|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 9, 2022 23:25:54 GMT -6
Most of my plugins are native, but most of the companies using iLok were waiting for Pace to update their development kit. This just happened, so we'll like see the stragglers come in soon. Native UAD (or most of them), Waves, Arturia, Valhalla, Acon, Ceremony, Fabfilter, Kazrog, Liquidsonics, Toneprojects Native in beta testing Soundtoys, Goodhertz, Not native but run under rosetta Sonnex, iZotope, I run uad, Arturia, Valhalla , liquidsonics, fabfilter all now on Monterey, no problems. I didn’t notice a big difference losing rosetta2, slightly faster load times .
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Mar 10, 2022 0:15:59 GMT -6
Faster load time of a plugin? Logic? What exactly?
I've only been using Rosetta 2. Logic was loading great when I first got the computer, but after a couple updates it seems to be finicky with verifying UAD plugs and I have to break the connection with the interface or satellite. Once everything is loaded I just reconnect.
Do you still have the Arturia stuff? They offered native a day or two ago.
I've debated about limiting my plug-ins that are active, just to minimize the loading with Logic.
|
|
|
Post by allbuttonmode on Mar 10, 2022 3:37:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Mar 10, 2022 4:32:05 GMT -6
I think we are at the point where it does not matter anymore. These new Macs will suffice for 98% of audio recording / production & mixing tasks. I ordered a M1 ultra - no need to even think about anything "better" for at LEAST 5 years. Why wait?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 10, 2022 5:33:36 GMT -6
Load times, just powering up and opening say logic or a session.
In use like doing anything within a session didn’t really notice much difference, maybe closed faster too.
My understanding is the rosetta2 Intel skin is created the first time and stored, so the inefficiency is more the first time you do something on the computer not successive times.
Anyway running or not running rosetta2, didn’t seem to have a major apparent effect, my m1 mini, has never broken a sweat, I have never heard any fans and when ever I check cpu usage it’s low: I have the 246g drive and 16 g of soc ram, 20-30 tracks, busses, some vi (keys and drums, drummer and slate), logic, 3rd party and UA plugs and use a warm ssl comp on utility plug when mixing.
I think a m1 is fine for many and that the studio isn’treally required, if you have the extra dough and really want more memory,I/o, the studio looks good. But as apple let’s you return stuff easily, peeps might want to try an m1 mini and see and save money before ordering the studio.
|
|
|
Post by allbuttonmode on Mar 10, 2022 5:37:37 GMT -6
I ordered a M1 ultra - no need to even think about anything "better" for at LEAST 5 years. Why wait?
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the price. For my use, which is squarely in audio recording and production, the Max processor with the souped up GPU (in comparison to the Pro) is total overkill, even in 5 years. And it increases the price drastically.
You might think it is worth it. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 10, 2022 6:19:57 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2022 7:13:37 GMT -6
The Pro and Max aren't the same as just the M1. The M2 chips will follow suite. The Studio IS the Mini Pro people were anticipating. But I bet we will see a M1 Pro option in the Mini eventually. Still, if the M2 chip is increasing the core count from 8 to 10, that will be a sweet audio machine. Just will it have multi-display support and some other quirks that the Mini seemed to bypass. yes it is. It is literally the same just has more cores. That's it. Same clock speeds, same single core performance. Thus why for audio, the M1 mini is still the best deal at the moment. You do not need all the cores for audio processing or GPUs. The pro would maybe be worth it to get more years out of the system, but the Max and Ultra...hell no. You're wasting your money. It depends how big your sessions are and if you’re working at 88.2/96k hz to stop automation from aliasing. They didn’t improve the single core speed so you won’t be able to stack more plugs on a single track. When you switch to 88.2 / 96 khz to remove automation grunge, the daw itself basically takes double. Standard linear plugins pretty much still use negligible cpu (think Sonnox Oxford eq, Fabfilter eq without natural phase or dynamics, stock EQs, etc) but the daws themselves with complex routings, sends, and lots of delay compensation start getting up there, even when a lot of plugins aren’t increasing in real cpu use at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2022 7:31:23 GMT -6
