Hi Galen Weston,

sorry to hear about your problems. Let's go through them step-by-step, to make sure I understand you correctly.

First of all - I still don't  know exactly whether you're talking about Vienna MIR Pro used as part of Vienna Ensemble Pro, or the plug-in version of MIR Pro. I assume it's the latter.

Furthermore, please tell us what OS-version you're using (you wrote that you're using a Windows-system as well as a Mac), and whether it's 32 bit or 64bit. Knowing your audio system could help, too.

@Another User said:

I have the latest Mac Pro with 32 gigs of ram and a very fast PC with 64 gigs of ram (all SSD drives) and DS string with Orchestral Violas, Cellos and Bass can not really run with Mir Pro with the midi tracks. Galen

If the problem persists, please send a mail to  to make sure that the issue gets the full attention of VSL's support team (the forum is mainly meant as a communication platform, not as an official technical support channel).

Kind regards,

One more update. 

I was running DP @ 96k. After all if I spent all this money to have 192 then why run at 48k?

That seems to have been the issue.

MIR Pro just closed itself when I shut DP. Performance meter is way down.

When I click on the Audio setting page it does not crash it just takes a while because I soon as the audio setting window opens. MIR PRO and VEpro close all the instances and re-opens them...that is probably a bug.

Any thoughts about the 96K? Should I not be able to run at that level?

Galen

I was about to write another answer (mainly asking about your latency settings), but I just saw your second message before I posted it.

I'll give it a try @ 96 kHz now. I can't test 192 kHz at the moment, though.

Thanks for your patience, I'll be back in a few minutes.

I recently worked with 96 Hz too; it needs lot of more CPU power than at 44,1 kHz or even 48 kHz. Only 4 Audio instances at 96 kHz have a usage of 30% - 40% (X58, 12 core, HT on, Win7, using motu4pre interface).

But I think it's normal. I suppose the other problems with some crashs of MIR right now are related to huge projects; only some crashs on trying to delete a channel are weird, even some crashs on closing a project, mostly after changes of buffer settings during the work.

kind regards

Frank

It's true that 96 kHz is twice as demanding as 48 kHz. Still there should be _plenty_ of power on the systems mentioned in this thread.

I made a quick test with the sampling rate set to 96 kHz just a few minutes ago. I've been using OSX 10.8.4, Nuendo 5.5, RME HDSPe on an i7-3930K (3.2 GHz) with 32 GB RAM (1600). Graphics card is NVDIA GeForce 640. Both the system's and MIR Pro's latency were set to 1024 samples. I could easily run 32 instances of MIR Pro, with the VST Performance staying solid below 70%.

Click on the thumbnail to see the screenshot (then click a second time for full resolution):

[url=http://postimg.org/image/rxz5r7j5x/][img]http://s18.postimg.org/rxz5r7j5x/32_channels_of_MIR_Pro_96_k_Hz.jpg[/img][/url]

BTW - Nuendo closed without any issues, and so did MIR Pro.

Right now I can't see any problems related to MIR Pro, sorry to say so. Are there any other peculiarities we have to take into account? Other applications running simultaneously, network activity, etc. ...?

Kind regards,

PS - I can run about 140 stereo-instances of MIR Pro @ 44.1 kHz on the same system.

@Galen Weston said:

[...]

Any thoughts about the 96K? Should I not be able to run at that level?

FWIW: Personally, I think it doesn't make much sense to use 96 kHz for anything than delicate recordings of acoustic instruments with lots of harmonics above 20 kHz. If you ask me, I would use 48 or even 44.1 kHz day in, day out when working with virtual instruments. The processing power gained is worth it.

... yes, there _is_ a difference, and I can hear it, but (after over 25 years of audio engineering) the difference for me is always less than _one_ move of an EQ on a single channel could provoke.

 Just my 0.02 € ... 😉

Best,

What happens to your example with 32 point floating point?

Theoretically the performance should be even better, due to the fact that the internal format of the DAW as well as the plug-in is 32 bit FP anyway. In reality, there will be little to no difference.