Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

194,315 users have contributed to 42,914 threads and 257,953 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 13 new post(s) and 81 new user(s).

  • MIR and QUAD G5's

    Now that the Quad G5's are out a quick question can someone from the VSL team comment as to whether a 2.3ghz quad G5 will be able to run a full instance of MIR in real time or whether offline rendering will still be required for a computer of that speed. Are we waiting for Quad Intel 5ghz's or what??

    Miklos.

  • The initial MIR will be PC only.

    DG

  • hehe - something like that ....
    well, dietz mentioned somewhen that at least the first version of MIR will run on intel (i'll don't go into details here). online rendering for an *orchestral* number of tracks using _multi_ impulse responses ... had to be an extremely efficient code to get this job done ... just my 2c
    some kind of *preview* mode seems to me to be possible with such kind of beasts you mention ...
    christian

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • OH I SEE NA

    It's like dat.

    Alright then, so what we'll need to wait for 2007-2008 TOTL machines. Even though I own a G5, I have to say, good idea to make it intel only, I assume that there will be a mac version in that case even if it is a few months after the initial release.

    Cool, thanks that answers my question, just curious about where we are with all that.

    Miklos.

  • I get the feeling that MIR may be designed as if it was a standalone piece of gear, so if that is the case, it doesn't really matter what platform you are running it from, so it might as well be the fastest and cheapest. The operating system would be irrelevant.

    DG

  • last edited
    last edited

    @Another User said:

    The operating system would be irrelevant

    somehow true and somehow not ... even the tiniest micro controller (embedded chip) eg. in your refrigerator ourdays uses some kind of operating system. most of them use the taste embedded linux. unfortunately not the first choice for audio.
    maybe we *smelled* the *in-constance* of mac-OS and focused our efforts on intel - good luck, ey?
    to *operate* MIR you would need an interface, an interface would need some kind of operating system. we don't like to develop operating systems, we take what we get [;)]
    christian

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • True, but in the olden days with my farm of AKAI S5000 machines, I never really cared what the operating system was, as long as I could find my way round the GUI [:)]

    DG

  • last edited
    last edited

    @DG said:

    I get the feeling that MIR may be designed as if it was a standalone piece of gear [...]

    Yes, it boils down to this. There's still a small chance that there will be _some_ kind of dedicated hardware involved, but actually we try to avoid this. After all, we are a software company - at least up to now ...

    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • Some people buy macs for political reasons as crazy as that may sound to some and they have a personal boycott against using MS.

    I for one hope there is a mac version as well.

    I think there are a lot of poeople who will, when they purchase MIR, will try to run everything on the same machine by mixing down their instruments into stereo pairs to feed into MIR as audio only (say 8 - 12 stereo tracks however MIR works) and then mix down in redering mode rather than buy a whole new machine to be able to do it in real time. I would probably do that. I hope there's no dedicated hardware involved. CPU's are going to continue getting exponentially more powerful with multicore machines and true 64 bit systems right down to the last peices of software in line over the next few years.

    Or maybe i've got the whole concept upside down and that just won't be possible I don't know, but I'm sure even on a painfully *slow* machine like an intel equivalent of a quad G5 3ghz one should be able to mix down multi instrument parts offline?? No need to answer that question, speculation I know, just have to wait and see.

  • last edited
    last edited

    @mpower88 said:

    Some people buy macs for political reasons as crazy as that may sound to some and they have a personal boycott against using MS.


    Which I find slightly strange, considering how much of Apple Bill Gates owns [[:|]]

    DG

  • Bill gates may own apple but he doesn't run it as far as I know. Further, my issue is with microsoft, the way the PC industry in general operates, windows, the philosophy behind each these elements, in have various issues with various areas of it, but I prefer to buy apple products, there are plenty of worse characters to hate than even bill gates, I mean did you see that video link I posted on the forum a while back with the number 2 (i mean second in charge not POS) doing a mini king kong on a dangerous cocaine high!

  • last edited
    last edited

    @DG said:

    The initial MIR will be PC only.

    DG


    I really fail to see how a Mac can be said to 'not be good enough' or 'efficient' enough to run MIR! Having used both PC and Mac for a while ... and recently having ordered the new Quad G5 I'm pretty sure that it will kick my 3Ghz PC's ass any day of the week.

    so Why!!! WHY DAMMIT!!!!!! [8o|]

  • If I buy a piece of standalone gear to run MIR, why would I spend twice as much just to get a Mac based operating system? After all the interface would be the same, the performance (according to you) would be the same, just the price would be much higher.
    I would agree that if you like the OS much more on a Mac then some things are more convienient, but in this case I don't really see how.

    DG

  • Dedicated hardware is probably the way to go for something like this... personally, I'd rather it were that way. Just pipe the audio from our Mac or PC into the VSL hardware, and run MIR on a totally committed machine!
    And this notion that chips are going to get exponentially faster is not (currently) accurate -- it HAS been true, over the past 5 years, or so, but I think it will be less and less the case for the next couple of years. Really, the standard "chip" has kind of "hit the wall" as far as raw speed goes... the nuts and bolts of physics are really starting to get in the way now -- heat dissipation, noise, and so on... even quantum effects, I've heard. So really, it's now just a matter of squeezing every last bit they can get out of the basic model -- hence the emphasis on dual-core and hyperthreaded cpus. Until a totally new paradigm comes out, cpu "speeds" are more likely to plateau than anything else...
    It is a drag that this will be PC-only, but not hard to understand, given Apple's recent move to Intel.

