OK I got it working. Not the best solution tho..

I had to uninstall the (latest) Vienna Suite build 3329 and install the build 2049. Glad I still had those installation files lying around. Now the VST3 plugins work again.

No idea what's wrong with the build 3329, I also re-downloaded it from VSL directly.

Hi

I had to reinstall my system from scratch. I got everything up and running except for Vienna Suite. The plugins are not being detected anymore by Cubase 10 or by VE Pro 7. The VST2 plugins are greyed out in VE Pro as 'unknown', and in Cubase it says "not a plugin". The VST3 plugins are being completely ignored and don't show up. The same happens for 64bit as for 32bit, and the plugin paths are always set up correctly.

The suite always worked before on my system (same version) and all of my other plugins work fine as well. I haven't changed anything on my system except for RAM & a fresh installation (and newer Windows 10 version).

Anyone had this issue before? Thanks!

Kind regards

... So in a completely new project I readded all of the same effects and everything is working. I believe something happened to the Cubase .cpr file somehow, no idea what.

So yeah nothing was actually wrong with Hybrid Reverb. *Solved*

Thanks for replying so fast Dietz :-)

My current piece only has one Piano track, so I use 64 as buffer, but there's no difference if I use 64 or ... 1024.

Performance is definitely not a problem on my 6 core i7 (<5% load). My previous templates had hundreds of tracks, tons of effects and hybrid reverbs on them without problems... But I played around again and if I create a completely new project in Cubase I have no problem. I believe it has to with either a slightly corrupt .cpr file or one of the other plugins I'm also using is interfering with Hybrid Reverb, somehow somewhere.

Hi all!

Rig: Windows 10 x64. Cubase 8.5.15. i7-3930k, 64GB RAM.

I have a small issue with Vienna Suite's Hybrid Reverb. I'm using an instance on a bus and not everything is getting reverbed. 10% of the time (or completely random) the reverb is ignored, not processed and a short crackling is heard as if something went wrong. I do not have this problem with any other effect or with Vienna Suite's Convolution Reverb, only with this one plugin...

I reinstalled the whole Vienna Suite (latest version) already, to no avail. (everything is running on a relatively newly installed system with the latest version of basically everything)

Any suggestions? Does anyone else have this problem? Easiest way to hear this is to just load a Piano and play one note repetitively with the Hybrid Reverb as insert or bus, but somehow I have more problems if it's on a bus. Exporting a track to mp3 ALSO contains this crackling and unprocessed reverb, so it can't be a playback driver issue...

Thank you

Regards

Hi,

I have a small question regarding the two year warranty that exists for the dongle keys.

The way I understand it is that a newly purchased dongle is under a 2 year warranty and will be replaced (along with its licences) if the key has a fault or such in that time (excluding theft or physically breaking it).

Is there a difference between the Steinberg eLicenser and the Vienna Key when it comes to licence warranty? Would my VSL licences be under the same warranty if I'm using a Steinberg eLicenser and not a Vienna Key? And vice versa for Cubase on a Vienna Key?

Thanks

I haven't noticed a CPU increase in the latest version... But if there is one, it's so small I haven't noticed :D

But I fixed my issue at least. My 35-40% CPU usage went down to 15-20%, which is acceptable. Not brilliant, but apparently quite normal. My main fixes were: eliminate every audio input plugin (so now I'm using MIR in Cubase not in VEPro) and I split my big instance into multiple smaller ones and assigned threads accordingly per instance.

I feel you man :( I also posted that issue, I'm on Windows 7 with Cubase 7.5.x

My post: http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/t/37957.aspx

I'm using only one big instance (Cubase supports unlimited MIDI outputs, or at least more than I ever need with a big template) and have that issue. It's possible that VEPro and Cubase collide somehow, because Cubase doesn't want to allow any re-routing of audio outside of it. Maybe its the same for Pro Tools. I also had a chat on the Steinberg forum, so what I'm going to be doing is actually splitting my big instance into smaller ones, assigning certain Threads to every instance and see how that helps. On top of that my MIR will be moved from VEPro to Cubase which eliminates Audio Input Plugins.

However, our cases are slightly different and I sadly cannot help you in this case. Maybe one big instance could theoretically help you out, but that's not the case for me. Hopefully you find a way.

Regards

What you can also double check is if the correct bit version has been installed. Your VEPro 64bit version will want a Kontakt 64bit version plugin and the same for 32bit.

