Regarding the use of the word "proximity",  I am dearly sorry for using it, since it has apparently caused such a controversy.  I didn't realize the terminology-police would come after me with such a vengeance. I believe I have already explained what I meant several times, and it has nothing to do with microphones in this case.  I was simply meaning to refer to changes of frequency that occur over distance.  Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.  

@Dietz:  Is "EQ-distance" the politically correct safe term to use for this?

I think it can definitely affect distance perception, but its also true that ER's are so overwhelmingly powerful in giving our ears distance cues...that its quite possible that in the case of Synchron instruments it would make very little difference to try to change the distance using EQ.  It's just something to try.  And to repeat for the 3rd or 4th time, I am still of the opinion that Synchron Instruments are not meant to be used this way, they are placed on stage and if you want to play with stage placement...better to use VI/Synchronized.

Regarding ER: ER = Early Reflections.  I'm pretty sure Paolo knew that already and knows a lot about how ER affects perception of depth.  There are many freely available resources on the internet that already discuss how and why Early Reflections affect the perception depth on stage in certain venues.  it is not necessary for me to explain it, nor do I need to prove myself.  I don't know why I'm being raked over the coals for offering a simple suggestion. 

As I said already in earlier post, I do NOT recommend messing around with adding new ER's to Synchron instrument sounds...

regards

Anyone from time to time might make a fool of themself by asserting stuff they really don't know about or have misunderstood. That's generally accepted as part of being human. And if called out on such an occasion, most people are willing to see their mistake or misunderstanding, and perhaps laugh about it, or make an apology, or even blush and fart and rush off in tears. A few might try to dig themselves in deeper, which doesn't usually end well for them. And even fewer might have a marked tendency to double down, and use various kinds of trolling, lying, projecting, gaslighting, ghosting, smearing, pity plays, triangulation, and other nefarious techniques to try to negate the calling out and to defame whoever did the calling out. Only in this last case is there likely to be damage done to the general integrity and wellbeing of social intercourse, and so sometimes it calls for handling of the sterner kind.

I'm speaking hypothetically. It's just a story. What could possibly go wrong in connection with "kind, benevolent and light" discussion of technical matters in a forum that is accustomed to dealing with technical matters? Because after all, we have centuries of modern empirical science and technology to call upon in order to find the truth, and to sort fact from fiction, don't we?

And there I will leave it for others to judge. I'm simply a guest in this revered forum.

Déjà vu much Paolo? Lolol. I'll leave you to it.

Oh BTW, I'm getting good results messsing with ERs. Why not give it a go in your rig?

I'm probably starting to get the grip on multimic mixing. It's interesting to see how I was never interested to detailed mixing with the other multimic libraries I own. With Synchron libraries, the idea of dealing with a real orchestra has become stronger.

If I understand (and hear) correctly, room mics always give the actual position of the instruments. A mix containing only room microphones would be like a photo of the instruments on stage.

Where you start moving things around is with mid and close mics. Making them more present in the mix makes the instruments come closer. Making them softer makes the instrument go farther.

Mic delay and algorithmic reverb does the rest, adding a sense of distance that can be accurately calculated by milliseconds and meters.

Paolo

New to Synchron myself and having spent part of today experimenting with results from different combinations, I actually appreciated this discussion.

(But, it seems that there is a personal feud from some other forum that got brought here. Startling, unnecessary, and unprofessional. Let's please be more generous to one another and forego personal attacks.)

I have a more general question: All of the presets by VSL have EITHER the Room mics OR the TREE mics. Can someone explain the rationale for the either/or approach? Is this simply to save resources (as if the extra CPU isn't worthwhile for the limited gain due to the overlap)? Is there any problem (phasing or similar) that might be expected from combining them? I'm not hearing any problems and actually liking what I'm hearing by combining them. Just a little confused as to why the VSL room presets never do combine them. 

Also from a usage standpoint, some of the overall sound and impact from the choices made are so significant that I could see value in making the stage mic decision first, and then composing and mixing into it. 

Hi Psalmster,

The Room-Mix Channel is exactly that, a versatile mix of ALL room microphones (including the ones available with the Full Library).

The idea was to create a resource-friendly starter preset that also gives you a taste of the additional room impression you get with the dedicated room mics in the Full Library. 

Discrete mic channels give you MUCH more control over the sound. 

Best, 
Paul

Ooh look who's back under a new name. What say you, Master Yoda?

  "Mmmmm, the farce is strong in that one."

Hahaahahaahahaha

Paul,

I have just today watched your 3 Tutorial videos on the Synchron player. They are SO helpful!