    J.

  • but more chips are on the way oh yea of little faith...

    and there are more ways to get faster than simple clock speed and we're already doing it - multicores, multiprocessors. There will be another leap in technology over the next 3 - 6 years mark my words...! There's more than one way to skin a cat.

    2nd, the main reason macs have been traditionally more expensive besides their generally superior hardware design and componentry (note I said TRADITIONALLY as in GENERALLY) which does account for one factor of the expense is the low yeild rates on PPC's which has made them more expensive as they have in honesty tried to keep up with Intel chip makers over the last few years. Now that the processor aspect of the design is cost wise on a level playing field with other hardware companies I think we will see a much more cost competitive Macintosh. I wouldn't expect them to compete with run of the sawdust mill cheap as chips PC's but certainly with the more reliable brand name assemblies.

    Personally, I would rather have a Mac running such a system, even if it is slightly more expensive. I mean a few hundred dollars. If it's vastly more expensive that's another story but as i said, the cost difference between macs and PC and the benefits of purchasing MAC for that smaller cost difference is going to improve once the intel chips start shipping. I suppose only time will show if I'm right or wrong on that.

    Why not have everything plug into MIR hardware? Because you can update software but not a box (not as easily or cheaply), software is cheaper, scalable to the budget of the user, can't afford a real time system (when it's possible one day) then you can buy the next best thing and render offline, and of course, it works the other way, the same software, with a new hardware/faster system etc will run if not straight out of the box then relatively soon after the hardware release getting potentially massive (relatively) speed increases overnight without the user having to buy new "MIR" box. Try to sell your "old" MIR box not so easy in a sellers market I would bargain, unlike a used PC or MAC which can be put to heaps of different uses when selling second hand a lot easier to shif I would imagine.

    The nature of MIR and the fact that until it can render in full quality in real time, no system will be "it" it would be best to stick with software at least, and who knows, what kind of future developments will further increase the processing demands of MIR so even then...

  • I understand what you are saying, but personally I don't care what OS is used for the box as long as it is convenient and works properly. I agree that the price of a Mac should come down significantly over the next year or so, as it will be a PC [:D] The only difference will be the operating system, but I still think that Apple should make it possible to purchase the OS seperately to run on any PC, but they won't. I guess that this is the only way that they will be able to charge so much for what are standard computer components.

    DG

  • Ahem, a Mac, for now, is NOT a PC. There is a lot more to a Mac than the operating system. And although Intel chips will be inside Macs, I think you will find that Apple and Intel may very well come up with customised chip designs to apples specs especially with the high end machines.
    Mac a PC? That's like saying an Astin Martin is a sports car, or a Mazda!

  • last edited
    last edited

    @DG said:

    If I buy a piece of standalone gear to run MIR, why would I spend twice as much just to get a Mac based operating system? After all the interface would be the same, the performance (according to you) would be the same, just the price would be much higher.
    I would agree that if you like the OS much more on a Mac then some things are more convienient, but in this case I don't really see how.

    DG


    Well if we're talking software versions it is of course going to be far more effective for me, and other mac users, to use it on the mac. If it is indeed a mixing unit as well as reverb it stands to reason that it would be a plugin component just like the perf-tool. I'm routing for dual versions here, I've no problem with there being a PC version .. I'd just like to have the chance to buy it for mac as well! That's just plain sensible.

    And like wise, just like you not wanting to buy a mac, I really don't want to have to spend a shed load more money on a PC, and to buy another sequencer just to run MIR.

  • And after another morning of HELL with WINDOZE here at work where I just want to reach into the computer and strangle it I'm so dead against MS and I'l NEVER forgive them for the misery the daily yearlly misery that has been caused by that AWFUL company and badly written software. NEVER!!! [8o|] [8o|] [8o|] [8o|]

    BTW if you really need a reason not to buy ms and a reason to prove that they really ARE evil (***in my opinion***) check out that video link I posted of the dancing monkey boy and freeze frame it at pretty much any point in the juncture and you will see the face of satan superimposed.

    Don't sell your soul, buy apple, buy red hat, don't buy ms (***in my opinion***).

    Sorry fairly emotional and heated but I want to throw that stupid computer out the window just now. [8o|]

  • There is no point getting into a PC/Mac argument when all we are talking about is the OS. Mac an Aston Martin? Perleeze!!!! There is nothing really special about the components that Apple uses, except the price. I'm afraid that I don't like MS very much, but I also don't like Apple either, so I use whatever is more suitable. At least when I buy a PC I am only paying MS the cost of the OS, whereas with a Mac I would be paying Apple the lot, and don't forget that a rather large proportion of that dosh goes to Bill Gates as a major shareholder, so I could argue that buying a Mac was actually supporting the "evil empire", rather than being a brave, lone voice in the wilderness against it [:D]

    As I've said before I don't really care what is under the hood of a piece of standalone gear, as long as it is suitable for my purposes. I can just see the reaction from the engineer if I turned up at Air Lyndhurst and threw a hissy fit because the Neve is "PC" based [8-)]

    DG