194,710 users have contributed to 42,932 threads and 258,000 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 8 new thread(s), 19 new post(s) and 106 new user(s).
Paul-
Thanks for the quick response. This eq pre/post problem is a pretty major drawback and it ends up making my purchase of Vienna Suite look a whole lot less useable. Had I known I would have saved the MIRx money and applied it toward a full MIR purchase to get the most out of your wonderful products (and of course the educational discounts just ended).
I wish this potential problem was listed somewhere on the product page. I'm sure others have been similarly disappointed. Are you planning on fixing this issue in an update? Is there any way to put in an upgrade path from MIRx to MIR?
Appreciate you guys and what your products allow me to do so much.
Geoff
To avoid misunderstandings:
Technically, MIRx relies on linear convolution, and it uses dedicated, individual IRs for each and every single instrument. Thus it makes no difference whether you filter the signal pre- or post-reverb.
Sidenote: This would be slightly different in case of a typically modulated - i.e. non-linear - algorithmic reverb, and quite different in case of conventional AUX-send (i.e. bussed) reverberation schemes.
HTH,
@Dietz said:
To avoid misunderstandings:
Technically, MIRx relies on linear convolution, and it uses dedicated, individual IRs for each and every single instrument. Thus it makes no difference whether you filter the signal pre- or post-reverb.
Sidenote: This would be slightly different in case of a typically modulated - i.e. non-linear - algorithmic reverb, and quite different in case of conventional AUX-send (i.e. bussed) reverberation schemes.
HTH,
I'm not sure if I really understand this. Could you perhaps elaborate a little more?
When utilizing standard algorhythmic AUX sends, it often makes sense for me to have the option to process samples pre-verb - mostly to compress the instrument, but not the reverb tail, or to get rid of unneeded low end instead of having it sent through the reverb. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but your comment reads as if this approach wasn't as relevant when working with MIRx. Am I minsunderstanding something here? [:)]
I'm afraid I don't understand this either. The matrix eq isn't going to be as good as the Vienna Suite EQ or something like fabfilters eq. So the way things are set up with MIRx as I understand it, you have to EQ the signal after it has reverb which means I'm EQing the MIRx reverb as well. If I apply different EQ on each instrument in my VE Pro (or in my DAW) then I am altering the sound of each instrument's "space" as well. So it defeats the purpose of setting the orchestra "in the same space" and takes away individual control which is what makes VSL so powerful.
It's really a routing issue. IF the MIRx was routed to each instrument's effects in VE Pro then I could EQ the instrumetn before it hit the MIRx or even if I could EQ the individual sections of the orchestra before it hits the space it would seem more natural to me. I suppose I could use the Teldex room and then add Altiverb reverb in my DAW but I don't think that would have the same effect.
My understanding is with MIR Pro this isn't an issue, that you can apply EQ before the it hits the MIR engine. Am I correct?
Geoff
With a linear convolution reverb, it sounds the same if you eq the instrument before or after. An EQed instrument in a flat room sounds the same as a flat instrument in an EQed room. In MIRx the reverb is calculated separately for each instrument, so you're not changing the overall characteristics of the room by EQing a reverbed instrument -only the sound of that instrument in the room.
If you are using dynamics or a non-linear reverb it's a different matter.
When utilizing standard algorhythmic AUX sends, it often makes sense for me to have the option to process samples pre-verb - mostly to compress the instrument, but not the reverb tail, or to get rid of unneeded low end instead of having it sent through the reverb. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but your comment reads as if this approach wasn't as relevant when working with MIRx. Am I minsunderstanding something here?
So, all in all, the rule of thumb seems to be: EQing MIRx-ed instruments works universally fine, while compressing them will yield post-verb compression results - which can end up satisfactory, but can also lead to less-than-desired effects, depending on the desired effect and compression amount.
Overall, I'm excited about MIRx - it's just a fantastic product in terms of functionality, ease of use and pricing. But if I was to put one thing on some personal wishlist for further development of MIRx, it would be some form of routing flexibility, just so to be able to do some processing like compression pre-MIRx when the situation calls for it.
Thanks Bachrules. That really helps. I know my engineer also want to compress the signal as well so as you stated that is a problem.
