Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
Options
Go to last post
Posted on Fri, Jun 16 2017 08:04
by unsruck
Joined on Mon, Aug 23 2010, Posts 13

I'd like to be able to control the dry signal, main mic sound, and secondary mic sound on independent faders on the VE Pro mixer.    

I know that the wet signal can be sent to a separate output than the dry signal - but can we route the 2 mics to different outputs as well?

Thanks for any insight into this.

-Nate

Posted on Fri, Jun 16 2017 08:20
by Dietz
Joined on Tue, Aug 06 2002, Vienna / Europe, Posts 6891

Yes, that's possible, although you need to accept a little workaround. Just create a Quadrophonic output setup and use MIR's Matrix to route the Main Mic to out 1+2, while assigning the Secondary Mic to 3+4.

HTH,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
Posted on Fri, Jun 16 2017 08:25
by unsruck
Joined on Mon, Aug 23 2010, Posts 13

Great! I'll give that a try.

Thanks for quick response!

Posted on Fri, Jun 16 2017 23:03
by unsruck
Joined on Mon, Aug 23 2010, Posts 13

I have a few questions regarding how to best set this up:

 

I can’t figure out how to get MIR to output in quad or 5.1 channel configuration.

 

Here is what I’m doing:

I add Vienna Ensemble Pro Surround as a ‘Rack Instrument’ in Cubase and connect to the instance

 

Then I add MIR to a Kontakt 5 as an insert.  At this point I see no option to make the VE Pro channel a 5.1 or Quad.  All I see if ’Stereo to Stereo’, ‘Mono to Stereo’ etc.  

 

When I navigate to the ‘Output Matrix’ in MIR, I see only the stereo outputs.

 

What am I doing wrong here!?

 

How does one create a 'Quadrophonic output setup'?

 

Thanks for any suggestions.

Posted on Sat, Jun 17 2017 07:08
by Dietz
Joined on Tue, Aug 06 2002, Vienna / Europe, Posts 6891

In VE Pro (as well as with MIR Pro plug-in version) you either have to start a project in a certain output configuration, or you have to convert an exitsting project by means of the respective command in the "File" menu. The "mono-to-stereo" etc. variants are only effectivie in those hosts which support this way of "thinking" (Cubase doesn't, for example), and only (!) once your MIR Pro project is already initialized with the desired number of output channels.

HTH,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
Posted on Sat, Jun 17 2017 19:29
by unsruck
Joined on Mon, Aug 23 2010, Posts 13

Thanks for the help!

I'm now able to able to convert my VE Pro file to the quad format and when I add mir I can change the mic outputs the way that I'd like.  However, I'm unable to connect to VE Pro server from Cubase.  When I add a VE Pro instance in Cubase to the rack and attempt to connect I get this error message: 'Could not connect to "127.0.0.1 localhost [64] (Untitled 1)" because the channel configuration of master and slave do not match. Make sure to connect to an instance with the same channel configuration.'  Then VE Pro crashes.  So..what am doing wrong in Cubase?  I can't seem to figure out how to create the correct type of channel in Cubase for VE Pro to correctly connect to.

Thanks - Nate

Posted on Sat, Jun 17 2017 20:37
by Dietz
Joined on Tue, Aug 06 2002, Vienna / Europe, Posts 6891

Hi Nate,

actually I gave all this advice without looking at the applications involved as I'm out of town, writing this reply on my little notebook. :-) I have to admit that I don't know exactly where you could go wrong at this point, so please get in contact with , with a short reference to this thread. VSL's support staff will be able to sort out all of this swiftly.

Kind regards,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
Posted on Sat, Jun 17 2017 23:43
by unsruck
Joined on Mon, Aug 23 2010, Posts 13

Ok - I'll do that thanks.

To follow up on my previous post.  I figured out how to connect Cubase properly.  There is a setting within the VE Pro plugin in Cubase that allows you to choose the output format.  Once that is set correctly I can connect to the VE Pro server instance that I have 'forced' to the quad ouput format.  Now my problem is routing the new configuration back into Cubase in a usable way.  Presently the 2 stereo mic outputs are grouped together on a single quad channel and sent back into Cubase.  This doesn't do much for me since I then don't have independent control over the two mics (they are on a single fader in Cubase)  Any ideas on how this method could be improved?

If I try to achieve what I'm after with the MIR plugin as a insert in Cubase I also run into some problems.  I have to create a Quad channel group and insert MIR onto that.  The signal I want to process has to be sent to that group.  (The reason for this is that I can't add a Quad channel instrument or rack track in Cubase).  Then I can output the mics separately from within MIR - but I run into the same problem - the two mics come back into Cubase on a single quad channel which is not flexible for playing with the balance of the mics.  Is there a solution to this?

One additional question; the 'dry' signal within MIR appears to be tied to the primary microphone output.  Is there a way around this?  

