# Spat



## Jack Weaver (Jun 1, 2012)

This was in my inbox this morning:

http://www.dontcrack.com/news/2012/06/ircam-tools-promotion/


Wish I'd known this before I bought it a couple weeks ago. Not real happy about that but for anyone wanting to get in this is a great deal.

.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm a dealer. That is WAY below dealer cost.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 1, 2012)

Jack, does this mean you bought SPAT? If I remember correctly you also own MIR. Are the two comparable products? What are your impressions on one vs the other? Oh, and does SPAT work in stereo or is it surround only?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 1, 2012)

As posted in my review, stereo through surround.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jun 1, 2012)

Oh boy, that is mighty tempting...

I've been really intrigued by SPAT for a while but I haven't been able to justify the cost. Can someone who owns it maybe share some of their feedback, please?

I'd love to hear some comparisons between a mix that's 'placed' using the usual reverb suspects vs. some help from SPAT's positioning algorithms. Just something to help get a better sense of the thing.

Thanks very much for bringing this promotion to my attention, Jack


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi Jon,

Both MIR and SPAT work in multiple output configurations. 

Both only come with a single machine license - much to my chagrin. Both are dongled. Since I owned MIR first, I probably would not have purchased SPAT if I could have used it on both machines. Yes everyone, I do know that you can send audio from one machine to MIR on another via VEP5. Sometimes that's problematical and/or inconvenient - especially when setting up templates. 

I use MIR Pro on my PC Slave - the same machine that houses the samples I wish to use within the MIR stages. SPAT is installed on my Mac Pro master machine and works well there with all sorts of different libraries and instruments - whatever I have on my master machine. So far in my experience, MIR Pro is the more substantial program. I like the widely differing sonic identities of its convolutions and its variability. Sitting within VEP5 it allows a bunch of different routing possibilities. It has a great post-MIR algorithmic reverb plugin, MIRacle. Since I have Vienna Suite the Hybrid Reverb (combo algo/convo) is oh so wonderful - either with or without MIR. Now, having MIR I tend to prefer libraries without so much baked-in ambience, especially percussion. The VSL percussion comes alive with MIR. WW, too. 

I haven't had SPAT that long so I'm not at expert level with it yet. However, its simple plugin structure within the host software (in my case, Logic) is an absolute breeze to use. It works effectively for spatialization and even allows for automation of movement. That's most likely because it's algorithmically-based, opposed to MIR Pro's convolution nature. The reverb that comes with SPAT is forgettable. Still, I'm quite happy with my purchase of SPAT. It does what I want it to do and come this summer it's supposed to go 64-bit (yes, currently 32-bit - 32-bit Bridge - ughh, grrrr....) and for those who care, AAX. 

HTH

.


----------



## rabiang (Jun 2, 2012)

The other plugs from ircam are also available. I just bought Ircam trax and verb with this great offer from dontcrack.com. Looks great so far. But the plugs are not 64-bit as jack says, contrary to what you might think when you read flux's webpage.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 2, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Hmm. That price makes me wish I hadn't just bought SPAT. Mind you, it does mean that I'm definitely getting a 2nd licence though.

D


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 3, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Jun 02 said:


> Hmm. That price makes me wish I hadn't just bought SPAT. Mind you, it does mean that I'm definitely getting a 2nd licence though.
> 
> D



Hi D. Im quite impressed with MIR. But it does not complete your setup it seems. Care to comment?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 3, 2012)

Christian Marcussen @ Sun Jun 03 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Jun 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. That price makes me wish I hadn't just bought SPAT. Mind you, it does mean that I'm definitely getting a 2nd licence though.
> ...


Well, it's quite simple. MIR does some things really well. SPAT does others better. Bricasti does others better still. It's all dependent on what I'm doing.

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 3, 2012)

Whose idea was it to call a product spat?

I mean no disrespect to a product I know nothing about and have no desire whatsoever to dis someone's livelihood, but I get grossed out just reading the title of this thread.

Say, have you heard URINE ON THE STREET? It sounds awesome, and I hear there's a great deal on it.


----------



## jleckie (Jun 3, 2012)

I hear SPIT is good for getting out of hand cuffs.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Jack Weaver @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> Hi Jon,
> 
> Both MIR and SPAT work in multiple output configurations.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the great reply Jack! I guess I'll have to demo both SPAT and MIR 24 (as they are about the same price as right now) and see which one I like better. Do you think the limitation of 24 instruments/groups would be a problem in MIR24? When you use SPAT, do you put an instance on each instrument, or is there another way to use it? In SPAT, once you setup your source 1 and source 2 in a specific "pan," is there then a way to lock this relationship and then be able to drag one of the sources around and the other would follow? (Basically I would like the option of treating both sources as one instrument like MIR does). I do like the idea of being able automate sound traveling from back to forward & side to side in SPAT in real time. Could be very cool for sound FX type stuff. Too bad this is not possible in MIR? 

For fun I did a small orchestra mockup using SPAT's on each instrument (had 16 going) and it was almost pegging a single core on my Mac Pro in Logic. I was running them directly on the aux inputs from VE pro, and they were all adding up on on my last core, so it seems SPAT uses a decent amount of CPU; and this was with the reverb part turned off and using it only for spacing. The results were pretty impressive though, as the mockup seemed to have much more space and depth using SPAT for the placement, and VSL Hybrid Reverb (with the ER turned off) for the tail.

Anyway, I'm tired. Going to continue these experiments in the morning. Hopefully others will share their opinions and or tips for using SPAT. Goodnight!


----------



## re-peat (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



JT3_Jon @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> (...) is there then a way to lock this relationship and then be able to drag one of the sources around and the other would follow? (...)


Jon,

In the 'Setup' tab, simply click the vertical rectangle under where it says 'Stereo Pairs' (it'll turn yellow the moment you click). This will link the two sides of the incoming stereo source, combining those two sources (1 and 2) into one single source (1-2).
The moment you link sources, you position/process the incoming stereo signal as a whole. As long as the sources remain unlinked, you can position both sides of the incoming stereo signal completely independently.
What you can't do however is first establish a certain distance between source 1 and source 2, and then 'lock' that distance. (Never felt the need to be able to do that, I must say.)

_


----------



## pulse (Jun 4, 2012)

Hey I'm also interesting in SPAT vs MIR. I've been playing with the SPAT demo... seems very impressive. I was wondering what the best way is to route multiple audio into one instance of SPAT... using Logic Audio. Or do you have to use one instance of SPAT per loaded instrument. Also as SPAT is 32bit, I have to load it directly in Logic via the Aux channels coming from VEPRO. I use VEPPRO (64bit) for all my primary virtual instruments.

Any insight into this would be appreciated 

Kind regards,

Anthony


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

In my experience, you don't have to have every single instrument have its own individual location in SPAT World. Realistically the ear can only perceive so many locations. Just think of regular panning - you've got L, L center, Center, R center, R - and parsing those 5 (or so) pan locations only gets you so much difference in how your mix really sounds. (In a mix anyway that's true, in a carefully recorded stereo performance it's much easier to tell discrete positioning.)

It's kinda the same way with spatialization - having dozens and dozens of spatialized locations only gets you a minute difference than having a relative handful of locations. So.... in Logic I set up busses with the SPAT locations I want to have. Then I simply bus what instruments I want to go to those locations. That way I don't have a ton of instances loading up a single core in Logic. _(C'mon Apple, fix this problem - it's your software and your hardware!)_

Also regarding perceived spatialized locations, each sample library has to its own degree a certain amount of ER (and certainly some have baked-in reverberant tails) and these give it a bit of spatial differentiation within MIR or SPAT - even if you're sending it to the same bus as instrument with unequal ER and tail. 

Even in MIR, if I bus (for example) an oboe just a couple feet to the right or left of a clarinet it's pretty hard to tell if they are or are not in the exact same location. So personally, I choose to pretty much make one WW position. Unless there is a featured soloist involved with the piece. 

I think MIR 24 should be enough for 90% of us out there. MIR does a lot more stuff, has a better reverb plug and its nature can be changed more dramatically than SPAT. Its different venues have great characteristic differences. Its dry and wet variability is quite useful. Its stereo width seems to perform better than SPAT's 'aperture' setting. 

But.... you gotta host MIR in VEP5. With SPAT you can use it so handily within your sequencer. And that's nice.

.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Anthony,

MIR is no doubt fabulous software, but its very fabulousness also seems to be one of its bigger problems, judging from the pieces people post, because so far, I haven’t heard a single MIR-mix which I like the sound of. Not one. There’s always, without exception, way too much reverb in these mixes to my taste. (And it’s not just that there’s too much of it, the character of the reverb is often also very heavy-sounding and overbearing, I find.) 
For some bizarre reason, all MIR-owners seem to insist on making absolutely sure that we can clearly hear that they purchased MIR. People who managed tasteful and delicate restraint in their use of reverb before they had MIR, now invariably seem to want to drown their sounds in unpleasant and unmusical amounts of it. It’s a very strange power that MIR seems to have over its users.
Anyway, this observation has got nothing to do with the quality of the spatialization software itself of course. Like I said, I don’t doubt that MIR is a pretty amazing and extremely useful thing to own.

Still, me, I much prefer SPAT. Nothing I’ve seen or heard MIR do has been special or impressive enough to make me even consider changing my mind about this. (Even though, like I said, I’m entirely convinced that MIR is fully capable of superb things.)
I strongly believe — and the more I use it and get to know it, the stronger that belief — that SPAT is _the perfect spatialization tool for virtual instruments_. Not only does SPAT provide very convincing spaces of any shape or size imagineable, it also generates a suggestion of air and depth around sounds — a certain _walkaroundability_, if you like — which, without it, leaves these sounds quite often displeasingly flat and lifeless (even when bathed in the most expensive reverb), and it does that in a way that’s beyond the capabilities of every other reverb software that I know.

A simple adjustment of SPAT’s ‘Yaw’ and ‘Aperture’ parameters, for example, can give sounds instantly the dimensionality and body they so often lack. MIR can do that as well I suppose (at least, I hope it can), but the way SPAT does it is certainly more than completely satisfactory to me.
Furthermore, and not unimportantly, you can automate these parameters, making it perfectly possible and quite easy to simulate (and very believably so, I might add) the ‘mic technique’ which experienced studio musicians all know about. (SampleModeling’s The Trumpet, to give an example, is an instrument which benefits enormously from this ‘mic technique’ approach, as you can have the instrument turn slightly away from the microphone at certain points during a phrase or towards the end of phrases, something which most players intuitively do as well. This may sound like a ridiculously little thing, but it really does make a noticeable and pleasant difference. Maybe I should do an audio illustration of this, one of these days.)

The thing, well, one of the things, that makes SPAT so satisfying to work with, I find, is that you don’t need anything else. Pick a sound, decide on a space, determine where exactly you want the sound to appear in that space, and SPAT will put it there. Right there. And totally convincingly as well (insofar as virtual instruments run through a virtual spatializer can ever be convincing, that is). You don’t need to ponder the problems of balancing ER’s and tails, you don’t need to mess with EQ’s to increase the suggestion of distance or proximity, you don’t need stereo shufflers for positioning and width, … SPAT does all that (and a lot more) and does it way more believably than any combination of other effects might do it (with the possible exception of MIR, I suppose).

Really, if I had to start building my studio from scratch again tomorrow, SPAT would be the only spatialization software I’d buy. No Sonnox, no TC VSS3, no Softube TSAR, no QL Spaces, no Altiverb, no Lexicon … just SPAT. (The only other reverbs I might occasionaly miss, would be the UAD EMT-140 and EMT-250 emulations, which are and remain quite unique.)

