@kenneth.newby said:

I'll bet quantum computers, when they're finally up and running at full bore, will provide a breakthrough though.

lol, I love it! Probably true. 😊

Dominique,

Thanks for the info. I haven't heard enough from Nebula to know yet but I'll investigate it more. Although I found this link in my search. Some interesting stuff.

-Sean

I had a question for the IR specialists.

I have the feeling that every convolution reverb still has its own signature sound, no matter what IR you feed it with.  Is that true ?  Where does this signature come from ?

Same comment here about MIR : for voices I can't think of anything better.  For percussion, wow !  But indeed for strings, I can't get it where I want.  Could it be that MIR's own signature sound emphasizes some problematic frequencies in specific sounds ?

I noticed that if I use the VSL normal convolution reverb with (I think) the same simplified IR's of the same room than in MIR, for example, the Teldex one, I can hear, apart frome the much greater complexity and realness of MIR, that the convolution reverb has another, smoother signature.

If this apperas to be so, is there a way to control the signature sound ?

Best regards.

Stephane.

Agreed, Nebula is interesting technology. I'd just wish somebody would sample a concert hall or scoring stage that way. If done properly it could bring something new to the table as far as convolution reverb goes. Alas, wishful thinking for now.

Another alternative I forgot to mention is the UAD Ocean Way Studio reverb. Same concept as MIR. It includes a remicing option. You need a UAD card to run it though, which is why I didn't try it out.

@scoredfilms said:

2 -  Call me crazy, even stupid... but I feel like there is a fundamental problem with the concept of having a wet/dry mix for reverb. This is how audio and effect is processed...

Hi

It is true that our brain creates the feel of room depth with the ratio "direct signal/room reflections" (dry/wet so to say). Unfortunately not every reverb effect produces the reflections which lead to the same feeling than in the real acoustic world. 

If you compare different reverb effects you will see that convolution reverbs often produce nicer depths but algorithmic reverbs have a nicer tail with less colours (fade out). So best results you get by combining both advantages:

For creating best depths I would choose "impulse response reverbs" (convolution reverbs.). Nevertheless, you still have to find an ideal IR. So try to find an impulse (IR) which simulates a really good depth. How to find such an IR?

Set the convolution reverb to 100% wet, let an instrument play and observe which IR gives you the farthest distance. If possible take now only the first 30-100ms of this IR (the first reflections). Use the volume curve of the reverb for fading out the IR.  Add an Algorithmic reverb in the chain with a delay of 30-100ms an without the early reflections (we already got them with the IR of the convolution reverb). Now you are able to choose between several depths - of course with the wet/dry ratio. Enhance wet distances a bit with "taking away the high frequences" and the feeling of "far away" and "distance" is perfect.

Example  with IR for the first ms + Algorithmic for tail.   (this could be a possible DAW-Routing)

Even if this example is not produced with the Hybrid Reverb of VSL those effect offers the possibility within one effect.

If you still believe that the sound is too much coloured you can equalize the IR with an EQ (built in with the Concvolution reverbs of VSL).

All the best

Beat

Beat,

Thanks for the reply. Although I'm more concerned with hall response than depth. Please listen to the examples I've shared on Google Drive. They are all from wet sampled instruments. Keep in mind these are different spaces and different samples. But I believe we gain something in this comparison:

http://goo.gl/1ryfxn

1 - Close (VSL is clearly more capable of getting an imtimate sound, very useful)

2 - Mics in the hall (VSL and 'other' sound pretty comparable in terms of washyness in the space)

3 - A mix of mics. Can MIR accomplish something to this effect? I'm not sure if wet/dry fading really does...?

Now the big deal to me is this...

4 - Horns & Bones. Listen to the way the room responds to the amount of power coming from the instruments. It's georgeous to me. I'm in love. lol I am EXTREMELY invested in getting comparable results from VSL. The amount of flexibility alone in the way VSL's instruments are designed would prove this invaluable to me. I still think having multiple libraries has it's uses. But in this case, I feel it's the one thing I desire most from VSL that I can't get. I fully admit it could be my lack of know-how. But I'm still lacking demos from others that accomplish this. I'm wondering what can be done. That certainly isn't a crticism though. VSL is brilliant. I'm being very picky about a reverb issue, not the samples.

Thanks,

Sean

@scoredfilms said:

[...] 3 - A mix of mics. Can MIR accomplish something to this effect? I'm not sure if wet/dry fading really does...?

[...]

The "Dry / Wet"-mix in MIR Pro should be seen as the amount of close-microphones mixed with the signal derived from actual main microphone array. This is how it's done by most recording engineers dealing with real orchestras.

The "Dry" signal in MIR is NOT the plain input. It's the readily positioned and pre-processed direct signal component like it would appear from any source in a natural acoustic environment.

The main difference (and a big advantage MIR has over a real recording setup) is that the runtime delay between the direct signals recorded by the close microphones and the main array is completely compensated by MIR, thus avoiding any phasing issues which might occur otherwise.

