I

@vosk said:

I'm not talking about the number of tracks :), and the problem of CPU vs MIR.

May be you can slim down your orchestral template, more you have tracks more CPU resources MIR will use :)

can you give a description of all your computers including there disks where are your system and where are your different libs ?

Load also depends of your disks ? Do you use ssd ?

If you look at my configuration in my signature I have an orchestral template of 100 instruments, most of them are VI , and this with MIR in 5.1 but I use articulation switching.

Playing my test song in 5.1 with buffer in Logic set to 512, the CPU is idle between 60 to 85 %, my big template is set with preload buffer at the minimum

MIR processes only its own channels, of course using the CPU. If MIR working in Standalone mode, MIR not use resources of Host or VE PRO, only CPU. In my monstrous project with 900 tracks :) I use only 19 channels in MIR for process. (pic. http://i.minus.com/inDUeFtPQDuTq.JPG )

Its toy template is compared in this example: http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/34599/215686.aspx  :) And despite this my MIR template kills my CPU.. Reason is one - in my case MIR work does not in VE Instance and in Standalone mode.

900 tracks (midi) do not have anything to do with :)

I have a fast disсs - OCZ Revodrive X2 and X3, almost all library located on these discs. Also I have a raid-massives on ordinary discs 7200. Speed of my library discs can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nFBWTlnew  (my drives right :)) And if you know -
work with libraries of Hollywood series (eastwest) can only use these discs (or SSD-raid) and VE PRO. It is a prerequisite. :)

The problem is not speed drives or weak system or huge project, and even not loading the audio engine (ASIO).. Problem in MIR in Standalone mode, and this problem can be solved by transferring MIR to another computer.

This movie is a little bit about my problem:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0DAXKB0JMI

 Hi vosk,

just had a look at the video about your problem. I wonder if you already tried to change the audio buffer size or the MIR latency settings.

To get a better idea of what's going on on your system, it would be interesting if you could try:

- same audio buffer size, MIR latency set to 0
- larger audio buffer size, MIR latency set to 0
- larger audio buffer size and a larger MIR latency

Thank you, Florian

I have not used MIR like this, I use it in VE PRO, so I cannot help you much

my template :

@Another User said:

http://cyrilblanc.fr/VSL/orch.png

@Another User said:

Did you try to set your buffer size to 1024 in Cubase and your pre-load buffer size in directory manager to the minimum

Thank guys! I have tested all possible variants. Effectively only  increase latency of sound card.

 *

 *

But I can't set latency more than 256 :)

Hi, 

Best, 

Paul

Do you have the possibility in Cubase to "mute"/disable MIR ?

Does it improve ?

As you have a lot of free memory, you can increase Preload in Directory Manager ! [8-)]

If you had the possibility to convert your project in Logic format I could test it on my configuration

@Another User said:

If you had the possibility to convert your project in Logic format I could test it on my configuration

Unfortunately Cubase projects not convert to Logic projects and return so far.

Hi vosk, 

To be honest, I´m having a hard time to extract your questions from your postings.... Can you maybe re-phrase them in a more direct/simple way?

Best, 

Paul

lol. I do not understand too, is google translator blame :)

Paul, why did you "Vienna MIR Pro x64.dll" (vst etc.)? For what?

Hi Vosk,

that should be the plug-in version of MIR Pro: ->  http://dl.vsl.co.at/downloader.aspx?ID=14327

Kind regards,

Thank you, Dietz! And I thought you did this .dll for use MIR without VE PRO.

Yes, exactly. You can use MIR Pro as plug-in (in the formats VST, AU, RTAS and AAX) without VE Pro.

@Dietz said:

Yes, exactly. You can use MIR Pro as plug-in (in the formats VST, AU, RTAS and AAX) without VE Pro.

No, I can not. As plug-in MIR overloads CPU using about 20 channels (positions on stage) only.

Anyone use MIR as plug-in here? 😊

On a well-built, but not spectacular machine from 2012 I can use up to 150 instances and more of MIR Pro (in stereo, 44.1kHz, depending on latency settings and other applications running at the same time).

-> Intel Core i7-3930K, 32 GB RAM, Windows 7 Prof. 64bit, Nuendo 5.5.6 64bit, RME HDSP

You're using either very low latencies, or something else is peculiar on your system.

W7 x64 Ultimate, i7-3770K (3.9 mhz), 32 GB RAM, Cubase 7.5.3 x64, RME AIO (6 ms latency)

Clean C7 project, 24 (for MIR PRO 24 :)) audio-tracks (guitar groove), 24 channels (pos. on stage) in MIR (Standalone) = 60% loading CPU. (ups..)

In this case I have only 40% CPU max for everything else.

The 3770k processor is 342 $ the 3930k is 594 $

What are the differences !

One is 4 core, 8 thread and 8 MB cache the other is 6 core, 12 threads and 12 MB cache, you cannot expect the same number of tracks

Also Dietz and Paul are only using VSL instruments, they dont use CPU killing plug-ins like Play and company

Dietz or Paul : I will very interested to have a benchmark of the same project using MIR as an AU and MIR in VE, do you have the overhead ?

Wosk : I am going to be curious about the Layering film :

Why dont you use only VSL libs ?

Why are you layering all those libs ?

Why dont you take the best of each lib ?

Cyril is right about that, especially Play as it has many issues. 

oddly enough I have a similar setup in hardware, though with three slaves and a master.  I have brass, percussion, organ on one, all strings on a second and woodwinds, harp on a third. It is very easy to set up MIR separately on each slave, using the same settings.  Since they are all viewable in real time it is simple to adjust instrument positions/EQ/dry-wet, etc.  The power on these fairly modest i7 slaves each with 32 gb ram is unbelievably awesome!  Such that they are only around 10 % CPU on huge orchestral playbacks.  So  my suggestion is since you have multiple slaves to simplify the setup in a similar manner, having each with its own MIR. 

@William said:

So  my suggestion is since you have multiple slaves to simplify the setup in a similar manner, having each with its own MIR. 

Hello William

If you have multiple slave with it's own MIR, do you get back in your DAW 2 x tracks or 2 x tracks per slave ?