Hi all!

I'm just finalizing my purchase of the extended library of the Symphonic Cube to go with the standard library I bought a few years ago, as well as the Keyboards Complete collection.

Am I right in thinking all VSL products are now download-only or on the VSL hard drive? I just realised I hadn't seen an option for a physical product (prompted when it asked for shipping address, which I presume doesn't actually get anything shipped to).

I have the 10-case set of the Symphonic Cube for the standard library, am I right in remembering that that already contains the extended library too, but the extended licence is needed to access it?

Thanks!

Pyre

Hi all!

I'm between album cycles at the moment, so haven't been doing much VSL-ing of late. But I saw the email come through a few days ago about the May special offer, and am thinking it would be a good time for me to snap up some products (also I'm in the UK, and with the way we're going politically, our UK-EU exchange rate is likely to continue to get worse!).

I had been planning to pick up the Keyboards Complete package, which includes Vienna Imperial and Bosendorfer Imperial. But there are now two (soon three, I think?) Synchron pianos to consider instead. It has to be instead, rather than as well, for simple but unavoidable price reasons.

So I am trying to compare Vienna Imperial with the two Synchron pianos, judging things like velocity layers per key and so on. I know Imperial mentions up to 1,200 samples per key, but the Yamaha CFX says 4,200 - but I presume the second number is higher as the Synchron pianos were recorded from a lot more microphone positions, which aren't so relevant to my needs. Would you be happy to provide a comparable figure for the Yamaha to how Imperial boasts having up to 100 samples per key please? ...Does the Yamaha not have as many, or is sampling that many the normal way of doing things now, and so not specifically mentioned?

I am thinking Imperial would be better for my needs, as all the rest of my libraries are VI series rather than Synchron, and my work involves much more out-there mixing conditions than the traditional classical approach I think the Synchron libraries are designed for? So having the drier piano would probably be more useful to me. Also, I have wanted Imperial for at least seven years, so that's definitely the one I'm biased towards.

Two further questions, please! I have Vienna Suite, complete with its convolution reverb plugin, as well as the first five MIR venues - can I load any of those into the Vienna Imperial Player instead of the Konzerthaus reverb samples? I usually use the Teldex setup, and I'm just wondering if it's possible to do that directly in Imperial Player when using it for standalone low-latency piano performance.

Also, are there any recommended circumstances in which I might realistically be better using Bosendorfer Imperial than Vienna Imperial? If I go with Keyboards Complete (which would be great for both Imperial and the Konzerthaus Organ), then the Bosendorfer Imperial is included anyway. It seems a shame to have it and never use it, so I'm just wondering if there are any things you think it's better suited for than Vienna Imperial.

Thanks very much,

Pyre

Hi all,

My PC setup has several 1TB hard drives, and used to have a 128GB SSD for the OS. In time that became full, so I've just replaced it with a 256 GB SSD. Annoyingly that meant reinstalling Windows and all my programs with it, but it's mostly done at last.

I store my VSL samples on one of the hard drives, but I am wondering where is best to install the MIR room packs. Should they also be on the sample drive, or better on the SSD with the OS for fast loading, if they aren't too large? Ideally I'd have the samples themselves on SSD too, of course, but no way can I afford a RAID array for multiple small SSDs, or even a single large one.

Thanks!

Thanks, that sounds great. The modulation would only affect the wet sound, right?

Hi Dietz,

Just to quickly check, is the same true for wet/dry mute when using MIRacle?

So I could export the track once with the wet MIRacle slider muted, and again with the dry one muted, and when I play them back together it will be identical to one track with neither muted?

It's an awkward work around, but seems the best option if a mixing engineer may not have the MIRacle plugin.

Many thanks,

Pyre

Hi all,

Am I right in thinking that if I export one mix of a MIR project with the Dry Solo button pressed, and another with the Wet Solo button pressed instead, and then load the two audio files into a new project, the end result would sound identical to if I'd exported it with neither button pressed?

If so, that would be a neat way for me to hand both dry and wet to my engineer, so that he could adjust the balance in the mix if necessary.

Thanks!

Thanks very much, Dietz, got it now, that worked a treat!

Ah, brilliant, thank you. I've found the Default.vmi file, it says it was last modified in 2014 (same as every other file in the folder). I installed the latest VEP version earlier, so, if that didn't update the file, any idea who else I might do so please?

