|
Post by ragan on Dec 2, 2018 21:34:01 GMT -6
I know I'm totally jinxing myself...but the fact that we are still using computers made 7 years ago is amazing. That's a damn good value. Oh, yes! It's amazing that SEVEN YEAR OLD HARDWARE is still working.
Geez, some of the procesing in my studio is going on 50 years old.
"Did you ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" -Johnny Rotten
What processing is that? Not computers.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,936
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 2, 2018 21:36:58 GMT -6
How many years do you think a maxed out Mac mini would be able to run full band sessions? 10 years? 5 years? That depends on when they roll out their own chips and how long they decide to support Intel after that. Writing and supporting different types of chips is expensive and a pain in the ass. Having been down this road already with Apple I don’t look forward to this and personally would not buy a new Mac till this is settled, even if Apple OS supports your machine 3 years from now who’s to say your interface vendor, DAW or favorite plugin vendors are going to invest in supporting an orphan system? Been through it way to many times.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,936
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 2, 2018 21:38:23 GMT -6
Im also not super onboard with the whole mobile/desktop merger thing. It opens doors for sure to lots of things but I just want a damn desktop to run like a desktop. I hate that they are becoming more like mobile devices. Chromebooks for instance. I HATE it. Apple or Win 10, I HATE it. Yeah it’s the world of OS for consumers, but then my main DAW is based on BE!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 3, 2018 17:50:18 GMT -6
There is no "solution" (except liquid cooling.) Physics is physics. Disagree. Efficiency is the answer. Plus most liquid cooling in a custom built pc is louder now than a good air cooler and they are bigger and more of a pita. Can hit 5ghz overclocked on air these days easily with no temp issues. Why? Chips are more efficient... And while yes you have some 50 year old stuff, which is cool, no computer from 30 years ago is still doing professional work haha Chip development is butting up against the wall of thermal efficiency these days. You may not have noticed, but there have been no real core speed increases for the past few years, which is why chip makers have been going to more and more cores to continue performance increases. The problem is that when you put more cores on opn e chip the thermal problem increases.
Until there's some revolutionary breakthrough like practical quantum computing we may have finally started to hit the limits of Moore's Law.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 3, 2018 17:53:15 GMT -6
Oh, yes! It's amazing that SEVEN YEAR OLD HARDWARE is still working.
Geez, some of the procesing in my studio is going on 50 years old.
"Did you ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" -Johnny Rotten
What processing is that? Not computers. Nope. Spectra Sonics 610 limiter, Gain Brains, etc.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,936
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 3, 2018 19:50:43 GMT -6
Disagree. Efficiency is the answer. Plus most liquid cooling in a custom built pc is louder now than a good air cooler and they are bigger and more of a pita. Can hit 5ghz overclocked on air these days easily with no temp issues. Why? Chips are more efficient... And while yes you have some 50 year old stuff, which is cool, no computer from 30 years ago is still doing professional work haha Chip development is butting up against the wall of thermal efficiency these days. You may not have noticed, but there have been no real core speed increases for the past few years, which is why chip makers have been going to more and more cores to continue performance increases. The problem is that when you put more cores on opn e chip the thermal problem increases.
Until there's some revolutionary breakthrough like practical quantum computing we may have finally started to hit the limits of Moore's Law.
The other thing with multi cores is the actual efficiency of using said cores, the numbers on the spec sheet look really sweet but it the actual performance gains just don’t seam to be as great. The other factor is the move to more and more mobile chips where heat and current draw trump all else.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 3, 2018 21:11:26 GMT -6
Has anyone bought one of the new Mac Mini's yet?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 3, 2018 21:35:32 GMT -6
Drew from ua did and it’s working fine!
