I can confirm what you're hearing with "13 BA_sus_noVib." In fact, try this: set it to Velocity Crossfade, hold G4, and mod from piano to forte. It starts centered. Around mezzo, you can both see and hear the shift to the right. Then it centers back at its loudest. I imagine the dynamic nature of this shift is the reason it defies a Stereo Spreader, because the right setting for one note would be wrong for the next (short of a full mono setting, i suppose).

I can also hear the longer-than-usual stac. I guess it's not much consolation to observe that the Pro Edition is the same.

Thanks, Plowman.

Sometimes we just need confirmation that we're not crazy.

For the bassoon imaging issue, I've tried going to full mono, but it just doesn't sit well in the mix. I am narrowing the stereo width considerably, but I still find that the bassoon "jumps around" too much from one patch to the other unless I do some serious pan automation. Get's twiddly.

It isn't so noticeable in a larger score, but solo bassoon and piano tracks are so exposed that it can get distracting.

For the staccato issue, I'm just not going to be able to use that particular patch. Not a *big* problem, but when it says 'BA_staccato' you sort of expect something a little shorter. I've wondered if something wasn't mislabeled or if something didn't load properly.

I could really use an honest bassoon staccato, though. Hmm.

Thanks again for chiming in, Plowman!

I'm not trained in mixing. Is it possible to send a full mono patch to a verb, stereo spread the verb and decide its dimensions there? Perhaps with a very wet signal and a really short tail, you could finesse it.

I have a high tweak threshold. I spend hours adjusting MIDI performance. But yes, I'd draw the line at panning per note.

Also, it is possible to add a normal bassoon cell with a release beneath the staccato cell, truncate the staccato ADSR and let the release of the sustain eek out its little sound? The problem with most ADSR'ed staccatos is that the natural release sound is lost in the tight envelope. Hence your loss of sample's "integrity" comment.

By the way, "05 BA_perf-rep_sta" is crisp. Perhaps you don't want to yield that much RAM, but the sound may be what you're after.

Also, "01 BA_fast-rep_140" can be enveloped/performed for a very tight staccato, though for repeated tones, one faces the machine gun. But it is usable if you're jumping around.

@Another User said:

Also, it is possible to add a normal bassoon cell with a release beneath the staccato cell, truncate the staccato ADSR and let the release of the sustain eek out its little sound? The problem with most ADSR'ed staccatos is that the natural release sound is lost in the tight envelope. Hence your loss of sample's "integrity" comment.

By the way, "05 BA_perf-rep_sta" is crisp. Perhaps you don't want to yield that much RAM, but the sound may be what you're after.

Also, "01 BA_fast-rep_140" can be enveloped/performed for a very tight staccato, though for repeated tones, one faces the machine gun. But it is usable if you're jumping around.

Yes-- that's part of the rethinking process-- re-auditioning patches for better compatibility. Perf-reps seem to be the way to go.

I know what you mean: why use a Mack truck when a shopping cart will suffice!

Yes JWL the perf-rep staccato's are generally the shortest throughout the library. Often too short for my needs but we all need to have the widest range of articulations possible.

As far as panning (or other) issues I'm not surprised at various anomalies in these huge libraies but when you come across one you really wonder how it was missed. Since there's 10 billion samples (or something) in the VSL library we find ourselves facing torturous work-arounds then looking for an easier way out.

@dpcon said:

As far as panning (or other) issues I'm not surprised at various anomalies in these huge libraies but when you come across one you really wonder how it was missed. Since there's 10 billion samples (or something) in the VSL library we find ourselves facing torturous work-arounds then looking for an easier way out.

Indeed. It's no wonder for the size of the library how long it takes to stumble across an oddity or two. It really speaks well for the work the VSL team put into design and preparation-- even where it would seem that this may be a criticsm.

But forewarned is forearmed. Having made these discoveries, I can better deal with them. Knowing that it's not just something on my system helps immensely where the wrong type of troubleshooting is ineffective. Making a mental note also makes it easier to look for updates, should such issues be addressed.

I agree JWL. The uniformity of quality in VSL is actually incredible. Also many times when I think a sample or instrument is not behaving properly I have the wrong articulation and only need to find the right one. That being said, a substantial difference in panning from one sample to the next would qualify for a fix I would think. I can't imagine there are too many problems like that and VSL has always fixed the odd sample anomaly here and there.