Am I interpreting you to say that as I only purchased the STANDARD version of the Strings Bundle (so 4 libraries), when I use the ROOM MIX it is including the Back, Surround, High, and High Surround mics from the the FULL version as well?

And more specifically relevant to my initial question: So, the room mix isn't an additional pair of stereo mics. Rather, it includes the Decca Mains -- so that's why a user wouldn't use the Room Mix and the Decca? I think I'm getting this now.

Back to the OP regarding F-R depth...

4 internal options come to my mind as I've been playing around with the Mixer today.

1. The Delay Runtime. Notice the Decca mics (and therefore the Room Mix) are set to 21ms. I'm presuming this is the mathematically correct amount due to measurements in the Synchron Stage, determined by VSL. However, the manual encourages free experimentation. Sure enough moving anywhere from 60-200 (the max) makes for markedly increased sense of depth or distance. Since the mixer can be adjusted PER INSTRUMENT, you could technically move an instrument's mics further away.

2. Reverb. Simply increasing the amount or specifically length of reverb time can give the sense of more depth. And/Or using different Reverbs (built in plate vs. room on different channels or instruments). 

3. EQ Roll-off.  As highs roll-off disproportionately quickly to lower frequencies, EQ'ing the mics with a high-end roll-off might make sources sound farther away.

4. The Close Mics. Bringing up the Close Mic fader seems to bring the instrument closer. 

@PaoloT said:

 

But how to do with Synchron libraries? Microphone gives a clear placement in the L-R axis, and in the High-Low one. But what about the Front-Rear axis? How to control it? Is it just a matter of making the distance information contained in the room mics (in particular the Tree) more evident? Could the Close and Distant etc. Mix Presets help, and be mixed at the same time for different sections?

Paolo

And as a more thorough approach, note this video that was created to show how to solve this -- posted from another recent forum discussion: 

@Psalmster said:

2. Reverb. Simply increasing the amount or specifically length of reverb time can give the sense of more depth. And/Or using different Reverbs (built in plate vs. room on different channels or instruments). 

Derailing from my own thread: who knows when to use the Plate and when the Room reverb? Plate reverbs where used in the past, when recording in smaller rooms and using dedicated reverb chambers. Room reverbs may be more modern, made with dedicated machines.

Is it just a matter of timbre and style, or is there a preferred use for specific mics or setups?

Paolo

Paolo, bear in mind that a plate reverb is simply a speeded-up 2-dimensional model of stereo reverb from a mono omnidirectiional source in a rectangular room. It's speeded up because the sound is travelling much shorter distances in the metal plate, compared to a real room, and so the early reflections and overall reverb build-up happen very much sooner. Hence it can be used very effectively wherever you want very fast wetting, or wherever you want to assert reverb build-up sooner rather than later.

Traditionally, plates have been used extensively with drums; it's always been the best way to get a smooth and dense reverb profile almost immediately onto percussive or other short sounds. That said, there's nothing to stop you using a plate on sustained sounds, if your ear tells you it works better than a slower build-up artificial reverb.

Note that a plate is inherently, like many if not most mono-to-stereo reverbs, spatially very 'single-minded'. Depending on how much of the plates you want in the mix, you may have to totally re-spatialise artificially after the plates.

And finally, don't forget that not all digital models of a physical plate reverb (usually the EMT-140) are created equal. And there's a huge selection on offer. Moreover, still-existing physical plate reverbs are themselves very variable beasts, and so even the most meticulous digital emulations of actual plates may sound somewhat different to one another. For those interested, here's one useful comparison review of some plate plugins, including comparisons with an actual EMT-140:-

What is the best plate reverb plugin?

@Psalmster said:

And more specifically relevant to my initial question: So, the room mix isn't an additional pair of stereo mics. Rather, it includes the Decca Mains -- so that's why a user wouldn't use the Room Mix and the Decca?

I admit having done it with the Standard libraries, and I'm comforted by a recent video where Beat Kaufmann does the same.

Mixing in/with Synchron Player

With the Standard libraries you have the Room Mix, including all the room mics; and the Decca Tree, that are the main room mics capturing the full orchestra, together with a (relatively) limited amount of room reverb.

If you add the Decca Tree to the Room Mix, you get a stronger Decca Tree signal, with a weaker Ambient signal. You increase the center focus of the room mix.

It's by far not as flexible as mixing the separate mics, but it gives you a good amount of flexibility, as if you were moving a 'Focus' slider.

Paolo