# Spatial Placement - Basic Questions (Spat, VSS, Mir Pro, Vienna Power Pan, etc)



## Ultra (Jan 8, 2017)

Hello,

I apologize for the long post.

I'm trying to understand more thoroughly the basic workflow for spatial placement in virtual orchestration, and there are a few questions that I have for some specific scenarios.

Please correct where wrong and/or share your experience !


*(I) Multi-Library Project: Dry vs. Room-baked-in libs - Identifying the libs that need to be placed/adjusted*

In my understanding, I would identify the library (used in my current multi-lib project) that has the most "room baked in" (label: "target room") - leave all VIs from that library as is - and use spatial placement on all other libs (used in my current multi-lib project) to try to bring them as close as possible into the "target room".

Example 1:

Multi-lib project with 3 instruments from 3 different libs:

> Orchestral Tool Berlin Strings - a little bit room baked in
> Sample Modeling Brass - completely dry
> Spitfire Albion - lots of room baked in

Spitfire (based on my knwoledge of the recording room) would be the "target room". I would use spatial placement software (Spat, VSS, etc) on the OT BST and SM Brass.

Questions:

(a) First off, is that the correct, general approach ?

(b) what is your general workflow of identifying the "target room" library ?

For some of the major libs, there is information available in which room they were recorded and how much ER+RT60 that room generally has. But clearly a lot of things can happen in post before the lib gets released to the customers (so those numbers may be off).

Do you simply play it by ear to identify the "most wet" lib in your project or do you go by the known information of the recording location ?
And since recording location of LASS was undisclosed, how do you handle those libs ? Again, simply rate the "wetness" by ear ?

(c) If (a) is correct, how do I bring the OT BST & SM Brass (as close as possible) into the same Sptifire Albion "target room" ?
(I know SM Brass needs to be positioned while OT BST was recorded in place, so for this question, please consider SM Brass already positioned)
Which parameters need to be adjusted in the spatial placement software ?
Is it just early reflectios or do I need to consider any other room parameters ?

(d) How do I validate/verify/confirm that the OT BST & SM Brass are (relatively speaking) in the Spitfire "target room" ?
Do I solely listen by ear and judge off that ?
Or are there any visual tools that would additionally help and guide me on how to adjust the parameters discussed under (b) ?

*
(II) Analyzing & matching stereo width between pre-seated, pre-panned libs*

I'm not sure whether this is the best way of keeping sound quality compared to simply centering these sources before routing them into the spatialization app... (?)

In any case, this is example 2 - slightly different than example 2

Multi-lib project with 4 instruments from 4 different libs incl. 2 string libs:

> Orchestral Tool Berlin Strings - a little bit room baked in
> Audiobro LASS
> Sample Modeling Brass - completely dry
> Spitfire Albion - lots of room baked in

Again, Spitfire is the most "wet" lib and would be the "target room".

Focus here is on the OT BST & LASS strings, which were both recorded pre-seated. The intent is to layer BST with LASS, so they need to be sitting in the same strings section and the directional sound output has to be very similar for realism.

Unless otherwise indicated, we are using close mics.

(a) how do you evaluate the stereo width and general signal of a sample source ?

I know Vienna Power Pan has a nice visual overview. Are there any other solutions that offer a similar visual feature ?
Does Spat show a visual graphic of the stereo signal of a given input ?

(b) in my understanding, I would then use stereo width adjustment and stage front to back (distance) placement to try to match the stereo field of the LASS & OT BST.

Are there any other spatial parameters I need to consider to try to get these 2 libs to match ?

Are there any concerns/problems adjusting these parameters (to match stereo field) in regards to the bigger picture, which is to ultimately bring both LASS & OT BST into the same Spitfire "target room" (by adjusting early reflections) ?

(c) would you EQ the LASS input (which are the additional layers for OT BST) to more closely match OT BST before you bring them into the spatial placement app ? Or would you rather EQ LASS inside the spatial placement app ?

IIRC, I saw that Spat for example has a built-in EQ...

(d) what is your opinion on centering pre-seated, pre-panned libs before routing them to a spatial placement app ? Does the centering reduce overall sound quality ?

(e) is the workflow for the other mic positions (that are often available in a given lib) the same as for close mics ? Or are there important caveats/differences ?

*
(III) Spatial Placement w/ or w/o Reverb*

What is your general workflow for applying a final, covering reverb when spatial placement has been done within the project ?

Do you do the spatial placement and turn off the reverb (seems like Spat has a direct setting for that) and then apply a covering reverb later down the stream on an AUX bus that includes all libs, including the one that was the "most wet" and was identified as the "target room" ?

To me this seems like the best workflow and I see people post that they use Spat to position only and w/o reverb but curious what other workflows are and what possibly advantages they may bring...


Thanks so much and again sorry for the long post !


----------



## muk (Jan 9, 2017)

About *(I)*:

The approach you are describing sounds good (pun intended). However, one library you mention would not benefit from that treatment:



Ultra said:


> Spitfire (based on my knwoledge of the recording room) would be the "target room". I would use spatial placement software (Spat, VSS, etc) on the OT BST and SM Brass.



Using Spat or VSS won't help you making sound OT BST like Albion. Spat and VSS are tools for stereo placement, they let you shift where the sound is coming from on the virtual stage. Berlin Strings is recorded in situ, meaning the sections sounds are already coming from the correct place on the virtual stage. There is no need to use Spat or VSS (or normal panning, predelay, l-r delay (Haas effect) if you want to do it manually) on it. In fact, I would avoid using them on BST whenever possible. Berlin Strings has less reverb than Albion, as the studio it was recorded in is smaller and less reverberant. Berlin Strings doesn't need stereo placement to blend with Albion, but a bit more reverb.

SM Brass, however, is recorded closely and from center. Here you want to place the sound on the virtual stage, and Spat and VSS are tools that let you do that. Of course, and as you mentioned, SM Brass is also recorded dry and does need reverb on top of stereo placement.

About *(II) d*:



Ultra said:


> (d) what is your opinion on centering pre-seated, pre-panned libs before routing them to a spatial placement app ? Does the centering reduce overall sound quality ?



A pretty firm one: don't do it. Those libs sound the way they are intended to naturally. There is absolutely no need to center pan them virtually, and then repan them again. There is a lot of harm you can do to the sound with that approach, and very little good. 

What you haven't covered is using reverb on individual libraries. As written above, BST has less reverb tail than Albion. LASS has less reverb tail than BST. So you'd need to a bit of reverb tail to match BST with Albion. And a bit more tail for LASS. Then, if they all sound more or less similar, you may - or may not, for that matter - want to add a bit of reverb on the mixbuss for glueing the different libs together. Go with what your ears tell you.


Overall you thought the issue through thoroughly, and now you can start experimenting. You will find that it isn't as hard as it seems to blend different libraries, and even if the reverbs are not exactly the same they will still blend allright. I find reverb to be one of the more forgiving parts of a mock up (the midi programming being the least forgiving one by far. So invest most of your time there!).


----------



## Ultra (Jan 9, 2017)

muk, thanks !

I think you're hitting on something that I hadn't properly explained, or maybe I'm wrong. I thought that Spat includes a reverb. So if a lib was recorded pre-seated (like OT BST), I could still use Spat to just add more reverb to match Albion. But I'm not sure if one can ignore the positioning feature in Spat (if the position is already good) and just use the reverb... (?)

But thinking about your post, brings up three related points:

(And I absolutely agree with the general approach of keeping sound quality at a maximum and to not mess with the signal unless needed, ergo: don't use spatialization when there is no benefit)

(1) If I use the *close mics* only from OT BST, doesn't that completely eliminate the inherent pre-seating ? So now I would use Spat to freely position the strings where I want them (and add reverb within Spat to match Albion)...

(2) There are quite a few orchestral seating plans. Let's say - as an example - OT BST has the Violins 2 recorded pre-seated behind the Violins 1. But I want them in the traditional position on the right side.

What would be the approach in this scenario to re-position them with a spatial app considering they have positioning baked-in ? Only use close mics in Spat, VSS etc ?

(3) If I want to match (and spatially position relative to each other) two string libs like LASS & OT BST (both recorded pre-seated) because I use both of them in the same project, I thought this is best done in a spatializer using stereo width & distance controls ?

Thanks !!!


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Jan 9, 2017)

To add one thing to your considerations:

Quality wise I would compare Spat & MirPro and lesser so VSS2.

Especially if you would choose the latter be sure to reduce as much as possible ( or eliminate) the ER's. The overal sound in VSS2 gets too much altered in a way that is not benefitial in my experience.
It can still be a handy tool but I stopped using it mostly.

Earreverb 2 also has a spacial placement built in, a much more cost effective investment but with very good quality.

I don't think anyone has done a comparisson with Spat vs Earreverb2 but if done well not much difference will be noticed I believe.

All this is maybe some extra waffle, but hopefully useful in your considerations nonetheless.


----------



## muk (Jan 9, 2017)

1) you'd have to check, but you are right, it's very possible that the close mics aren't panned. In that case you can use Spat/VSS/whatever just like you described above. However, maybe you'd be better off using the tree mics. I know that then you have the Teldex natural reverb baked in, but in my opinion it's not that difficult to blends different reverbs. I'd experiment with both approaches and see which you like best.

2) in that case I would be using a different strings library personally. Something that isn't prepanned. But if you want to do it with BST, yes then I would use the close mics and repan them with something like Spat. This kind of defies the advantages of using a wet recorded library though. If you do this pay close attention to any reverb baked in. Repanning reverb usually just doesn't work at all, so try to avoid that as much as possible (aka yes, use close mics only).

3) it's convenient to do with the likes of Spat and VSS, but you could do it manually as well. Stereo width can be manipulated pretty easily (caution, really use your ears here and only do as much as absolutely necessary). For distance you could use predelay and eq, or there is a cool free tool from Tokyo Dawn Labs:

http://www.tokyodawn.net/proximity/

If you have the time experiment with the different approaches and go with whatever you like best.


----------



## Ultra (Jan 9, 2017)

@Silence-is-Golden: closely eyeing Spat as I'm also doing Foley work

@muk: so (circling back to IIa), what are good options to evaluate if a close mic sample is panned ? Does Spat have a visual overview of how the energy in a sound source is positioned, similar to how PowerPan has it ?


----------



## muk (Jan 9, 2017)

Simply listen. Does the sound come from the center, or is it coming slightly from left or right? And you can use an analyzer tool to get visual feedback about what's going on. I don't know if Spat has one integrated, but Flux offer a free one:

http://www.fluxhome.com/products/freewares/stereotool-v3


----------



## Musicam (Jan 9, 2017)

Hi, whats your opinion about Anymix pro?


----------



## muk (Jan 9, 2017)

Musicam said:


> Hi, whats your opinion about Anymix pro?



Was that question directed at me? Unfortunately I can't comment, I haven't tested Anymix.


----------



## Musicam (Jan 9, 2017)

is the same tool like Splat?


----------



## Ultra (Jan 9, 2017)

muk said:


> Simply listen. Does the sound come from the center, or is it coming slightly from left or right? And you can use an analyzer tool to get visual feedback about what's going on. I don't know if Spat has one integrated, but Flux offer a free one:
> 
> http://www.fluxhome.com/products/freewares/stereotool-v3


thanks, I'll check it out !


----------