Regards

The reason I don't want MIR in Cubase is that I have to mix in Cubase altogether then as well. (The setup of MIR in VEPro is much preferred, e.g. you can send the MIR wet signal to MIRacle much easier, and still control the dry signal after (or before) MIR with various other reverbs/effects etc. ) However, that is something I'd take into consideration and I'd also change my template that way if need be.

I use 'conventional' audio only extremely seldom (so far). Generally the audio sent from my slave PC is from my Kontakt instruments, which then have to be re-routed to my master PC VEPro instance.

I haven't hosted any plugins/instruments in Cubase, only MIDI tracks, just as you said. Every instrument is either loaded on my VEPro master PC instance, or on the slave VEPro instances. That part of the setup is as it should be :) But (ignoring the fact that I require more RAM than I have available on one PC at the moment) every VEPro instance is limited to I believe 40 MIDI ports, which is then 40x16 = 640 channels. For my application too limited (every patch for every PLAY instrument needs its own channel to use every articulation, thus Hollywood Strings and Hollywood Brass alone take 15 of these 40 channels omnomnom, leaving 25 behind to be used for countless Kontakt instances and VSL (Dimension Strings & Brass alone taking 3 as well)). So using multiple VEPro instances is unavoidable. And thus somehow connecting these instances seems to be a job for the Audio Input Plugin right?

Increasing the 40 MIDI ports limitation would be great for the future, if that's possible :) I'm sure there are others who would agree.

Other than that it seems I'm stuck with my CPU killer. I might modify my approach to MIR and mixing to within Cubase which could scratch off 10-15%, but I'll have to see about that approach.

At least until I can upgrade my PC in a few years time...

Thanks for your help on this matter Dietz.

Thanks for your reply Dietz.

I forgot to mention that I have already fiddled around with every setting in Cubase as well. ASIO Guard is off on my setup because I've never seen any improvements with it on. Changing any of those tick boxes with 'boost' and the like doesn't really improve anything. Tried that already ;)

Well I've got 13 Audio Input Plugins, which isn't thaat many (so basically [1/2, ..., 25/26] channels used in VEPro). I already grouped them as much as possible. What I did now was completely delete all of my Audio Input Plugins in Cubase, but still kept my master instance of VEPro connected. This has actually pushed down my CPU usage from 35-40% to 25-30% :) so that definitely helped a bit. However, I need those Audio Input Plugins running :/

Cubase 6.5 has the exact same effect here tho. I hear you. I generally use 6.5 to export my final version of a track, because with 7+, Steinberg incorporated some new *whatnot* scheme which gives me crackles on my exported mp3/wav and 6.5 doesn't. For that I have been in contact with them already but there doesn't seem to be a fix on the horizon..

So:

1) Is there anything I can still try to compensate? I'll maybe contact Steinberg again if they know of a workaround with their Cubase haha.

2) In the (maybe near) future I'll be getting a more powerful master PC and sell my slave PC as I prefer a single-PC setup. Will it be possible to combine multiple VEPro instances on the same PC without using Audio Input Plugins? Or have one instance that supports way more than 40 MIDI channels so Audio Input Plugins on one PC are not necessary?

Regards

Hi all!

Sorry about this long message... But I hope somebody can help :)

Specs Master:
Windows 7 x64
Cubase 7.5.3 x64
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v2
32GB RAM
latest VEPro, Suite, MIR

Specs Slave:
Windows 7 x64
Intel i7-930
24GB RAM
latest VEPro, Suite

I've been using VEPro 5 (incl. MIR) for 2 years now and I've been with a certain CPU issue for some time. I'm using Cubase, and I have a big template (150-200 MIDI tracks), thus my pieces are generally very big.

Setup: Slave PC routes its audio to Cubase on the Master PC, which routes it via Audio Input Plugins to the VEPro instance on the same PC.

Example scenario 1: I disable my audio device, and make sure my VEPro instance of the Master PC is connected and decoupled. Then I connect my device again, and my CPU jumps to 35-40% usage and stays there, even tho I'm not playing back anything. The minute I play my piece, my CPU generally goes to 100% (a lot of instruments and MIR...) and gives me crackles. This is to be expected, because I only have 60% of the actual CPU power left) So the minute I connect my audio device, my CPU jumps up, but this is only if VEPro is connected. If VEPro is not connected, my CPU stays at 3-5% or so, the usual Windows idling.

