Multi-band operation can make a lot of sense when used carefully. As a matter of fact there are even dedicated (meta-)plug-ins which allow for multi-band operation of any other plug-in.

That said, I don't see the dire need for frequency-splits in case of reverbs, really. This might have been necessary in the wild analogue days of Abbey Road ;-), but we have _so_ many options to sculpt our digital reverbs today directly in the engine that I haven't run into a situation which called for that approach. 

IOW: Try it and tell us what you found out! :-)

Oh, I just saw you're using Logic! In that case, it might also be that you need to re-boot once (or at least re-start the DAW) to make sure that the application allows for proper access to all file paths needed by plug-ins.

Hi Simone,

it seems as you only downloaded the MIRx files, not the actual RoomPacks which are accessed by MIR Pro (see attachment).

HTH,

Hmmmm ... maybe something related to MIR Pro's own buffer settings? Did you set them to zero, maybe?

It hasn't happened yet. I'm sure there will be plenty of Newsletters and the like once the switch is about to take place. :-)

I am an overpaid ;-) messenger in this thread, but as long as the developers don't communicate directly with you I can just copy/paste their answers here: 

Hi Gunther,

I asked VSL software engineers again to look into the issue. The answer is:

IOW: There's no actual hardware to reproduce the issue ATM, sorry to say so. 

Originally Posted by: Beat Kaufmann

Of course, there are composers who don't want to deal with all the mixing stuff. For those, [...] all the "MIR-" products are great. 

I beg to differ ...

I asked VSL software engineers again, but there's no news to announce, sorry to say so ... :-(

Hi Thomas,

thanks for your friendly words - good to hear that you're enjoying MIR Pro!

I absolutely understand what you're aiming for, but I'm sorry to say that the license for MIRacle is an integral part of MIR Pro's license. We aren't able to split them into individual ones. After all, it was always planned as add-on for MIR, not as a stand-alone product.

Using the algorithmic part of Vienna Suite Pro's "Hybrid Reverb Pro" would be the solution, but again it is part of a whole bundle and not available separately. 

It seems as you will either have to rethink your routing, or you'll have to resort to a 3rd-party product (unless you're already owning a license of VS Pro ... )

Kind regards,

No, I meant, "using MIR as mixing front-end". :-) ... legacy Vienna MIR was a stand-alone application, back in the days.

Hi Sam,

(... thanks a lot for re-posting this question from a previously private message in our public forum. Chances are that fellow MIR users will benefit from this thread, too. :-) ...)

In Vienna Ensemble (Pro), the volume handle on MIR Pro's Instrument Icon is mirrored by the channel's volume fader. IOW: MIR's spatialisation takes place pre-fader, there's no technical difference between the two GUI elements. - In this scenario people typically use MIDI Expression for adding performance-specific volume rides.

When you're using MIR Pro as a plug-in in your DAW, the fader of the MIR Icon is independent from the channel's fader. I know people who prefer to use MIR post-fader, which gives them the option to ride the signal's volume as part of the instrument's performance before it "enters the room", so to speak. In this setup you would use the volume handle of the MIR Icon for the actual mixing process (... which was the original concept of legacy "Vienna MIR" anyway).

HTH,

We came to the conclusion after a series of detailed listening tests, but I don't want to bad-mouth any of these tools. In the end, it's up to your needs, your taste and your budget at least as much as it is in case of sample libraries. ;-D

VSL's software engineers already looked into your issue, but they can't re-produce the issue ATM, sorry to say so. 

You might want to open an actual support ticket by sending an eMail to , including an link to this forum thread, just to make sure that you will be taken care of ASAP.

Kind regards,

As far as EQ and (linear) convolution are concerned, it makes no difference wether you do the sound-shaping before or after the convolution took place.

As soon as there are non-linear changes like compression and so on it depends on your aims where to put it. For better "flow" and intelligibility (esp. of solo instruments) a bit of compression on the dry signal might help. For more "glue" between instrument and Venue, it might be advisable to use it on the MIR-ed signal.

The EQ (3) in Synchron Player is much like the Pre-EQ in MIRx, which again is based on MIR Pro's Characters. And while it's not a rule, it's not unusual practice to add a bit of algorithmic reverb to a signal that has been treated with an IR already, to add some "shimmer" and/or a longer tail for nicer "feathering". 

HTH,

Originally Posted by: VirtualVirgin

[...]

Do you have any advice on trying to upmix the 5.1 to a 7.1.4 bed?

Option A: Wait for MIR 3D. ;-)

Option B: Create a second "wet only"-mix in MIR Pro from a different Main Mic position and use it for the top layer. (... I did this several times already for score mixes, with great results.)

Option C: Create a thoughtfully parametrized (algorithmic?) surround reverb stem from your mix and use it for the top layer.

Option D: Use an upmixing processor like Nugen's Halo, or the Pento 16 you mentioned yourself.

