@hetoreyn said:

I volunteer to field test MIR on my Quad Mac! [:P]

Pleeeeeaaasseeeee!!!

AFAIK PC only ATM...........

DG

Well .. in that case, I volunteer to field test the first version of the MIR on Mac.

@cm said:

alex, it is too early for assumptions regarding *distributed processing* or similar. basically we encounter the same problems here for audio-rendering than with video-rendering - only arithmetical processes which are absolutely independant can be performed on different processors and therefore parallel. it might be possible, if an abstraction layer can be found which presents several processors as a single CPU to the process - the other way around is much easier and already common practice.
christian

Interesting. Given, as you say CM, the requirement for completely independent arithmetical processess, and the challenge of developing an abstraction layer to present multiple CPU's as a single entity, (I gather this is the problem with software like Logic, it can't use more than one CPU for the difficulty of sync)
then wouldn't a master/slave setup change that relationship and forego the need to find a way of 'mirroring' the algorithmic process?

i.e. Mir runs on the master until a percentage (75%/) of resource peaks, then the slave 'kicks in', indepndent of CPU alignment, and only synced with a MIR built in 'midi' type process?
Output, i understand, will ultimately come through the master, as we would need a 'single' source, (unless two machines are synced output to an external mixer, but that would defeat the purpose of the whole MIR construct anyway) but if, in the process of managing the 'throughput' from input source (i.e. 4 pc's generating audio signal) we use two machies instead of one, with the slave only as a means of using more RAM/CPU etc., then doesn't this effectively increase the chance of mixing and placing all input live, without bounce, frezze, or some other suspended stasis inducing method? I'm thinking about an orchestral soundscape here.
I don't know what you know about cars CM, but the analogy of the slave as a 'turbo charger' seems to match what i'm trying to say. As we want more power, the turbo kicks in, in harmony with the original 'engine'.

I'm wondering as well, if a slave 'node' for MIR would be worth thinking about.

I don't know enough about the mathematics of computer process to present this is a more intelligent fashion, so please forgive me the ignorance i show, in the lack of relevant terminology

Regards,

Alex.

@hetoreyn said:

Well .. in that case, I volunteer to field test the first version of the MIR on Mac.

This is an interesting point.

Assuming that MIR is being tested at the moment on Windows XP (I'll assume this until Dietz let's something slip [:D] ) then this is almost legacy technology with Vista being released later this year. IMO it wouldn't make sense to bother with the current Macs as they are already legacy technology. If MIR requires it's own machine there seems to be no advantage in buying an "old" MAC at twice the price of a similar spec PC when all you can run on it is MIR.

However, there would be plenty of reasons to wait for MacIntel desktops to be released as these are likely to be the standard Macs for the next few years.

DG

Hmm. that would suck serious donkey b*lls for us current mac owners. (I think I hear some mummers of asent in the background there.) Considering that it'll be at least a year before there is a Macintel powermac that is as powerful as the current Quad system. (That's an opinion prevalent in the maccast forum). Intel don't even have a dual Core ship that operates at 2.5 ghz or above yet.

I see no reason why a universal binary version couldn't be done so that those who own, at least the Dual Chip and Dual Core systems can use MIR.

That way both Power PC and Intel mac owners could use it.

I have a seriously powerful machine here and I'd very much like to have MIR on it. And I would put good money on the fact that a Quad Mac could run MIR. There may be problems with running logic on two dual core chips, but there are the nodes which allow sharing of CPU power. I'd rather have to connect another Mac into my setup. And universal binary app would mean everyones happy. Look at how many studios use Mac's.

Yes yes, minority and all that though we are, what was the point of making the VSL and the VI available to mac if the MIR doesn't come with it. That's like having the cake but not being allowed the icing.

I'm not having a go or anything. But seriously you guys at VSL will be making alot of people happy if you release MIR to Mac PPC and Intel. And hell you'd be missing out on my money, cos I'll have to go buy Alitverb instead [:P]

@hetoreyn said:

Hmm. that would suck serious donkey b*lls for us current mac owners. (I think I hear some mummers of asent in the background there.) Considering that it'll be at least a year before there is a Macintel powermac that is as powerful as the current Quad system. (That's an opinion prevalent in the maccast forum). Intel don't even have a dual Core ship that operates at 2.5 ghz or above yet.

I see no reason why a universal binary version couldn't be done so that those who own, at least the Dual Chip and Dual Core systems can use MIR.

That way both Power PC and Intel mac owners could use it.

I have a seriously powerful machine here and I'd very much like to have MIR on it. And I would put good money on the fact that a Quad Mac could run MIR. There may be problems with running logic on two dual core chips, but there are the nodes which allow sharing of CPU power. I'd rather have to connect another Mac into my setup. And universal binary app would mean everyones happy. Look at how many studios use Mac's.

Yes yes, minority and all that though we are, what was the point of making the VSL and the VI available to mac if the MIR doesn't come with it. That's like having the cake but not being allowed the icing.

I'm not having a go or anything. But seriously you guys at VSL will be making alot of people happy if you release MIR to Mac PPC and Intel. And hell you'd be missing out on my money, cos I'll have to go buy Alitverb instead [:P]

I don't think that it is anything to do with Macs and PCs. Dietz has said that the big problem is the fact that there is not a commercial machine yet built that can run it effectively. It matters not whether it is a Mac or PC. Yes, the Quad Macs are powerful and are now just about up to the speed of the high spec PCs, but they are not faster. So it you can't run it on a top flight PC, you can't run it on a top flight MAC either.

If it requires it's own machine you can't run it on the same machine as Logic anyway, so why does it matter what sort of machine it is? All of us are going to have to buy a separate machine. Would you prefer to buy some dedicated hardware so that you aren't seen to be buying a PC, or would you rather buy a cheaper machine?

And while we're discussing this, Altiverb is in no way designed as substitute for MIR, so you would be missing out just because you were too proud (or whatever the problem really is) to get a PC.

DG

It is not about Mac vs. PC, believe me. The decision is easy to explain: It is much harder to modify a Mac than a PC to come closer to the specs we need.

Apart from that: You should consider the MIR-machine to be some kind of dedicated hardware - in fact, technically it would make little difference to run MIR under some kind of Unix-derivate. It's just the most convenient way to take the MS/PC-route.

Aye. I'm looking at Altiverb now as an alternative. Having a go of the demo.

I guess your right. A dedicated machine for MIR seems to be the way to go, considering what you have said about it's performance needs.

What can I say, I'm protective over my Mac Pride [[:P]]

But trust me, I'm not too proud to invest in the stuff necessary to run MIR. I had honestly thought that it would run as Space Designer or Altiverb does. I wasn't really aware that it really sucks up the 'ol juice so much.

Perhaps you guys should really think about doing MIR as a rack mount hardware machine. I think that's been suggested before. Now it seems only sensible [[:P]]

Anyways, back to my headache and mixing.

@hetoreyn said:

...What can I say, I'm protective over my Mac Pride [:P]...

Couldn't agree more [:D] [:D] [:D]

@hetoreyn said:

[...] Perhaps you guys should really think about doing MIR as a rack mount hardware machine. I think that's been suggested before. [...]

Yes, this has been suggested before, and if you go back in our forum's archive, there has been an in-depth, VSL-internal discussion during almost two years wether we should take the plunge and design our own DSP-based hardware. But in the end, we decided that we are a _software_ company - and that we want to remain one (at least as long as possible).