Example scenario 2: Ignore the device, it's connected. The minute I connect my VEPro instance (master PC) in Cubase, my CPU jumps to 35-40% and the rest is the same ;)

It can't be a device problem. I'm using a X-Fi Platinum (not very 'professional' I know, but it does everything I need very well) with the latest Asio4All drivers. However, I ordered the Steinberg UR22 a few days ago and could give it a try today with the latest Yamaha/Steinberg drivers. Alas, the same problem :(

Thus the only conclusion is VEPro being the culprit (or MIR or Cubase). I've tried a lot already... Every single Device, VEPro and MIR buffer settings with various versions (I've had this problem for quite some time). Here's my VEPro setup: I'm only using one Instance on my PC (and 2 on my Slave PC). I'm using Audio Input Plugins in Cubase to route the Slave audio to the Master VEPro (the one and only instance). This instance has got 32-40 MIDI and Audio In/Outputs enabled, because that's how many I'm using. I've grouped certain instruments together, so I can then push these to MIR (which has about 40 instruments placed, VSL, PLAY, Kontakt, and Audio files from the slave PC).

I don't know if it's because the VEPro instance on the master PC has so many Audio In/Outputs, but that's the only way I can get all of of the audio from my slave to the master and MIR it together with the instruments already in the instance. The 40% CPU hogging is extremely irritating, because I can only use a bit more than half my CPU power which plagues me with crackling, pops, and high latency. Currently I have to run at Asio4All buffer of 1024 and MIR buffer 2048 (which still gives me crackles mind you). But pushing each up doesn't help all too much ... and at some point 100ms+ latency is not what I had in mind :/

Can anybody relate to this problem? Does anyone have a solution maybe?
I'd appreciate every bit of help, thanks :)

Regards

Awesome!! Finally my Template can be completed :)

... And already implemented in my template.

What got me wondering tho is the fact that the Legato and Portamento Espressivo are both missing for the Basses (which is also mentioned in the product details). Why so? Sustain Espressivo is available... is the Double Bass not able to play Legato/Portamento Espressiv?

Regards

Well a few weeks later...
but I'm also interested in knowing how others are setting up their articulations.

I've got my template loaded (a custom matrix) and I always have to resize my expression map articulations list to see the names of the articulations (which then blocks the visibility of the notes...)

One way would be to make 2 separate expression maps for each instrument, and thus also two different midi tracks. For instance one for all shorter notes and one for all longer notes, however, I do not prefer this approach as I like to have all articulations in one lane. Scrollable expression maps would be great, or something with colours that makes it '3D' haha.

Anyone else with ideas for the existing expression map of how to organise better?

Regards

Yes my outputs from VEP are set up exactly like that now. My slave VEP groups its outputs and sends only selected groups to Cubase. From here only these few are re-routed to my master VEP. And I'm using MIR in VEP, not in Cubase, all working fine.

Thanks for your clarification on the matter!

Hi all,

I've had a go at setting up my template on master PC & slave PC, everything except for one thing seems to be set up perfectly.
Setup:

Master PC (Xeon, 32GB RAM, X-Fi, onboard Qualcomm Atheros AR8161/8165 PCI-E Gigabit LAN): Cubase 7, VEP 5, MIR, VIPro, PLAY
Slave PC (i7, 24Gb RAM, onboard Realtek® 8111C PCIe Gigabit LAN): VEP 5, Kontakt etc.

I've routed a couple of outputs from my slave PC to the master PC's VEP via audio input plugins.

Former posts that I've read tend to discuss problems of pops & clicks when playing back their song in their DAW, but the problem is resolved once the final version is exported.
My problem is slightly different. I keep on getting pops at the exact same time intervals in my piece in the final exported recording (for example my song is 2:30 long, the crackles always occur at 0:09 and 0:54). This only happens on outputs that have been re-routed via audio input plugins; once I disable the plugin it works fine; however, that's not a solution for me because I'm using MIR in VEP for these instruments. (I do occasionally have one or two pops when playing back, but that
doesn't concern me; the exact same parts (here 0:09 and 0:54) in the song mostly don't have any pops/crackles in them when playing back.)

