miklos, I've been working on Macs every day all day long since 1985. Literally.

Since you're obviously irritated that I would point out something so obvious, I want to reiterate that I only pointed it out because what you wrote implied that you didn't understand it! Oy veh!

And now let me move on to the next point (which I've made before in other threads): I personally don't think the Mac Mini is a very good slave machine, for several reasons: 1. only 2GB of RAM; 2. only 2GB of RAM; 3. only 2GB of RAM; 4. only two outputs unless you use a FW interface, and since the machine only holds 2GB of RAM, you need more machines than necessary and therefore more FW interfaces; the other problem with the built-in interface is that optical formats are not ideal for carrying clock (*very* jittery), and there's no other way of clocking the machine other than via its optical input; 5. it comes with a sissy hard drive, so you have to use FW...in which case you have a drive and a FW interace on the FW bus, and I'm not crazy about that idea; 6. only 2GB of RAM.

I may yet buy a Mac Mini to have an Intel machine for testing software and other things, but I wouldn't buy several of them as slaves. On the other hand, space and noise aren't issues for me, since my machines are on the other side of a wall in the garage.

I forgot to add the subtext, which is the most important part of it all: much as I prefer to use Macs (only because I'm more comfortable with them, not because I necessarily think they're better), I think you can put together a Windows machine with equivalent components to the ones in the Mac Minis and solve all the problems I just mentioned.

although the chipset of the minimac would be able to handle 4 GB RAM, i'm tending to assume to be either a heat or space problem .... (remember the *cube*?)
http://minipc.aopen.com/Global/spec.htm - they also didn't manage to add an external connector for the second sATA channel ... ridiculous ... an from what i've heard aOpen is even slighly more expensive.
christian

christian, thanks for your response I think that clears it all up and gets you off the hook from everybody for some time! To summerise: You're going to look into the MacOSX thing with no promises (thank you), and you're going to get back to the world with annoucements on MIR in the future, right now there is nothing more to say.

nick, irritated? not so, but this is starting to be a bizarre abstract discussion we're in together, I mean, I think the points were obvious - there is a guy who has set up a number of mini's as slaves (8 I think) and got it all working really well, the 2gb of ram is not a limitation if you spread the library over 4 or so machines that's 8gigs of RAM, plus a main machine like a mac pro. Since Logic has a ram limitation, it's not as big a deal. What he did with the hard drives was swap them over relatively cheaply with a superior hard drive. However, you say you personally don't think they're a good slave machine, and I see your points, my assumption was otherwise. Perhaps a Mac Pro would be better as a slave if you had the money to spend, and just put a single hard drive in each, with 4Gigs of ram - that could make sense, but super overkill on the cpu. Perhaps some old dual G5's with 4 gigs of ram would be better as slaves in that case. Anyway, I think we basically agree now?

Miklos.[/b]

Yes, I think we do. Damn, and this was just starting to get fun. [:)]

[8-)] Oh man I hate arguing on forums it's the worst thing in the world (figuratively speaking)... some of the posts on the logic forum about the quad g5 and the apple apologists there, MIND NUMBING let me tell you... [*-)] people who were saying things like, even though apple sold and makes both the quad and logic pro they had no obligation to tell customers that they would never upgrade logic to USE the quad g5, while at the same time posting specs that it was such and such times faster than the dual 2.7, when in fact for logic pro the much cheaper 2.7 was actually marginally faster! and then all these rediculous argumentative posts like "can you prove it" and so forth... when it was already a well established fact.

I suspect the Quad was set into motion before the Intel transition was.

But there is not even a technical document on apple explaining it, it's just all under a shroud - ? the shroud of the dark side perhaps??? he he [[:P]] anyway the point is *apple done wrong* on that point so much that I think if there were a join suit against apple they g5 logic owners would win some compensation on the matter (saying that is what got me booted from the forums...) but it's true and a lot of others agreed, strangely the ones who trashed me for saying that were not quad owners! one guy said he was but then later admitted that in fact he was given teh quad for free by apple as a replacement to his burned out 2.7 dual so he's not in a position to argue since he just got the same machine basically in terms of logic using the cpu's... [[:P]] anyway it's a big shame, worst of all, the specs on apples site for the new mac pros show the quad intels being 1.8X faster than the quad G5's but that was with Logic 7.2.2 which was upgraded to take full use of the quad cpus in the mac pros *but not the g5's* so the mac pro was compared to a crippled version on the G5 which I think is appauling. There is no update for the quad owners that I know of. big shame really.

@mpower88 said:

There is no update for the quad owners that I know of. big shame really.

