# What is it about Vienna's MIR?



## Stephen Rees (Mar 27, 2014)

I have seen a few comments recently from people whose musical work and ears I have great respect for saying that they prefer not to use MIR - even for VSL's own samples.

I have recently bought into the VSL world including MIR and have had some successes and some failures in getting it to produce a pleasing sound to me. I recognise that I am inexperienced in using it and VSL's samples in general, so with more practice I will get more from it.

But I wondered if any of you would like to share your thoughts on MIR? Why you prefer not to use it? And also for those who do use it and consider it invaluable, what you feel it is offering you that you can't do better with other tools?

Thanks in advance for any opinions you might have.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 27, 2014)

I think with MIR you have to be very clear what you want it for. In my case it turns out that there are tools that work better for most of what I do. For example:

Strings, I prefer working with the usual sends system. It gives me a better sense of control, particularly if I need to work with a slightly fake mix.

Woodwinds are already too big and fat with VSL. With MIR, I find that I also need to use a number of plugs to move them back and to slim them down to a realistic level. This is a PITA in MIR, and IMO there are better tools for the job. I also run into the same problem that exists with multi mic setups. If you want more definition, you add more dry signal/close mic. However, this also brings the instrument nearer to the listener, so you need to add even more reverb (or other tricks) to move it back again. Too much hassle and better results with other plugs.

Brass, I no longer use VSL, so MIR is not a one stop shop for this. With the new SM updates, it might work, but I can't really be bothered to find out, when I'm getting a satisfactory result with what I'm using now.

Percussion. Never tried. Not really interested to try.

D


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 27, 2014)

Thanks for your detailed answer Daryl.

I suppose I am looking to use MIR for a few things...

1). To create a credible orchestral sound space for VSL instruments.
2). To put individual VSL instruments (or sections) into a space that makes them consistent enough with ambient libraries I have like Spitfire to mix them together.
3). To mix other dryish libraries with VSL and ambient libraries.
4). To mix synths into an orchestral mix (not that I do that very often).

I seem to remember that Beat Kaufmann (sorry Beat if I am misquoting you, please correct me if you read this and I am wrong) saying he preferred the results he got with traditional reverb techniques than anything he could get from MIR.

You have both used VSL for a long time, solving the 'problem' of creating credible spaces for a full VSL orchestration using other techniques, so I am guessing MIR didn't really have anything to offer you (other than perhaps a different workflow that may or may not be more convenient) and perhaps your own mixing solutions simply sound better to you than the results you have been able to get with MIR.


----------



## Diffusor (Mar 27, 2014)

I think technically MIR is awesome--it's an achievement for sure. While it does a good job of placing things in space I don't think the actual "sound" is that pleasing compared to the results I can get with other reverb.


----------



## Goran (Mar 27, 2014)

Here are a few remarks of a notorious MIR fan...

I work with MIR since it was released, and I must say I can't imagine my production work without MIR anymore. The sheer flexibility it offers for the spatial positioning of virtual ensembles and orchestras as well as the mind-numbing quality of the *real room sound* it offers are simply indispensable to me. F.e. there is no way I could achieve the sound and spatial resolution quality of string sections I can achieve today if it weren't for MIR. I am not saying others couldn't as well. But I openly confess that I myself probably wouldn't be able to pull off such results if I wouldn't have MIR at my disposal.

But, let us allow MIR to speak for itself:

https://viennatraining.com/en/leiter

All the examples here were made with MIR (one of my personal favourites, the Berlioz example, was even made with the old legacy MIR and VSL Special Edition Vol.1 only, before MIR PRO was released).


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 27, 2014)

Thanks for your replies Diffusor and Goran.

Also thanks for pointing me towards your work Goran. I can hear why you are particularly pleased with the Berlioz, but must admit my favourite is the understated musical elegance of your performance of the Dvorak. I think this kind of exposed string writing is the thing I find the hardest to carry off with samples, and you have succeeded in doing so with great panache. Lovely


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> (...) I can hear why you are particularly pleased with the Berlioz (...)


I can't. I really can't. It's one of those mock-ups that make me angry. Seriously. I can understand a certain pride in the Mozart — with moderation though —, but I find the Berlioz an abomination, both sonically and, above all, musically. And I don't like any of the others either. If these pieces score on one point, for me, it's the confirmation that I was right all along not to buy into the VSL orchestra too heavily and certainly not in MIR.

(Been meaning to comment on this set of mock-ups before, but everytime I got too agitated and decided to leave it.)

I'm sincerely sorry, Goran. I know these pieces mean a lot to you, seeing that you've posted links to them on quite a number of occasions already, and you obviously shouldn't mind me or my opinion at all of course, but that's how I hear it.

_


----------



## Goran (Mar 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Thu Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) I can hear why you are particularly pleased with the Berlioz (...)
> ...



Sorry, Piet, but I cannot even begin to take your comment seriously (no offense intended, but, if we are already talking openly, that's how I see it). I've even played some of these to professional orchestral musicians in a real blind test (there was no mention of the sampled-real) and got comments like "great performance, who is playing this"?. Not to mention the judgment of some of the most respected orchestrators and audio engineers in the field. But, what can I tell you - to each his own...


----------



## Goran (Mar 27, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Thanks for your replies Diffusor and Goran.
> 
> Also thanks for pointing me towards your work Goran. I can hear why you are particularly pleased with the Berlioz, but must admit my favourite is the understated musical elegance of your performance of the Dvorak. I think this kind of exposed string writing is the thing I find the hardest to carry off with samples, and you have succeeded in doing so with great panache. Lovely



Thank you Stephen, Dvorak is my string orchestra favourite on that list. It was a great challenge, but the experience I acquired while doing it was indispensable.


----------



## Symfoniq (Mar 27, 2014)

I use MIR and like it, but to those using alternative reverbs with VSL, I'd be interested in hearing more about your workflow.


----------



## rgames (Mar 27, 2014)

I don't like it simply because I don't like the sound - it's a very bright and unflattering sound to my ears. Plus, there's a lot more flexibility working with the raw recorded sound.

Whether you use MIR or any other tool, it's some form of fakery.

It all comes down to which fake sounds better to you.

rgames


----------



## AC986 (Mar 27, 2014)

Or which fake sounds potentially best for your intended audience.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 27, 2014)

Goran @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> (...) I've even played some of these to professional orchestral musicians in a real blind test (there was no mention of the sampled-real) and got comments like "great performance, who is playing this"?. Not to mention the judgment of some of the most respected orchestrators and audio engineers in the field. (...)


