|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 21, 2023 15:54:48 GMT -6
I just had a LUNA project going on my M1 8G Mac... .the project when running is 10GB!! and is using 2GB of swap... not a glitch. Memory in these things is not like our old idea of memory.. cheers Wiz That’s going to kill that ssd eventually. Eventually being the key word…….8) I saw a video on SSD swap usage and life span…. |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 21, 2023 17:16:45 GMT -6
So I ran the test he does in that video above.. which tells me how much writing to my SSD is happening. Now he had been using his machine for 4 months when he made that video he was writing a total of 37GBytes a day to his SSD.
I have had my M1 Mac for 2 years abouts... I am using 24G per day.
So no worries for me... and no real need to increase my memory to 16G (even if It were possible.) My percentage used is only 1%
If I were purchasing a new machine..I probably would get 16GB (because of what happens in software going forward)..... but no need to upgrade at this point
Cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 21, 2023 17:32:12 GMT -6
That’s going to kill that ssd eventually. Eventually being the key word…….8) I saw a video on SSD swap usage and life span…. Exactly much ado about (mostly) nothing!  |
|
|
|
Post by dok on Jul 21, 2023 19:55:24 GMT -6
As long as you leave plenty of space on your internal HD it's also not going to be writing to the exact same sectors for swap, so these concerns are really about edge cases with a TON of swap data being written over and over to a mostly full SSD. Don't do that and you should be fine for a very long time. I've been doing Mac IT for a long time and outside of the unfortunate Fusion drives that Apple "innovated", I can count on two fingers the number of OEM SSDs that have gone bad in the last 10 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 22:56:42 GMT -6
Oh stuff like Kontakt, right.. Your philosophy is commendable but simply throwing money at something doesn't always equate to the best results without understanding why. For example my workstation (for work of course) has an AMD Epyc processor, in benchmarks it's nearly twice as fast as an M2 Ultra. However for music production the M2 or I5 is a way better CPU..
Why? Single core performance. It depends on the DAW & the plugin to be fair, some DAW's thread per channel (meaning one strip = 1 core) and I have noticed that Kontakt for example will multithread voices but for the most part it still seems single core heavy (which is an issue). Due to this it's sometimes better to have more raw grunt than parallel processing power, on paper the I5 13600 is a fraction quicker than the M2 in single core performance but that means if you tank the I5, you'd also tank the M2 (you'd definitely tank the Epyc). So, tell me why you'd go for one over the other? My point is, you could throw thousands more at this and get nothing more for your money.
UA plugs introduces latency because there's an RTL (round trip latency) involved in external DSP processing even if it's Thunderbolt, if I remember correctly there's a counter in the UA app that shows you the additional. If latency is an issue than you might want to consider going completely native as well. Personally I just use a short cut key in pro tools to disable all plugs when I do overdubs and I'm desk / HW based for the most part anyway so in my situation it doesn't matter too much. That again depends on your setup..
Look, end of the day this is just some friendly advice. Something to ponder over, when it comes to audio I wouldn't consider myself any more than a general hobbyist nowadays but when it comes to tech that's my bread & butter. I might one day spare someone enough dosh to go and also buy a nice compressor they don't need ..
P.S don't underestimate the importance of audio interface driver efficiency when it comes to latency, pops, crackles etc.
Thanks for your reply and thoughts. I don’t use any UAD plug-ins at the writing, arranging, tracking stage. As you say, they introduce too much latency. Before I mix I turn all my VI’s into audio and then I mix with no active VI’s …. which greatly helps the cpu and it’s my method for dealing with long term archiving. Whatever I get it will be an M2 Ultra 13900k or 7950x simply in the hope it will last me longer - which I admit may or may not be faulty thinking. My instinct is it will be the correct move for my approach. Honestly if you’re mixing while tracking, just use a higher sampling rate and ditch the latent plugs. The itb way of mixing it as it’s being recorded. Tokyo Dawn and UAD might sound awesome but they are often latent at 44.1 khz. 96 khz, TDR on insane is only 30 odd samples, similar to Oxford Dynamics but way more cpu and less bright. Massenburg plugs are zero latency at 88.2 and 96 kHz. The old school Sony Oxford six pack is zero and low latency except for the limiter. Dynamics has lookahead too but it’s short so not that latent at 44.1 and 48 khz U-he uses minimum phase anti-alias filters so they have low latency TDR Molot GE has the same already as UAD at 88.2 and 96 khz but higher sound quality. At 44.1 and 48 khz it’s rather latent on insane. UAD is all over the place with latency. The ATR 102 is insane even when mixing and doesn’t really sound any better than U-he Satin Waves Renaissance sounds okay but is high latency The PSP and McDSP zero latency stuff is very dirty but can sound cool. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 22, 2023 1:43:48 GMT -6