It’s probably also clear by now that I disagree completely with Jack’s verdict that SPAT’s reverb is ‘forgettable’. (Unless he meant to describe the transparent, almost self-effacing quality of its sound, which would be a compliment for *any* artificial reverb and one I entirely agree with in the case of SPAT. But I doubt that’s what he meant.) 
Anyway, to my ears, SPAT’s reverberation is easily as good as that of any other software reverb out there — convolution-based or algorithmic — and even if there are other reverbs which can generate lusher-, richer- or more ‘expensive-sounding’ tails than SPAT can, the Ircam software, in my experience, more than accomplishes all that virtual spatialization can and should accomplish in the context of a virtual instruments-based production. (I must add: I have a somewhat peculiar opinion about the use and importance of reverb in combination with virtual instruments, which very few people agree with.) 
But put SPAT in a blindfold test, alongside any or all of the other reverbs I mentioned before, and I’m completely convinced that it would sound just as forgettable or unforgettable as any of those others. (I’m also pretty sure that most people wouldn’t even be able to tell which reverb is which, but that’s a different topic of course.)

But to answer your question (finally!): at the moment, it’s very difficult — barely possible, even — to route more than one stereo source into a single instance of SPAT (when used inside Logic, that is, I don’t know about other DAW’s). This is definitely an architectural area where MIR cleary has the upper hand. The only way to do it, apparently, is to switch Logic’s audio configuration to surround, so that channelstrips can have more than 2 channels. (But even then, you’d be limited to only 3 stereo signals at the most, I would imagine.) Never tried it myself (so I don’t know the particulars on how to proceed exactly), but according to FLUX::, that’s the way to do it. If you really wanna know, I think it’s best to contact FLUX:: directly.
I did ask them, some time ago, about maybe making a stand-alone version of SPAT, to be used outside of Logic and with the possibility of routing Logic’s various outputs into it (and then back into Logic of course). Can’t be that unsurmountable a problem I would think, because FLUX:: already uses a similar idea for their analyzer software: their SampleGrabber plugin (part of the PureAnalyzer system) ‘grabs’ certain audio in your DAW and sends it to the analyzer. It would be great if that same functionality would become part of SPAT as well. But even without this functionality, I must say I find it quite impossible to say anything negative at all about SPAT.

At the moment, I use SPAT mostly inside Logic, one instance per musically significant solo or group. Sometimes it’ll get used in the 32-bit version of VEPro as well (which I often fire up alongside the 64-bit version, to have the best of both worlds).

_


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> JT3_Jon @ Mon Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) is there then a way to lock this relationship and then be able to drag one of the sources around and the other would follow? (...)
> ...



Thanks Re-peat! So do you then position all your stereo instruments as if they are mono, or do you not use the "stereo pairs" feature? I guess I'm just use to the VSL panner where you adjust the width of the stereo field of the recording (since all samples that I know of are all recorded in stereo) and then position that signal where you want in the panorama. In my test though, I placed the same string with a "stereo spread" and "stereo linked" and they sounded basically the same, so perhaps I'm over thinking it. 

Also Re-peat, do you use SPATS reverb as well, or do you use some other reverb for tails? Guessing from your post you only use SPAT for all reverb, but I just wanted to check.

Thanks again for the great discussion guys! Hopefully it continues; maybe with some audio examples.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

If you read my SPAT review it will answer most of the question being raised here, at least about SPAT anyway.

http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/04/27/spat-worth-its-bytes-in-gold/ (http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/04/27/spat- ... s-in-gold/)


----------



## re-peat (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



JT3_Jon @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> (...) So do you then position all your stereo instruments as if they are mono, or do you not use the "stereo pairs" feature? (...)


Jon, 

It depends: if I process a piano (outside of a pop or rock context, that is), I obviously will treat as a stereo source, but if I'm dealing with, say, a distant woodwind (Westgate or VI), a bass or a (dry enough) percussion instrument, I might use SPAT in a mono>stereo configuration: mono-signal in, 'spatted' stereo-signal out. It all very much depends on the music of course, the arrangement, the sort of sounds involved, and the illusion that I want to create.



JT3_Jon @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> (...) do you use SPATS reverb as well, or do you use some other reverb for tails? (...)


Yes, often. Nearly always in fact. (Like I said: I don't have any problem with the quality of SPAT's reverberation.) On occasion, I might use SPAT strictly for positioning purposes and use yet another reverb for the tail, if I find that that other reverb is more compatible with the baked-in reverb of a certain library that features prominently in a given piece. For example: I have yet to find a really good match (inside SPAT) for the glorious Air Lyndhurst reverberation in the Spitfire libraries. (If ever I find it, I'll save the preset with the name _Spatfire_.)

_


----------



## Dietz (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> [...] I haven’t heard a single MIR-mix which I like the sound of. Not one. There’s always, without exception, way too much reverb in these mixes to my taste. [...]



An example I posted just a few days ago in the latest VI Piano-thread: 

-> http://www.vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoID=5501

Another one that's mostly about "room", not about "reverb":

-> http://www.vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoId=5575

A less obvious example:

-> http://www.vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoID=5532

Kind regards,

/Dietz


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

Dietz you've managed to put up examples that only call more attention to Piet's observations concerning MIR. If that was your intention then, well done!


----------



## re-peat (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Dietz,

With all due respect (and believe me, you get a lot more from me than the banality of the formula ‘with all due respect’ might suggest), I have never been convinced by that Ellington mix, I must say (and I’ve listened to it dozens of time already in the past). I really do like the pianosound, terrific sound, but … that’s about it, I’m afraid. To my ears, the instruments don’t quite connect in this mix as they should, and the whole thing sounds a bit sterile and dead-ish to me. Now, this might very well have nothing to do with MIR itself of course, it probably even hasn’t: it could just as well be the somewhat disappointing sound of the VI Jazz Drums (never liked those, I’m sorry to say) and/or the sonic character of the upright (a VI library which, while sounding decent, I find incredibly difficult to place well inside a mix — so difficult in fact that I’ve stopped using it). 
Whatever it is, I always thought this particular mix is a truly excellent demonstration of the magnificent Bösendorfer but rather less so of all the other elements involved (except the obvious musicianship of course).

The Varèse and the Schocker both sound quite good, no doubt, (not jaw-droppingly great though, if I'm permitted to say so), but I really can’t say I hear anything at all here which makes me want to buy MIR. Not implying that SPAT would easily do better, definitely not, but it certainly wouldn’t do worse. That I know.
Thing is: in all these examples I still hear sounds to which reverb has been added, rather then sounds truly existing in a space. There's a not entirely unconvincing suggestion of depth and dimension, sure, but there's no real presence of either. (The Varèse and the Schocker both sound quite artificial in this respect, to my ears). I’m quite aware that the reason for this has a lot more to do with the intrinsic and inevitable flaws of the musical weirdness that goes by the name ‘mock-up’ than with whatever limitations the MIR-spatialization might have (which I know nothing about), but even so, these results are, in my opinion, not fundamentally better-sounding than what can be done with other good spatialization software, be it SPAT, or a wise combination of various other quality tools. In short: if this is MIR at its best, then I know I don't need it.

These three examples are, by the way, also a perfect illustration of what I hinted at before and already discussed at annoying length in the past: as long as mock-ups are what they are, good reverb is often a strangely absurd and amazingly powerless presence in a mix, I find. In fact, the better the reverb (as for example the one generated by MIR), the more this absurdity surfaces, it seems to me.

But again, I’d really hate it if any of the above might suggest that I have any doubts whatsoever about the qualities and usefulness of MIR. I really don’t. It’s obviously a stunning piece of software, and a tremendously versatile and satisfying tool in most any studio or set-up, I would imagine.

_


----------



## pulse (Jun 4, 2012)

Hey re-peat,

Thankyou for your generous response... it's definately a great insight into SPAT. I also must agree with you regarding the reverb... just from using the demo, it definately seems up there in the realm of lexicon, etc...

I'll give Flux an email regarding any alternative ways to setup SPAT in logic. Also I wonder if a 64bit version is coming soon?

Either way all your help is appreciated 

Plus another thanks for everyone else's feedback 

Kind regards,

Anthony


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

As previously stated, Flux is supposed to come up with a 64-bit update this summer, along with AAX. 

I'm glad someone likes the SPAT reverb. It doesn't get a very good review at my place or with some other users I know. Different tools always work differently in different people's hands. 

.


----------



## Udo (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Can SPAT users please clarify if the full version of Verb (as a standlone product) is included with SPAT? If I underrstand it correctly, SPAT itself contains 3 cut‑down and slightly different implementations of Verb. However, on the FLUX website it says "SPAT (Verb included)", implying that the full Verb standlone product is also included. Is that true?.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Jack Weaver @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> As previously stated, Flux is supposed to come up with a 64-bit update this summer, along with AAX.
> 
> I'm glad someone likes the SPAT reverb. It doesn't get a very good review at my place or with some other users I know. Different tools always work differently in different people's hands.
> 
> .



Don't think of it as a reverb if you do you'll be missing the point. You shouldn't really hear the reverb, it should just cohere into a room sound. I think that's Piet's point more than anything.

But as far as standard reverb plugs go, it really is up there with the best VST verbs. Not as good as the Bricastis you have, and I won't comment on MIR as I don't have it.

best,

José


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Hey Jose,

Hmmm.... that's twice you told me not to think of it as a reverb. Not exactly sure what you're getting at here since in my posts I've been writing about its spatialization qualities. I've been sure of the diference between spatialization and reverb for decades. 

The reverb plugin that's a part of SPAT is just that - a reverb. Thinking of it or hearing it as something else is completely erroneous. I do hear it as a reverb. Even _Flux_ calls it a reverb. It's a reverb that occurs after SPAT's spatialization process. Flux gives you the option to either use it inline after spatialization or use SPAT without their reverb. Thinking that it 'coheres' into a room sound is buying into one step beyond what I hear is going on. But that's OK, we all experience things differently. 

Yes however you're right, I shouldn't hear the reverb - and I don't once I turn it off. :D 

And I'm not a reverb Nazi, just because I have some hardware reverbs doesn't mean that any number of software reverbs won't do a better job in a particular instance. Maybe even as time goes by I can learn to love the Flux reverb and find just the right uses for it. 

And still, I find plenty of uses for SPAT and it's a part of my main template now. 

.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

I wasn't trying to insult you in any way. Believe me. 

Since you're kind of new to SPAT I wanted to just chime in on that comment.

SPAT has problems marketing itself because a) its been around in some form since the mid '90ies, and b) Flux has kind of taken over the marketing and I'm not thoroughly convinced that they know exactly what SPAT is.

Imo, the spacialization doesn't work all that well without the reverb. It was intended to be one package.

You do have to mess with the send a little bit. There's also a way to blend the original signal with the reverb better. So it should just be one room sound.

It's different than MIR. MIR was intended to be a reverb then you place your source in a space. I don't own it so I can't comment for sure.

SPAT is almost the opposite. With SPAT you're creating a virtual room based on algorithms then the reverb becomes part of that space. So there's no space that's been sampled like in MIR. You create a space with SPAT, then reverb becomes part of that space. If you do it right then the "reverb" isn't used as reverb(early reflections tails, ect...) its just a room sound. And if you think of it like that, it works rather well. If you think of it as creating a glorious hall that can seat your virtual orchestra, then I'm afraid that MIR would probably do better.

So, what I do is create a room or stage with spat then add hall verb after with something else.

I just did a new mix with Spat, when i have time, I'll show you what I mean. Much better to demonstrate.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

http://soundcloud.com/jherringmusic/jaz ... first-pass

Sorry for the another big band cue, but a library I work for has me doing a bunch of them.

