I tried to find the post but didn't run across it. I think it was written by the developer of the Lexicon 480. I asked a question about convolution verbs really giving everything that the real room gives. As I remember the real room gives literally millions of delays, and the convolution (of that room) gave back several thousand of those, "enough" as he put it. I imagine that MIR's thirst for power is indicative of how many delays it feeds back. I did find the MIR examples to be far superior to Altiverb (which I use).

As you know, Algoritmic would be a different story, as they aren't trying to recreate real spaces. Even the best Lexicon or VSS4 use very little processing power, yet give great (to my ears) albeit non natural sounds.

I haven't heard anything that comes close to a Bricasti (which apparently uses 10-20 times the power of a VSS4) to add fatness and some of that "lush" which is why I mentioned it regarding lush strings. That lush may come in part from the light chorusing, modulation, etc that those algorithems contain. That's great for some "cinematic" sounds. But something I wouldn't want everywhere & all the time. Which is why I will undoubtedly buy MIR one of these days (I just bought a Bricasti). And which is why I like your "dry sample" approach

It would be interesting to hear a comparison between MIR and Bricasti, although that might be like comparing apples to oranges.

I'm waiting for the next big student sale (cough, cough) to get some more libraries, then will come MIR [B]

Thanks for your interest and the friendly words, Jammusique - still it seems as if you're mixing up several things.

1. For convolution, it doesn't make any difference processing-wise if an IR consists of hundreds or millions of discrete reflections. Only the length of the IR counts when it comes to necessary processing power, and the quality of the recording is relevant for its authenticity.

2. Algorithmic reverbs are _of course_ trying to recreate real rooms, too (... ever heard the "Vienna Hall" from a System 6000?), and they _do_ need a lot of processing power - why is it just today that we see the real Lexicon algorithms for native machines? They relied on dedicated DSPs, that's what made it seem so "easy" on the machine. - They don't need a lot of RAM, but that's a different story.

3. Regarding a comparison of Vienna MIR and a Bricasti:  This really is like comparing apples with pears, or should I say: Like comparing a pure reverb box with a multi-format mixing console featuring built-in virtual instrument hosting, instrument-conscious spatial processing, project management and a unique GUI approach.

BTW - my favorite MIR-demo right now is[URL=http://vsl.co.at/Player2.aspx?Lang=1&DemoID=5501] this one,[/URL] precisely because of the utter absence of conventional "reverb". :-)

oh lala,

BTW - my favorite MIR-demo right now is this one, precisely because of the utter absence of conventional "reverb". :-)

chapeau 😉 !

I have a bricasti and looking forward to get MIR in the next couple years (my computer is too slow, aren't that sound familiar?)

best, imusic

@Dietz said:

2. Algorithmic reverbs are _of course_ trying to recreate real rooms, too (... ever heard the "Vienna Hall" from a System 6000?), and they _do_ need a lot of processing power - why is it just today that we see the real Lexicon algorithms for native machines? They relied on dedicated DSPs, that's what made it seem so "easy" on the machine.

Just for the record you surely know much more about reverb than I do. It's true that lots of names of patches on Algorithmic reverbs come from real spaces, usually (I've heard) because of the early reflection character of that patch (and to give us an idea). But of course on a Bricasti, Lexi and VSS4 (and others) you can vary the the amount of the ER's, vary the length of the tail, control the modulation, etc. coming up with sounds that no room will give you. I think of them as supra-natural. And I have a feeling that the "lush" sound that many talk about, is a little supra-natural (something no room could give you).

We're all come accustom to certain sounds: plate reverb vocals in the 70, certain verbs (EMT) on snare drums, etc. And human ears have for a few hundred years been hearing orchestras in great halls. So that "natural" hall sound is what we deem as correct. I can't help but think that after decades of getting used to "bigger than life" orchestral sounds that come from (for example) a real orchestra in a great room with a little Bricasti added in, we might start considering that sound as the standard.

