Thanks! And as I said earlier, you can do many things "wrong" if you don't know what you're doing. :D But I love testing out things, and MIR Pro is very good tool for this. I correct: We not only need a tutorial, we need a Dietz masterclass.

MIRx is great as it is, only a little wet. I think I now found a good setting by only reducing the secondary microphone volume and a bit of the reverb length. That's it!

One last question (I promise!):
So delay means "pushing back". Understood. The main microphone in your MIRx settings has on Y-offset of -1.50. Could this alternatively be done with the delay? Would this be the same result? I mean, if you set the offset back to 0 and delay the microphone by 4.5ms.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Like mentioned before, you can't fully mimic a Decca-tree by means of an Ambisonics microphone array, which is a coincident mic setup by definition.

Right, but nontheless I learnt a lot more. Thanks for taking your time! Always a pleasure to diving into your realm of knowledge.

Maybe you should make a tutorial or something to show MIR Pro in an understandable way "once and for all". I can imagine that you're tired of answering the same question over and over again. :D

Originally Posted by: Dietz

What happens in MIR now is that you push the Main Microphone more than 7 meters backwards, further away from the source and acoustically "behind" the Secondary Microphone. If you like the sound you achieve with these settings, everything is fine - but you should be aware of the fact that this is far from everything you would hear in an actual recording. :-) 

Kind regards,

Good to know, thanks for clarifying. 

So, actually you can't compare the Synchron settings to MIR Pro? Because the decca/main is delayed there. I only wanted to understand. :) 

Hm... actually I like it both.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

And yes, delaying them can definitely make sense. If you look through the factory settings you will see several setups which make use of delay for specific capsules. I doubt that I would find lots of use for a global delay for all capsules, though (except for special FX).

Thanks, again.

I now have all capsules of the the main microphone with a delay of 21 and the secondary without any delay. Although there are differences, this is typically the average setting in the Synchron presets. I attached screenshots and my settings for those interested.

If you say this can definitely make sense, I'm happy. Because it sounds different to your MIRx settings: less wet and less "boomy". Also, I like that the direct (close) signal is in some way "clearer" (i.e. not so much "colored"), if this makes sense. Honestly, I A/Bed the settings several times, and I'm not sure if I hear a difference anymore. XD

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. :)

Yes, a Secondary Mic behind the Main Mic is a good way to achieve a nice enveloping surround sound from most Venues. Just keep in mind that there's no dry signal from the Secondary Mic, so you will need surround capsules from the main mic for seamless positioning on the sides. - If you aim for a pure L/C/R stage in the front and room only from the rears, there's no actual need for them, but remember that ithis approach might create a "gap" between front speakers and rears.

HTH,

Thanks, Dietz! I'm not using a surround setup – if this is what you're talking about. I don't understand everthing, I have to admit. :) Only wanted to know if the secondary microphone in MIR Pro is more like the "standard" surround, the high surround or the high microphones in the Synchron libraries? But I think it's the "standard" surrounds, because they are behind the decca tree.

Also want to know your opinion on the delay on the main micophone, because I'm not really sure if this makes sense in MIR Pro. Wouldn't this be counterproductive?

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Example: https://www.vsl.co.at/de/BBO_Map/BBO_Tana#!Mixer_Presets

I gave it a try in MIR Pro and it instantly removes the "boominess" I didn't like. 

Did you put the delay on just the L/R capsules or the L/R and C capsules?

On both, as in the screenshot (main = L/R capsule, main-c = C capsule). I also tried with changing the volume of the C capsule. But honestly, there are so many options in MIR Pro you can either drastically change the MIRx settings with this or very easily "destroy" the sound. XD

Dietz, I have another question regarding the delay I mentioned earlier. I'm referring to Synchron Strings and the BBO libraries again.

In the Synchron Player the tree has actually a delay of 21, not the ambient microphones (which have 0, but not in every preset).

Example: https://www.vsl.co.at/de/BBO_Map/BBO_Tana#!Mixer_Presets

I gave it a try in MIR Pro and it instantly removes the "boominess" I didn't like. But I'm wondering if it makes really sense to give the main microphone a delay.

