I haven't understood a single word, but I'm looking forward to it nevertheless, haha. XD

Depending on the chosen decoding method the difference ranges from "subtle" to "dramatic", even in stereo. :-) It's not so much about "depth" per se, more about enveloping and also about decorrelation.

... but then, MIR 3D is not "just" about Higher Order Ambisonics and 3D audio, but also about new concepts of preset creation and management, and of course an overhauled GUI. :-) 

Thank you Dietz :)

Your answers are actually very similar to my speculation, so I feel on track with my conception of what you are up to.

I have been trying out various configurations for 3D audio, including Atmos and I am finding that when I import mixes to work on that use MIR pro as the anchor for all of the placement duties, I do not have an interest to pull it apart to upmix. The space sounds so good in stereo that upmixing techniques aren't quite satisfying and I hesitate to use any "tricks" on it. 

I will be happy to be first in line for the upgrade :)

I'm also very much looking forward for this... and crossing my fingers the upgrade won't be expensive 

It may be soon to ask but if I upgrades to MIR 3D can I switch between it and pro(24) for different projects?

Also, in contrast I've been eyeing Spat revolution essentials and I'm wondering in terms of virtual space will MIR 3D also offer some kind of "neutral" space without much of a room\venue feel to it?

"Enveloping", "decorrelation" ... That's techno babble :-) for the feeling of being "surrounded by sound" (or in our case: by the room).

Some online-sources for further reading:

-> https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/decorrelation/

-> https://valhalladsp.com/2010/05/12/shimmer-modulation-auto-correlation-and-decorrelation/

-> https://www.jstor.org/stable/3680992

HTH,

Dietz, will the new technology also allow for placing the close/mid mics of the Synchron Series into the other venues? Some kind of magic to interpolate from that sound, and make it coherent with the different venues?

Paolo

Originally Posted by: Dietz

does not need to fear comparison with other recording methods.

Dietz, I was not clear with my question. What I would like is a way to use the close/mid combo of mics of the Synchron instruments as we are now using any ‘dry' source. But the close/mid combo of the Synchron sounds contain more room information than the ones of the Silent Stage series. Is there any chance MIR 3D will be able to deal with this type of source, treat it as one to be made ‘dry', and place it into any other venue that is not the Synchron Stage?

Paolo

As one who is developing his own recipe for a "poor-man's 3D" (actually 2D) reverb solution in stereo (using Precedence and Breeze plugins), I'll be fascinated to hear demos of VSL's forthcoming MIR 3D.

Have to say I've never been particularly enamoured of any kind of surround sound solution. Gamers are probably the biggest potential market for ambisonics, because (theoretically) it can help the player's own internal 3D situational awareness. But in listening to orchestral music, I've never felt any want or need for that kind of situational awareness - indeed it can sometimes be an unwelcome distraction. Perhaps I'm odd in that way, or maybe just not a terribly good consumer. (Well, at least Harry Gregson-Williams seems to have a similar opinion.)

Nevertheless, I certainly do love a rich and interesting stereo field, most especially one in which the direct sound from each instrument, section or subsection (usually a dry mono source, although a little wetness - as in the Synchron close/mid mics - seems to help rather than hinder) is placed in the azimuth/distance field by differences of time and HRTF (Head-Related Transfer Function) in each channel of the stereo outcome. Simply-modelled HF air absorption, along with the plain old-fashioned loudness/distance law can also help HRTF in conjuring a pretty fair sense of distance.

Stereo-to-stereo reverb (I much prefer today's algorithmic type) is then icing on the cake. I like to have two aizimuth generator/HRTF plugins and two stereo-to-stereo reverb plugins for each instrument section, which I find helps enormously with the sense of 2D placement. And I like to put slight algorthmic differences in each of the pair of reverbs.

But I'm very curious to hear what difference to the stereo field can be made by today's ambisonics. I've been happy enough to posit that direct sound paths are primarily what the ear uses for azimuth detection and for best (HRTF-derived) sense of distance, while the whole sound including (stereo-to-stereo) reverb gives the ear other, more general clues about distances. Does ambisonics treat reflected paths such that the ear receives yet more, definite clues about exact placement of the sources, as compared to the solution I've described above?

Originally Posted by: daviddln

Wow Dietz, thank you so much for sharing all these great news.

My pleasure!

That's most certainly high up on the list, but that room as yet to be recorded for MIR.

Quote:

Thanks again! I wish Paul and Ben were as talkative as you are about upcoming products 

:-D .... well, they have to take care for hundreds of products, while I'm in the luxurious position to concentrate on very few of them. (Oh, and please don't tell anybody that we're talking about unreleased *gulp* stuff here.  )