HTH,

Dietz,

Thanks, gtk. On a personal note to your genius work on MIR... I want you to know I just messaged someone the following:

"Fyi, I posted on the forum after hearing that exact mix from Dietz (the Duke Ellington). I could not believe how perfect it was. It truly is brilliant. I also downloaded the WAV file and it sits on my hard drive in it's own spot. It has been there for a while and it isn't moving. I still go to it sometimes. That's how pathetic I am. It really is brilliant."

I may have a couple instruments I'm picky about with verb. But believe me, I recognize how remarkable MIR is. :)

-Sean

@scoredfilms said:

...It places a dry recording on top of a room, or on the side of it. But I feel like the instrument is never truly "in" that sonic space. It doesn't have a "whole" sound you get from a live recording.

It is true that real recorded instruments in real rooms appear in an other way than mixes with samples. With real recordings we have time delays between the microphones which give us this nice room and "spacy" feeling. Specially recordings with less microphones and recorded in AB-technique can lead to such nice space feelings.

With samples we pan the signals from left to the right which means that we mainly have a different volume between left and right. Even if we have true stereo reverbs (which are producing different reverb signatures for the right and the left channel) it is finally only a simulation of the reality. 

But there is a trick: You can get some of this airy and roomy feeling of a real recording sessions by choosing different depths for different instrument sections. Further you can overdo these different depths a bit no problem. This trick is a simulation as well but can lead to a more transparent and a more interesting mix.

Listen to this example and observe the different depths (close and far instruments). The whole mix appears roomy and airy even if there are only those mentioned pannings, doesn't it?

Could be that you are looking for this "sound"...?

If yes then your problem is a matter of depth... and not a matter of "hall" as you pointed it out above.

Beat

Of course convolution reverberation only provides a model of a specific acoustic space.  Like any model it's a simplification of the real world.  Convolution assumes a linear, time-invariant 'world' that it then can model quite accurately.  

But in the real world all kinds of non-linearities creep in, the way the materials of the room respond to different levels of sound is the most obvious one that would explain the differences between lower and higher level sounds.  There's also apparently a huge challenge in getting impulse responses that have the best (greatest) signal-to-noise characteristic.  Any residual noise left in the impulse will created will reintroduced when the model is excited by a sound.  I wonder if that also might explain why a louder sound will bring up a different sounding revererant response?  

Either of these, a non-linear space treated by a model assuming linearity, or the non-linearity of the impulse measuring system itself, might account for the differences Sean is demonstrating.  

Beat's suggestion of mixing the best of both worlds is a good one and reminds us, again, that it's our ears that are the final arbiter of quality, not slavish adherence to a single idea just because it's theoretically better, or worse yet, the hip thing of the moment.

A nice example you provided Sean. I tried to match it as closely as possible with 'artificial' reverb. As there obviously is no dry example for the brass I had to use samples to recreate it. It's not as nice, but don't let that distract you. It's about the reverb after all.

That's as close as I got in reasonable time:

http://goo.gl/GFTVP1

The original is a bit wider, which in hindsight I should have matched more closely in the reverb tail. Here's a quick and dirty after the fact solution (I widened the mix of the audio file):

http://goo.gl/PIj9pU

@Another User said:

There's also apparently a huge challenge in getting impulse responses that have the best (greatest) signal-to-noise characteristic.  Any residual noise left in the impulse will created will reintroduced when the model is excited by a sound. 

That's true, but with some effort we are able to capture IRs with a signal-to-noise ratio better than the range covered by most average A/D-converters.

Kind regards,

@Dominique said:

A nice example you provided Sean. I tried to match it as closely as possible with 'artificial' reverb. As there obviously is no dry example for the brass I had to use samples to recreate it. It's not as nice, but don't let that distract you. It's about the reverb after all.

Dominique,

Thanks, that's a great example for comparison. I agree that this isn't a samples issue but a reverb thing. There are some sample differences of course. But both are great and equally usable. My example has less high and a bit more low end in it. So I'm also keeping in mind to ignore that as well.

The biggest thing I noticed was that the early reflection in the room seems to have a lot of excitement. The entire tail sounds like any verb I think would 'continue' the sound. But at the very beginning, I'm listening to the way the low and high seem to interact with the space. There is a vibrance there that I feel is missing in the dry-to-verb example.

I'm sure it's possible to emulate. But until I can peg down what it is, it's hard to talk about how. I wonder if some kind of processesing needs to be done on the early reflection. Maybe even based on the instrument. Again, call me crazy. I'm sure Dietz and Beat think I'm nuts! lol That's just what my ears tell me. Sometimes translating ears to informed knowledge and then to language is hard.

Beat, for the record... I love listening to all of your examples. 😊 I'm still not convinced it's a depth issue.

-Sean

Dominique,

One more thing...

Even with a solo flute this is noticeable to me. I am satisfied with high solo woodwinds from VSL when placed in verb. But satisfied doesn't mean the same problem isn't present. It's just not as much of an issue as it is with other instruments.

