Is MIR worth it?  I questioned the same thing.

My first decent reverb unit was a TC Electronic M3000, that cost more than twice than MIR, I then moved to Powercore and VSS3, that also cost twice the cost of MIR. Last year I moved to Vienna Suite, which cost a lot less than VSS3, and that sounded so much better.

I had carefully mixed with multiple instances of Vienna Convolution reverb, panned everything where it should be, and was carefull to get the tone and levels right, and it sounded really good, I was really pleased with the result. I then downloaded the trial version of MIR Pro, put the same score through MIR, and muted the Vienna convolution reverb. The difference really surprised me, it all sounded so much more believably real.

So yes, MIR is worth the money, I just hope my demo license doesn't run out before my license arrives !  And on the demo license, I only have access to one position in one room, so the full version is going to be even better.

Hi there,

I have MIr pro for probably one week and a half, and all the time I promise myself to open a thread to say a BIG thank you to Dietz and company...but guess what, this piece of software just keeps me busy and more and more amazed by its capabilities. I have been waiting for it for such a long time , and now I can't manage to stay away from the computer ( I have also a little baby :))

  To conclude, I would remove only the question mark from your sentence  : MIR - Worth the money :))

   A Superb piece of software,

 So finally,

 Thank you Dietz and VSL

Best

Bogdan 

Yes I've been (perhaps the only) person partially critical of the approach in the past BUT the ability to simply use MIR as a mix engine and replace the tail with another reverb (if you're like me and you don't usually want strict realism) means you can have the best of both worlds. You can use MIR and a 960 or Bricasti together, or the VSL hybrid reverb in-the-box. Realistic depth and placement with a more pleasant reverb tail - awesome. And nobody is doing what MIR does for placement and mixing. As a mix engine and I've only been playing with the trial version at the moment - purely as a time saver, it's worth the money, let alone anything else - and there is a lot else here. If you have the VSL library, BTW, IMO it's a no brainer - the library was MADE to be used with something like MIR. And fine tuning aside it's extremely fast and easy to use. In my experience it also sounds a great deal better than any of the other in the box convolution reverbs mentioned in the previous post, no disrespect to them. I also think that it's exceptional value for money. If you get on board with VSL products, my experience and I'm sure most people will agree, is that you are getting on board with a great company - if you buy MIR today, it's by no means going to be the end of the story. I'm sure they'll introduce many more spaces, many great software updates, many probably for little or no money, a fair and in fact from what I remember over the last several years, very generous upgrade path at each step of the way.

I bought it.  I think it is great and worth it.  But I think it's also too expensive.  :-)  They should take out all the stock venue impulses and make them all a la carte and make the MIR Pro engine cheaper.  That way you can buy what you want, and make it within range of more people's budgets..  I only really wanted the Teldex.

I am a long time Mir User, and i have to Say... its worth every Cent.

1. It realy saves money. 

2. It saves time !!!

3. and the sound is incredible good 

Yeah I'm not a long time user just a trial user right now - but I have to say on the balance of things I'm finding it very hard to agree with the notion that it's too expensive or not fantastic value. I will buy it as soon as I can.

Consider the laws of the marketplace, then answer this: where else can you get a competing product. Nowhere? Case closed... They could charge $2000 for it. I'm sure they sell more at the price point that it is at, but the point is, it's not expensive. Not in my opinion anyway.

Worth the money?

MIR is truly amazing!

Best

Pekay

What to buy if father Xmas you cannot afford both, Vienna Suite of Mir Pro ?

Any improvement in the status or MIR PRO SE ?

I will take everyone's word for how great MIR is since a) I haven't worked with it, b) I suck as an engineer compared to many highly skilled people here.

However, I consider myself more than decent a musician, and I would love to hear that comparison of your piece mixed with Vienna Suite and MIR respectively, like you described - needless to say the examples would have to be mixed exclusively with either product and not as a combination thereof.

Would you indulge us please?

Errikos,

every experienced engineer worth his money should be able to create at least a decent-sounding mix with Vienna Suite plug-ins. :-)

But: First of all, we have to define "experienced", of course. ;-) Then the question is: How fast will he/she get there? How inspiring was the way to get there? And why does the MIR -mix still sound that ineffable bit "deeper" and "more true" ...? Maybe because the initial sonic idea didn't get lost during a tiresome mixing-process ...?

For me, it's not either / or. Actually Vienna Suite is meant to enhance the possibilities of VE Pro / MIR Pro. Even Convolution Reverb has its place in this scheme of things, taking into account the sound-designing Timbral Impulse Resonses from Numerical Sound.

Kind regards,

Errikos, in that case, if you had to chose one or the other, and based on what you said, I would recommend MIR and just use your hosts eq "if" you need to (you likely won't). Mixing with MIR is very different, you can find the sound you want without using ANY eq. Very cool. Also for someone who is not big into engineering, you will find it far more intuitive and easier. Why not download the trial - there is a free trial here at VSL, just download it and you can try it out and see how it is.

