Thanks, Dietz! That's good to hear. I guess you know your user base better, but it seems unusual that *majority* of your users would only host their VSL instruments in VE Pro. Is there anything you could tell me about your user base demographics? It sounds strange that 50%+ of your customers would even own VE Pro. (Maybe if you mean "users who actually have more than $5000 worth of things, and not some people who bought a discounted instrument for $39", then I'd easily believe you.)

My line of reasoning is this - I like my DAW, I like to work with it. I like to use VSL products, and what I don't have, I pad with whatever else I have. With MIR as an insert effect, I can use it to approximate the instruments sharing a physical space. I just think it would be streamline my work somewhat if they were in VI/Synchron by default, and I could use MIR Pro UI to manage everything.

"...it's a little confusing why VI have MIRx and Synchron ones don't."

Synchron products are recorded in the Synchron Stage. Synchron-ized products are samples initially recorded in the Silent Stage, then processed by special IR's to be placed in the Synchron stage. 

Why would MIRx put a Synchron / Synchron-ized library on the Synchron stage when VSL has already recorded or placed it there for you? Indeed, that is why it sounds so good out of the box.

This same question occurred to me when I first read, "It detects Strings Pro viola section as one viola, and puts it smack next to double basses."  If by "Strings Pro" you mean Synchron Strings Pro, why are you asking for MIR to place it automatically? It's already there. That's the essence of the product. Placement and reverb are adjusted in the Mix tab of the Synchron Player with four or more microphone outputs. Indeed, outputting a Synchron product through a MIR plugin could countermand the spatial qualities and freedoms that you bought in the library. 

I do empathize with your struggles though, not so much with MIR, but with the general aggravation of learning new software.  Programs have a way of making sense in retrospect, as galling as that thought is in the pique of our frustration. 

By the way, I didn't fully understand MIRx until recently. And I've owned MIR since it came out. Hang in there. 

Ha, thanks, plowman. As a software developer, I both appreciate it, and apologize for all the bad UI I've ever made (not that any of you got to use it, luckily).

When you put it like that, yeah, it does make sense. Obviously, I turn off the built-in reverb/echo in Synchron(ized) instruments before adding MIR onto them. The reason I'm combining SY and VI is mostly because of various sales and different product offer as I'm slowly filling my toolbox, so I don't yet have the luxury of using just one of them for any project.

And I do plan to go through the MIR documentation word by word eventually (as you all were very kind NOT to suggest), I guess the main problem was the disparity between my expectation and implementation... that said, I do hope the future is bright and improvements will be made.

Actually, one more question - the built-in reverb in Synchron player *is* algorithmic, and not a convolution reverb, right? Having SY instruments with only the default reverb, and VI with MIRx will not produce the same results as loading all instruments in MIR Pro and placing them around the stage, right?

IIRC, one of the selling points was that Synchron instruments are "neither wet nor dry", i.e. they are recorded on a stage, not in a padded room, so they sound like a real instrument in a real place, but don't have a lot of reverb baked into the samples that would get in a way. I'm not wrong to assume that MIR reverb is intended to work well with SY, VI, and 3rd party sounds/instruments/recordings, right?

Milan,

Your assumptions are correct. While MIR has been invented for the use with Vienna Instruments, I use it on actual recordings most of time for my main business (which is mixing other people's music). As long as the sources are rather dry, MIR Pro will do a great job when I want them in the same room with a good sense of spatial relations between them.

MIR is _not_ good for adding reverb to already "wet" sources, though. This is where the glassy, "unreal" tails of algorithmic reverb engines would be the first choice.

Kind regards,

You make a good point differentiating Synchron from Synchron-ized, as with the latter you can indeed turn off the IR and route through MIR. Personally, I have automated the IR wet/dry within Synchron-ized sounds, and I adjust it per instrument with Logic's Smart Controls. If I did send Synchronized patches to MIR, immediately I'd gain more options. 

It's ironic: just this week I have matched and compared VSL's Synchronized sounds (with their built-in Synchron IR's) to my dry VI library going through MIR -- and then I compared those to Synchron native per-mike mixes. It's quite an education. One must be careful not to press too hard for identical sounds (which is tempting when you want the liberty of using both VI and Synchron / Synchronized in the same song -- such is the source of your hope and frustration). 

I may be able to clarify two other points you have raised. Describing Synchron native sounds as neither wet nor dry is not quite accurate. Yes, the Synchron native instruments were recorded on the Synchron Stage, but they were captured with multiple microphones simultaneously. These are found in the Mix tab of the Synchron player when a native Synchron patch is loaded. 

Survey the mikes. The close mic is more or less dry, but not completely so, the main microphone is wetter, but not awash with reverb, and so on. It's a completely different paradigm for mixing and positioning, separate from MIR, distinct from the old days of bus sends.  

