn said:

I agree .. I find the same problem. DG is doing something we aren't [:D]

But yes .. recording the audio through GIGA as a multirtrack and then feeding it through AV later is what I had in mind in my above post .. I just didn't articulate it very well.

Can you post some examples, so that I can hear the problem? I'm sure that I'm not doing anything different. Maybe I'm just a bit deaf. [[:|]]

DG

Sure thing .. have a listen to this theme I've been doing lately.

This was mixed using 10 instances of AV. Each one was for an instrument group .. Violins .. violas .. etc.

And all panned according to the presets. Now .. I used no other FX .. EQ .. or filtering. The EQ on AV was off .. as was the dampener. Also The IR colour is off, and the direct signal .. is of course muted cos I'm using the Stage Positioning feature.

So this is as natural as it gets .. but as you hear .. it sounds bloody awful!

I'm in the process of remixing this pieces .. but this will give you a clear example of what some of my AV mixes have been like .. when I've been going .. "by the book".

http://www.elvenmusic.com/public/Drizzt-Audio-bad-mix.mp3

Hetereyn, this does sound weird (though your music is very good). It sounded immediately to me like you have completely separate environments for each group. In other words, they are not coming from different places and blending into one overall environment, but are all in their own little world. You know what it reminds me of? An old Beatles record, where the reverb was all within the individual tracks.

I'm not sure how you did this. This is all presets? Hmm...

I just realized one of the things that confused me in the AV interface. People used to it may not think this is any big deal, but to someone used to Gigapulse it is very screwed up.

The stage and speaker icons never change their default positions, except to represent mono to stereo, or stereo to stereo, or except in a preset that has been manipulated.

What is confusing and badly programmed about this is that they have created a graphic representation of a stage, with sources, but those representations do not change based upon the impulse you select. You can select a widely spaced one in a cathedral, a tiny one in a bathroom, and they are all in the same graphic place on the stage.

This is totally different in Gigapulse. When you load an impulse, the grid that shows placement - of both sources AND microphones - changes to reflect the new environment. That is how it should be done since the whole poinbt of the graphic view is to show the physical space.

I have a lot more experimenting yet to do with Altiverb-- and I change my approach constantly.


Current thinking:

Pan and narrow with Waves S1.

Use default Altiverb IR (no speaker placement), consider muting direct sound if phasing is detected, adjust wet/dry mix knob between 18% and 50%.

Favorite Altiverb IR's: Vienna Conzerthaus and Amsterdam Concertgebouw.

For Chamber works I like Wizooverb Large studio at 40% wet/dry.

Best,
Jay

@hetoreyn said:

Also The IR colour is off, and the direct signal .. is of course muted cos I'm using the Stage Positioning feature.

Hetoreyn-- this is incorrect. Using the stage positioning feature requires direct signal. In fact, when you use it you can NOT mute the direct signal. So you should rarely use any dry signal when using the Stage positioning feature or you will get phasing.

Best,
Jay

I am going to try that exact approach right now, except I am panning within Vegas audio which seems very accurate. Thanks for the info Jay. I think you are right about constantly experimenting.

Bill-- I should note that I've yet to do a mix I am totally happy with. So as Dietz is fond of saying-- use your own ears-- if it sounds good to you it is good (and the converse is also true-- if you hate the sound then don't do that way!).


The tricky part is that sometimes it sounds great one day and terrible the next. Go figure!


Best,
Jay

@hetoreyn said:

Sure thing .. have a listen to this theme I've been doing lately.

This was mixed using 10 instances of AV. Each one was for an instrument group .. Violins .. violas .. etc.

And all panned according to the presets. Now .. I used no other FX .. EQ .. or filtering. The EQ on AV was off .. as was the dampener. Also The IR colour is off, and the direct signal .. is of course muted cos I'm using the Stage Positioning feature.

So this is as natural as it gets .. but as you hear .. it sounds bloody awful!

I'm in the process of remixing this pieces .. but this will give you a clear example of what some of my AV mixes have been like .. when I've been going .. "by the book".

http://www.elvenmusic.com/public/Drizzt-Audio-bad-mix.mp3

This does sound strange. However, why did you switch color off? My mixes sound nothing like this.

DG

@hetoreyn said:

Also The IR colour is off, and the direct signal .. is of course muted cos I'm using the Stage Positioning feature.

Hetoreyn-- this is incorrect. Using the stage positioning feature requires direct signal. In fact, when you use it you can NOT mute the direct signal. So you should rarely use any dry signal when using the Stage positioning feature or you will get phasing.

Best,
Jay
Jay, Direct signal and dry signal are not the same. Direct signal is processed by AV, dry signal is, errrr, dry....! You shouldn't get any phasing when using both. However, if you set your mix to less than 100% you will get phasing.

DG

I just did a mix with less than 100% wet - using about the same as what Jay mentioned though I went between 45 to 64% wet and there is no phasing at all. Also, it is now much clearer and better defined. This was on a mix I did 100% wet previously that sounded terrible.

BTW I have been comparing these Altiverb mixes to an overall reverb wash from my Lexicon mpx500 that I use for CPU-friendly monitoring while working with MIDI. It is very difficult to get Altiverb to sound anywhere near as good as the Lexicon.

@William said:

I just did a mix with less than 100% wet - using about the same as what Jay mentioned though I went between 45 to 64% wet and there is no phasing at all. Also, it is now much clearer and better defined. This was on a mix I did 100% wet previously that sounded terrible.

BTW I have been comparing these Altiverb mixes to an overall reverb wash from my Lexicon mpx500 that I use for CPU-friendly monitoring while working with MIDI. It is very difficult to get Altiverb to sound anywhere near as good as the Lexicon.

This is why I add dry signal to the 100% wet mix. I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway. I think of AV (100% wet) as the room ambient mikes and the dry signal as the close mikes. When I can be bothered I use a small send from the dry signal to my Lex in the same way as I would when using the close mikes of an orchestra recording.

DG