My hint: the Synchron MIR/x presets will not come alone. They will come with an upgrade to the MIR technology, allowing for multi-mic simulation going beyond the current two sets. Making MIR more aligned with the Synchron set of audio channels.

Paolo

:-D .... sounds like a great idea, Paolo, but that's not how MIR works. Sorry to rain on your parade ... 

@Dietz said:

😄 .... sounds like a great idea, Paolo, but that's not how MIR works.

Hi Dietz, I had this suspect because you already added a second mic set, that I think is derived from one of the various positions from where you sampled the room. But maybe the process is a different one.

In case it is a different sampling position, some of the rooms have more than two, so I wonder if they can be used as simulated channels. Or maybe there are phase issues.

A test I couldn't yet do is to first render the direct signal, the closest room mics, and a more distant mic set (simulating a Mid position). Then, a second pass would exclude the direct signal, and include two sets of mics positioned far from the source (to simulate a panoramic stereo pair and the surround pair).

Probably, it will only end into some sort of sonic molasses 😊

Paolo

Dear Paolo, the main issue is: The whole concept of MIR relies on Ambisonics. It gives us the possibility to define many acoustic parameters after the actual recording took place, and - equally important! - we can interpolate seamlessly between discrete source positions.

An Ambisonics recording is typically based on a so-called "coincident" multi-microphone array. We used indeed up to four of these arrays to capture the Venues represented by MIR - which is why we can add the Secondary Microphone, but that's for the wet signal component only: The goal is to increase the perceived spatial enveloping without sacrificing any of the positioning cues of the Main Mic. And yes, it's a great source for decorrelated rear mics in a surround mix, too!

The typical Synchron recordings use a completely different approach, based on wide-spaced single microphone capsules. They are referred to as "Decca tree", supported by Omni-outriggers and AURO top-layer mics. In short: A very different approach than a coincident recording. ... there have been lengthy discussions amongst Tonmeisters during the last 70 years (or so) which approach is "better", so I won't go into the details here. ;-) 

Although I went to any length in my quest to match the sound of the Synchron Instruments' setup for VSL's "Synchronized" Vienna Instruments and now for MIR/MIRx, it has to be said quite clearly that there won't (and can't) be a MIR engine as we know it that will be able to fully recreate a spaced microphone setup as described above.

Thank you Dietz. Ouch, so it's all still in the same "stream", even if they appear as separate sets.

I'm perfectly fine with the "EMI" mic style, and I think that it blends reasonably well with the "Decca" style of the Synchron series.

Paolo

The image itself is a great help. I would have frankly never imagined that it was a good idea to move strings so near to the mics. But it works great. Examples from the masters are always a great guidance.

Paolo

I have been doing that for many years.  The biggest thing is to let your ears tell you it's ok, not how it looks on the stage.  I have done some of the stupid shit you can imagine with this tool.  People would probably laugh and say I am an idiot but oh well!  As long as they don't see how it looks, and it sounds great I really gave up caring how it looked on the stage years ago!

I know, I know. Any news for the MIRx download? Would be a nice Christmas gift. :)

We hear you! ;-)

@Dietz said:

We hear you! 😉

Thank you so much! i didn't realize initially what the update was about, so as usual I just come to the forum and find the answer 😉

But adding a change-log update will also help other users to get the point, I guess. 😉

And now I will have fun experimenting and comparing my set-ups to yours (usually always very good, so I'm really excited by this time saving and quality improving feature, that was my best source for learning as well).

Thank you, Dietz, for this great addition to MIR! You'll save from a lot of mixing mistakes from now on! :)

Paolo

Awesome! Thanks, Dietz and team!

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

Awesome! Thanks, Dietz and team!

😄 ... You're welcome! 

(... in a first impetus I was tempted to answer "My pleasure!" - but than I realised that I should stay honest. I'm _very_ happy that this highly exhausting task is finally done, really. 8-) ...)

Thanks Vsl, thanks Dietz!

YESSSS finally! I can integrate it all! :D

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

Awesome! Thanks, Dietz and team!

😄 ... You're welcome! 

(... in a first impetus I was tempted to answer "My pleasure!" - but than I realised that I should stay honest. I'm _very_ happy that this highly exhausting task is finally done, really. 8-) ...)

I fully understand. I mean I quit my "journey" of creating my own MIRx settings, because I couldn't stand it anymore. I think I have good ears, but the ony day the setting was good, the next day is wasn't, the position wasn't right, the wetness wasn't right ... Oh, my, really happy now! A good christmas gift.

Very well done, Dietz! I only change the center capsule of the primary microphone to a more omni pattern (sounds more of a "decca tree" to me) and reduce the reverb length, it's a bit too long for my taste. That's the good thing about MIR Pro; in the Synchron Player you can't alter the length, just the wetness. And I already disliked this when using MIRx in VI (Pro).

And I have some other questions:

• To what can the MIRx presets be compared? 1) The sound of the instruments as if you would hear them from a typical "decca-tree"-ish setup without further mixing enhancements, or 2) does the wetness and the reverb length of 1.42 already resemble an enhanced/mixed scenario?
• Should "Air Absoption" be disabled when using your settings? Does it do any harm to your settings? I think you work with this feature disabled.
• "Distance Scaling" and "Microphone Offset" both have to be enabled, right?
• The SYNCHRON-ized instruments in the Synchron Player use a combination of the MIR IRs and a longer algo reverb. How can one achieve this with the MIRx settings? By reducing the overall dry/wet ratio as well as the reverb length? The SYNCHRON-ized instruments have 30% wetness in the "classic" preset and 20% wetness in the "close" preset. What does this mean? 30% in the Synchron Player means what in MIR Pro?

And a technical question for MIR Pro:

• Is there a way to deactivate all of the MIRx character EQs with one click? It's very tedious to revert all instruments back to the "pure" setting. Maybe I missed something. The other way round it's very easy, because you can select several instruments at once, select what should be changed (position, EQ etc.) and with one click the MIRx settings are apllied to all selected instruments.

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

And a technical question for MIR Pro:

• Is there a way to deactivate all of the MIRx character EQs with one click? It's very tedious to revert all instruments back to the "pure" setting. Maybe I missed something. The other way round it's very easy, because you can select several instruments at once, select what should be changed (position, EQ etc.) and with one click the MIRx settings are apllied to all selected instruments.

You're right, the "Auto Group" / "Alt-Click-Group" feature doesn't apply to Character selection. This makes sense in the bigger scheme of things (Characters aren't the same for all instruments), but I understand the need for a global reset. Will put it on the list of feature wishes ...

@Another User said:

• The SYNCHRON-ized instruments have 30% wetness in the "classic" preset and 20% wetness in the "close" preset. What does this mean? 30% in the Synchron Player means what in MIR Pro?

This is something I can't tell you without asking VSL software developers. I didn't implement my settings into SP.