(sorry, I posted this also in the libraries list - please respond here)
Several Up/Down programs have different positions in the stereo image for the Up and Down samples.
For example, check 1st V Sul Tasto mp UpDn Alt 88, one of the G notes.
These stereo differences apply to some notes, not all. If you play such notes alternating, the entire group of players seems to magically move by a few meters!
2nd Vln Spiccato UpDn ALT 88, lower G note.
Examples can also be found in other Alt programs.
I am little bit surprised by this. It sounds as if some notes have been recorded with different microphone positions (or with different player locations).
Is this something that might easily be repaired, e.g. with articulation files or updates? I am not yet familiar with this kind of \"batch\" repairing. My GOS is from End Dec.
Another remark: the Up samples of lower C, C# and D in this same 2 Vlns Spiccato UpDn Alt 88 program have less high frequencies than the rest of the surrounding samples, which suggests to me that they have been derived from a single bad sample. Can individual samples be updated as well?
Not to be to nitpicky, but I have also noticed this on the 1st violin up/down mf sautilles on 1 or two notes. I panned the violins to 42 percent, 0-64 being left to center, 64 to 127 being center to right, but one or two notes of either the up or down bows (not quite sure, but I know its in the high register) will jump out on the left side of the speaker at about 85 percent.
The source of the variations is easy to understand: Within a group of players during a sampling session, the most audibly prominent player(s) for each recorded note can vary (in fact, it would probably be close to impossible to have total consistency). The relatively wide seating arrangement makes these variations more noticeable. This could also have been minimized at the time of the recording sessions through different seating arrangements, but we wanted to put the decisions concerning positioning primarily in the hands of the user. This way, the sections could be panned as desired while still maintaining much of the real stereo image in the process. Taking the step of panning the sections can minimize the audibility of these natural variations by creating a section that is narrower in width. Panning options were covered nicely in a previous thread – you might want to do a search on the forum to find that information. But to answer your question: Yes, these variations will be addressed in a future update to make them more consistent (although a certain amount of variability can help add to the illusion of many musicians playing, so long as repetition doesn\'t reveal the recurring shift and the shift isn\'t too extreme).
P.S. Prior to an update, if there is a particularly distracting note (Damon) in something on which you are working, you can go into the editor and adjust the panning for the individual regions (or velocity splits within regions, layers, etc.). Just highlight the region in question and adjust the panning at the Mix/Layer tab. I will be using additional techniques for the update, but this should help in the meantime. Don’t forget to save.
Thanks Tom for the advice. I believe I only heard one high note (maybe a high C) on the Up/Down mf sautilles that did that. I didn\'t know you could do the panning thing in the editor. Thanks for the tip
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KingIdiot:
you are given both left and Right channel panning in the DSP mixer so you can create the actual width you want. This helps for Reverb, and placement within reverb.
You guys beat me to it. I saw this thread in the general forum.
I concur with King\'s reccomendation. I discovered this on several of my early productions, and the easy answer is to collapse both sides of the stereo image towards each other via the individual channel pans in the DSP Station (or do it in your multitrack mix after you\'ve rendered the part to disk).
Another point I\'d make, since this issue does bring it up...I\'d very highly reccommend always \"printing\" your individual parts to 24-bit disk-based tracks and mixing them in a DAW application. GigaStudio is a very difficult environment in which to achieve a good mix, and I am always amazed at the difference in quality between my DAW mixes and my Giga \"roughs.\" Not just reverb or effects, but the entire quality and spaciousness of sound. In the ideal world, this shouldn\'t be an issue, but for some reason it is. Even the same mix, no effects, sounds so much better if all the individual tracks are first broken out and rendered.
ps. I also make very liberal use of mono tracks, as King mentioned. Combining 20-30 individual stereo tracks can lead to a LOT of mud...