@Dietz said:

Vienna MIR didn't offer audio inputs up to now.

MIR Pro will rely on a new version of Vienna Ensemble Pro. Both will offer multiple audio-inputs and -outputs, also via LAN. Both will be deeply integrated into practically any modern DAW, much like a meta-plugin with a dedicated send/return scheme, automation, and full latency compensation (within the limits imposed by the DAW, of course).

HTH,

...this sounds absolutely awesome! Excitement for the upcoming release grows and grows....

And on the other hand, I really like the sound of the new hybrid reverb... but in terms of the upcoming MIR pro, (of cause just from speculating what this would mean and from experimenting with the hybrid reverb plugin during the last few weeks) it wouldn't be a feature that I am personally too much excited about (all the other features you just wrote about seem much more important to me personally...) Mainly because I love the basic idea of the MIR concept of creating a realistic (virtual) image of a room/venue rather than creating a reverb per se. Modifying this image afterwards with a extra plugin would be a different step in the processing and therefore seems much more natural to me; as if you take a live-recording and process this using all sorts of plugins. But doing so within the creation of the "live recording" per se...? I don't know... but anyway, I am sure, the actual implementation you guys come up with will be an exciting and logically completely convincing additional feature....

greetings,

Patrik

@patrik said:

[...] And on the other hand, I really like the sound of the new hybrid reverb... but in terms of the upcoming MIR pro, (of cause just from speculating what this would mean and from experimenting with the hybrid reverb plugin during the last few weeks) it wouldn't be a feature that I am personally too much excited about (all the other features you just wrote about seem much more important to me personally...) Mainly because I love the basic idea of the MIR concept of creating a realistic (virtual) image of a room/venue rather than creating a reverb per se. Modifying this image afterwards with a extra plugin would be a different step in the processing and therefore seems much more natural to me; as if you take a live-recording and process this using all sorts of plugins. But doing so within the creation of the "live recording" per se...? I don't know... but anyway, I am sure, the actual implementation you guys come up with will be an exciting and logically completely convincing additional feature.... [...]

As I said before: We are still trying to figure out a meaningful way to do this.

In principle, I share your opinion about realism. But then, even in the "Real World", orchestral recordings get sweetened with algorithmic reverb all the time. Our idea was to achieve this with the same intuitive approach as with "pure" MIR processing. A pretty intriguing concept - but its realisation is more complex (and demanding in regards of CPU cycles!) than one might think.

Let's see what we can come up with. Maybe this feature won't make it into the first incarnation of MIR Pro.

Dietz, that's what I was going to suggest. You said here a couple of pages ago that MIR Pro was essentially ready. Why not just launch it as is, and then figure out the addition of the Algorithmic reverb later on?

"Inquiring minds want to know." ... :-) ... and: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression!"

"Ready" means that the whole application works, but of course there are still some rough edges we want to take care for in an extensive testing phase.

Thanks for your interest & your patience!

Seems to me that MIR Pro will probably interest exclusively "high-end" users, most of whom already have an M7, PCM 92, or other great SW algorithmic reverb, and may well not want the Hybrid tail. And more importantly, they know how to blend different reverbs.

Your Hybrid reverb seem more of an all in one product, with the presets solving all the problems for even the brain-dread users!

Just sayin’ .....[Y]

We have already spoke of this. it's just a marketing strategy  ; cheap and a lot of user v.s. expensive and only rich studios

@jammusique said:

Seems to me that MIR Pro will probably interest exclusively "high-end" users

Don't think so. It will depend on the price, but if it remains moderate, highly improbable...

Pricing will also depend on existing license(s) for Vienna Ensemble Pro and/or Vienna MIR. Both will be taken into account when ordering MIR Pro (once its released).

Hello Dietz,I am a new comer of Vienna MIR,and ,I just come here found MIR Pro,can you tell me what is MIR Pro,is it diffrent with Vienna MIR? Thank you.

@OLD GOOD MAN said:

Hello Dietz,I am a new comer of Vienna MIR,and ,I just come here found MIR Pro,can you tell me what is MIR Pro,is it diffrent with Vienna MIR? Thank you.

