194,453 users have contributed to 42,922 threads and 257,971 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 5 new thread(s), 14 new post(s) and 73 new user(s).
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)
