Dietz vs Deitz:
This is my pure conjecture, but I think Americans see a less-familiar name, and when quickly scanning your name default to a more common use of how one pronounces the letter D (Dee). So, when typing out your name from memory, the "e" is placed first as people phonetically think of what's more common in english.
We have names/words like Diana, but a lot more like Dedrick, Dean, & DeAndre.
I don't speak German, but my suspicion is that there are a lot more words/names that start with "Di."
Regardless, my apologies!
=======================
So in terms of pinpointing, localization, in MirPro, that the less width, the more specifically the listener will be able to locate the sound. For example, in stereo, if the width is super wide, you'll hear it in both stereo channels even if the source is moved far to the right or left of the MIR venue. But if it's got zero width and is moved to the far right or left of a MIR venue, it is very clear that the instrument is dominate in the matching R/L channel.
In Dolby ATMOS, there is a function for objects called size. At an AVID event the other night, I was told that the size essentially functions like a "stereo spreader." The localization is reduced and more speakers are engaged as the size of the object increases. For example, if you have a small object placed directly overhead, the only two celing speakers will be engaged. It is very clear to a listener that it is directly overhead. But, if you increase the size of the object, the speakers on the sides will begin to get that signal, then while it still sounds like it is overhead, it is more generally so, and it is harder to preceive the precise location of the signal. Note, that increases the size does NOT affect gain/loudness... just like in MIRpro, the width doesn't affect gain at all.
To my original question...
Say I have a solo Oboe in a MIR venue that I want to move across the stage. While MIR can't do motion, an ATMOS object can. However, the prespective of the venue would get messed up if I just put the whole thing, wet/dry, in an object and moved it across the ATMOS space.
To maintain the integrity of the venue, but get movement from one side to the other, my thought was to split the dry signal to the object. Then create duplicates of the oboe in MIR, 7, 8, or 9 of them strung across the stage. The wet signal of that would then be sent to the ATMOS bed, and as the ATMOS object (dry oboe) moves across, the wet signal would FADE between each duplicate oboe strung across the MIR stage, and still maintain prespective of the stage. Finally, reducing the width of the oboes, I'll get a more precise preception of that movement.
That way, in a piece of music, I can establish a "realist" prespective that has moving instruments in a MIR venue, but then as soon as I want to go "surrealist," I can go crazy with instruments flying all over the place. ;)
Does this make sense?