It does help.  Thanks for taking the time!

So, if I wanted to match MIR's settings closer to the "Classic Stereo to Surround Downmix" presets in the Synchron Instruments (which, in comparison to the wide, seem to accentuate the closer mics while toning the main, high, and high surround mics down), would the main way you go about it be:

1) moving the instrument icons closer
2) turning the global WET/DRY more to the dry side
3) changing the main and secondary mic settings/positioning

I realize as I type this the answer is probably "all of the above and use your ears" 😊  Even so, I'm curious what your "go-to" method of emulating a mic set-up in MIR pro would be?

Thanks!

- Sam

Thank you, Dietz.  I'll be digging into it pretty heavily in the coming months so this is a great help.

I would not change Dietz's positionings, because they are very good the way they are. I would change the settings of the microphones.

I think the dry/wet is a bit misleading, because people think (at least I'm guessing here) that this is the relation between the close and the main microphone. It isn't. In MIR Pro it's always a combination of both. The ratio together with the reverb length defines/shapes the room.

For example the overall ratio in the Synchron Stage is approximately 30 % wet and this shoudn't be changed, because this setting resembles the "real wetness" of the instruments. Of course, some instruments need slightly different settings, but if they are once positioned and set, they shouldn't be changed when applying the term "closer mix". In reality, a close microphone has the same wetness as the main microphone, isn't it? The difference between the two is the distance, the panning and the stereo image. 

Hope I don't talk nonsense, but this is how I understand MIR Pro now, and it took me a long time to understand this. At least I'm fine with this. ;)

@Dietz:
Comparing the MIRx settings to the Synchron and BBO libraries I stumbled upon the microphone delays. In MIRx the secondary microphone has a wet delay of 12.2 ms. The room microphones in the Synchron Player are set to 21 ms. Wouldn't it make sense to set it to the same value in MIR Pro? I tried and also increased the volume of the secondary microphone from 3 to 4 dB. I don't know... Maybe the value in MIR Pro can't be compared to the real thing. I like this change, and this is the good thing about MIR Pro compared to MIRx.

@Another User said:

@Dietz:
Comparing the MIRx settings to the Synchron and BBO libraries I stumbled upon the microphone delays. In MIRx the secondary microphone has a wet delay of 12.2 ms. The room microphones in the Synchron Player are set to 21 ms. Wouldn't it make sense to set it to the same value in MIR Pro? I tried and also increased the volume of the secondary microphone from 3 to 4 dB. I don't know... Maybe the value in MIR Pro can't be compared to the real thing. I like this change, and this is the good thing about MIR Pro compared to MIRx.

I'm curious about this as well...

@Another User said:

I'm probably over-thinking things, but one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would! 😝

Same here! I learnt a lot, but I think that MIR Pro could be made a bit easier for those who don't have this ambition.

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

[...]

@Dietz: 
Comparing the MIRx settings to the Synchron and BBO libraries I stumbled upon the microphone delays. In MIRx the secondary microphone has a wet delay of 12.2 ms. The room microphones in the Synchron Player are set to 21 ms. Wouldn't it make sense to set it to the same value in MIR Pro? I tried and also increased the volume of the secondary microphone from 3 to 4 dB. I don't know... Maybe the value in MIR Pro can't be compared to the real thing. I like this change, and this is the good thing about MIR Pro compared to MIRx.

Good question, but I know only a very vague answer: "12 ms" simply felt right. 8-) Thinking about it, this is a value I like to use a lot when adding pre-delay to (algorithmic) reverbs, too. Maybe just a question of habits ... 

@Seventh Sam said:

[...] one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would! 😝 [...]

😄 ... you know what? I've been told this several times already. For me it's one of the nicest compliments you can pay MIR. Thanks a lot!

@Seventh Sam said:

[...] one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would! 😝 [...]

😄 ... you know what? I've been told this several times already. For me it's on of the nicest compliments you can pay MIR. Thanks a lot!

Yes! But, in my case, it's still only on a basic level. Hopefully I didn't tell too much nonsense in the posts above. 😆

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

[...]

I figured this out when comparing to other, wet libraries. It's only my impression after many, many hours of testing. Don't take it too seriously: 

• The setup in MIR Pro always resembles a combination of "spot/close" and "main" microphone in reality. You could go down to a "close" microphone on it's own though.
• The main microphone alone can't be compared to a "decca tree" in reality, only in combination with the secondary microphone. 
• The main microphone brings the dry instrument into the room (i.e. the dry/wet ratio). This resembles a "mid" microphone in reality. Depending on the stereo image this could also yield into a "close" microphone, see point 1.
• The secondary microphone (which is only wet) gives additional depth and resembles, in combination with the main microphone, a "decca tree" to "ambient" sound.

1. True!

2. Not really, because the Secondary Mic is always "wet only", to avoid the otherwise inevitable phasing issues.

3. Partially true (see 2.), but you can indeed use MIR as an Ambisonics-based "spot mic" panning device without any room information added.

4. Mostly true, just without the "Decca" reference.

HTH, 

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

[...]

I figured this out when comparing to other, wet libraries. It's only my impression after many, many hours of testing. Don't take it too seriously: 

• The setup in MIR Pro always resembles a combination of "spot/close" and "main" microphone in reality. You could go down to a "close" microphone on it's own though.
• The main microphone alone can't be compared to a "decca tree" in reality, only in combination with the secondary microphone. 
• The main microphone brings the dry instrument into the room (i.e. the dry/wet ratio). This resembles a "mid" microphone in reality. Depending on the stereo image this could also yield into a "close" microphone, see point 1.
• The secondary microphone (which is only wet) gives additional depth and resembles, in combination with the main microphone, a "decca tree" to "ambient" sound.