The other thing that would be great to have is a universal wet/dry slider so I don't have to make adjustments in each instance of VI Pro. I think I saw in another post that they are working on that.
I really love MIRx and think it can meet my needs. I'm just getting into the nitty gritty on using it and getting the sound I want.
@Sing4doe said:
Thanks Bachrules. That really helps. I know my engineer also want to compress the signal as well so as you stated that is a problem.
The other thing that would be great to have is a universal wet/dry slider so I don't have to make adjustments in each instance of VI Pro. I think I saw in another post that they are working on that.
I really love MIRx and think it can meet my needs. I'm just getting into the nitty gritty on using it and getting the sound I want.
Hi Geoff,
thanks for the friendly words and for your suggestions.
While VSL will continue to develop MIRx to expand its possibilities, it is safe to say that MIRx will not be a replacement for MIR Pro at any time. The features you are demanding are already available with MIR Pro. MIRx was made with the single goal in mind to serve those VSL users who _don't_ want to deal with the vast audio-engineering options of MIR Pro.
Thanks a lot for your understanding!
Kind regards,
Dietz- I bought Mir pro. Oh my yes this does everything I wanted and more. Like everything, it has a bit of a learning curve but I can finally see that this will allow me to do what I am hearing in my head. Sorry for dragging you through my ignorance, I like to write and arrange not twirl knobs and faders but this will be worth the effort.
best-
geoff
This is one of the most useful discussions I've ever seen in any forum; thanks to all who took the tame to really explain things in a way that removes any ambiguity (my own company does interesting things with convolutions, but that's another story altogether...).
I was thinking of buying MIRx during the promotional discount period, as a time-saver during initial production work, but need to think a bit more about whether the routing limitation negates any time-saving advantage in terms of getting useful preliminary results. I have a feeling that this is still advantageous for Vienna Instruments.
I use Vienna Suite for ALL of my production work (along with other tools, but these are my most important ones as I can achieve almost anything with them), and just now upgraded MIR Pro 24 ro MIR Pro (unlimited), for long-term work, but I'm in "pedal to the metal" mode right now on a non-classical album project and had to switch to using Vienna Convolution Reverb to get things done fast enough as I couldn't get usable output levels from MIR Pro 24 and don't have time right now to spend however many hours it will take (two so far) to get past that hump.
Given the complexity of MIR Pro, and also that MIRx can be seen as a pre-production tool that has instrument-specific settings that can save time during early mockup stages, while altering an arrangement, or even at the beginning of final production, the price seems fair even for those of us who own MIR Pro. I may pick this up today...
Due to a car breakdown, I am still waiting on a musician to show up for sessions today, so am studying Vienna MIR Pro (I found a preliminary copy of the manual, which I didn't know I had).
Turns out this is quite workable within Vienna Ensemble Pro, so I should have taken that tactic first instead of jumping in the deep end by first using it on an Aux Channel inside Digital Performer.
There is quite a learning curve, for sure, and incredible power.
I do notice, however, that most of the placement is left to the user. Fine for later in a project, but too slow for early work (although I will eventually create some templates).
Therefore, I can see how MIRx will greatly accelerate early production stages as well as help when just trying to quickly verify conceptual changes to arrangements, as often those choices are hard to validate without a better idea of final mix context.
Looks like I'm going to splurge on MIRx shortly...
After carefully reading the manuals to both MIR products and also seeing how to go between them during the course of a project, it's a definite buy.
It's also nice how there is now a MIRx mode available for MIR Pro, helping to speed up some templating and also with the learning curve(s).
.. It's also nice how there is now a MIRx mode available for MIR Pro, helping to speed up some templating and also with the learning curve(s).
MIRx-mode contains all MIRx's functionality, and gives identical results, according to VSL:
http://www.vsl.co.at/community/posts/t37470-Migrating-from-MIRx-to-MIR-PRO#post228614
Cool, good to know.
VSL is the one company where I feel it's a good investment to buy into more advanced functionality that you don't know when you'll use, because they are probably the most expert at computer techniques of any audio software vendor, and thus have a game plan and a vision that means we won't be orphaned later on or left incompatible and feeling we've wasted money.
I really feel like I'm investing in my long-term future when I buy VSL products.
