Are MIRx and MIR the best options for VSL instruments?

OP
Paul T McGraw

Paul T McGraw

Senior Member
I totally agree - as long as you only play some instruments. As sson as you play with a large orchestra it can end in a special sound.
Listen to this typical example.
I believe it is why the room IR is calculated a lot of times in each instrument so that the typical room-colour of the IR beginns to dominate the final sound more and more.
After using MIR for all your mixes over a longer time you will probably understand my "ketchup-story" above in a better way. Playing all the music through MIR lets all your music sound "MIR-like" - individual mixes would sound more interesting. Now, this does not mean not to use MIR anymore. I use for example MIRx in my mixes when I need instruments which shall sound far away. This works very fine with MIRx.

If you like here you can listen to some different VSL-examples mixed without MIR (on the right)


Best
Beat
Both are absolutely wonderful. The classical pieces by bSO are amazing. However, I must admit I prefer the sound of your mix. The Holberg Suite is simply brilliant. Did you use the mix as described in your tutorial? Using some compression, slight stero enhancement and then a final algorythmic reverb?
 
Last edited:

Rodney Money

On V.I. avoiding work.
The name really fits in this case, it is a Beautiful Flugelhorn clip. Which of the many QL Spaces settings are you using? I own QL Spaces and will give it a try/
Paul, I used Hamburg Cathedral, I believe the 2.2 setting which tends to have a sound reminiscing of Spitfire's Air. Also Paul if you want more panning simply dragged the panner farther left or right on the mixer. I even drag down the MIRx reverb slider almost down to 20% so Spaces can be the room and tail while MIRx Teldex Stage can provide the placement. I tend to dial the reverb on Spaces back down to around 12:00, and if you want even less room and just a sheen on top you can place a low cut on the Spaces reverb around 600 db for treble instruments such as trumpets, flugelhorn, or flutes. Berlin Church is also good, and of course the So. Cal. presets for a brighter sound.
 

Beat Kaufmann

Active Member
Both are absolutely wonderful. The classical pieces on by bSO are amazing. However, I must admit I prefer the sound of your mix...
Yes, Andreas Wins (bSO) is a master of using VSL-Samples. He had some lessons (given by me) "How to Mix samples". But finally he decided to use MIR...
The sound of his MIR-music does not seem special at a first glance. But if you compare it with "real recordings"...
Listen to this short file: Analyse_Donau.wav...
As I already mentioned above you only get such a colored sound with a lot of instruments. My explanation is: With each instrument and its position MIR calculates several room IRs into it. This means that a certain Room is probably some 100 times calculated into a whole orchestra, while the "common use of a convolution reverb" for three depths only 3 times is calculated into the same orchestra. So the typical room color appears more and more with those 100 and more used IRs until it is recognizable so clear. Once more, this is my explanation, why MIR could sound so (negative) colorfull with a lot of instruments but not with small ensembles. One good help to suppress these "colors" is not to use a 50%- but only 20-30%-wet/dry ratio with MIR.

...The Holberg Suite is simply brilliant. Did you use the mix as described in your tutorial? Using some compression, slight stero enhancement and then a final algorythmic reverb?
I only used the Convolution-Reverb of Samplitude in 2005-2008 - nothing more (IR=small Hall).

Best
Beat
 

Dietz

Space Explorer
This means that a certain Room is probably some 100 times calculated into a whole orchestra
... pretty much like in case of a real recording. ;) This would be true if you were using the same single IR over and over again.

this is my explanation, why MIR could sound so (negative) colorfull with a lot of instruments but not with small ensembles. One good help to suppress these "colors" is not to use a 50%- but only 20-30%-wet/dry ratio with MIR.
In don't want to go into a discussion with you, Beat, as I know that you dislike MIR for some reason or the other. Just let me say: The main problem people seem to have with MIR is that they expect it to be a monolithic fire-and-forget-solution right out-of-the box. But MIR's default setup just tries to mimic the natural amount of the direct (unreverberated) signal which the main microphones would capture on their position in the hall.

In case of an actual recording session we typically mix in a bit of spot microphones to overcome the "wetness" of this main microphone array. In MIR, this approach simply means to change the wet/dry ratio.

In other words: There's nothing wrong with starting a MIR project with "just" 30% wet signal instead of the default 50%. After all, it's just _one_ fader you need to move to achieve this. ;)

... and if there's some overwhelming frequency range in a certain MIR Venue, there's always the RoomEQ (which affects the wet signal only) to tame it.
 
