Hi Milan,

actually I think there's a basic misconception as a base for your disappointment: the MIR scope is to give you total freedom for positioning whatever you want wherever you want the way you want.

That's the opposite of having point 1 to 11 skipped with pre made set-up like you love in Synchron player.

But despite this total open precess being possible, you have two more different workflows available to you:

1) the semi-automatic process described by William before to get all "sound" parameters set but still free and manual positioning is requested.

2) the totally automatic set-up, including optimal positioning managed by the MIR-X function.

Obviously to learn how to use the VI instruments set-up, and the MIR-X presets you have to spend a bit of time on the instructions and accept a learning curve. Then once you get the logic and learn the shortcuts and preferences that suit your needs, it is super fast and really convenient.

But I suppose you know already that powerful and complex professional tools do have a learning curve... if you were starting today using Logic or Cubase without any background you should be in similar or even worse situation. I hope this explain the point...

Intersting to notice that both of you have Powerbooks.

I didn't experience your issues (but some small incompatibility with the missing Driver of Steinberg UR22C), but I'm using a Macmini.

I'm using it for some weeks now, and stressed a bit the system, and all sounds good up to now.

Originally Posted by: Dietz

As far as I remember the reasoning of VSL's software engineers, this strange "Balance"-thingy has been left in for compatibility reasons. I would prefer to get rid of it, but I didn't win through, obviously. ;-D

... hope this answers most of this thread's questions.

Got it, thank you. Yes it does answer.

cheers

F.

Originally Posted by: civilization 3

Well, the Balance control of VE Pro is not a power panner so I never use it. Leave it alone is the answer, at center/default it's not doing anything.

Hi Civ, thanks for sharing your experience. I agree on the first statement... Balance is not PowerPan, and PowerPan is not Balance. I also understand that if you don't know about something and it seems not what you are looking for, it's better you don't use it, so I understand you simply ignore it.

On the other side, the slider is in place and it's operational. Usually VSL software is carefully designed and usually everything existing has a reason to exist: that's the reason why I ask VSL experts and developers to tell us more and/or give recommendation. Often I learned so much thanks to Dietz answers to questions, that it changed and improved my practice on features that are not 100% covered or clear in the manuals, and not always self-explanatory.

Dietz... any comment recommendation?

Any chance to get an answer? 

Anybody else can share experience and/or knowledge?

thank you again,

Fabio

I got some doubts coming from the behaviour of stereo-channels volume and perceived positioning of some instruments tracks that had both balance and PowerPan manipulated on the channel:

- VI have a single knob acting like a balance or like a PowerPan if the stereo field get open at will. Then no discrepancies are possible in the VI mixer. For that reason I was always considering the PowerPan overriding the balance, with an additional information about the stereo field width.

- In VE Pro channel strip, the "Stereo Pan" is optional, available as an integrated audio insert, and then the Balance slider is still active and can be set with different and "contradictory" direction. Is Stereo Pan overriding the Balance or are they merging/interfering?

- In Synchron Player we have back a Power Pan control on instrument mixer, but a Balance knob is optionally selectable and it keeps different direction even if a Power Pan setting is overlapped. Again, is Power Pan overriding the Balance, or are they merging/interfering?

I'm a bit lost in names/differences/similarities, and sometime the acoustic and metering outcome seems different from the one I expected, so please VSL team, kindly help me to understand and master it correctly.

Thank you in advance, F.

Originally Posted by: mat123

fatis,

this is good news! This also means that licenser works without problems, right?

I am using lots of vst within MainStage (intel Mac). I am wondering if, on an M1 mac, it is possible to run rosetta-based VSTs within a native app like MainStage. Have you tried this?

BTW, perfect choice: VP-1 with synchron pianos! To my eyes there is currently no better solution!

Yes no problems on my system with the elicenser: all working fine, including steinberg licenses I have on the same key.

Yes native Apple audio software is running a bridge (kind of sub-rosetta) for VSTs and AUs. When it creates compatibility issues, you may still run the whole app in rosetta mode, and it will increase even more the number of viable plugins (e.g. my VOCALOID-5 works only if the host is running in Rosetta, it's common for the plug-ins with large and non standard GUI etc.)

Yes VP-1 and Synchron pianos is a top combination, I really love it:  I had and used several digital pianos but this is the closer-to-real feeling I ever had.

Originally Posted by: samphony

How did you got it working?

I am running a Mac mini m1 as DAW Mac and an i7 Mac mini as VEP server.
The moment I open the server plugin in my daw its window stays empty. 

I can manually enter the server IP address but am unable to select the specific instance from the plugin window!

I simply connected it and it was working, without manual IP input, just the instance was showing up!