The instrument when recorded wet seems to marry the surfaces to create a unique shape, which then tails into the room. The immediate response of the room still is different on a solo flute. But it works. However, when I try to blend woodwinds into an ensemble or section, I feel like the lack of this shape prevents a natural blend. Because of that I don't use the ensemble woodwinds at all anymore, nor do I use the woodwinds to create a section. I stricly use them as solo instruments. Granted, I don't have any of the dimension series so that jury is still out. But it's hard to convince myself to go dimension when I feel like I still have a reverb issue. Plus I really don't have the computer for it. Though that's changing soon. :)

I just wanted to describe a bit more of what I've noticed. I fully anticipate being called crazy after this! lol But I think it helps to illustrate a different angle to the same problem.

-Sean

One more thing... again...

I forgot that I demoed MIR before MIR 24 happened. SO.... I have another demo license! Ba ha ha!!! I'll do some tests in the next couple days when I have more time and I'll report back if I find anything helpful. :)

-Sean

Very instructive thread.

Yet, for me, the problem is a musical one : why oh why does MIR sound harsh with strings ?

Nobody on convolution reverb signature sound ?

Respetc to all.

Stephane.

@Stephane Collin said:

Yet, for me, the problem is a musical one : why oh why does MIR sound harsh with strings ?

Nobody on convolution reverb signature sound ?

Stephane,

After playing with MIR at least a little bit I'm starting to wonder if there aren't multiple contributing factors here. The hall, the samples, the settings, the EQ, the, the, the...

Correction:

I couldn't quite replicate what Dominique did. Though he used the hybrid reverb and I didn't. His was pretty close to my example, except the difference I outlined earlier. Yet, when I loaded MIR and Teldex I couldn't get a result I was happy with, with almost any VSL instrument. Yet, with another dry instrument I was very pleased. Keep in mind, I was pretty happy with Domnique's example. It was still missing one thing I really wanted. But it was much closer than anything I did on my own. And the fact that one of my other dry instruments sounded great, makes me wonder if I'm simply not applying effects properly to VSL to get a decent result. I don't own Vienna Suite and can't justify that right now. I can justify MIR for some of my own recordings alone. But I really want to get my VSL samples where I want. I'm using different plugins on the VSL suit and I see improvements... but nothing like Dominique's example. And even then, I feel his example still misses something. So I could get Vienna Suite, but I still feel like I'd have a bit more to solve.

I should add that I'm thinking MIR may not color the sound in any noticeable way. My own dry test was very impressive, Duke Ellington good. So I'm thinking maybe if a specific instrument has some character that isn't desireable, MIR simply amplifies it. I noticed that with trombones I was very pleased with the lower staccato velocity in MIR, and practically disgusted with the higher velocity. That to me suggests that either the sample lacks something, I'm not processing the sample correctly, or that MIR should respond differently based on the dry signal.

I feel like this mystery just exploded into something far more complex for what my brain wants to process today. oy.

-Sean

Too bad I don't have MIR. But it's informative to try to approximate your example nontheless. At least for me, that is :-) Anyway, I see what you mean about the ERs being more vibrant in your example. That was actually a very good hint. I switched to an IR with more pronounced ERs (wow, does that sound geeky? :-)), and I like the result much better then my former attempt. The timbre doesn't approximate your example anymore (it's 'clearer', less warm), and in my eagerness to demonstrate the new ERs I may have pushed the instruments further back. But it's more a test to see whether it comes closer to what you thought was previously missing: a natural vibrancy in the ERs.

This one sounds pretty good to me:

http://goo.gl/MzSlRg

This one has even more ERs. It's almost a bit over the top for my taste. But could be that it has what you are looking for:

http://goo.gl/o9BkDD

As an aside: In your example I can hear the reflections coming from the sidewalls really well, especially on the second note. I like that. That's less so in my examples. The reflections from the back wall are stronger there. In return I think that the instruments positions are slightly better detectable in mine.

@Another User said:

The timbre doesn't approximate your example anymore (it's 'clearer', less warm), and in my eagerness to demonstrate the new ERs I may have pushed the instruments further back. But it's more a test to see whether it comes closer to what you thought was previously missing: a natural vibrancy in the ERs.

Okay, so I hear what you mean but in some ways that's more "tube" ish to me than like a hall. Although I'm noticing something else now:

• Mine: Low frequencies present in the sound source and in the reflections.
• Yours: Low frequencies present in the sound source, but less in the reflections.

The timbre of the reflection seems to have more high end in it. It's almost like there is more attack in the verb. I try to get the same low end out of VSL, but in doing so I feel like I'm crushing the audio so much that 1) I'm loosing the raw and natural vibrance of the attack and 2) I'm murdering an innocent and helpless waveform. It sounds aweful.

Are you EQ'ing the verb or just the dry sample?

-Sean

@Dietz said:

That's true, but with some effort we are able to capture IRs with a signal-to-noise ratio better than the range covered by most average A/D-converters.

Kind regards,

[/quote]

And that's why I'm so impressed with the sound of MIR so far!  I've done a cursory experiment with a surround mix using MIR and the added sense of spaciousness is pretty amazing.  The only reason I'm not moving to surround full-time is that I've currently only got one machine to run the orchestra with and asking MIR to process five or six channels of anything but a small ensemble is overwhelming the system.

Best,

Kenneth.