Slave Recommendations

[Pyre]

Hi all,

I've been intending to get MIR for a while, but only recently looked at its system requirements. They always described it as RAM-hungy, but wow! My spec is posted below, but the RAM is pretty much maxed out running the samples themselves for a full orchestra. I'm hoping to get a RAID array of four SSDs to help with that, but there's no avoiding the 24GB recommendation for MIR. So, bring on the slave machine(s).

I have found four options so far:

Option 1: Mac Minis, lots of them.

Not sure about this. They're cheap individually, but don't carry much RAM, so I'd need quite a few. The man in the Apple store instead recommended...

...Option 2: Imac(s)

This could store an impressive amount of RAM, but it's enormous, and I already have two screens. I'm also not too sure about Macs, as the current system is Windows, and by the time the RAID is added it could be pretty expensive (though Thunderbolt would be awesome).

Option 3: Intel Server

http://www.thinkmate.com/System/RAX_XT8-2110/34926
I think this looks ideal.

Option 4: AMD Server

http://www.thinkmate.com/System/RAX_QT8-2110/34927
This looks even better (and cheaper), but I'm told VSL doesn't mix too well with AMD chips.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

Many thanks.

Pyre

[noldar12]

These types of questions are difficult (I've tried asking some myself <smile>), as each situation is different, each person works differently, and each person defines "full orchestra" differently.

How many tracks will you be planning to run?

If you only need a moderate sized full orchestra, you probably could do very well with something like an i7 3930k.  If you are doing a massive number of tracks, overlaying samples from a wide variety of vendors, etc., then you might need a dual Xeon server level computer.

For now, Intel is the way to go in terms of maximum power.  AMD has come back a little in some areas, but still cannot match the upper end Intel chips, and by defintion, you will be looking at an upper end chip.

As for RAM, my current computer has 24 gigs and that is enough for my older MIR SE and its maximum of 32 tracks.  Even then, some compromises are sometimes necesary.  To be safe, you will probably be looking at 32 gigs (some high end users go up to 64 gigs).  Note that with SSDs, one can set a smaller buffer for VSL samples, so that could help with managing memory.  Unfortunately, as I use older versions, comments about CPU use, etc., in my own specific situation would not really be helpful.

Although you can now import audio into MIR Pro, it is still best, IMO, to plan on using just one computer for samples/MIR and reserve the other older or less powerful computer for your main DAW.  Sometimes, it has been suggested to get both MIR Pro and MIR 24, running the smaller MIR 24 on a second machine.  The point, though, is that you will likely want to aim for using just one slave, if that is indeed possible in your situation.

[Pyre]

Hi Noldar, thanks for responding.

As for how many tracks, that's a bit awkward to say. Generally, around six for woodwinds, eight for brass, nine for percussion, six for strings, plus one day Vienna Imperial and Vienna Choir. So that's 34 VI tracks (given the SATB choir split), plus a couple of Absynth/Prologue/Massive/Kontakt synths, and Kontakt drum, bass and guitar sample libraries I've created myself. Sometimes more, if the occasion calls for it. I can't say without trying it first how many of the non-orchestral bits would be running through MIR.

I would rather play it safe with the specs and go for something with more power than less. I noticed some had 64GB - I was about to ask about RAM limits in server OS, but then noticed I'd misread the Thinkmate comparison chart. I thought it said the limit was 4GB. Turns out it's 4TB. Nice. Is there any advantage either way to getting several smaller RAM cards or fewer larger ones? I would have thought best to get fewer, larger ones, so more can be added if necessary without having to replace existing parts.

I am thinking of using my current computer for Sibelius, sending the data to the VSTs running on the slave machine, which would then go through MIR (also on the slave), and then back to the first computer into Cubase for recording and final production touches.

If AMD chips are not up to scratch, fair enough. But if the AMD Ghz spec is higher, is it not better? Or does it fail to deliver all it promises to?

Thanks for your help.

Pyre

[noldar12]

It is not as simply as just the speed of the chip.  The speed matters for sample streaming, but the overall capability of the chip matters when it comes to calculations of effects, and particularly, for MIR Pro.

If you do a search, you will find all kinds of benchmarks for DAW use of various chips.  Check ADK's website in particular.  ADK, going back a few years, was a staunch supporter of AMD, but especially since Intel developed the i7, now very strongly back Intel, and real world results strongly favors Intel.  AMD is, at present, not competitive in the higher end (they still can be of value for limited budgets).

Especially, if you are staying under 50 tracks, are you sure that you will need a server level computer?  That sounds like it might (note the word "might") be overkill.  Granted, too much power is better than not enough, and could help in terms of longevity.

Unfortunately, given the age of my own computer, and the older software, I really cannot give you any viable direct comparisons.  Checking the ADK benchmarks will give you a rough idea of what is possible.  For my own use, I would eventually like to get the i7 3930k, but then, for what I do, I have no need to even consider a server level computer.  All I can say is that running the older MIR SE software (in essence, the older version of MIR 24 - 32 tracks, but far more limited venue and microphone options), in my own situation the i7 930 I have is decent enough.  What sort of performance I would get using MIR Pro, is unknown, and it will be awhile before that switch becomes possible.