If I remove every midi passage of those instruments, the pops/crackles are gone, but that obviously doesn't help me.. I have tried everything apart from buying a new network card for my slave PC and giving that a try (I've read the Intel Gigabit CT is good for this). I don't want to rush out and buy a new network card because there's only a slight chance that'll help. A list of things I've tried:

- Cubase: File->Export mp3 & wav

- Installed older VEP version

- Changed the VEP buffer to 0...2...4

- Changed MIR buffer to 0...2048...16k

- Disabled MIR completely

- Changed Asio4All buffer (but this doesn't effect anything because the final exported file can be exported even if I have "no device" selected, thus my soundcard cannot be the issue either)

- Loaded older version of the song

- Disabled all Firewall and other programs

- Disabled all 'extra' network adapters (like Virtual Machines etc.)

- Changed IP to static

- Loaded a different template with similar instruments

- Changed the played instruments on the slave PC

- Changed the 'In 1/2', 'In 3/4' of audio input plugins to other inputs

- Tried 32bit and 64bit Audio Input Plugins

All of these have given me the exact same pop/crackle. Is there anything else I can try, is there another solution? Tbh I doubt a different network card will solve this issue and I've run out of ideas.

Thanks in advance!

Hi Dietz,

thanks a lot for your thorough post! I had feared that I was complicating things too much, but I wasn't sure. A thing that I've noticed is that for example the Teldex Studio in Hybrid Reverb sounds different to the MIR Teldex Studio, even tho it's the same room.. But this could be because the actual placing of the instrument is completely different in MIR and thus a direct comparison between the two makes little sense.

So it seems a simpler approach is not only more practical, but most probably better. I had sketched all different types of routing setups (quite a few) and I've been trying to figure out which would be best. So in essence, for those instruments that can be placed in MIR (ie. actual instruments), this means that the extra reverb options of Vienna Suite aren't of much use? Am I right in assuming that MIRacle is like Hybrid Reverb without the early reflections, so basically only the algorithmic part? Then I'm guessing the 'enhance' presets for MIRacle make the most sense for such a scenario.

Maybe "lush and detailed" was a wrong word combination, I cannot exactly describe what I'm looking for. I'll have a look at changing the MIR venue & microphones more, maybe that's exactly it.

Thanks a lot for your time!

Hi all,

I have been setting up my template in Cubase with VEP. I've purchase the Software Package, so I have MIR and Vienna Suite included. I've read a few posts with similar question, however none has answered my question to this, hopefully this post will help me out. My concern is using MIR with an additional Reverb.

I will pin down my setup to one section, strings, taking Dimension Violins into consideration. For simplicity let's presume I only have one instrument, either Vln 1, or all 8 Violins bundled into one group. I'll name this "DS_Out". I have inserted MIR, making DS_Out sit nicely in the Teldex Studio. I have often read that adding MIRacle is a good way for adding an extra reverb after MIR. But seeing that I've purchased Vienna Suite, which includes Hybrid Reverb, I'd like to use this as it includes more options (especially Early & Tail settings). I don't have FORTI/SERTI.

My idea for my setup was ('biggest' first):

- 1 master output, the usual "MASTER"

- 1 stem output for every section (strings, brass, etc.) that includes EVERYTHING of that type of section: "STRINGS", which has output assigned to MASTER

- ???

- 1 DS_Out

The ??? is my concern, having to place a reverb after MIR and before the section end. I have reduced the MIR reverb time to about half its original length, as described in the MIR manual (which I've been looking through quite a lot recently). I have been on Beat Kaufmann's website and have found out that it is good practice to have the separate sections with an Early reverb on them, and the final master output with the Tail reverb. MIR complicates this matter a bit, because it already has these two included. I would still however like to add the extra reverb at the ??? section, because MIR alone is not as lush and detailed as I'd like it to be.

For DS_Out I was thinking: I would add MIR as an effect, send the MIR wet signal via its fader to an extra bus "STRINGS_MIR+reverb" and add a hybrid reverb there (Early only, no tail). Below MIR I would add a pre fader that sends (the dry positioned signal of MIR) to a different bus "STRINGS_DRY+reverb", which also has an additional hybrid reverb (Early only, no tail, dry muted). The main output of DS_Out would be assigned to the section STRINGS. STRINGS itself has no effects loaded, simply going into MASTER. MASTER has a hybrid reverb with tail only.