Sorry, I can't see Default.vmi anywhere, or ProgramData. I have C\Program Files\Vienna Mir Pro, but that only contains the Vienna MIR Pro and unins000 applications, and a file called unins000.dat

Weird, that's the version I'm using too. Yet the solo voices options are definitely not listed. Is this something I should send to ?

Hi Dietz,

My version of MIR doesn't have those presets, its Other menu has the five Vienna Choir options labelled 100, then 101 Soprano Choir, and then goes straight to 151 Upright Bass and Concert Guitar, and then 152 Electric Guitar.

What would I need to update to get the missing profiles?

Many thanks,

Pyre

Hi all,

I bought Vienna Solo Voices a couple of months ago, and I'm just getting around to using it properly for the first time. I've loaded it up in MIR as usual and added articulations, but it's not automatically selecting an instrument profile, and then I try to do so manually, I can't see any solo voice profiles on the available lists. I've tried installing the latest version of MIR (dated 6/2/16), but that hasn't made any difference.

Do the solo voices not have their own profiles and the Vienna Choir profiles should be used instead? Or am I going about updating things the wrong way?

Many thanks,

Pyre

Well, we know that Dimension Strings involved around a million samples. About a quarter of which were presumably violins. So just the second violin section for DS alone would be another 250,000 samples. One could perhaps cut down on some of the articulations as it's only the second bank, but only so far before losing the versatility and realism that we flock to VSL for in the first place. I sometimes write second violin parts just as technical as the first, and cutting out too many articulations would hamper that. Add to that the additional samples for the Appassionata, Orchestral, Chamber and Solo libraries, and the sample count climbs higher still. And to integrate fully with the other samples, the recording and editing process would have to be exactly aligned with the original ones, which in some cases are ten years old, so may prove tricky to duplicate. The point is that recording the samples for a second violin section would be very time consuming and far from cheap. Given that we've found workarounds for the lack of second violins for the whole time we've been using VSL to date, I wonder how many users would then pay out for the real thing. A new set of second violin samples would come at the expense of time VSL could spend doing other things, and money you could spend on other things.

A transposition trick button, on the other hand (not that the two have to be mutually exclusive), would presumably be easier to implement. I have no coding knowledge whatsoever, but given that half the functionality is already there, I would hesitate to suggest that it might even be the sort of tool included free in a new version of VIP. It would not be anything like as complicated to program - I'm guessing - as the APP sequencer, after all. It would offer much greater versatility - string quintets were mentioned as needing two solo violins, but I thought standard quartets did too? I routinely use two banks of cellos as well as two violins, so the ability to equally double the cellos would be much more appreciated to me at least than just a second bank of violins. It could also double thing like piccolos to help balance the one piccolo against the three-flute ensemble.

I usually find I get a better sound by having the first and second violin sections using different articulations, but there are some situations (like pizzicato) where that isn't much of an option. The transposition trick is very useful in those instances, and a button would make that easier. But I can certainly live without it too :-).

Hi all,

Not sure if this is quite the right thread for this question, but not sure where else to put it.

I've just bought the Vienna Solo Voices Choir, and downloaded it last night. I had installed the latest version of the eLicencer, but foolishly had not updated Vienna Download Manager. The file downloaded fine overnight, but then this morning it said it needed the latest version of Download Manager to install.

So I downloaded and installed the latest version of Download Manager, and I have the downloaded Solo Voices folder on my library hard drive. The bit I can't figure out is how to open it with Download Manager so that I can install it. Is this possible, or should I download the package again?

Many thanks,

Pyre

Fantastic, thanks very much, that Sonalksis one works brilliantly, has loads of +/- leeway, and doesn't seem to use too much processing power. Looking forward to comparing how different my choir sounds with +30 gain before hitting MIR instead of after. Thanks!

Hi Dietz, no problem, will do. I hadn't seen the Matrix Mixer before (I thought from the name that it would be something to do with mixing different VI matrices at different levels), it looks incredibly powerful. Are there any plugins you would recommend for transparently adding gain that will work happily with VEP?

Hi all,

Further to the above question, could I add a feature request please? How easy would it be to implement a method for switching the positioning of the MIR send/return in the VEP effect chain?

At its most basic, this could be a basic fader plugin that could be inserted pre-MIR just like the Vienna Suite EQ with just the output level control (I have tried doing this, but as the EQ output level only goes down to -30, and the VEP faders go down to -60, the resolution steps are different and so my existing fader automation doesn't match). At a more complicated level, it would be fantastic to have the option to put the MIR send last in a chain after buses, so that group levels could be set pre-reverb, just as one would with a traditional reverb bus.