The clarinet, sax, bass, drums and piano have been passed through SPAT. I didn't add any additional reverb to those tracks other than what is included in SPAT.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Jose said:



> MIR was intended to be a reverb then you place your source in a space.


Hey, hey Jose,
MIR is not a reverb. o-[][]-o 

.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

As far as I can tell its a convolution based reverb. Then they added the stage placement thing. If I recall correctly it took them about a year to do that. So at its base is convolution based reverberation.

Which, is always static. The room is fixed and you place your instruments in that room.

Thus their 5 year sampling room acoustics.

So, what's not a reverb about that?

From the MIR description:

--Vienna MIR PRO is a network-capable mixing solution for Mac and PC, based on_ Multi Impulse Response convolution_


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Eventually this thread will die.... or morph into something more useful. 

In the meantime, it might be helpful to know that convolution doesn't necessarily mean 'reverb'. For example, there are convolutions of hardware compressors, limiters, etc. that are used for emulation purposes by software from Waves and hardware from Focusrite and Sony. These hardwares and software take convolutions and emulate various pieces of hardware. 

As for MIR being a reverb, it might be an appropriate time for Dietz to step in and explain it as only he can. For myself, my purpose in life is not be the champion for any piece of kit. But it seems clear to me that any room emulation program that uses reverb after it (like either MIR or SPAT) - then it by definition is not a reverb. 

.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2012)

Semantics that I don't have time for Jack.

Really my only purpose was to help you better understand SPAT. Give you better than a fumble's grasp of it. Which you expressed some interest in, but judging from how you took my help, I can only assume that you'd rather argue some petty terminology. And to try and poke holes in my explanations.

I'm done with this discussion.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Udo @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> Can SPAT users please clarify if the full version of Verb (as a standlone product) is included with SPAT? If I underrstand it correctly, SPAT itself contains 3 cut‑down and slightly different implementations of Verb. However, on the FLUX website it says "SPAT (Verb included)", implying that the full Verb standlone product is also included. Is that true?.



It's included in the Spat bundle, you get a more "lite" version with Spat.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 4, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Jack Weaver @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> Hey Jose,
> 
> Hmmm.... that's twice you told me not to think of it as a reverb. Not exactly sure what you're getting at here since in my posts I've been writing about its spatialization qualities. I've been sure of the diference between spatialization and reverb for decades.



Spat with Verb together enables you to both spatially place and do room design. The operating principle is room acoustics simulation.


----------



## Dietz (Jun 5, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> [...] have never been convinced by that Ellington mix, I must say (and I’ve listened to it dozens of time already in the past). I really do like the pianosound, terrific sound, but … that’s about it, I’m afraid. To my ears, the instruments don’t quite connect in this mix as they should, and the whole thing sounds a bit sterile and dead-ish to me. [....]



Well, Piet - I'm not going to turn this into a MIR thread. I respect your point of view, still I'm glad to tell you that other people with other ears have a dissenting opinion -> http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/322 ... spx#204482

... maybe you should just try MIR Pro yourself one day. It's not a preset ROMpler, you can dial in the sound you're after. Concerning the "wetness" of a mix, the following parameter would be your best friend, I guess:









Kind regards,

/Dietz


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 5, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Mon Jun 04 said:


> To my ears, the instruments don’t quite connect in this mix as they should, and the whole thing sounds a bit sterile and dead-ish to me. [....]



With lots of sincere and due respect for your opinion, Piet. That's exactly what I thought of the sound produced by Spat, during my trial of Spat half a year ago. Perhaps this was due to the limitations of the trial version, or 'operator error', or different tastes. Strange, since normally my taste pretty much aligns with yours, judging by the nice pieces you post here sometimes. Also strange because of the standing of Ircam and the opinions of other people that I hold in high esteem. I am going to reassess it, now that this deal is around and so many people are chiming in so positively lately about Spat.



Dietz @ Tue 05 Jun said:


> I'm glad to tell you that other people with other ears have a dissenting opinion -> http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/322 ... spx#204482
> 
> ... maybe you should just try MIR Pro yourself one day. It's not a preset ROMpler, you can dial in the sound you're after. Concerning the "wetness" of a mix, the following parameter would be your best friend, I guess:



+1 + On top of that the dry/wet mix is configurable _per_ instrument (or audio input)

What is not configurable though is the balance between the spatialization (ERs, staging) and the tail (reverb). As Dietz and other VSL people mentioned before, this is a design choice. MIR is designed to give a close rendition of the sound a listener would hear in the selected hall, sitting at the chosen mic position hearing the instruments at the user configured instruments' positions. I think this is exactly what MIR does, and I even think this is not open for debate either. The logic behind this, I presume, is that in a real hall a listener cannot dial down the tail, hence you cannot dial down the tail in MIR either.

However, where this logic falls down is in VSL's design decision to incorporate , for example, a reverb length slider (thank god!) and the dry/wet slider mentioned by Dietz. I agree with Piet, that most demos of MIR are quite verby. I think it is primarily the (in)balance of ER and tail that is the culprit. At least to my, or our, ears. In using the middle to far mic positions of MIR, there is a bit of a catch 22. If you want to clearly hear the marvelous staging/spatialization of MIR, then you have to increase the wetness, with as a by-product a quite overpowering tail, or, you lower the volume of the tail and as a by-product the staging with it, and as a result you loose the 'connectedness' of the instruments. Most people choose to save the spatialization and think of the tail as something that's also there in a real hall. Indeed, in a real hall, but not in a beautiful _*multi*_-mic recording. Someone once wrote in this forum something along the lines of, that a real hall is designed to sound just shy of totally crap in order to seat as many people as possible to make the concerts economically and financially feasible. Perhaps that's crap in its own right, at least I do not subscribe to this opinion, having spend thousands of pleasant hours in beautiful halls. Now of course there are a lot of great sounding single-mic position recordings of symphonic works. Which position in the hall is normally chosen for this single mic position? At, above or close to the conductor's position. Not at row 7, 14 or the rear of the hall, as is configurable in MIR. Those extra positions are chosen however in real recordings for multi-mic positions. And this is exactly the way I think one should use the extra mic positions of MIR to render a multi-mic recording style. To my knowledge there are no row 14 or rear hall single-mic position recordings. Oh, yes there are, _bootleg_ recordings, of people seated at those positions bringing their own recorders, and that's not the sound I am after.

I asked in the VSL forum whether it is possible to output multiple mic positions with one license of VE Pro and MIR on one PC. The short answer is: yes. 

The long answer is, that this indeed works splendidly. I am using MIR Pro 24 now in 3 or more instances of VE Pro on one PC, each instance running one MIR mic position of a hall. After the latest update of MIR it is now possible to run two mic positions of a hall in one MIR instance, yet the tail length is not configurable per mic. Mostly I use the conductor's position for the staging and shorten the length of the tail. Then I use mic position 7, and 14 (or rear) with longer tails and a bit delayed with a delay plugin.

The longer answer is here: http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/t/31623.aspx

Honestly, Piet, do yourself a favour, and try out MIR using it their, my or _your_ way. I am glad I did.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 5, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Back to SPAT if you please :wink: 

After testing SPAT a while with the reverb part turned off my impression is that it does one thing very well (guess what ...): pushing back (and left + right of course) a sound source ... well that is how it is supposed to work, but it does that without

- coloring the sound
- adding unwanted early reflections
- adding a reverb tail
- making the source appear wider
- adding any ringing or metallic artefacts
- adding garbling sounds or phasing-like sounds due to processing
- muffling

Instead the source is moved nice and clean, just like that.

Any other method that I have tried over the years (and I have tried quite some) adds a mixture of those problems, except if you can use a greater mic distance in a not too wet room for your own recordings of course, which is not an available option always.

In a way it is a shame that no competition product has solved this but obviously it is not an easy task and _not _just doable by adding a bunch of early reflections 8) :shock: . Whether this is worth USD 599 is a question everybody needs to answer himself but I think I will bite here. The combination with Relab LX480 sounds lovely to me, my second choice atm would be the combo with Quantum Spaces.

Bottom line: The best way to create distance in a recording is ... well ... physical distance. Second tier is SPAT, and for me it is head over shoulders above any other options atm, be it convolution, algorithm, EQ or the like.

Thank you everybody for contributing to this thread and making me aware of the deal.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 5, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

*Dietz,*

Thanks. As you probably expected, Mr. Beatty and I, we don’t agree on this. But I’m very happy for you that we don’t.
And as for me trying out the MIR demo, please, read on …

*Scrianinoff,*

I believe I said that the sterility and deadishness which I hear to some degree in the Ellington mix have probably a lot more to do with the sample libraries (and the role they’re asked to perform) than with whatever limitations MIR might have. I have no doubts that if Dietz were to mix that same piece using SPAT instead of MIR, the end result would sound equally sterile and lifeless, if not more so. It's not the spatialization, it's what's being spatialized that fails to impress me (except that pianosound).

Really, I don’t need convincing that MIR is wonderful (too wonderful even - see the next paragraphs) for what it was designed to do. The reason I don’t bite has got nothing to with MIR, it’s got everything to do with the musical impotence of sample libraries and virtual instruments. 
Let me ask a simple question here. Tell me, why would I wanna buy MIR? To do what exactly? To increase the realism of depth and space in my mixes? Now, what would be the point of that, if every other aspect of my mixes (except for the music they contain, I’d like to think) is as ridiculously artificial as could be. What is the musical appeal of dropping fundamentally flawed musical sounds, painfully unrealistic instrumental identities and laughably crippled performances into a gorgeous, realistic-sounding MIR-generated space?
You see, that is precisely the great tragedy of MIR and the sad paradox in its existence, as far as I’m concerned: MIR was designed for sounds and performances which don’t, and can never do MIR justice. Every example Dietz has submitted and every other MIR-mixed piece I’ve heard, is a perfect illustration of that: in all of these mixes, whatever suggestive spatial powers and sophistication MIR might contribute, is almost all completely neutralized and rendered futile by the inadequate sounds and clumsy performances which MIR is asked to process. MIR doesn't lift the samples, the samples drag MIR down.
The Shocker piece or, far worse still, Goran’s interpretation of Grieg’s 'Morgenstimmung' (which, pardon me, I find quite unbearable to listen to), aren’t the hilarious farces they are because of MIR (although, in the case of the Grieg, I do find MIR a very obnoxious presence in the mix), but mainly because of the samples and the intrinsic unmusicality of mock-ups. 

So, in short: I’m not buying into MIR because of MIR itself, but because I know that I am, with today's tools and because of my own limited abilities, completely unable to create audio which is deserving of MIR. (That’s also the reason, by the way, why I would never consider getting a Bricasti. Nothing more pathetic, ridiculous and absurd than a mock-up mixed with a Bricasti, if you ask me.)

So, why SPAT then? Don’t the same objections apply? Yes, they do, very much so — the audio I produce is just as unworthy of SPAT as it is of MIR — but for various musical and unmusical reasons, SPAT appeals to me. SPAT won me over the day it got released. It is in no way associated with mock-uppery (this has been left unmentioned thusfar, but Ircam/FLUX:: didn’t create SPAT with us — the Village Idiots (check how that's abbreviated) of Music Land who believe that the sonic death generated by LASS, VSL, SISS, Adagio, HS, CS, etc. deserves to be called ‘strings’ — in mind), SPAT is completey honest about its algorithmic artificiality, it doesn’t trade in ridiculous (and meaningless) illusions like “Your music now sounds as if it was performed in the Vienna Konzerthaus”, no, SPAT simply does abstract, undefined space. And I like that. You see, SPAT is not pretentious, MIR is. SPAT is simply a humble, very fine piece of anonymous-sounding software that’s very good at what it does. And it doesn’t patronize or insult me (by, thankfully, not insisting on holding my hand whenever decisions need to be made, like all too many software wants to do these days), SPAT doesn’t force solutions on me, it doesn’t pretend, … it simply goes about its cold, clinical business of generating artificial depth and space, according to my wishes and instructions. And it fully expects of me that I know very well what I’m supposed to be doing. And that’s exactly how I like it. And, lucky me, it also happens to fit in extremely well with the way I like to mix. 

