Member
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:23 pm
- Location: Calne, Wiltshire, UK
I have recently upgraded to HW8 and I have just discovered how to truncate releases in the voicing screen, as well as how to have up to four differently voiced versions sent through four different routes (I gather this was added in HW5 but I have only just worked it out). I can see the potential for reducing the reverberation for very wet sample sets, and for optimising a wet stereo organ for a surround system. However, I don't know what settings work well, and so far I haven't liked the results very much.
My system has 6 stereo channels arranged in 3 groups, with three pairs of speakers at the front, two at the sides (mid) and one pair at the rear. I also have a sub-woofer that gets a mix-down of everything but has its own crossover. For organs recorded in 6-channel surround (or more) I send the direct channels to the front, the diffuse to the mid and the rear/surround to the rear speakers (different producers use different terminology but I hope you get the gist). This can sound very realistic and really gives the sense of being in a large space.
Many of the sample sets that I have are 2-channel stereo, however, and I haven't worked out the optimum way to route them. Generally I have been doing it by division, with the Great / Swell to the front, Choir / Positif to the mid and pedal (and any fierce solo stops) to the rear. However, that doesn't provide the same sense of space.
The ability to truncate the release tails by different amounts in different channels does look as though it has potential here. My first thought was to send truncated samples to the front group, the original wet samples to the mid and the wet samples to the rear with a slight delay (somebody created a few impulse response files that simply delay the sound without adding any reverb). I have been truncating the front samples to somewhere between 1/2 and 1 second, as I am aiming for an increase in clarity, not a completely dry channel.
I suppose another way of doing it would be to truncate the samples more severely and then add IR to the mid and rear channels. However, this would give a different acoustic space from the one the actual organ has, and which it was voiced for.
Really I suppose I am after a way of adding more sense of space to most stereo samples, and more clarity to the really wet ones (such as Salisbury, Berlin Steinmeyer and Poblet) that sound a bit muddy in my system.
My system has 6 stereo channels arranged in 3 groups, with three pairs of speakers at the front, two at the sides (mid) and one pair at the rear. I also have a sub-woofer that gets a mix-down of everything but has its own crossover. For organs recorded in 6-channel surround (or more) I send the direct channels to the front, the diffuse to the mid and the rear/surround to the rear speakers (different producers use different terminology but I hope you get the gist). This can sound very realistic and really gives the sense of being in a large space.
Many of the sample sets that I have are 2-channel stereo, however, and I haven't worked out the optimum way to route them. Generally I have been doing it by division, with the Great / Swell to the front, Choir / Positif to the mid and pedal (and any fierce solo stops) to the rear. However, that doesn't provide the same sense of space.
The ability to truncate the release tails by different amounts in different channels does look as though it has potential here. My first thought was to send truncated samples to the front group, the original wet samples to the mid and the wet samples to the rear with a slight delay (somebody created a few impulse response files that simply delay the sound without adding any reverb). I have been truncating the front samples to somewhere between 1/2 and 1 second, as I am aiming for an increase in clarity, not a completely dry channel.
I suppose another way of doing it would be to truncate the samples more severely and then add IR to the mid and rear channels. However, this would give a different acoustic space from the one the actual organ has, and which it was voiced for.
Really I suppose I am after a way of adding more sense of space to most stereo samples, and more clarity to the really wet ones (such as Salisbury, Berlin Steinmeyer and Poblet) that sound a bit muddy in my system.