Ha ha, I just read this - v funny. Thanks William, although I would say that a truly brainy person would have been able to explain the principles of AV much more simply than I have.

I thought about how to simplify what I said eaerlier, and really it comes down to this:

There are 2 modes in altiverb.

1. You USE the direct sound going through the IR, then you turn the wet / dry knob to 100wet always.

2. You MUTE the direct sound going through the IR, then you can use the wet / dry know to control the mix of the IR.

It's really basically as simple as that.

When using method 1 - you control the mix between the direct "dry sound" of the IR (which is different to a completely dry signal) by using the volume of the short reflections and tail and direct sound to mix the sound as you like.

When using method 2 you can also use the principles behind method 1 - mixing up and down the short reflections and tail but you should always leave the direct sound OFF.

The problem is that the direct sound going through the IR which is basically a dry sound of the ROOM (as in specifically different from a dry sound that has not been touched by AV) is so close to the actual dry sound in most cases, that you will get phasing and other ugly effects, this is why it is to be avoided - you need to set the wet / dry knob to 100% to make sure that 100% of you dry sound is coming from altiverbs direct sound (which is not dry, but processed through the room).

Make sense?

Miklos

I'm curious how you guys are actually implementing these options - I use Digital Performer (just always have) as my sequencer, driving 4 Gigastudios, each using Gigapulse reverbs. If I was going to use AltiVerb, wouldn't it need to be a plug-in for my Pro Tools rig, and if so, I guess I'd have to implement it on each section recorded separately. Which is fine, except then I can't hear it properly during composing, etc.

In fact, that brings up another issue, which is that I like to record my sections into Pro Tools via optical digital, which requires me to manually repatch a cable, and do 4-5 passes per cue. The sound is vastly superior to just taking a stereo sum off of my mixing board into Pro Tools, but it is also vastly more time-consuming. What are you guys doing?

_Mike

the proper way is to have multiple inputs into your rig - you can still record simultaneously - you will also need to run 2-4 instances of altiverb to get proper distance. And having it on while you write is pretty much a necessity. You really don't need to do stereo spacing just depth spacing. So 4 inputs is actually fine - but more is nice as well. I don't think you'd need to do more than 12 stereo inputs in any case.

Hi guys! I've been reading this thread with interest as I've been using VSL samples for a year or so now and I just got Altiverb.

I'm running VSL Horizon samples through Kontakt 2 on Cubase 4.

My idea is to use the built-in stereo modeller in K2 to correctly narrow and pan the various instruments and then use Altiverb for depth.

So, I'm creating 4 groups for the separate sections (winds, strings, brass, percussion) and each of them has an Altiverb insert for ERs.

Each of these groups is then being routed through another group for Ambience which has an Altiverb insert for reverb tail.

The problem I'm getting is that the Altiverb ERs appear to be reducing my specifically placed stereo sound to mono and then spreading them to stereo again (or at least a similar effect). My placement appears to be lost and the ERs just spread the sound across the stereo field.

At the moment I'm simply reducing the wet/dry mix to compensate for this effect but obviously this is a workaround (and a poor one at that). Is there any way to avoid this?

Having just finished my first major project ever where there was no live element, I thought that I would chime in and give my version of workflow. All samples were VSL VI and the only reverb(s) used was Altiverb.

1) All instruments were panned, either by narrowing the VST outputs or by using a panning plug (StereoPan).

2) All MIDI programming converted to audio.

3) Pre-mix done using a studio reverb with 5 instances of Altiverb set at 100% wet and using Stage Placement for depth. Speakers moved as wide as I like...!

4) All files mixed down separately (again using MEAP) with reverb printed, and imported into a new session template.

5) My engineer then treated the audio files much as he would a live recording with various reverb sends, EQs etc.

Time wise this was a very inefficient way of working due to the time it took in the double audio conversions. However, as my engineer usually works in ProTools with live orchestral mixes it was the best way to give him what he is used to. Also all audio conversions were done by my assistant in Studio 2, so it didn't slow me down, which was just as well, as I was averaging around 20 working hours a day for six weeks!

DG

I'd like to hear the results

@magates said:

I'd like to hear the results

It's not really up to the standard of the demos in this board, but I'll try to find a small section that doesn't sound too bad. It's a real bummer having to do something quickly and not even have time to use the best articulations for the job. However, having been to the premiere of the show last night, the sound system was so bad that I could have used a SoundBlaster and GM sounds for all the difference it would have made. [:(]

DG

Thanks for the info DG.

It seems you are saying that by keeping the speakers at maximum width, using Altiverb for depth placement didn't effect the stereo panning/narrowing.

Is this correct? If so, did you have to change an option to do this because I'm sure all my panned instruments are moving to the middle after I add Altiverb.