I know there are additional Highs and High Surround microphones in the Synchron libraries, which we don't have in MIR Pro. Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. :)

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Concept-wise the readily positioned "dry" input signal _is_ the close mic in the world of MIR Pro. It just depends on the dryness of the recording. That's why MIR Pro is the ideal environment for Vienna Instruments.

Yes, I know.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Which is an unambiguous sign that you basically prefer stereo spot mics, too. ;-) What do you expect from a mono mic that a stereo setup couldn't pick up?

Actually, I don't know. :D I'm happy that the Silent Stage instruments were recorded that way. A mono microphone as MIR Pro's spot microphone won't have the same sound and stereo width.

I was only wondering, because in these "Hollywood" libraries the spot is in most cases mono. Having a main microphone mixed with a mono spot does indeed sound different than having a stereo spot. Reducing the stereo width in MIR Pro won't give me this combination of wideness and closeness at the same time; MIR Pro is a good compromise between the two.

To make a long story short: Apparently I like both approaches.

Thanks! 

In the majority of libraries the close microphone is mono, but it's of course not standardized. The Silent Stage recordings for me are not really close enough to call them "close" microphones as in other libraries, it's more like a "mid" microphone (depending on the instrument). A dimension violin on it's own would be a contender.

Reducing the width doesn't work, because I don't want to have the sound changed. For me the sound impression from MIR Pro (as it is) is like a mixture of "mid" and "room" microphone sound, even though the close microphone is already mixed in. And I like this sound. But I would like to have a separate mono microphone which would resemble the "close" microphone in other libraries.

I think I would need two MIR Pro instances then:
1) Sound as it is, instrument width unchanged = "room" microphone like a decca tree
2) Only the main microphone, but the instrument width reduced to mono = "close" microphone

Maybe I'm thinking too complicated! :D

As we were talking about microphones, I have another question:

MIR Pro is always a combination of close/spot and main, but the close isn't mono. I think it's really a sonic difference mixing a main microphone (e.g. decca tree) with a "real" close microphone.

Is there a way to route the main output in such a way that we can make a mono duplicate and then mixing this together? Or is this technically not possible with the underlying concept of MIR Pro? Or can this be achieved with a different microphone setup?

Hope you understand what I mean. :D

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

[...]

I figured this out when comparing to other, wet libraries. It's only my impression after many, many hours of testing. Don't take it too seriously: 

• The setup in MIR Pro always resembles a combination of "spot/close" and "main" microphone in reality. You could go down to a "close" microphone on it's own though.
• The main microphone alone can't be compared to a "decca tree" in reality, only in combination with the secondary microphone. 
• The main microphone brings the dry instrument into the room (i.e. the dry/wet ratio). This resembles a "mid" microphone in reality. Depending on the stereo image this could also yield into a "close" microphone, see point 1.
• The secondary microphone (which is only wet) gives additional depth and resembles, in combination with the main microphone, a "decca tree" to "ambient" sound.

1. True!

2. Not really, because the Secondary Mic is always "wet only", to avoid the otherwise inevitable phasing issues.

3. Partially true (see 2.), but you can indeed use MIR as an Ambisonics-based "spot mic" panning device without any room information added.

4. Mostly true, just without the "Decca" reference.

HTH, 

Thanks, Dietz! Maybe it's depending on the library. Am I allowed to name it?

I mainly compare to MGM Sony, because the Synchron Stage is similar in size and, in my opinion, incredibly similar in sound, too. In this case a combination of main and secondary microphone indeed resembles the "room" microphone in this library. Maybe because it's a combination of decca and outriggers and some others, I'm not sure. So it's not a decca tree on it's own.

Of course, in MIR Pro it's not a "decca" tree, but I call it this way to have a comparison. And it comes really close to the sound.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

[...] one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would!  [...]

:-D ... you know what? I've been told this several times already. For me it's on of the nicest compliments you can pay MIR. Thanks a lot!

