[EDIT: I concluded this thread, and I opened a new specific one, hopefully more clear and more useful for the community, being this based on an initial misunderstanding] 

Hi Dietz,

I'm experimenting with your last delivery of Synchron Stage MIRx settings, and I love the fact that some specific sets were created for Synchronized instruments. However, despite searching into manuals and instructions, I wasn't able of finding the recommended source for the sets:

- what's the proper "mix" setup we have to select into the Synchron player? I suppose that the IR's eQ pan and vol settings of the patches should NOT be the proper source for a MIRx setup, otherwise they would mess up with the instrument profile, eq and reverb IR of MIR... but then

- is the flat "default" mix setup of the player the right source? (it seems to exclude any volume, effect and pan chain, to delegate to MIR the job) Any recommendation?

- that sounds ok for solos and ensemble instruments, but "default" is a problem with Dimension Strings and Brass: I try to load a noIR mix and exclude single player effects, keeping only a basic pan/positioning, but I'm not sure about eQ and delay optimal requirements by player... what's your recommendation?

Thank you in advance for your advice, best regards

Fabio

Well, from your answer I got there's a point I misunderstood :(

If I load a synchron player instance and I select a sinchronyzed dimension strings patch, the MIRx settings are automatically updated to a Dimension strings instrument profile, with the MIRx StageA Character, and a "Synch'd - Dim.Violins I" Room Equalizer e.g. for Violins 1.

I was thinking that "Synch'd" prefix was reffering to Synchronized instruments, but it seems it's not the case, also because the same Room Equalizer is loaded for VI instances... I see.

Anyway still my question is open... good sense should suggest that if MIR doesn't distinguish between Synchron Player and VI libraries, it's even more important I send to MIR the "closest-to-VI output" from Synchron Player instances as well, to get MIRx setting work as intended, and then I suppose the closest output should be the flat "default" Synchron Player Mix setting, to avoid double processing (of IR, pan, reverb etc.)... is it correct?

In case it is, any suggestion for the proper panning of dimension sections in Synchron player? (something similar to the VI patches I suppose...)

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Hi Fabio,

I will have to investigate myself. I didn't try MIRx in Synchron Player up to now, only in VI / VI Pro. :-)

Thanks for your patience,

No problem... I understand it, main scope being obviously to help mixing VI / VI Pro libraries.

But beside the fact of owning it, a Synchronized library can be preferred for better patch organization and/or slightly better performance optimization etc. and so a MIR owner maybe want to use different MIR venues or different stage positions...

Then I think that using the pristine (unprocessed) sound of a Synchronized library in MIR still makes sense for several users.

Your recommendations for the best execution of the MIR processing of the Synchronized libraries will be very welcome!

Originally Posted by: Pixelpoet1985

The goal of the MIRx settings is to have the same settings as in the SYNCHRON-ized instruments. Is this right, Dietz? Or are there other sound aesthetics involved?

I'm not in front of my development machine right now, but judging from your description it seems as you're referring to the names of the RoomEQ setting supplied with the new MIRx presets. I left them like that as they aren't available in any other MIRx preset collection (... Dimension Strings use the "ordinary" RoomEQ settings for violins, violas etc. there).

According to my own state of knowledge there is no MIRx in Synchron Player ATM - but as I wrote above: I'll get back to you as soon as I have received information from the company. Maybe VSL's software engineers applied some magic in the meantime without telling me! ;-)

And if you ask me, I would say that it doesn't make any sense to re-"Synchronize" already "Synchronized" libraries by means of MIRx. It's either one or the other, in my book.

Of course the aesthetics I tried to achieve are similar for both, but they are not identical, partly due to technical reasons, partly due to the simple fact that I had more original recording from Synchron Stage to compare with when creating the (more recent) MIRx settings.