Not with you, Goran, I’m very sorry. Are you sure those men were who they said they were? Cause me, I hear something totally different: a completely synthetic sound, muffled and shrill at the same time, often recurring phasing problems, no real definition in any of the instruments or sections at all, and a virtual brass section that should be forbidden by law to make an appearance in any music production ever again.

Let’s listen maybe to an example: http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/UnBal_VSL.mp3 (here’s your version of the closing bars) of the movement. Now, I don’t want to go overboard with my negative comments, but I think this sounds more like a carrousel than the “The Carrousel” by Sonokinetic. And the low strings have no detail at all, they simply produce a muffled, artificial slur of sound, the swirls and runs in the higher strings shout “synth!” at the top of their tiny lungs, the tutti sound is quite unpleasant and wherever the brass appear, the moment is irredeemably ruined.
The question “Has some suggestion of realism been achieved?” better don’t come anywhere near my evaluation, cause I’ll shoot it before I see the whites of its eyes.

For comparison purposes, here’s the exact http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/UnBal_RTicciati-SCO.mp3 (same fragment, as recorded by Robin Ticciati and the Schottish Chamber Orchestra).

_


----------



## Zardoz (Mar 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> Not with you, Goran, I’m very sorry. Are you sure those men were who they said they were? Cause me, I hear something totally different: a completely synthetic sound, muffled and shrill at the same time, often recurring phasing problems, no real definition in any of the instruments or sections at all, and a virtual brass section that should be forbidden by law to make an appearance in any music production ever again.
> 
> Let’s listen maybe to an example: http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/UnBal_VSL.mp3 (here’s your version of the closing bars) of the movement. Now, I don’t want to go overboard with my negative comments, but I think this sounds more like a carrousel than the “The Carrousel” by Sonokinetic. And the low strings have no detail at all, they simply produce a muffled, artificial slur of sound, the swirls and runs in the higher strings shout “synth!” at the top of their tiny lungs, the tutti sound is quite unpleasant and wherever the brass appear, the moment is irredeemably ruined.
> The question “Has some suggestion of realism been achieved?” better don’t come anywhere near my evaluation, cause I’ll shoot it before I see the whites of its eyes.
> ...



I have to humbly and respectfully (to Goran) agree with you re-peat. I've always heard it claimed that VSL is the best library available in truly skilled hands, but I've never once heard a mockup that proves it to my satisfaction, as good as Goran's are.


----------



## EwigWanderer (Mar 27, 2014)

It takes some time to learn how to use MIR and I'm still on that path. I use mainly other than VSL samples and it's easy to get everything to sound as they are in the same venue.





rgames @ 28th March 2014 said:


> I don't like it simply because I don't like the sound - it's a very bright and unflattering sound to my ears.
> 
> rgames



Bright sound? I use Gateshead Hall 1 for my template and I don't think it's too bright.


----------



## Goran (Mar 27, 2014)

@Piet

Yes, we definitely must be listening to completely different examples, as your "no instrument definition", "crappy brass section" etc. remarks I find to be beyond brazen, to be perfectly honest. But what I find far more brazen, is the implication that I am lying about what I said. But, as I said - to each his own...


----------



## Vlzmusic (Mar 28, 2014)

I am about to realize an orchestral project, I had on hold for some time - its my 100% VSL template with MIR accompanying my wife singing some arias - Bizet, Verdi etc.

Please, everyone show some restrain till then  I believe I`ve stated earlier, that VSL universe if far beyond what we hear in some particular examples here and there. Specially cause now we are talking DS+DB+MIR - it does take some time to master!! 

I guess I will open another thread once done, but will post a link to it here, if you don`t mind Stephen.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 28, 2014)

I have MIR 24 and have tried to make it work for me but.......it won't.
Guy Bacos is the only person who using only VSL software has had me hooked.
Goran's efforts sound like samples recorded in an olympic sized swimming pool.
Now, I don't want to fall out over it because I don't think but know, there are enough gullible people in the world to be satisfied with just about anything if one has the ability to talk the talk. Fancy web pages are good etc. etc.

Okay enough said, I've got business to attend to in the real world.
Catch up later
Ray


----------



## muk (Mar 28, 2014)

Goran's examples are very very good, but I too can hear that it's samples. I find the Mozart to be most impressive.
Before comparing apples with pears: classical pieces are often extremely difficult to pull off with samples. And I think if we were to hear classical pieces mocked up with other libraries, for example Spitfire, we'd be able to hear that it's samples too. Take the Trepak mock up with Berlin Strings. It's awesome, yet you can still hear it's samples.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

Vlzmusic @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> I guess I will open another thread once done, but will post a link to it here, if you don`t mind Stephen.



I don't mind at all. It would be a pleasure in fact 

The 'VSL sound' does seem to bring out strong opinions - positive and negative. It is interesting to listen to Jay Bacal's Rite of Spring with VSL and compare it to the snippet of the Rite done with Spitfire samples. The differences remind me of the differences between two of the great recordings of the complete symphonies of Sibelius - the late great Sir Colin Davis on LSO Live recorded at the Barbican and the set by Osmo Vanska with the Lahti Symphony Orchestra. Completely different recording aesthetics of the same music which can also polarise opinions, but I find them both valid choices (with perhaps a slight preference for the more defined and close sound of the LSO and Barbican recording - I have even grown fond of Sir Colin's vocal contributions).

Adrian's comment about which fake sounds best for the intended audience struck a chord with me. I have been using samples recorded in ambient spaces almost exclusively for the last 15 years or so (EWQLSO, ProjectSAM, Spitfire etc.). I have built up a number of clients who accept the sound world I create with them as credible. My 'audience' if you like.

I am however very drawn to VSL's sound world. The detail and possibilities of expression in the samples - and I agree with Ray that Guy Bacos has done some wonderful things with VSL (as have other people who have really mastered it). Having said that, I have yet to get the quality of sound from them that I feel comfortable putting out professional media music work using them. Of course the samples are perfectly capable of doing that, but I have yet to develop the skills to do it.

Anyway, rambling again! Thanks again all for your sharing your opinions. I'm reading them all with great interest.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 28, 2014)

Goran @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> @Piet
> 
> Yes, we definitely must be listening to completely different examples, as your "no instrument definition", "crappy brass section" etc. remarks I find to be beyond brazen, to be perfectly honest. But what I find far more brazen, is the implication that I am lying about what I said. But, as I said - to each his own...


