@Bas10 said:

Thanks Cyril. I know that is the way you're supposed to use it. In fact, when MIR was released, it could only reverberate the VSL library. After that, instruments of other vendors were welcome in MIR. Now, I believe, you can channel any type of audio into MIR, like Paul's voice in the MIR Pro demo. Therefore, I think the answer to my dumb question in my previous post is: "yes". Or am I forgetting something? The VE Pro audio busses from slave PC 1 and slave PC 2 go over the network into a single VE Pro instance running on the Master (Mixing) PC. In this Master PC VE Pro instance thoses busses are now audio input channels, that are going into MIR. What I would want, is that instead of those audio inputs to go into a single instance of MIR, that they go into multiple instances of MIR, one for stage, one for audience, one for surround, for example. I could imagine that some things going wrong here, for example, only one instance of MIR can be running in VE Pro, or even only one instance or MIR on a single machine, so starting up multiple VE Pro instances would not circumvent this. But I don't want to start imagining things. Can this work at the moment?

Hi Bas10 and Karel 

Bas10, did I understant what you want to do  ?

                                               ------> slave PC or Mac 1 with VE====>

Master PC or Mac with DAW                                                                 back to the Master PC + VE + MIR----> DAW

                                               ------> slave PC or Mac 2 with VE====>

------> = Midi

====> = Audio

The Master PC running the DAW sends Midi to 2 slave, the 2 slaves convert Midi to audio with  VE and VI sends back audio to Master PC, the Master PC adds MIR PRO, the 5.1 channels are going back to the DAW

I dont see how you could do that !

Karel, can you confirm you can do that ? how comme ?

If yes how many audio chanels can be treated by slave ?

How many input audio can be treated by MIR ?

Best

cyril

That's very close to what I am referring to, Cyril. I'll explain.

Karel wrote: "You can run as many instances of MIR Pro as you want on a single machine with one license, so this is perfectly possible." 

If we are optimistic then the word "this" in his reply refers to my whole question, the routing I am proposing and that you have schematized 90% correctly.

However, if we're pessimistic Karel's "this" only refers the first part of his own sentence. I am optimistic though. Here's why. Have a look at this video on the VSL site: http://dl.vsl.co.at/downloader.aspx?ID=7621  It's the download link for the "Vienna Ensemble PRO 5 Overview" video on the videos page. Skip to 3:30 where Paul explains the use of the audio plug-in feature. Also have a look at page 19 of the MIR Pro Preliminary manual.

If I understand the VE Pro manual, the MIR Pro manual and the video correctly, the following is 'perfectly possible'.

           ---> DAW VE VST 1 ---> Slave 1 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 1 ==>

DAW                                                                                                              DAW ==> VE Audio Plug-in ==> VE ==> MIR ==> DAW

           ---> DAW VE VST 2 ---> Slave 2 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 2 ==>

(  ------> = Midi  )

(  ====> = Audio  )

Now, is the following possible?:

           ---> DAW VE VST 1 ---> Slave 1 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 1 ==>                                                     DAW VE 1 ==> MIR 1

DAW                                                                                                              DAW ==> VE Audio Plug-in ==> DAW VE 2 ==> MIR 2 ==> DAW

           ---> DAW VE VST 2 ---> Slave 2 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 2 ==>                                                     DAW VE 3 ==> MIR 3

I believe this is possible. Look at page 14 of the VE Pro manual. There it says "you will be asked to assign your Audio input plug-in to an existent Server interface". The figure shows the VE Pro Server selection window. If you look at a similar window on page 11, you see that you can choose one from multiple VE Pro Server instances on the same IP, thus the same machine, thus VE 1, VE 2 and VE 3 in my diagram above.

So what could be the catch, the snag? Processing power. What system can run 3 instances of MIR Pro, a 2600K based system? An overclocked 3930K or 3960X?

Note that I am using no less than 5 VE Server instances and you get 3 licenses when buying VE Pro. You can buy extra licenses though. So I might need to buy an extra VE Pro, giving me a total of 6 VE Pro Server licenses.

If you could load multiple independent MIR Pro instances in a single VE Pro instance, than this might obviate the need for extra VE Pro licenses. The diagram would then look like this:

           ---> DAW VE VST 1 ---> Slave 1 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 1 ==>                                                                    ==> MIR 1

DAW                                                                                                              DAW ==> VE Audio Plug-in ==> DAW VE ==> MIR 2 ==> DAW

           ---> DAW VE VST 2 ---> Slave 2 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 2 ==>                                                                    ==> MIR 3

I am not that optimistic that this might work. I see no hint in the manuals that you can add a MIR Pro instance with other settings than the one you already started. Also the manual indicates that when you change the venue, the instruments might not be positioned correctly due to the venue being of a different size, etc. This leads me to believe that there is only one MIR Pro instance possible per VE Pro instance. But I would like to be wrong about this.

You can load multiple independent MIR Pro instances in a VE Pro Server. Each VE Pro instance in the server represent a MIR Pro engine instance. Both the VE Pro 5 and MIR Pro licenses are per machine, so you can run as many as you want on a single machine. Note that using the Audio/Event Input plugin adds an additional buffer of latency to the equation though.

To be able to compare the diagrams more easily, I am copy-pasting my previous diagram-post below:

See my answer above. In terms of processing power, the amount of MIR Pro engines makes little to no difference in terms of both CPU and memory use. The amount of running MIR Pro plugins inside VE Pro is what really matters.

Thanks a lot Karel!!! That's great news. It's 22:00 by the way, what a commitment. Very much appreciated!

So I understand now, the DAW runs a single VE Pro server, from which I start the VE 1, VE 2 and VE 3 instances on that same DAW. Each of those VE instances runs a separate MIR Pro engine instance. And all that without requiring extra licenses. That sure proofs I was not optimistic enough.

