Dietz, you are awesome 😊 - thanks so much!
-
Thanks so much dietz, im SOO excited! :)
(Currently working on a big show due in 2 days, kinda got lost and forgot, sorry haha)
Greets,
-
😄 .... sounds like a great idea, Paolo, but that's not how MIR works.
Hi Dietz, I had this suspect because you already added a second mic set, that I think is derived from one of the various positions from where you sampled the room. But maybe the process is a different one.
In case it is a different sampling position, some of the rooms have more than two, so I wonder if they can be used as simulated channels. Or maybe there are phase issues.
A test I couldn't yet do is to first render the direct signal, the closest room mics, and a more distant mic set (simulating a Mid position). Then, a second pass would exclude the direct signal, and include two sets of mics positioned far from the source (to simulate a panoramic stereo pair and the surround pair).
Probably, it will only end into some sort of sonic molasses 😊
Paolo
-
Dear Paolo, the main issue is: The whole concept of MIR relies on Ambisonics. It gives us the possibility to define many acoustic parameters after the actual recording took place, and - equally important! - we can interpolate seamlessly between discrete source positions.
An Ambisonics recording is typically based on a so-called "coincident" multi-microphone array. We used indeed up to four of these arrays to capture the Venues represented by MIR - which is why we can add the Secondary Microphone, but that's for the wet signal component only: The goal is to increase the perceived spatial enveloping without sacrificing any of the positioning cues of the Main Mic. And yes, it's a great source for decorrelated rear mics in a surround mix, too!
The typical Synchron recordings use a completely different approach, based on wide-spaced single microphone capsules. They are referred to as "Decca tree", supported by Omni-outriggers and AURO top-layer mics. In short: A very different approach than a coincident recording. ... there have been lengthy discussions amongst Tonmeisters during the last 70 years (or so) which approach is "better", so I won't go into the details here. ;-)
Although I went to any length in my quest to match the sound of the Synchron Instruments' setup for VSL's "Synchronized" Vienna Instruments and now for MIR/MIRx, it has to be said quite clearly that there won't (and can't) be a MIR engine as we know it that will be able to fully recreate a spaced microphone setup as described above.
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
Really looking forward to the mirx settings. And that's some setup there in those images!
-
I have been doing that for many years. The biggest thing is to let your ears tell you it's ok, not how it looks on the stage. I have done some of the stupid shit you can imagine with this tool. People would probably laugh and say I am an idiot but oh well! As long as they don't see how it looks, and it sounds great I really gave up caring how it looked on the stage years ago!
-
I know, I know. Any news for the MIRx download? Would be a nice Christmas gift. :)
-
We hear you! 😉
Thank you so much! i didn't realize initially what the update was about, so as usual I just come to the forum and find the answer 😉
But adding a change-log update will also help other users to get the point, I guess. 😉
And now I will have fun experimenting and comparing my set-ups to yours (usually always very good, so I'm really excited by this time saving and quality improving feature, that was my best source for learning as well).
-
-
Awesome! Thanks, Dietz and team!
😄 ... You're welcome!
(... in a first impetus I was tempted to answer "My pleasure!" - but than I realised that I should stay honest. I'm _very_ happy that this highly exhausting task is finally done, really. 8-) ...)
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
-
Awesome! Thanks, Dietz and team!
😄 ... You're welcome!
(... in a first impetus I was tempted to answer "My pleasure!" - but than I realised that I should stay honest. I'm _very_ happy that this highly exhausting task is finally done, really. 8-) ...)
I fully understand. I mean I quit my "journey" of creating my own MIRx settings, because I couldn't stand it anymore. I think I have good ears, but the ony day the setting was good, the next day is wasn't, the position wasn't right, the wetness wasn't right ... Oh, my, really happy now! A good christmas gift.
Very well done, Dietz! I only change the center capsule of the primary microphone to a more omni pattern (sounds more of a "decca tree" to me) and reduce the reverb length, it's a bit too long for my taste. That's the good thing about MIR Pro; in the Synchron Player you can't alter the length, just the wetness. And I already disliked this when using MIRx in VI (Pro).
And I have some other questions:
- To what can the MIRx presets be compared? 1) The sound of the instruments as if you would hear them from a typical "decca-tree"-ish setup without further mixing enhancements, or 2) does the wetness and the reverb length of 1.42 already resemble an enhanced/mixed scenario?
- Should "Air Absoption" be disabled when using your settings? Does it do any harm to your settings? I think you work with this feature disabled.
- "Distance Scaling" and "Microphone Offset" both have to be enabled, right?
- The SYNCHRON-ized instruments in the Synchron Player use a combination of the MIR IRs and a longer algo reverb. How can one achieve this with the MIRx settings? By reducing the overall dry/wet ratio as well as the reverb length? The SYNCHRON-ized instruments have 30% wetness in the "classic" preset and 20% wetness in the "close" preset. What does this mean? 30% in the Synchron Player means what in MIR Pro?