Goran,

Forgive me, but I find the publication of these inferior-sounding demos, by the headmaster of the Vienna Training Center no less, an act of much more disturbing brazenness than my critique on them.
See, I wouldn’t mind so much if this were hobby stuff. I’d still cringe, but I’d move on. But this isn’t hobby stuff, is it? You put yourself forward as a teacher, for herbssake, asking good money from those who decide to subscribe to your teachings. Well, in that case, this material won’t do, in my opinion. It’s too bad. This doesn’t sound like the work of a teacher to me, this sounds like the work of someone who is very much in need of a teacher himself. And forgive me for being ‘beyond brazen’ again.

And where did I ever imply you might be lying? I merely asked if you were sure that those men who applauded your work really were who they said they were. Maybe they were impostors, wandering salesmen perhaps, in a cunning disguise, who had arrived at Tchubrilo Castle with a different objective altogether and simply raved about your work in order to ingratiate themselves with you? You can’t be too careful these days, you know.
I ask because I really can’t imagine any self-respecting musician or bonafide audio engineer being even politely enthusiastic about the sound of these demos.

_


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

@re-peat You have a wonderful ear for reverbs if I may say so. Could you (well of course you can) but would you consider articulating what it is about MIR you don't like? Is it particular to MIR itself, or is it more generally that you prefer algorithmic to convolution reverbs?


----------



## Goran (Mar 28, 2014)

@Piet...

...you really know no limits do you?. I'm done with your nonsense. And for your information, one of the musicians "with no self-respect" I mentioned is non other than a first woodwind instrument soloist of what is today one of Germany's top-five (probably top-three) symphony and opera orchestras (we are currently working together on a project of sample-based orchestral accompaniments). I won't name audio engineers and others here, although their names and reputations would be very familiar to everybody on this forum. 

All of them deaf, or all of them crazy, or both, I suppose. It is the Piet's Castle where true "quality criteria" lie :roll: 

Btw, the two spitfire demos are excellent, but for my ears, they are also what I, for a lack of a better metaphor, call "photoshopped" music. No wonder that a vulgar "sound"-fetishist of your variety would be so enthralled by them...

...feel free to continue, as I am done...


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 28, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> The 'VSL sound' does seem to bring out strong opinions - positive and negative. It is interesting to listen to Jay Bacal's Rite of Spring with VSL and compare it to the snippet of the Rite done with Spitfire samples. The differences remind me of the differences between two of the great recordings of the complete symphonies of Sibelius - the late great Sir Colin Davis on LSO Live recorded at the Barbican and the set by Osmo Vanska with the Lahti Symphony Orchestra. Completely different recording aesthetics of the same music which can also polarise opinions, but I find them both valid choices (with perhaps a slight preference for the more defined and close sound of the LSO and Barbican recording - I have even grown fond of Sir Colin's vocal contributions.



Funny you should mention Sir Colin Davis. I recently bought his / LSO's The Planets, lazily bought by me after seeing a parade of 5* Amazon reviews. Feeling aggrieved, here is what I wrote:



> I must confess to being at a loss to explain the other reviews here. Adored The Planets since I was a kid, and thought it was about time to get a really good version. This, sadly, isn't it.
> 
> Colin Davis sounds awfully like he was very keen to get to the bar. Mars seems to positively skip along - not so much the Bringer of War, as the Bringer of Mild Disagreement, with none of the weight or heft I'd remembered. The balance seemed off too - much too present, strange predominances abound, as everything was close mic'd, whereas I just wanted to step back. Jupiter starts beautifully but seems to unravel as the complexity increases, and the emotional whallop never hits.
> 
> Days later, unable to cope with it any more, I bought the remastered Adrian Boult's 1978 performance. Oh boy. From Mars' opening bar, there it all was - the weight, the heft, the sheer MEANACE building to the unleashing of hell (if you will). Everything in its right place (oh, and Elgar's Enigma Variations bundled in too). Perhaps the man who conducted the debut performance in 1917 could never be bettered. Strongly urge people interested in this to get Boult's recording instead.



Pretty passionate, ain't I? Here I am, a little minnow casually writing off one of the greatest orchestras in the world conducted by one of the finest conductors. But its true - I absolutely hate that rendition with every fibre of my being. If Jay Asher were here (it could happen any minute), he'd point out my opinion is worthless because I've neither conducted nor played in an orchestra, but however worthless he would consider it, it remains my view that it is actively BAD and I WILL go on about it.

When I read Peit's hyperbole in full flow - as it is here - I guess it reminds me of myself. I don't think he's exaggerating - he really believes what he writes as an objective view of something. I just listened to the Berlioz and thought it sounded good for a sampled orchestra. Not perfect by any means, but certainly no abomination, to me its silly to call it that. But I only have my own ears, Goran only has his and Peit has his. I think Davis' Planets Suite sucks, while Adrian Boult's is a work of genius - others think Boult's is leaden and drags, but they're wrong of course.

Sig.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

Thanks for that Guy. It did make me laugh. I don't know that recording (I have Charles Dutoit and the Montreal Symphony Orchestra). Honestly I have heard people comment on the acoustic qualities of the Barbican who would I suspect take great joy in demolishing it brick by brick.

And you haven't heard the 'big tune' in Sibelius 5 until you have heard it with extra Sir Colin humming part. It should be written into all future scores…..


----------



## Rctec (Mar 28, 2014)

After all this heated stuff, I thought I have a listen for myself.

I got no further than the prelude to "Lohengrin". It's completely unmusical. The tempo is too fast, nothing breathes - and it feels like no thought has been given to the phrasing, or the context of the notes. It's not "music". Here is a (and I on purpose picked a pretty fast one to be fair...) 
recording by Karajan for comparison: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJEIC8vIQ4

I think it shows how much subtle dynamic shifts are important in those long notes, to make them shimmer, and how intimate and quiet the whole thing is.

I am pretty sure that the VSL stuff can't be as bad as what I just heard. I've heard some very nice demos from Guy. But I think it is important to realize for sample developers that ppp is a legitimate dynamic (and I know it's a bitch to sample - I've spend more time on the really quiet stuff - getting it in tune and committed - yet quiet and musical - starts, than anything else. But it's so worth it - having a note fade from and to niente as a performance, not with cc 11  . And if you want to show off the transparency and subtlety of your library to maybe stay away from music that relies on a very narrow and quiet dynamic range to make it's point - if it wasn't originally designed for that. 

I gave the Berlioz a quick whirl. That's an easy one to program. But I had to switch it off. I think the passion Piet displays in his post should have been the passion applied to the programming 

But I'm not trying to be belligerent and beat up a fellow musician. I just think a bit more care, thought - and most importantly - heart - needs to go into these demos to bring out the musicality, as opposed to blaming the tools...