People act like a good i9-12900 build with 128 gb ram is going to be much cheaper. The only thing Apple is charging a ton for is the SSD, the lack of single core performance, and everything is probably soldered in. A Windows desktop with a couple of M2s clearly wins the storage battle. If you must have a Mac for itb work where everything has not been frontloaded with hardware, this is the one to get. The m1 mini just can’t handle 88.2/96 khz (necessary to anti-alias automation) sessions loaded with modern plugs unless you’re freezing a lot of things. If you’re hitting like 80-90 % cpu, something is going to make it freeze up/stutter/grind to halt. I agree that Studio is the one to get, IMO. But your posts about the M1 hitting that kind of wall just doesn't ring true with people I know using them with serious loads. It’s easy to bring an i9-12900 or m1 to its knees. 1) M1. Create some crazy long di bass/guitar chain. Amp sim, IRs blended together, fake pres, eq, good compression, maybe another colored eq to drive into something and you can easily max out an m1 core. 2) both of them. Start stacking distortion plugs. Fake pres (run at 192khz usually or are pretty compex algorithms), colored eqs (those slick eq ge or psp e27 instances add up, that waves SSL EV2 is heavy), compression (the current standard to make fast attack work is to run the side chain at something around 768 khz or even into the MHz, some of the plugs to antialias dual releases with charge times, go even higher) with a tape plug (none of that static softube stuff, some of these like Satin and Chow tape have bias tones and oversample to do so) and stacked on enough tracks, especially at 88.2 or 96khz, yeah your machine is sputter and grind to a halt. Especially when you start budding them and routing them to fx sends. The m1 way before the alder lake 12700 and 12900. m1 studio chip should do better but the single core limitation is still there. And raptor lake is coming out this fall. Will Apple have the M2 ready by then? Who knows. Currently for larger sessions with current dsp, the cpu is still the limiting factor. This stuff is only getting more complex. Goodhertz Tupe is a beast. So are the Pulsar plugs oversampled to Actually sound good.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 10, 2022 9:03:50 GMT -6
Ah, any system can be maxed out, the point is how real world is the test?
There is no question that m1 and subsequent gens are improving performance.
Like I said, my m1 mini, I don’t think has even hit 50% cpu once: more like 30%, whenever I look. Different horses, etc.!
I’m not interested in a window’s machine, so having the m1 after getting a decade out of my old i7 mbp, which still works fine, are both fine for me.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Mar 10, 2022 9:25:32 GMT -6
Tyler Stalman (Canadian videographer/photographer) has a good video on YouTube comparing the M1 Ultra Mac Studio to the current Intel Mac Pro, and it was actually quite helpful in recalibrating my thoughts re: that segment of the market. Comparatively, the Mac Studio (Ultra) is considerably more powerful, with considerably more RAM available for video. So "starting at $4000"--while expensive--is quite a bit cheaper than "starting at $6000," which is where the Mac Pro begins. And the Studio (Ultra) is quite a bit faster in both single core and multicore speeds.
I think that perhaps flattens out a bit as one moves down the lineup, but he's right: it just got a lot cheaper to buy a top-of-the-line machine.
I'd very much like to upgrade to the M1 Max version, but I realistically need to upgrade my wife's Intel iMac more than my M1 Mini. I was hoping for a new 27" iMac announcement, but looks like it's at least possible there will be no more 27" iMacs. Hard to believe there won't be an eventual replacement there, but who knows...
