What's the problem in answering these questions? I just want to understand why specific things are done this and that way. I don't question VSL's mixing engineers, they should know what they're doing, shouldn't they?

I'm interested in these technical things, because VSL is different to other developers: For example, they provide the tree signal separated in LR and C, which no other developer offer. I also know that VSL uses other microphones with a different sound, the majority of other developers uses Neumann M50s. Of course, it's great to have all the flexibility the signals offer, but on the other hand it makes things more complicated for inexperienced users.

Also: The mixes are not unified across the board, and the same is true to all the SYNCHRON-ized libraries. The mixes are done with different mixing engineers and their sonic preferences. Some use room reverb, other use plate reverbs etc. Dietz's MIRx settings sound different to the SYNCHRON-ized libraries, too. For example we have three different settings for the Appassionata strings: in the SYNCHRON-ized SE, in the SYNCHRON-ized library and with MIRx. In my opinion, they should re-work this and make everything the same. But that's another topic.

Are you sure with Natural Volume? In my opinion, it's very useful and I'm very happy with it. Except in some cases where it's quite low. Of course, natural volume reflects as if the instruments were standing side by side without any positioning in the room. As every library, i.e. every room / hall it's recorded in, is different as well as the microphones being used, especially in combination with various spot microphones drastically change the balance.

OrchestralTools, for example, is balanced, so this natural volume is already applied (plus the positioning which additionally changes the balance). The silent stage recordings were recorded at the same volumes. So natural volume is really needed.

As said: I'm very happy with the result at high volume on my iMac. It matches the other libraries. But my problem is only that other libraries sound the same no matter with what volume I'm listening to them. The output from MIR Pro "vanishes" at lower volume (in lack of a better term). Maybe this resembles the natural dynamic range. Maybe I need a compressor then? I don't know. :)

I don't know if other have the same problem, but I find it very difficult to match my MIR Pro instruments to other developer's libraries. I know that these have, in general, some processing going on.

Here is the issue:

If I have my volume of my iMac very high, everything is fine, the dry/wet ratio and all that stuff. If I reduce the volume it feels like the "room" of MIR Pro vanishes, that there isn't enough "power". Does this makes sense? I also use the "Natural Volume" feature, but it's not the solution to the problem. It makes it even more difficult. :)

So actually I have either to raise my volume back up or I have to make all other libraries drastically quieter... what I don't want. 

Some ideas:

• Is this because the original silent stage recording have no or very few processing?
• Do I need a compressor or a limiter?
• Do I have to drastically reduce the volume of the silent stage recordings first before I put them into MIR Pro and then raise the volume again after MIR Pro? So has this something to do with gain?

Any suggestions are welcomed!

I know I asked this several times, but what's the status with "Inveral Map" as a controller in the Synchron Player? Or maybe there will be another way of doing something similar?

For some instruments we have these "marcato starts", but it's limited. On the longs they are controlled via velocity, on the legatos, we don't have this option. The attack variations for the strings are nice, but useless for me. And I'm not a big fan of key-switches.

I think it would really be useful for many users to have a variety of short notes for the start of legato phrases. In my VI player presets I can have all kinds of shorts (spiccato, staccato, portato, marcato) as starting note for a phrase. And in addition to that I can even layer them depending on velocity or speed, i.e. if I press the key harder I will have a longer shorts patch. 

Some questions:

• The close mic is a mono signal, but why it is narrowed in the mixer? In my opinion this "destroys" the sound. Why not pan it instead of narrowing and powerpanning? I compared with some other developers, and their close microphones sound different, more like a combination of close and mids, they are never that narrow.
• The same question for the mid microphones. But I think here it makes sense to narrow the stereo width. 
• The decca C is a mono signal, too. Why isn't this narrowed then? In some of the percussion presets it is narrowed, though.

I know: “If it sounds good, it is good.” But I simply want to understand the microphones in the Synchron libraries. What would be a "normal" recording situation?

I often tend to use the "default" preset without any panning etc., even though I like the room mix most of the time. Except for the strings: They don't have these wide positioned outriggers (like brass and woodwinds), isn't it? On the microphone screenshots you can see that the surround microphones of strings and percussion are in the center instead on the sides. Is this true? So why do you pan the room mix by 20% and force them to be that wide? In my opinion, again, it "destroys" the sound and makes it dead.

