Miroslav. Setting up.

[P.T.]

I see two main ways to set up Miroslav.

1) 16 midi tracks feeding Miroslav and 1 stereo output, doing all mixing and effects in Miroslav.

Or,

2) 16 midi tracks feeding Miroslav and 16 audio outputs feeding 16 sequencer tracks
and doing the mixing and effects, such as any EQ on the 16 output tracks. Though one could still do the mixing and EQing in Miroslav and still use 16 outputs.

Method 2 looks to be more visual with everything out in the open.
Would method 2 tend to use more cpu?

I'm thinking that method 2 would make it easier to freeze individual tracks as and if needed though I am not certain that is true.

How do you do it?
What do you see as the pluses and minuses?

[idragosani]

The second is definitely the most flexible, if you have a sequencer that can support plugins with multiple outputs. Generally, the way I set things up (using Reaper 2.5) are to create 16 (or more) MIDI only tracks, and put MP on it's own bus, receiving MIDI from the 16 tracks (or multiple instances if I need more than 16 tracks, each on its own synth bus). Then I create multiple audio tracks that receive the output from the synth bus's multiple outputs. Then you arm all of the audio tracks for recording and you can record all of the tracks simultaneously. Then you can mute or remove the synth busses and then just work with the audio for mixing and mastering.

I don't know if there is much RAM or CPU overhead using multiple outputs versus a single output. I think the impact is more on how much polyphony you are using, the size of the sample, the number of instances and FX you are using (especially if you are using FX inline rather than through a send).

[Kim Lajoie]

There's no CPU performance difference between the two methods. It's really up to how you want to work. The obvious advantage of mixing within Philharmonik is that everything is there in one window - you can adjust the mix while you're adjusting the sounds. As Idragosani (is that your real name?) pointed out though, mixing outside Philharmonik is more flexible because you can use any plugin you like on the individual channels.

Personally I usually use a combination of the two. I send each section to its own output... so the first output might be all the strings, the second out put might be all the brass, the third might be all the woodwinds, and the fourth might be all the percussion. I fine-tune the balance within each section using Philharmonik, but then do the final tweaking of each section within the context of the rest of the mix using my host's mixer. It's much quicker that way - for example, I might be thinking that the strings are a couple of decibels too loud - I can just pull down the fader for that section without having to adjust four or five different faders and risk upsetting the balance of the instruments within the section.

Hope that helps!

-Kim.

[idragosani]

Idragosani (is that your real name?)

It's Brett

[Kim Lajoie]

-Kim.