OP
Paul T McGraw

Paul T McGraw

Senior Member
... pretty much like in case of a real recording. ;) This would be true if you were using the same single IR over and over again.



In don't want to go into a discussion with you, Beat, as I know that you dislike MIR for some reason or the other. Just let me say: The main problem people seem to have with MIR is that they expect it to be a monolithic fire-and-forget-solution right out-of-the box. But MIR's default setup just tries to mimic the natural amount of the direct (unreverberated) signal which the main microphones would capture on their position in the hall.

In case of an actual recording session we typically mix in a bit of spot microphones to overcome the "wetness" of this main microphone array. In MIR, this approach simply means to change the wet/dry ratio.

In other words: There's nothing wrong with starting a MIR project with "just" 30% wet signal instead of the default 50%. After all, it's just _one_ fader you need to move to achieve this. ;)

... and if there's some overwhelming frequency range in a certain MIR Venue, there's always the RoomEQ (which affects the wet signal only) to tame it.
Hi @Dietz I am surprised you did not jump into this thread earlier. After all, MIR and MIRx are your creations. And I thank you for MIRx, which I own, and enjoy using with my large collection of VSL instruments. Some instruments work better for me than others, but as a whole I love the VSL products. For example, I love the VSL horn, and the Dimension Brass horns. I have less affection for the Trumpet in C and the Dimension Trumpets.

I heard two pieces recently that used VSL instruments and Altiverb that sounded really good. What is your opinion regarding Altiverb for an amateur like myself?

Any plans to expand MIRx to include more venues? I am not an audio engineer, and don't really have the desire to spend the time needed to learn. I want to spend my time studying and writing music.
 

Dietz

Space Explorer
Hi @Dietz I am surprised you did not jump into this thread earlier.
:-D ... usually, I try to stay as private as possible. I've been given the impression several times here that there is a tendency to find it uncool when developers chime in. Stating facts and keeping things in perspective is all I wanted to achieve with my previous message.

What is your opinion regarding Altiverb for an amateur like myself?
AltiVerb is the Mother Of All Convolution plug-ins, in a way. :) Its library is a huge source for IRs from very diverse acoustic environments. In the right hands, it is a powerful reverb engine. - I have a hard time to compare AltiVerb with MIR as we're talking about different products with very different approaches and goals. The only thing in common is that they both rely on convolution processes, actually.

Any plans to expand MIRx to include more venues?
In a nutshell (and unofficially): Yes. :) As a matter of fact I'm working on a collection of new MIRx settings this very moment. This is a quite tedious task, though (... more than 400 hand-crafted presets! :-P), so please don't expect a release before spring.

Kind regards,
 
Last edited:
OP
Paul T McGraw

Paul T McGraw

Senior Member
:-D ... usually, I try to stay as private as possible. I've been given the impression several times here that there is a tendency to find it uncool when developers chime in. Stating facts and keeping things in perspective is all I wanted to achieve with my previous message.



AltiVerb is the Mother Of All Convolution plug-ins, in a way. :) Its library is a huge source for IRs from very diverse acoustic environments. In the right hands, it is a powerful reverb engine. - I have a hard time to compare AltiVerb with MIR as we're talking about different products with very different approaches and goals. The only thing in common is that they both rely on convolution processes, actually.



In a nutshell (and unofficially): Yes. :) As a matter of fact I'm working on a collection of new MIRx settings this very moment. This is a quite tedious task, though (... more than 400 hand-crafted presets! :-P), so please don't expect a release before spring.

Kind regards,
Thank you @Dietz. I am excited to hear that you are working on more MIRx venues! I really enjoy MIRx because it keeps things simple for me.

I am just one guy and do not speak for the forum, but I wish developers like yourself would be more willing to post on the forum. There are jerks and boorish people in every group, including this forum. But hopefully developers will not let the "bad actors" spoil things for everyone.

One suggestion that I have for VSL is to create more instructional videos. The existing VSL instructional videos are of very high quality and are very informative. But more are needed. I know videos would not pay the bills and salaries (actually you probably could sell them) but it would be great for someone like myself to be able to learn from professionals such as yourself. Their are lots of potential subjects for more videos, but for example, using MIRx for spatialization, plus another reverb for tail, as has been discussed in this thread. Learning to do that has really helped me get a sound that pleases me. A video on different ways to use MIRx, and combine it with non-VSL products, would surely help customers and probably help convince more customers to buy the product.

