194,415 users have contributed to 42,920 threads and 257,965 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 10 new post(s) and 82 new user(s).
MIRx to me looks as some sort of easy to use tool as well as being kind of an appetizer for the big MIR. That being said I keep wondering about something:
When using MIR Pro all the audio data is streamed into the MIR software and being processed in one big Plug In.
When using MIRx then each single instance of VI has to proces audio data on its own, which to me seems to be much more demanding, CPU-wise.
Can anyone comment on this?
Although there are many variables to consider, it is safe to say that under comparable circumstances MIRx and MIR Pro will tax the CPUs to the same extent (more or less).
This is easy to grasp, considering that the basic idea of MIR is _not_ to have one "reverb" which all signals get sent into, but to use highly individualized sets of impulse responses for each and every instrument. This principle is the same for MIRx and MIR Pro (24). The latter offers this nice global interface for all single instances, that's true - still each signal source is treated individually. :-)
HTH,
Ok, tank you. Here's a follow-up question:
I never tested MIR or MIRx until present, so my assumption could be wrong ... I imagine MIR Pro as a big box that collects the audio streams from all your VI tracks, does some math to it, and returns you a stereo mix of your whole project, hence it is "all or nothing at all" - either your machine is capable of handling all the audio data, or it isn't. There is no use to "freeze" individual tracks including the MIR reverb, because it is always the whole big MIR engine running - no matter how many tracks you use.
As MIRx is built into each instance of VI you simply can turn it off while you are still working on your project and use some standard Reverb on the main output of your DAW. When it comes to mixing, you turn on the MIRx-Button in all your tracks and bounce-in-place them one after another, which gives you the opportunity to use the MIR technology on slower machines.
Or am I wrong and MIR Pro works in a different way?
Hi MassMover,
the "one big box" paradigm was true in the early days of Vienna MIR. Since the introduction of MIR Pro several years ago, and especially since the release of its plug-in version, which doesn't have to rely on Vienna Ensemble Pro, you can have individual tracks processed by MIR Pro, you can switch off individual MIR Pro instances one-by-one, and you can freeze channels you don't need to change anymore.
Kind regards,
[...] I know that the system requirements are an i5 or higher processor and 8 GB Ram. I did the recomended settings on soundcard buffer size and MIRx latency but the forty one VI instances are too much. And my question: Is it the processor or will I find the solution with more ram? Thanks.
Basically, all MIR-products work best with lots of raw processing power, which means that you will benefit a lot from faster CPUs. One should add that the amount of RAM _is_ important, but this will depend on the chosen Venue. Halls with very short reverb tails (like some of the studios) will need considerably less RAM than a cathedral like Steinhofkirche. And don't forget that the _speed_ of RAM is an decisive factor, too: Faster RAM will make it easier for your CPUs to get hold of the necessary data, so this might be an additional bottleneck.
HTH,