Yes! But, in my case, it's still only on a basic level. Hopefully I didn't tell too much nonsense in the posts above. XD

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

Well, not quite, from what I've seen/heard.  There's also a difference in the mic itself.  For instance, the Close mic position on Synchron Strings Pro, when solo-ed, has barely any room information in it.  I presume this is primarily because of the type of microphone used.  In MIR, even if I move the instrument icon right in the face of the main mic array, if the dry/wet ratio is towards the wet end there will be way more room information than there is in the ambient library's close mic. 

Yes, of course there is a difference. And this is what I meant with 1) stereo image, 2) panning and 3) distance.

A close microphone is... 
1) mono (depending on the microphone),
2) has to be panned, 
3) does have less room sound, because it's close to the instrument.

About the wetness I'm not sure. A close microphone is indeed (a bit) drier, but in MIR Pro I can achieve this also by reducing the reverb length. So it's not easy, there are many options. :D

Do you have an example for the issue mentioned in your the last sentence? What do you mean with "towards the wet end"?

I figured this out when comparing to other, wet libraries. It's only my impression after many, many hours of testing. Don't take it too seriously: 

• The setup in MIR Pro always resembles a combination of "spot/close" and "main" microphone in reality. You could go down to a "close" microphone on it's own though.
• The main microphone alone can't be compared to a "decca tree" in reality, only in combination with the secondary microphone. 
• The main microphone brings the dry instrument into the room (i.e. the dry/wet ratio). This resembles a "mid" microphone in reality. Depending on the stereo image this could also yield into a "close" microphone, see point 1.
• The secondary microphone (which is only wet) gives additional depth and resembles, in combination with the main microphone, a "decca tree" to "ambient" sound.

Originally Posted by: Seventh Sam

I'm probably over-thinking things, but one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would! 

Same here! I learnt a lot, but I think that MIR Pro could be made a bit easier for those who don't have this ambition.

I would not change Dietz's positionings, because they are very good the way they are. I would change the settings of the microphones.

I think the dry/wet is a bit misleading, because people think (at least I'm guessing here) that this is the relation between the close and the main microphone. It isn't. In MIR Pro it's always a combination of both. The ratio together with the reverb length defines/shapes the room.

For example the overall ratio in the Synchron Stage is approximately 30 % wet and this shoudn't be changed, because this setting resembles the "real wetness" of the instruments. Of course, some instruments need slightly different settings, but if they are once positioned and set, they shouldn't be changed when applying the term "closer mix". In reality, a close microphone has the same wetness as the main microphone, isn't it? The difference between the two is the distance, the panning and the stereo image. 

Hope I don't talk nonsense, but this is how I understand MIR Pro now, and it took me a long time to understand this. At least I'm fine with this. ;)

@Dietz:
Comparing the MIRx settings to the Synchron and BBO libraries I stumbled upon the microphone delays. In MIRx the secondary microphone has a wet delay of 12.2 ms. The room microphones in the Synchron Player are set to 21 ms. Wouldn't it make sense to set it to the same value in MIR Pro? I tried and also increased the volume of the secondary microphone from 3 to 4 dB. I don't know... Maybe the value in MIR Pro can't be compared to the real thing. I like this change, and this is the good thing about MIR Pro compared to MIRx.

Originally Posted by: asaad

Thanks Pixelpoet1985! appreciated.

I do really like the MIR pro concept and demos, but also like to have dimension strings, and more articulations in the woodwind (full libraries). So yes tough decision!

I am waiting for a new computer as my old one not working, so I can't demo MIR pro now, I was just thinking to get it now to benefit from the promotion. I probably will just wait for the computer and demo MIR pro.

As for the MIRx Synchron stage, I was asking for MIRx Synchron stage extension for VI pro. It is not in the MIRx page.

Thanks again.

You're welcome!

If you want to benefit from the MIR Pro promotion, take it if you have the budget. Otherwise, I think this promotion will come again this year, don't worry. Although there are different promotions every month, some always return, like e.g. the christmas vouchers or MIR Pro.

