# Current Virtual Stage / Room Placement Tools



## Zoot_Rollo (Feb 14, 2018)

Panagement CM

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/free-stereo-toolkit-panagement-cm-645145

Redmix

http://mildon.me/plugins/redmix

TDR Proximity

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

Oculus Spatializer Native

https://developer.oculus.com/downloads/package/oculus-spatializer-native/
https://developer.oculus.com/downloads/package/oculus-spatializer-daw-win/
https://developer.oculus.com/downloads/package/oculus-spatializer-daw-mac/

EAReverb 2

https://www.eareckon.com/en/products/eareverb2-reverb-plug-in.html

VirtualSoundStage 2.0

http://www.parallax-audio.com/index.php

Vienna Symphonic Library MIR / Pro / Pro24 / x

https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Vienna_Software_Package/Vienna_MIR_PRO
https://www.vsl.co.at/en/MIRx/MIRx_Bundle

Ocean Way

https://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/reverbs/ocean-way-studios.html

Spat

https://fluxhome.com/project/spat-revolution/


----------



## re-peat (Feb 14, 2018)

Hodshonf, you forgot the best one: SPAT.

_


----------



## Kuusniemi (Feb 14, 2018)

I really dig Panagement (got the full version). Very good for many things.


----------



## Casiquire (Feb 15, 2018)

Definitely MIR Pro. I swear by it. I believe you can demo it as well so my suggestion would be to try some roompacks. Some are ok, and some perform miracles. The Mozart hall just blends everything so beautifully together into one orchestra.

Sometimes I'll run things through fairly dry and use other reverb. It just depends on the project.


----------



## mgpqa1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Not sure if this counts, but FabFilter's Pro-R has a distance knob...


> The Distance knob controls the effect of moving closer to, or further away from the sound source in the modelled space. At 0%, the reverb sounds as if you are quite close to the sound source, with more pronounced and brighter early reflections. Increasing the Distance sounds like walking away from the sound source in the current space, resulting in a longer build-up and a more diffuse tail.


So I suppose that in conjunction with the Space knob (room model) and judicious use of panning could produce some interesting results.


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Feb 25, 2018)

Panagement is a winner.

Paid version you can modulate the position - at least the way i understand it from the video.

Crazy.


----------



## I like music (Apr 7, 2018)

@Zoot_Rollo @Kuusniemi - would you mind if I asked a question about Panagement? Does it effectively act as a black-box type of EQ (e.g. the knobs are essentially there in an easy-to-understand language, and the effect of some of them e.g. the distance fader, is to roll of things like the lows?)

What I mean to ask is ... does it also act as a form of EQ? You'll notice from my questions, I do not understand mixing, positioning, or anything outside of crude composition, and have recently tried getting my head around it, so any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Apr 7, 2018)

are there any free solutions for this task?


----------



## I like music (Apr 7, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> are there any free solutions for this task?



I've used Panagement. Most of the placement stuff comes as part of the free plugin. As far as I can tell, it is excellent, but I just wanted to check with people if there are any drawbacks to using placement tools e.g. things to keep in mind.

You should download Panagement for free and check it out.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 7, 2018)

@I like music Panagement messes with the gain, LR/MS channels, applies various EQ filters and effects to do what it does. It is not a substitute for a proper EQ because its controls are based around generalizations regarding positioning of sound sources. It might work well with some sources but not others because you can't change the underlying parameters to fit your particular source.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Apr 7, 2018)

where do you download panagement for free? I think I have to buy an issue of CM for it?


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 7, 2018)

@Dewdman42 Go to https://www.auburnsounds.com/products/Panagement.html and click Free Edition.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Apr 7, 2018)

thanks!


----------



## I like music (Apr 7, 2018)

Jay Panikkar said:


> @I like music Panagement messes with the gain, LR/MS channels, applies various EQ filters and effects to do what it does. It is not a substitute for a proper EQ because its controls are based around generalizations regarding positioning of sound sources. It might work well with some sources but not others because you can't change the underlying parameters to fit your particular source.



@Jay Panikkar. Right. If I understand you correctly, it means that I won't be able to tweak things that I might like/need to tweak (e.g. inherent characteristics of different libraries such as CSS, which sound like they have a darker tone than say SCS). Using only Panagement would cause them both to be treated equally, and thus affect each one of them _differently_, and perhaps not in a way that I might have expected?