|
|
|
Post by clumsycongregation on Dec 4, 2018 1:36:35 GMT -6
Has anyone bought one of the new Mac Mini's yet? I've ordered one. It's coming in 2 days and I can report back then. I'm replacing an aging "Hackintosh" that has treated me very well but is on it's last leg. Ultimately I plan to get the fables new 2019 mac pro but the specs on the mini were quite attractive. I'll either sell it when the Mac Pro arrives or keep it as a second rig. Take a look at the geekbench scores for the new maxed out mini. They're better than ALL macs except for the iMac pro and the very best 2013 Mac Pro.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,936
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 4, 2018 7:49:48 GMT -6
Has anyone bought one of the new Mac Mini's yet? I've ordered one. It's coming in 2 days and I can report back then. I'm replacing an aging "Hackintosh" that has treated me very well but is on it's last leg. Ultimately I plan to get the fables new 2019 mac pro but the specs on the mini were quite attractive. I'll either sell it when the Mac Pro arrives or keep it as a second rig. Take a look at the geekbench scores for the new maxed out mini. They're better than ALL macs except for the iMac pro and the very best 2013 Mac Pro. Keep us posted, the one big let down with past Mac Mini’s has been the graphics and while Geekbench has probably been the best standard for comparison of Computers I have to admit it has never really been a great metric for use in audio production. Yet I still use it constantly for Comparison.
|
|
|
Post by clumsycongregation on Dec 4, 2018 11:28:52 GMT -6
I've ordered one. It's coming in 2 days and I can report back then. I'm replacing an aging "Hackintosh" that has treated me very well but is on it's last leg. Ultimately I plan to get the fables new 2019 mac pro but the specs on the mini were quite attractive. I'll either sell it when the Mac Pro arrives or keep it as a second rig. Take a look at the geekbench scores for the new maxed out mini. They're better than ALL macs except for the iMac pro and the very best 2013 Mac Pro. Keep us posted, the one big let down with past Mac Mini’s has been the graphics and while Geekbench has probably been the best standard for comparison of Computers I have to admit it has never really been a great metric for use in audio production. Yet I still use it constantly for Comparison. Interesting. Do you happen to know a better test specific to audio production? That's be nice. As far as graphics go, this one is still super weak in that department. It's one of the major compromises. As I understand it, those needing intensive graphics performance need to use an external GPU connected via USB-C. My presumption is that Pro Tools really won't need it. Do you have an opinion on that? I'll holler back soon once I get it running.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 4, 2018 11:36:53 GMT -6
Keep us posted, the one big let down with past Mac Mini’s has been the graphics and while Geekbench has probably been the best standard for comparison of Computers I have to admit it has never really been a great metric for use in audio production. Yet I still use it constantly for Comparison. Interesting. Do you happen to know a better test specific to audio production? That's be nice. As far as graphics go, this one is still super weak in that department. It's one of the major compromises. As I understand it, those needing intensive graphics performance need to use an external GPU connected via USB-C. My presumption is that Pro Tools really won't need it. Do you have an opinion on that? I'll holler back soon once I get it running. I read this about the HDMI specs of the Mac Mini on Wikipedia: "The current Intel models of Mac mini can display video via the HDMI port at a maximum resolution of 1920x1200 and up to 2560x1600 via the Mini DisplayPort with a compatible monitor."
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 4, 2018 11:40:54 GMT -6
swurveman, I'm not up on video specs, is that considered good?
Do current monitors typically have a Mini DisplayPort, or is that a proprietary Apple thing?
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 4, 2018 12:05:38 GMT -6
swurveman, I'm not up on video specs, is that considered good? Do current monitors typically have a Mini DisplayPort, or is that a proprietary Apple thing? I'm not up on video specs either Martin. I know the recommended display on my laptop is 1366 x 768 and I can see fine on that. I think my DAW desktop PC-which uses an HDMI port and monitor- is a bit better. The intriguing thing about the Mac Mini to me is to buy it off the shelf without having to build a PC. I wouldn't be doing anything if I wasn't interested in Thunderbolt, which was forced upon me by much of the industry when my PCIE based system works fine.
|
|
|
Post by clumsycongregation on Dec 4, 2018 12:09:55 GMT -6
swurveman, I'm not up on video specs, is that considered good? Do current monitors typically have a Mini DisplayPort, or is that a proprietary Apple thing? As I understand it, The Mini will work with most monitors fine but might struggle with video intensive duties like video editing and gaming or if you're using 4k/5k monitors. My current monitor is within the max resolution listed above. MY main concern is whether or not the CPU will have to do extra work since the GPU isn't very powerful.