Thanks again for the great products, and thanks for participating on this forum.
 

Arbee

Senior Member
MIR + MIRacle is of course the "room + tail" option already available in MIR, and works well. For some reason though, perhaps tradition and habit, my brain copes best by using MIR for the room and adding the tail separately and later as part of the overall mix.
 
Last edited:

ptram

Senior Member
Now that I've used it, I find the MIR approach more natural, and the more traditional convolution reverbs more hyper realistic. MIR sounds to me as simply instruments in a room. From there, I can tune it a bit down to increase the spot mics level, and add a final reverb (better if an algorhytmic one) to add color.

In the end, it saves a lot of work in positioning instruments with the old pan, multiple early reflections, send levels technique. And the result seems to me much more natural (at least, compared to what I could achieve before).

Paolo
 

FabioA

Member
I was asking a similar question in another thread. Recently I wanted to test new workflows, plugins, etc. so I wrote something really fast and mixed it. The first example is using MIRx Teledex. The 2nd is using a new reverb I'm beta testing. The 3rd is the same reverb, but with layered strings. All of them are using the VSL SE orchestral and chamber strings with a little Valhallaroom on top.


To me MIR has too much highend and I actually prefer the reverb I made myself. In general I think VSL needs some EQ to tame its sound in some cases(which I didn't do here). Getting a lush hollywood sound like some other libraries might not be possible, but I'm sure it can sound much better than what you get out of the box.
By the way the first mix sounds far more real. I can feel a real space in it. Let's also listen also to the re-bowing at 0:07 and 0:12. Same samples. same programming, totally different results.
In my opinion, convolution reverb has this power to transfer no only the room properities to the convolved sample, but also an halo of realism. But to do that should be almost a "100% wet" convolution. And that comes with some risks and consequences.
 
Last edited:

Sami

The Undisclosing
please don't expect a release before spring.
I truly love you guys so please don’t take this the wrong way, but I have been waiting for AU3 support on VEPro -which was "high on the priority list" for over a year now so I am afraid that this might mean "spring 2024"
 

hdsmile

Member
Paul, I only have and use MIRx Teldex Stage for my VSL instruments such as the flugelhorn. I do not use the Teldex Stage for reverb but for placement on stage then turn the reverb down until I almost don't even hear it anymore then use East West Spaces for my actual reverb and room stimulation. With this I can blend VSL with anything including Cinesamples and Spitfire.
@Rodney, very interesting, I also would like to try this way, the question is do you use EW Spaces at every instance on VEPro (per one instrument) or you send each instrument to Master Bus where Spaces is located and used for all instruments on the stage?
 
Last edited:

Rodney Money

On V.I. avoiding work.
@Rodney, very interesting, I also would like to try this way, the question is do you use EW Spaces at every instance on VEPro (per one instrument) or you send each instrument to Master Bus where Spaces is located and used for all instruments on the stage?
One per instrument, and then when I know it's going to be a large a mix I tend to dial the reverb back per instrument. I used this technique after the halfway mark creating an euphonium choir:
 

hdsmile

Member
I never understood how possible to use the same reverb, in our case 'EW Spaces' for each instances.
I try to configure MIRpro (Teldex Studio v2 Large) instead of MIRx and I would like to find a way to not use the Spaces at each instances, but I even don't know if it's possible.
I'm just looking for a possibility that allows me to use MirPro only as a tool for placing instruments and then use one 'EW Spaces' for the whole orchestra but I'm also not sure if that's the right way.

My sw/hw setup:
Slave PC: VEPro 6, MIR Pro / Windows 10/128GB-DDR4/Asus Z10PE-D16 WS / 2x Xeon E5 / 128GB DDR4 - via thunderbolt connection to Mac PC: macOS Sierra / Logic X Pro
 
Last edited:

Dietz

Space Explorer
[...]
I'm just looking for a possibility that allows me to use MirPro only as a tool for placing instruments and then use one 'EW Spaces' for the whole orchestra [...]
One way to achieve this would be to reduce the length of MIR's reverb tail to about 250 or 300 ms to keep all the crucial positioning information intact, without actually producing reverb. Add some reverb tail (algorithmic reverb would be my first choice) for a perfectly valid "hybrid" MIR setup.

