@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

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?

Yes.

Hi Chuck. How are you doing?

Paul posted a few weeks ago informing us that we wouldn't be constrained by the memory limitations, even when using VE Pro with OSX.4.

Colin

@MS said:

Yes.

Too slow on the typing!

@ct1961 said:

Paul posted a few weeks ago informing us that we wouldn't be constrained by the memory limitations, even when using VE Pro with OSX.4.

Well, you will need at least Leopard (10.5).

Hi Martin

I did ask at the time whether we would have to upgrade to 10.5 and was told "no".

Colin

Sorry Martin

I posted re snow leopard, not leopard hence the (my) confusion.

Colin

Sounds GREAT - Can't WAIT!!!

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.

I like the latest offering on your site Chuck. Keep it up.

Colin

Thanks Colin.....

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

@Chuck Green said:

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

If you really mean VE Pro, then it is already the case that multiple MIDI ports are possible. The only exception to this is for those people using AU, and this is because of the limitation imposed by the AU spec.

DG

@DG said:

If you really mean VE Pro, then it is already the case that multiple MIDI ports are possible. The only exception to this is for those people using AU, and this is because of the limitation imposed by the AU spec.

Woops, I mean MIR.  I was thinking of VE-PRO only having 16 Midi channels in the AU spec when using Logic.  Was wondering if MIR when implemented on the Mac will have the same limitation or is there a solution around this?  Cubase & Pro-Tools - there is not an issue.

AFAIK, the 16 channel limit is for plugins, so if MIR is implemented for OSX as a standalone, there should be no problem. If it is a plugin, you will have the same limitations as VE Pro.

DG

That's what I thought.......  Thanks..