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Dec 4, 2018 12:14:47 GMT -6
while Geekbench has probably been the best standard for comparison of Computers I have to admit it has never really been a great metric for use in audio production. Yet I still use it constantly for Comparison. I think this is an important topic that I have a hard time finding discussion on. Does anyone know what the important aspects of a computer should be for use in audio production? I've always just defaulted to "get as many of the most recent cores and ram as I can" but I don't know how much single core vs multicore performance matters, whether a GPU bottle neck matters in regards to plugin GUI development, etc. etc.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,936
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 4, 2018 12:32:23 GMT -6
Keep us posted, the one big let down with past Mac Mini’s has been the graphics and while Geekbench has probably been the best standard for comparison of Computers I have to admit it has never really been a great metric for use in audio production. Yet I still use it constantly for Comparison. Interesting. Do you happen to know a better test specific to audio production? That's be nice. As far as graphics go, this one is still super weak in that department. It's one of the major compromises. As I understand it, those needing intensive graphics performance need to use an external GPU connected via USB-C. My presumption is that Pro Tools really won't need it. Do you have an opinion on that? I'll holler back soon once I get it running. The thing about benchmarks and audio production is first every DAW is different in how it uses CPU and everyone’s use of plugins is different. Add the fact the you need a historical reference when it comes to bench marks and you have different OS and DAW versions and it’s a cluster and it just doesn’t make sense it’s just going from machine to machine and judging DAW performance compared to Geekbench can leave you scratching your head. For most DAW useage you probably won’t be disappointed with the video. I have been trying to use a standalone mini since the first gen Intel and every version since as a media server. Try watches big a movie on a 55 or 60 in LCD or doing graphics work and it’s a huge disappointment. I know apple wants me to buy Apple TV, but I want my video and music on my HD I don’t want to always stream, I want separate digital audio and HDMI! Yeah I’m picky.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,936
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 4, 2018 12:45:26 GMT -6
while Geekbench has probably been the best standard for comparison of Computers I have to admit it has never really been a great metric for use in audio production. Yet I still use it constantly for Comparison. I think this is an important topic that I have a hard time finding discussion on. Does anyone know what the important aspects of a computer should be for use in audio production? I've always just defaulted to "get as many of the most recent cores and ram as I can" but I don't know how much single core vs multicore performance matters, whether a GPU bottle neck matters in regards to plugin GUI development, etc. etc. A lot of it comes down to what your going to really be doing example RAM amount and speed has meant more to those who use a lot of VI’s, for those doing post video performance is significantly more important than it is for most of us. This is where it leaves us scratching our heads, if we figure out what kind of balance of Cores vs speed is best for PT on OSX, Apple or Intel will have come up with some new technology that uses these technologies differently then Avid will Tweek the DAE and everything somebody typed will be out of date. Here is something I will say not all chips of a certain number of cores and clock speed are equal! As Ward and I have said again and again It hasn’t been the same since Apple stopped build machines with Intels top Server Chips. Honestly Since I went Radar as a tracking system I have been paying less and less attention to Intel chips.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 4, 2018 17:55:57 GMT -6
To even approach that, you'd have to find some way to quantify what constitutes "audio production".
Recording and mixing HD (24/96) audio is fairly mature tech. What used to take a desktop CPU and multiple magnetic drives can now be done on the cheapest laptop Apple sells...EASILY. Since they all have SSDs at this point...and even a mobile i5 has been fine for me to mix full albums.
The ability to polish content turds continues to evolve-stretching and tuning and morphing this sound into something way better...as does virtual instrument and and AI tech--which applies to both content creation (think Logic Drummer) and mixing via all kinds of assistant stuff like Neutron.
