194,421 users have contributed to 42,920 threads and 257,965 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 10 new post(s) and 85 new user(s).
The upshot is, yes, in VE Pro you can use any effect in a signal path to MIR Pro. I would say to think of MIR Pro as an enhancement of the tone after the fact of the delay though.
Defining the object on stage as a microphone (rather than focused as a particular instrument profile), yes you can make it take up the whole width of the stage and beyond.
The upshot is, yes, in VE Pro you can use any effect in a signal path to MIR Pro. I would say to think of MIR Pro as an enhancement of the tone after the fact of the delay though.
Defining the object on stage as a microphone (rather than focused as a particular instrument profile), yes you can make it take up the whole width of the stage and beyond.
At maximum width on the "Cardioid" General Purpose profile, you still won't get hard-panned results like in the Goldsmith model. This is because MIR is simulating a real room, and in a real room you wouldn't get hard-panned results either. Before MIR, a hard ping-ponged signal gives -inf dB on the right when it's sounding on the left:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yD4sCB9.png[/IMG]
After MIR, the "dry" signal shows up on both channels even when the source signal is hard left:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jKlTXWH.png[/IMG]
Because MIR is accurately simulating a real room, which is incompatible with the hard-panned ping-pong delay like in Goldsmith's music.
I never said that the ping-pong would be achieved through MIR Pro itself. In fact I suggested to think of it as an enhancement {IE: room color} "after the fact of the ping pong effect". At maximum width settings I'm sure you get maximum width, is all. I wouldn't even bother with that kind of panning per MIR Pro, it isn't its purpose, it virtualizes players on a stage (that probably cannot bounce off of one wall, vanish and appear on the other.) :)
I have however sent audio to VE Pro on an audio input with MIR Pro inserted and power panned it from right to left and perceived right to left ok, and used mics set to show the whole width. Using a lot of room is typically kind of diffuse for a special effect, so it's a reverb after the fact of a delay or pan maneuver. I would rather define the 'Crossfeed' in Hybrid Reverb for the channel first, as focused so the later reflections are as focused as the power pan, for such a defined effect.
@BachRules said:
The General Purpose profiles come with names like Cardioid, and that made me think of microphones at first, but now I figure those names are referring to radial patterns emitted by virtual speakers, rather than patterns received by virtual microphones.
@BachRules said:
The General Purpose profiles come with names like Cardioid, and that made me think of microphones at first, but now I figure those names are referring to radial patterns emitted by virtual speakers, rather than patterns received by virtual microphones.
I was thinking it all happens from the placement of a virtual speaker on the stage, and the virtual speaker has a virtual width and a virtual distance from the MIR main mic. I can't see how a General Purpose profile would simulate a mic.
LOL...You guys are so far ahead of me...I have lots of catching up to do....
Cubase has some delays that come with it, - nothing's in-built in Ve Pro or Mir, right? So If I want to avoid routing in and out of Cubase, I need a third party delay? Is that right?
I know if I were just in Cubase, I would need an aux track with a mono delay, and each track panned oposite. Then I add whatever reverb/Eq I need.
With VEPro in the mix then, what?
1) Add a track to the xylphone in VE Pro with the [+] on the xyophone track....or create a deicated bus.....does it matter?
2) Do a send from the xylophone to that track
3) Route that to an audio track in Cubase.
4) Put the delay on the Cubase; track
5) Create a seperate audio in in VE Pro for the return
6) Route the Cubase track with the delay back into VEPro on the track I created in 5 (so now the Cubase tack's input is the VEPro track recieving the xylophone send in VEPro, and it's out is going to the new VEPro track I created in step 5)
7) Put the reverb and EQ's on the original xyophone track and on the additional audio track comming back from Cubase
It just feels like I've got something wrong, and there must be a simpler way.
A Cubase effect is not going to be seen by VE Pro, so you would need a third-party plug.
@PeteyMan said:
With VEPro in the mix then, what?
1) Add a track to the xylphone in VE Pro with the [+] on the xyophone track....or create a deicated bus.....does it matter?
2) Do a send from the xylophone to that track
3) Route that to an audio track in Cubase.