But be warned: MIR Pro is a bit overwhelming at first. It took me a long time to understand the settings. I'm also a beginner; I started with Vienna Suite and Hybrid Reverb before I bought MIR Pro, and I was never happy. It's very tedious if you don't know how to apply EQ and all this stuff, although Vienna Suite has very good presets for all VSL instruments. MIR Pro is definitely easier (in my opinion) and a different approach/experience compared to convolution reverbs. With those tools you have to do everything on your own (which is good, if you want to learn the things behind it), MIR Pro does many of this in the background for you. And you can actually see the instruments on these gorgeous venues. Some praise for the graphic designers here! ;)

Do you already have the cube? If you have the budget, maybe you could get the standard library first, it has a lot to offer. And then wait for a promotion to upgrade. In the last two years the cube has been massively reduced around Black Friday. Maybe there is another discount this year. Fingers crossed! 

Ah, got it! You meant MIRx vor VI (Pro). I think it's in the making right now, but don't know for sure. It's a bit "misleading" (in lack of an appropriate term)... because there are two separate MIRx products: 1) the MIRx in MIR Pro which is free-of-charge for owners of the venue, and 2) the MIRx module for VI (Pro).

Thanks, Dietz! Much appreciated. You're so fast. :)

Concering Appassionata Strings: You're right, of course I can change the wetness. I only wondered, because the SYNCHRON-ized library is drier and many of the other MIRx venues have drier settings, too.

Dietz, I have some more questions/remarks on/for the MIRx settings:

• Some lower instruments (e.g. dimension horns, dimension cellos) sound a bit boomy. I understand that's because of the close miking at the Silent Stage. Was there already some EQ applied to the dry samples to overcome the proximity effect? Would a high-pass filter in the MIR Pro Room EQ be a good option or are there better options? I think you already made the best you can do with the Room EQ, but it's still boomy.*
• For my taste the Appassionata strings are too wet, they are around 40, and more than Orchestral or Dimension Strings which are at approx. 30. Shouldn't they be drier? Maybe there is a mistake?
• When activating MIRx, some instruments (e.g. trumpet, flute) are switched to solo position by default. No problem, but couldn't this be changed? Also some positions are not clearly named/assigned, e.g. there is Flute 1 and Flute 3 (1B). Where is Flute 2?
• Some character EQs are "messed up". In general, the MIRx character EQs are at the bottom of the character EQ drop-down list. Now we have some at the top of the list (e.g. Dimension Violins). Again, not a problem, but maybe it's a bug.

---

* I read about the Abbey Road Reverb Trick where you high-pass at 600 and low-pass at 10000. Would this make sense in the Room EQ in general for all instruments, or is this trick only helpful with reverb tails? I think that the wet part in MIR Pro is ER + tail, isn't it? 

Originally Posted by: asaad

1- What would you prefer, more samples or MIR pro?

Tough decision! I would go with MIR Pro first, it gives you an instant sound out-of-the-box with the MIRx extensions. The newest MIRx for the Synchron Stage is really good, in my opinion. Of course, you could go with only MIRx for VI (Pro) if you have a limited budget. But the features are also limited: You can't move instruments and make drastic reverb changes. Why not demo MIR Pro for 30 days?

Originally Posted by: asaad

2- Can I achieve using MIRx and Vienna suite pro similar result to MIR pro? Using EQ presets for instrument character, and the algorithmic reverb in Hybrid reverb instead of Miracle? (I should be fine with the fixwd positions in MIRx.

Absolutely! And you don't even need Vienna Suite (Pro). The MIRx settings have all the EQ and reverb settings built in.

Originally Posted by: asaad

3- I also have a smaller project I want to do with Synchron sound as I am using smart sphere. Is the sound of VI instruments in MIR pro Synchron stage Identical to the Synchronizd libraries?

Although the SYNCHRON-ized libraries use IRs from MIR Pro, there are some technical differences between the two. Don't know the details. Dietz made the MIRx settings with reference tracks, it's as close you can get to the real thing, and it sounds "better" than the SYNCHRON-ized libraries, in my opinion. Some SYNCHRON-ized libraries sound different, because there were other mixing engineers involved.

