183,273 users have contributed to 42,289 threads and 255,035 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 5 new thread(s), 17 new post(s) and 51 new user(s).
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.
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 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,
"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,
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,
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.
Thank you Dietz. So if I understand correctly, adjusting that little circle, after switching to bus routing, controls how much of the MIR "wet" signal goes to the bus? And best to keep that circle @ 0 db? Sorry for beating this, but it has always been a source of confusion to me.... 😕
[...] So if I understand correctly, adjusting that little circle, after switching to bus routing, controls how much of the MIR "wet" signal goes to the bus? And best to keep that circle @ 0 db? [...]
Exactly.
... in 99% of all cases there's no need fo the extra rotary fader, actually. From MIR Pro's point-of-view the routing option would be sufficient ... I think it was the VE Pro software-engineers' way to say "See, that's some kind of 'send'- option, now." 8-)
Kind regards,