I'm assuming you mean you're using Cubase's effect, as you are describing a procedure with a mono 'aux track'...
In which case 1) & 2) I don't really follow.
If you have to use the Cubase plugin for the ping pong effect you would send the instrument channel [Xylophone] to the bus in Cubase.
If you want the result of that effected in MIR Pro hosted in VE Pro, you would now create an FX bus with 'Audio Input' inserted, and send to that bus; which is received as an Input Channel {assigned corresponding to your FX insert} in VE Pro; which is either in the same bus as MIR Pro or you do a send to one. That ultimately is another instrument channel(s) you assign an output to in Cubase.
SO essentially, if you are not dealing with a third-party ping pong delay hosted in VE Pro but the ping pong procedure is all Cubase, you are using VE Pro as an external effects rack for whatever you're hoping MIR Pro will do for you. As I said, I would consider this no differently than adding some reverb after the delay, only it's routed outside of Cubase (to the [VE Pro] multitimbral instrument/cum FX rack).
NB: it is two things to Cubase now. It is an external effect - meaning that printing the result means Real-Time Export in Cubase, just as you would do with a hardware device outside of Cubase - but the thing you'll print is an instrument channel in Cubase.
@BachRules said:
The General Purpose profiles come with names like Cardioid, and that made me think of microphones at first, but now I figure those names are referring to radial patterns emitted by virtual speakers, rather than patterns received by virtual microphones.
I was thinking it all happens from the placement of a virtual speaker on the stage, and the virtual speaker has a virtual width and a virtual distance from the MIR main mic. I can't see how a General Purpose profile would simulate a mic.
I am not apt to do technical writing. But there is this from the manual [THINK MIR - User Manual Add-On - Rev.1]:
Ambisonics relies on a meta-audio-format which is not meant to be listened to directly. It allows for decoding of an almost limitless number of actual audio formats, be it broad or narrow stereo, different surround formats, or any other multi-channel format. By defining "virtual" microphones, a dedicated sonic behaviour can be assigned to each channel: The polar patterns as well as the angles of those microphones with regard to the input signal can be controlled after the actual recording.
Xylophones would be an instrument profile, adjustable in terms of width and closeness which refers to mic'ing*; I think 'defined as a microphone' and this focus on words is asking the cart to pull the horse really.
I believe that 'Ambisonics' is how the thing is achieved, period. So you seem to have made a dichotomy that I don't believe and it seems to me is impossible, given the technology.
* MIR Pro handles directionality (i.e., “room”) both from the listener's perspective (the microphone) as well as from the signal source's perspective (the instrument).
I don't know why there would be a 'general purpose' mic which would be a different technology than the instrument profile. The 'instrument profile' does take into account known things about VSL library items that aren't known about all other things you'd put in the space, but it doesn't seem like the latter would not be Ambisonics or the same analogy to eg. cardioid and other capsule forms be omitted for every other use than a VSL library item.
A comparison for better understanding:
If we would talk about visuals, MIR Pro's Instrument Icons stand for a spotlight with variable brighness, color, width and rotation. An "Omni" would emit the same energy and color into all directions, and "Eighth" would emit its light only to the front and the back, a "Cardioid" would resemble your average streezt lamp ;-) , and so on.
MIR Pro's Main Microphone would be a 3D-camera, with multiple variable lenses and adjustable sensitivty, and of course free orientation.
HTH,
Hey Bachrules - thanks for that info - I have no particular desire to go out to Cubase. How did you do it with Mir Pro in the mix with VE Pro? What pug in did you use? I know it's a pain in the britches...but if you had a few minutes to jot down a step-by-step I'd be as happy as JSB at a Row-Row-Row your boat convention ;)
@BachRules said:
There is a dichotomy between modelling a microphone and modelling a speaker, and the difference affects the audio coming out of MIR. I didn't create this dichotomoy; I only observed it. You are picking a speaker model when you set an Instrument Channel, and you are picking mic models when you set the Output Channel.
I don't think so. The one is designed for the other in this case. Dichotomy means mutually exclusive to begin with.
A comparison for better understanding:
If we would talk about visuals, MIR Pro's Instrument Icons stand for a spotlight... MIR Pro's Main Microphone would be a 3D-camera....
