I run LASS in MIR PRO just fine.

Maestro2be

Do you want to share any opinions, and better yet any sound examples?!

While LASS will work fine with MIR Pro (like pretty much all 3rd-party virtual instruments), be careful when it comes to stage positioning. As far as I know, all LASS' samples come with burned-in panning, a concept which is kind of counter-intuitive when used in conjunction with the completely free positioning like MIR offers.

I mixed some cues for a colleague a few days ago who was using LASS (amongst some other stuff) together with Vienna Instruments in MIR Pro, and I had to come up with several tricks to compensate for the bevelled signals, especially violins and cellos.

Kind regards,

Dietz is correct on that.  It is the biggest problem I have with it.  If you use it in stand alone in your DAW and apply VSL suite reverb (hybrid sounds awesome), you will get good results.  It's very time consuming and painful to setup a true divisi setup in MIR PRO.  I have been working on it and frankly am tiring of how much work it is.  Because of the pre-panning, if you try to load up the divisi Auto Arranger MIR will center pan everything in the divisi.  The only way to get seperation of the sections again is to either place the entire divisi into one kontakt/MIR icon, and stretch it to the size of an Orchestral Strings icon, and place it directly in front of the microphone or the other option is to  seperate every chair on the stage, but this made for an incredibly difficult setup for auto arranger.

Most importantly, I still find the out of tune samples make me want to pull my teeth out at times.  So I mostly only use the ensemble patches to layer with VSL samples.  They add a nice color to them if you blend them in the background and let VSL Lead them.  I simply cannot use them alone, they are to out of tune. I think some people love it and swear it adds naturalness to it, but to me there is a fine line of out of tune.  For instance, the more real way this would happen is the way VI Pro 2 does it.  It starts quickly out of tune on the attack, randomly in different tunings each time and instanly comes into tune.  This is what all professionals would do for their instruments if they started out of tune.  A true professional can hear it instantly and knows just what to do to pull it back in tune.  The problem with the LASS samples are they are out of tune completely and staticly.  So once you start the note, that particular note stays out of tune for it's duration.  That part of it gets them removed from my music 90% of the time.

I don't really have any demos of LASS in MIR alone as like I said I never use them alone for anything and I certainly don't much feel like setting up all the work it takes to make auto arranger work.  It's just easier for me to load it into my DAW and blend it there if I need that color for a phrase or song.

Maestro2be

@cgernaey said:

[...] Because of the pre-panning, if you try to load up the divisi Auto Arranger MIR will center pan everything in the divisi.  The only way to get seperation of the sections again is to either place the entire divisi into one kontakt/MIR icon, and stretch it to the size of an Orchestral Strings icon, and place it directly in front of the microphone or the other option is to  seperate every chair on the stage, but this made for an incredibly difficult setup for auto arranger. [...]

Placing a MIR Icon close to the Main Microphone will of course give away any sense of depth and distance, which is actually one of MIR's most decisive features. Personally I would try to counteract the built-in panning by means of VS Powerpan (or a similar tool) before putting it on a MIR-stage.

Kind regards,

Thanks Dietz, I will definitely give that a try.  But to be sure we're absolutely clear, this fault isn't because of MIR PRO.  The problem are the samples are pre-panned into their positions (for anyone reading this considering MIR PRO).

I have begun to not like instruments that I cannot mix inside of MIR because MIR saves me 80% of the work I used to have to figure out on my own.  Most of the time it's just more simple to load some VSL instruments on the stage and go with it rather than fuss with other samples that are pre-panned etc.  As I said though before, I do find LASS to be a very nice blender.  It's just that their way of working, and the idea's behind MIR PRO are different so you have to be willing to spend some time placing them all properly if you want to combine the two.  If LASS is your main string library, then MIR PRO is great for you.  Just expect to spend time massaging them on the stage and the midi channel setups etc.  Once it's done, the reverb certainly sounds much better and realistic than the others I own.

Maestro2be

Beautiful thread, guys!

It happens that LASS is my main strings library and like Mr Dietz said, it takes a little bit of tackling here and there to set the panning. But nothing out of the extraordinary. VSL Power Pan is perfect for the job and it takes franky quite little of pre and post balance for me to make it sound natural. I like the orchestra recordings Abbado LSO style: in your face with very large stereo envelopping and precise spotting. So, I use a little bit modified MIR Pro 3-mics central array with reinforced center. Celli and Violins need to be brought just a bit not to sound hard right/left with a prebalance to taste for the amount of details in LASS. I find LASS is perfect for the job and panning is not an issue.