For example, the last Batman score (The Black Knight) was recorded in an L.A. scoring stage, and then up to 8 Bricasti M7's were added on in the mix. That's an impressive sound, but not one that works for a more classical situation. We are all used to different sounding pianos, snares, guitars, etc, and yes even need orchestras that can be molded to sound different for different situations. So we all need (IMO) dry samples, MIR, and maybe also a Bricasti for more larger than life sounds.

As for the power, I was surprised to learn just how little Lexicon and TC verbs actually take. On a 8 core MacPro someone got I think over 50 instances of a stereo Lexi verb, and TC system 6000's use 10 year old dsp chips (like ants rowing inside to generate the power!) yet the verbs sound great (!?!). Bricasti on the other built very thirsty machines which are I think about 10 times more powerful that a System 6000. And I remember reading here about MIR, and all the processing power needed to achieve that quality. [Y]

Yeah that Ellington trio sounds excellent !

The Ellington demo is wonderful on so many levels. It really shows the value of room ambience without the overlay of a synthetic reverb. I have Bricastis and Lexicons and they can’t touch that demo. 

Mir is ahead of other types of reverberators in displaying height (up & down) I would like this to be accentuated even more.

I really believe Mir will be the greatest answer for reverb – as it develops over time and has a work flow model that is acceptable to more of us.  As much as I love the thought of what Mir can become I have every intention of continuing to use the wonderful things my hardware reverbs give to my productions. There needs to be some way of using Mir as a computer-based outboard box and not tie the samples (both VSL and non-VSL) to be contained within the Mir computer. I want productions that contain both Mir-effected content and other hardware/software-effected tracks. I want to be able pump external audio tracks and software instruments into Mir.  

To tie this thread together with its original title I think if done properly Mir can breathe life into the current string samples. Incorporating technology like the filters of FORTI and SERTI into a combined better, smoother interface of Vienna Instrument/Mir will help the strings (and other) samples.

My concerns of VSL re-recording the various string sections is that because of economics they would not record as many types of articulations as the original Orchestral Strings and that because more likely than not they would have a new-style Vienna Instrument sample player that the older samples with all their great articulations would not be usable.

.

Thanks for the friendly words, Jack!

@Jack Weaver said:

[...]Mir is ahead of other types of reverberators in displaying height (up & down) I would like this to be accentuated even more.[...]

You are right on track! Actually it would be possible to decode _any_ listening format from MIR's native Ambisonics-recordings. For example, it would be possible to define two circles of speakers in different heights, or even speakers for a z-axis reproduction (on the ceiling above you, or even below he floor ... provided you are living on a grid 😄 ...)

We have deliberatly restricted Vienna MIR in its present form to "conventional" (planar) reproduction formats up to 8 speakers (and for now, I can't see a huge demand for anything else). But in principle, it would be possible to add a more complex Output Format Editor to MIR Pro for exotic multi-channel setups. ... which doesn't mean that it _will_ be included ... it's just an idea we have in mind.

... sorry for hi-jacking the "lush strings"-thread 8-]

Honestly, I was really only thinking about output into stereo speakers.

VSL is so far ahead of everyone else in the audio industry regarding this type of development. When there is a work flow that meets the demands of post production engineers Mir could be become a standard.

.

@Jack Weaver said:

Honestly, I was really only thinking about output into stereo speakers. [...]

LOL [<:o)] ! Seems as I was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Sorry for that.

Kind regards,

I applaud the implemanation of multi-channel surround options within MIR. I would like to see, however, a single industry standard for the speaker type and positioning for mixing and playback of multi-channel content. For a seamless 360 degree, holosonic, image specific soundfield, 5 to 7 identical (with and optional height channel), front radiating (non dipolar) full range speakers (at ear level) is the optimal approach. But if speaker positioning is one way when the music is mixed, and another upon playback, the multi channel mix be will a distortion from how it was initially concieved. That why I push to have a standard for for the playback of such recordings whether it be in film or music only.  Does Vienna have a speaker positioning standard for the mixing of 5 or 7 discrete channels? And where do you position side/ side rear channels on the circular axis for your mixes? This all may be a little premature for the current offering of MIR, but I think it's good to open up the dialog on this.