But I had a similar problem with my old macs (a Mac Pro 2013 and a Mac Book Pro 2019) in Catalina/Mojave:

- automatic list of instances not happening, and even manual IP connection impossible if they were on different channels of the router... I realized they have to be all on the very same network, including the channel of the router (e.g. 2.4 vs. 5Ghz, subnetworks etc. etc.)

- still automatic detection impossible despite the correct network, but then manual IP connection perfectly working and saved in the file (so it happens again when you close it and reopen it later)

For that reason I suspect there is some issue in network detection caused by the last versions of the macOS, disregarding the M1 or BigSure updates. In my case I was so happy to get back the automatic connection between the M1 and the MacBook Pro both running BigSure 11.1

I recommend you carefully check the network set-up to ensure both the machines are in the very same channel/subnetwork, then if it doesn't fix at least the manual IP connectivity, then double check software versions. Can't say more than this sorry.

Originally Posted by: Eulenauge66

Also waiting for this. Bought the M1 MacBook Pro and can't wait to test it with VEP.

I did it, and it works pretty well. I tested network on ethernet and Thunderbolt 3 both working very well.

The power of the actual unsupported and casual Rosetta2 adaptation is amazing, and competing already in performance with i9 top CPU. Then if software issues will be fixed and we get stable native version of the VSL software, I'm expecting some interesting result, let's say equal or better performance of the "actual one" should result already in an amazing quality/price rate for the Macmini M1, and good forecast for successors.

I actually spent last couple of days testing my VSL arsenal with my new Macmini M1 16Gb, and I have to report I'm pretty surprised by the good performance despite the fact the full package, including my Audio interface (Steinberg UR-C 22) are UNSUPPORTED!

- all synchron and VI software is running smoothly stand alone or hosted in VE Pro and MIR Pro 24, as in Logic/Garageband native DAWs.

- synchron pianos for instance are performing as good as on my Mac Book Pro i9 2019 (actually costing 4k euros, instead of 900 euros as the Macmini...)

- the speed and reactivity of the whole system is impressive, everything being more fast and smooth than all Intel Macs I own and owned (including the Mac Pro early 2013 12 cores, now a bit outdated, but still pretty powerful in multi core computing, RAM and disk access)

WARNING: in general the system is not ready yet for professional application, due to some (pretty small to be honest, but potentially disruptive for professional workflow and performance stability) little graphic artefacts and audio issue: for an undetected yet reason I get unpredictable small interruption of sound (kind of overload, but without noise or digital glitch) then I can't say if it's due to disk, or software, or audio driver incompatibility.

But due to the pretty stable fast and good result in synchronization (both audio and MIDI) and bounce/rendering I'm very happy and looking forward to great performance with native universal binary version of the software coming (more or less) soon from manufacturers (hopefully including VSL).

This is not only meaning that we can expect some future mid-range Mac will do magic, but it already opens the hi-performance scenario to affordable actual small macs as well, candidates for budget home-studio, or for arrays of VE Pro servers etc.

I actually did try synchron Pianos on my Macmini M1 16Gb, and I didn't notice any difference with my MacBook Pro 2019 i9 32Gb.

Only problem is my Audio interface has not yet a reliable/supported ASIO audio driver for silicon macOs, then I can't say if latency and buffer parameters are correct. But loading was fast and playback fine with 64k (overload with long sustain pedal reaching more than 300 voices) and perfect with 128k buffer, and my Kawai VP-1 was very responsive and natural to play.

All the rest of VSL software is running surprisingly good as I'm reporting in another post.

Hello VSL team,

I'm tempted by the MIR software offers, but I'm not sure about what's the best solution for my needs, then I would like to know the following details before I take a final decision:

- I own a MIR Pro 24 license, and so I'm eligible for the MIR PRO upgrade: is the MIR Pro license replacing the MIR Pro 24 after upgrade, or will the old licence be available as well?

(e.g. after upgrade to VE PRO 7, the license of VE PRO 6 was still available, because the superior one didn't replace it)

I ask it because I have sometime to split the workload on 2 different systems via VE PRO network, and in my previous tests 1 instance of VE PRO + MIR Pro with more than 24 instruments (e.g. 30 to 40) was a bit too much for 1 single CPU: so running both the MIR Pro and the MIR Pro 24 in parallel on my systems should help me to distribute the workload via VE PRO network on 2 CPUs (working successfully during my tests, I own 2 Vienna Key for activating full features in 2 CPUs).

Another solution was splitting on the network the instruments only, and use MIR PRO as inserts of the DAW, but I prefer the sonic result and workflow of VE PRO + MIR PRO instead.

In case MIR PRO upgrade should erase/replace the MIR PRO 24, then perhaps an additional MIR PRO 24 license can do for my need instead of the upgrade... but

- any technical or sound difference in mixing 2 instances of MIR PRO from different CPUs, instead of keeping the whole load in a single instance?

