Profile for Blüthner 1895

[Frankenstein]

Hi,

in MIR's section for the assignment one can choose a profile. As under keyboards there is no profile for the Blüthner 1895 what existing profile comes closest to the Blüthner?

Thank you

[Dietz]

There are no specific profiles for anything else than Vienna Instruments (resp. Synchron-ized Instruments). Your safest bet is a General Purpose profile. I suggest to start with the Wide Cardioid.

Make sure to keep the instrument itself as dry as possible befor it enters MIR.

You could also start with the Boesendorfer Imperial Close profile, but you _must_ switch off the Character EQ then (or create your own), and you will have to re-adjust Width and Dry/Wet Ratio when using Vienna Standards-presets. These settings are very specific and won't fit other sources. Natural Volume won't work either.

HTH,

[Frankenstein]

@Dietz said:
Make sure to keep the instrument itself as dry as possible befor it enters MIR.

I already assigned the Blüthner to MIR and chose a different profile.

Are you saying I should remove the Blüthner, make the settings dry and then add again OR can I also leave it, change the profile and adjust the settings?

[Dietz]

@Frankenstein said:
leave it, change the profile and adjust the settings?

^^^^^^^^^^ This! 😊

[Frankenstein]

Perfect - thank you, Dietz!

[nick.halliwell]

I usually use a cardioid as a starting point for non-VI/Synchron-ised sources - or a wide cardioid if it's something that'd be physically... well, wider. I'd also advise turning off everything on the Dry Signal Handling tab. Then, as Dietz says, you'll need to adjust pretty much everything: EQ, dry/wet balance, width... the whole shooting match really. Basically MIR works beautifully and easily with VI/SY-ised sources as they're very dry. However, it can also work really well with other things, e.g. Synchron libraries, only you need to put a lot more work in. Worth it though, in my experience.

[Dietz]

@nick-halliwell said:
you need to put a lot more work in.

"A lot" sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? 😉 Definitely more than in case of the pre-defined positions for Vienna Instruments, no doubt about that, but still significantly less than using the conventional mixing approach with panners and width control, AUX-sends, reverb, FX returns ... 8-)

[nick.halliwell]

@Dietz said:

@nick-halliwell said:
you need to put a lot more work in.

"A lot" sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? 😉 Definitely more than in case of the pre-defined positions for Vienna Instruments, no doubt about that, but still significantly less than using the conventional mixing approach with panners and width control, AUX-sends, reverb, FX returns ... 8-)

Ha! Yes, I meant "a lot" only by comparison with VI/SY-ised where most things are done for you and it is REALLY easy. The other huge advantage of MIR, for me, is that you can see your positioning in far greater detail. Somehow "oh look, I've accidentally balanced a timpani on top of a violinist's head, neither of them will be happy" is much easier to spot in MIR than in a conventional panner+reverb combo. 😬