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. :)

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

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. 

Did you put the delay on just the L/R capsules or the L/R and C capsules?

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

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. 

Did you put the delay on just the L/R capsules or the L/R and C capsules?

On both, as in the screenshot (main = L/R capsule, main-c = C capsule). I also tried with changing the volume of the C capsule. But honestly, there are so many options in MIR Pro you can either drastically change the MIRx settings with this or very easily "destroy" the sound. 😆

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. 😊

Yes, a Secondary Mic behind the Main Mic is a good way to achieve a nice enveloping surround sound from most Venues. Just keep in mind that there's no dry signal from the Secondary Mic, so you will need surround capsules from the main mic for seamless positioning on the sides. - If you aim for a pure L/C/R stage in the front and room only from the rears, there's no actual need for them, but remember that ithis approach might create a "gap" between front speakers and rears.

HTH,

@Pixelpoet1985 said:

Can the secondary microphone in MIR Pro be seen as the standard surround microphones? 

Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this. 😊

Yes, a Secondary Mic behind the Main Mic is a good way to achieve a nice enveloping surround sound from most Venues. Just keep in mind that there's no dry signal from the Secondary Mic, so you will need surround capsules from the main mic for seamless positioning on the sides. - If you aim for a pure L/C/R stage in the front and room only from the rears, there's no actual need for them, but remember that ithis approach might create a "gap" between front speakers and rears.

HTH,

Thanks, Dietz! I'm not using a surround setup – if this is what you're talking about. I don't understand everthing, I have to admit. 😊 Only wanted to know if the secondary microphone in MIR Pro is more like the "standard" surround, the high surround or the high microphones in the Synchron libraries? But I think it's the "standard" surrounds, because they are behind the decca tree.

Also want to know your opinion on the delay on the main micophone, because I'm not really sure if this makes sense in MIR Pro. Wouldn't this be counterproductive?

Oh, I see. Sorry, the term "Surround" triggers a different mindset in my brain. 8-)

Yes, the Secondary Mic in wide-view is most likely the closest one to the surround-mics in Synchron Instruments.

And yes, delaying them can definitely make sense. If you look through the factory settings you will see several setups which make use of delay for specific capsules. I doubt that I would find lots of use for a global delay for all capsules, though (except for special FX).

HTH,

@Dietz said:

And yes, delaying them can definitely make sense. If you look through the factory settings you will see several setups which make use of delay for specific capsules. I doubt that I would find lots of use for a global delay for all capsules, though (except for special FX).

Thanks, again.

I now have all capsules of the the main microphone with a delay of 21 and the secondary without any delay. Although there are differences, this is typically the average setting in the Synchron presets. I attached screenshots and my settings for those interested.

If you say this can definitely make sense, I'm happy. Because it sounds different to your MIRx settings: less wet and less "boomy". Also, I like that the direct (close) signal is in some way "clearer" (i.e. not so much "colored"), if this makes sense. Honestly, I A/Bed the settings several times, and I'm not sure if I hear a difference anymore. 😆

What happens in MIR now is that you push the Main Microphone more than 7 meters backwards, further away from the source and acoustically "behind" the Secondary Microphone. If you like the sound you achieve with these settings, everything is fine - but you should be aware of the fact that this is far from everything you would hear in an actual recording. :-) 

Kind regards,

@Dietz said:

What happens in MIR now is that you push the Main Microphone more than 7 meters backwards, further away from the source and acoustically "behind" the Secondary Microphone. If you like the sound you achieve with these settings, everything is fine - but you should be aware of the fact that this is far from everything you would hear in an actual recording. 😊 

Kind regards,

Good to know, thanks for clarifying. 

So, actually you can't compare the Synchron settings to MIR Pro? Because the decca/main is delayed there. I only wanted to understand. 😊 

Hm... actually I like it both.

Like mentioned before, you can't fully mimic a Decca-tree by means of an Ambisonics microphone array, which is a coincident mic setup by definition.

@Dietz said:

Like mentioned before, you can't fully mimic a Decca-tree by means of an Ambisonics microphone array, which is a coincident mic setup by definition.

Right, but nontheless I learnt a lot more. Thanks for taking your time! Always a pleasure to diving into your realm of knowledge.

Maybe you should make a tutorial or something to show MIR Pro in an understandable way "once and for all". I can imagine that you're tired of answering the same question over and over again. 😄

One last question (I promise!):
So delay means "pushing back". Understood. The main microphone in your MIRx settings has on Y-offset of -1.50. Could this alternatively be done with the delay? Would this be the same result? I mean, if you set the offset back to 0 and delay the microphone by 4.5ms.

No, that's no the same. Changing the position of the microphone(s) on a MIR Venue's stage has an effect on the decoding of the Ambisonics signal only, or in other words: on the perceived  "geometry" of the virtual room. The same underlying IRs will get used (although decoded differently) as long as you don't explicitly select another microphone position in the Venue selection dialogue or from the pull-down in the Output strip on the right. There's no delay introduced (or changed) by moving the mic icon(s) on the stage. Any delay has to be set in the Output Format Editor.

HTH,

Thanks! And as I said earlier, you can do many things "wrong" if you don't know what you're doing. :D But I love testing out things, and MIR Pro is very good tool for this. I correct: We not only need a tutorial, we need a Dietz masterclass.

MIRx is great as it is, only a little wet. I think I now found a good setting by only reducing the secondary microphone volume and a bit of the reverb length. That's it!