Hi,

I wrote an answer in the dedicated thread you opened for this question:

-> [URL]http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/28947/187026.aspx#187026[/URL]

😊

@Dietz said:

Pricing will also depend on existing license(s) for Vienna Ensemble Pro and/or Vienna MIR. Both will be taken into account when ordering MIR Pro (once its released).

Music to my ears... 😊

Well done. Love to see a tease demo.

Hi Dietz,

In another thread I recently read about the possibility to have a second microphone position (From your explaination I would guess that both positions can be blended/mixed together or routed to different output channels, right?) in the upcoming MIR pro. This sounds really like a fantastic feature!How tough will this be on the resources of the computer (will it demand considerably more RAM or is it primarily an issue of CPU power... or both)?

Same question concerning sending audio from the sequencer into MIR... I would assume this would be more a CPU issue that a RAM thing?

And finally... That new feature of VIPro2... that RAM buffer thing for SSD drives... is this relevant for usage within MIR (currently I am not working with SSD drives)? - the reason I ask this is that I always thought that within MIR there is no HD streaming anyway, as all VIs need to be loaded into RAM directly... so would this new feature have any effect on MIR performance anyway?

Phew, many questions. ;-) I'll try to answer them as thoroughly as possible.

Re: Second Main Microphone: (This is one of the few features that's still under development, so the following description contains preliminary information. The actual implementation might be different.) - The plan is that the user will be able to select an additional microphone(-array) from the same Venue, most likely one that was positioned further away from the stage than the actual Main Mic. This secondary mic will have its own Ambisonics decoding parameters, also known as "Output Format" within MIR. As an exmple: Personally, I have achieved great results from an additional pair of cardoids pointed to the back of the hall, mixed in 10 or 12 dB quieter than the Main Mic.

The IR sets from both mic positions will be taken into account for the positional prerendering of the individual IRs for each signal source on the stage (or within any valid HotSpot area). This means that the CPU consumption of the actual convolutions won't change at all, just the prerendering will take a little bit longer. The amount of RAM used for the IR sets will increase, of course, but our developers have put quite some effort into optimizing that part, so chances are that MIR Pro's demands regarding RAM might be still lower than MIR's (under most circumstances).

Due to this concept, the secondary mic will have an own volume parameter, but this value will be the same for all instruments (like in the real world ;-) ...). Furthermore, it can't have a dedicated output of its own. Offering this feature would double the CPU load.

Re: Audio Inputs: This will put the same strain on CPU and RAM like any other source within MIR, minus the demands that an virtual instrument would have by itself (which might be a considerable difference, of course!), plus a little overhead for routing.

Re: SSD: You are right, MIR's IR-sets have to reside in RAM, but like I said before: MIR Pro will be highly optimized in this regard. IOW: While VI Pro 2 will benefit from SSDs, their positive effect for MIR and MIR Pro will be small.

BTW - for a (more or less) complete preliminary list of MIR Pro's features see also this thread: -> http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/t/28947.aspx

HTH,

Is a MIR Pro SE also in the works?  What might that look like, and would the restrictions remain roughly the same compared to the full MIR Pro (i.e. 32 instruments, limited fixed mic positions, etc.)?

Also, with all the changes to MIR, would it be possible to get decent performance in full MIR using a current generation Sandy Bridge chip, or would a dual processor setup remain strongly advised?

System requirements won't change a lot for MIR Pro compared to now (->  http://www.vsl.co.at/en/211/497/1687/455/1666/1328.htm), at least not in terms of RAM and processing power. Windows 7 and dedicated audio-hardware won't be a prerequisite any longer, of course. :-)

We have had some discussions internally about the possibilities for a SE-version of MIR Pro, but there's no final decision made up to now.

@Dietz said:

We have had some discussions internally about the possibilities for a SE-version of MIR Pro, but there's no final decision made up to now.

just hopping you will [;)]

MIR PRO with one or two room(s) [:D]

@Dietz said:

We have had some discussions internally about the possibilities for a SE-version of MIR Pro, but there's no final decision made up to now.

I did not dare to ask about MIR PRO SE, but please continue your internal discussions 😉

:-D ... yes, we will do so. Thanks for your interest!

MIR for Mac .. don't mind if it's Pro or not :P