MIR vs VEPro

[jstaczek]

I've been using VEPro for a while now, but having finally gone to an Intel Mac just started looking at MIR. I don't understand how the two are supposed to be used together. Does MIR replace VEPro as a host? Does it route MIDI and audio over the network like VEPro? Or is the idea that you do the sequencing in VEPro then use MIR at a later stage to produce a mix? If so, do you have to recreate your metaframes in MIR? Or will MIR load your VEPro metaframes?

Sorry for the confusion but even after viewing the videos I seem to be missing some fundamental concepts!

Thanks,

Jason

[Dietz]

Thanks for your interest in Vienna MIR, Jason.

In principle, it's very easy: Vienna MIR replaces Vienna Ensemble as host for virtual instruments. The biggest difference is that MIR has to be used stand-alone. MIDI is routed into MIR on behalf of a small third-party application called LoopBe30 (if you plan to use a sequencer on th same machine), or using one of the usual concepts like MIDI-over-LAN or (old-school) conventional MIDI-cables (if the sequencer resides on a different computer). Audio is channeled into another audio application via Audio Out / Audio In. MIR won't load VEP meta-frames, but of course you can load the presets you saved for your instruments and save the project as template for your work.

Several people started to do their sequencing in VEP, switching to MIR in a later stage (mostly due to performance- and latency-related reasons), but most MIR users agree upon the fact that you arrange diefferently (and more easily) when you hear the "proper" space around your music from the very beginning. :-)

BTW - the upcoming Vienna MIR Pro will have advanced features for working via LANs, and the option for tight integration as mixing frontend in many populars DAWs.

HTH,

[jstaczek]

That does help, but let me see if I can clarify a few things.

When you say people have started in VEP but then switched to MIR because performance and latency reasons, are you saying that MIR standalone on the same machine is giving better performance and less latency than VE Pro on slave machines? Or that they sequence in VE Pro because it has better performance and lower latency, but they then switch to MIR for the better mix? As you suggest (and as the MIR Pro suggests) it seems like it would be better to use MIR from the start, if possible.

My direct question is this:

I'm starting a new orchestral film score in Cubase and am trying to decide whether to stick with VE Pro or try MIR. I understand how to integrate VE Pro with Cubase. With MIR, I see MIDI is handled with LoopBe30. But to get audio back into Cubase to print cues I would have to route *out* of the machine through an audio interface, then back into Cubase through an audio interface? 

For projects starting from scratch like this, what is the recommendation from the user community? Sequence directly into MIR, or continue with VE Pro and switch to MIR to mix?

Thanks,

Jason

[DG]

 Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but unless you are running Windows on your Intel Mac, you can't use MIR anyway.

DG

[jstaczek]

Not at all stating the obvious! I totally missed that. I just saw Intel Core 2 Duo and didn't even register that it was Windows only. Well, that makes it easy. Hopefully MIR Pro will be Mac and PC. Thanks very much for pointing that out!

Jason

[Dietz]

@jstaczek said:

[...] Hopefully MIR Pro will be Mac and PC. [...]

Yes, this will be one of Vienna MIR Pro's key features. Right now, MIR ist meant to be used standalone as an advanced spatial mixing engine, much like you would integrate an external mixing console into your setup (with the big difference that this mixing console is able to host your VSTi's, too).

Right now, quite a few MIR users have the application running under BootCamp'ed Windows 7 on a Mac, with good results, though 😊

Kind regards,