Thus my setup would look like the following:

- 1 master output, the usual "MASTER"

- 1 stem output for every section (strings, brass, etc.) "STRINGS", which has output assigned to MASTER

- 1 "STRINGS_MIR+reverb", output to STRINGS

- 1 "STRINGS_DRY+reverb", output to STRINGS

- 1 DS_Out, MIR signal to STRINGS_MIR+reverb, dry positioned to STRINGS_DRY+reverb, normal output to STRINGS

Does this setup make sense? Is it redundant to add an extra early reflection to the dry and the MIR wet signal individually? Did I understand the pre-faders of MIR and the extra send correctly? Should I rather only have one extra bus inbetween? Should I rather have a tail and no early reflection inbetween? What would be an efficient way of setting this reverb? Many questions, but I'd like to fix my template somewhat and hopefully others can reflect to this as well.

Thanks a lot in advance!

Cheers

I'm only on stereo here. My VSL and PLAY tracks are all positioned completely individually in MIR, it's just my K5s that aren't, which is fine. I'm somewhat happy now with my setup, it also means my MIR isn't as cluttered as before. Thanks for your proposals & help, tho it seems everyone has a different setup, priorities and preferences (and amount of monitors haha).

Cheers

Proposal 2 is the same way as I explained it, which won't help me because one PC is doing almost all the work and loads all the libraries. Seems I only misunderstood proposal 1. However, now that I undestand what you mean, your proposal 1 says that PC2 receives all Play & K5 outputs of PC1. That's the original problem is it not, because there are soo many outputs for Play & K5 to be sent via LAN. I'd still have to configure those outputs with VSL audio input plugins, which would throttle performance, as is the case in my original post.

Reducing the number of outputs was your advice I followed, which is working much better now. The way I grouped it was the only solution that was plausible for me.

Your proposal 1 would be to load all sample libraries on 1), the slower PC (if I understood that correctly). And your second proposal would be to load all sample libraries on 2), the fastest PC. I can see how this would work and better performance (especially proposal 2 which has less network send, being only midi). But for me there are two drawbacks: a) Your proposals are both solutions for loading only one PC with sample libraries, and b) both would have Cubase run on the slower PC, the one I only connect to via Remote Desktop.

a) I thought I had posted this as well, but reading back it
might have slipped me. What's important to me is that I can utilise as
much RAM as possible, thus using RAM of both PCs to their fullest extent (I'm already purging quite a few instruments). So I have to split my sample libraries, meaning (as far as I know) I will need VEP on both PCs and I will have to use many outputs with audio input plugins.

b) Running Cubase via Remote Desktop is sluggish and I'd have to fix my soundcard, speakers and midi controller to that PC as well.

The way I've currently set things everything's working alright. I 'benchmarked' my MIR yesterday and the grouping doesn't seem to be that bad, because I could never have used so many ungrouped outputs in there, not by a long shot. MIR is amazing, but hungry.

Well I've changed my template and grouped all of my outputs of my slave VEP to 20 or so outputs and routed these to Cubase, re-routed via audio-plugin to my master VEP and then MIR. This setup works fine with the asio limits not being reached, its just not as flexible as could be, because for eg. my Woodwinds are all grouped as one instrument in MIR. But that's a compromise I took into consideration. A single PC solution would've been easier, but then I'd need an insane machine.

I do understand why I have dropouts, I'm asking for too much. The thing that bothers me is that I can receive way more outputs from my slave VEP (over LAN) to Cubase, with no problems whatsoever, than I can re-route with audio input plugins. That's many outputs going through LAN, so for some reason there is no bottleneck here, even though this is the actual network communication of so many audio streams. The only problem is the re-routing of Cubase to master VEP, which is localhost. My guesses are, that the re-routing is kind of 'outside' of Cubase, and every audio input plugin between the two VEPs is continuosly sending data, just to keep its link open, or the optimisations of Cubase, as mentioned by Dietz, are interfering.

I am already using Expression Maps for as many instruments as possible. To roughly some up my 300 outputs, these are 300 Mono outputs, VEP always grouping them in pairs, so it's 150 instruments basically. On that slave VEP I've got all my Berlin Woodwinds (14 instruments), all of my percussions (easily 30 instruments), Piano, Harpsichord, Harp, Organ, Choir and the lot, Guitars, Cinematic Soundscape stuff, Heavyocity patches etc., which sums up to 100-150 instruments. My master VEP basically has Hollywood Strings + Brass, Dimension Strings + Brass, which is also 60 instruments (with place holders for Dimension Strings Violas and Basses). I cannot swap these to the slave VEP, because especially PLAY loading times needs my SSD.