For people who use spacialisation plugins such as Panagement (I don't count myself, since I don't actually know how to use it truly!), would it be fair to structure the chain like this?

Option 1:

Source > Panagement for placement (lets say, getting 3 different libraries sitting the "right" distance away) > Reverb > EQ _post_ Reverb (so that I can tweak those inherent differences mentioned above?)

Option 2:

Or would it be better to start with an EQ before the reverb, and once the reverb is in, to add something like panagement at the end? 

I simply don't understand "sound" well enough to know the implications putting reverb, eq, spacialisation in a specific order, if such implications even exist ...

Sidenote: I'm testing and reading as much as I possibly can on the subject, but much of it is pitched at a slightly more knowledgable audience, hence my asking fairly basic questions on the forum.

Thanks to anyone who can help with the above!


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 8, 2018)

I like music said:


> For people who use spacialisation plugins such as Panagement (I don't count myself, since I don't actually know how to use it truly!), would it be fair to structure the chain like this?
> 
> Option 1:
> 
> ...



Unless I'm mistaken, Panagement does not generate any reverb content like VirtualSoundStage and Vienna Symphonic MIR. So you'll want Panagement as an _insert_ in your source channel, then _send_ a copy of the source to the REV in an effects channel. In general use cases, your REV should always be a _send FX_, never a source _insert_.



I like music said:


> I simply don't understand "sound" well enough to know the implications putting reverb, eq, spacialisation in a specific order, if such implications even exist ...



It is essential that you understand some general principles in audio.

There are two methods to processing audio: serial and parallel.

Serial processing is what the _inserts_ in your DAW are for. This is the domain of equalizers and compressors. It is here that you will sculpt the original signal through a series of modifications before it goes out to mains and FX. For example, if you insert an EQ and a COMP in series, you can clean up unwanted frequencies before it is fed to the COMP. Or you could do it the other way around and feed a compressed signal to the EQ to get a different kind of sound.

Parallel processing is what the _sends_ and _FX_ channels in your DAW are for. This is where the REVs and delays go. You want to feed the cleaned up source to FX, but you don't want FX modifying the source. So REVs and DLYs go into parallel channels to which you can send copies of your source. This way you can (a) mess with the dry (source) signals and the wet (effected) signals separately, and (b) send multiple sources to the same FX.

When working with orchestral samples, you'll need to have some idea of audio processing. More often than not, you'll find yourself using orchestral samples from different developers. But they all have their own unique—sometimes radically different—'design philosophy.' Their production process may involve some unique combination of players, venues, engineers, equipment, programmers etc. It's easy to end up with a collection where every section sounds radically different from each other.

For the purpose of orchestral mockup, you'll need your samples to atleast vaguely sound like they're part of the same orchestra. I'm _not_ talking about 'realism' here. Realism comes first and foremost from your composition and your MIDI performance. There's little use in trying to emulate what an orchestra sounds like at a concert. The idea is to emulate the sound quality of a _recorded_ orchestral soundtrack. Your virtual orchestral instruments must blend together in terms of timbre and space.

Apply EQ to get your samples closer timbrally. Ideally, you want to cut frequencies rather than boost them so as to not introduce artifacts. For example, if you're trying to blend the dark tone of Cinematic Studio Strings with the bright tone of Hollywood Brass, cut HB to match CSS. Messing with mic positions may be necessary here. This is the part where you sculpt and clean up the samples _before_ you send them to the FX channels.

To match the samples spacially, you want to create an artificial stage of sorts. If you've matched the sources timbrally, you're already halfway there. If you feed timbrally matched sources to a REV processor, its algorithms will generate a timbrally similar space. The overall idea is to get every section to sit in their own little space within the context of the larger space of the stage. This is where virtual stage positioning tools come into the picture. FX plugins such as Virtual Sound Stage and Vienna Symphonic MIR are specifically geared towards helping you place the sections of your orchestra in an artificial stage by generating REVs at different levels of depth. I suggest reading the many excellent posts regarding the technical aspects of reverberation and its audio processing by @Beat Kaufmann.