Didn't cm write something about this behaviour somewhere before... ? ... [:D]

Oh Mathis, in that case I don't deny it. I don't think anybody in this debate would whole heartedly say they are completely one sided in this matter politically speaking or software wise, the bottom line for me was as I've said already and christian answered my questions anyway which was very nice of him. I've certainly got a much lower and I guess it is probably a more realistic view of Apple after the quad G5/logic incident [:'(] and they won't get an ounce of trust from me in the future, but no company or person is all good/all bad, I still dig the gear and it works great for me otherwise, and I still prefer it over a PC. I suppose it's like owning a good car, it still s**ks that it runs on oil... but still a good car! [:'(]

Wow, lots going on in here!...

Miklos,

I wasn't quite suggesting a standalone PC. What would be really cool is a standalone hardware box - totally proprietary - no Windoze, no nothing. I actually spent (in my case, wasted) a bunch of time trying to build a dedicated linux box, just to run impulse reverbs. The job was way over my head, linux-wise, but I still like the idea. Impulse reverbs will _always_ be machine-killers, and I doubt the MIR will ever be an exception. I honestly don't think I'd want it running on my Mac, with my sequencer, VIs, and so on. But a standalone box, headless, totally controlled by software hosted on the Mac, would _seem_ like a built-in solution, for all intents and purposes. That's what I'd love. And I am with you on the whole "I can't afford another machine" problem... but VSL will also _never_ be cheap... Also, if you look at the current design philosophy of the MIR, it's likely to account, in effect, for 2 major functions in mixing; reverb/spatialization _and_ EQ. So the only really essential "plug" left to run on the host machine would be compression... for those who use it...

Oh, and the point about such a hypothetical box being totally proprietary is simply because I don't even want to be _tempted_ to run anything else on it! [;)]

cheers,

J.

That's what the Muse Receptor is intended to be.

jbm, your points are valid, and I agree, it's a good idea, however, I still think, wouldn't it be nice, if you found out that although you can't afford another machine, you can afford MIR, and with some work arounds, like printing your tracks and not running the mix live (providing software can work that way) - you could use your existing (future tense - 8cpu mac pro) not only for sequencing but, albeit at a compromise, also for MIR, and not buy the extra hardware - it would be good to have that choice.

Miklos.

If an MIR takes a complete machine to run it, in a year it will only take half a machine (such is progress) So to consider it as a standalone only device is shortsighted. (also those suggesting a hardware based MIR would loose money to relentless progress as they found their lovely hardware box overtaken and underpowered in a year or two)

If it is software based it would be useful to have render capabilities (similar to workflows pro filmmakers have used for years) that enable pretty much any machne to run it albeit not in real time.

I have sessions that would require 2 or 3 current computers to run in real time but they can still be rendered out on most single machines using logic's freezing function.

Miklos's often repeated requests also get my vote!

Julian

Adding my 2 cents:

I actually think it's not a good idea for VSL to get into the hardware business. There's a large capital expense in manufacturing hardware and it ties a product to a specific iteration of a particular moment in the history of computer technology. Making software that works well and evolves along with computer equipment made by other manufacturers avoids both the large capital expenditures involved in manufacturing hardware and tieing a software product to a particular moment in the history of computer technology. Also, from the customer's point of view, being able to upgrade computer components or computers gradually seems a better idea than being forced to buy a new and expensive dedicated box with each software upgrade. At the very least, a superseded computer can perform other tasks (such as running VI's or paying bills), whereas a dedicated box becomes useless after being replaced by the "new and improved" version.

Sorry for the repetition? Is there irony in that? [[:|]]

@mpower88 said:

Sorry for the repetition? Is there irony in that? [[:|]]

No!


Julan [:D]

@jbm said:

[...] So the only really essential "plug" left to run on the host machine would be compression... for those who use it... [...]
J.

The MIR will have dedicated VST-inserts for each instrument, so you can handle that within one engine.

@jbm said:

[...] So the only really essential "plug" left to run on the host machine would be compression... for those who use it... [...]
J.

The MIR will have dedicated VST-inserts for each instrument, so you can handle that within on engine.

sweeeeet... So, in essence, an MIR machine will be a dedicated mixing box. One big question; does it need its own monitor? Or can the interface be accessed remotely (I mean, without the various VNC-like solutions). Is there anything in the works for remote admin? That is, could the interface could be hosted on the sequencer machine, with control data transmitted to the MIR machine? With a system like this, the GUI could be nice and responsive, but still allow us to run our MIR PCs totally headless... it seems to me this is what the Receptor and the Waves box do...

J.

jbm that's a good point, and would do away with part of the issue of having two machines instead of one.