Great! Thank you!! 😊

I should add that the "algo-reverb strapped across the master bus"-approach works for broad, floating themes with the occasional accent now an then, or airy compositions with lots of space between the notes and lines - not so much for densly packed arrangements of music based on a steady beat and/or lots of fast movement, with little inner dynamics. In the latter case, you're better off with pre-MIR Aux-sends for specific channels, most likely.

Than you Dietz. Considering my composition will be fairly packed, I may have to go with the aux approach.

One thing I had noticed though when I tried this in the past is that if I kept everything equal, each approach would yield a different sound when I expected both cases to sound equally the same as nothing was changed. Why is that? What is different with the audio routing that can make it sound different even if you keep everything the same?

If it sounds different, then it's very likely that something _is_ different. ;-D

... sorry for the pun, but it is quite impossible to answer this from the distance, Nektarios. Could be simple level issues, or panning, or something less obvious ...

I think I was more interested in knowing if the audio routing becomes different. For example, if I add insert effects etc. No worries, I will give it a shot and see if I hear any differences and inform here.

Thanks!

There is definitely a difference in sound but that is because of the more complex setup it seems. I am basically trying to immitate page 54 on the MIR Pro manual. I am glad I am tackling this now, rather than later and having to experience surprises when converting the setup.

If I'm not mistaken, the tutorial-example you mention is about two instances of MIRacle, one for the dry (but readily positioned) signal components, another one for the actual wet MIR signals. It's very likely that this will give you different results than one instance of MIRacle strapped accross the main mix bus, unless you match your levels carefully. :-)

Kind regards,

Yeap! I remember that is what I had tried which gave me the different sound. It may be an overkill for what I need, so I may just stick to the approach on page 53.

Cheers,

Nektarios

I am little bit confused. Sorry for the basic question. In the manual page 54...

If I push the Wet Send Output (MIR + Miracle bus) higher in a channel, what audio am I increasing?

In other words the higher the knob the higher what audio becomes? Is it MIRs wet signal?

"Up is louder", as seasoned audio engineers have put it, back then. ;-D

Assuming that I don't misunderstand your question, you will bring up MIR's wet signal _and_ the MIRacle you've applied to it. It's important to understand that in this quite special case the "dry" signal (from MIRacle's point-of-view) is the wet output from MIR Pro, so make sure not to mute it - unless you're aiming for some kind of special FX.

Kind regards,

Thank you Dietz!

So if I have the knob at silent, the audio that will come out is just the MIR wet signal + MIR dry? What audio comes out in that case?

I think you lost me ... 8-/ .. can you post a screenshot with some markings, please?

Ok! I will post tonight! I may do a video... :)

Btw, just to be clear, I am not refering to the channel volume knob. It's that little circle (in VE 6) when you switch from "inline" to a bus (which is the Miracle bus). If I push/reduce that circle what signal it affects?

Switching from "Inline" routing to bus routing means that MIR Pro's wet signal (of this channel only) will be available separately, on any other bus you assign there. The readily panned direct signal component will remain on this channel.

Neither the relative level of the direct ("Dry") signal nor the room ("Wet") signal's level will change as long as you leave the bus you send the wet signal to @ 0dB.

This feature is meant to be used for stem exports and sub-grouping, actually, but it can be used for processing stunts with MIRacle, too, of course. ;-D

Kind regards,

@Dietz said:

Neither the relative level of the direct ("Dry") signal nor the room ("Wet") signal's level will change as long as you leave the bus you send the wet signal to @ 0dB.

Thank you Dietz. So if I understand correctly, adjusting that little circle, after switching to bus routing, controls how much of the MIR "wet" signal goes to the bus? And best to keep that circle @ 0 db? Sorry for beating this, but it has always been a source of confusion to me.... 😕

@nektarios said:

[...] So if I understand correctly, adjusting that little circle, after switching to bus routing, controls how much of the MIR "wet" signal goes to the bus? And best to keep that circle @ 0 db? [...]

Exactly. 

... in 99% of all cases there's no need fo the extra rotary fader, actually. From MIR Pro's point-of-view the routing option would be sufficient ... I think it was the VE Pro software-engineers' way to say "See, that's some kind of 'send'- option, now." 8-)

Kind regards,

Great, thank you Dietz. Getting clearer and clearer.

What I am trying to accomplish really is control how much "Miracle" each channel can get. So bass sounds will get less of it vs non-bass sounds.

I would use an ordinary AUX send, either pre- or post-fade (which also means: pre- or post-MIR), depending on what you're after. I have the vague feeling that you're over-complicating things ATM. ;-D

Wow, thanks Dietz. I tend to complicate things more than I need sometimes... 😛

I guess I need aux with post MIR. Which means (sorry gotta make sure):

All MIR dry positioning and MIR wet is applied and then signal is sent to the aux Miracle bus, and I can control how much Miracle I get by the little aux circle, correct?