Signal processing chain for inserts and MIR

[VirtualVirgin]

So, when mixing what approaches are users taking for your signal processing (inserts) chain?

What plugins are you using before MIR? 

 

What plugins after?

 

What stages are you using for EQ and compression?

[Dietz]

From MIR's POV, EQ can be applied before or after the process with identical tonal results (apart from gain differences, of course). This is due to the fact that MIR relies on linear processes only.

Using compression, saturation or any other kind of non-linear processing depends on your goals. You want an dynamically controlled instrument, but "natural" reverb? Use compression before MIR. You want some pumping interaction between direct signal and resulting reverb? Use compression after MIR.

And so on. Just think it through, and you will more or less automatically find the signal chain that fits the specific needs of a given context.

HTH,

[VirtualVirgin]

Yes, these are the considerations I use. I have applied eq and compression on either side of MIR to elicit those effects. 

My concern has become that either method exposes a weak point in the MIR process:

EQ and compression beforehand means you are mixing the musician before it hits the microphones.

EQ and compression afterwards means you are applying processing to the room mics, which are not spot or section mics. 

The former is not possible in real life.

The latter is possible, but if you are applying EQ and compression to the *room mics* of each individual instrument, the real-life analog would be recording each of the musicians one-by-one alone into the room mics, which is obviously not the preferred method of recording an orchestra. It's also not optimal from a utility standpoint, given that it defeats main the purpose of a room mic array- a uniform one-point perspective to capture the depth and width (and with Ambisonics, height) of a sound environment. 

Technically, to emulate the recording process accurately it would require a separate bus with the sum of all MIR wet outputs containing the room mic and enough ER for placement. This also means that another stage would be required of the plugin: options for spot/section mics. With that situation it would then be proper to eq and compress those outputs, while maintaining spatialization by mixing in the wet room outputs to taste (which wouldn't be a sum of 100 tracks eq'd and compressed in just as many ways).

I'm trying to think of a workaround for this now, but the only method I can think of is doubling the entire orchestra to apply separate outputs. Before trying I'm thinking of the mess that could make with things like round robins or general phasing issues. 

[Dietz]

I think I understand your point, and there are several solutions:

Using MIR Pro in it's "full" version, i.e. as part of MIR Pro, there is in fact a straight-forward way option to split the wet signal components from the readily positioned dry signal: Just select any existing Bus from the plug-in's routing panel in VE Pro's mixer. ... that's a feature which is impossible to realise in MIR Pro's plug-in version, though, because no third-party DAW I know of will allow a plug-in to take over its internal routing tasks.

I gave some examples in the MIR manual's Tutorial section to illustrate the workflow. I've been using an older version of VEP back then, but I hope they get the idea across nonetheless. 😊

Apart from that, your have always the bank of 32 RoomEQ settings (actually 33, with the default) where you can shape the wet signal components specifically for one source or a group of several instruments. In the so-called "MIRx Preset" mode MIR Pro makes use of this feature extensively.

HTH,

[VirtualVirgin]

Thanks Dietz.

So I am looking into this to see how to proceed.

I am using Nuendo and have been using MIR as an insert for every track.

If I use your method, I will be able to separate the total MIR mix into wet and dry buses.

On the other hand, managing all of my VSTis in VEP means 2 tracks for every one I have now inside my Nuendo template. With a VSTi track (in Nuendo), the MIDI appears directly on the track which has the audio output for that data.

With VEP I would need both a MIDI track and an audio return appearing in Nuendo for each and every instrument track.

I am quite hesitant to introduce that kind of clutter to an already large orchestral template.

[Dewdman42]

You might want to consider mixing your related tracks in VePro, rather then bringing every track as audio back into Nuendo's mixer.  Just bring back one stereo mix or a few sub groups. 

[VirtualVirgin]

But is does VEP do surround formats and Ambisonics? 

Sometimes I mix in TOA (Third Order Ambisonics).

[Dietz]

VE Pro is able to deliver audio formats up to 7.1 (see screenshot). It isn't Ambisonics-savvy yet, though.