Thanks again, for your answers and not to forget, for your work that helped produce this wonderful software.

My pleasure :)

In case you're really need to have MIR Pro on more than one machine at the same time, the upcoming "MIR Pro 24" will be a reasonably priced option for additional licenses.

Kind regards,

Thanks for the kind words - just let me add the that "24" was not my idea. ;-)

It works!! I've tested it using the MIR Pro Trial with the 'start venue' and the Mozart Saal trial venue. I am using Cubase 6.0.5 on a PC. The VE Audio Plug-Ins are in FX channels that throw 'instrument groups' into the multiple MIR Pros, which all run on one DAW.

So this is the final (working) diagram:

           ---> DAW VE VST 1 ---> Slave 1 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 1 ==>                                                     DAW VE 1 ==> MIR 1

DAW                                                                                                              DAW ==> VE Audio Plug-in ==> DAW VE 2 ==> MIR 2 ==> DAW

           ---> DAW VE VST 2 ---> Slave 2 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 2 ==>                                                     DAW VE 3 ==> MIR 3

Thanks a lot, Karel and Dietz!

I'll post quantitative results when I have them. But for now, with 3 MIR Pros running and five audio input channels each, all playing, my 2600K system has an 18% CPU load in Task Manager, for the whole system that is. Not bad at all, and much less load then I expected. This really sounds promising.

Good to hear that the setup you have in mind works.

Sidenote - do you really plan to mix the sound of different Venues, or was this just for testing purposes?

Kind regards,

@Bas10 said:

It works!! I've tested it using the MIR Pro Trial with the 'start venue' and the Mozart Saal trial venue. I am using Cubase 6.0.5 on a PC. The VE Audio Plug-Ins are in FX channels that throw 'instrument groups' into the multiple MIR Pros, which all run on one DAW.

So this is the final (working) diagram:

           ---> DAW VE VST 1 ---> Slave 1 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 1 ==>                                                     DAW VE 1 ==> MIR 1

DAW                                                                                                              DAW ==> VE Audio Plug-in ==> DAW VE 2 ==> MIR 2 ==> DAW

           ---> DAW VE VST 2 ---> Slave 2 VE Host ==> DAW VE VST 2 ==>                                                     DAW VE 3 ==> MIR 3

Thanks a lot, Karel and Dietz!

I'll post quantitative results when I have them. But for now, with 3 MIR Pros running and five audio input channels each, all playing, my 2600K system has an 18% CPU load in Task Manager, for the whole system that is. Not bad at all, and much less load then I expected. This really sounds promising.

Hello Karel

Will this work with Logic too?

What is the trick to send my 96 audio tracks from the 1st VE server to the VE server that contains  MIR ?

Best

Cyril

Dietz, It was just for testing purposes, to validate that the different MIR instances indeed have no problem loading different venues. It all works great, as expected from software of your standards, and exceding expectations in the processing load department.

I assume that the Grosser Saal venue probably has a (slightly?) higher load than the Mozart Saal because of the longer tails. Then again, the load of the start venue is probably lower. Based on what I saw and even more on what I heard, I sure am going down the MIR path now. I can now sculpt out beautiful staging, hall presence and finely simulating close micing and combine them into a kaleidoscopical sound field. Although somewhat limited by the choice of venues in the trial, I already got some pretty pleasing sounds out of it.

Although it is not my intention to mix venues, in fact that's what the Berliner Philharmoniker did ages ago. They used to reverberate their recordings in a Berlin church, at night, to later mix it into the to be released recordings, reaping great results. Then who am I to argue with them that mixing venues is a bad idea? ;-)

By the way, that 'start venue' isn't bad at all. In its preset form it gives a nice staging, and if you increase the reverb time the tail isn't bad either, is that the Neuer Saal perhaps?

Cyril, although I am not Karel, having a few years of experience in Logic, I see no problem of getting this to work in Logic. As a matter of fact, the crucial part, the VE Pro Audio Plug-in, is explained in the VE Pro manual on page 14 with screenshots of Logic.

My approach is to pre-mix the orchestra instrument groups into sections. Percussion, Brass, Woodwinds, Strings (and Piano), and for each a left, middle and right stereo channel, that gives me 12 channels, so still 4 stereo channels, per VE Pro slave that is, for special things, a Harp, a soloist, a special directivity profile needed somewhere, etc. I see it as a stage partitioning. Indeed, it might be somewhat limiting, but it appears to be just what I need at the moment,

Hi Bas10

96 tracks is not a typo, in fact it is 97 VI and 3 audio from Play, K4 and Ominisphere.

Best

Cyril

@Another User said:

By the way, that 'start venue' isn't bad at all. In its preset form it gives a nice staging, and if you increase the reverb time the tail isn't bad either, is that the Neuer Saal perhaps?

No, it's just one IR position from Vienna Konzerthaus - Grosser Saal (... I think I even mentioned this in the manual somewhere).

Kind regards, 

@Dietz said:

...you would run into problems when mixing the wet _and the dry_ signals from different Venues. Consequently, MIR Pro' upcoming "Secondary Microphone"-feature will only output the resulting wet signal components, too.

That's indeed what I thought, so I have set the 2nd MIR Pro to "Wet Solo" (as it is called in the MIR GUI if I remember correctly). The funny thing is, when I forgot to do this for the 3rd MIR Pro instance, no problem arose. Perhaps the explanation is that MIR Pro is working better than you think 😉 No phasing occurred, the dry signal was just playing at a higher level, and this pointed me to the fact that I forgot to cut the dry signal.

Thanks again, Dietz.