That is not true in my experience, widening the speakers in altiverb does generally speaking negatively affect the stereo imaging it is good for some types of stereo material, not for VSL particularly, but that is a general rule not a fixed one. I find the VSL samples are generally recorded with an almost archivalist mic technique that provides the fullest amount of stereo image as possible in a stereo technique and they did this so that they would have the maximum amount of material to work with when it comes time to implement MIR - as opposed to recording things with another technique that would give a more controlled image for lack of a better word, but then being limited later on in terms of shaping the sound flexibly in the future. They did the right thing. This technique narrows well and at "center" provides great imaging, but does not widen well with stereo width tools and that is what Altiverbs speakers essentially are as well. I have found you get a better result from leaving them at stereo 0 and using Waves S1 to place the source more precisely, since you can skew the assymetry of the source not just the width and panning - believe me once you play around with it you realise how indispensible it is and you can't live without it - it's far superior than just using width and pan together, you can really place the sound's centre better instead of just hoping as you sometimes have to do, and many times you can avoid using the width paramter altogether, which I find is generally good.

Also a great tip from Angelo Clematide on the forum here - all the samples are 2 channel stereo. If you want a mono recording of any instrument or section in the library load a seperate two channel mix channel in your DAW (NOT a stereo linked single fader as is commonly used) and mute one channel - and you have a mono recording. Far cleaner and more true to life than monoising using a stereo tool which is pretty crude way of doing it. By the way personally I have never found it to be preferable from a purely aesthetic standpoint to use a mono recording of any VSL sample - I find they always sound better in stereo and I've never needed to use this to place a sound but, sometimes that sound may be desirable.

Miklos.

Miklos.

@bluejay said:

Thanks for the info DG.

It seems you are saying that by keeping the speakers at maximum width, using Altiverb for depth placement didn't effect the stereo panning/narrowing.

Is this correct? If so, did you have to change an option to do this because I'm sure all my panned instruments are moving to the middle after I add Altiverb.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. It is easy to test, without even using your ears (the best test of all).

1) Narrow the stereo width of your sample, either at the VST outputs (not possible in some programs) or by using a proper panning plugin. Notice I'm not talking about silly panpots.

2) Look at the output on your Master Fader. You should be able to see exactly how much sound is coming up each channel.

3) Now introduce an Altiverb with stage positioning. Leaving the speakers at default distance will drag your sound more towards the centre. Also, as in the real world, you never hear the sound only from the direction where it is played, so this will also have an effect on where the perceived direction is.

4) Now do the same with the speakers at maximum width. The effect of your original panning is more pronounced, although there will still be some "room displacement" that affects your panning.

With my method of using a very short, relatively dry reverb for the depth placement the room displacement effect is much less apparent than with a long reverb.

Finally, the best test is to use your ears. I hear no degradation of the sound by increasing the width of the Altiverb speakers, and to be fair, this is all fake anyway, so who is to say what is right and wrong....!

DG

Thanks DG.

I'm using the Stereo Modeller plug-in in Kontakt 2 for my stereo narrowing/panning. I am considering Waves S1 as well.

I also agree that I'm trying to get something fake that sounds reasonable. My current orchestral template uses 3 lead trumpets and I should use a separate instance of Altiverb for each of these ... I'm certainly not planning to!

I'll check out that test over the weekend. Thanks for the advice!

There are technical problems with widening a stereo image too much especially with the mic technique that was used to record VSL. You will notice this a lot more if you do it to a lot of tracks over the whole mix. The end result will most likely be a lot less coherent. As I said it's only a general rule and you could certainly widen the image of some sounds you wanted that affect on but generally for a complex orchestral piece with a lot of layering, it might mess things up.

Anyway you need to do what sounds best to your own ears of course.

Miklos.

@mpower88 said:

There are technical problems with widening a stereo image too much especially with the mic technique that was used to record VSL. You will notice this a lot more if you do it to a lot of tracks over the whole mix. The end result will most likely be a lot less coherent. As I said it's only a general rule and you could certainly widen the image of some sounds you wanted that affect on but generally for a complex orchestral piece with a lot of layering, it might mess things up.

Anyway you need to do what sounds best to your own ears of course.

Miklos.

I think you misunderstand. None of the instruments are widened from what VSL has recorded. They are already panned, and therefore narrower. If you use the default AV Stage Positioning you are actually narrowing the stereo field further. We can argue as much as you like how much or how little, but It causes no problems at all in a big mix using my method.

DG

Technical advice from Altiverb's designers confirmed to me that the default stereo position does not alter the stereo image. The IR you are using may in fact create the impression that the field is narrower but in terms of the speakers placement themselves changing it, they say it does not, at least that is what they told me. Technically that part of the algorithm is not engaged. I asked them about this about two years ago. I'm not arguing, just letting you know what the designers of the software told me.

Miklos.

Miklos, that's what I've read as well, but my ears tell me differently. If what they say is true, then there should be no difference to the sound with or without Stage Positioning engaged, unless you move the virtual speakers around. However, I do hear a difference; don't you?

DG

I think that what you are hearing is the processing of the sound through the IR. The IR itself will have a perceived affect on the image of the sound but it is not the same process as a stereo imager by any means.

Miklos.