Another approach is to use MIR Pro into Dry Solo-mode which makes it a highly flexible Ambisonics-pannig device.
 

hdsmile

Member
One way to achieve this would be to reduce the length of MIR's reverb tail to about 250 or 300 ms to keep all the crucial positioning information intact, without actually producing reverb. Add some reverb tail (algorithmic reverb would be my first choice) for a perfectly valid "hybrid" MIR setup.

Another approach is to use MIR Pro into Dry Solo-mode which makes it a highly flexible Ambisonics-pannig device.
It sounds great, but how actually to do it, I don't quite understand :unsure:, e.g. my entire VEPro project consists of instances per each instrument and Mir Pro as plug-in, where should I place EW Spaces or some algorithmic reverb, per each instrument or Master Bus or where? and just wondering how to use the MIR Pro in Dry Solo-mode, never heard of it before?
Would be great to see these setup in action or in some pics, if possible:)

thanks
 

Dietz

Space Explorer
It sounds great, but how actually to do it, I don't quite understand :unsure:, e.g. my entire VEPro project consists of instances per each instrument and Mir Pro as plug-in, where should I place EW Spaces or some algorithmic reverb, per each instrument or Master Bus or where? and just wondering how to use the MIR Pro in Dry Solo-mode, never heard of it before?
Would be great to see these setup in action or in some pics, if possible:)

thanks
MIR Pro's manual contains an extensive tutorial section, covering several "hybrid reverb" approaches (starting on p. 40). Personally I prefer a simple AUX-send scheme from each "MIRed" channel to an algorithmic reverb of my choice, but especially for smaller, homogeneous arrangements one single "global" reverb strapped across the master bus can already do wonders. (... in case of the latter example, using a plug-in that offers independent volume controls for dry and wet signal components will make this easier to handle - much like MIR Pro's own add-on reverb "MIRacle" does.)

"Dry Solo" is a dedicated button in MIR Pro's Output section and hard to miss, actually:


MIR-Pro_DrySoloButton.png

HTH,
 

hdsmile

Member
Personally I prefer a simple AUX-send scheme from each "MIRed" channel to an algorithmic reverb of my choice, but especially for smaller, homogeneous arrangements one single "global" reverb strapped across the master bus can already do wonders. (... in case of the latter example, using a plug-in that offers independent volume controls for dry and wet signal components will make this easier to handle - much like MIR Pro's own add-on reverb "MIRacle" does.)
HTH,
your method sound great and theoretically it should coincide with my desires, but as I said above I use only each instrument per instance and to my shame I'm really don't understand how it should work with only one single "global" reverb across the master bus? So..., in my case, should I use the reverb on each Instance-Master Bus?
Could you please look at my pic's, somehow I'm doubt that I doing this correctly:(
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Dietz

Space Explorer
Dear Hdsmile,

I think this takes us beyond the informal chat of an open meeting place like VI Control now. :) Maybe we should continue this conversation on VSL's own forum.

(... to begin with, I don't quite understand why you use a new instance of VE Pro for each instrument, why you use the stripped-down, generic plug-in version of MIR Pro and not its full version built-in in VE Pro, or why you would try to use additional algorithmic reverb of just 200 ms length ... you see, lots of topics to discuss. 8-) ... )

See you there,

/Dietz
 

hdsmile

Member
Dear Hdsmile,
I think this takes us beyond the informal chat of an open meeting place like VI Control now. :) Maybe we should continue this conversation on VSL's own forum.
/Dietz
I'm not sure that's a good idea to move as to VSL's forum, I guess many users here will also find something useful, isn't it...? and if you don't mind I would like to continue here, please:)

I don't quite understand why you use a new instance of VE Pro for each instrument, why you use the stripped-down, generic plug-in version of MIR Pro and not its full version built-in in VE Pro, or why you would try to use additional algorithmic reverb
Sorry that I didn't say that I'm Logic user and there's not a big secret that one instance of VEPro per instrument works best in Logic and this has been repeated on forum many times.

Regarding why I use MIR Pro as plugin, well if I create separate VEPro instances per each instrument, then I couldn't place all instruments on a single MIR Pro venue stage.

Regarding why I wanna use additional reverb?:)
I'm proud owner of several reverb such as East West Space II and Nimbus from Exponential Audio -they are really extremely amazing stuff!
I like both of them and I would like to integrate them into a VEPro via MirPro or MIRx mode which I wanna use just for instruments placement.
 
Last edited: