Hi Nektarios,

I strongly suggest to mix in surround and to do a controlled down mix to stereo afterwards. Ideally you will monitor both versions by turns (which is what I try to do whenever I mix for more than one delivery format). But don’t despair - as long as you plan to MIR Pro use within VE Pro, things are less complicated as they might seem as a first glance. :-)

First of all: Most of your signal sources will come in stereo (or even mono) anyway, so there are not many spots in your mix where you will indeed need “true” surround capable plug-ins. Most of the necessary processing like EQing, compression etc. will be applied on the individual direct signals anyway, before they enter MIR. Your conventional stereo plug-ins will do, therefore.

True surround-processing is only necessary when you plan to shape the master bus and/or sub-mixes of several individual channels. But even then, there’s a lot you can do with your existing tools already: MIR Pro’s built-in RoomEQ(s) will work on the resulting wet signals in any format you have decided to work for. Plus: The EQ that comes with MIR Pro is fully multi-channel compatible (… quality-wise it is a close relative to Vienna Suite’s Master EQ, BTW). And don’t forget that MIRacle (MIR’s algorithmic reverb add-on) will work in surround, too.

Apart from that, VE Pro itself offers some basic surround processing tools, like the Matrix Mixer, Surround Pan and Surround Balancer.

Furthermore, there is no rule that you have to finish your mix in VE Pro. ;-) Chances are that your DAW offers at least some kind of multi-channel support. Plug-in standards like VST3 or RTAS/AAX will happily combine several instances of a mono plug-in to a “virtual” multi-channel instance. Just be aware that the individual signal sub-paths won’t “know” anything about each other, in that case. And of course, the handling is much less comfortable when you want to go into sonic details (… no proper metering, missing or only very basic channel linking options, etc.).

That’s why true surround modes are mostly necessary for dynamic processing, like compressors or limiters, where it’s quite important that the all-important side-chains can be linked for more than two channels (… otherwise it could happen that L & R are compressed heavily, while C, Ls and Rs will stay unaffected). The necessity for real surround processing might also arise in case of actual FX, like reverbs, modulation, echoes and so on, but even there you _might_ get away with the clever combination of two or three stereo instances.

Finally, I should point out that it is commonly accepted that music should be mixed in 5.0, actually. The .1 (i.e. the LFE) is just that: A low-frequency effects channel. It must not be mistaken as some kind of bass-management! The content that goes into it should be de-correlated from the signals in the main channels, and that’s hard to achieve in a musical context. As long as you don’t have a very clear idea what to put there, simply avoid the LFE’s usage, or it could wreak have on your mix. 8-/

Kind regards,

Thank you so much Dietz for your thorough response! Really appreciate it!

Great to know this. I am in the process of creating this project template. The way I structured my project is as follows:

Cubase Project 9 Project: 5.1
VE Pro/MIR Pro at 5.1
Venue: Mirx Teledex Studio
Main Microphone: 5.1 Triple-8 Spaced - Default
Rear Microphone: 5.0 Rear Focused Cardioids

Buses:

Reverb Bus: "Algo Reverb + MIR Pro"

Instrument Buses: Violins Bus, Viola Bus, Cello Bus, etc.

So I guess any plugins that go on the above buses must be 5.1, but not necessarily for the individual instruments.

I have two algo reverbs: MIRacle, and R2 from Exponential. But my R2 is stereo. The surround R2 is awfully expensive.... :-/

I am trying to set it up where the algo reverb is very thick an prominent (like it was in my Eastern Dream track). Does the wet signal for the algo reverb need to be on it own bus?

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Nektarios

@Another User said:

I have two algo reverbs: MIRacle, and R2 from Exponential. But my R2 is stereo. The surround R2 is awfully expensive.... 😕

I am trying to set it up where the algo reverb is very thick an prominent (like it was in my Eastern Dream track). Does the wet signal for the algo reverb need to be on it own bus?

Two possible approaches: 

a) Layering reverbs: That would mean a typical Aux-send structure in VE Pro, with the Aux deriving its signals pre-MIR. The algo-reverb would have to reside in its own channel, fully wet.

b) Global hybrid reverb: Here you could insert  one instance of MIRacle (or any other purely algorithmic, surround-compatible reverb engine) in MIR's output signal. Ideally you don't have to use a dry/wet mixture here, but a dediciated "dry" component (left untouched at 0dB) and a "wet" component (... added to taste, usually something between -9 and -15dB).