I'm honestly not sure how this would work with the volume and panning adjustments that MIR also makes to the sound. I just wondered if there were a way around it, it's really nice being able to control instrument volume when mixing using automation rather than CC numbers (higher resolution, much easier to see on-screen), and having three different points to control the volume (CC11, CC7 and VEP fader) is really helpful (I use CC11 for instrument performance smoothing, CC7 for section performance smoothing, and the VEP fader for section levels within a mix). And while it's useful to be able to control the output level post-reverb, in my case it would be much more useful pre-reverb, as changes afterward sound like mixing/production alterations rather than performance ones. Am I right in thinking that an old version of VEP/MIR had a pre/post switch, or am I imagining that?

Many thanks,

Pyre

Hi all,

My computer can handle about nine VI tracks in one instance of MIR before digital artifacts and glitches are heard from the CPU usage hitting 100%. I therefore orchestrate using one or two instances of MIR per orchestral section, setting each up one at a time and then freezing it.

This means that each instance of MIR has its own Room Tone, which when combined across six or eight instances adds up to quite a loud background noise. In this situation would you say it is better to have six or eight quiet Room Tone tracks (one for each instance, so that no instrument decays into digital silence) or one loud Room Tone track on just one instance? I think just a single one would be better and sound more like the whole orchestra is playing together all at once, but will the note decay still sound 'real' with the note decaying on one instance into the Room Tone of another?

When mixing a real orchestra, would it be normal practise to use a noise gate/expander/filter/automation to remove the natural room tone during periods of silence? Would doing so here be in line with real orchestral production? Or would it break the image of realism and defy the point of using MIR's Room Tone in the first place?

Many thanks,

Pyre

As Dietz says, both have their uses. If you're looking for a guide as to which one to choose out of the two, then MIR offers a lot more besides just reverb but comes at a higher price.

One thing I would say about MIR that's almost counter-intuitive is how easy it makes making decisions. I use MIR on almost everything, and only occasionally reach for Vienna Suite. When I do use Hybrid Reverb, however (does anyone just use the Suite Convolution Reverb on its own anymore?), I find I am spoiled for choice. I go through every preset in the type I am looking for, and then try others just to be sure. I try tweaking most of the edit paramaters, and see if I can hear the effect on the sound, and then decide how I like it best (probably how it was to begin with).

Whereas with MIR, I drag the icon to the position I want on the stage (usually just touching its neighbours), point it at the microphone, reduce the dry/wet offset to -30, and I'm done. If I don't then like the sound, I'll of course change it, whether by rotating the instrument, moving it, switching the profile or character preset etc. But otherwise that's how I leave it. For a default setting, I like the solidarity of MIR, of knowing that that's how that actual instrument would sound in that position in that room, and so I have the confidence to use that 'reality' as a starting point.

You can still choose between MIR venues, mic positions and reverb times, but even then there are only 20ish venue options to choose from, and the audition feature on the load screen is really helpful. I think because you are constantly looking at the venue, too, when working on the project, its identity is more built up in your head. So I can think 'Teldex would be right for this' when starting a new project, because I am familiar with it from memory, or 'Maria Strassengel is too small, let's try the monastery' etc.

I rarely use MIRacle myself, as I have to keep the reverb firmly under control to work in my mixes, and I tend to treat any more ambient track needing more reverb presence as an excuse to break out the Mystic Spaces roompack (which I would recommend along with the Studios & Soundstages roompack as the two I use most). But it can be really useful for adding more reverb towards the end of working on a piece rather than redoing all the venue stuff, or for adjusting with automation as the piece changes.

MIR is very expensive for a simple reverb engine. For what the product actually is, however; a virtual recreation of real venues and visual mixing environment, it's an investment I've never regretted. If nothing else, for its authenticity: My recording is the sound of my music is being played by an orchestra largely made up of players from the Vienna Philharmonic, in the foyer of the Vienna Konzerthaus next to the bust of Beethoven, and while it doesn't happen in quite the manner people might expect when you describe it to them like that, not a word of it is untrue.

Hi everyone,

I've recently come to use the Vienna Suite Goniometer for the first time (VS standard, rather than Pro), and just wanted to check if I've understood how it works correctly. Am I right in thinking that it works evenly across all frequencies? And that a correlation of, say, 0.8, means that only 20% of the frequencies are being phase cancelled?

Or is it tuned to a particular frequency, or even able to detect the fundamental as in the Vienna Suite EQ, and adjust its aim accordingly? And a correlation of 0.8 would mean that that particular frequency was 20% out of phase?