Thanks - Nate

Posted on Sun, Jun 18 2017 16:57
by Dietz
Joined on Tue, Aug 06 2002, Vienna / Europe, Posts 6891

Hi Nate,

like I wrote before - I'm not in front of my DAW these days, but writing from memory, you should be able to create so-called "child busses" in Cubase's "VST Connections", which allow for breaking up multi-channel signals in something like "front L/R", "surround L/R" and so on.

Another option would be to use a simple volume control plug-in in your Quad-channel, like Cubase's Surround Mixer Delay (... maybe this is a Nuendo-only tool?), or Vienna Suite Pro's Matrix Mixer.

Regarding MIR Pro's Secondary Mic: Like mentioned in the manual (and shown in the GUI), the Secondary Mic will indeed just return the wet signal from the room. MIR thinks very much along the lines of a recording engineer, who wouldn't use two spot mics for the same source in different angles and positions either. It would create an endless mess of phasing issues and wrong positioning cues.

... I completely understand what you're after technically, but please allow for the personal sidenote that it seems that you're overcomplicating things a bit. :-) MIR's signal flow actually tries to keep everything as simple as possible (... and still scares many people to death just by mentioning "virtual microphones" 8-) ... go figure), so maybe you should just give it a try and adopt to its "natural" workflow. ;-)

Kind regards,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
Posted on Wed, Jun 21 2017 18:06
by unsruck
Joined on Mon, Aug 23 2010, Posts 13

Hi Dietz - Thanks for your reply.

I'm aware that I'm overcomplicating things a bit.  :) But, from an idealistic standpoint achieving what I'm after should be simpler.  Sometimes I want to eq and compress my tree & galley mics differently.  Sometimes I want to rely more on the tree mics for a sections and then empasize the galley mics in the next section.  As it stands MIR doesn't make either of these processes particularly intutitive.  Certainly not as intuitive as have each signal on a fader (as it would be if it were recorded in a real space.)

I love VE Pro/MIR but I think that some of us could benefit from a bit more flexibility in terms of signal flow.  For the time being, unless support can point me to a better method, I think I'll rely on printing whatever I need separate by using the wet/dry control.  But I'm still tinkering with the various options and hopefully I'll come up with a better solution soon.  :)  

Thanks again for your help. 

Posted on Wed, Jun 21 2017 21:01
by Dietz
Joined on Tue, Aug 06 2002, Vienna / Europe, Posts 6891

Hi Nate,

I absolutely understand what you're after, and I would love to tell you that this additional feature is high on top of VSL's to-do-list now. (I can assure you that it would be on mine!)

But as a matter of fact, people like you and me seem to be in a minority. I haven't heard requests like yours more than five or six times since MIR has seen the light of day. It's more the other way round: For example, even seemingly seasoned users struggle with the use of its basic options, like the Secondary Microphone, or the actual meaning of the instrument Icon (which is often regarded as yet another microphone) - not to talk about more involved features like signal routing, Room EQs and so on. Instead of asking for technical refinements I am told by users (and in a more tentativ way even VSL's product managment) that I should _please_ keep all that complicated techno stuff to the bare minimum and create some "proper" presets that simply and magically fit all needs. "It can't be _that_ hard. Just do it the way _I_ like it." 8-)

/leaving my soapbox ;-)

Kind regards,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
Posted on Wed, Jul 26 2017 00:14
by thenightwatch
Joined on Sun, Dec 04 2011, Posts 81
I"m glad I ran into this thread. I've been trying for days to figure this out with Digital Performer as my DAW. Actually the Quad return isn't a big deal in DP as DP supplies a fader-like quad channel (four mono or two stereo) trim plugin. And after going back and reading the MIR manual I wonder if the results would be the same to set up MIR in VEP as effects inserts and busing the wet signal to MIRacle using a tame Teldex preset, (to go with the Teldex room).

I'll be sending an email to support too if I can't get this working by tonight. But now I know I was on the right track.

Thanks
Steve

Posted on Wed, Jul 26 2017 09:39
by thenightwatch
Joined on Sun, Dec 04 2011, Posts 81
Originally Posted by: unsruck Go to Quoted Post
For the time being, unless support can point me to a better method, I think I'll rely on printing whatever I need separate by using the wet/dry control. But I'm still tinkering with the various options and hopefully I'll come up with a better solution soon. :)
Thanks again for your help.


Nate,

I came up with a solution that you might find acceptable. I configured the VEP mixer so that each instrument's dry signal, it's MIR signal (both mics), and MIRacle's signal are independently bussed back to my DAW so that I have fader control over each signal in my DAW. In effect giving me a close, stage and room mix.

After using the appropriate settings in MIRacle, I also reduced MIR's reverb time and mic offset. I might tweak the dry sound with a small bit of Teldex early reflection from Hybrid Reverb, adjust MIR's resonance with some room Eq, and adjust MIRacle's modulation a bit more, but I'm quite impressed with the results. Btw, I used the Teldex venue with VSL Woodwinds.

I'd be glad to share the project settings or a screen capture if you like.

Steve Steele

You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.