And I had to laugh when I read, "...the 'natural volume' is useless as it makes everything 4x quieter than it already was." The first time I used natural volume, I thought it was a bug. Only later did I realize that it's an amazing resource *when it is used for the entire orchestra.* I came at it with faders at unity gain, virtually no headroom, and if any given instrument had "natural volume" checked, it would disappear from the orchestra. Gain structures are relative. 

Those are good points plowman,  about Synchron - it is not an artificial mixed wet/ dry sound - the hall itself sounds like that. It is a very clean sound.  The VI sound is as silent as possible, with the Silent Stage having been created to record as little ambience as possible, therefore making the instruments usable in any venue.  You're right about the "natural volume" which is a very accurate reflection of the relative levels of each instrument within a single setting.  Those levels were created so  that a piccolo is not equal in level to a tuba, or a solo violin to timpani etc.  It is impossible to do that during the recording process so it was done with these relative natural volumes later on as an aid to mixing.  It is easy to change to equal volumes however, simply by double clicking the slider.    

@plowman said:

It's ironic: just this week I have matched and compared VSL's Synchronized sounds (with their built-in Synchron IR's) to my dry VI library going through MIR -- and then I compared those to Synchron native per-mike mixes. It's quite an education. One must be careful not to press too hard for identical sounds (which is tempting when you want the liberty of using both VI and Synchron / Synchronized in the same song -- such is the source of your hope and frustration). 

If I may ask, why wouldn't you want to match the sounds?  To clarify, why wouldn't you want the MIR'ed up VI instruments to sound as similar as possible (in terms of the MIR's tail length, relative dry/wet-ness, etc.) to native Synchron samples?  Wouldn't that engender more cohesion in the mix from the get-go?

To be clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight or start an argument.  On the contrary, I'm eager to learn and would love to hear your advice!

- Sam

Mr. Kersten is correct. But I'm glad you asked, because I want to clarify that I absolutely want all MIR-related elements to match as much as possible, notably the ones you mention: MIR's tail length and relative dry/wetness. 

Two points: I am prone to falling into rabbit holes, the infinite tweak, the "I'm here to compose... but I want everything to match perfectly before I begin." That's a fool's errand. One may argue (perhaps ad absurdum) that even the same orchestra in the same room sounds different from hour to hour. Certainly intonation, humidity, general human energy, and other terrestrial factors constantly change. 

But more specifically, I was fresh from the experimenting with "identical" instruments -- say, VI chamber cellos and Synchron-ized chamber cellos (where ostensibly they are the same original samples). One had a sheen, a more biting sound, and the other was smoother. Here we broach matters of EQ, the changes the developers may have made to the original material, plug-ins, etc., all compounding upon themselves. (Such things were not obvious, though, based on the mixing settings.)

Those differences, I decided, were to be celebrated as options. Many here have the chops to further homogenize them. It's not my skill set. 

But yes, regarding the length of the tail, the general room sound, and certainly the average loudness of the instrument, I very much want VI and Synchron to be as identical as possible for a convincing, unified sound. 

@plowman said:

Mr. Kersten is correct. But I'm glad you asked, because I want to clarify that I absolutely want all MIR-related elements to match as much as possible, notably the ones you mention: MIR's tail length and relative dry/wetness. 

Two points: I am prone to falling into rabbit holes, the infinite tweak, the "I'm here to compose... but I want everything to match perfectly before I begin." That's a fool's errand. One may argue (perhaps ad absurdum) that even the same orchestra in the same room sounds different from hour to hour. Certainly intonation, humidity, general human energy, and other terrestrial factors constantly change. 

But more specifically, I was fresh from the experimenting with "identical" instruments -- say, VI chamber cellos and Synchron-ized chamber cellos (where ostensibly they are the same original samples). One had a sheen, a more biting sound, and the other was smoother. Here we broach matters of EQ, the changes the developers may have made to the original material, plug-ins, etc., all compounding upon themselves. (Such things were not obvious, though, based on the mixing settings.)

Those differences, I decided, were to be celebrated as options. Many here have the chops to further homogenize them. It's not my skill set. 

But yes, regarding the length of the tail, the general room sound, and certainly the average loudness of the instrument, I very much want VI and Synchron to be as identical as possible for a convincing, unified sound. 

Ah, thank you for clarifying!  So, basically, don't fall into "paralysis by analysis".  A healthy reminder, as the rabbit hole you mentioned is one I often fall into.  I can dig it.

...uhh...no pun intended...

@plowman said:

[...] even the same orchestra in the same room sounds different from hour to hour. [...]

Oh, they do - most definitely. A matter of course for everybody who edited recordings from real orchestras. 8-)