194,701 users have contributed to 42,932 threads and 258,000 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 9 new thread(s), 21 new post(s) and 109 new user(s).
Hello!
Is it possible to route the outputs of MIR's secondary mics to separate outputs (in VEPro) for individual mixing? I can't seem to figure out how to do this. I can do this with the full MIR wet signal, but not with the secondary mics alone. I'm trying to get separate faders for close, mid, far.
Help appreciated.
Best,
MOH
Hi MOH,
As a matter of fact it _is_ possible to have separate physical outputs for the Secondary Microphone. But before I explain the necessary steps and setups, please allow for a slightly sceptical question: Could it be that you are partly missing the actual beauty of MIR's basic concept ….? :-)
With MIR, you can have close, mid and far distances (and everything in between) without any additional effort. The close/mid/far approach comes form the conventional “mixing with artificial reverb”-concept, were each algorithm is only able to supply _one_ perceived distance between a signal source and the listener. MIR has the built-in ability to create the proper panning, early reflections and reverb for any angel and any distance, for any spot on any given stage.
Talking about the relation of source and listener: In case of MIR, the listener is the Main Microphone. Using two different listener positions is quite meaningless, that's why MIR's Secondary Microphone is just used for an augmented sense of space, width and “enveloping”, not for actual positioning purposes. - This is also indicated by the graphics: The Secondary Mic doesn't supply any dry signal components, just the “wet” components – thus the virtual capsules of its Icon on the Venue Map are shown as outline only. ;-)
… ok – now back to the actual answer to your question: If you still want to go this route, you will have to "abuse" MIR Pro tgo a cretain defree. ;-) You can have separate Outputs for your Secondary Mic by using a multi-channel setup. In Cubase you would have to open a Quadro-Surround-instance of VE Pro (or a Quadro-Channel, in case you're using the plug-in version of MIR Pro).
[url=http://postimage.org/][img]http://s29.postimg.org/jsq5lsxyv/Quadro_VEP.jpg[/img][/url]
Now chose a stereo-mic setup for both the Main and the Secondary Microphone. MIR Pro will show a warning message:
---------------------------
Output Matrix changed
---------------------------
The output matrix of the chosen Output Format has to be adopted to match the number of output channels. Do you want to use it anyway?
---------------------------
Click “Yes”.
Finally, open the Matrix view of Output Format Editor of MIR Pro and assign the Secondary Microphone's output to the rear channels (“Ls” and “Rs” for Left and Right Surround). This can be achieved by typing ”-inf” into those connections you want to switch off, and “0” (or any other negative dB-value like "-6") into the fields you want to activate:
[url=http://postimage.org/][img]http://s16.postimg.org/u71gtn3mt/Output_Editor.jpg[/img][/url]
Click “OK”, and now the (wet) signal of the Secondary Microphone will appear on the 3rd and 4th channel of your MIR Pro-output, were you can treat it separately.
HTH,
Thanks Dietz!
I will give that a try. What I really want to be able to do, though, is have separate returns for each *section* coming back into Cubase not just the entire wet signal.
Here's the problem I'm having with MIR-- I mentioned it in another post--- since the mixing is tied to the VEPro instance, every time I change sessions I have to unload all my samples and load them again. This, for me, totally destroys one of the main purposes of VEPro, which is the magical "decouple" button. If there was some easy way to separate out the coupling of the mixing from the decoupling of the samples themselves it would make things _much_ easier.
For right now, I am sending separate wet and dry singals for all the sections into Cubase so I can mix there (many audio tracks!)
Have a great day!
MOH
Hi MOH,.
I don't want to come across patronising - but could it be that you're overcomplicating things a bit? MIR Pro is meant to be a mixing frontend all by itself, and VE Pro is yet another mixing application.
I also don't understand the need to unload/reload Vienna Instruments in VE Pro when working with MIR Pro. Would you please elaborate ...?
BTW: MIR Pro is also available as VST plug-in. Have you tried to use it directly in Cubase? Maybe this is what would fit all your needs. (... just guessing.)
Kind regards,
Hi Dietz
No of course you don't come across as patronising--- you're always very helpful. I do understand the whole concept behind MIR as a mixing frontend.
The problem, however, is that changing something in VEPro changes the viframe/metaframe. So if I want to have a different mix I need to load a different viframe/mframe for every project. This necessitates unloading the current viframe/mframe, and loading a new one--- and, because of the way VEPro works, along with it all my instruments (unless I'm missing something?). This is why I am mixing in Cubase: it allows me to leave my VEPro template static (decoupled) so I only need to load it once in the morning. Is this more clear?
As a plugin, I'd have to send audio returns for every individual instrument, so unfortunately I don't see this as a viable option.
Ok - I think I'm slowly starting to understand. 8-] You use many, many outputs from VE Pro to Cubase, to do all specific balancing, processing and automation in the DAW, while keeping VEP decoupled and "static". Is that right?
