MIR Pro 3d workflow

[DEY]

Im currently testing MIR Pro 3d within Nuendo in 7.1.2.

Must admit Im struggling with finding a suitable workflow. I use vep7 on the host and a slave machine. It appears that the best way to utilise it is within Nuendo  rather than VEP as both machines return to the DAW in individual inputs in the DAWs mixer.  Processing with the daw means I would only require one purchase of Mir and I can potentially use it on anything. 

In my head there should be a dedicated return from MIR in the Mixer however it seems to work as an inline effect. Its putting me off as I can't see how I can buss out tracks for further mixing on other platforms. 

Im sure its my understanding at fault....but I can't seem to find the best way to use it. 

[Dietz]

MIR is indeed meant to be used individually for each sound source (or at least for "similar" ensembles, like "1st Violins" or the like). It should be seen as part of the actual mixing process and not as an "effect". Mind you, MIR has to take care for all panning- and positioning-related aspects, but also for the ratio between dry and wet signal components.

By means of MIR 3D's new Preset Manager you can easily create presets that encompass all aspects of your mix.  These "Venue Presets" can be imported to any other platform that is able to run it, even on other OSs. It's drag'n'drop, really. 

[DEY]

Hi

thanks for your reply. 

Generally anyone working on a score is rarely working on a final mix. Its more usual to supply stems that will be adjusted with picture at the final post mix. Just trying to work out a workflow that incorporates anything I want in Nuendo. I myself tend to do my final mixes in Pro tools. 

The thing with something like Mir 3d is the sound of anything in these rooms changes profoundly from the source (in a positive way) giving the option to build ones soundscape during composition, potentially avoiding the need to waste time padding out sample libraries more than one would without this. 

Can I ask how you would employ MIR from within Nuendo/cubase? I usually port everything or groups of same to individual inputs in Nuendo.

[Dietz]

If you want to migrate your setup from one DAW to another, your safest bet is always to print tracks from 00:00. In case of MIR you would bounce tracks either with the actual settings (i.e. dry and wet) in one pass, or you do two passes (dry and wet separated). That's what the Global Dry/Wet Solo in MIR's Output Panel is meant to be used for. 

... the latter approach will keep all options intact when it comes to the final fine-tuning of spatialisation as well as any other kind of aspect relevant during mixing, but it will of course double the amount of tracks. 

HTH,

[Dietz]

PS: I would still suggest to look into the possibilities of MIR 3D's Venue Presets. It's a novel approach, but a very elegant one, as you can indeed migrate complete mixing setups between Nuendo and ProTools. ;-)

[DEY]

Hi Deitz

The venue presets I get.  I can see that one can replicate the environment. I think my workflow issues come before this part of the process. 

I have struggled to find a tutorial that makes sense to me in respect of my multi machine setup. Will play some more.............

[Dietz]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood your question. But basically it's really simple: "Use one Instance of MIR for one instrument / signal source" is the paradigm. People who use VE Pro a lot tend to have it loaded there, directly with their virtual instruments. Others (like me) prefer to have it in the DAW directly. 

... there's not much more to take into account there ... 8-/ 

[DEY]

Hi

Its definitely me - not you :)

Im building a small session in 7.1.2 using stereo VEP7 and creating stereo inputs in my daw from VEP . Then adding an insert to that return in the daw for MIR Pro which turns each return into a 7.1.2 output. Just a bit concerned about resources. Activity monitor seemed ok at  4 sets. I will continue to build this session as a test to see how far I can go. Nuendo is my biggest draw on resources, suggesting that MIR is using the DAws resources. The MIR app is using very little resources (10% of 64gb ram at most)

At the same time Im doing a comparison with three of my 7.1.2 reverbs using the conventional send and separate return channel for the FX. 

I do question why I would need my instruments to even be in stereo given the fact that Mir takes over positioning responsibility - Mono would be better if possible and also no point having any room mics or internal reverbs within the sample players. 