I know that many think that the Synchron legatos aren't "good". I think so, too. They are very agile, but lack the expression the silent stage samples offered. Everything else is top-notch. 

I never used the "espressivo" patches, because I thought they are meant for specific parts. But: Wow! This is exactly what I and, I think, the majority of users may want. If VSL could make new legato patches with this longer, expressive slur, but without this swell building up. Or maybe a little bit of swell that would give some kind of "progessive" vibrato patches, because I'm missing these. Especially in faster passages it's not realistic to have this instant vibrato.

I also have the feeling that the vibrato in general is always the same across the dynamics. I miss the behaviour of the VI samples where the vibrato gradually increases / decreases with the dynamics. I know we have the vibrato crossfade options now (which is implemented well), but it makes everything bigger and also isn't that realistic, because we haven't a "middle" vibrato.

Do the close and mid microphones of the Synchron libraries have a delay built-in? If not, I'm wondering why there isn't a delay by default. Instead, with the majority of the mixer presets, the main microphones or the room mix are delayed. Shouldn't the close microphones be delayed instead? I don't understand. Maybe it's mentioned somewhere, couldn't find any information.

Interesting, because I thought I was the only one with this "issue". Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but in order have Synchron Strings match with other libraries I need a gain of +12 dB and even more to bring them to the same and then reduce the track volume back by -12 dB. Don't know maybe a compressor would be a better choice. Curious, because all other libraries I have only have minor volume differences. I just have to deal with the track volumes by some dB. With Synchron it's like the libraries not having enough power.

Nice interview! Always interesting to read something about MIR Pro.

Thanks for the hint, I will try and experiment with the M/S imager. Another thing which came to my mind: We don't have outriggers, but would it technically be possible to increase the distance of the individual capsules of the secondary microphone? Now we "only" have 1 metre, I think. Would this make sense to have, let's say, 10 metres? Just an idea... :) 

As we don't have outriggers in MIR Pro, I wonder what is the best way to "imitate" them, i.e. to get a wider stereo width. I'm very happy with the sound I get from my current microphone setup in MIR Pro and don't want to change the settings I have with the Synchron Stage. My current sound is something similar like a decca tree, but without outriggers.

I already experimented with the balance of the individual microphone capsules, but it doesn't result in the kind of width you get with outriggers.

So, I need something POST MIR Pro. I already tried Power Panner, but the sound gets some kind of narrower instead of wider.

Any ideas what to use?

Outriggers would have been really nice, I agree! But I'm totally fine with the sound as it is. :)

Concerning multiple / tabbed instances: I have another idea, but don't know if this an option. I would like to have an export feature which allows you to save your settings in an “IR” file (per instrument) and import it back into VI Pro, so something like MIRx. With this, you could have so many different settings.

Will there be an update for MIRx in the (near) future?

There are still some "problems" with some instruments. Also, the naming scheme of both the instrument positions and the character presets is a bit messy. Somewhere I already mentioned this, but can't find the thread.

Some examples:

• Strings (e.g. Dimension Strings) go to the position of the second violins by default.
• Flute I goes to the solo position by default.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

I'm not sure that I understand the question. Why should Synchron Stage introduce phasing ...? 8-/

Don't know. :) I thought that maybe phasing would occur, because you have the room twice. Somewhere I read about this issue, but can't remember where, and that the predelay compensates for this. But as MIRacle is an algo reverb, does it have Synchron impulses at all or why is it called this way?

Originally Posted by: Dietz

The answer to this question depends a lot on the context. I'm not able to tell from the distance what the effect will be without hearing an example.

I don't have an audio example, it's just a question I stumbled upon while experimenting in MIR Pro. I thought maybe there is some "science" behind this.

Question for Dietz:

I'm not sure when to use which reverb. I know there are two approaches for MIRacle: a) enhance and b) hybrid. Even some of the "enhance" presets should be used with reduced reverb lengths.

Example for MIRx Synchron Stage:

• Which MIRacle preset is best suited for the Synchron Stage? Does it make sense to take the Synchron Stage or will it introduce some phasing?
  