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

I started this thread really for the reasons I stated in the first post. We are a community of musicians, a quite large proportion of which produce fake orchestral music using samples. MIR seems to have been designed from the ground up to support that kind of work, and yet not many people seem to be using it here - so I wondered - why?

Some interesting insights here about the topic at hand, and also some interesting off topic discussion. I actually have no problem with off topic discussions in threads - it can lead to places where you learn much more interesting and useful things than the main topic at hand. But it was never my intention that this thread should become a critique of an individual users work. He hasn't asked you all to critique his work. This isn't the Members Composition Forum.

I find myself feeling partially responsible, and also feeling generally disappointed in that fact.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 28, 2014)

Rctec @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> I got no further than the prelude to "Lohengrin". It's completely unmusical. The tempo is too fast, nothing breathes - and it feels like no thought has been given to the phrasing, or the context of the notes.



Here's the thing though - that's EXACTLY how I feel about the Colin Davies LSO recording of the Planets. Every word applies.

Of course it's not exactly like for like, any virtual orchestra is ultimately going to be found wanting with the classics, and at least that Mars rendition is 100% real... but its no less of a musical abomination to me. Yet others clearly think it sublime...


----------



## AC986 (Mar 28, 2014)

Steve, stick something or a link up to something you have used MIR on and let's have a listen.

Goran, don't take it too hard. It's a nightmare trying to do mock ups of classical works. The pressure of the originals using great orchestras and conductors make it a bit of a futile game. Great for practicing sample editing skills I would imagine though.
In the end, you have to ask yourself, what are sampled works of Classics really going to achieve for anyone other than those that want to spend their time just doing…..sampled classic works. It's almost the realm of hobby status. Nothing wrong with that of course.

Apart from that, not really sure. I never get asked to do classics by _my_ publishers, let's put that way. :|
And it's always worth remembering that here on this forum, it's a crazy, tough school. Most of the people here are musicians at the top of their game. Tough paper round mate. o-[][]-o 

I heard some done by Carles from New Zealand and they were tremendously good.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 28, 2014)

Back to MIR: I tried it for my work but finally did not buy it. It is a fascinating piece of software and very well designed. However it has what I would perhaps call the 'convolution disease' that shows in these symptoms:

1. You stick a single instrument into it and are floored by the 'realism' of the room. Wow. Feels like you are there.

2. However the more and more instruments you add you more and more notice 'something' unpleasant that adds up, a certain thickness, tubbyness, boomyness. In the end you hear lots of room but the actual music is so wrapped into it that it sounds muffled. Sucks the air out of the recording.

With conventional convolution reverbs the obvious solution is to keep a certain amount of dry signal in it. However that reduces the perceived distance which is one of the points of MIR.

I think if MIR would add a transparent positioning tool like SPAT under the hood and then let the user dial the recorded room information in or out at choice that would be more ideal. However a resource hog for sure.

Kudos to the makers of this tool and nothing meant negatively. But since they asked . . .


----------



## Gusfmm (Mar 28, 2014)

In my experience, working with MIR requires a reasonable deal of experimenting. Trying different instrument and room levels, EQ profiles, adding external EQ'ing, trying different rooms... I'm personally still on my own discovery journey (after quite some time using it...) 

This is also a personal preference viewpoint- I tend to like better working with smaller rooms and also trying adding subtle touches of an algo verb. I've fallen very positively attracted to the Sage Gateshead's package for that matter, and as a flexible tool of room sizes, whether it is solo piano, a string quartet, or the full orchestra. More intimate sound without fake, boxy character.

Workflow-wise, for orchestral work that is, I like the fact that MIR allows me to consolidate everything under one streamlined environment and having quick controls over positioning, panning, size, etc.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 28, 2014)

A few points:

@ Goran: Piet thinks my works sucks too and hates some of the libraries I use but people visit my website, write me fan letters, and then hire me to help them with their sample based compositions. I don't lose any sleep over it nor should you.

Except for learning purposes, mocking up Classical pieces is an exercise in futility. There has never been a sample-based version e.g. of Le Sacre that to my mind was anything but a degree of poor with any library or combination of libraries. They re doomed from the start to be unacceptable as music because to make samples sound good you have to write to the samples strengths and weaknesses, and mocking up Classical pieces does not allow that.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Mar 28, 2014)

Rctec @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> After all this heated stuff, I thought I have a listen for myself.
> 
> I got no further than the prelude to "Lohengrin". It's completely unmusical. The tempo is too fast, nothing breathes - and it feels like no thought has been given to the phrasing, or the context of the notes. It's not "music". Here is a (and I on purpose picked a pretty fast one to be fair...)
> recording by Karajan for comparison:
> ...




Whoa! Thats a killer coincidence 

Its the exact recording I listened to, the last time those VSL mock-ups where discussed - and found out interesting issue, that this Arne Wallander`s NotePerformer rendition is actually closer to Karajan  (I focused on the aphoteosis from 5:00 onward).

Of course - quite far from sound real - but Heh its a 129$ tool!!! (If you have Sibelius)

https://soundcloud.com/noteperformer/no ... -lohengrin


----------



## dryano (Mar 28, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> I started this thread really for the reasons I stated in the first post. We are a community of musicians, a quite large proportion of which produce fake orchestral music using samples. MIR seems to have been designed from the ground up to support that kind of work, and yet not many people seem to be using it here - so I wondered - why?
> 
> Some interesting insights here about the topic at hand, and also some interesting off topic discussion. I actually have no problem with off topic discussions in threads - it can lead to places where you learn much more interesting and useful things than the main topic at hand. But it was never my intention that this thread should become a critique of an individual users work. He hasn't asked you all to critique his work. This isn't the Members Composition Forum.
> 
> I find myself feeling partially responsible for that, and also feeling generally disappointed in that fact.



Why is it so hard to get to the conclusion, that MIR simply is a failure? It was a big experiment to simulate a room by applying many impulse responses to the soundsources in the room according to their position, size and direction. Altough it basically does something like this, the results are neither pleasing nor realisitic. To my ears MIR always sounds like a phasey big plastic tube. Gorans examples prove that perfectly. The orchestra is far away from the listener - like behind a heavy curtain that sucks every detail and definition out of the sound -, has no depth at all and if you switch your monitors to mono... nothing of that artifical width and reverb sound remains.


----------



## Vin (Mar 28, 2014)

Hannes_F @ 28/3/2014 said:


> Back to MIR: I tried it for my work but finally did not buy it. It is a fascinating piece of software and very well designed. However it has what I would perhaps call the 'convolution disease' that shows in these symptoms:
> 
> 1. You stick a single instrument into it and are floored by the 'realism' of the room. Wow. Feels like you are there.
> 
> ...