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Mar 10, 2022 9:44:24 GMT -6
I think the Mac Studio with the M1 Max and 64GB of ram will be a pretty screaming audio machine. If I were a video professional, I'd try to find the money for the M1 Ultra.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Mar 10, 2022 10:08:33 GMT -6
I think the Mac Studio with the M1 Max and 64GB of ram will be a pretty screaming audio machine. If I were a video professional, I'd try to find the money for the M1 Ultra. While I will certainly try to find the money for the Ultra, I already have the distinct feeling I will be unable to locate it. The Max would still be a major upgrade for both my wife's machine and mine. Especially with upgrading the video processing to the next level beyond base. I should note, too, that my M1 Mini has been really good for video overall. I'm just asking an awful lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Mar 10, 2022 10:58:39 GMT -6
yes it is. It is literally the same just has more cores. That's it. Same clock speeds, same single core performance. Thus why for audio, the M1 mini is still the best deal at the moment. You do not need all the cores for audio processing or GPUs. The pro would maybe be worth it to get more years out of the system, but the Max and Ultra...hell no. You're wasting your money. It depends how big your sessions are and if you’re working at 88.2/96k hz to stop automation from aliasing. They didn’t improve the single core speed so you won’t be able to stack more plugs on a single track. When you switch to 88.2 / 96 khz to remove automation grunge, the daw itself basically takes double. Standard linear plugins pretty much still use negligible cpu (think Sonnox Oxford eq, Fabfilter eq without natural phase or dynamics, stock EQs, etc) but the daws themselves with complex routings, sends, and lots of delay compensation start getting up there, even when a lot of plugins aren’t increasing in real cpu use at all. I've been successfully working at 96k for about 7 years on my ancient 2012 MacBook Pro. In my experience, the DAW itself doesn't use much CPU, it's the plugins. Plugins that oversample don't use twice as much CPU at 96k, because they are already running at a higher sample rate. I'm sure if you purposely try to create a scenario to sabotage your CPU that you can bring an M1 or 12900 to its knees, but why? In practical, real-life scenarios, people are going to be hard-pressed to encounter situations where any of these new CPUs (Apple, Intel, or AMD) don't have enough horsepower.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Mar 10, 2022 12:04:54 GMT -6
If you're on PTHD there's also some new mode that Avid introduced to take advantage of cores (I think I've got that right?). Supposedly a game-changer with the M1, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 10, 2022 13:06:34 GMT -6
yes it is. It is literally the same just has more cores. That's it. Same clock speeds, same single core performance. Thus why for audio, the M1 mini is still the best deal at the moment. You do not need all the cores for audio processing or GPUs. The pro would maybe be worth it to get more years out of the system, but the Max and Ultra...hell no. You're wasting your money. It depends how big your sessions are and if you’re working at 88.2/96k hz to stop automation from aliasing. They didn’t improve the single core speed so you won’t be able to stack more plugs on a single track. When you switch to 88.2 / 96 khz to remove automation grunge, the daw itself basically takes double. Standard linear plugins pretty much still use negligible cpu (think Sonnox Oxford eq, Fabfilter eq without natural phase or dynamics, stock EQs, etc) but the daws themselves with complex routings, sends, and lots of delay compensation start getting up there, even when a lot of plugins aren’t increasing in real cpu use at all. well as a person that works basically only in a minimum of 96k(up to 384k which let me tell you is where the real problems start) I pretty much never have issues ever whether I'm on my 5,1 mac pro or my PC or even my old ass 3,1 mac pro(it has graphics issues with new OSX is all). 96k is not that much more work to run than a 44.1k session for any daw. 192, sure that'll put some more strain on there in a hurry and I know 384 does from lots of experience.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 10, 2022 13:08:06 GMT -6
If you're on PTHD there's also some new mode that Avid introduced to take advantage of cores (I think I've got that right?). Supposedly a game-changer with the M1, etc. You mean the Hybrid engine? That just allows you to mix in native(regardless of what CPU you have) but quickly enable DSP on a channel by channel basis. Which certainly has it advantages, there are some disadvantages too depending on what you are doing.
|
|
|
Post by terryrocks on Mar 10, 2022 15:45:15 GMT -6
what does aliasing of automation mean?
|
|
|
Mac Studio
Mar 10, 2022 15:53:14 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by keymod on Mar 10, 2022 15:53:14 GMT -6
what does aliasing of automation mean? I never heard of that either
|
|
|
Mac Studio
Mar 10, 2022 16:25:59 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Quint on Mar 10, 2022 16:25:59 GMT -6
I've been thinking about the cost of the Mini vs the Studio. I tend to agree with others here that a M2 Pro Mini might be the sweet spot if it came in around $1500.