So, no, but thanks, sincere thanks — and to you as well, Dietz — for the intelligent, helpful and kindly considerate conversation and suggestions.

_


----------



## star.keys (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Hi Peter,
I'm not sure if I understand... I'm about to pull a trigger on SPAT. Are you committing to sell it for less than $599 later this / early next week or so? What's the benefit if I wait and buy it from your store instead?


----------



## star.keys (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Do we have anyone who has USED both Spat and Lex PCM Native reverb? An objective comparison of the both would he useful...

At least from the demo, SPAT seems buggy (not sure if the hard buttons there are due to the limited demo functionality?) to me and in some scenarios it sounds better over Lex Native Reverb however most other scenarios the Lex sounds far better to my ears.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



star.keys @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> Do we have anyone who has USED both Spat and Lex PCM Native reverb? An objective comparison of the both would he useful...
> 
> At least from the demo, SPAT seems buggy (not sure if the hard buttons there are due to the limited demo functionality?) to me and in some scenarios it sounds better over Lex Native Reverb however most other scenarios the Lex sounds far better to my ears.


I have both. For me they serve different purposes. The small rooms in SPAT are actually very good, but I don't really like the larger sounds. However, the Lex does a very good job on adding an extra fake tail to a mix, that for some things sounds good, but sounds very strange, when used for other purposes, to me.

SPAT is rather buggy, a CPU hog and only 32bit, so you have to be careful how you use it. However, it is worth the hassle, IMO, unlike some other equally buggy and inefficient products. :wink: 

As far as the whole MIR/SPAT/Lex thing,. in some ways I am in agreement with re-peat, but for me MIR does things that SPAT doesn't and vice versa. Also my Bricasti is very useful with other things, so for me all these tools are necessary. then again, I don't deal only with samples. If I did, I think that Vienna Suite and SPAT would be all I needed.

D


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



star.keys @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> Do we have anyone who has USED both Spat and Lex PCM Native reverb? An objective comparison of the both would he useful...
> 
> At least from the demo, SPAT seems buggy (not sure if the hard buttons there are due to the limited demo functionality?) to me and in some scenarios it sounds better over Lex Native Reverb however most other scenarios the Lex sounds far better to my ears.



I did not compare to the Lexicon but can answer the last part. Since this seems to be a demo that works forever (except of restarting it every half hour or so) they crippled some of the hard buttons on purpose and explained that with the words 'we think we have found a good compromise for testing' or the like. So - no bug found here.

However you can load different presets (bottom line) and then those hardware buttons move to other positions.

That being said probably a comparision between the Lexicon and the Ircam Verb would be more appropriate since this is the full version of the reverb. However there might be some sort of a bug or another demo restriction in the Verb demo maybe - it only starts to do its thing here if I click and uncklick "High density" once.

You might also test the combination of SPAT for pushing the sounds back and the Lexicon for creating the room around them.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Daryl @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> As far as the whole MIR/SPAT/Lex thing,. in some ways I am in agreement with re-peat, but for me MIR does things that SPAT doesn't and vice versa. Also my Bricasti is very useful with other things, so for me all these tools are necessary. then again, I don't deal only with samples. If I did, I think that Vienna Suite and SPAT would be all I needed.
> 
> D



Daryl,
did you ever test a Quantec Yardstick? This was an interesting read about the concept, especially some of the FAQs:
http://www.quantec.com/index.php?id=home&L=0
http://quantec.de

However these things are very steep and as long as I can not justify the expense I think SPAT is unique in what it does and well worth the current price.

On the other hand, if I count together how much I paid for software reverbs during the years three-digit-wise I could as well have bought a Bricasti or even a Yardstick right away, haha ... :mrgreen: >8o


----------



## Udo (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Daryl @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> SPAT is ......... only 32bit ...


It's 32 and 64bit on PC


----------



## Daryl (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Hannes_F @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as the whole MIR/SPAT/Lex thing,. in some ways I am in agreement with re-peat, but for me MIR does things that SPAT doesn't and vice versa. Also my Bricasti is very useful with other things, so for me all these tools are necessary. then again, I don't deal only with samples. If I did, I think that Vienna Suite and SPAT would be all I needed.
> ...


I've never heard of it before. Thanks for the link.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Udo @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> > SPAT is ......... only 32bit ...
> ...


Ah, thanks for the correction.

D


----------



## star.keys (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Thanks Daryl and Hannes_F for your response. I agree, Spat, Lex and MIR sound good in some situations but absolutely weird in some other situations! This is a tough one...

IMO the MIR is a no brainer, as must have
Lex Vs Spat/Verb seems to be a tough choice.


----------



## star.keys (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Is Spat of any use or it is worth getting just the Verb and saving money if I already have MIR (and use VE Pro for my workflow)?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



star.keys @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> Is Spat of any use or it is worth getting just the Verb and saving money if I already have MIR (and use VE Pro for my workflow)?



If you have already MIR I would say rather get SPAT and skip the Verb.

But testitestitestit ....

What I do is this: I try several setups, render them to tracks and then make blind tests. This is how I do it: I open a new project in my DAW, put two tracks in there, mute one and put the mouse on the solo button of it. Then I click a number of times with closed eyes and listen to it, click again, decide with version sounds better/less murky/more open/more natural. Then open the eyes and come to a conclusion.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> it doesn’t trade in ridiculous (and meaningless) illusions like “Your music now sounds as if it was performed in the Vienna Konzerthaus”,
> _



Is that a quote from the VSL site?



re-peat @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> no, SPAT simply does abstract, undefined space. And I like that. You see, SPAT is not pretentious, MIR is. SPAT is simply a humble, very fine piece of anonymous-sounding software that’s very good at what it does. And it doesn’t patronize or insult me (by, thankfully, not insisting on holding my hand whenever decisions need to be made, like all too many software wants to do these days), SPAT doesn’t force solutions on me, it doesn’t pretend, … it simply goes about its cold, clinical business of generating artificial depth and space, according to my wishes and instructions. And it fully expects of me that I know very well what I’m supposed to be doing. And that’s exactly how I like it. And, lucky me, it also happens to fit in extremely well with the way I like to mix.
> _



I happen to prefer VEP5/MIR PRO for probably the exact opposite reason- I have no interest in figuring out and re-engineering the abstract, anonymous, inmaterial, undetermined, (and yes, gaudy! :wink: ) space you mention above. I love the fact that I use a fully integrated solution, VEP/MIR, that allows me to streamline and make the overall mixing process much more efficient, based on a reasonable quality spacial reference/baseline provided by the MIR rooms. I don't feel patronized or insulted, not at all, I gladly take MIR for what it is and embrace its advantages, that way exceed its weaknesses.

Since all our samples and mocking up are already quite imperfect, why bothering wasting time I could better spend studying and composing? Oh, yes, and reading VIControl!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Tue Jun 05 said:


> *Dietz,*
> 
> Let me ask a simple question here. Tell me, why would I wanna buy MIR? To do what exactly? To increase the realism of depth and space in my mixes? Now, what would be the point of that, if every other aspect of my mixes (except for the music they contain, I’d like to think) is as ridiculously artificial as could be. What is the musical appeal of dropping fundamentally flawed musical sounds, painfully unrealistic instrumental identities and laughably crippled performances into a gorgeous, realistic-sounding MIR-generated space?
> You see, that is precisely the great tragedy of MIR and the sad paradox in its existence, as far as I’m concerned: MIR was designed for sounds and performances which don’t, and can never do MIR justice. Every example Dietz has submitted and every other MIR-mixed piece I’ve heard, is a perfect illustration of that: in all of these mixes, whatever suggestive spatial powers and sophistication MIR might contribute, is almost all completely neutralized and rendered futile by the inadequate sounds and clumsy performances which MIR is asked to process. MIR doesn't lift the samples, the samples drag MIR down.
> ...



I agree with this mostly, though if it were run through a hyperbole filter it would help

Lovely music CAN be created with samples and v.i.s but Piet is right: the idea of going to huge length and expense and thinking that therefore you will end up with a totally satisfactory result is simply people kidding themselves.

And by far, the best pieces I have heard created with samples are original pieces written to them, not mockups of famous concert hall pieces. I have yet to hear even one of those I liked.

That said, I beta tested MIR and it is a remarkable product. If I used mostly the VSL and LASS libraries, I would buy it. I have not tried SPAT so I cannot comment on it.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



star.keys @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> Hi Peter,
> I'm not sure if I understand... I'm about to pull a trigger on SPAT. Are you committing to sell it for less than $599 later this / early next week or so? What's the benefit if I wait and buy it from your store instead?



ALL U.S. dealers, as I'm told, will be having this SAME promotion shortly.

We are ALL waiting for written notification and the start date.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Peter Alexander @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> star.keys @ Wed Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Peter,
> ...



So why should they wait for those other US dealers getting the deal? Why not buy from the current offering?

And on topic.. I am definitely going to test SPAT, it sounds intriguing.


----------



## devastat (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

I purchased Spat from the dontcrack promotion and I can now see two licenses on my iLok account - a license for Spat and IRCAM-Verb (both inside a folder called Ircam Spat Pack). Also on my personal download page (On Flux) I can download Spat and Ircam Verb.

Is this really a "lite" edition of Ircam Verb, or is there a chance I might have acquired a license for the full version?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



devastat @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> I purchased Spat from the dontcrack promotion and I can now see two licenses on my iLok account - a license for Spat and IRCAM-Verb (both inside a folder called Ircam Spat Pack). Also on my personal download page (On Flux) I can download Spat and Ircam Verb.
> 
> Is this really a "lite" edition of Ircam Verb, or is there a chance I might have acquired a license for the full version?


No, that is a full licence for the Verb.

D


----------



## devastat (Jun 7, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Daryl @ Thu Jun 07 said:


> No, that is a full licence for the Verb.



Thanks for confirming this. It's a great deal getting Spat and Verb for $599.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Daryl @ Wed Jun 06 said:


> not sure if the hard buttons there are due to the limited demo functionality?



Update on this: In the full version all hard buttons are moveable and make an audible difference. I mailed to Ircam and they provided me with a fully functionable 14 days demo of the Verb.

As to SPAT+VERB vs. Mir Pro24: I definetely want both.


----------



## ed buller (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

This looks very interesting . Tried to download the demo but it's only VERB. Does anyone know where to get SPAT ?

e


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

https://www.fluxhome.com/download

D


----------



## ed buller (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Hmm tried that . There is no spat listed so i downloaded the verb bundle but spat doesn't seem to be in it

e


----------



## Daryl (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



ed buller @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Hmm tried that . There is no spat listed so i downloaded the verb bundle but spat doesn't seem to be in it
> 
> e


So by process of deduction I assume you're using OSX?

D


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



ed buller @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Hmm tried that . There is no spat listed so i downloaded the verb bundle but spat doesn't seem to be in it
> 
> e



Select Ircam Tools, Ed.


----------



## ed buller (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi

I wrote to the Ircam People and got a download.

This thing is wonderful. A must have for me

e


----------



## José Herring (Jun 8, 2012)

ed buller @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Hi
> 
> I wrote to the Ircam People and got a download.
> 
> ...




It will change the way you think about mixing forever. SPAT now makes it into just about everything I do.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Disregard - I found the answer to my question in an earlier post.


