Does not work in Cubase 9.5.50

Windows Version10.0.19043 Build 19043

No matter what I do, the "server" window will not appear. I see the little rectangular panel, where you can adjust wet/dry, bypass, solo etc but not the MIR software itself with the 3d space and all the functionality to actually use the bloody thing. Spent hours trying, please help! Yes, I've clicked all the buttons.

The track is silent with the MIR inserted, when you press bypass in the MIR panel I hear the track dry, no MIR happening. not a sausage,

Cheers Chaz

Hi Chaz,

please get in contact with support@vsl.co.at - VSL's support team will sort out the issue swiftly. Please include as many information about your setup as possible, and it might be a good idea to supply an exemplary project that shows the problematic behaviour.

Thanks for your patience!

Hi there

is anyone using MIR Pro 3D on an i5 machine? Does it work fine?

I deleted the old MIR Pro plugins but now when I load a project created with the older MIR Pro Cubase doesn't find the plugin anymore so it doesn't load MIR Pro. I also tried to reinstall MIR Pro 3D but nothing changed

@Dietz said:

Make sure that you have installed the VST2 version of MIR 3D when you want to migrate legacy projects in Cubase, please.

Hi Dietz, 

I was about to write an update since I made further tests. Basically, Cubase 11 opens these projects correctly while Cubase 12 doesn't. I suppose it's because the plug-in version I used on the older MIR was a 32-bit version? In Cubase 12 I see the Mir PRO VST2 in the VST Plug-in Manager blocklisted because "32-bit plugins are no longer supported", it says. 

Just to be absolutely sure that I understand the issue correctly: Your old Cubase projects use (legacy) MIR Pro 32-bit? Then you have to make the transition to MIR 3D on Cubase 11 or earlier indeed. There's not much we can do about ...

Sounds so fantastic! I think MIR 3D is wholly the game changer of the audio history. 

Just wish the 7th roompack - outdoor stage as like forest, lake... 

Thanks a lot for the enthusiastic feedback! 😉

@falineleo said:

Just wish the 7th roompack - outdoor stage as like forest, lake...

Ohhh yes. The recording of forest IRs has been a dream of mine since the first conceptual studies of MIR were conducted in 2002 or 2003. We have thought a lot about how to realize this idea, but so far no one has come up with a solution that would ensure that the forest is absolutely quiet for at least 12 hours - no animals  and insects, no wind, no air traffic or cars, church bells, ... Any noise that occurs during recording will introduce strange-sounding artifacts into the final IR, and considering that it takes us about half an hour to record a single (!) position under ideal conditions, this would be a daunting endeavor. (For comparison, the MIR Venue we created from Synchron Stage Vienna contains nearly 80 source positions, each consisting of 8 directions ....)

If you happen to have an idea how to overcome these obstacles, I'm all ears! 😉

Hi Dietz,

congratulation for this great product. I recently finished testing and have bought a license.

But there is an issue that should be further analysed. It is about how the Mir engine handles the dry signal. My understanding is, the Mir virtual mic polar patterns are applied to the dry signal as well. Checking all the virtual mic factory presets for me they feel like they do a spatial distortion of the spatial image that creates tension. Feels like a lens error of an image looks like.

How did I solve it? By claiming that the law of energy conservation is also valid for sound. That means, that for every angle of the mic polar patterns the amplitude square sum of left and right channel has to be constant. So I created a small python script for a simple cardioid setup with variable mic angle and calculated the StdDev from the equal power law for several mic angles.

Result: mic angle for cardioids (50% directivity, only 2 capsules for L/R, no center capsule) which leads to minimum error of energy conservation is about 67°.

Application in Mir: Concerning spatial image distortion this simple 2-capsules-setup is by far the best I have tested so far. I expect that this can be further improved by a more complex capsule design.

If someone is interested in the subject, I can provide the python script and diagrams.

Hi Vokars,

great to hear that you liked MIR 3D! Hope you enjoy your new tool. :-)

You are absolutely right that the dry signal gets ENcoded to Ambisonics before it gets DEcoded together with the newly created, positional impulse responses. The underlying idea is to match the virtual position of the source as exactly as possible with the position of the originally recorded IR (which doesn't include any direct signal for exactly this reason).

The decoding process depends on a multitude of parameters, like stage geometry, position of source and virtual mics and their angular relations, the directivity of the source signal, the number and shape of virtual capsules or the spherical coefficients. It is also important to understand that a stereo-signal is always represented as two (linked) mono-sources in MIR. Consequently, there will always be, or better: there _has_ to be some kind of imaging distortion - actually this is one of MIR's basic paradigm's. :-)

If you want to preserve the stereo image of your source by all means you should use MIR 3D as some kind of "glorified AUX send reverb": Use an AUX send from your source track to feed an AUX bus with a MIR 3D instance that's set to "100% wet". That way you will lose MIR's abilities to take care for the dry signal's positioning without sacrificing the wet signal component.

