Let's repeat all together:

MIR.

Is.

NOT!

Just.

Another.

Reverb.

;-D

Nonwithstanding my propganda slogans, I just looked up the current price tags for surround-capable reverb devices:

         - TC Electronic System 6000: US-$ 11,800
         - Bricasti Design System 3: US-$ 11,000
         - (Used) Lexicon 960L: around US-$ 7,000

... hmmmm. Let's look at surround-capable, pure software convolution reverbs, then:

... and both of them are _really_ "just" reverbs. Good ones, without any doubt, but do they offer intuitive object-oriented mixing, three-dimensional positioning, source-conscious pre-processing, free output format selection, additional algorithmic reverberation, LAN operation ... and the possibility to run several hundreds of convolutions in real-time? So, "expensive" is relative, I would say.

The "Is it worth it?" part of your question will have to be answered by fellow MIR Pro-users. ;-)

Kind regards,

Is MIR worth it?  I questioned the same thing.

My first decent reverb unit was a TC Electronic M3000, that cost more than twice than MIR, I then moved to Powercore and VSS3, that also cost twice the cost of MIR. Last year I moved to Vienna Suite, which cost a lot less than VSS3, and that sounded so much better.

I had carefully mixed with multiple instances of Vienna Convolution reverb, panned everything where it should be, and was carefull to get the tone and levels right, and it sounded really good, I was really pleased with the result. I then downloaded the trial version of MIR Pro, put the same score through MIR, and muted the Vienna convolution reverb. The difference really surprised me, it all sounded so much more believably real.

So yes, MIR is worth the money, I just hope my demo license doesn't run out before my license arrives !  And on the demo license, I only have access to one position in one room, so the full version is going to be even better.

Yes I've been (perhaps the only) person partially critical of the approach in the past BUT the ability to simply use MIR as a mix engine and replace the tail with another reverb (if you're like me and you don't usually want strict realism) means you can have the best of both worlds. You can use MIR and a 960 or Bricasti together, or the VSL hybrid reverb in-the-box. Realistic depth and placement with a more pleasant reverb tail - awesome. And nobody is doing what MIR does for placement and mixing. As a mix engine and I've only been playing with the trial version at the moment - purely as a time saver, it's worth the money, let alone anything else - and there is a lot else here. If you have the VSL library, BTW, IMO it's a no brainer - the library was MADE to be used with something like MIR. And fine tuning aside it's extremely fast and easy to use. In my experience it also sounds a great deal better than any of the other in the box convolution reverbs mentioned in the previous post, no disrespect to them. I also think that it's exceptional value for money. If you get on board with VSL products, my experience and I'm sure most people will agree, is that you are getting on board with a great company - if you buy MIR today, it's by no means going to be the end of the story. I'm sure they'll introduce many more spaces, many great software updates, many probably for little or no money, a fair and in fact from what I remember over the last several years, very generous upgrade path at each step of the way.

I am a long time Mir User, and i have to Say... its worth every Cent.

1. It realy saves money. 

2. It saves time !!!

3. and the sound is incredible good 

Worth the money?

MIR is truly amazing!

Best

Pekay

I will take everyone's word for how great MIR is since a) I haven't worked with it, b) I suck as an engineer compared to many highly skilled people here.

However, I consider myself more than decent a musician, and I would love to hear that comparison of your piece mixed with Vienna Suite and MIR respectively, like you described - needless to say the examples would have to be mixed exclusively with either product and not as a combination thereof.

Would you indulge us please?

Errikos, in that case, if you had to chose one or the other, and based on what you said, I would recommend MIR and just use your hosts eq "if" you need to (you likely won't). Mixing with MIR is very different, you can find the sound you want without using ANY eq. Very cool. Also for someone who is not big into engineering, you will find it far more intuitive and easier. Why not download the trial - there is a free trial here at VSL, just download it and you can try it out and see how it is.

Not for me. I think you really need to try it out. For example, often we are adding eq to instruments to try to give depth to the mix - removing bass from further away instruments, etc. I found I had to disable most of my colouring eq because it was not necessary for a large part when mixing with mir. If you want it to sound further away, you just move it further away. I do however find it's very useful to use the suite eq and the resonance presets for individual instruments in there pre-mir. It's true, the best is to have both mir and suite and use them together, I'm not saying you don't need suite, I'm simply answering your question if you had to choose one or the other, then for me, I would choose MIR. I do still use some eq, but much less, and I found that so far in my trial at least, it is a massive time saver, with a far better result.

MIR is a unique piece of software, far more than mere reverb, because it creates an entire environment for each instrument based upon the symphony orchestra on a stage.  As a result, a musician feels at home using it, and can adjust everything based upon musical principles rather than those learned from being an expert technician.  Also, it does something that ALtiverb and all the other convolutions never figured out - that the microphone placement should be stable while all the instrument locations vary.  In other words, a single listener with multiple sound sources.  That is the basic fact of the orchestra that no one else seems to understand.

Thanks Philippe. Was that audio output solely MIR PRO's? How many other tweaks were involved to create your sound?

As MIR was so wonderfully conceived (simulating the real experience very closely - stationary listener vs multiple positions), I'm trying to find out what users' experiences have been like in practice. Has MIR basically merely replaced their reverberation concerns in their sequences, or - due to its high standard of realism - has it also made a lot of the customary plug-in tweaks redundant? And to what extent? What in everybody's opinion is still necessary to do (even to that lesser extent), despite MIR's wonderful achievements?