----------



## star.keys (Jun 8, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Hannes_F @ Fri Jun 08 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> > not sure if the hard buttons there are due to the limited demo functionality?
> ...



I agree, both are different things
They make a great combination together


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

As noted in our multiple SPAT reviews on Sonic Control.TV, one of the key differences between it and MIR is that Spat is specifically designed for film and post work, as are many of the plugins from this company.

Because it's a plugin, it can more easily fit into a workflow where multiple virtual instrument programs with a mixture of dry and ambient sources may be combined within a single cue. 

This is important because MIR presents itself as a different way of mixing. 

In this regard, it would be worthwhile for Dietz & Company to discuss their marketing efforts in L.A., Toronto, London, etc., for establishing MIR as a new standard.

As Daryl has neatly pointed out, both MIR and Spat are professional tools. And which is best depends on the situation.


----------



## star.keys (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Peter Alexander @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> As noted in our multiple SPAT reviews on Sonic Control.TV, one of the key differences between it and MIR is that Spat is specifically designed for film and post work, as are many of the plugins from this company.
> 
> Because it's a plugin, it can more easily fit into a workflow where multiple virtual instrument programs with a mixture of dry and ambient sources may be combined within a single cue.
> 
> ...



MIR is a very much film scoring tool. I don't work for VSL but this is a great product and there is nothing that generates a spacial room effect that the MIR is capable of. All my VSL/non-VSL instruments come to life when they are routed through MIR. There is nothing else that achieves this level of realism in my experience.

I have also purchased and do like SPAT for different reasons.

More importantly, workflow has nothing to do with what a product is designed and is capable of. I have changed my workflow to suit the way MIR works because only it is so good.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Every time an individual buys a new software program, work flow is changed in order to integrate the program into the computer system then the creative process. 

MIR by VSL has been presented in their own promos as a new way of mixing. Excellent!

But Spat fits into the "existing" process. Also excellent, but for different reasons.

It's not a new way of mixing. It's a simpler way of executing spatial placement at its most basic level compared to the normal methods of doing spatial placement which many film/TV veterans here can verify is tedious and time consuming. 

Trying to do the consumeristic "which ONE is best" is unfair to both products since their design purpose is radically different. 

This is another reason why you're reading here that professionals such as yourself (I'm assuming) see the value of both and are planning to get both as you have done.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

[/quote]

I DIDN'T say it wasn't.[/quote]

Peter, next time you need to underline the word specifically I guess. :lol:


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Peter Alexander @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> But Spat fits into the "existing" process. Also excellent, but for different reasons.
> 
> It's not a new way of mixing. It's a simpler way of executing spatial placement at its most basic level compared to the normal methods of doing spatial placement which many film/TV veterans here can verify is tedious and time consuming.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## star.keys (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Peter Alexander @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> Every time an individual buys a new software program, work flow is changed in order to integrate the program into the computer system then the creative process.
> 
> MIR by VSL has been presented in their own promos as a new way of mixing. Excellent!
> 
> ...



I agree with you. The challenge is, I have moved to VE Pro and that's been my workflow recently. Introducing MIR into it wasn't a radical change but natural progression for me... Hope they launch something in the future that' more convenient with the common approach to mixing.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

The plugin format of SPAT is quite handy. More so than MIR's being hosted within VEP5. 

I just get so much more variability with MIR than SPAT, regarding dimensionality and creation of unique spaces.Their convos of different rooms, halls and stages being manipulated with the dry/wet ratio and the amount of room tail - along with choosing to follow it with a reverb or not - is a sonically liberating process. I find it much more useful with synths like Omnisphere and the NI stuff. It sounds so cool with synths.... I'm totally happy with it for that purpose alone. It gives it a more organic sound that fits easily within a mix._ So far I find that it's a much more sonically creative tool. _I haven't tried their second mic postion technique yet. 

So to date (not that my experimentation won't last for years with these wonderful tools), if I need quick spatialization in my mix I grab the bus send to one of my instantiated SPATs - if I need a more creatively crafted space I use an Audio Input send to MIR. It takes a bit longer and I always have to think about the best way to do it. That's kind of a drag. However I seem to have some level/phasing issues when I use SPAT with Omnisphere. I'll have to figure that one out. Might be pilot error. 

It's nice to have both. If I had some kind of MIR plug I could use within my sequencer I personally would not have purchased SPAT. I expect others to possibly think differently.

.


----------



## jleckie (Jun 9, 2012)

Is it true that SPAT seems to be most handy if one works in surround whereas if your just working in stereo it offers little?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Jack Weaver @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> However I seem to have some level/phasing issues when I use SPAT with Omnisphere. I'll have to figure that one out. Might be pilot error.



Does it get better if you reduce the aperture value / turn it to the front via yaw?



> Is it true that SPAT seems to be most handy if one works in surround whereas if your just working in stereo it offers little?



If you can place a dry stereo signal anywhere in space with other means you don't need SPAT, neither in stereo nor in surround. 

However I must admit that I have been using EQ/Delay/ERs/Ambience/Convolution/Algorithm/lotsamoreSecretSauces for years and spent many many nights with systematic tests but did never get as far as with SPAT (or MIR to be true). Honestly, I have been waiting for this one price to go down for a veeery long time. Ymmv of course ...


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 9, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

For samples with a hall baked into the sound, are you guys using SPAT or any other "room placement" for those instruments since they are already in a room? Or is the purpose of SPAT and MIR simply to give those dry sounds a similar room?


----------



## Dietz (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Jack Weaver @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> [...] If I had some kind of MIR plug I could use within my sequencer [...]



Salvation is near. ~o) :wink:


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Dietz @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Jack Weaver @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > [...] If I had some kind of MIR plug I could use within my sequencer [...]
> ...



Any more hints you could give us on this, Dietz? Sounds intriguing.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jun 10, 2012)

I can't really figure this out from working with the trial, but is it possible to somehow send more than one stereo source into SPAT in Logic? How would I go about sending several channels (or busses) into the same instance of SPAT?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 10, 2012)

Simon Ravn @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> I can't really figure this out from working with the trial, but is it possible to somehow send more than one stereo source into SPAT in Logic? How would I go about sending several channels (or busses) into the same instance of SPAT?



Simon,
can only answer for Reaper:


----------



## re-peat (Jun 10, 2012)

Simon Ravn @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> (...) How would I go about sending several channels (or busses) into the same instance of SPAT?


Simon,

That same question was already asked on page 1 of this thread. And the answer is: you can’t. Well, you can, but barely. That’s the biggest shortcoming of SPAT being an (audio unit) plugin. It's not so much SPAT's shortcoming as it is Logic's: when used in Logic, SPAT is limited by the way in which audio objects (buses, auxes, channel strips) are designed and/or configured. You *can* get more than two channels into one instance of SPAT, but it requires creating surround audio objects. But even then, the possibilities remain very limited and it seems a very clumsy way of working.
(Judging by the tutorial video on the IrcamSPAT webpage, where they demonstrate how to send 6 sources into one SPAT-instance, ProTools appears to be a little bit more accommodating than Logic in this respect.)

Like I suggested earlier, SPAT really should be developed into a stand-alone app and, most importantly, be expanded with FLUX::’s SampleGrabber plugin. That would increase its power and appeal much further still.




Peter Alexander @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> (...) Spat is specifically designed for film and post work, as are many of the plugins from this company. (...)


Mr. Alexander, 

That’s a rather sneaky piece of misinformation, if you ask me. And you know it, don’t you? No one who has any aspirations to make a convincing impression as a credible FLUX:: dealer, would ever say such nonsense anyway. 
There is not a single FLUX:: plugin that was "specifically designed” with film and/or post-production work in mind. FLUX::, with or without Ircam’s assistance, makes high-quality audio tools — how and for what type of work these plug-ins are used, is entirely up to the user.

Stating, here on V.I. — an audience the majority of which you obviously presume to be, or is hoping to be, connected with the film world — that SPAT and many other FLUX:: plugins were specifically designed for film-related work, seems like a rather underhand manoeuvre to me, one for which I can see no other motivation than that you hope to increase your sales with it among the more gullible individuals of the V.I. members. (Unless you wanna be known as the dealer who doesn’t know the first thing about the product he distributes.) On another music-related forum you’d probably say that SPAT was specifically designed with that forum’s primary area of musical activity in mind, wouldn’t you? 

The truth is: SPAT is no more "specifically designed" for film-related work than MIR or any other spatialization tool. (As far as I know, the only plugin of Ircam/FLUX:: of which the link with films is mentioned by FLUX:: themselves, is IrcamTRAX which appears to have already been used as a voice transformation tool in several movies.)

All of which makes me seriously regret that I ever agreed to answer your questionnaire in preparation of that SPAT-review of yours. I don’t like being associated with people of your furtive ilk, I must say, so I’d appreciate it if you could remove my contribution and every appearance of my name from that review, as well as from the SonicControl.tv website. I no longer want to be connected with you or your ‘business’ in any way.

_


----------



## mark812 (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Guys, would you recommend Spat for working with "wet" (like Cinebrass, Cinematic Strings etc.) exclusively? 

I know that Spat is not a reverb, but I get the impression that most of people uses it with Sample Modeling and VSL stuff.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



mark812 @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Guys, would you recommend Spat for working with "wet" (like Cinebrass, Cinematic Strings etc.) exclusively?
> 
> I know that Spat is not a reverb, but I get the impression that most of people uses it with Sample Modeling and VSL stuff.


What are you hoping to achieve that isn't already present in the samples?

D


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Dietz,

That's wonderful news regarding a possible new plugin structure for MIR. The VSL team has been quite active in improving and providing continual updates for it since Day One. I hope that some other developers observe and take note. 

.


----------



## Dietz (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Mihkel @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Dietz @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Weaver @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> ...


I can't link to an official announcement yet, but rest assured that MIR's development didn't stop with the release of MIR Pro 24.  Thanks for your interest and your patience.


----------



## ed buller (Jun 10, 2012)

good news on a MIR plug in for tools !!

you won't need spat on cinebrass. Already sounds ace. But i have spent a while getting VSL to sound like it's in the same space as cinebrass with spat. Amazing what you can do with it. 

e


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 10, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sat Jun 09 said:


> (...) Spat is specifically designed for film and post work, as are many of the plugins from this company. (...)


Mr. Alexander, 



> That’s a rather sneaky piece of misinformation, if you ask me. And you know it, don’t you? No one who has any aspirations to make a convincing impression as a credible FLUX:: dealer, would ever say such nonsense anyway.
> There is not a single FLUX:: plugin that was "specifically designed” with film and/or post-production work in mind. FLUX::, with or without Ircam’s assistance, makes high-quality audio tools — how and for what type of work these plug-ins are used, is entirely up to the user.
> 
> The truth is: SPAT is no more "specifically designed" for film-related work than MIR or any other spatialization tool. (As far as I know, the only plugin of Ircam/FLUX:: of which the link with films is mentioned by FLUX:: themselves, is IrcamTRAX which appears to have already been used as a voice transformation tool in several movies.)




From their web site:

_Flux:: Sound and Picture Development, Orleans, France, is a company focused on the creation of intuitive and technically innovative software tools for the *post-production* and audio mastering industry. The company has a history as contractors for Merging technologies and has been deeply involved, and responsible for the development of a range of Merging’s audio and video software products for many years. _


In my Writing For Strings class, ONLY VSL and the Stereo Imager from Waves are covered for spatial placement, *neither* of which AP is a dealer for. 

In Writing For Strings, we *demonstrate* beginning spatial placement using Power Pan from the Vienna Suitefor each orchestral instrument and percussion and lightly touch on FORTI/SERTI with Vienna's Convolution reverb. 

