What does that mean, "when computers are fast enough?" What if that's what the developers of 3D Studio Max and Maya said? The art of filmmaking would not have advanced as it has.

There must be more that's holding MIR back than simply the limitations of today's computers. If that [i]is[/i] the reason, does that mean a network of multiple computers would also not be fast enough? Would offline processing take days or weeks or worse?

No disrespect is meant here, but we've been left hanging for quite some time.

I suspect there isn't a commercially viable releasable product yet.

If it's too expensive and doesn't integrate with the DAW seamlessly - most users, I suspect, want single box solutions using plug-ins for their audio production - then  will there be enough potential purchasers? I would guess that convolution reverbs have caused a huge reduction in the purchase of £10,000 Lexicon Reverbs.

Also if it's dedicated to the VSL sample as a programme source does that move it away from large scale studios to the type of production environment  habitated by sample users bringing us full circle to  " most users, I suspect, want single box solutions using plug-ins for their audio production" !

Also if it is PC only this may limit sales - without  starting a mac/pc thread bringing a PC into a Mac environment may be a turn off for Mac based users (in the same way PC users having to buy a Mac based unit for a single function).

Still VSL should be applauded, and encouraged, for their development work in pushing forward the boundaries.

Julian 

network rendering is not an option for a realtime application (at least if we try to keep it payable).

the penryns are said to be twise as fast as the latest XEONs, though one had always to add for which task exactly, but this means we are getting a good step further. without wanting to say too much: offline rendering won't take days ;-)

christian

I would have no problem to record all VIs first (and hear with W2 e.g.) and then, when the mix is ready, make the step and use MIR offline for creating the concert hall orchestra sound.

More important factors for me and surely several other users would be

- the price

- the technical requirements

- the possibility of handling other sound sources than VSL VIs - audio tracks and VST-Plugins from other manufacturers).

But I know - we live in the age of hurry and convenience - even concerning to music production [;)]

@julian said:

Also if it is PC only this may limit sales - without  starting a mac/pc thread bringing a PC into a Mac environment may be a turn off for Mac based users (in the same way PC users having to buy a Mac based unit for a single function).

Julian 

@Ginge said:

Is it a technical issue or a manpower-problem that is behind the pc-only decision? They must be missing quite a big crowd of potential buyers by doing it so I guess there's a good reason.

Ginge

@Ginge said:

Is it a technical issue or a manpower-problem that is behind the pc-only decision?

at the time the basic decisions have been made the intel Macs have not even been suspected and the PPC have obviously been at a dead end (IBM did not issue the new PPC multi core processors to third parties)

on one hand the already known hunger for CPU power and forseeable road map for intel processors has affected this decision, on the other hand it was clear R&D cannot happen for 2 platforms simultaneously.

finally seeing apple also on intel this turned up to have been a wise decision and now it is as it is, fortunately no development resources have been wasted ...

further decisions about platforms will be made when time has come - any outlook is useless regarding apple's secret and fickle development policy - their road map is simply not calculatable.

christian

@cm said:

any outlook is useless regarding apple's secret and fickle development policy - their road map is simply not calculatable.

That's true! I'm glad I not in your shoes. Hope you will be able to get Apple to work with you though. Good luck

@Dietz said:

All this leaves not much to add than - uummm - "Yes"! :-)

/Dietz

Hey Dietz!

What would it leave to add, when I said the following:

Since streaming multiple audio channels to the mir machine via ethernet would be taking away quite a lot of CPU power, it would be more likely to be done via hardware digital I/Os (ADAT,Madi,...). Would that leave you with a "uumm - "Yes!"", too??? [;)]

I'm asking, because I need to know for the audiosetup of my studio. I certainly don't expect yout to say anything about mir itself - got that. But since it is very likely to be released in this year, it would be nice to know, wether it's wasted money to go for a DSP ADAT sollution on the vienna slave(s).

Fritz. 

@Another User said:

[...] will you be able to connect a mac with these firewire connections to a PC running mir?

... though currently it seems the firewire chip manufacturers are troubling us more than any OS issue does ....

too bad such a great protocol (responsibly developed by apple btw and invented for streaming) gets screwed up by a handful profiteers ...

christian

I'm curious, why not use an Ethernet protocol instead? FW busses in most computers are already pre-ocupied with other tasks, and I wonder how stable such an solution would really be? 

some things to consider:

ethernet has been invented for reliably receiving data, firewire for realtime streaming, ethernet needs configured identity of hosts (IPs), firewire is autoconfiguring (deviceIDs), ethernet puts a tic more load on the processor than firewire, ethernet packages can collide (get dropped and resent), firewire works basically *timesliced*

128 tracks 44.1/24 need 16 MB/s which is below the limit of both connection types and it depends on the circumstances beyond which load dropouts will occure.

last but not least: ethernet support or resolving connection problems can be tricky, firewire works or not.

on the other hand: if the issues with firewire continue as they came up lately maybe we should drop it ....

christian