As mentioned before, more than 24 gigs of memory would be helpful, and as you mention, one can make a good case for 64 gigs.

[Pyre]

Hi Noldar,

Thanks again for your response, without which I probably would have blundered into buying a machine not right for the job. ADK's website was indeed very useful (and very reasonably priced, given how specialist they are). Given that a server of that callibre would be closer to $8k than to $4k, I will hold off buying for the time being.

Do you think it likely that MIR would run at all on my current PC, with specs below? I am wondering if it would be better to run a few tracks at a time through MIR to keep the CPU requirement down, or better to use Vienna Suite instead and try to get a similar effect with the convolution reverbs on that, though less intuitive than the MIR interface.

So, crucial question: If I have, say, thirty VST instruments, and I run them through MIR five at a time (solo five tracks, send them through MIR, record the result as a track in my DAW, and then do the same with the next five VSTs, onto a second DAW audio track) until all 30 VSTs have been covered, would the end result sound the same as if all had run through MIR at once? Or does the presence of other instruments playing in the MIR instance affect the sound?

Many thanks for your help.

Pyre

[Dietz]

Hi Pyre,

I bought myself a new machine a few months ago for around $4k from PomTec (one of the suppliers for VSL-certified workstations -> http://vsl.co.at/en/211/497/1687/2002/2020/1707.htm). It's based on a i7 3930k, 6 * 3.2/3.8 GHz, with 32 GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM (4 memory channels). This machine runs more than 110 instruments through MIR Pro (in stereo) without problems (see this thread for more details -> http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/34315/215134.aspx#215134).

@Another User said:

So, crucial question: If I have, say, thirty VST instruments, and I run them through MIR five at a time (solo five tracks, send them through MIR, record the result as a track in my DAW, and then do the same with the next five VSTs, onto a second DAW audio track) until all 30 VSTs have been covered, would the end result sound the same as if all had run through MIR at once? Or does the presence of other instruments playing in the MIR instance affect the sound?

Many thanks for your help.

Pyre

In principle, the result should be the same audio-wise, but please don't under-estimate the psychological effects of being able to treat _all_ signal sources freely in real-time. Quite a bit of MIR Pro's "magic" 😉 comes from the unique shared GUI (a.k.a. "Venue View") for all instruments. This is a less analytic, much more intuitive approach to arranging and mixing.

HTH,

[noldar12]

Pyre, thanks for the comments.  I am in a different situation from you, and can only build what I use one "brick" at a time.  As for MIR Pro vs. Vienna Suite, again I am on the older MIR SE, and do not own Vienna Suite (though that is on the long-term purchase list).  Long-term having both would be good, as every indication is that they compliment each other very well.

Nevertheless, if I again had to choose one or the other, I would not hesitate to make the same decision again, and go with MIR over the Suite.  Mixing is not my strength, and MIR - albeit SE - is absolutely one of the most important pieces of software I have.  The mixing environment it provides is outstanding, and greatly simplfies things.

As Dietz has suggested, unless you really are needing to run hundreds (plural) of tracks at once, you really do not need a dual xeon server type of system.  Some of the high end VSL users do need one, but many of us do not.

[Pyre]

Hi Dietz and Noldar, thanks for your replies.

I am glad to know that enormous dual xeon power isn't necessarily needed, and will aim for a system along similar lines to that Dietz mentions. Are there any recommended UK-based computer builders? Import taxes are hefty, horrid things...

I would prefer to use MIR to Suite, as you say it does seem much more intuitive. But the system requirements listed for Suite were much lower - it's interesting that you say it uses just as much power (if not more) than MIR. Will neither actually work particularly well with my current spec? In that case a slave machine of some kind might be unavoidable (I'd hoped to put it off for a few months at least, if it's going to be that expensive).

Likewise, to run everything through MIR in real time and tweak it as I go would be great, if only the computer could handle it.

Noldar, I appreciate you're running a different setup and so what works for one may not work for the other, but thanks so much for your help, your input has been invaluable.

Many thanks,

Pyre

[DG]

[quote=Pyre]

I got my last three machines from [URL=http://http://www.carillonac1.com]these[/URL] guys.

DG

[mozart999uk]

[quote=Dietz]I bought myself a new machine a few months ago for around $4k from PomTec (one of the suppliers for VSL-certified workstations ->

Dietz, can I ask what else is running on this machine? Is it a slave streaming samples and running MIR?  Just a mir slave or does it also have your DAW on it?

[Dietz]

That's my main (and only) machine at the moment. Using Windows 7 as OS, I run Nuendo 5.5 alongside with MIR Pro (and everything else, from Melodyne to ReNOVAtor). Depending on the load assigned to Nuendo, the number of instruments possible inside MIR Pro may vary, of course. - I haven't done the same test under OS X on the same machine yet (with Pro Tools as host), but I assume that the numbers will be similar.

Kind regards,

[mozart999uk]

Thanks Dietz.  That's incredibly useful real world information!

Matthew