And getting that consensus will be tough.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 4, 2018 19:32:04 GMT -6
The two things I wonder about this new mini...is a) the reported noise and b) is there a SATA connector/drive bay in there? Apple's storage is still crazy expensive**, but the base 256SSD should be fine for OS/Apps and current projects, if one could slip in a 1TB SATA SSD for samples and longer term project storage.
**going from 256 to 1TB PCIe SSD is an $800 difference(which is more than twice the base model's total price!)...those chips, having literally bought those two for my build were like $120 and $300 (approx.) Maybe less on the bigger one...and that's FAST 970evos (which finally got the random access/latency specs of the Pros)...which isn't likely even what they'd use in a mini.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 4, 2018 20:48:14 GMT -6
The two things I wonder about this new mini...is a) the reported noise and b) is there a SATA connector/drive bay in there? Apple's storage is still crazy expensive**, but the base 256SSD should be fine for OS/Apps and current projects, if one could slip in a 1TB SATA SSD for samples and longer term project storage. **going from 256 to 1TB PCIe SSD is an $800 difference(which is more than twice the base model's total price!)...those chips, having literally bought those two for my build were like $120 and $300 (approx.) Maybe less on the bigger one...and that's FAST 970evos (which finally got the random access/latency specs of the Pros)...which isn't likely even what they'd use in a mini. I read this about SATA and the Mac Mini: Is the internal drive accessible to the user? No. It is not a slotted M.2 drive, nor SATA. Buy what you need for internal storage when you get the machine. Realize, though, that it has four 40Gbit/sec Thunderbolt 3 ports, so consider external storage. A USB 3.1 type-C generation 1 enclosure for a SATA SSD is about $20 from Amazon. One that can take two drives and is USB 3.1 type-C generation 2 is about $60. We'll be talking about options for truly ridiculous storage for the new machines before not too long. ......... Also this: LOL, $4200 is too much for a Mac mini! Yes, the highest configuration for a Mac mini is $4200. However, a large portion of that is expensive SSD. If you're the kind of AppleInsider reader that "needs" a $4200 Mac mini, then you're also the kind of user that buys their own RAM, and will get an external enclosure and pack it full of your own drives.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 4, 2018 21:10:24 GMT -6
FWIW...they've been using proprietary PCIE SSDs for years...but they ALSO had a SATA connection and (potentially empty) 2.5" bay...so that they could sell "fusion drives"...but, if you ordered a straight up PCIe storage, the bay was just empty. Thus you could buy a Mini with their PCIe drive...and add a second inexpensive but fast enough SATA drive as secondary easily.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2018 22:02:50 GMT -6
Just get a chassis for two sata drives. Ran a pyramix machine that way through usb3 for a year. Worked fine. Run one as the project drive and one for backup.
Wouldn't bother with internal mass storage.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Dec 5, 2018 3:38:57 GMT -6
swurveman, I'm not up on video specs, is that considered good? Do current monitors typically have a Mini DisplayPort, or is that a proprietary Apple thing? As I understand it, The Mini will work with most monitors fine but might struggle with video intensive duties like video editing and gaming or if you're using 4k/5k monitors. My current monitor is within the max resolution listed above. MY main concern is whether or not the CPU will have to do extra work since the GPU isn't very powerful. The graphics performance on a Mini will not be a problem at all if you're purely doing audio. It can even run up to a 5k monitor if you wanted that kind of resolution for some reason. So if your monitor is within spec, you'll be fine. Where the Mini falls down a bit is in the world of video/film work. It's not the best choice of machine for those purposes, IMHO. You can run an eGPU, but then you're dealing with more external boxes, potentially much larger than the Mini itself.
|
|
|
Post by clumsycongregation on Dec 6, 2018 17:45:39 GMT -6
My new I7 Mac Mini arrived a couple days ago and I've finally gotten all of my software installed. I used Pro Tools and Native Instruments Maschine for 2 jobs and I'm super happy with the performance so far. It's an obvious performance jump from my I7 X5650 Hackintosh, which I'm now retiring. I laughed out loud when I held the Mini in my hand above my monstrous Hackintosh. Inspired by the strength of such a small machine.
|
|