I'm just relatively new to really thinking about phase, and by extension properly dwelling on the idea of waveforms and how a single waveform contains information for different frequencies, whether the high and low tones of a single note or the different pitches of a chord.

I have to say I really like the goniometer plugin. Really useful how it can have two completely different uses of checking stereo image and aligning phase coherence, simply by changing what is fed into it. My mixes sound better with it; multitracked guitars have much more of their lowest octave, giving them a throatier sound which is much closer to how they're meant to sound layered up. And of course it's very pretty, I almost want a tiny extra monitor so it can have its own space being visible the whole time.

Thanks,

Pyre

You may be able to do this inside Cubase, too, which would allow you to use all the VSL articulations. I'm still on Cubase 4, so I'm not quite sure if Cubase 8 would be the same, but there may be a parameter somewhere on the virtual instrument area or the MIDI track to select the number of voices. This is designed for basic VSTs that only have very limited polyphony, but I think you can achieve the result you're after if you set it to 1.

Thanks Dietz, that's great to know. I've adjusted the track so the volume changes are done with CC7 instead of the faders, and it sounds great!

Hi everyone,

I'm working on an atmospheric ballad with massive reverbs and slow attack strings, for which I'm using my absolute favourite MIR venue, the Steinhofkirche. I have the reverb time at the full 8 seconds, but the dry/wet offset at -30% as it's mixing the orchestral instruments with much more 'in your face' guitars. I am generating the slow attack swell by raising the velocity crossfade from 50 up to 80 and then back down to 50 for each note, which creates an initial swell then sustained by the reverb while the next note fades in. I have also sometimes raised the attack slider to 30, my first time using it on anything other than 0.

I am using MIR's automation mapping to adjust instrument volumes between verse and chorus sections, and I notice that the level of the reverb tail changes as well. This means that the lush reverb hanging from the last chorus chord suddenly dips as the instrument levels change for the upcoming verse, which sounds very disruptive in the track.

Is there a way that VEP and MIR can be set to adjust instrument levels only, without affecting the reverb level? As if it were a reverb bus plugin, and I was adjusting the send level to the bus rather than the return from it? Currently my VEP template is set up with a MIR plugin for each track, marked (inline), is there another setting there that would work better?

Or would I be better off adjusting the volumes using the CC7 and CC11 controls, which as far as I can tell are pre-reverb and adjust the raw instrument level? Am I simply looking at this the wrong way, treating MIR as a traditional reverb and not the mixing/virtual hall environment solution it truly is?

Many thanks,

Pyre

PS... Also, while looking at the attack slider on VIP for the first time, I noticed a release slider as well. I know the attack slider works by fading in the volume on a sample, could I ask how exactly the release slider works please? Is it that setting the slider at 127 will play back the whole end of the sample, and any lower than that fades it out quicker, and we are simply used to hearing the samples fade out when the slider is set at the default of 63? Or is it that it fades out the end below 63 but boosts it when higher than 63? Or is it more of a time-based algorithm, like the time stretching feature? If its method of operation is confidential, I completely understand not sharing its secrets; I'm just trying to work out what setting to use for the 'real', unaltered sample sound. Mostly out of curiosity, though - I'm used to hearing it set at 63, so I'm probably going to leave it set like that most of the time.

I too like layering different VSL libraries; if you send all the different virtual instruments from one library to one bus, and all the differnt VIs from another to a different bus, you can easily adjust between them on the fly. Or even do it directly with automation mapping, using the same parameter to control the levels of every instrument within a library. Solo strings add expressiveness to ensembles, but risk making them sound smaller if too loud. Appassionata adds size, as you might expect, but at the slight cost of detail. So you can use a central library for your main section sound, like Dimension, Orchestral or Chamber Strings, and then add in as much of the extremes at either end of the size spectrum depending on what the passage calls for.

The only warning I would offer is that your articulation, volume, expression, velocity and timing settings for one library may sound weird on another, so you would probably need a different MIDI track for each library. And since each one will need finetuning to sound its best, this can take up to three times as long as with just one single library. In practice, layers two and three rarely take anything like as long as layer one, but it's certainly not quick. So the main downside to this method is the additional time it takes to produce useable results. And, of course, the additional CPU overhead, or track count if you're bouncing down audio for mixing.

Ah, thanks Dietz, that's got it! I'll move the files across to the MIR Engine Project folder, I hadn't even been aware that existed before now.