@DG said:

 the performance differential is so huge that OSX isn't an option for me. I also think that aesthetics are really personal, and personally I hate the look of OSX and Aero...!

I think you're blind or in a very small minority to challenge the Apple aesthetics as a Microsoft user. No PC owner I ever knew, during all incarnations of Windows and Mac OS has ever claimed superiority of PC aesthetics over Apple's; actually, even if they insist on using Windows for one reason or other, they always lament the absence of the sheer beauty offered by Apple. Let's also not address in detail who has been copying who GUI-wise all these years (poorly)...

However, let's say that the above remains in the eye of the beholder. I would like to ask you to comment on your point regarding the "performance differential that is so huge" between the best that both worlds have to offer. Since I have never claimed any 'techie' awards for myself, I'd like to know why that is the case. Your wording makes it sound as if there is no comparison between the two, and about that I certainly want to know. Does it only have to do with the amount of RAM currently accessible to Windows users, or is there more?

(For the sake of easy reading - please open a seperate thread for the PC vs. Mac dabate. Thanks a lot.)

@DG said:

 the performance differential is so huge that OSX isn't an option for me. I also think that aesthetics are really personal, and personally I hate the look of OSX and Aero...!

However, let's say that the above remains in the eye of the beholder. I would like to ask you to comment on your point regarding the "performance differential that is so huge" between the best that both worlds have to offer. Since I have never claimed any 'techie' awards for myself, I'd like to know why that is the case. Your wording makes it sound as if there is no comparison between the two, and about that I certainly want to know. Does it only have to do with the amount of RAM currently accessible to Windows users, or is there more?

The Holy Grail for Virtual Instrument users is performance at low latency. There are various tweaks that can be done at a BIOS level that have no equivalent on a Mac. this is why Logic can perform better on a hackintosk than on a similar Apple machine. We then have the OS to deal with. Again things can be turned off in Windows to improve performance, and the general OS is faster as well. When you add these things together there is a really large performance differential between Windows and OSX.

However, if you don't need to work at low latencies, for example if most of your work is not played live or you are mainly mixing, then the benefits are less, because there is no longer any need to work at a low buffer.

There are some illuminating comparisons and graphs available on www.dawbench.com if you are interested.

DG

@Dietz said:

(For the sake of easy reading - please open a seperate thread for the PC vs. Mac dabate. Thanks a lot.)

Dietz, I don't think there is any debate necessary. You either like the look of one operating system or the other. As far as performance is concerned the benchmarks speak for themselves.

DG

Vienna MIR didn't offer audio inputs up to now.

MIR Pro will rely on a new version of Vienna Ensemble Pro. Both will offer multiple audio-inputs and -outputs, also via LAN. Both will be deeply integrated into practically any modern DAW, much like a meta-plugin with a dedicated send/return scheme, automation, and full latency compensation (within the limits imposed by the DAW, of course).

HTH,

Quoting myself from an earlier message in this thread:

@Dietz said:

[...] We've decided to implement the possibities that were introduced with the new Hybrid Reverb into MIR, too. [...]

I was made aware of the fact that this statement is misleading. I should have written: We have decided to investigate the possibilities of implementing the features introduced with the new Hybrid Reverb into MIR Pro. We haven't come up with a final solution yet. Sorry for any confusion this little sentence might have caused.

My bad ... [:$]

@Dietz said:

Vienna MIR didn't offer audio inputs up to now.

MIR Pro will rely on a new version of Vienna Ensemble Pro. Both will offer multiple audio-inputs and -outputs, also via LAN. Both will be deeply integrated into practically any modern DAW, much like a meta-plugin with a dedicated send/return scheme, automation, and full latency compensation (within the limits imposed by the DAW, of course).

HTH,

 This is the sort on information we need. We were all just goading you into revealing secrets and you fell for it. [:D]

DG

Thanks for the info. One more post for clarification if you don't mind DG - and Dietz this is not a complete departure from topic as I'd like to know whether MIR Pro will operate properly along with and on top of everything else on the Mac, especially for demanding scores ex. Mahler 2nd.

I had a look at those pages you referred to and the comparative results were not as damning, although slightly in favour of Windows and then only DAWs available on both platforms were considered (of course); it doesn't say much about how Logic compares for similar tasks, although I read little and mostly scanned the material (quite a lot of it there). Also, from what I understood, Microsoft became more efficient than Apple only after the introduction of Windows 7, if you switched back in 2004 I am unclear as to why you decided thusly back then (if reasons were pirated software or other of course this has nothing to do with comparing the two OSs)

When you say low latency is all important to you because you play your compositions "live", what do you mean? Don't you play/sequence one instrument (even polyphonic) in at a time? Are you saying that Logic and MacOS are inadequate for that? My M.O. involves importing the MIDI of a Sibelius score into Logic and working on it thereon. So my work on the DAW consists of EQing, automation, etc. and mixing, but not with frozen tracks. All tracks are "live" tracks right up to bouncing. In addition, not mentioning RAM at all in your post, makes me assume that it is not a main concern. I'd appreciate your - and everyone else's - insights.

@Another User said:

When you say low latency is all important to you because you play your compositions "live", what do you mean? Don't you play/sequence one instrument (even polyphonic) in at a time? Are you saying that Logic and MacOS are inadequate for that? My M.O. involves importing the MIDI of a Sibelius score into Logic and working on it thereon. So my work on the DAW consists of EQing, automation, etc. and mixing, but not with frozen tracks. All tracks are "live" tracks right up to bouncing. In addition, not mentioning RAM at all in your post, makes me assume that it is not a main concern. I'd appreciate your - and everyone else's - insights.