... still I don't really undertstand why you would want to separate Main and Secondary Microphones then. The old-school close/mid/far-paradigm is simply not beneficial in the context of MIR Pro ... 8-/ ... do you want to have individual level controls for the Secondary Mic on a channel-by-channel basis? What do you hope to obtain thereby?
Kind regards,
Hmmm...I guess I just want finer control over the EQ of MIR. It's all because I want to keep everything decoupled. Since I need to EQ in Cubase, the more flexibilty the better. I often find that EQing the wet and dry together is tough because cutting away something I don't like from the wet signal takes away something I like from the dry signal. So I assumed that I could get even better results by EQing the secondary mic-- not that I'm some great engineer! Again, because I want to be decoupled, I need separate faders in Cubase since I've lost my wet/dry slider in MIR.
Maybe I _am_ misunderstanding something about MIR. I always read about people preferring MIR mixes slightly less wet. The mix is made slightly less wet by bringing down the level of the wet signal with a fader/slider. So why is this any different with a secondary mic?Is it not true in MIR that if I have separate faders for close/primary mic/secondary mic that I can have greater control over the sound? I mean, if I like a particular thing that the secondary mic is giving me, surely being able to bump it up in level would be a nice feature?
Thanks!
[...]Maybe I _am_ misunderstanding something about MIR. I always read about people preferring MIR mixes slightly less wet. The mix is made slightly less wet by bringing down the level of the wet signal with a fader/slider. So why is this any different with a secondary mic?Is it not true in MIR that if I have separate faders for close/primary mic/secondary mic that I can have greater control over the sound? I mean, if I like a particular thing that the secondary mic is giving me, surely being able to bump it up in level would be a nice feature?
I wouldn't trust too much in people who haven't really used MIR Pro, most likely. 😉 ... All these features are there already - most of them since the "old" legacy Vienna MIR:
Kind regards,
Thanks Dietz.
Yes, I am already routing the wet signal separately...back into Cubase actually so I can EQ there. I use MIRx (Teldex) as a starting point, but I find that I often still need to EQ quite a bit--- depending on the arrangement. So the issue remains however that mixing in VEPro presents a serious workflow problem because I have to reload samples every time I want a different mix.
Do you mind elabortaing on why having separate control over the secondary mic isn't useful? I don't always want the extra room sound on every instrument.
Thanks again.
Hi MOH,
as soon as you don't see MIR as "reverb", but as "virtual room", you will immediately understand that recording enineers usually have one "main" microphone array, which is used for all instruments consequently ("main" in the sense of "all microphones of the maín array", opposed to spot-mics). This is where much of MIR Pro's acoustic coherence comes from. In reality, you wouldn't be able to bring down the volumne of the rear outrigger mics for just the piccolo flute either. ;-) ... if you really _have_ to go beyond the possibilities of this quite natural implementation, you will indeed have to take resort to the workarounds I mentioned before.
But like I said - if you just need different RoomEQ settings for different (groups of) instruments, nothing will hinder you from applying them directly in MIR Pro!
... I still don't understand your "reload problem", sorry to say so. Why don't you just save MIR Pro's "engine settings" when you want to keep your already instantiated instruments in a different room ...? (File > Vienna MIR Pro > Save/Open) The settings for individual channels (i.e. Icons) can be saved, too (right-click > Save/Load) ... none of these actions will re-load existing sample-data of Vienna Instruments.
HTH,
Hmm I never saw the MIR channel option before. Cool! I did know about the ability to save the MIR engine settings (.mirep), and yes, you are right it does allow me to save room EQ presets. However it doesn't save the specific settings for each channel (placement, character preset, etc.) so I never bothered to use it. Would it be possible for the future to add the ability to save all the channel settings along with the room mic settings in a single mirep file? I couldn't imagine clicking on every channel individually to load presets :-) This is especially important for me on percussion because I rarely want percussion in the same hall position in two different compositions (some examples....distant vs. close mic snare, marimba up front vs. back in the room).
Now that I think of it, I guess I am asking...could we have some way of saving our own MIRx profiles?
Thanks again.
Maybe you should look into VE Pro's possibility to save so-called Channel Sets (Mixer or Instrument List > right-click). I think that they could cover most of your needs. ;-)
Re. MIRx: Right now, we have no plans to offer custom MIRx-data export. But rest assured that we will constantly refine the possibilities of MIR Pro, especially regarding its usability and customisability.
Kind regards,
Hi Dietz,
I tried using channel sets but this still requires the loading of samples. In fact it is worse than saving as .mirchan because I had to unload the old samples (delete the channels) then load them again. I suppose if I could do mirchan _sets_ that would get close to what I am asking for, although this solution still wouldn't help me with any Vienna Suite inserts that I might have. Conceptually speaking, the easiest way for me to do what I want is if I could send audio from one VEPro instance to another (with low latency of course ;-) ). That way, one instance could be static and decoupled (samples), and the other instance could be coupled (mix). So, when I switch Cubase project files, the new mix is instantly loaded.
Thanks again!
MOH
