And I agree with him.
Far from being an elite product, it seems VSL is trying to work with all of us, by configuring programming in such a way that mkaes it possible to get the best out of the samples, and provide a workaround the limitations in soft and hardware, so we don't have to.
I see that as something for everybody.
Our collective continuing problem is the inability of the hardware to keep up.
The common sense, non elistist approach, is to bolt on another machine, with the advantage of additional processor(s) and ram. Even i understand that.
And what's an additional Pc cost these days?
500 pounds for something reasonable that's capable of running MIR? Say 750 pounds, for a dual processor, multigig ram spec, for a program that Sir Dave of Langeles rightly says will actually do what we've been trying to muddle through with in stereo, no matter how 'enhanced' that stereo may be?
I see it as a simple solution to a challenge that's been going on for years, and as Sir Dave also said the solution gets even easier with presets.
Turn on, select preset, play orchestra with everyone sitting in the right place spacially, not in one long aural line across the front of the stage.
As as i wrote earlier, i'm keen to finish the project by finding out if it's possible to place samplers across the 'boxes', sharing the load, and increase the available track count.
Far from being elitist, i'm getting the impression we're all closer than ever before to realising the dream of everything working at once, without having to workaround.
The price of VSL is a serious but sensible figure for a serious and sensible investment. I would think it sensible to purchase a setup that allows VSL to be the Rolls it is, and not handle like a Ford.
3 Boxes, shared load, and the potential for no freezing or bouncing?
I can live with that.
Regards to you all,
Alex.