@BachRules said:

By increasing that Distance parameter, can I get MIR to simulate the timing differences which would be recorded by a Decca tree? I realize MIR is meant to be a virtual 3-dimensional room, and the Decca-style timing differences I'm asking about might be inconsistent with that.

The "Distance" which MIR is able to create between the individual capsules of the Main Microphone array is of course a virtual one. But as such it allows for a "best of both worlds" approach, combining the benefits of both coincident and spaced microphone arrays (which wouldn't be possible in reality): "Distance" creates additional decorrelation between the individual channels, but only in the late part of the impulse response - that's what we would call "reverb" most of the time. Like that, the perceived "envelopping" is greatly enhanced. The Direct signal and the early reflection phase (about 200 - 300 ms) remains unprocessed, thus keeping the perfect imaging of the coincident array intact.

... adding a Secondary Microphone will add actual run-time delays and even more enveloping and "depth", but as it will provide wet signal only, the imaging of the Main Mic won't get distorted too much.

Kind regards,

Thanks. That's all my questions, at least for now. Thanks for your outstanding support.

You're welcome! :-) Enjoy MIR Pro.

@Dietz said:

... Soundwise, a dry signal in MIR has already underwent the following changes in comparison to the raw input signal:

-- Encoding to Ambisonics B-Format (... this process is completely invisble to the user).

-- Decoding to the selected Output Format according to the chosen position, rotation and stereo width on a Venue's stage.....

Encoding mono signals into Ambisonics B-Format is described here:

[url]http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/ambis2.htm[/url]

but that only describes the encoding of mono signals; and the other Ambisonics documentation I've found also is limited to the encoding of mono raw signals. Is there an Ambisonics standard for encoding stereo raw signals? Without understanding how MIR encodes raw stereo signals, I wonder the consequences of feeding MIR raw stereo signals which were recorded into spaced microphones?

Does MIR effectively position the incoming raw left and right signals to the locations on the MIR stage represented by the extreme left and right of the instrument Icon? Like you're setting up one speaker on the extreme left and a second speaker on the extreme right of the instrument icon, and the speakers are playing respectively the left and right channels of the raw signal?

@BachRules said:

[...] I wonder the consequences of feeding MIR raw stereo signals which were recorded into spaced microphones?

Does MIR effectively position the incoming raw left and right signals to the locations on the MIR stage represented by the extreme left and right of the instrument Icon? Like you're setting up one speaker on the extreme left and a second speaker on the extreme right of the instrument icon, and the speakers are playing respectively the left and right channels of the raw signal?

Yes, the positioning of a stereo-source is achieved by treating left and right channel as individual mono-sources. Still they share all other aspects determined by the chosen Instrument Profile as well as the Icon's Volume, Chracter, Dry / Wet Ration and Rotation.

... that said I should add that MIR is not meant to be used for complex signals like mixes of different individual instruments (opposed to ensembles of identical instruments). While it will work on a technical level, much of MIR's "magic" comes from the fact that the MIR engine is able to treat _individual_ sources differently, depending on their typical characteristics and their positions. The same is true for pre-panned sources: For best results, the signal-inherent panning information should be compensated before feeding it into MIR.

Kind regards,

Thanks Dietz.