I do play one instrument at a time, but nothing is printed until I get to the end. Obviously I could freeze instruments as I go, but then I'd have to un-freeze to edit and that would be a waste of time for me. I wouldn't be able to work this way using OSX on the computer that I have (which is sort of equivalent to a 2010 mac Pro).

However, the way that you work means that you can work at a much higher buffer so I don't think you'll have the same needs as I do.

Look, in the end the best you can do is to get the demo, when it's available, and try it for yourself.

DG

@Errikos said:

I had a look at those pages you referred to and the comparative results were not as damning, although slightly in favour of Windows and then only DAWs available on both platforms were considered (of course); it doesn't say much about how Logic compares for similar tasks, although I read little and mostly scanned the material (quite a lot of it there). Also, from what I understood, Microsoft became more efficient than Apple only after the introduction of Windows 7, if you switched back in 2004 I am unclear as to why you decided thusly back then (if reasons were pirated software or other of course this has nothing to do with comparing the two OSs)

Where are those test ?

Are they with the new VE/VI PRO ? (8008) if not you have to do them again because all disk I/O have been divides by hundreds

@DG: Thanks.

@Cyril: www.dawbench.com

Any thoughts?

@DG said:

I do play one instrument at a time, but nothing is printed until I get to the end. Obviously I could freeze instruments as I go, but then I'd have to un-freeze to edit and that would be a waste of time for me. I wouldn't be able to work this way using OSX on the computer that I have (which is sort of equivalent to a 2010 mac Pro).

However, the way that you work means that you can work at a much higher buffer so I don't think you'll have the same needs as I do.

Look, in the end the best you can do is to get the demo, when it's available, and try it for yourself.

DG

Hi DG

How did you calculate the number of voices in OSX

I would like to test that on my macpro (testing with exs on my old Macpro 2008 I had a souvenir of 800 voices)

You computer is not "sort of a Mac pro 2010" 

Today with my 2010 Mac pro I can play the "New world of Anton Dvorak , the version where tremolos are done with midi notes)" with hardly any activity (was 80% on my 2008 Macpro)

Best

Cyril

Cyril, this is all getting so OT, that I think there is not much point in discussing it further here. If you want to benchmark your machine, download the test session from www.dawbench.com but do remember to make sure you are in live mode, or the process buffer on Logic will skew your results.

DG

@Dietz said:

Vienna MIR didn't offer audio inputs up to now.

MIR Pro will rely on a new version of Vienna Ensemble Pro. Both will offer multiple audio-inputs and -outputs, also via LAN. Both will be deeply integrated into practically any modern DAW, much like a meta-plugin with a dedicated send/return scheme, automation, and full latency compensation (within the limits imposed by the DAW, of course).

HTH,

...this sounds absolutely awesome! Excitement for the upcoming release grows and grows....

And on the other hand, I really like the sound of the new hybrid reverb... but in terms of the upcoming MIR pro, (of cause just from speculating what this would mean and from experimenting with the hybrid reverb plugin during the last few weeks) it wouldn't be a feature that I am personally too much excited about (all the other features you just wrote about seem much more important to me personally...) Mainly because I love the basic idea of the MIR concept of creating a realistic (virtual) image of a room/venue rather than creating a reverb per se. Modifying this image afterwards with a extra plugin would be a different step in the processing and therefore seems much more natural to me; as if you take a live-recording and process this using all sorts of plugins. But doing so within the creation of the "live recording" per se...? I don't know... but anyway, I am sure, the actual implementation you guys come up with will be an exciting and logically completely convincing additional feature....

greetings,

Patrik

@patrik said:

[...] And on the other hand, I really like the sound of the new hybrid reverb... but in terms of the upcoming MIR pro, (of cause just from speculating what this would mean and from experimenting with the hybrid reverb plugin during the last few weeks) it wouldn't be a feature that I am personally too much excited about (all the other features you just wrote about seem much more important to me personally...) Mainly because I love the basic idea of the MIR concept of creating a realistic (virtual) image of a room/venue rather than creating a reverb per se. Modifying this image afterwards with a extra plugin would be a different step in the processing and therefore seems much more natural to me; as if you take a live-recording and process this using all sorts of plugins. But doing so within the creation of the "live recording" per se...? I don't know... but anyway, I am sure, the actual implementation you guys come up with will be an exciting and logically completely convincing additional feature.... [...]

As I said before: We are still trying to figure out a meaningful way to do this.

In principle, I share your opinion about realism. But then, even in the "Real World", orchestral recordings get sweetened with algorithmic reverb all the time. Our idea was to achieve this with the same intuitive approach as with "pure" MIR processing. A pretty intriguing concept - but its realisation is more complex (and demanding in regards of CPU cycles!) than one might think.

Let's see what we can come up with. Maybe this feature won't make it into the first incarnation of MIR Pro.

Dietz, that's what I was going to suggest. You said here a couple of pages ago that MIR Pro was essentially ready. Why not just launch it as is, and then figure out the addition of the Algorithmic reverb later on?

"Inquiring minds want to know." ... :-) ... and: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression!"

"Ready" means that the whole application works, but of course there are still some rough edges we want to take care for in an extensive testing phase.

Thanks for your interest & your patience!

Seems to me that MIR Pro will probably interest exclusively "high-end" users, most of whom already have an M7, PCM 92, or other great SW algorithmic reverb, and may well not want the Hybrid tail. And more importantly, they know how to blend different reverbs.

Your Hybrid reverb seem more of an all in one product, with the presets solving all the problems for even the brain-dread users!

Just sayin’ .....[Y]

We have already spoke of this. it's just a marketing strategy  ; cheap and a lot of user v.s. expensive and only rich studios

@jammusique said:

Seems to me that MIR Pro will probably interest exclusively "high-end" users

Don't think so. It will depend on the price, but if it remains moderate, highly improbable...