However, it's worth comparing the costs we know about with the M1 Mini. Case in point:
I was thinking about picking up a 1tb 16gb M1 Mini for $1300. If you keep the SSD and ram the same size and only tack on $200 to go from a M1 to a mythical M2 Pro, that would get you to $1500. Now that assumes that a M2 Pro would only be $200 more than a M1, so who knows for sure. It could end up being even more, but likely wouldn't be less.
However, part of the appeal of a Pro chip, at least for me, would be because it could go up to 32gb ram. So tack on another $400 if you want to get the extra 16gb of ram to get it up to a total of 32gb. Now we're looking at $1900. It could possibly be more if it in fact costs more than $200 to go from a M1 to a M2 Pro.
My point being this: You can get the Studio with 1tb and 32gb AND the Max chip, for only another $300 ($2200 total). AND you likely won't need a dock, due to all of the extra ports on the Studio, so there's another $200 you don't have to spend . Now the difference is $100?!?
I'd probably choose the M2 Pro Mini with 32gb and 1tb over a Studio if the M2 Pro Mini we're available today. But it isn't and who knows if it will ever be. So I don't know if I'm going to quibble over $300 or less to wait for a possible M2 Pro Mini when I can get what I want today with the Studio, especially if I can save another $200 because I don't have to buy a dock.
Now if you want a M2 Pro Mini with less ram, it does start to get a little cheaper compared to the Studio. I'm just saying. The Studio isn't THAT much more money compared to what a comparably equipped M2 Pro Mini might likely cost. AND the Studio can be purchased today.
The only question in my mind is still the fan noise. I'm wondering if the Studio will be as quiet as the current M1 Minis. Everyone keeps reporting that their M1 Minis don't ever even run the fan, thus zero noise. I'm wondering if the Studio will similarly not run it's fans when performing a similar task load?
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Mar 10, 2022 16:39:41 GMT -6
If you're on PTHD there's also some new mode that Avid introduced to take advantage of cores (I think I've got that right?). Supposedly a game-changer with the M1, etc. You mean the Hybrid engine? That just allows you to mix in native(regardless of what CPU you have) but quickly enable DSP on a channel by channel basis. Which certainly has it advantages, there are some disadvantages too depending on what you are doing. Yes - thanks for the correction. That's what I was thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 10, 2022 16:47:14 GMT -6
As the studio is more powerful at a constant level of processing, it would be less taxed then the m1 mini. If the m1 mini fen doesn’t come on, running harder then the studio, why would the studio fan’s come on ?
If you are wondering under what load the studio fans would come, I understand that, but unless you are doing very intensive sustained 4-5k video rendering, I don’t see the studio’s fan noise being an issue.
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Mar 10, 2022 16:50:42 GMT -6
I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on the M1 Max with 24 vs 32 core GPU and wether it' s worth the extra $200 if it's a purely audio machine.
|
|
|
Post by terryrocks on Mar 10, 2022 16:55:39 GMT -6
I’m still running a late 2012 mini server for my setup. I can record 24 tracks (no plugins) at 48khz with 128 buffer and no hickups. I want to be able to track at 32 buffer and likely 96khz. Low buffer so i can monitor via daw with a limited number of plugs. maybe M1 is plenty for my needs?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 10, 2022 17:14:08 GMT -6
As the studio is more powerful at a constant level of processing, it would be less taxed then the m1 mini. If the m1 mini fen doesn’t come on, running harder then the studio, why would the studio fan’s come on ? If you are wondering under what load the studio fans would come, I understand that, but unless you are doing very intensive sustained 4-5k video rendering, I don’t see the studio’s fan noise being an issue. That's a fair point, and you may be right. But the devil is always in the details with this stuff.
|
|