194,231 users have contributed to 42,914 threads and 257,938 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 14 new post(s) and 88 new user(s).
Thanks DG...
Yes I have an older MacPro. I knew I was vague when I said full orchestra but you understood what I was getting at. The reason for my question (full orchestra) was that the video demo of VE showed two instances of VE on the slave and one on the main computer running a full orchestral arrangement. I'm assuming due to the increase power of the i7 that the same arrangement used in the video would ALL run on a single slave within MIR.
Am I correct is saying that if VE & VI were developed using Cocoa for the gui development that both VE & VI would be full blown 64 bit apps able to access all the memory that is available on the Intel 64 bit Mac? The reason I am asking is that the the VSL web page states that 64 bit would be available "soon" and has stated that ever since the first release of Ensemble. That's been over a year. I wasn't sure if the VSL development team was waiting for Snow Leopard to be released or if VI and VE could be released as pure 64-bit apps now in the Leopard environment. My personal biggest frustration with VSL is I'm just not being able to utilize the 16GB I have on board and don't really want to have to load Windows in order to do so. Processor and sound card driver restraints just aren't present. Are you guys close to releasing a 64 bit version of VI & VE?
As I mentioned in my previous post, we have other dependencies beyond the OS itself, which have caused the delay in 64-bit for mac. There are however no constraints imposed on us by Leopard - it is 64-bit capable all the way.
Unfortunately, I cannot give you any date when the 64-bit mac versions (VI,VE,VEP,VS,VIP) are ready for release, but I can tell so much that they are at least running fine on my machine 😊
Hi Christian,
From your response, it sound like running MIR on my existing MacPro which has the intel Xeon Processor using Bootcamp may not be a wise choice if I also plan on sequencing off the same machine. Am I understanding you correctly to say that my MacPro would run MIR (full orchestra) via Bootcamp/Windows providing I use another computer to sequence with? To say it differently, how many instruments would I be able to run in MIR using my existing MacPro and a different computer to sequence with? Would I be able to sequence the entire orchestra or would I require multiple slaves?
I don't know if I have the Intel 5000 series. My computer stats show that I have a 2 x 3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon. Are we talking the same thing?
Chuck, I think that the biggest problem is that we all have different ideas of what a full orchestra is. For example, my template has around 120 Instruments, of which 60-70 will play in the larger tutti sections.
MIR is not designed to run on multiple slaves, so the computer that runs MIR has to be able to run the full template, whether the sequencer is on the same machine, or not.
Regarding your Mac, if you bought it during the last couple of months, then it uses the newer dual i7. if it was last year, it doesn't.
DG
I have been waiting for MIR quite a long time, but this has really put me off. I still can't figure out how I can run a terribly HUGE orchestral template like the ones I like to work with, included with at least 3 to 5 fx inserted on each track, and at the same time run MIR(another monster). Right now, I have two workstations exclusively for Vienna instruments. Between them, a 16GB orchestral template runs smoothly, including fx processing, as already mentioned(all through VE3). 7 altiverbs run on another machine. I was hoping that MIR could have a workstation for its own, and perhaps stream all the required data through lan, just like VE3. Well, I still haven't given up on MIR premium though.(Since it will be able to host 3rd party plugins, and other audio signals, well, who knows). fingers crossed
Thanks for the reply Martin. I guess at this point I can only hope that the release is soon (like days/weeks). My 3-year warranty will run out on my machine before I'm able to utilize it to it's full potential using VI (which is why I bought the machine to begin with).....
@hose said:
I have been waiting for MIR quite a long time, but this has really put me off. I still can't figure out how I can run a terribly HUGE orchestral template like the ones I like to work with, included with at least 3 to 5 fx inserted on each track, and at the same time run MIR(another monster). Right now, I have two workstations exclusively for Vienna instruments. Between them, a 16GB orchestral template runs smoothly, including fx processing, as already mentioned(all through VE3). 7 altiverbs run on another machine. I was hoping that MIR could have a workstation for its own, and perhaps stream all the required data through lan, just like VE3. Well, I still haven't given up on MIR premium though.(Since it will be able to host 3rd party plugins, and other audio signals, well, who knows). fingers crossed
Two things spring to mind. Why would you need fx and Altiverb on each track? MIR is designed to take care of all the reverb and placement needs. I would imagine that you would only need EQ (for all tracks) and possible some compression on other selected tracks, and maybe on some of the busses.