Option E: Send your 5.1 mix to people who offer upmixing as a professional service (... like I do, for example. *cough, cough* ... ;-) ...)

FWIW: Not long ago a group of colleagues and I conducted a shoot-out between several upmixing processors in Control A of VSL's Synchron Stage Vienna. Long story short: Without actually re-doing the mix, Nugen's Halo Upmixer with its additional 3D Immersive Extension might by your safest bet. While its effect won't be spectacular, the integrity of your original surround mix will be left more or less untouched. 

HTH,

Hi Paolo,

the MIR EQ in VE Pro comes from an day and age when there was no Vienna Suite Pro that came as part of application. It's "just" a very modern, great-sounding and very versatile EQ that's similar to VS Pro's EQ. 

The "Characters" of MIR rely on the same algorithms, more or less. But due to the fact that I created them for specific instruments, but for unknown tasks, they should be indeed very "friendly" to the source. For more drastic changes the MIR EQ (or any of it's siblings) will come handy. 

As long as you keep in mind that MIR's RoomEQ will only affect the wet signal component, you have everything sorted, it seems! :-)

All the best,

Hi Vtimmerm,

Very true!

Sorry for the slightly delayed reply - I have to admit that I was hoping to see answers from fellow forumites. ;-)

I think I understand what you're asking for, but the truth is: There's no simple answer to your questions. 

You've reached a level of insight to be able to see / to hear that there's something missing, but you can't spot the proper tools or decide upon the next step. That's quite an achievement, but it's also a somewhat awkward position, because there are no ready-mades that will magically make your issues disappear. They _might_ help to get you started, but no library, no collection of presets, but also no "better" speakers, headphones or studio hardware will compensate for a lack of experience. 

Regarding your questions: A good listening environment is indeed the key for any music production that is meant to "translate" to the outside world. Although there _are_ people who are able to mix properly with headphones they are a rare exception. You need some kind of "white screen" to judge colours correctly, and that's what a good monitoring system in a treated room is meant to be: A reference. Hifi boxes and/or cans won't cut it, most likely.

As the guy who created most of the EQ presets you were referring to I can assure you that I did my best to come up with useful settings, but of course I have no way to know in which context you're actually using them. So it's again a question of your own judgement choose presets that fit the task at hand - which brings us back to routine and proper monitoring.

Stereo width is especially hard to judge on headphones due to the dreaded "in-head-localization" of sound sources. A good starting point is to use the whole stereo width, while trying to avoid too much out-of-phase content. A goniometer (a.k.a. "Vectorscope") makes it easier to judge. 

Audio processors like compressors and the like are might tools when used properly, but don't thing that you _have_ to use any of them "just because". As long as you don't really feel/hear the need for a certain kind of acoustic intervention, it might happen that you do more harm than good.

... maybe fellow users will chime in with more food for thought now. ;-)

All the best,

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Quote:

Is there a difference between a "dry" solo mix in stereo and a "dry" solo mix in 5.1?

 

No.

Re-reading your initial question I realised that I might have misunderstood that part: Of course the dry signal derived from a stereo setup will sound not send any sound to center and rear speakers. But technically, the Dry Solo-function does exactly the same in any output format: It will mute all wet signals.

Hope that things are clearer now. :-)

Kind regards,

Originally Posted by: VirtualVirgin

When using MIR in a 5.1 setup, how is the "dry" signal handled?

This depends completely on the chosen output parameters. Just open the Output Format editor and take a glance! :-)

Yes, the Secondary Microphones supply wet only.

If you use a plain, straight-forward Ambisonics decoding, the dry signal will be handled the same way as the impulse responses. This means that there will always be some direct signal from the rear speakers, too. MIR's decoder allows for some advanced tricks, and that's why you can handle the dry signal's level independently for each virtual capsule.

No.

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

With the Synchron series, VSL have changed their game. The original VI series was released starting from year 2002.

[...] VSL started a series that is more in line with the modern times. [...]

Paolo

Beautiful posting. Thanks, Paolo!

Originally Posted by: civilization 3

Here's the master bus, a mono-looking 'blur': It does give me the sound I want but the assigned width is irrelevant and a nonsense in itself. So yeah, it must be the 'emanations'. 

I have to admit that I can't really follow ... what's "nonsense in itself"? ... 8-/

Originally Posted by: PaoloT

With the Synchron series, VSL have changed their game. The original VI series was released starting from year 2002.

[...] VSL started a series that is more in line with the modern times. [...]

Paolo

Beautiful posting. Thanks, Paolo!

Originally Posted by: civilization 3

went with one Omni capsule and a very wide image

Are you sure that we're really talking about the virtual microphone and not the sound emanations patterns we assign to individual sources (a.k.a. Instrument Profile)? One omni capsule in MIR would give you a "very wide image" in pristine mono. :-)