Thanks for your reply and thoughts. I don’t use any UAD plug-ins at the writing, arranging, tracking stage. As you say, they introduce too much latency. Before I mix I turn all my VI’s into audio and then I mix with no active VI’s …. which greatly helps the cpu and it’s my method for dealing with long term archiving. Whatever I get it will be an M2 Ultra 13900k or 7950x simply in the hope it will last me longer - which I admit may or may not be faulty thinking. My instinct is it will be the correct move for my approach. Honestly if you’re mixing while tracking, just use a higher sampling rate and ditch the latent plugs. The itb way of mixing it as it’s being recorded. Tokyo Dawn and UAD might sound awesome but they are often latent at 44.1 khz. 96 khz, TDR on insane is only 30 odd samples, similar to Oxford Dynamics but way more cpu and less bright. Massenburg plugs are zero latency at 88.2 and 96 kHz. The old school Sony Oxford six pack is zero and low latency except for the limiter. Dynamics has lookahead too but it’s short so not that latent at 44.1 and 48 khz U-he uses minimum phase anti-alias filters so they have low latency TDR Molot GE has the same already as UAD at 88.2 and 96 khz but higher sound quality. At 44.1 and 48 khz it’s rather latent on insane. UAD is all over the place with latency. The ATR 102 is insane even when mixing and doesn’t really sound any better than U-he Satin Waves Renaissance sounds okay but is high latency The PSP and McDSP zero latency stuff is very dirty but can sound cool. I don’t mix whilst I track. I have separate project versions, for writing, tracking, editing and finally mixing. Just be able to run VI’s at 32 sample buffer in a full arrangement, whilst tracking with virtually no fx or mix plug-ins take a very powerful system ime. Though Cubase’s ASIO Guard helps a bit. I’ve bought a Nord Electro 6 HP 73 so I can use that for piano, organ, Rhodes type sounds when groove is critical. I monitor the output of the Nord and record the MIDI to post trigger VI’s …. it makes a significant difference. I do similar with my Roland TD-50x kit, I monitor the Roland module and record the MIDI to post trigger SD3. I’m thinking of getting some hardware synths again too! Though that’s more to do with tone, rather than latency. There’s always work arounds for latency, one day hopefully I won’t need them, and I’ll be able to trigger VI’s directly. You know run the whole project at 96KHz - 16 buffer size …. I can dream |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 23, 2023 17:03:55 GMT -6
I’ve read most of this thread, and was on PC for the last 25 years. Just switched to the new M1 Mac Studio ultra, and also the new M2 MacBook Pro as my back up computer. Both have 64 gigs of RAM. These computers are absolutely incredible. if you’re just doing audio, they are overkill, but for virtual instruments, these things pay off in spades. Absolutely incredible, they run very cool, I’ve not heard the fan once on either computer. They have been completely solid, and the performance is staggering. I can even do video capture on the same computer while I am running Cubase with low latency, and fairly intensive virtual instruments like keyscape, Omnisphere, and others. To get into the higher end with 64 gigs or more, the price point is definitely high. And you will spend money on external drives or upgrading the internal drive, but it has been one of the best investments I ever made in my studio and I didn’t realize how much power and speed I was missing on my previous pc setup until I used these computers. Which DAW are you using? For Cubase Pro 12 from my research an Intel 13900K is more powerful and able (especially single core ability) than an M2 Ultra. I'm a Cubase user and so I'm on the fence about a new PC or new Mac Studio. The more I research and gather advice, the more I'm learning towards a pro built 13900K with 96GB RAM and 16TB of internal super fast storage for less than the price of a Mac Studio Ultra. With the change I can buy a 15" MacBook Air M2 for my writing room and basic video editing. |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jul 23, 2023 18:54:30 GMT -6
I’ve read most of this thread, and was on PC for the last 25 years. Just switched to the new M1 Mac Studio ultra, and also the new M2 MacBook Pro as my back up computer. Both have 64 gigs of RAM. These computers are absolutely incredible. if you’re just doing audio, they are overkill, but for virtual instruments, these things pay off in spades. Absolutely incredible, they run very cool, I’ve not heard the fan once on either computer. They have been completely solid, and the performance is staggering. I can even do video capture on the same computer while I am running Cubase with low latency, and fairly intensive virtual instruments like keyscape, Omnisphere, and others. To get into the higher end with 64 gigs or more, the price point is definitely high. And you will spend money on external drives or upgrading the internal drive, but it has been one of the best investments I ever made in my studio and I didn’t realize how much power and speed I was missing on my previous pc setup until I used these computers. Which DAW are you using? For Cubase Pro 12 from my research an Intel 13900K is more powerful and able (especially single core ability) than an M2 Ultra. I'm a Cubase user and so I'm on the fence about a new PC or new Mac Studio. The more I research and gather advice, the more I'm learning towards a pro built 13900K with 96GB RAM and 16TB of internal super fast storage for less than the price of a Mac Studio Ultra. With the change I can buy a 15" MacBook Air M2 for my writing room and basic video editing. I’m using Cubase 12 pro |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 24, 2023 0:10:15 GMT -6