There are 2 points I wouldn't agree though: about tuning and setup.

1/ Tuning:

- I find the tuning is very good since version 1.5 and even more in 2.0 of LASS, but perhaps it's subjective. I don't use tuning scripts but it's meant to be used just like humanize function in VI PRO/Vi PRO 2 and it can be set up to taste. To my ears, the default tuning is great right now. Being a big fun of all the libraries of VSL, and I own quite a bit, strings (which I don't know but have a taste in SE/SE+ editions) has never won my heart, I'm sorry to say. And God knows I would love to because of amazing VSL workflow and VI PRO 2. But it's a question of taste I guess. I frankly think that right now tuning is not an issue with LASS, which kind of was for the 1st version.

2/ Set up:

- I can understand it's hard to setup for the versions prior to 2.0, but their new ARC system is a God sent! I've just finished a small concert piece with the new template and it took me 1 day to set up everything from scratch. I'm writing all the strings with Auto Arranger mostly on 1 track per section with KS by ARC and expression maps in Cubase. That's it. Then, layer of VSL Solo Strings (which in my opinion one of the best sample library ever created) for detailing and voilà! In my MIR Pro there is 5 instances of Kontakt for LASS (1 per section) and KS work like a charm with expression maps (you create by youself for your needs). Nothing can be easier, well, one thing: using VSL libraries with the expression maps they created. But hein, it's already simple enough, what's more can we ask?

The only thing I can point about LASS is just some really small but present inconcistencies in the recording by itself: scratch here, some noise burst there. Well, it's not VSL perfection, but it has its charm and really nothing even close to "unmanageable".

Another good point I think about LASS is the dryness but not complete sterility. MIR Pro really breath in life in the whole section like nothing I've heard before with 10% of effort!

By the way, the generic character presets work amazing with LASS. Air* setting on 1st violins just make you wanna cry when you write 3 or 4 way divisi John Adams style (like in Foxtrot for Orchestra). It really brings the details without overemphesising or sounding harsh. I'm still looking for my eq settings, but I doubt there are only ones. Adapting for the piece is what can make all the difference.

In risk of turning this in some groupie post like I did before in my love post [:P], I think you can't wish for more realism and flexibility than for strings than MIR Pro and LASS.

Best,

sH

Are you using any of the LASS 2.0 presets (the stage presets) or do you just use MIR PRO entirely against the dry samples?

Great Ino !

Cgernay,

For now, I don't use Stage & Color. It's possible I will use the color, but I still didn't find the one I like. Dry samples contain all the details and I have a feeling that color is somehow "mudding" them. But hein, if they come up with Nyman's Gattaca color, it will be very very hard to resist. As for staging, well, with Mir Pro you really don't need that.

But I also find that generic character presets work fine with LASS depending on the score. Air* for violins, Bite* for celli, Silver* for violins II, Warm* for violas and Pure for basses are good enough for me together with just a touch of eq here and there to cut some samples build up frequencies. But I'm still looking and if anybody wants to share eq experience with LASS, it would be great!

Best,

sH

I am just trying out the MIR Pro 24 demo as an AU in Logic. I am messing around with LASS but am having difficulty panning them. I listened to the advice here on using the Power Panner to centralise the signal before putting it on the MIR stage. However when I then move, for example, the Basses to the right (by the edge of the stage!), they don't seem to be panned enough to my liking.

Does anyone have any tips on setting up LASS instruments in MIR Pro?

Thanks

Hi Orchestranova,

Apart from the intrinsic problems of using pre-panned signals, your issue might be more a question of how you use MIR Pro. When you aim for more distinct stereo width, it is always a good idea to try a Main Microphone position closer to the stage, or a different Main Microphone setup with broader imaging (e.g. a Blumlein setup of two crossed figure-8 capsules).

You can also try to virtually move the Main Microphone closer to the stage (just move its icon with the mouse), but be careful - this can be overdone easily.

BTW: A nice trick is to use an M/S-based stereo-widener like Waves' S-1 or one of the many freeware plugins to change the relation between the M(id) and S(ide) components of the signal, in favour of the latter. A typical starting point for the S-1 would be Width @ 1.15, Shuffle @ 1.1.

HTH,

PS: There are quite a few hints and advices available as part of the MIR Pro manual, as part of the Tutorial Section form p. 55 onwards - "Getting 'that' sound". :-)

Thanks for your message.

Hmm.....it all seems a bit too complicated to me....I'm a composer, not an engineer ;-)

Hmmm ... that's as little "engineering" as it can get. ;-)