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 At the very least, a superseded computer can perform other tasks (such as running VI's or paying bills), whereas a dedicated box becomes useless after being replaced by the "new and improved"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.

@mpower88 said:

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.

Miklos you'll be glad to hear Apple have fixed the G5 Quad Core performance issue with Logic 7.2.3

Enjoy!


Julian

[I] [I] [I] [I] [I]

Happy isn't the beginning of the description my good man, thanks for being the bearer of GREAT news!!

[:D]