@DG said:
Jules, for me the point is how do you run at a lower buffer whilst programming? Do you switch something off? Can you switch something off? My sessions have around 120 instruments, often with 70 or so playing at the same time, so this is really important to me. Currently I just work without reverb and plugs whilst programming, and then raise the buffer for mixing.
Hi DG, Sapkiller
Obviously, if a system doesn't really have the grunt to run MIR, then it's going to be a struggle from the get-go. You also can't (I don't think) turn off the reverb component of MIR altogether and work without it until you're ready to mix, although there are different rooms and some may be heavier or lighter on the CPU than others (again I'd have to check this). The MIR engine and audio engine seem to be very tightly integrated, so I'm not sure how practical it would be do disable the MIR engine altogether, although I agree that perhaps having a 'dummy' room which reduced the MIR overhead as much as possible would be very useful.
The number of instruments loaded in MIR doesn't really seem to have a big bearing on CPU overhead - it's how many are playing simultaneously that determines CPU load. Therefore loading up your template shouldn't be a problem. If the system could not cope with running the entire arrangement at the buffer size you wanted to work at, you would need to do your MIDI input work within more managable sections, ie. muting any less critical parts whilst you wrote.
The alternative is to run everything at a higher buffer setting - I ran some tests at 512ms and couldn't get anywhere near the ceiling of the system you see in my sig (50 VI's running simultaneously, all loaded with perf-legato-all, perf-legato-speed or perf-universal matrices - ie. lots of complex scripts running - used about 55% CPU load). I also found that working at 512ms was perfectly acceptable for writing; heck I've spent years programming beats and doing dance production at 512ms and above and never had a problem.
Taking that further, if I had a slower system, I personally would be happy working at 512ms when writing, muting the odd part and living with ocassional overloads and then increasing the buffer to say 1024 when I was ready to mix. I guess the answer is to keep an eye on the performance people are seeing from different setups and try and find a performance sweet-spot that fits the budget.
I guess the bottom line is that if you feel you need to work at very low buffer settings (256ms and below), use very large arrangements, and can't bear the thought of muting a few parts whilst you write, then you will need a very powerful system to work within MIR, or you would need to work in VE and then transpose your arrangement into MIR when it's complete. I'd say this is a fairly extreme scenario though.
I hope this helps a little.
Jules