194,457 users have contributed to 42,922 threads and 257,972 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 13 new post(s) and 72 new user(s).
Hi Peter,
thanks for friendly feedback and your thoughful input!
Some of your suggestions make a lot of sense; some are actually already implemented. And there are a few which won't (or can't) be realized for several reasons. :-)
I'll write a more detailed answer ASAP. Thanks for your patience!
Kind regards,
Hi Peter,
I finally found the time to give you more detailed answers now:
17. Possibility to add MIRacle to main or secondary mic from within MIR itself
Well - considering that the "full" version of MIR Pro (as integral part of VE Pro) is able to do this already, this is one of the draw-backs you have to accept when using the plug-in version of MIR Pro. You will have to resort to the routing options of your DAW or plug-in host for that. 😊
Thanks again for your input, and all the best,
One thing I would like is customizable, resizeable animated figures representing the musicians walking onto stage then taking their seats, both male and female to be inclusive. Once seated, these will do automated warm up routines characteristic of the instruments involved, until a virtual baton is clicked by the programmer.
Thanks a lot for the time Dietz!
Some clarifications and comments:
3, 16: For some reason this didnt work for me, but it does now, including alt-click, which I missed somehow!
5: Wet/Dry: Perhaps its not strictly necessary, but I am sometimes missing this function, wether in MIR or in the DAW: that is the dry/wet on each instrument is dry signal and wet signal, but still with the pan and other functions which are present in the dry signal. Sometimes when working with more unusual sources, it would be helpful to be able to blend in the completely dry, original, un-panned signal. I thought the DAW window would be suitable for this. By no means a deal-breaker, but would be nice.
9: I see! I thought Bypass = 100% dry. And I had missed the alt-click function so all good!
8: Double clicking: DOH! :)
10, 11: Yep, works fine in MIR main window, but not in Logic X
13: Probably for the best :)
15: It looks like the text is made for a smaller, lower resolution screen, in particular the left and right sections (instrument list, output section etc). The text looks has quite few pixels, so its a bit hard to read on a retina screen. Becomes quite small and cluttered. The main Venue window is better. Such a slick plugin deserves a slick interface :)
14: The DAW/Soundcard routing options: I'm very much not clear on how to do this, but I guess I need to go back to the manual. This works also using MIR as a DAW plugin? that means only output 1/2 is routed back to each respective channel in Logic, and 3/4 is routed directly to the soundcards output?
17. Ah I see... As far as I can understand, in order to use MIR Pro in BOTH my DAW and in VE Pro, I would need to buy one additional MIR Pro license + room pack, is that correct?
17. Ah I see... As far as I can understand, in order to use MIR Pro in BOTH my DAW and in VE Pro, I would need to buy one additional MIR Pro license + room pack, is that correct?
Only if you want to run it on a seperate machine. On one single system MIR Pro will open happily side-by-side in your DAW and in VE Pro.
Kind regards,
Just to add a bit of feedback, I'd like to have an option to keep instrument widths visible, if you do choose to have an invisible-until-selected option. I quite like being able to see all the widths and it would be nice to be able to check them all just at a glance.
Yes, of course! That goes without saying. 😊 Thanks a lot for your input.
I still don't know exactly what you have in mind when you want to route something to the "soundcard's output", but in the end it is all up to your DAW, really.
Yeah, the access I'm after might just be complicating things too much. One solution that might be easier which is kind of meeting the issue half way would be to have one master EQ for the wet signal (and why not one for the Dry Signal too actually).
I still don't know exactly what you have in mind when you want to route something to the "soundcard's output", but in the end it is all up to your DAW, really.
Yeah, the access I'm after might just be complicating things too much. One solution that might be easier which is kind of meeting the issue half way would be to have one master EQ for the wet signal (and why not one for the Dry Signal too actually).
Uhm ... Maybe I just don't get the point - but this is exactly what the RoomEQ is meant to do: Changing the sound of the wet signal component only. The dry signal can be EQed before you process it with MIR.
Kind regards,
Understood on the dry/mix issue, will proceed with caution!
Uhm ... Maybe I just don't get the point - but this is exactly what the RoomEQ is meant to do: Changing the sound of the wet signal component only. The dry signal can be EQed before you process it with MIR.
Right, but since these are applied on a per instrument basis (with MIRx adding all these different Room EQs which are awesome) means the ability to do a "wet Master EQ" is kind of lost.
What would be even more cool is to have a mic EQ, i.e, an ability to access both mic pairs with different EQs. Would require some solo ability, so guess that wont happen. But master wet-EQ would be pretty cool!
The wet EQ is the same thing as room EQ and it is NOT applied on an individual instrument basis. It is the whole room. The reasons for this is simple - that the room is what creates the "wet" component. You apply EQ on individual instruments by means of the EQ plug in or the instrument profiles. That I believe is what Dietz was saying but was ignored.
Yes, indeed, the wet EQ is the room EQ. Right now we have the ability to create different "banks" of room EQs, like one for Violins, Violas, etc. which I guess it makes it easier to sculpt the room sound of that particular instrument
I could potentially make one room EQ bank for all my instruments, but I like having them separate as it is now. But would love the ability to also sculpt the room EQ globally for all the room EQ banks used (mainly for convenience).
Nektarios summarizes my point. Different Room EQs for families of instruments is really nice, but one is then missing one global EQ.
Not considering this a great problem by any means, but just when we're talking about feature requests...
My initial idea was to have "Mic EQ" which would kind of make sense from a mix perspective (being able to EQ the mic signals going into the "mixer") but as Dietz explained its not possible to separate the Secondary mic that easily..
Mabye I didn't explain it thoroughly enough: If you really want to process MIR Pro's Secondary Microphone independently from the rest, you can assign individual outputs to them by using a multi-channel-based Output Format, e.g. Quatro. Just disregard the fact that the two stereo pairs are labeled "Front" and "Rear"; look at them as two independent outputs. - Be aware that the CPU-load will be twice as high then (or three times as high if you select a 6-channel format).
Kind regards,
Thank you Dietz.
If it was up to me, this is how I would like this to be done -- since we are in the feature request thread. 😊
Leave RoomEQ as it is now. No changes. On the other hand, introduce a permanent channel in VE Pro called "Room Channel". This would act as the global room channel. Therefore, on that channel, I can add whateve EQ I like to process the room sound globally.
I know the answer coming... This setup can already be made with VE Pro (separating the wet signal etc.), and I have tried it. But the reason that I'd choose the earlier approach is that I find the default approach in VE Pro more intuitive (without separating wet). Plus, when I separate the wet signal, the sound changes compared to when I don't separate the wet signal. It's a different workflow.
Maybe I can try what Dietz suggested, but again, the CPU will spike more, so I can't go down that path.
This feature would be great to have, as I need to sometimes make adjustments to the room sound when I introduce other non VSL instruments to my piece...
I'd add to above post that it would be nice to be able to do this also when using MIR as a plugin with your DAW, so my suspicion is that putting some sort of master EQ within MIR is a good option then. I'd personally be happy with just another RoomEQ-style EQ on the master.
(agreeing with nektarios that the RoomEQs should stay as they are)