Also, will there be more "hotspot" points within the various rooms to accomodate image specific surround envelopement options. I know this will take the music away from the "spectator sport" perspective, but I feel this coud open the floodgate to new and interesting sonic soundscapes.

(Note to myself: Maybe we should split this thread ...)

Right now, the surround mixes I do are done in a standard, quite precise ITU 5.1 speaker setup. I once tried a 6.1 setup (with a rear center speaker) just for testing. Also a "classical" Quadrophonic setup worked out nicely.

But during an earlier phase of the Vienna MIR development we had a loose collaboration with Iosono (a spin-off company of the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany). In their showroom studio in Illmenau I had the chance to do a proof-of-concept mix on a full-blown Wave Field Synthesis system. Now _that's_ the kind of surround we were dreaming of as youngsters! 8-) Simply breathtaking.

-> [URL]http://www.iosono-sound.com/technology/[/URL]

 Looking at the screenshots of their control software, you will see that the two technologies fit like a glove:

-> [URL]http://www.iosono-sound.com/technology/hardware-and-software/[/URL]

What a pity that we won't see this approach in the average living room in the near future. :-/

That's fantastic ! Or shall I say lush. [:P]

@Rob Welsh said:

I applaud the implemanation of multi-channel surround options within MIR. I would like to see, however, a single industry standard for the speaker type and positioning for mixing and playback of multi-channel content. For a seamless 360 degree, holosonic, image specific soundfield, 5 to 7 identical (with and optional height channel), front radiating (non dipolar) full range speakers (at ear level) is the optimal approach. But if speaker positioning is one way when the music is mixed, and another upon playback, the multi channel mix be will a distortion from how it was initially concieved.

Your suggestion is an excellent one for 7.1 systems. 5.1 already has ITU-R Recommendation BS.775-2 (07/06), which specifies speakers at 0°, ±30°, and ±110°, although it is unclear how many people actually have their speakers laid out this way. (Four of the speakers in a square seems to be more popular.) Ambisonics, however, is fundamentally different from 5.1 and 7.1, and does not need a standard speaker layout. This is one of its great advantages.

What is encoded in Ambisonics is not speaker feeds, but direction. When mixing in Ambisonics, the positions of the speakers are unknown and are of no interest. Further, when Ambisonics is decoded to speaker feeds all of the speakers cooperate to localise a sound in its correct position so, for example, when the speakers on the left push those on the right pull. The speakers all contribute to the creation of a single coherent soundfield.

For more information on Ambisonics, please see [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics]the Wikipedia page[/url].

Welcome and thanks for chiming in, Martin! Good to know that our little discussion attracts the interest of an Ambisonics specialist.  :-)

I agree that there are new ways to handle samples, but I'm sure VSL will have some novelties in that field. They have all the audio they need. Maybe they will find new ways to chop it up, and manage it with their sampler.

As for the mic distance, what reverb are you using? And are you sending pre or post fader. IMO you need at least Altiverb to work well with VSL, and all the better if you have MIR. And with the features in those verbs, you should be able to control the distince well.

I have a feeling (I might be wrong) that close/distant micing options with samples is a feature of the past, since the advent of MIR. [Y]

Most orchestral recordings are actually a mixture of a main microphone system and spot microphones for added definition. This is exactly what you would achieve by using the room signal created by the MIR engine (i.e the main system) with the direct signals mixed in. Actually this concept was part of the Vienna Symphonic Library's samples from the very beginning.

Apart from that, Vienna MIR offers a dedicated "distant" Character Preset for most Vienna Instruments to give you even more options on the direct signal itself.

HTH,

How close are the Vienna instruments typically mic'd?

The issue of making a drier recording more wet isn't nearly as big a hurdle as making something mic'd close sound like its mic'd from a distance.

This depends. Micheal Hula, our musical director, would have all the details (which he woudn't share anyway ;-) ...), but I would say between 1 or 2 m for certain solo instruments up to 5 m and more in case of ensembles (which isn't even close to "close", in my book).