There are some additional caveats to consider which goes back to the whole 'design philosophy' thing. You could stick to using only dry samples so you can mess with them as you like—but most orchestral samples are recorded _in situ_, with the section players seated in their correct positions on the stage. If you're trying to blend dry samples and wet samples, you need to match the dry samples to the wet samples. If you're blending wet samples recorded in different spaces, you will have to match them timbrally first and then put a reverb on top of everything to "glue" their spaces together.

Remember that the idea is to emulate the sound quality of a _recorded_ orchestral soundtrack, and _not_ what an orchestra sounds like at a concert. You only need to _approximate_. The purpose of mixing is to get all the individual elements to sound good _together_ as a whole track; it is not about saturating every instrument such that it pops out of the speakers when played solo.

All of this is easier said than done. You'll need good ears first of all. You'll need speakers and headphones with a balanced frequency response and proper range. There's a lot of trial and error involved, so you'll need patience. All this will take precious time and energy away from your compositions.

Do give it a shot, but if you ever find this process frustrating, try to find an engineer to do it so you can focus on your compositions.


----------



## Casiquire (Apr 8, 2018)

This kind of useful and thoughtful help is exactly what this forum should be about. Than you @Jay Panikkar for taking the time to help someone else.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Apr 8, 2018)

@Casiquire


----------



## I like music (Apr 8, 2018)

Jay Panikkar said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, Panagement does not generate any reverb content like VirtualSoundStage and Vienna Symphonic MIR. So you'll want Panagement as an _insert_ in your source channel, then _send_ a copy of the source to the REV in an effects channel. In general use cases, your REV should always be a _send FX_, never a source _insert_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I cannot thank you enough. This is the clearest description someone has given me, and it has been _very very _helpful. Thank you for taking the time! I can now stop reading threads on HZ Strings and give some actual music a go!


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Apr 12, 2018)

i like Breeze 2.0 (Set to Balance toward AMB) after something like Panagement on each channel for initial space def.

low CPU usage.

then an FX bus for the tail.


----------



## I like music (Apr 25, 2018)

Making lots of good progress thanks to the posts here. I had one more question ... panning.

Is there a particular reason one shouldn't use the panning faders available in the instruments themselves (e.g. panning within the SWAM UI?). Everything sounds good so far ... but in some cases, left-right placement could help a bit and I wondered if this is something I should do with a specific plugin?


----------



## Casiquire (Apr 25, 2018)

I like music said:


> Making lots of good progress thanks to the posts here. I had one more question ... panning.
> 
> Is there a particular reason one shouldn't use the panning faders available in the instruments themselves (e.g. panning within the SWAM UI?). Everything sounds good so far ... but in some cases, left-right placement could help a bit and I wondered if this is something I should do with a specific plugin?



Generally those squash the stereo image of the sound. You could lose some detail, and sometimes the 3d feel of the sound. It depends on the situation of course, you can use that panning too if it sounds right!


----------



## Divico (Apr 25, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> Generally those squash the stereo image of the sound. You could lose some detail, and sometimes the 3d feel of the sound. It depends on the situation of course, you can use that panning too if it sounds right!


Sounds legit. Thanks! The downside though is that psychoacoustic panning methods like panagement introduce a channel delay that can mess up mono compatibility. Althouth the question is who´s litening to orchestral music in mono anyway :D


----------



## Casiquire (Apr 25, 2018)

Divico said:


> Sounds legit. Thanks! The downside though is that psychoacoustic panning methods like panagement introduce a channel delay that can mess up mono compatibility. Question is who´s litening to orchestral music in mono anyway :D



Of course, context is important and you should have a reason for why you're using what method you're using. Also at some point in mixing it's common practice to give it a few listens in mono, not that I can remember to do that every time lol let's be honest


----------



## I like music (Apr 25, 2018)

Casiquire said:


> Of course, context is important and you should have a reason for why you're using what method you're using. Also at some point in mixing it's common practice to give it a few listens in mono, not that I can remember to do that every time lol let's be honest



Thank you both. Went the panagement route, and happy with the results! My concern was if it would put extra load on my shitey machine, but it seems to have done just fine.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Mar 18, 2020)

mir is less about placement more about convolution. 

there are *some* placement things going on under the hood, but that's an important distinction - as some of these tools have little to no tail/ect added. 

MIR pro is certainly one of the best for bone dry anechoic stuff


----------



## S R Krishnan (Mar 18, 2020)

2C Audio's Precedence does it!