Exactly my thoughts. It's really a complex and fascinating piece of software, but I was more impressed with its GUI and features than with the thing that matters most - the actual sound. I'm just more satisfied with the good old algorithmic reverbs, and the best algo reverb cost much less than MIR. For stage positioning, I use VirtualSoundStage. That and a good algo reverb cover all of my reverberation needs.


----------



## Symfoniq (Mar 28, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> 1. You stick a single instrument into it and are floored by the 'realism' of the room. Wow. Feels like you are there.
> 
> 2. However the more and more instruments you add you more and more notice 'something' unpleasant that adds up, a certain thickness, tubbyness, boomyness. In the end you hear lots of room but the actual music is so wrapped into it that it sounds muffled. Sucks the air out of the recording.
> 
> With conventional convolution reverbs the obvious solution is to keep a certain amount of dry signal in it. However that reduces the perceived distance which is one of the points of MIR.



This is a legitimate point, and one I wrestled with for a while. It wasn't until I read the manual that I realized MIR allows you to route just the wet signal to another bus while simultaneously positioning the dry signal.

Configured this way, it is very easy to dial back the convolution (simply adjust the send level on the MIR wet signal routing) without affecting the apparent position of the dry signal. This setup also seems to make hybrid reverb setups much more manageable.

Here is an example from the manual:


----------



## dgburns (Mar 28, 2014)

Goran @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> @Piet...
> 
> ...you really know no limits do you?. I'm done with your nonsense. And for your information, one of the musicians "with no self-respect" I mentioned is non other than a first woodwind instrument soloist of what is today one of Germany's top-five (probably top-three) symphony and opera orchestras (we are currently working together on a project of sample-based orchestral accompaniments). I won't name audio engineers and others here, although their names and reputations would be very familiar to everybody on this forum.
> 
> ...



Haven't listened,but I can comment that usually I find myself on Piet's side.Not always,as is the case with his piano demo(nice playing) strange resonance somewhere in the samples(like there's a pseudo stereo filter on every sample),OR,simply I'm slowly going deaf!
That said,the parallel with score composing and this spat is similar.Do you quit or do you up your efforts and face the critical objections with real actions?
i have been long curious about MIR,and searching for elegant surround solutions to scoring is important to me.It seems an elegant solution,but I also must confess that the sound of the demos has kept me from pulling the trigger.
And i must ask the crowd,how does one fulfill a ppp performance without the use of cc11 ? i assume that there is in fact a ppp sample there to be played.Just don't think p sample cc11 down is the same thing.I too seem to spend an inordinate amount of time programming the soft areas.

Don't give up Goran,rise to the challenge! but respectfully,Piet has ears.(and chops too,from what I can tell)


----------



## Dietz (Mar 28, 2014)

Symfoniq, you're right, but actually you don't need any of the dedicated routing features for adjusting the Dry / Wet balance individually or globally. Dedicated controls are available for both.

Introduced with the most recent update of MIR Pro, you can even have several RoomEQs (which always affect the wet signal only) without the need for external routing.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 28, 2014)

rgames @ Thu Mar 27 said:


> I don't like it simply because I don't like the sound - it's [...] very bright [...]





Hannes_F @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> [...] it sounds muffled. [...]



I just love this forum! :mrgreen:


----------



## Symfoniq (Mar 28, 2014)

Dietz @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Symfoniq, you're right, but actually you don't need any of the dedicated routing features for adjusting the Dry / Wet balance individually or globally. Dedicated controls are available for both.



Right. It's possible to keep things much simpler if one just wants to adjust dry/wet balance. I'm just finding that I really like the flexibility of "keeping the dry signal dry and the wet signal wet" if that makes sense.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 28, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> [...]
> I think if MIR would add a transparent positioning tool like SPAT under the hood and then let the user dial the recorded room information in or out at choice that would be more ideal. [...].



That's exactly what MIR Pro does since the very beginning. Just use the "Dry Solo" option for starters and you have a full-fledged Ambisonics panner with the free choice of any output format up to eight channels. Then add the hall of your choice, with the main microphone array(s) of your choice, and the "wetness" according to your liking.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

@Dietz - Thanks for contributing to the thread Dietz. I believe MIR has been very much your vision, and I'm in awe of you bringing it to fruition. How long did it take? 10 years or so?

@Adrian - I'm embarrassed to say I haven't put any of my own music through MIR so far. I have done a few classical mockups though e.g.

http://www.vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoId=6123

@Gusfmm - I agree with you the Sage rooms are amongst my favourites too.

@Everyone else. Thanks for you comments and opinions. Appreciated!


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 28, 2014)

Dietz @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Hannes_F @ Fri Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Hi Dietz, good to know. My evaluation was some years ago with less experience than now, and then I did not notice that. I probably thought it would be a general (plugin-wide) dry/wet balance.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 28, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> [...]
> Hi Dietz, good to know. My evaluation was some years ago with less experience than now, and then I did not notice that. I probably thought it would be a general (plugin-wide) dry/wet balance.



There's both - individual and global Dry/Wet-ratio. The actual positioning is not affected by either and kept for both the dry and the wet signal components.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 28, 2014)

@ Dietz
I bet I am not the only one who missed that. It could perhaps even save quite some mixes of users here . . .


----------



## Dietz (Mar 28, 2014)

Well - that takes me by surprise ... I'd say that they are the most obvious and self-explanatory control elements of MIR's GUI after volume (especially the Global Wet / Dry Offset). I wouldn't know how to make them even more visible.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 28, 2014)

Dietz @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Well - that takes me by surprise ... I'd say that they are the most obvious and self-explanatory control elements of MIR's GUI after volume (especially the Global Wet / Dry Offset). I wouldn't know how to make them even more visible.



To be fair I have read many of your posts of the VSL forum sharing your knowledge and insights into the operation of MIR which add an awful lot of detail that isn't in the written manual. If you could bring some of that detail into the manual itself it would probably help people get more out of MIR. It isn't always easy to find things on forums 

For example, in the manual on Page 11 there is a graphic of the MIR controls with an arrow pointing to the 'Dry Solo' button with the words 'Dry Signal Output Only' written. One might reasonably assume that the 'Dry Signal' means 'the completely unprocessed signal untouched by MIR'. But what it actually means is 'The raw sound is panned to the position of its icon on stage taking into account the microphone position and design (I think?), the width information of its icon also, but no room information is added. If you just want to hear that, press this button'. I have seen you explain that on the VSL forum, but is it in the written manual?


