been out of the loop since legacy days do we still need multiple computers for new products with mir? IE: Is it better to get two intel I7 computers and network them together or just one big xeon
-
multiple computers
-
MIR only runs on one computer. However, there is the choice to put your sequencer on the same computer, or not. Be warned that running MIR on a separate computer can cause timing problems with big arrangements. However, also be warned that unless you have the most powerful desktop available, big arrangements are not possible anyway. [;)]
DG
-
I'd rather not pay good money to test it all by myself and despair. As we speak I am finishing mixing a huge piece (53-stave (not track) score with 2-4 voices on each - excepting a few percussion staves) on an iMac 2.16 Core2Duo 3 Gb RAM with all the orchestral and choral sounds coming from inside the iMac itself(!) in Logic 8.0.2 using Space Designer. So I am pretty surprised to hear that on modern and huge computers - even with MIR - one cannot mix tutti...
I was planning on getting the latest iMac i7 soon, throw 16 Gb RAM in it and the biggest optional SSD for some of the libraries, and I thought I would be comfortably mixing complex musical material, for the aforementioned piece is not Symphobia held pads or sampled runs etc. It involves anything from 5-11 different voice-groups/lines of polyphonic material blown orchestrally, with further subdivisions/transpositions etc. at a moderately fast tempo, i.e. lots of notes, with moderate automation lines for each of the tracks. My future plans would be to supplement this i7 iMac with a moderate PC for MIR and the libraries and do the sequencing and mixing on the Apple; does this sound unrealistic?
-
All I can tell you is that my machine can't cope with my projects at any buffer. Using VE pro and a few instances of Altiverb I can run the same projects at 128 or if necessary at 256.
MIR will not be usable for me until MIR Pro, when I will be able to use VE Pro for programming and MIR for mixing (using audio inputs).
DG
-
This is not too encourging: sounds like you need a dual quad or 6 core xeon. A mid end I-7 does'nt even sound powerfull enough and slaves have timming issues.
How many tracks can u get on a 6 core i7 with 24 gigs of ram?
-
@DG said:
All I can tell you is that my machine can't cope with my projects at any buffer. Using VE pro and a few instances of Altiverb I can run the same projects at 128 or if necessary at 256.
MIR will not be usable for me until MIR Pro, when I will be able to use VE Pro for programming and MIR for mixing (using audio inputs).
DG
I find this incredible but of course I will take it to heart from a user of your experience. If you have another moment, I neglected to say that I did all I said on my machine and the project is a 96KHz one to boot. One detail that might make a difference is that the sounds used for the most part are EXS VSL, not VI. Do you think that's it? Also, buffer zones are of little concern to me as I rarely play lines live, I transfer MIDI straight from notation. Do you think that's a deal maker at all? I mean what is your run of the mill project like? With what resolution do you work? I know you most probably use a lot more equalization and other processes than myself (my projects have some Logic channel E.Q. dabbling, reverb, multipressor, and adlimiter). It's just that I find it hard to comprehend how I can do what I do and with so much more power, much more capable technicians have to compromise on mixing. Is it the VI, or the incalculably more engineering that does it?
-
@mike harper said:
This is not too encourging: sounds like you need a dual quad or 6 core xeon. A mid end I-7 does'nt even sound powerfull enough and slaves have timming issues.
How many tracks can u get on a 6 core i7 with 24 gigs of ram?
Unfortunately it is 100% dependent on what you're trying to do. I'm sure that the vast majority of users won't have any problems at all, but I guess that my projects are just a little more complicated than average.
DG
-
@DG said:
All I can tell you is that my machine can't cope with my projects at any buffer. Using VE pro and a few instances of Altiverb I can run the same projects at 128 or if necessary at 256.
MIR will not be usable for me until MIR Pro, when I will be able to use VE Pro for programming and MIR for mixing (using audio inputs).
DG
I find this incredible but of course I will take it to heart from a user of your experience. If you have another moment, I neglected to say that I did all I said on my machine and the project is a 96KHz one to boot. One detail that might make a difference is that the sounds used for the most part are EXS VSL, not VI. Do you think that's it? Also, buffer zones are of little concern to me as I rarely play lines live, I transfer MIDI straight from notation. Do you think that's a deal maker at all? I mean what is your run of the mill project like? With what resolution do you work? I know you most probably use a lot more equalization and other processes than myself (my projects have some Logic channel E.Q. dabbling, reverb, multipressor, and adlimiter). It's just that I find it hard to comprehend how I can do what I do and with so much more power, much more capable technicians have to compromise on mixing. Is it the VI, or the incalculably more engineering that does it?
I think that it's impossible to compare a EXS project with a VI project. They are two separate things. If you're not using VI then I would put MIR out of your mind for the moment, because it's not compatible with EXS. With MIR Pro it might be a different ball game anyway.
DG
-
Thanks. I do own VI, but only SE + and extended, which is considerable but haven't relied on it on a large scale yet. I was just wondering - forgetting MIR for a moment, do you think that there is considerable difference in required processing power or memory for the same kind of project done on VI as opposed on to ProEdition? And anyone else please feel free to share your experience, it will be appreciated.
-
I can only speak for my experiences, but it's not so much that VI requires more processing, it's just that the possibilities are so much greater, and it's so easy to use many more articulations and controllers, that there is no way I would ever do back to the way I used to work with the Pro Edition in Giga.
DG
-
No doubt, it's just that I was trying to ascertain where the bottlenecks occur, from what you say it's not in the processing, so maybe like I asked before it is in the amount of memory required for the same size project on the different VI platform? Since you also worked the Pro Edition you must have some idea when, in your case, a project that was viable some computer years ago in Giga format, suddenly requires 5 times the computer specifications simply because the instruments are triggered by a different engine (which is more efficient at that!)? You must have had similar sequencing/mixing requirements then and now, so I ask you in your opinion, how come you need so much more computer power now than then for similar-sized projects (leaving MIR out of the equation for now).
-
Errikos, much as I'd like to be able to answer your question, I can't. Not only have I not used Giga for 5 years, the projects were by necessity much simpler. I also have a much more powerful setup than I did in those days, so i can't make a direct comparison. With Giga projects i used one articulation per MIDI track, and had a template of around 250 tracks. These days if I went the one articulation per track route, I'd have well in excess of a thousand tracks.
All I can tell you is that when I originally changed from Giga to VI, the performance wasn't much different but I was able to load many times more articulations, as i was no longer hampered by Giga's silly memory limit.
I think basically I'm saying that my mixing and sequencing requirements back then were governed by the software, and specs of the machines I was using. This is still the case, but to a much smaller degree. However, my requirements have changed drastically during these 5 years, so making a comparison is not really possible.
DG