  
• Is there a difference in sound between
  1) 1.0s MIR reverb + 1.8s algo
  2) 1.8s MIR reverb
  
  For me, in the first scenario the sound is more direct. Is this correct? Maybe just my imagination...
  
  
• If I have a "good" sound at 1.2s MIR reverb, but increase the length to 1.6s. Should I reduce the wetness so that the sound would be as it is at 1.2s, but only with a longer tail? Or does a longer reverb automatically mean more wetness? Hope it's clear what I mean.

I don't have these patches called "processed" in VI Pro, and they weren't downloaded. I have the number 81. So I think that I have the dry versions. It's only curious that it's still mentioned in the manual. Sorry for all the confusion. :)

Thanks for clarifying and taking your time on a saturday. Have a nice weekend!

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Although pre-processed, these instruments still offer a considerable amount of artistic freedom: The relation between the direct ("dry") signal and the resulting reflections and reverb may be chosen with a turn of the modulation wheel. – However, you should be aware that "full wet" means the absence of any direct signal, something that is not very likely to happen in nature. Nevertheless, in this way you will be able to bring an instrument closer to the listener if your arrangement asks for it.

I can't change the reverb amount with the modulation wheel. Where? In VI Pro? Maybe I'm doing or understanding something wrong.

Thanks, Dietz! I'm not sure if I understand correctly...

Does this mean one has to use the "dry" (i.e. not pre-processed) with your MIRx settings?

I don't know if my instruments are pre-processed. I have no option in the download area (if this is the case anyhow), but the instruments sound "wet". How can I download the dry versions?

On the product page you can read that a selection of VI percussion instruments has already been processed with IRs from Vienna Konzerthaus. Are these IRs built-in or can you still choose between dry and processed? I couldn't find any information on this. 

I'm just wondering if the MIRx settings use the dry or the processed instruments. I think the latter doesn't makes sense, does it? Please enlighten me! ;)

Dietz, thanks for all the details! Very looking forward to this release, and also to the new venues. Hope there will be more scoring stages, even though I think you can't surpass the Synchron Stage. It's the best sounding room so far, in my opinion, especially with the MIRx settings. It seems poor Dietz has to do some more MIRx settings! :D

I have a question for MIR 3D:

Since one highlight is an easier preset management, I would like to know if it will be possible to have different output settings for the instruments, i.e. reverb length and volume of the secondary microphone. At the moment I have several MIR Pro instances each with different settings, but it would be nice to have all instruments in one instance.

Originally Posted by: Sandrew

What does not make sense to me is, that I seem to be able to offset all instruments in the direction of "dry" (event when an instrument is on 100% wet, I get a dry signal if I push the global offset to -100% (all dry). The other way round this does not work at all: I totally dry instrument stays fully dry, even with the global offset set to +100% (all wet).

Think of the global offset as a scaler. If you have 0% wetness you have nothing to scale.

I have another question on the "Natural Volume" feature:

Is the volume relation between the instruments to be seen as if they were heard side by side in the same acoustic environment, i.e. without any distance or positioning?

I mean, if I put an instrument into MIR Pro at the back of the hall, the volume is reduced (= distance dependent scaling). So "Natural Volume" is pre-Mir, and the positioning in MIR Pro is an additional volume difference afterwards. Is this correct?

Hope it's clear what I mean. ;)

Dietz, I know. But I wasn't talking about the "global" dry/wet offset. I meant the "dry offset" when you enter the microphone/capsule configuration of the main microphone.

What does this "dry offset" do?

I coincidentally stumbled upon the fact that the Synchron Stage MIR Pro venue is mirrored compared to the actual hall. Is there a reason why this is? Does it have any impact on the acoustics? I'm just interested... 

I attached a screenshot comparing them both side by side.

Thanks, again. I figured out another way, because either increasing the secondary microphone or increasing the overall wetness didn't achieve in the sound I was looking for.

I reduced the "dry offset" parameter of the main microphone for all three capsules (about 2 dB). Was this a good idea? What exactly does it do? Could this be compared to the real world scenario in which you reduce the amount of spot microphone?

Maybe this option wouldn't be appropriate for all instruments, but especially for instruments in the front (e.g. Dimension Strings) it really helps, in my opinion.

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