----------



## Dietz (Mar 28, 2014)

I hear you, Stephen.

You know - I will take a stick for short manuals as well as for long ones. :D This time it was too short, as it seems: The MIR Manual always talks about the "dry signal" as the one without room information, opposed to the "dry source signal" (or just "source") when the raw input audio is addressed. For example p.18:

_"Of course, the treatment of instruments in MIR's Venues has to match the treatment of the decoded impulse responses exactly; therefore, each and every signal
source on MIR's stages is encoded to Ambisonics, too."_


----------



## Casiquire (Mar 28, 2014)

I only have the main Roompack of MIR, and in my opinion it's incredible. Anybody who complains about losing detail has to remember that there is such a thing as dry/wet in MIR and that ANY reverb will lose detail if you don't find the right balance of dry vs wet. My only issue with MIR is that it does occasionally seem to have odd resonances with certain instruments, though again this is Roompack 1 and there's a good chance that by the time Roompack 4 came out their skills have improved to the point that it's no longer an issue.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 28, 2014)

Dietz @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Well - that takes me by surprise ... I'd say that they are the most obvious and self-explanatory control elements of MIR's GUI after volume (especially the Global Wet / Dry Offset). I wouldn't know how to make them even more visible.



Of course it surprises you. You are the developer, therefore as for all developers it is difficult for you to step back to a new customer's view (especially true for VSL if I may say so).



> The MIR Manual always talks about the "dry signal" as the one without room information, opposed to the "dry source signal" (or just "source") when the raw input audio is addressed. For example p.18:
> 
> "Of course, the treatment of instruments in MIR's Venues has to match the treatment of the decoded impulse responses exactly; therefore, each and every signal
> source on MIR's stages is encoded to Ambisonics, too."



Yes but distance and angles are spacial informations. How can a customer guess where you draw the line between spacial and room information? Perhaps it would have been better to talk about a 'positioned signal' instead of what you call 'dry' and 'room coloration' instead of 'room information'.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 28, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> @Adrian - I'm embarrassed to say I haven't put any of my own music through MIR so far. I have done a few classical mockups though e.g.
> 
> http://www.vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoId=6123



Steve I did that very piece years ago using just a Korg 05R/W.

Mine wasn't as good as yours. Hahahahah.


----------



## paoling (Mar 28, 2014)

I have MIR 24 and I like it. Now, I actually don't use it often because it would be "cheating" for making demos of our libraries. But here is a very short example I realized with that some years ago (when it was a separate program from VEP), just for testing my template.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hyd7cotwqo9yhxq/Azione.mp3

What I like of MIR is not the reverb part itself, but how it changes the sound of dry samples to give the impression that the sound loses its power by travelling into the air.

And it's a very good tool to mix and blend dry and wet libraries together.


----------



## Diffusor (Mar 28, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> Back to MIR: I tried it for my work but finally did not buy it. It is a fascinating piece of software and very well designed. However it has what I would perhaps call the 'convolution disease' that shows in these symptoms:
> 
> 1. You stick a single instrument into it and are floored by the 'realism' of the room. Wow. Feels like you are there.
> 
> ...



Yeah I think that's just a problem of "positional" convolution. Think about a real recording. You have main mics set up to record positional instruments around the room. When the musicians play those mics record everything in place with one recording. Using convolution those positions each get a mic recording then they all get added together so I imagine the "room tone" just builds up, with possible phase cancellations. Same thing would happen I guess if you recorded separately a real performance of each position in a room with the main mics and then adding them together. Come to think of it that might be a problem with orchestra sampling in general with each section and/or instrument being recorded discretely, i.e. all the noise and room tone that builds up when programming a sampled composition. Often times I find myself just turning off the room mics that were sampled and adding my own reverb because of this very reason.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2014)

paoling @ Fri Mar 28 said:


> (...) What I like of MIR is not the reverb part itself, but how it changes the sound of dry samples to give the impression that the sound loses its power by travelling into the air. (...)


SPAT does that just as well. Without any of the problems that MIR always seems to be bringing to the mix.
Here's http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SPAT_Kij%e9sWedding.mp4 (a little 2 minute video) I made some time ago, that has SPAT moving SM's The Trumpet and SM's Tenorsax all over the place. Note how SPAT smoothly adjusts space, character of the instruments, depth, projection, rotation, etc. all at the same time. Without so much as a hiccup.
(I do apologize for the simplistic and primitive suggestion of the orchestra in the back there, but this demonstration was only intended to showcase what SPAT can do, not what I can or can't do.)

And in answer to Stephen's question: there’s nothing about MIR, per se, that I dislike. (I'm not familiar enough with it anyway, to like or dislike it.) I don’t doubt it’s a seriously amazing piece of software and a technical tour-de-force beyond compare. Though I have to add that I still have to hear the first nano-second of compelling evidence which indicates that buying MIR is a good idea.

There’s just this one other thing that annoys me about it — but it’s got nothing to do with the software itself — and that is that I do find it a pretentious and misleading package in that it promises a Shangri-La of ‘realism’, and does that to a user group whose tools of choice are as artificial and synthetic as they come. That, to me, is pretentious and misleading, because the claim is not only completely and hilariously at odds with the ridiculously unrealistic nature of a mockup, but it is doomed to fail anyway, because, for that Shangri-La to ever begin to turn into something vaguely believable, MIR needs far, far better input (sonically and musically) then what a VSL orchestra and the VSL-user can provide it with.

Therein lies, to me, MIR’s big tragedy and paradox: it brings a promise of sophisticated realism to precisely that type of audio-production (mock-ups) which is itself completely lacking in any sort of realism whatsoever. That is a bit of a tragic irony, isn’t it? All the more so with MIR having the aura of being the bringer of the ultimate in spatial realism. I mean, who is so stupid to care about 'the ultimate in spatial realism' if what is being spatialized is the sonic and musical equivalent of a plastic turd?

It’s even more tragic than just that, because to my ears, MIR, bizarrely, actually seems to bring out and accentuate all the weak aspects of a sample-based production, rather then mask or dissolve them. MIR, I find, makes VSL in fact sound worse than better. (In my opinion, all the strongest VSL-demos still date from the pre-MIR-era.)

So, to sum up: nothing against the software itself, except for the fact that I believe it to be totally, utterly and completely useless for a mock-up production. 
And I also don’t like that it seems to dumb down people to a rather worrying degree, making them forget to use their ears and have them stupidly comply with whatever MIR is doing to their mixes, never questioning whether it is actually good or not. And then have them come tell us that it sounds better than just about everything else. That is no longer tragic or ironic, that is painful.