The only solution I can see is grouping my slave VEP instruments in a slightly unflexible way, e.g. grouping all Berlin Woodwinds into one woodwinds output section, grouping the entire Percusion into one output section, etc.. Then I'd have my 20 outputs at max which should work for 'audio input plugin' effects. Disadvantage is that every Oboe, Clarinet, Flute etc. is placed at the same MIR position. But if that's the only way around, then I guess I'll have to do a compromise. (which is what I'm going to try out and post my results) Maybe if I get myself a new soundcard at some stage (with proper drivers), this issue might be resolved, but I wasn't planing on doing that for some time.

I seem to have phrased the insert effects priority a bit wrong, sorry about that. I wanted to put emphasis on third part insert effects, Cubase insert effects being secondary. But I have just now found out why my third party plugins did not work in VEP: 32 vs 64bit incompatibility, but I've solved that issue now, so I can use those in VEP. I can live with not being able to use Cubase insert effects, I'll just abandon them I guess. This way I would be able to use my master VEP as my main mixer. Thus I can remove the master VEP outputs that went to Cubase, which will definitely speed things up.

I'll then have to see how to set up the reverbs in VEP with buses. MIRacle versus Vienna Suite's Hybrid Reverb, no idea which would be better. At the moment I was using Hybrid Reverb sections for strings, brass etc. which each only had the early reflections, and the main output channel which only had the tail (so grouping of some sorts).

Back to the routing: However, even if I change the above, I'm still sitting in front of my main problem: the audio input plugins for my slave VEP. I'm not 100% sure I understood your setup. Is there a way other than audio inputs via Cubase to get the individual outputs of my slave VEP to the master VEP? Because as I understood the VEP master/slave principle, the slave VEP outputs go into Cubase, from within Cubase you route these outputs to the master VEP inputs (via audio input plugins, which is killing my asio performance - according to Dietz optimisations of Cubase that interfere with VEP). Once I change the above-mentioned, I wouldn't 'need' any outputs in Cubase anymore, except for one or two from my master VEP.

I don't see how grouping would help here, because I want to have each instrument of my slave VEP separate in my master VEP's MIR for perfect positioning. How do you send your slave outputs to your MIR instance?

Thanks a lot for your assistance in this matter!

You're using IAC drivers I see. I'm not entirely sure what they do, except for being a MIDI bridge of some sorts. Can't use that for Windows + Cubase tho. Having 300 outputs in Cubase is still acceptable for me with delay & transfer speeds, I'm guessing because no 300 outputs are streaming over Ethernet at the precise same time. Having 300 inputs is killing it tho it seems..

I won't be printing 300 stems, nope. My plan was to have one main mixer (the one from Cubase), so I can mix everything in one, so I wanted all of the outputs of all instruments there, giving me a nice view of all my outputs at once. From here I'd be routing some sends to different reverbs etc. So what you're saying is using 3 mixers basically, Cubase mixer, VEP 'sub'mixer on the slave, and the VEP 'sub'mixer on my master. This would for me defeat the "one mixer solution" that I was keen on using...

The next reason was that VEP does not support Cubase insert effects (Cubase not letting others use their inserts) and VEP does not recognize all of my third party insert effects either. So for those instruments that need them, I would have to route those outputs specifically to Cubase, because Cubase supports all of these inserts. In the end I would then have a mixture of some outputs not going to Cubase to mix, and some going to Cubase to mix, thus I opted for 'all' going to Cubase, so I could be as flexible as possible, because I don't always know which instrument will be needing these extra inserts.

The next reason is that I want most of my outputs of my slave VEP to be able to go into MIR of my master VEP, so each instrument sits differently in the room. If I'm not mistaken, the way of doing this is having an output for each instrument and using the audio input plugin on each, linked to the INs of my master VEP. (I will never be playing 200 instruments at the precise same time in MIR, for which I'd need at least double my CPU power, but I want the instruments to be placed individually across MIR, so for their passages they can be moved/mixed/edited each separately)

If I'm not mistaken, my reasons would mean that I cannot build my setup the way you told me I should. Or is my setup a bit too unrealistic? Is my setup not the way it's supposed to be, not very optimal?...

I do have a question: As I pointed out in an earlier post, I can use all of my 300 slave VEP outputs within Cubase without using the audio input inserts. This way I could use MIR within Cubase, and have all of these outputs and the outputs of my master VEP joined here. This seems to work, looking at delay, timing etc. Is there a drawback to using MIR in Cubase, rather than in VEP? MIR seems to run more 'separately', being in its own window and in the system tray.

Thanks a lot for all of your feedback so far!