This deserves its own thread. Stereo experimentation is on my docket too. I'm knee-deep in score layout and print issues, but my next major foray will be the narrowing of instrument widths, playing with verb, and seeing what kind of clarity it brings to the orchestra.

If you find any articles on the matter or discoveries of your own, I'd eagerly consider them.

@Plowman said:

This deserves its own thread. Stereo experimentation is on my docket too. I'm knee-deep in score layout and print issues, but my next major foray will be the narrowing of instrument widths, playing with verb, and seeing what kind of clarity it brings to the orchestra.

If you find any articles on the matter or discoveries of your own, I'd eagerly consider them.

What's your DAW of choice, Plowman? Forgive me if that's been mentioned previously.

There were at one time some great discussions back in the days of Standard and Pro Editions about controlling stereo width. There seem to be lots of threads still around on panning options, but the old discussions may have been deleted.

There are so many rules to be obeyed and broken at once!! Generally speaking, one may try narrowing the stereo width of each section almost literally as their favorite seating chart would visually imply-- and (of course) make important adjustments from there according to your ears. The chart below is not submitted here as anything definitive, but 30-45 degrees per section may be a good starting point.

It's very easy to visualize the results if the first violins are spread 180 degrees in the bigger picture.

I like to glue things together a bit by overlapping the sections a little. Of course, much depends upon the nature of the track and type of score being done. But there's a thin line between having a nice blend and having a nice separation from just having a bunch of seemingly unrelated instruments jabbering away.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar99/images/orchestraldiagram.gif">

I'm married to Logic, for better or worse, for richer and more often for poorer. I don't have Altiverb, so I'll be using the Spreader native plug-in. If Spreader causes a big CPU hit, this is going to be one short trip, as I have little margin left anymore in my older G5 1.8.

If memory serves, you're a DP guy with Altiverb.

I recall panning threads, but I had been less aware of the concept of stereo reduction as a means to clarity. In the last year or so, I've been picking up a vibe that says, "Well, you narrow the width first, of course -- EVERYbody does that."

I'll start around 30 to 40 degrees, per your suggestion. Do you ascribe to the thought that sections (particularly strings) can have more width and solo instruments are beeter confined at or near mono? I know that ears are the final arbiter.

I've resisted this approach because there seems to be something inorganic about the method. I would think we hear everything in stereo. But the final mix is the issue, irrespective of the technical means.

@Plowman said:

I'll start around 30 to 40 degrees, per your suggestion. Do you ascribe to the thought that sections (particularly strings) can have more width and solo instruments are beeter confined at or near mono? I know that ears are the final arbiter.

I've resisted this approach because there seems to be something inorganic about the method. I would think we hear everything in stereo. But the final mix is the issue, irrespective of the technical means.

Such a tough call, Plowman. Wow. The effects are so different with every centimeter of variation in between.. There are no absolutes-- and as soon as you think one way couldn't possibly work, the day always comes when the thing you avoided doing becomes the magic bullet on some distant problematic project.

Generally speaking, if you have a solo violin it *could* be just as effective to give the solo violin more overall stereo space to keep the ear attracted to it. If the solo violin is less of a feature than it might be in a concerto situation, it may be better to have it coming from a specific spot from within the orchestra.

Depending upon how you mix your orchestra, cinematic tracks *can* have a more in-your-face sound rather than that live concert hall sound. I always start projects believing that anything that doesn't get you arrested is fair game until such time the mix kind of develops its own personality and dictates where it wants to go. That's where things start to feel more organic to me.

I guess the safest thing to do is to never say 'never'-- and never say 'always'. Also, study film soundtracks as well as classical recordings to see how various engineers handle the issue. On the surface, the differences can be quite subtle to the point of being seemingly inconsequential. Yet closer examination can reveal many secrets, especially when these tracks are compared to your own mixes.

Using the Force never hurt, either! [[;)]]

"...the day always comes when the thing you avoided doing becomes the magic bullet on some distant problematic project."

So true. We get it in our heads that something is improper, untoward, "acoustic cheating," and we miss the point. For years I have looked at sections of my scores knowing that it was clearly arranged, and yet I kept hearing MIDI mud not found on the page. Still, I didn't want to EQ because after all, did the great composers EQ?

But in fact, the hall, the instruments, the conductor and even the listeners were EQ'ing on their behalf.

If someone had given Stravinsky an EQ knob I bet he would have given it a twirl.