Another of your glorious video tutorials, Beat; very well done - as always - and thank you so much!

I notice you don't show your methods for "adding an appropriate natural depth in the room" or "panning", and yet these are of course the crux of presenting orchestral ensembles and instruments convincingly and attractively in the stereo field.

When you showed your Late Reflections (LR) algorithmic reverb plugin in the video, I wondered if you're using that same make of reverb plugin, together with its companion plugin, for Early Reflections (ER) spatialisation - i.e. using an apposite variety of Angle and Distance settings in the automatically-linked companion plugins? I can't say I'm altogether convinced I'm hearing in your video the option I've just described - though I'm willing to be wrong. I'm well aware from experience with this particular pair of plugins that it can be tricky to set up and many kinds of results are possible; but when it all comes good, oh heavens above, it's astoundingly good!

Alas, of course it wouldn't be appropriate to go into detail about these particular plugins in this forum, but if you could indicate in general terms if I'm on the right track or not with my guess above, I'd be very grateful.

If you are using MIR, a lot is accomplished by default. Anyway combining different strings is a good idea.

Beat, thank you for your explanation and the helpful links. In particular I found your video on using the Hofa plugin interesting.

It seems my ear told me correctly that you're using traditional panning controls for azimuth positioning, not the ultra-realistic "binaural" type of positioning, e.g. as provided in Logic's mixer and in 2C Audio's Precedence plugin. If perhaps one day you switch over to this new type of localisation, I'd be fascinated to hear if your already excellent mix spatialisations become even more superb.

In recent years I've become a 'heretic' in regard to the widespread belief in the virtues of convolution reverb (I don't fully agree with the assumption that acoustic spaces can always be faithfully modeled as having linear and time-invariant reverberant properties, nor am I fully convinced by the ingenious techniques for interpolating between the positions at which actual IRs were originally captured).

To my ear, that ever-so-static 'crystalline corona' which all too often attends mutliple convolution reverbs tends to wreck the magic of a mix - no real acoustic space filled with people is ever frozen solid like that.

I'm very impressed by recent improvements in algorithmic reverbs, which I'm now exploring and exploiting in combination with "binaural" positioning for my mix spatialisation. Also I've found it fairly easy to combine Synchron Strings Pro (Full, using room mics) with SyDimStrings (100% dry before my spatialisation), with good overall spatial definition and coherence in the mix.

Not least, I'm now very happy about the much lighter load on my CPU. I'm sure there would be a good market for a purely algorithmic successor to MIR if VSL were to venture down that avenue.

I agree with you that in setting up and tweaking our mix spatialisations we're engaging in a somewhat dark art; and so of course experience matters a great deal. No doubt that has a lot to do with why I like and admire what you've achieved with your mixes.

Hello dear Macker
Thank you for the extensive feedback and compliments on my mixes. Of course, there are composers who don't want to deal with all the mixing stuff. For those, the "Synchron-", "Synchronized-" and all the "MIR-" products are great. But if you want to take advantage of all the mixing possibilities, as you obviously do, then of course all the conventional mixing possibilities are also in the race. So you have many more possibilities.

When I started mixing VSL samples in 2002, I didn't think that there would be so many products on the subject of spatiality one day. Of course, I have tried most of the products over the years and have spent many, many EURos on them. Many of the products showed new approaches again and again, but actually all new approaches were always accompanied by disadvantages. So also the PlugIn Precedence mentioned by you. When it comes to placing "stereo signals", this is often associated with correlation problems, which do not suit me. I tried the binaural mixing thing, too, of course. That's OK so far, but unfortunately those headphone mixes are not compatible to also be perfectly on speakers at the same time. That's because the binaural positions need unfortunately partly a considerable change of the frequency responses...

When not raging corona, my job is sound (and video) recordings of life concerts. As for the airiness and transparency I achieve with my recordings, all room plug-ins are still pretty far from it at the moment (Examples). Nevertheless, I am emulating those recording grooves in the context of sample mixing.

Furthermore, I completely agree with you that mixing is not about reproducing reality with 2 channels and two boxes, but about creating as successful an illusion of it as possible. This is the case when recording real concerts and when mixing samples. On the one hand, you can never reproduce the dynamics of an orchestra in your living room using two speakers. And most people don't want the sound that you hear in row 10 (At least not my customers), but rather the sound that the conductor hears - transparent, clear and distinct.
And this brings us to the illusion mentioned above.

Go on your way...

All the best

Beat Kaufmann

@Beat Kaufmann said:

Of course, there are composers who don't want to deal with all the mixing stuff. For those, [...] all the "MIR-" products are great. 

I beg to differ ...

Dear Dietz, dear William
Everyone may use MIR if he likes MIR, its results and working with it. I mean composers, producers, filmmakers, sound engineers, beginners, professionals, really just everyone (hope I haven't forgotten anyone).
That I am allowed to make my mixes as I like, that should still be allowed, shouldn't it? And yes, I admit it - just rather without MIR. Probably I am the only one in the whole world, but it is just so. I'm also the only one who drives a Toyota, although everyone else drives a Mercedes...

So I'm happy to repeat here again the starting content of my thread with slightly different words:
I thank VSL here at this point, that one can now get back the original recorded samples in the SYNCHRONIZED Libraris with the preset "MIR Unprocessed". With this original sample sound you can make your own mixes again and, even better, the MIR user can now play the samples in any other concert room. Great for both sides! So please stay cool and don't shoot at the only remaining weird mixer man. It would be a pity if he would die out.

Beat

Truth is plural – isn‘t it. 🙂