Create Amazing Stereo Field with StereoSavage! 
Watch my Video Demo/Review:
I hope you enjoy!
Sincerely
Mikael “Mike” Baggström
3 Likes
Handy plugin! I use it quite a bit, for “wild” stereo widening on synths, vocals and the like, but it’s also useful for position adjustments on wet orchestral sample libraries, where straight panning causes all sorts of problems.
1 Like
I think it would be interesting to know about it more in depth David @olofson 
I think I know what you mean, but would be better to hear from you first
Well, the first “trick” is real simple: Swap LR! I tend to use that with choirs that only provide women and men (as opposed to SATB), such as EastWest Hollywood Choirs, where the two are recorded slightly to the left and right respectively. That way, the mix is just mirror flipped, and as long as the space is reasonably symmetric, the reverb will still sound as it should.
For other cases, and more subtle adjustments, the “Rotation” feature might work. Where straight panning would push the whole reverb way to the side before much happens with the direct sound, and also doesn’t really work with sources that are already panned, Rotation tends to do a better job. If the reverb stereo image still gets too squished, one might get away with increasing Width a bit to compensate.
Of course, if one can have sufficiently dry close or spot mics routed to a separate mixer channel, that’s better, but since even those mics tend to have a lot of room information in them (especially with brass), the Rotation and Width features still come in handy. Also, some libraries only have more wet mixes, rather than actual room/ambience mics, so one can’t really avoid the baked reverb vs pan problem anyway, short of using only dry mics + artificial reverb.
2 Likes
I understand the issues. I remember years ago during studies when the instructor explained the possible problems with artificial haas-effect for imaging instruments, simulating stage, positions, depth, etc. but I understood too that it was just pure time-wasting topic, as he always talked about “the perfect orchestra simulation”…blah blah…
We both know that it doesn’t work if you have different libraries. And even if you have super dry instruments, it’s really hard to make it sound natural and not phasy. So I have quickly forgot it, and never spend time on that anymore. Definitely good to know how it works, and what problems might occur, but the question is always: Does my music and production really benefit that more if “this and that” happens? I mean like overall quality.
There are books with models that tell you how many ms you should delay + or - in terms of putting the instruments & sounds on stage, and I really have spent time long ago figuring out how to put it into action, and I realized that I was focusing on an issue that doesn’t work with that model in the real world, only to a certain point. I still believe that there is nothing more effective as just putting the sources with your ears into the panorama, using delays, extra reverbs, faders, EQs, pan-knobs…
My point is really, that I like to focus on the really important things, rather than spending so much time figuring out what a “perfect simulation” would sound like in the ears of too technical-minded people, like my instructor, as I realized that nobody really cares at the end of day. How many times someone have said to you that he didn’t like your choir position? “Man, those altos are not were they belong!” Exactly, no one. Of course, it should make sense for you, that’s the most important thing, if you are aware of it, you know it, and you do it. Everyone else never paid attention, as they either like it (your production) or not.
Of course, it’s great to have someone you trust, a second engineer who can check a couple of technical things out, it it’s “technically” alright, however, in most cases it really about the overall feeling and sound.
What do you think @olofson?
2 Likes
The plugin seems to be really handy and cool. Need to check it out later! Thank you for sharing!
2 Likes
Agree with you Alexey, in my view if it sounds good it is good. Of course you should be careful with mono capability, at least on the most important sounds like vocals etc.
“Natural” or “Perfect” imaging etc. is only really available if you attend a real live orchestra anyway. 
Also, I never liked to be constrained by old fashioned “rules” for music, regardless of genres. That is why I love Hans Zimmer’s approach, as he is always trying new things. Like the way he placed the horns in the high far balcony for Dark Knight!
And the way we can now mix different instruments that are not considered “traditional orchestra”, with other acoustic instruments, electric guitars, synthesizers, sound design fx etc. So perhaps we could even ask ourselves, what is “natural” today…as pure acoustic renditions of orchestral music is not really the normal this century. Just one style among others. 
2 Likes
There was another talk about today’s sound actually, what is more “in”, and what is “old”-fashioned. You said it already, at the moment were you have a hybrid setup, do whatever you like and sounds right for you – of course, it should still make sense somehow. And if you have a quartet, a more traditional orchestration, you probably will do better with the traditional approach.
Just a quick example of a hybrid “mindset” approach:
You have spiccato strings, violins, za-za-za, etc. however, you have let’s say a xylophone doubling or complimenting the za-za ostinato. Of course, you can place it in the same spot like the violins for a more compound sound, however, you can put the xylo in the opposite direction (stereo-field) to separate them. In my opinion, there is no right and wrong, the only thing that is important that you don’t shift your overall stereo-image more to one side, thus often times it makes sense to have a scenario like this to spread, if there is no guitar playing the same stuff.
There is never only one way, there are many ways that lead to Rom The question is really, what makes maybe a little bit more sense for a special piece aka. orchestration.
2 Likes
I think it’s important to remember that there is still not enough knowledge about the physics of instruments, room acoustics, psychoacoustics etc to perfectly explain, let alone simulate, everything that’s going on. The theory is certainly usable for identifying problems and making qualified guesses as to how to deal with them, but in most cases, the actual solutions will have to be approximations, tuned by ear to produce the desired results. Scientifically correct solutions are obviously preferable in many situations, but only if there are sufficiently accurate and proven correct models to rely on - and we’re nowhere near that in this field. We barely know enough to analyze things well enough to make qualified guesses.
In short, thinking in terms of a scientifically perfect orchestra simulation is basically equivalent to trying to solve relativistic problems using Newtonian physics. It will not work.
Oh, and all this technical detail aside: Doesn’t help if it’s scientifically correct, if it sounds terrible! I think what we should ultimately be focusing on is creating the desired experience. Even in an acoustic live setting, there is a whole lot of “design” going on, through room shape, placement of instruments, sound treatment etc - so what is actually the “correct” sound of anything anyway…?
2 Likes
Love it! It’s exactly what’s all about!
1 Like
Great point David, and I actually watched a video describing how the acoustic space affected the composers of classical music. It their preferred venue was a small chamber sized room, the composition they wrote was completely different from let’s say a grand orchestral hall setting.
In short, the bigger the space, the better it will be suited towards “smoother” music with longer notes etc. And in smaller spaces those big chordal pieces does not sound as good, and instead focus more in details, spices and faster patterns. Again, just looking at it from a perspective and simplifying.
1 Like