HTH,

Hi Dietz,

thank you very much for your fast response. The idea to use Mir with 100% wet setting and mix it outside Mir with the wet signal is a good solution in many situations. Thank you for this advice!

Did you give my proposed capsule setup a try? Very simple: +-67° direction, 50% directivity, distance minimum 15cm, I use 35-70cm. Instrument width should be adjusted to the original dry signal at the recording distance. How does it sound to you? Do you think, it makes sense to regard energy conservation in general as a constraint for some factory mic presets? I have to admit due to my education (physicist) I can't image anything else especially because theory and experiment are so perfect in line with each other.

By the way: The Blumlein crossed Fig. of 8 also fulfills the energy conservation, because with Fig. of 8 the math equation sin^2 + cos^2 = 1 is always true for the power sum of left and right channel. But: It contracts the -90°/+90° listening angle interval to -45°/+45°!

Also that means: It could be a good extension for the Mir capsule designer? A button for optimize a certain capsule design for minimal image distortion by fitting one paramter (e.g. mic angle, ..) with a state of the art standard minimizer using channel energy sum StDev as cost function.

Hi Vokars,

perhaps it would be a good idea to explain what you are actually trying to achieve. As I wrote above, MIR is a multivariate system. There are so many influencing factors that your results will seem arbitrary quickly in another context.

... could it be that you're actually reverse-engineering Ambisonics, inadvertently ...? ;-)

Kind regards,

Hi Dietz,

I try to explain, that mic capsule presets, that are not in line with the laws of physics, are experienced as some kind of artefact, that do not sound naturally. That means: The fact, that a user can design any capsule design he wants, means that in most cases these designs doesn't sound well as long as they don't fulfill basic physical requirements / constraints.

A picture / sound says more than 1000 words: My propsed capsule design (only 2 capsules with optimized direction) is configured in below 1 minute. Just give it a try and compare it with the dry signal and then compare it to other capsule presets. That's done in below 5 minutes and you will understand, what I mean.

I am fine with my solution and I can use the capsule designer for my needs, but I think this is really an opportunity to make the Mir product even better and help many users out there to use the Mir engine in an optimal way by optimizing the capsule presets for minimal imaging distortions.

@Dietz said:

Just to be absolutely sure that I understand the issue correctly: Your old Cubase projects use (legacy) MIR Pro 32-bit? Then you have to make the transition to MIR 3D on Cubase 11 or earlier indeed. There's not much we can do about ...

Hi Dietz, 

apologize for my late response. I'm not 100% sure but I think so because Cubase tells me that 32 bit plugins are no longer supported. Anyways, I sent one project I mixed using the old MIR Pro to VSL so they can also test it on their computers. 

@falineleo said:

Just wish the 7th roompack - outdoor stage as like forest, lake...

Ohhh yes. The recording of forest IRs has been a dream of mine since the first conceptual studies of MIR were conducted in 2002 or 2003. We have thought a lot about how to realize this idea, but so far no one has come up with a solution that would ensure that the forest is absolutely quiet for at least 12 hours - no animals  and insects, no wind, no air traffic or cars, church bells, ... Any noise that occurs during recording will introduce strange-sounding artifacts into the final IR, and considering that it takes us about half an hour to record a single (!) position under ideal conditions, this would be a daunting endeavor. (For comparison, the MIR Venue we created from Synchron Stage Vienna contains nearly 80 source positions, each consisting of 8 directions ....)

If you happen to have an idea how to overcome these obstacles, I'm all ears! 😉

No idea of how to silence a forest 😊 but for me it would be great to have some "home" rooms and ambiences, like kitchen, garage, bedroom, car that could be used also for film postproduction purposes maybe

Hi Dietz,

actually 2 important dimension of this world: 1. wish and 2. truth

1. Wish: "But ... we _want_ these distortions, really! :-D Otherwise I wouldn't need MIR, would I?" ok, you try to explain to me, that bug could be feature .. Hm .. Some people may want that, other may not. I am one of these guys who wants the by far best reverb and imaging engine without having distortions. I expect not to be the only one. HOA of course is much of design and not just reproduction. But also here design can be natural e.g. when creating binaural sounds, where the HRTF has to be designed.

2. Truth: Assume there is a huge market for people, who want the best reverb but everything based on physics (we could call these people "conservative"): Does my proposed capsule preset would help all the people in this huge(!) market segment? I still can't wait for a feedback (I am aware that truth can hurt :( ) :)

Hi Vokars, 

I really try to grasp what you expect to achieve. You wrote,

@Another User said:

Did you give my proposed capsule setup a try? Very simple: +-67° direction, 50% directivity, distance minimum 15cm, I use 35-70cm.

... to begin with, I don't understand what you mean by "15 cm", or "35-75", sorry to say so. If you mean the distance-parameter in MIR 3D's Output Editor, then this is a purely virtual value that actually controls an artificial de-correlation of the late reverb tail. It doesn't affect the dry signal at all. Or do your refer to the grid on a Venue's stage? That would be indeed meters in reality, so again I don't know what to answer. 😕

Care to post a screenshot, please?