Thanks Dietz and mpower88. Of course MIR, as sophisticated as it seems to be, remains a reverb in concept and a user should treat its output accordingly, that is proceed to further enhance it by multi-compression/limiting/etc. which is what Vienna Suite is. Have I got this right, or is it a general concensus that MIR's output could possibly be bounced as final audio (save for some initial E.Q. on the instrument tracks)? I guess it was interesting for me to hear the same user's two mixes from the two different products.

Sadly, my current setup does not allow me to try MIR at this time, but since theoretically I'd be prepared to spend more money if that meant I could eschew the more elaborate mixing process for a more intuitive/natural alternative, it is interesting to know that MIR is a serious step in that direction.

Not for me. I think you really need to try it out. For example, often we are adding eq to instruments to try to give depth to the mix - removing bass from further away instruments, etc. I found I had to disable most of my colouring eq because it was not necessary for a large part when mixing with mir. If you want it to sound further away, you just move it further away. I do however find it's very useful to use the suite eq and the resonance presets for individual instruments in there pre-mir. It's true, the best is to have both mir and suite and use them together, I'm not saying you don't need suite, I'm simply answering your question if you had to choose one or the other, then for me, I would choose MIR. I do still use some eq, but much less, and I found that so far in my trial at least, it is a massive time saver, with a far better result.

I physically cannot try MIR with my current equipment, but so far 'massive time-saving' and less programming makes it a very attractive proposition for someone that can happily do without the joys of actual engineering, but covets the great results that result from it.

MIR is a unique piece of software, far more than mere reverb, because it creates an entire environment for each instrument based upon the symphony orchestra on a stage.  As a result, a musician feels at home using it, and can adjust everything based upon musical principles rather than those learned from being an expert technician.  Also, it does something that ALtiverb and all the other convolutions never figured out - that the microphone placement should be stable while all the instrument locations vary.  In other words, a single listener with multiple sound sources.  That is the basic fact of the orchestra that no one else seems to understand.

Thanks Philippe. Was that audio output solely MIR PRO's? How many other tweaks were involved to create your sound?

As MIR was so wonderfully conceived (simulating the real experience very closely - stationary listener vs multiple positions), I'm trying to find out what users' experiences have been like in practice. Has MIR basically merely replaced their reverberation concerns in their sequences, or - due to its high standard of realism - has it also made a lot of the customary plug-in tweaks redundant? And to what extent? What in everybody's opinion is still necessary to do (even to that lesser extent), despite MIR's wonderful achievements?

In my limited experience so far with the trial, it does do away with a LOT of tweaking, and I mean about 98%. You still want to use EQ, and you still want to tweak MIR itself, moving instruments etc, and like the previous post just said, using different instances / rooms for certain instruments to achieve a desired effect. Like the manual says it doesn't matter what the stage layout looks like, but how it sounds, so if you want to place a certain instrument in the far rear corner because it sounds right even though you would never do that in real life, go ahead and do it. I still use some eq, but only very simply, to shape the sound, and find that yes, MIR so far, is definitely doing 98% of the hard work.

Of course you can get into all kinds of creative engineering with MIR, like an engineer would when recording from a real room. But the point is that for most people it was simply a task to use EQ, compression etc, as a way to try to fake the realism - so now you don't have to do that - it's automatically (more or less) there. If you want to get into more creative things, that's another story. For many composers I think a set and forget approach is now within reach - concentrate on writing and programming the parts. For others who want to take it to the next level, you can absolutely do that too.

The funny thing is that the best fun I have had with MIR so far was with a loop of a shaker, haha, and I used the audio input feature to send it to a spot on the stage, and it just made it work.

@Errikos said:

Thanks Dietz and mpower88. Of course MIR, as sophisticated as it seems to be, remains a reverb in concept and a user should treat its output accordingly, that is proceed to further enhance it by multi-compression/limiting/etc. which is what Vienna Suite is. Have I got this right, or is it a general concensus that MIR's output could possibly be bounced as final audio (save for some initial E.Q. on the instrument tracks)? I guess it was interesting for me to hear the same user's two mixes from the two different products.

MIR output is in this case a VE5 output and can be recorded as a complete single-file mix.

It is very important to understand that MIR really isn't just a reverb (Dietz' "propaganda" is actualy an acurate description of what MIR is capable of doing beyond the "reverb"-part), but actually a highly intricate and sophisticated collection of virtual concert halls in which you can very intuitively set the finest differences in spatial position and playing direction of any given instrument completely independent of any other instrument (or section). The impact this has on the realism and depth of spatial setups for orchestra arrangements is stunning - you can take a listen to Williams done with MIR here or a Mendelssohn done with MIR here,