Given my two machine set up this would appear too be the best setup - would you agree?

[Dietz]

@Another User said:

I do question why I would need my instruments to even be in stereo given the fact that Mir takes over positioning responsibility - Mono would be better if possible and also no point having any room mics or internal reverbs within the sample players.

One might think so, but my own experience (from many years of mixing with MIR) has taught me differently. For some reason or the other MIR seems to "like" it better when the input signal is in stereo, with the Icon's width wide enough to trigger more than a single IR position. 

You're totally right about the use of room mics and internal reverbs in MIR. OTOH I _do_ some times send a room mic to the far back of a MIR Venue's stage for an increased feeling of depth.  😊

[DEY]

appreciate your input 

I'll check that thread in the morning....

[DEY]

Hi

Im looking at the demo in Nuendo 12 - Im still finding my Feet in Nuendo - I cant seem to get a plain 7.1.2 output from the session. Ive disengaged the stereo down mix - 1 set up a 7.1.2 group that feeds my outs but obviously Im not doing it right - can you point me in the right direction?

UPDATE : Ive sorted it - listening now.......

[Dietz]

👍 😊

[DEY]

when its purely audio the whole thing is so much easier to manage than the live composition.

Its cleared up a few things for me....

I wish there were more 7.1.2 examples in other rooms. Sounds very good though - Its amazing really when you listen to the source and bypass MIR. Its like turning the Duracell bunny into King Kong....

[Dietz]

@Another User said:

Sounds very good though - Its amazing really when you listen to the source and bypass MIR. Its like turning the Duracell bunny into King Kong....

:-D 

[DEY]

No - I meant 7.1.2 versions for those who have larger speaker setups....appreciate the work that went into it

[DEY]

Hi Deitz!

 

Just checking the Pro Tools 7.1.2 version of this demo. I don't have dear VR so I loaded the session - Updated the IO to my IO. removed Dear VR which reverted it ti my 7.1.2 master buss. Im not getting any Surround Right channel from this mix. (not rear surround right) 

My outputs are functioning - it appears to be missing from the mix?....

[Dietz]

Hi DEY,

I still don't really know what you mean by "this demo", sorry. Please share some screenshots so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing.

(Off-topic side note: It is an interesting and quite funny fact that especially US-Americans consistently seem to read my nickname as "Deitz" instead of "Dietz" ;-D ...)

[DEY]

Hi

Im talking about the Pro Tools Binaural test version of Fabios theme....I thought you adapted it - did I get that wrong?

Sorry about the misspelling - I actually typed it right - I think it auto corrected it....

[Dietz]

Oh, I see. Will check ASAP. Thanks for your patience!

[DEY]

Just to add to my previous post. What I have noticed is the send from the insert plug in is active on all channels. the issue is with MIRs returns. 

I started a new session and imported one stereo file. (I did notice that  some audio files import as dual mono and some as stereo - If the tracks were bounced out of cubase this is a common issue with Cubase to PT output Ive read). Anyway the issue with surround right replicated in this new session. 

I think Im going to bite the bullet and purchase however a few things concern me. Here is my take on it.....

I think compositionally its beneficial to build the composition in the MIR environment as the difference inside these rooms is night and day and I would suggest that if one does,  one is less likely to layer sample libraries to the extent one generally does without MIR. This is a saving on resources so that's good. Nuendo seems to handle those resources in common with most DAWs quite well....

Pro Tools on the other hand is not so great at handling resources. The demo wouldn't play properly at 512 sample buffers on my system. It was fine at 1024 however playback in the system usage meter did hit 100% at one busy passage. This is without the benefit of any other plug ins whatsoever in play and of course in a mix you would be adding stuff.  I don't know enough to understand if MIR works with its own resources independent of the DAW in plug in mode. 

In short its a new dawn - be good if MIR was networkable.....

Anyway Id be interested to know if you find the same issue I have identified in my system with PT and MIR in 7.1.2.