1. True!

2. Not really, because the Secondary Mic is always "wet only", to avoid the otherwise inevitable phasing issues.

3. Partially true (see 2.), but you can indeed use MIR as an Ambisonics-based "spot mic" panning device without any room information added.

4. Mostly true, just without the "Decca" reference.

HTH, 

Thanks, Dietz! Maybe it's depending on the library. Am I allowed to name it?

I mainly compare to MGM Sony, because the Synchron Stage is similar in size and, in my opinion, incredibly similar in sound, too. In this case a combination of main and secondary microphone indeed resembles the "room" microphone in this library. Maybe because it's a combination of decca and outriggers and some others, I'm not sure. So it's not a decca tree on it's own.

Of course, in MIR Pro it's not a "decca" tree, but I call it this way to have a comparison. And it comes really close to the sound.

@Another User said:

Same here! I learnt a lot, but I think that MIR Pro could be made a bit easier for those who don't have this ambition.

Hmmm...you just gave me an idea...

@Seventh Sam said:

[...] one of the unforeseen side effects of using MIR has been that it's got me thinking, learning, and exploring a lot more about acoustics, recording, and stereo playback than I thought I ever would! 😝 [...]

😄 ... you know what? I've been told this several times already. For me it's on of the nicest compliments you can pay MIR. Thanks a lot!

Of course!  Thank you for developing it and saving me approx. five billion-gajillion hours of reverb bussing.

@Seventh Sam said:

I meant if the instrument's DRY/WET ratio is weighted towards wet, resulting in more room and less of the ambisonically positioned, character-eq'd dry sample.  

Yes. And just for the sake of completeness: The Character affects the signal before it's fed into MIR's convolution engine, which means that the resulting room signal benefits from the pre-processing, too (... hopefully ;-D ...).

As we were talking about microphones, I have another question:

MIR Pro is always a combination of close/spot and main, but the close isn't mono. I think it's really a sonic difference mixing a main microphone (e.g. decca tree) with a "real" close microphone.

Is there a way to route the main output in such a way that we can make a mono duplicate and then mixing this together? Or is this technically not possible with the underlying concept of MIR Pro? Or can this be achieved with a different microphone setup?

Hope you understand what I mean. :D

I'm not sure that I really understand what you're asking for, but I'll try to give a meaningful answer nonethless:

I've used stereo spot mics very often; there's no rule that says otherwise. As a matter of fact, I like them much more than mono spot mics, but in Real Life it's simply a question of available microphones and / or mic lines, most of the time. ;-)

... but if you want mono "close mics" in MIR, just reduce the Icon's width to zero.

HTH,

Thanks! 

In the majority of libraries the close microphone is mono, but it's of course not standardized. The Silent Stage recordings for me are not really close enough to call them "close" microphones as in other libraries, it's more like a "mid" microphone (depending on the instrument). A dimension violin on it's own would be a contender.

Reducing the width doesn't work, because I don't want to have the sound changed. For me the sound impression from MIR Pro (as it is) is like a mixture of "mid" and "room" microphone sound, even though the close microphone is already mixed in. And I like this sound. But I would like to have a separate mono microphone which would resemble the "close" microphone in other libraries.

I think I would need two MIR Pro instances then:
1) Sound as it is, instrument width unchanged = "room" microphone like a decca tree
2) Only the main microphone, but the instrument width reduced to mono = "close" microphone

Maybe I'm thinking too complicated! :D

@Another User said:

For me the sound impression from MIR Pro (as it is) is like a mixture of "mid" and "room" microphone sound, even though the close microphone is already mixed in. And I like this sound. But I would like to have a separate mono microphone which would resemble the "close" microphone in other libraries.

Concept-wise the readily positioned "dry" input signal _is_ the close mic in the world of MIR Pro. It just depends on the dryness of the recording. That's why MIR Pro is the ideal environment for Vienna Instruments.

Kind regards,

@Another User said:

Which is an unambiguous sign that you basically prefer stereo spot mics, too. 😉 What do you expect from a mono mic that a stereo setup couldn't pick up?

Actually, I don't know. :D I'm happy that the Silent Stage instruments were recorded that way. A mono microphone as MIR Pro's spot microphone won't have the same sound and stereo width.

I was only wondering, because in these "Hollywood" libraries the spot is in most cases mono. Having a main microphone mixed with a mono spot does indeed sound different than having a stereo spot. Reducing the stereo width in MIR Pro won't give me this combination of wideness and closeness at the same time; MIR Pro is a good compromise between the two.

To make a long story short: Apparently I like both approaches.

Dietz, I have another question regarding the delay I mentioned earlier. I'm referring to Synchron Strings and the BBO libraries again.

In the Synchron Player the tree has actually a delay of 21, not the ambient microphones (which have 0, but not in every preset).

Example: https://www.vsl.co.at/de/BBO_Map/BBO_Tana#!Mixer_Presets

I gave it a try in MIR Pro and it instantly removes the "boominess" I didn't like. But I'm wondering if it makes really sense to give the main microphone a delay.

I know there are additional Highs and High Surround microphones in the Synchron libraries, which we don't have in MIR Pro. Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. :)