SPAT, by the way, and in complete and refreshing contrast, doesn’t make any such promises at all. It is honest about its artificiality, never tries to sell you ‘canned realism’ but is totally open about the virtuality of its spatialization, and the software humbly but masterfully goes about its business of contributing something genuinely useful — and every bit as sophisticated as what MIR offers, if not more so — to a mix. Which is why I find SPAT the far more attractive package: not only are its results never less than excellent, but it also doesn’t take me for a fool.

_


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 29, 2014)

@Adrian - I started off in computer based music with a Korg 01/W. I remember trying to figure out Jerry Goldsmith's Hoosiers and John Ottman's 'The Usual Suspects' on it 

@re-peat - Thanks for your reply. I think in my case you've probably hit the nail on the head in that my difficulty is probably more to do with my handling of the VSL samples than with MIR itself. I don't think I've put any non VSL samples through MIR yet (most of my other libraries already have spatial information baked in).

I also have heard many VSL sample demos that I am not all that drawn to. It is very easy to make a VSL production sound flat out bad (I know because I have done a few myself). But........I have heard some VSL productions that I think are wonderful. It may take a particularly skilled person to do it, and it may take years of exploration to find the way, but on the occasions when everything comes together I think VSL can sound more pleasing to me than perhaps any other sample based orchestral productions I have heard, and I'm on a bit of a mission to try and find out how to do it.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 29, 2014)

@re-peat: I'm seen here as an "employee of VSL" (which I'm not, but anyway), and this is why I won't reply to your insults in an appropriate form. o=< 

Personally I am fine with the first-hand, face-to-face reactions I gather from first rate audio people ("Tonmeister", in case you know the term), from professional composers and arrangers as well as discerning amateurs, so I accept your opinion (a crusade, rather?) as one against hundreds of others. 

Have a nice day with the tools of your choice.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 29, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Here's http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SPAT_Kij%e9sWedding.mp4 (a little 2 minute video) I made some time ago, that has SPAT moving SM's The Trumpet and SM's Tenorsax all over the place. Note how SPAT smoothly adjusts space, character of the instruments, depth, projection, rotation, etc. all at the same time. Without so much as a hiccup.
> 
> _



That Lt Kije excerpt is a good example of SPAT and SM for anyone interested.

Are you doing that all on one computer Piet?


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2014)

Dietz,

Insults? Where so?

And, by the way, I’m getting really, really, realy tired of all these — imaginary or otherwise, I don’t care — “first rate audio people, professional composers and most respected audio engineers and orchestrators” which you Vienna guys always feel the need to drag into these conversations to help make your case, whenever things get a bit sticky. If anything stinks of insult here, it’s that kinda thing.
Why don’t all you pretentious Tonmeisters and Magisters Artium get together, and look for ways to make your product capable of “first rate audio”. Then you wouldn’t have to deal with the inconvenience of a one-out-of-a-hundred opinion like mine.


Adrian,

Yes, one machine.

_


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 29, 2014)

I spent a little time listening to a few of the VSL demos this morning to remind myself what it was about their sound world that I find so appealing. Just reeling off a few names of people who are members of this forum of demos I was particularly taken with we have the likes of Dave Connor, Kevin Kliesch, Simon Ravn, Christof Unterberger, Guy Bacos, Maarten Spruijt, Andy Blaney, Beat Kaufmann, Craig Sharmat......plus many others I have forgotten (apologies to you all) who have all produced demos on the VSL site that I think are amongst the best samples work I have heard.

I suspect most of those demos were done some time ago - probably pre MIR, and that since then some of these writers have perhaps moved on to preferring other sampled orchestras for their productions (either for reasons of sound, or reasons of speed, or both).

But they are proof to me that producing wonderful work with VSL can be done (it helps that they are all so talented of course). And I want to figure out how to do it.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 29, 2014)

I bet we could take a thread from 7 years ago and it would say the exact same thing and often from the same people. If someone doesn't like VSL, fine, get your other libraries and use your time more wisely, produce some music...


----------



## Dietz (Mar 29, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> *Insults? Where so*?
> 
> And, by the way, I’m getting really, really, realy tired of all these — *imaginary* or otherwise, I don’t care — “first rate audio people, professional composers and most respected audio engineers and orchestrators” which you Vienna guys always feel the need to drag into these conversations to help make your case, whenever things get a bit sticky. If anything *stinks* of insult here, it’s that kinda thing.
> Why don’t all you *pretentious* Tonmeisters and Magisters Artium get together, and *look for ways to make your product capable of “first rate audio”*. [...]



You are so predictable.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 29, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> [...]
> But they are proof to me that producing wonderful work with VSL can be done (it helps that they are all so talented of course). And I want to figure out how to do it.



Stephen,

In case you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them - preferably on VSL's own forum. I'll gladly try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.

Best,

/Dietz


----------



## Sid Francis (Mar 29, 2014)

Piet: as exagerated I find your "tone" in your posts, as always, as pleased am I by your video.
This indeed is a wonderful demonstration of SPAT and I fear I will have to buy in the future , just need to gather the money. 8) And I share, with a more moderate tone, your opinion concerning MIR. MIR should have been the exact solution to my reverb wishes but never achieved to really impress me soundwise, god knows why.

A question: I saw in your video, that the spiccatos where from sable. I also own sable so the question: do the spiccs also go through SPAT? Because THEY were jawdropping for me. Such a nice 3D sound, especially in the upper register, I really love it.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 29, 2014)

Dietz @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Will do Dietz and thank you . I know you are very generous with your time and knowledge.

@Guy: You could well be right


----------



## dryano (Mar 29, 2014)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> I bet we could take a thread from 7 years ago and it would say the exact same thing and often from the same people. If someone doesn't like VSL, fine, get your other libraries and use your time more wisely, produce some music...




I don't think this has anything to do with "like " or "don't" like. What - so do I believe - 99,5% of all midi-mockup people want to do, is to produce a midi performance that sounds as close as possible to a live recording of the particular genre. If we now set the focus on orchestral music (not chamber or expermimental) there is of all the current "high-end" orchestral libraries one, that is the farthest away from sounding like a recording and that is VSL (+MIR). That has nothing to do with taste in my opinion. Its simply a fact. Compare Spitfire-Demos, Eastwest-Demos, Cinesamples-Demos, OrchestralTools-Demos, 8dio-Demos to the VSL-Demos/Productions. They all are closer to what a real recording would sound than VSL, some of them much closer. 

Whats the reason for that?