Originally Posted by: asaad

4- Is there MIRx Synchron stage coming soon?

It's already there. :)

Originally Posted by: asaad

5- I know starter editions are sampled in whole tone, Is Symphonic cube standard library sampled in semitone as well or whole tone?

As far as I know it's semitone sampling.

Thanks for answering, Dietz! 

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Thanks for our friendly words! Highly appreciated.

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

[...] But somehow I would be very interested how an Alan Meyerson "Hollywood" MIRx would sound like. I guess not that much of a difference, but who knows. Different engineer, different taste, different ears. And Alan said he works longer at his home studio, trying out things and that he don't need to be paid ... so when can we expect his MIRx settings? ;P Or maybe a tutorial?

:-D ... yesyesyes, brilliant idea! We'll ask Alan to do six weeks of mining work for free! Sounds like a plan.

Haha... but, wait, I forgot that "he actually has no technical skills" and "knows nothing". :D

Originally Posted by: littlewierdo

Bagpipes (both Irish and Scottish variety please)

Panflute

Didgeridoo

Absolutely! Or Uillean pipes. As I said, there are many instruments which haven't been recorded (at the Silent Stage) yet. Would be nice if VSL expands the catalogue.

And a technical question for MIR Pro:

• Is there a way to deactivate all of the MIRx character EQs with one click? It's very tedious to revert all instruments back to the "pure" setting. Maybe I missed something. The other way round it's very easy, because you can select several instruments at once, select what should be changed (position, EQ etc.) and with one click the MIRx settings are apllied to all selected instruments.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

Awesome! Thanks, Dietz and team!

:-D ... You're welcome! 

(... in a first impetus I was tempted to answer "My pleasure!" - but than I realised that I should stay honest. I'm _very_ happy that this highly exhausting task is finally done, really. 8-) ...)

I fully understand. I mean I quit my "journey" of creating my own MIRx settings, because I couldn't stand it anymore. I think I have good ears, but the ony day the setting was good, the next day is wasn't, the position wasn't right, the wetness wasn't right ... Oh, my, really happy now! A good christmas gift.

Very well done, Dietz! I only change the center capsule of the primary microphone to a more omni pattern (sounds more of a "decca tree" to me) and reduce the reverb length, it's a bit too long for my taste. That's the good thing about MIR Pro; in the Synchron Player you can't alter the length, just the wetness. And I already disliked this when using MIRx in VI (Pro).

And I have some other questions:

• To what can the MIRx presets be compared? 1) The sound of the instruments as if you would hear them from a typical "decca-tree"-ish setup without further mixing enhancements, or 2) does the wetness and the reverb length of 1.42 already resemble an enhanced/mixed scenario?
• Should "Air Absoption" be disabled when using your settings? Does it do any harm to your settings? I think you work with this feature disabled.
• "Distance Scaling" and "Microphone Offset" both have to be enabled, right?
• The SYNCHRON-ized instruments in the Synchron Player use a combination of the MIR IRs and a longer algo reverb. How can one achieve this with the MIRx settings? By reducing the overall dry/wet ratio as well as the reverb length? The SYNCHRON-ized instruments have 30% wetness in the "classic" preset and 20% wetness in the "close" preset. What does this mean? 30% in the Synchron Player means what in MIR Pro?

The video was very good and informative. Thank you! And we could see and hear Dietz in person. I only "knew" him from the MIR venue photos. :)

Actually, I don't understand that "role" feature, but I'm really looking forward to an updated MIR Pro and that we would be able to make our own MIRx settings.

I really like the MIRx Synchron settings. Very well done, Dietz! But somehow I would be very interested how an Alan Meyerson "Hollywood" MIRx would sound like. I guess not that much of a difference, but who knows. Different engineer, different taste, different ears. And Alan said he works longer at his home studio, trying out things and that he don't need to be paid ... so when can we expect his MIRx settings? ;P Or maybe a tutorial?