The design premise of both tools is different, but one point of commonality is ease of spatial placement of virtual instruments. 

I've pointed out in my reviews that VSL has two (2) products for this market segment. 

The first is Vienna Suite/FORTI/SERTI which can also fit into the current post-production process and MIR Pro. 

http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/04/14/fortiserti-vsls-spatial-placement-secret-weapon/ (http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/04/14/forti ... et-weapon/)

The second is MIR Pro and MIR 24.

In fact, if VSL wanted to listen to a marketing suggestion or two from outside the Vienna Brain Trust, they could bundle at a highly competitive price, their Convolution Revrb, FORTI/SERTI and Power Pan.

Now that we know a MIR plug-in is coming, and with that and the bundle I just suggested, VSL would now have near global market domination of spatial placement with 4 tools priced from low to high.


----------



## Dietz (Jun 10, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> [...] In fact, if VSL wanted to listen to a marketing suggestion or two from outside the Vienna Brain Trust, they could bundle at a highly competitive price, their Convolution Revrb, FORTI/SERTI and Power Pan. [...]



Interesting thoughts, Peter - but honor to whom honor is due: FORTI/SERTI were created by IR-wizard Ernest Cholakis / Numerical Sound, not by VSL.

Kind regards,

/Dietz



.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 10, 2012)

Dietz @ Sun Jun 10 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Sun Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> > [...] In fact, if VSL wanted to listen to a marketing suggestion or two from outside the Vienna Brain Trust, they could bundle at a highly competitive price, their Convolution Revrb, FORTI/SERTI and Power Pan. [...]
> ...



Acknowledged here and in all reviews. But VSL is the sole distributor and therefore the only one who can create such a bundle.

With this "proposed" bundle, you could come in well below $1000 making you very competitive since being 64bit, you have an edge. 

But my point is the still roughly the same. My proposed bundle fits an existing workflow that's built around plugins and libraries from who-knows-where, similar to Spat. MIR is a radically different approach. 

My sales point from the review, is that with effective organization, you can enable a customer in the post-community, or composer for that matter, to work in a manner they're comfortable with or to go to MIR, or both.

You hold the cards to do this. But that said, Like Flux, you've got to radically get your documentation into a better format that's easier to read and apply. 

Assume nothing. It must be read, do; read, do; etc.

As I wrote in the review, you can be the Proctor and Gamble of spatial placement and mixing or you can be yet another music tech company with a neat product packaged with typical Silicon Valley styled instruction that wastes time rather than getting people jumping right off the bat.

That's VSL's sales potential. And it's a big one. IF you do something with it!


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 10, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

I think one of the coolest features, since its algorithmic, is the theoritcal ability to have something move from back of the room and come towards you, or have something come from back left, go up to the listeners face, and then go back right, etc. 

I can do this simply by dragging the yellow stereo source button around in their x-y grid. However, I cannot for the life of me seem to get it to record as automation. 

I've tried in logic to assign the distance and Azimuth sliders to midi controllers in "midi learn mode" but its not working. Anyone able to get this thing to actually record automation?

edit: Switched to Automap and its working. FUN! o-[][]-o


----------



## Daryl (Jun 11, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Does SPAT not report all the controllers in the sequencer?

D


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 11, 2012)

After using the full version of SPAT for two days it makes me want to remix everything I have ever done. For me this thing is the chain link that was always missing ... ^>|


----------



## José Herring (Jun 11, 2012)

It can take just about any recording done with any mic in any setting and make it sound like you had some money to record!


----------



## jleckie (Jun 11, 2012)

Are there presets for dummies?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 11, 2012)

jleckie @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> Are there presets for dummies?



No. But if you take the time to learn what each button does it's actually pretty simple.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 11, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Daryl @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> Does SPAT not report all the controllers in the sequencer?


Daryl,

Yes, it does. Which means that, in Logic anyway, you're looking at a near endless list of parameters among which the one you want to automate is terribly difficult to locate.
So, whenever I want to automate one of SPAT's parameters, I simply switch Logic's automation mode to 'Touch', then record a tiny manual adjustment of the parameter (by changing its value in SPAT's GUI) and then the relevant 'automation lane' becomes immediately visible in Logic. Very easy.




jleckie @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Are there presets for dummies?


Jay,

Not sure if they qualify as 'presets for dummies', but there are a number of factory presets, yes. Twelve, to be precise. (I don't really know why José says there aren't.) It's obviously not a comprehensive collection that covers every possible situation, but it's certainly a useful enough range to get started with: a few small spaces, a couple of rooms (incl. 'studio' simulations) and four 'hall'-settings.
_


----------



## José Herring (Jun 11, 2012)

I stand corrected.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

José,

I’m afraid I'm also not entirely in agreement with your encouraging statement that SPAT “is actually pretty simple”. I really don’t think it is. You can certainly use SPAT as a simple piece of software, yes, and it'll do great, but in order to really master this software, to really get to know the full extent of its power, one has to dig quite a bit deeper and then things definitely stop being 'simple', in my opinion.

The thing with SPAT is that the behaviour of many of its parameters depends very much on settings of other parameters, and it does take quite some time to fully grasp all the subtle and not-so-subtle ‘inter-parametric’ activity which is going on inside SPAT.
Furthermore, there are quite a few parameters which one has never encountered anywhere else, and some of those really do require a long close look and some experimenting before they reveal their identity and power, in my experience. Enigmatic parameters, such as ‘Running Reverb’, ‘Envelope’, ‘Drop Mode’, ‘Pitch’, to name just four, may not be all that difficult to 'understand' as such (theoretically, I mean), but I found it really quite difficult to learn how to put these parameters to the best possible use.

I’ve had SPAT for well over 2 years by now, been working with it quite extensively all that time, and I’m _still_ not in full command of all its parameters and features.

_


----------



## Blakus (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

I have downloaded the demo and had a play around and am quite impressed. But as re-peat has stated, I think it will take a while to master properly. I would love to hear some audio demos of people that are successfully using SPAT in their mixes!


----------



## jleckie (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks everyone for their opinions here. Very interesting indeed. This is what I seem to be able to gleam from the conversation and I am trying to apply to my usage:

1.) SPAT is not 64 bit and takes a bit of resources to use. 

2.) If I were to use it for mixing I would be best to apply it to the final mix (audio tracks) in Logic set to 32 bit mode or I would perhaps use the 32 bit bridge in 64 bit Logic.

3.) I would like to use it for mostly spacial placement (forward and back and left and right) for orchestral and electronic pieces. (STEREO mix only) I am not currently setup for Surround.

4.) A bonus would be to be able to move spatially tracks live but from why I understand that may be difficult.

5.) I would not necessarily buy SPAT for its reverb as many other reverbs are out there that may be better? F this is true to some extent, do SPAT users use other reverbs and does SPAT play well with them or do you rely on the REVERBS from IRCAM mainly when using SPAT?

I can see where point 5 probably ties in with the whole SPAT process so point 5 may be invalid. 

Sorry for the rambling thoughts here - I am just trying to lock in on some details. 

thanks for any further insights.


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Hi guys , currently I don't dare to install a demo version on my system,
so could someone do me a favor ? :


I know that José posted some Audio examples with Spat.

But could someone post another short example just using LASS or HS or HB ?
I'm not that much interested in the Reverb , but more in moving a stereo signal
backwards on the stage .


Thanks in advance

Gerd


----------



## leafInTheWind (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

@jleckie - what about using Logic's Mixer's Binaural Panner for spacial placement?


----------



## re-peat (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Jay,

I'm not so sure about any of those 5 points. Let's maybe go over them.
(1) Yes, on Mac: 32-bit at the moment. Resource-wise though, I never considered SPAT all that hungry. I can quite easily run all the instances I need and not rarely does that amount to up to 10 instances. (On a 2x293 Quad-core, that is.) Maybe 10 is not considered much in certain circles, but it's plenty for me.
(2) I've never used SPAT on the MasterOutput. (It seems to me that what SPAT has to offer, is best applied before your mix reaches the MasterOutput.) It's possible of course, no problem, but me, I always use SPAT on 'musically relevant entities' in a mix, be they prominent solo instruments or sections. (And nearly always as inserts as well, hardly ever in a 'send to bus'-configuration, the way reverb is usually applied.)
(3) Yes, fine.
(4) No, it isn't difficult. Or, to put it more accurately: whatever difficulty may arise, has a lot more to do with Logic than with SPAT. You can easily automate any SPAT-parameter you want in Logic (see my earlier post), and if you want to have 'live' control over certain paramters, you only need to know how to set up hardware controllers to interact with plug-in parameters. (Never done that myself though. I always use automation.)
(5) Whenever I use SPAT, I use its reverb as well, as I have no problem whatsoever with its sound (*). But some people do, and if you're among those, you can pick any reverb you prefer and combine it with SPAT. Works very well (if you have the ears to judge the correct balance in the combination of both, that is). If you own, say, QL Spaces, you can easily create a hybrid spatialization (algorithmic 'early' spatialization + convolution-generated tail), by disabling SPAT's reverb and using whichever Spaces-IR you like instead, for the tail. Not something I do often as I find the difference to be superficial at best, but occasionally, a convolution-generated tail might indeed result in a better match with the baked-in reverbs of certain libraries. And when that happens, it would be foolish to ignore it, wouldn't it?

(*) For those who think SPAT's reverb is a bit on weak side: you do know about the 8-channel / 16-channel 'Reverb Density' switch on the Setup-page, don't you? Has quite a profound impact on the sound. (As do quite a few other parameters which haven't been discussed here yet.) Thing is, not many of the presets are saved with the 16-channel switch enabled (the default one isn't, for instance), so it's quite easy to overlook this particular and very important setting. Definitely check out the difference between 8-channel and 16-channel, I would say.

_


----------



## Daryl (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Does SPAT not report all the controllers in the sequencer?
> ...


That's what I thought. It is pretty easy in Nuendo, so I assumed that the AU version couldn't be that different.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Gerd Kaeding @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Hi guys , currently I don't dare to install a demo version on my system,
> so could someone do me a favor ? :
> 
> 
> ...


These libraries are already recorded in a pre-panned position. What do you hope to achieve with SPAT?

D


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Daryl @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Gerd Kaeding @ Tue Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys , currently I don't dare to install a demo version on my system,
> ...


Hi Daryl , 
I thought/hoped to be able to move the sound of a whole (LASS/ or HS) section ( ... a stereo-mix ... ) more backwards/forwards on a virtual stage to give it more depth. 

This way I hoped to better match LASS/HS with live String (Stereo-Mix) Overdubs , which - in my case - have been recorded with a certain distance on a (dry) stage.



Best
Gerd


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Gerd, Jay, 
here are some LASS violins (1.5) and a VSL clarinet. 1st example dry, 2nd example pushed back in LASS by 3 m in a hall that is big but unreverby (think carpeted floor).

Normally SPAT does also a volume correction which makes the difference more drastic but I leveled that out in order to make sure it does more than that.

http://strings-on-demand.com/demos/LASS_Violins_dry.mp3
http://strings-on-demand.com/demos/LASS ... PAT_3m.mp3

http://strings-on-demand.com/demos/VSL_Clarinet_dry.mp3
http://strings-on-demand.com/demos/VSL_ ... PAT_3m.mp3


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Hannes_F @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Gerd, Jay,
> here are some LASS violins (1.5) and a VSL clarinet. 1st example dry, 2nd example pushed back in LASS by 3 m in a hall that is big but unreverby (think carpeted floor).
> 
> Normally SPAT does also a volume correction which makes the difference more drastic but I leveled that out in order to make sure it does more than that.
> ...



Hallo Hannes ,

thanks a lot for posting the demos ! Very kind indeed .