DG
@hose said:
I have been waiting for MIR quite a long time, but this has really put me off. I still can't figure out how I can run a terribly HUGE orchestral template like the ones I like to work with, included with at least 3 to 5 fx inserted on each track, and at the same time run MIR(another monster). Right now, I have two workstations exclusively for Vienna instruments. Between them, a 16GB orchestral template runs smoothly, including fx processing, as already mentioned(all through VE3). 7 altiverbs run on another machine. I was hoping that MIR could have a workstation for its own, and perhaps stream all the required data through lan, just like VE3. Well, I still haven't given up on MIR premium though.(Since it will be able to host 3rd party plugins, and other audio signals, well, who knows). fingers crossed
Two things spring to mind. Why would you need fx and Altiverb on each track? MIR is designed to take care of all the reverb and placement needs. I would imagine that you would only need EQ (for all tracks) and possible some compression on other selected tracks, and maybe on some of the busses.
DG
Hi DG. Actually, I don't have Altiverb on each channel. I run 7 Altiverbs on another machine rather than the VSL machines. On the VSL machines, I use Vienna Suite on each INSTRUMENT. Usually its EQ, compression, sometimes exciter, and of course the panner. If for instance I am playing double stops, I will have a double on the same instrument, grouped into a bus, and I will run the fx on the bus ofcourse. The VSL machine's CPU is very comfortable. I think it never reaches 20%, but I am using a LOT of ram between the two VSL machines. And MIR is hungry for both RAM and CPU. Therefore, if I purchase an i7 with 12 GB ram, load a mir hall, that instantly eats up around 8GB of ram, and who know regarding CPU power, whats left for massive template?
Martin,
Using the 64-Bit VE and VI on the MacPro Intel platform, are you able to load instrument in such that you are using or able to use ALL the memory available on your system and not limited to the 2.5GB as is currently with VE?
I must of missed the post Colin. Glad to hear we're moving forward in the process. Been a long wait..... Thanks for the update.
Thanks Martin. One other question..... If I use a single i7 slave computer and my MacPro 8-core for sequencing, considering your testing, will MIR be able (on a single slave i7 computer) to handle the exact same template that was used in the VE Tutorial Demo where a slave had two instances of VE and an instance of VE on the Sequence Machine? I'm trying to obtain a baseline as to how large a template, we the users can have if we purchase an i7 PC for a slave and use MIR for ALL orchestral template needs. I think your Video Tutorial would make a great baseline to work from or will the template need to be scaled back due to CPU resources on the Slave i7 PC considering that all the Reverb processing will be accomplished on the slave?
I ask this because I'm not sure if your using the same reverb engine for MIR that you have for the Vienna Suite Reverb but I have noticed a significant increase in CPU usage when using the VSL reverb in a template compared to Altiverb (Todd-AO). In using only 16 channels of a single VE instance and having the reverb run within Cubase, comparing the two, my CPU goes from approx 35% to 60%, just switching reverbs. I hope you understand my concerns and want to understand expectations before I make another computer purchase. Thanks in advance for your response.
With the current MIR design, it won't be just a matter of adding another slave to increase template size as with VE..... one slave will need to handle everything -- if I'm understanding correctly how MIR is going to work.....
Martin,
Will VE-Pro have the ability when used as a plug-in to have more than 16 MIDI channels available as it does as a stand-alone? If VE-Pro is not memory constraint, then it would be nice to have all the instruments required (as much as available memory will allow) in a single instance of VE plugged into the sequencer for audio return. Please advise......
Thanks