194,418 users have contributed to 42,920 threads and 257,965 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 10 new post(s) and 82 new user(s).
As I understand it, these new MIR extensions do not need MIR PRO. That being the case, could you please explain the difference between these sound stages and halls, and those which are part of Vienna Suite (Convolution Reverb), which I already have.
Phil
Hi Phil,
what you have in Vienna Suite's Convolution Reverb is more or less what you would expect from a professional convolution reverb today: Conventional stereo (2-chan.) or dual stereo (4-chan.) impulse responses from one single perspective of a hall.
For comparison, this is like a single velocity of the middle C of a Boesendorfer Concert Grand, recorded with one microphone. If MIR would be about pianos, it would give you all 88 keys in a multitude of velocities, so to speak, recorded from a multitude of angles and distances.
MIRx for Vienna Instruments and Vienna Instruments Pro is derived directly from MIR Pro, but you neither can change the pre-defined positions of the instruments on a stage, nor can you change the (virtual) main microphone's position which "records" them.
In other words: Conventional IR-based reverbs are like nice black-and-white photographies of a hall. MIR Pro gives you the virtual-reality "holo-deck" model of that hall. MIRx is a colorful 3D-movie with a fixed story line. ;-)
Kind regards,
@Dietz said:
For comparison, this is like a single velocity of the middle C of a Boesendorfer Concert Grand, recorded with one microphone. If MIR would be about pianos, it would give you all 88 keys in a multitude of velocities, so to speak, recorded from a multitude of angles and distances.
Dietz' theory about "MIR- and common Convolution-Reverbs" is correct, there's no doupt.
He also uses probably 88 times more hours for preparing the IRs of MIR than for the common convolution reverbs.
Nevertheless: It doesn't mean that the result (in relation to the sound) is 88 times "better" with MIRPro than with a common convolution reverb (and reverse)...
...what ever "better" could mean here.
The main advantage of the MIRs is probably, that you have a fantastic support in mixing an orchestra.
With MIRx you only need to take the proposed basic settings with each instrument and voilà here we are. I don't know a shorter way which gives better results.
With MIRPro you have a lot more possibilities = a bit more complicated and further: These "more possibilities" also contain the risk of doing things the wrong way...
Beside the "more simple sound" you need to adjust all the parameters yourself with the common convolution reverbs.
This means that you have to create your own desired depths and reverbs.
Best
Beat
MIRx and MIR Pro will sound identical, provided that you use the settings of the former within the latter (a.k.a. "MIRx Mode")
MIRx will receive updates, that's for sure - but of course MIRx will not receive the functionality of MIR Pro. 😊 This would be against the whole idea of MIRx, obviously.
BTW: If you want to use different stage positions with MIRx than the ones provided by the presets, there's always the possibility to use the General Purpose settings for that task.
HTH,
@Dietz said:
Awww, come on ... don't be petty. Feed-back is the new feed-forward, if you get my drift. ;-)
Dietz, I think you misunderstand. Nothing petty going on here. I was talking about feedback. Not feedback. You know, that horrible howl in the speakers. Like I heard yesterday at a session, when the assistant forgot to do something with the digital desk whilst we were re-amping. Wowser....!
DG
@Dietz said:
All is good. I know your were talking about feedback, not feedback - but I mean feed-back, not feed-forward. You know, not all compressors are equal ... ;-D
IOW - it was just jolty wordplay.
Don't talk to me about compressors. I think that I ate so many biscuits yesterday, that my trousers are acting as compressors at the moment. [^o)]
DG