(I don't think so, but I would love to get your official statement)

Thank you in advance for your feedback and hints.

Originally Posted by: Dewdman42

Do the Synchronized Dimension strings have panning information in the actual IR's?  I would expect them to have Early Reflection data, ...

In theory that should be possible (e.g. if the IR was generated by the MIR engine, or similar process) and looking to the way all the Synchronized instruments (e.g. Woodwinds and SE) are programmed, it seems the Balance helps to fine-tune the panning, but part of the job being made by IR. That's the reason of my assumption and interpretation of the VSL claims about the product features...

but it's just my very personal opinion, and it can be totally wrong:  that was the reason for asking the VSL team for explanation and recommendations.

(by the way that should be measurable, isolating the signal and sending it to an analyzer, but I didn't take the time yet, in the hope there was already official documentation or statements about it by VSL.)

Thank you for the kind answer.

I appreciate the good news, because I think it makes a lot of sense VSL takes care of the MIR workflow with Synchronized Libraries as well, being evident the softwares were already prepared to interact.

A quick introduction of the topic, and a few questions for Dietz and the VSL experts:

Synchron-ized libraries offer by default several new features vs. the VI original version:

- a Synchron Player articulation management and sample storage/playback that can offer some workflow and performance advantage or alternatives.

- a sophisticated internal mixer, with MIX presets, powered by Synchron Stage IR and FX chain, masterfully crafted and ready-to-use, providing a sound ready to mix with Synchron collection libraries, and other Synchron-ized libraries "out-of-the-box".

But of course, the "Synchron StageA" preset and default IR are not limiting the use and application of the Synchron-ized libraries. The pristine dry sound of the library is still available, eQ, IR, balance, power-pan and FX chain are fully customizable, and they can be activated or excluded on demand according the user's need and intention.

This important feature enable the use of any external positioning, virtual stage, and ambience effect chain, and of course, the use of MIR Pro with different venues, or in case of the Synchron StageA venue, of different positions and mic settings on the stage, compared to the default Synchron-ized presets.

The Synchron Player engine has been already programmed to interact with VE Pro and MIR Pro in a pretty intelligent way: e.g. it automatically deactivate some eQ and IRs if a preset is loaded into MIR Pro, and MIR  "guess" function is recognizing the Synchron-ized library and loading the corresponding instrument profile, including characters and Room Eq.

I've the following open questions and comments to be verified by the VSL team:

- is the "intended and proper" use of Synchron-ized libraries into MIR Pro described in any manual or tutorial? (perhaps it is, but I didn't find it yet)

- for the Synchron-ized Dimension Strings sections "all players" a default preset is missing the position of single players into the section (because it is supposed to be defined by the IR, but the IR is now disabled to let you work with MIR instead...).

I suppose it can be restored manually, perhaps following the example of the "noCon" presets: the pan balance of each player is different and is defining the relative position, then the power-pan is defining the stereo field. What's the recommended power-pan for best compatibility with the MIR Pro "8 players" etc.? Is the single player eQ helping in this case, or is it interfering with the MIR instrument profile?

(it obviously interfere with a solo instrument profile, but I'm not sure about the whole section profile).

Yes, I did experiment and had my ears judge, but a technically correct briefing should help a lot to start and guide the research: thank you in advance for any hint and suggestions on the topic!

Well... it's definitely another misunderstanding. I apologize for the confusion but...

Unfortunately we have pretty similar names that can make the messages even more misleading. I try to make it easier if possible:

- NO. There's no MIRx function in Synchron Player (yet). I was referring to the VEPro + MIR host, with MIRx presets.

- YES. Obviously scope of it is to get close (with VI libraries + MIR + Synchron StageA venue)  to the ambience of Synchron and Synchron-ized libraries. (So "Synch'd" is a good definition for RoomEQ, I wrote it already).

- YES there is no need of re-synchronize a Synchron-ized library, but there are several more reasons and opportunities for processing with MIR a Synchron-ized library:

   1) if you own MIR and a Synchron-ized library, and you want to use the library in a different venue than Synchron, or experiment a different Synchron venue stage position or mic set-up.

   2) in addition to the previous point, if you prefer the Synchron-Player performance or articulation control vs. the VI Pro version.

I hope it makes my original message a bit more clear, anyway I was just wondering if you had any suggestion or recommendation for using the Synchron Player into MIR, beside the obvious need of disabling IR, reverb and eQ. (e.g. what's the best panning method of the components of a Dimension strings section? is the personal eQ of each Dimension player1, 2, 3... useful if I send for instance the 8 Violins from one Synchron-player instance to a MIR full section instance that has just 1 "collective" profile and eQ? etc.)