I think the concept of VSL. They recorded all instruments in a "small" room, that has two problems for orchestral music: 1st: Its small. 2nd: It has frequency issues on its own, maybe also introduced by the recording/processing/postpro. There is loads of low-mid muddiness, many cheeping overtone resonances and so on. The Brass has no sheen, the strings no body and woods no warmth/color - in full orchestral mix. If we chose only a few VSL instruments, they can sound very good and also mixed with other libraries. I look only at the full VSL orchestra sound.

That makes VSL extremely difficult to mix. MIR doesn't help here. It makes the problems, that VSL samples haven even more difficult. I listened to the "Guido Mancusi" project on the VSL website, which seems to be a more recent one, done by two people, who I think know, how to get the best possible results out of VSL and MIR. I didn't like any of the mock-ups in terms of sound. They could not represent the wide range of dynamics and color of this music, not at all. When the first forte brass passages are introduced everything sounds like a general midi synth. I could also not hear any "space" arround the instruments. There is some low brass going on at the beginning of the first piece. We all know, how solo low brass sound in a stage recording. Those thin farts here have nothing to do with that.

So back to the beginning: The concept of recording everything in the Silent Stage and then to the room simulation and processing afterwards is the wrong track in my opinion. That method will not lead to convincing sounding midi mock-ups. There is not a single one I have ever heard. Even the extremely well done "Evasion" demo, which impressed me soo much, when I heard it the first time many years ago, cannot compete with todays mock-up standards anymore and its by far the best piece I have ever heard done with VSL beside some of the mockups, Daryl has done, which really show the best possible VSL results (and they are done without MIR afaik, as is Evasion). Yes, the VSL universe offers a yet unrivalled amount of instruments and articulations and it offers a large amount of flexibility due to its concept. But exactly that flexibility is the main cause for its inferior sound quality.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 29, 2014)

Actually Guy, if you read this, do you have any thoughts you'd like to share on MIR? I think when you started doing VSL demos it was pre-MIR and then you started using MIR at a later time.....


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2014)

Stephen Rees @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> (...) producing wonderful work with VSL can be done (...)


Never denied it. I am a wholly satisfied user of several of their libraries myself. I just hate this cult of “We, the Tonmeisters of Vienna, produce the superior product”, a singularly arrogant and ridiculous claim, I find, considering how mediocre (and I choose my words kindly) and problematic nearly all VSL-only mock-ups sound.

I don’t know what it is with these VSL-exclusive guys. They all seem to have sworn some secret oath to the House of Herb, I guess, never-ever-ever to doubt VSL in public, and to go radically against anyone who does. 
People who are otherwise quite nice to talk to, who obviously have a good amount of music running through their veins, and who are usually quite open-minded and imaginative in their outlook on most musical matters … the moment the subject turns to _their_ VSL, voom!, up go the defenses, in go the earplugs, down goes the intelligence, and out comes this bizarre "All hail to VSL"-mantra. Really strange.

_


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 29, 2014)

I appreciate the passion here, but as for me, nah, keep me out.  

I hear good weather for tomorrow.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 29, 2014)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> I appreciate the passion here, but as for me, nah, keep me out.
> 
> I hear good weather for tomorrow.



Ha ha  Fair enough. Yes indeed good weather expected tomorrow. It is Mother's Day here tomorrow too. I shall send some flowers....

@ dryano - thanks for post sharing your views dryano. Appreciated!


----------



## Justin Miller (Mar 29, 2014)

I bought MIR the day it came out and have still never been able to get a satisfying sound from it. Things just sound very synthy once the instruments stack up, even 3rd party libraries. It's always bothered me that they could never post any realistic sounding mockups with MIR on their site.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 29, 2014)

dryano @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > I bet we could take a thread from 7 years ago and it would say the exact same thing and often from the same people. If someone doesn't like VSL, fine, get your other libraries and use your time more wisely, produce some music...
> ...



Sorry dynamo, didn't want to ignore your post, but won't get involve.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 29, 2014)

Sid Francis @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> (...) do the spiccs also go through SPAT? Because THEY were jawdropping for me. Such a nice 3D sound, especially in the upper register, I really love it.


Sid,
No, I only used SPAT for the two SampleModeling instruments. (VSL Flute, clarinet and the TrueStrike bassdrum have the Phoenix on them, as does the Cinesamples brass section, though much less of course.) 
The Sable spiccs are left unprocessed (I *never* use reverb or much of anything else on orchestral Spitfire stuff).
I've made myself a five-section 'spicc' multi, for sketching purposes (or for videos such as this Kijé-one), and I did add some extra depth in there by giving the 2nd Violins, the Violas and the Basses a bit more 'Tree' and a touch of 'Ambient' as well. Other than that, nothing. And the five sections are all set to the same midi-channel, which I why I have only just the one track for all these spiccs.

_


----------



## pavolbrezina (Mar 29, 2014)

I am wondering why such hate for VSL products and MIR. I cant imagine working without MIR from the first day I tried it. As for VSL libraries sound, it is much closer to classical symphonic sound than any other library. If you are talking about demos, please be aware that most of companies create those Lord of the rings cinematic demos, effect like music. Different to what is real orchestra works about. Maybe you all should go on live orchestra concert and listen.... a lot of people forgot how real orchestra sounds.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 29, 2014)

re-peat @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Sat Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) producing wonderful work with VSL can be done (...)
> ...



Maybe because you use hyperbole like " a pretentious and misleading package " and "tragic" instead of just saying you don't care for the sound?

What you either cannot grasp or choose to ignore is that there is a huge difference in how people will react to "I don't care for it" and "I don't see how anyone can care for it."

That is just human nature.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 29, 2014)

pavolbrezina @ Sat Mar 29 said:


> I am wondering why such hate for VSL products and MIR. I cant imagine working without MIR from the first day I tried it. As for VSL libraries sound, it is much closer to classical symphonic sound than any other library. If you are talking about demos, please be aware that most of companies create those Lord of the rings cinematic demos, effect like music. Different to what is real orchestra works about. Maybe you all should go on live orchestra concert and listen.... a lot of people forgot how real orchestra sounds.



I don't think it is about how real any of them sound. They all sound fake in different ways. It is just a personal preference about which sound one is drawn to I think and what inspires you.

And I bet there are people here who experience real orchestras on a daily basis (as listeners, conductors, players, composers, engineers etc.) whose personal preference is EastWest, or Spitfire, or Kirk Hunter, or Cinesamples etc. rather than VSL. It is just that personal preference thing again.

Fortunately for me I like lots of different sound worlds for orchestras so I like lots of different products. Unfortunately for me I like lots of different sound worlds for orchestras so I like lots of different products.


----------