Helped me to make a decision . 

Best
Gerd


----------



## Udo (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Question for Piet, Jose, Hannes_F or others who have the fully functional version of Spat:

Does it provide full functionality to monitor multiple channels binaurally using headphones? A separate product was released, HEar, that does that, but because it's not part of the Ircam Tools bundle and because of Spat's various output encoding options, I assumed it was included in Spat, but I'm not sure now. Has anyone tried it?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Udo @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Question for Piet, Jose, Hannes_F or others who have the fully functional version of Spat:
> 
> Does it provide full functionality to monitor multiple channels binaurally using headphones? A separate product was released, HEar, that does that, but because it's not part of the Ircam Tools bundle and because of Spat's various output encoding options, I assumed it was included in Spat, but I'm not sure now. Has anyone tried it?



Hi Udo,

interesting question, didn't think of that before.
I think the answer is yes, to me it sounds identical to HEar if configured like so (and the reverb part turned off):


----------



## Udo (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Yes, I saw that in the manual, thats's why I assumed it was available, but then look at the output encoding options:

* Pass-trough, i.e. no encoding (default)
* Transaural. A method to reproduce binaural audio when using loudspeakers.
* B-Format 2D. A variant of Ambisonic encoding.
* B-Format 3D
* 2nd order Ambisonic 2D
* 2nd order Ambisonic 3D
* Surround LRS
* Surround LRCS

It only mentions binaural when using loudspeakers. The output of HEar only works with headphones.

BTW, do you have HEar?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Udo @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> BTW, do you have HEar?



Only the trial version. 



> It only mentions binaural when using loudspeakers.



If I understand it right when using headphones you set it to "binaural" in the panning options and to "pass through" in the processing option. The other "processing" capabilities are probably extra simulations for binaural when still using speakers. 

That being said these questions are so special that certainly the Flux:: support is your best adress. If you mail to them they will probably provide you a full function demo.


----------



## star.keys (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



re-peat @ Mon Jun 11 said:


> Daryl @ Mon Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Does SPAT not report all the controllers in the sequencer?
> ...



Hi re-peat, would you mind telling me how to access these 12 presents? I must have clearly missed something, can't find any presents...


----------



## Daryl (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



star.keys @ Tue Jun 12 said:


> Hi re-peat, would you mind telling me how to access these 12 presents? I must have clearly missed something, can't find any presents...


I'm not re-peat but in my manual it's page 33 under Presets. You can find this page easily by typing Presets into the search box in the pdf. :wink: 

D


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

BTW, those of you looking to demo the full version, they do offer a 10 day unrestricted demo if you use an ilok. I was asking them specific questions about some features not available and they just sent me the ilok demo instead.  

Maybe if you email them and ask nicely they will provide one for you too. Makes demoing SO MUCH EASIER when the interface doesn't disable itself.


----------



## Udo (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Hannes_F @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> [....]That being said these questions are so special that certainly the Flux:: support is your best adress. If you mail to them they will probably provide you a full function demo.


I sent the question to Flux support, but didn't get a response yet (and I won't have time to test it further). A simple yes/no answer would suffice. Maybe they're still debating if HEar should have been part of the Ircam Tools bundle.


----------



## jleckie (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks especially to Hannes, Daryl and Re-peat for answering some of my queries. It is really nice you guys who own and work with it are able to devote some of your time to these questions. 

I think I am going to pass on SPAT for now as the general consensus is that it works best with very dry samples (VSL) and live recording of instruments.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

I've been playing with SPAT and VSL MIR, and I must say they are both WONDERFUL products! The biggest drawback with both is that they only have 1 license!! I would love to be able to run SPAT as a plugin in side VE pro on my slave, as well as on my host DAW while mixing (in order to get around Logics darn one core problem). Its also a bit of a drag that MIR only works inside VE pro, but its also FANTASTIC as it can handle multiple instruments with ease in a single interface! (there was also a hint that MIR might be migrating into plugin form, but who knows when, or if MIR 24 will be part of this migration). 

I'm going to have to keep playing around with these tools for a few more days, and pick one, as I cannot afford both for sure (though I can see the benifits of owning both!) I also have to weigh the fact that it seems most libraries are now coming with baked in halls (and sound GREAT), and could make software like this a specialized tool thats not used much in ones everyday work. But I guess if they help me get more milage out of my current tools, then perhaps its worth it.

Lots to think about, and thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts. Maybe I'll post a quick A-B-C of a orchestral piece and you guys can vote on which one sounds the best.


----------



## Udo (Jun 12, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



Peter Alexander @ Wed Jun 13 said:


> Udo @ Tue Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Question for Piet, Jose, Hannes_F or others who have the fully functional version of Spat:
> ...


Yes I know what HEar does. My question is does Spat actually provide that functionality. I initially thought it did, but wasn't able to test it and after closer inspection of the manual I'm not sure. The required algorithms are obviously there. However, it looks like the implementation is only geared towards loudspeakers, not headphones. If that functionality is not part of Spat, I would have at least expected HEar to be part of the Ircam Tools bundle. I put the question to Flux, but haven't had a response yet.

EDIT:
Peter, my question clearly stated what I wanted to know. Looks like your irrelevant response was just a ruse to get a link in to your website (link removed from the quote here)? BTW, HEar can be obtained for $49 elsewhere, $10 less than your price .


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 16, 2012)

How do you guys deal with this situation. I've setup my mix using multiple SPATS for positioning, but now I realize that there is too much wet signal and I want it more dry. 

In MIR, its a simple move of one slider and I'm done. With having multiple instances of SPAT, I now have to open each one individually to change it, which becomes a pain, especially when you want to fine tune the room! It would be great if there was some sort of plugin chaining ala Slate VCC where you can apply changes globally to all instances if you wish. 

On a related note, how is IRCAM and/or Flux as developers? Do they continue to innovate and provide updates? Judging from the fact that SPAT is still on 32-bit it seems they are a little behind the ball, while VSL as a company is CONSTANTLY improving their tools. Granted others have said they are releasing a 64-bit version of SPAT soon, anyone know if it will be a free update? Also their customer support is no where NEAR the quality of VSL. I still haven't gotten a reply regarding any specific questions I have about SPAT. I've sent 3 emails and they only reply I got was to demo the full version of their plugins with ilok - no actual answers to my questions. 

Overall, I must admit, after all my demoing I enjoy the sound of SPAT more then MIR. I do like all the options of MIR, and its an EXTREMELY well designed piece of software, but for the life of me I cannot get it to sound the way I want! To me, its as if the room is just too much, and when you start using that master dry/wet slider it becomes too dry - its hard to find a place that sits right. Its as if the early reflections are too loud or too much vs the tail, or something, and I do not see any balance controls between the two. I did try the MIR "hybrid approach" as explained in the manual and this helps GREATLY (in fact, this is the only way I would use MIR if I were to buy it) but its still not as nice and pure as SPAT. 

Man, if VSL just came out with an algorithmic version of MIR I would be ALL OVER IT! As it stands now, I'm undecided on which, if any to get because of my concerns listed above... :(


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 16, 2012)

JT3_Jon @ Sat Jun 16 said:


> How do you guys deal with this situation. I've setup my mix using multiple SPATS for positioning, but now I realize that there is too much wet signal and I want it more dry.



This is what I do:

Every SPAT instance I use sits in a 16 channel track (8 x stereo), each instrument piped to the according channels.

That way I can change position and room parameters for 8 instruments/groups in one picture.

BTW so far I've used the internal mixdown to one stereo out in each of these instances.



> It would be great if there was some sort of plugin chaining ala Slate VCC where you can apply changes globally to all instances if you wish.



YESS



> On a related note, how is IRCAM and/or Flux as developers? Do they continue to innovate and provide updates? Judging from the fact that SPAT is still on 32-bit it seems they are a little behind the ball, while VSL as a company is CONSTANTLY improving their tools. Granted others have said they are releasing a 64-bit version of SPAT soon, anyone know if it will be a free update? Also their customer support is no where NEAR the quality of VSL. I still haven't gotten a reply regarding any specific questions I have about SPAT. I've sent 3 emails and they only reply I got was to demo the full version of their plugins with ilok - no actual answers to my questions.



I am having second thoughts about that as well. Had a problem with Epure II about a year ago and they did not get back to me for three weeks or so. However when I insisted they reprogrammed something for me within half a day ... which was then very good again.



> Overall, I must admit, after all my demoing I enjoy the sound of SPAT more then MIR.



Me too. MIR seems to be great for single voices but for ensembles it is very colored.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 16, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Sat Jun 16 said:


> JT3_Jon @ Sat Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you guys deal with this situation. I've setup my mix using multiple SPATS for positioning, but now I realize that there is too much wet signal and I want it more dry.
> ...



What DAW do you use?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 17, 2012)

JT3_Jon @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> What DAW do you use?



Reaper


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 17, 2012)

Wow. I might have to try Reaper now (sent you a PM)

partial bump its the last of the SPAT sale, but I also have another gripe with SPAT. Is there a way to save the placement settings while cycling through presets? For example, I have my the setup as I like (i.e. stereo link channels, stereo width, reverb density, etc) for my instrument and placed depth/pan wise in the source menu, but now I just want to hear what it sounds like in a different space. As soon as I change presets, EVERYTHING changes, so I have to re-setup my instrument again. 

Is it at all possible to lock parameters when changing room types for example? I emailed Flux last week but still have yet to receive a reply. 

Man....I'm so torn on this software....


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jun 17, 2012)

JT3_Jon @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> partial bump its the last of the SPAT sale, but I also have another gripe with SPAT. Is there a way to save the placement settings while cycling through presets? For example, I have my the setup as I like (i.e. stereo link channels, stereo width, reverb density, etc) for my instrument and placed depth/pan wise in the source menu, but now I just want to hear what it sounds like in a different space. As soon as I change presets, EVERYTHING changes, so I have to re-setup my instrument again.
> 
> Is it at all possible to lock parameters when changing room types for example? I emailed Flux last week but still have yet to receive a reply.



If you recall the preset from the SPAT window (bottom left area), then there are several options of what to recall (All, All but setup, Reverberation settings, etc.). So maybe try pulling the preset from within SPAT itself rather than from the DAW's plugin preset options.

Hope that helps.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 17, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Thank you, that does help. But unfortunately, though it shows as checked in the plugin, if I still double click on a different setting it resets everything. I have to click on the preset I want to change first (making sure not to double click) and every time go into that submenu in "Recall to A" and click on "All but sources Localization & Setup." Then it loads correctly. 

I wonder if this is a bug, as I would like to alway keep this mode on, and the checkmark next to the name makes it seem like this is the case, but double clicking still changes everything.

Hope my steps makes sense and if someone can replicate it and let me know their result it would be appreciated. I've also tried using SPAT as a multi-channel plugin in the hopes of using more then one per instrument, but thus far I've hit a wall and I'm wondering if its even possible to get separation into the plugin in Logic.


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jun 17, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Hmm. I don't have a session in front of me so can't verify, but I seemed to remember it working a little differently. I thought that when you made a selection in the presets at the bottom (as in selecting "large hall"), no changes were immediately made, but large hall would show up in the bottom window with an asterisk next to it (I presumed indicated a preset "waiting" to be activated). Then, picking one of the recall options "sent" the actual preset values to the plugin? 

Ah, just verified this in the manual. Check the presets section at the end. A quote:

"Recall
Once a preset is selected from the preset list it must be explicitly loaded into the section A or the section B by using the recall button. A preset is effective only after it has been recalled. Double-clicking on the preset name from the list, reloads the preset into the selected slot."

pg34 in the Spat PDF.

So the recall section isn't setting a mode of operation, per se, but is an action initiation with those particular preferences. Otherwise, your preset is sort of "on deck".