[EDIT: I move this question to a new specific on topic thread, no need of answering here.]

Originally Posted by: Dietz

Hi Fabio,

I will have to investigate myself. I didn't try MIRx in Synchron Player up to now, only in VI / VI Pro. :-)

Thanks for your patience,

No problem... I understand it, main scope being obviously to help mixing VI / VI Pro libraries.

But beside the fact of owning it, a Synchronized library can be preferred for better patch organization and/or slightly better performance optimization etc. and so a MIR owner maybe want to use different MIR venues or different stage positions...

Then I think that using the pristine (unprocessed) sound of a Synchronized library in MIR still makes sense for several users.

Your recommendations for the best execution of the MIR processing of the Synchronized libraries will be very welcome!

Well, from your answer I got there's a point I misunderstood :(

If I load a synchron player instance and I select a sinchronyzed dimension strings patch, the MIRx settings are automatically updated to a Dimension strings instrument profile, with the MIRx StageA Character, and a "Synch'd - Dim.Violins I" Room Equalizer e.g. for Violins 1.

I was thinking that "Synch'd" prefix was reffering to Synchronized instruments, but it seems it's not the case, also because the same Room Equalizer is loaded for VI instances... I see.

Anyway still my question is open... good sense should suggest that if MIR doesn't distinguish between Synchron Player and VI libraries, it's even more important I send to MIR the "closest-to-VI output" from Synchron Player instances as well, to get MIRx setting work as intended, and then I suppose the closest output should be the flat "default" Synchron Player Mix setting, to avoid double processing (of IR, pan, reverb etc.)... is it correct?

In case it is, any suggestion for the proper panning of dimension sections in Synchron player? (something similar to the VI patches I suppose...)

[EDIT: I concluded this thread, and I opened a new specific one, hopefully more clear and more useful for the community, being this based on an initial misunderstanding] 

Hi Dietz,

I'm experimenting with your last delivery of Synchron Stage MIRx settings, and I love the fact that some specific sets were created for Synchronized instruments. However, despite searching into manuals and instructions, I wasn't able of finding the recommended source for the sets:

- what's the proper "mix" setup we have to select into the Synchron player? I suppose that the IR's eQ pan and vol settings of the patches should NOT be the proper source for a MIRx setup, otherwise they would mess up with the instrument profile, eq and reverb IR of MIR... but then

- is the flat "default" mix setup of the player the right source? (it seems to exclude any volume, effect and pan chain, to delegate to MIR the job) Any recommendation?

- that sounds ok for solos and ensemble instruments, but "default" is a problem with Dimension Strings and Brass: I try to load a noIR mix and exclude single player effects, keeping only a basic pan/positioning, but I'm not sure about eQ and delay optimal requirements by player... what's your recommendation?

Thank you in advance for your advice, best regards

Fabio

Originally Posted by: Dietz

We hear you! ;-)

Thank you so much! i didn't realize initially what the update was about, so as usual I just come to the forum and find the answer ;)

But adding a change-log update will also help other users to get the point, I guess. ;)

And now I will have fun experimenting and comparing my set-ups to yours (usually always very good, so I'm really excited by this time saving and quality improving feature, that was my best source for learning as well).

Originally Posted by: Paul

Hi FV, 

Please send a quick example, best with a MIDI file or sequencer project, to , we will check it out!

Best,
Paul

Thank you Paul, done.

Files attached below as well.

Hello Paul and dear VSL-users mates, 

first of all I take the chance to say I really loved the SynStringsPro, great improvement, lovable and clever library.

Unfortunately I have a problem with the agile legato patch of Violins (both 14 and 10) that I would like to investigate:

- playing fast with the patch, a strange out-of-tune layer is audible over the normal sound, sounding like if the legato-transition samples (the short "swipes") were mapped differently from sustain samples (like half a tone up or similar). This is very audible if you play a trill or similar fast repetitive pattern.

- other instruments (eg. agile legato violas or cellos) work totally fine, as the normal legato for all instruments including Violins.

I updated today to last SSP setup but according notes, it didn't seem to address agile legato, so actually nothing changed.

Anybody else got the problem, and perhaps found a fix? Any VSL recommendation or known fix?

I can provide sound example and system set-up to support if this will be rated as new/unknown.

Thank you in advance, Best Regards

FV

+ 1

MIDI processing is provided by DAW and Notation with increasing features and power as a trend, but still a consistent VSL VE Pro MIDI manager should help a lot.

well... at least I got the "LYRA" name 

what after Musca?... NOVA? NANA? who knows... 

this is always the case when LPX scan AU that have a link to external servers like VE and MIR.

The only problem it created to me was some issue with the eLicenser (probably due to low USB data flow) but always fixed after a restart. I had to manually close the applications to get the scan successfully over, but after that all was working properly.