... as an alternative to b) you could still keep the algo reverb on an Aux-bus, while sending from individual channels post-MIR ito it. This could get a bit more involved, but OTOH it would offer more control about the amount of algorithmic reverb added, too.

HTH,

@Another User said:

b) Global hybrid reverb: Here you could insert  one instance of MIRacle (or any other purely algorithmic, surround-compatible reverb engine) in MIR's output signal. Ideally you don't have to use a dry/wet mixture here, but a dediciated "dry" component (left untouched at 0dB) and a "wet" component (... added to taste, usually something between -9 and -15dB).

Thank you Dietz! So if I understand correctly from the above, it just means adding the algo reverb on the master bus or (any other bus connecting to master), and adjust the DRY/WET sliders of Miracle? I am trying to understand when you said: "Ideally you don't have to use a dry/wet mixture here"

I would also think that if I am using any other algo reverb (other than Miracle), I would have to turn off the early reflections?

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Nektarios

@Another User said:

I would also think that if I am using any other algo reverb (other than Miracle), I would have to turn off the early reflections?

In general, I would suggest to do so - but I would have to decide after hearing the actual results.

Great! Thank you!! 😊

I should add that the "algo-reverb strapped across the master bus"-approach works for broad, floating themes with the occasional accent now an then, or airy compositions with lots of space between the notes and lines - not so much for densly packed arrangements of music based on a steady beat and/or lots of fast movement, with little inner dynamics. In the latter case, you're better off with pre-MIR Aux-sends for specific channels, most likely.

Than you Dietz. Considering my composition will be fairly packed, I may have to go with the aux approach.

One thing I had noticed though when I tried this in the past is that if I kept everything equal, each approach would yield a different sound when I expected both cases to sound equally the same as nothing was changed. Why is that? What is different with the audio routing that can make it sound different even if you keep everything the same?

If it sounds different, then it's very likely that something _is_ different. ;-D

... sorry for the pun, but it is quite impossible to answer this from the distance, Nektarios. Could be simple level issues, or panning, or something less obvious ...

I think I was more interested in knowing if the audio routing becomes different. For example, if I add insert effects etc. No worries, I will give it a shot and see if I hear any differences and inform here.

Thanks!

There is definitely a difference in sound but that is because of the more complex setup it seems. I am basically trying to immitate page 54 on the MIR Pro manual. I am glad I am tackling this now, rather than later and having to experience surprises when converting the setup.

If I'm not mistaken, the tutorial-example you mention is about two instances of MIRacle, one for the dry (but readily positioned) signal components, another one for the actual wet MIR signals. It's very likely that this will give you different results than one instance of MIRacle strapped accross the main mix bus, unless you match your levels carefully. :-)

Kind regards,

Yeap! I remember that is what I had tried which gave me the different sound. It may be an overkill for what I need, so I may just stick to the approach on page 53.

Cheers,

Nektarios

I am little bit confused. Sorry for the basic question. In the manual page 54...

If I push the Wet Send Output (MIR + Miracle bus) higher in a channel, what audio am I increasing?

In other words the higher the knob the higher what audio becomes? Is it MIRs wet signal?

"Up is louder", as seasoned audio engineers have put it, back then. ;-D

Assuming that I don't misunderstand your question, you will bring up MIR's wet signal _and_ the MIRacle you've applied to it. It's important to understand that in this quite special case the "dry" signal (from MIRacle's point-of-view) is the wet output from MIR Pro, so make sure not to mute it - unless you're aiming for some kind of special FX.

Kind regards,

Thank you Dietz!

So if I have the knob at silent, the audio that will come out is just the MIR wet signal + MIR dry? What audio comes out in that case?

I think you lost me ... 8-/ .. can you post a screenshot with some markings, please?

Ok! I will post tonight! I may do a video... :)

Btw, just to be clear, I am not refering to the channel volume knob. It's that little circle (in VE 6) when you switch from "inline" to a bus (which is the Miracle bus). If I push/reduce that circle what signal it affects?

Switching from "Inline" routing to bus routing means that MIR Pro's wet signal (of this channel only) will be available separately, on any other bus you assign there. The readily panned direct signal component will remain on this channel.

Neither the relative level of the direct ("Dry") signal nor the room ("Wet") signal's level will change as long as you leave the bus you send the wet signal to @ 0dB.

This feature is meant to be used for stem exports and sub-grouping, actually, but it can be used for processing stunts with MIRacle, too, of course. ;-D

Kind regards,