----------



## muk (Mar 19, 2020)

A little gem I've been recommending for years is Independence Origami:






The free software sampler – Independence free


Magnificent sound design with MAGIX Independence Free. The software sampler offers countless ways to find your own sound.




www.magix.com





I'm not certain if the free version includes all the features of the pro one. But the paid one is only 70$, so rather low cost compared to Spat and MIR.

You can import Impulse Responses, adjust their parameters, and then use the stage placement tool to easily position instruments in the room. The GUI is dated, but it is easy to use, lets you adjust all the necessary parameters, and sounds fabulous to my ears.


----------



## S R Krishnan (Mar 19, 2020)

muk said:


> A little gem I've been recommending for years is Independence Origami:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes an absolute gem use it everyday!


----------



## muk (Mar 19, 2020)

S R Krishnan said:


> Yes an absolute gem use it everyday!



Agree. It's my go-to spatializer since a long time. Some of the other effects that are included are top notch as well by the way . Well worth checking out.


----------



## Illico (Mar 19, 2020)

muk said:


> A little gem I've been recommending for years is Independence Origami


What about the Cubase embedded tools, like REVerence with custom impulse responses.
Or Nuendo with Anymix Pro tool ?


----------



## Anders Wall (Mar 19, 2020)

Dear Reality dearVR MUSIC


Mix your music in 3D! In any DAW, and all you need is a set of headphones!




www.plugin-alliance.com





I use it to up-mix mono material.
A nice studio/room/hall depending on source, take the size down too 50 and lower the room feed a few dB.
Then position the "player" in the virtual space and use the master to even out the gain.
Remember to set out to Speakers if you monitor through such devices 
Here's a setting that worked nice on this file -->
Fionn Regan - 12-213_551-09 01_03 - the horses are asleep - 4440653.wav.new.01-RX7MR_01-01

The editor sent me the music in mono, it's just underscore.
I used RX7 to remove a few dB of vocals, it's underscore 






Best,

Anders


----------



## muk (Mar 19, 2020)

Illico said:


> What about the Cubase embedded tools, like REVerence with custom impulse responses.
> Or Nuendo with Anymix Pro tool ?



REVerence is a capable reverb. It does not have a stereo placement tool, however. Of course you can adjust stereo width, panning, distance eq etc. manually. Origami is much quicker for me though, and sounds very good.

@Anders Wall I tried dearVR too. It's a nice tool, and certainly so if you bought it for 30$ in the recent sale. The downside for me was that it does not offer much control over the reverb part. You can adjust only a few parameters. In the end I sticked with Origami, though dearVR is very good too.


----------



## rrichard63 (Mar 19, 2020)

S R Krishnan said:


> 2C Audio's Precedence does it!


Especially when used with 2CAudio's Breeze reverb, with which it is integrated. The combination is marketed as the PBJ Spatial Mixing Environment.


----------



## Anders Wall (Mar 19, 2020)

muk said:


> @Anders Wall I tried dearVR too. It's a nice tool, and certainly so if you bought it for 30$ in the recent sale. The downside for me was that it does not offer much control over the reverb part. You can adjust only a few parameters. In the end I sticked with Origami, though dearVR is very good too.


Yup, when I use it to position stuff I always turn off the reverb, I believe it's there as a extra feature and not really part of the main effect. I might be wrong, so don't take my word for it. It sure does feel like it would be, much like some hardware synths have built in effects.
But for up-mix its nice to have some ambience.
I really dislike the Waves up-mix tools, they do bad things can't put my ear around it.
I never use those.

The old version of SPAT is still the queen of placement, but turnaround these days is so short that I seldom use it anymore. Shame really.

Origami sounds interesting, but no AAX.

Best,
Anders


----------



## Kris (Apr 20, 2021)

Dear Reality dearVR MUSIC


Mix your music in 3D! In any DAW, and all you need is a set of headphones!




www.plugin-alliance.com





Would this help?


----------



## Blueserman (Oct 3, 2021)

HOFA IQ Reverb also has a very easy to use positioner.









HOFA IQ-Series Reverb V2 | HOFA-Plugins


Mit EQ, Kompressor, Modulation, Saturation, Gate, […]




hofa-plugins.de


----------