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 17, 2012)

... also you can make new presets of your liking plus then recall them fully or only the reverb or only the positions etc.

Regarding the routing: If the DAW of your choice does not allow 16 channel tracks then these would be options that could work with your DAW sending audio to them: Reaper, Bidule, EnergyXT. Did not check it explicitly with EnergyXT but Reaper and Bidule let you send lots of audio streams.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 18, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Sun Jun 17 said:


> ... also you can make new presets of your liking plus then recall them fully or only the reverb or only the positions etc.
> 
> Regarding the routing: If the DAW of your choice does not allow 16 channel tracks then these would be options that could work with your DAW sending audio to them: Reaper, Bidule, EnergyXT. Did not check it explicitly with EnergyXT but Reaper and Bidule let you send lots of audio streams.



Great idea about sending the audio out of Logic into another DAW, but then the question is, how do you get the audio from one program to another? I've heard of people doing this with soundflower, but that limits you to 16 channels....

I'll have to do more research. Thanks again for both of your help Hannes & Audio Genetics Lab. PS its great to see you again AGL! Hope things are well!!


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 18, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

Turns out you CAN get 8 channels (4 stereo) into a single SPAT in Logic. Incase anyone is still following along, here is how you do it. 

choose your surround format under Settings > Audio (I choose 7.1 for 8 channels). Create an Aux, set its format to Surround, Choose a bus as the input for that Aux. 

To route a track to that Aux, set its output to that same bus. 

To route the signal on that track to a specific channel on the bus, use the surround panner (double-click it to get the bigger GUI, click on the individual speakers to activate / deactivate them).

I then set my output for the SPAT bus back to Stereo so it goes out my main output. I also changed the "output arrangement" in SPAT to stereo. 

So you can now process 4 stereo instruments or instrument groups in a single SPAT. This makes changing reverb settings latter in the project a little easier.  Still unsure if I'm actually going to buy this thing though...It does sound really good.

edit: oddly enough though, in my test using 3 multichannel spats each having 4 stereo instruments has the same CPU effect of having 12 individual spats. Perhaps this is due to my samples running from VE pro (and thus are all on one core) but I would have thought I would have saved some CPU?


----------



## JohannesR (Jun 19, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*

For you who have been using SPAT for a while. Do you find it most useful for dry recordings, or is it useful for samples with reverb baked in as well?

Downloaded the demo and messed around with it for a while. My impression that is that it can do things, espescially with dry recorded samples, that can not be done with a convolution approach.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 19, 2012)

*Re: Spat $599*



JohannesR @ Tue Jun 19 said:


> For you who have been using SPAT for a while. Do you find it most useful for dry recordings, or is it useful for samples with reverb baked in as well?
> 
> Downloaded the demo and messed around with it for a while. My impression that is that it can do things, espescially with dry recorded samples, that can not be done with a convolution approach.



Your question is a bit difficult to answer because of the word "useful".

1. SPAT will position the "sound" stage front/stage back, stage left/stage right regardless of whether it's dry, wet, or baked in. 

2. SPAT is not a convolution reverb so it can't, or shouldn't, be compared to one. You can turn its reverb on or off depending on the situation and what you want. As I wrote in my reviews, I used SPAT to place, then added a convo to the sound. So in this sense, it's the best of both worlds. 

3. When I think of reverb, I think of an external unit or VI reverb. When I think about a sound the way you're describing it, I think of the sound where the hall or stage is part of a sound and thus has a more ambient ring to it. That aspect is what gives the sample its character. 

So the questions are:

Q1. Are you wanting to minimize the ambience in the "baked in" samples?
Q2. Are you wanting to make the dryer samples emulate the ambience of the "baked in" ones? 

My answers are:

1. At this point, I don't know. Most of my work has been in learning to place the samples and adjust as needed. I have to try this, although others here may be able to answer right away.

2. I believe the people at Ircam would say, "possibly," as a prime purpose of Spat/Verb is to enable you to create/recreate those spaces. However, in a time crunch situation there are other ways of getting there, as many here can tell you.


----------



## Udo (Jun 21, 2012)

Although I received a free ugrade, I think it's a rather cynical move by Flux to now charge $100 extra for the Tools 1.1 bundle, while the functionallity of HEar and VerbSession is already part of Spat (which includes Verb).

You get of course a 2nd reverb, which could be run on a separate computer (with 2nd iLok), but, although good and useful, it's only subset of Verb with no HD mode.

Anyway, it's still available at the old price of $699, e.g. http://www.mixdsp.net (www.mixdsp.net) (by providing you're email address) and at Dontcrack you'll get up to 20% off when you buy more items (they're the ones that negotiated the special deal with IRCAM and Flux in the first place).


----------



## Question (Jul 6, 2012)

I just bought SPAT and after being very impressed with the demo, I am even more impressed now that I am able access all parameters.

My question; you have "Sources" and you have "Speakers", the number of each depending on how many you specify in the "setup" page. (I am working in stereo)

Why speakers? You have a source, which is the instrument being played, being moved around and oriented in a space, then you have speakers. (which incidentally will mute the sound when de-selected)

The manual doesn't explain very well what these "Speakers" represent. One can move the speakers just as one can move the sources creating a similar effect, what am I missing?

It seems to me that turning off the speakers and just moving the source makes the most sense, but this doesn't seem to be possible.

I am asking here because Flux has not responded to my emails in over a week.

Thanks!


----------



## re-peat (Jul 7, 2012)

Question,

SPAT's speakers are a visual representation of its output channels. Simply put: 'sources' represent inputs, 'speakers' represent outputs.
If you're only working in stereo you can all but ignore SPAT's speakers feature (although it does offer an additional layer of panning possibilities should you like), but when working in multi-channel mixes (surround, custom multi-speaker configurations, etc. ...), the fact that you can carefully position each of SPAT's outputs (and even delay them compared to other outputs) can become quite a useful feature.
If you leave SPAT's speakers at their default position and don't change any of their parameters, their presence is entirely transparent. Turning off a speaker is the same as muting an output channel.

_


----------



## Question (Jul 7, 2012)

Re-Peat,

thanks for the concise explanation, that is how it should be stated in the manual.

My logic says the "Source" is the sound being placed, and the graphic "Head" in the middle represents the listeners position in the sound field. (i.e. "output")


I can see how the speakers could be useful for surround mixes, but when mixing in stereo, it seems that they are a bit counter intuitive. I have found the option to turn off the speaker graphic, and will do so until I grasp the other parameters of this amazing software.

Thanks


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 10, 2012)

Here are some more examples I was quickly able to create. My first attempt at using SPAT properly.

VSL Violins (Three different patches with three individual SPAT plug ins for positioning).

1. Strings Dry (With basic eq) - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/StringDry2.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/StringDry2.wav)

2. Strings SPAT (with same eq at source as above) - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/StringSpat2.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/StringSpat2.wav)

3. Strings Wet - Basic Eq + SPAT + ER + LR using Vienna Suite and FORTI - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/StringWet2.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/StringWet2.wav)


VSL Flute I:

1. Flute Dry - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/FluteDry.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/FluteDry.wav)

2. Flute SPAT - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/FluteSpat.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/FluteSpat.wav)

3. Flute Wet - SPAT + ER + LR using Vienna Suite and FORTI - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/FluteWet.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/FluteWet.wav)


There were little spikes in my CPU ASIO meter with some clicks now and then. However, last time I used SPAT, it did not seem to have this problem. But then again, I was only using two instances and playing back only one at a time. This could be because I am running it in Cubase 64-bit. The website says, it works in 64-bit on Windows. 


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Diffusor (Jul 10, 2012)

Come to think of it I have been having little asio spikes too and DPC Latency checker has been spiking. I had been checking drivers and hardware but hadn't thought of SPAT. Will check for that. Using 32 bit with Nuendo here.


SPAT is pretty damn awesome. I've bought it on the recent sale of IRCAM Tools. It will for sure be replacing VSL Mir Pro. While MIR was very cool SPAT is far more tweakable and sounds way more alive imo. But the biggest thing was the workflow with MIR, the MIR returns are broken and don't come back to the same discrete track, which would be fine if you used all sample instruments in the MIR Pro instance but I mix in live recordingss and have multiple computer slaves. Became a real pita and buzz killer. Plus I had several bugs that never seemed to be fixed, sidechaining with MIR in the mix would cause weird shit with playback for example.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 11, 2012)

Further SPAT Testing with following examples.

I am still getting the hang of a lot of features. 

I am not sure what 'Elevation' does to the sound? So far, I am not able to hear any difference. Same with pitch. 

Here are more examples:

1. Bassoon Dry - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/BassoonDry.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/BassoonDry.wav)

2. Bassoon Spat - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/BassoonSpat.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/BassoonSpat.wav)

3. Bassoon Wet (SPAT + ER + LR using Vienna Suite and Aether for the tail) - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/BassoonWet.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/BassoonWet.wav)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Piano Dry - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/PianoDry.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/PianoDry.wav)

2. Piano with Spat - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/PianoSpat.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/PianoSpat.wav)

3. Piano Wet - (Combined signal, same as above) http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/PianoWet.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/PianoWet.wav)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Samplemodeling Horn Dry - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/SMHornDry.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/SMHornDry.wav)

2. Samplemodeling Horn Spat - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/SMHornSpat.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/SMHornSpat.wav)

3. Samplemodeling Horn Wet (Combined signal) - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/SMHornWet.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/SMHornWet.wav)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Any advice on how to make this sound better is welcome! I want to start using SPAT in my productions as soon as I can because I am so excited!

Please forgive my bad music examples and programming. I have just done a quick job.

Please note that the final combined signal has some tape saturation on the master to give an idea of how it will sound roughly in a produced sound environment. No EQ was used in these tests, unlike earlier examples.

Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Blakus (Jul 12, 2012)

I've just downloaded the demo of spat and am running a single instance over my samplemodeling bus. It sounds great to my ears as is with the default settings. I'm tempted to just keep using the demo


----------



## Blakus (Jul 25, 2012)

I've been fiddling with SM more in my template the last few days and am getting happier with the results. I'm still just using the SPAT demo, initial settings with internal reverb turned off. I'm using an Breeze algo verb for the tail.

This is only slow and simple but I quite like the sound. Fits in quite nicely with my template anyway.

http://www.blakus.com/music/Brassage2.mp3

EDIT:
Here's a version with SPAT turned off so you can hear what it's doing. Note that this will be a little bit louder.

http://www.blakus.com/music/Brassage2noSPAT.mp3


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 26, 2012)

I'm listening now through cheap earbuds, but is the second file non-SPAT version supposed to be fully dry?


----------



## PMortise (Jul 26, 2012)

Tanuj: I can definitely hear the effect. It's "A" > "B" > a very nice "C". 

Blakus: Same thing - and you have a very nice sound going there.

Very helpful examples, gentlemen. Thanks for posting!


----------



## PMortise (Jul 26, 2012)

If anyone has SPAT and QL Spaces, I'd LOVE to hear that combo! :wink:


----------



## Blakus (Jul 26, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Thu Jul 26 said:


> I'm listening now through cheap earbuds, but is the second file non-SPAT version supposed to be fully dry?



No, the second version still has my 2cAudio breeze algo tail. I have just turned off SPAT in that example.


----------



## arapahoe (Aug 8, 2013)

I'm having a problem figuring Spat out. Maybe you can help. I'm using Cubase 7 on a Mac. I'm wondering if you can put two separate instruments into one spat instance? I can't figure out how to do this. 

I have been just coping the Spat reverb to other VST instrument channels and then putting single instruments in each instance. 

Thanks for any help

arapahoe


----------