Which DAW are you using? For Cubase Pro 12 from my research an Intel 13900K is more powerful and able (especially single core ability) than an M2 Ultra. I'm a Cubase user and so I'm on the fence about a new PC or new Mac Studio. The more I research and gather advice, the more I'm learning towards a pro built 13900K with 96GB RAM and 16TB of internal super fast storage for less than the price of a Mac Studio Ultra. With the change I can buy a 15" MacBook Air M2 for my writing room and basic video editing. I’m using Cubase 12 pro Sorry, I missed that in your post So same as me, interesting - thank you. You make the new Macs sound very appealing! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2023 6:03:28 GMT -6
Sorry, I missed that in your post So same as me, interesting - thank you. You make the new Macs sound very appealing! Just to reiterate I'm not a Mac or PC evangelist in any sort of way. Simply put, I don't care and I prefer specific parts (usually software apps) for specific tasks. I will say that a well designed PC will always have the power advantage (if that's what you're looking for). They're not always necessarily cheaper, it really depends on if you're going to build them yourself, nowadays it's a bit more like a puzzle than something technically involved. They do have a habbit of not updating the firmware to support newer CPU's though so have a few decent flash drives spare.
If I were going to put together an OTT music (or any) machine I'd build the following:
Note: You do have to be careful with PCIE lanes, for example a 4.0 M.2 whilst fast will eat up 4 lanes.
I7 13900F (lower TDP than 13900K, meaning less heat / draw, still a bit more powerful than an M2 24 core ultra). Cost: 549 (give or take). Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 (Low dB and supports CPU's up to 250W TDP, 13900F is 219W max) Cost: 78.
MSI MPG Z790 CARBON (never really had any issues with upper end MSI or ASUS and I'm using this board). Cost: 379. 128GB Kingston Fury DDR 5600 (I never use more than 32GB but you seem to like your RAM so) Cost: 400. 4TB Kingston FURY Renegade M.2-2280 (Main (OS) drive, these have a 7Gbps Read / Write. Yes you heard that right, these are crazy fast) Cost: 561 4TB Kingston FURY Renegade M.2-2280 (Samples / work drive, again crazy fast (used 8X PCIE lanes thus far)) Cost: 561 Kingston DC500M 3.8TB 2.5" SATA III SSD X 2 (Spares / backup etc. 500Mbs read / write) Cost: 614 Corsair SF-L 1000W PSU Gold (Not really needed but if you decide to add GPU's etc. then it has more than enough power) Cost: 201 Fractal Design Define 7 XL Full Tower (Better air flow in a full tower which will keep your CPU quieter) Cost: 193
You can add a GPU if you wish however there's only 12 PCIE lanes left in this build, that's more than enough for general gaming etc. (if you do so) but I'd avoid trying to max out an RTX 4090. If for whatever reason that's what you're after simply remove one of the M.2 drives, also you'll need to purchase Windows if you don't already have an up to date copy of course.
Total cost: 3536
Now to compare the Mac:
Apple M2 Ultra 128GB Memory 8TB SSD Storage (max you could spec)
Cost: 7199
Now let's compare to a custom built PC:
I had a look at a Threadripper machine and that was 6615 with 2TB of storage and 32GB of memory, another was 10K for a 13900K. It does make the Mac Studio look like a bit of a bargain really, heck you're not far from my neck of the woods I think. For those sort of price differences I'd build, install and test the machine myself and it would still cost you thousands less.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 24, 2023 12:26:45 GMT -6
Sorry, I missed that in your post So same as me, interesting - thank you. You make the new Macs sound very appealing! Just to reiterate I'm not a Mac or PC evangelist in any sort of way. Simply put, I don't care and I prefer specific parts (usually software apps) for specific tasks. I will say that a well designed PC will always have the power advantage (if that's what you're looking for). They're not always necessarily cheaper, it really depends on if you're going to build them yourself, nowadays it's a bit more like a puzzle than something technically involved. They do have a habbit of not updating the firmware to support newer CPU's though so have a few decent flash drives spare.
If I were going to put together an OTT music (or any) machine I'd build the following:
Note: You do have to be careful with PCIE lanes, for example a 4.0 M.2 whilst fast will eat up 4 lanes.
I7 13900F (lower TDP than 13900K, meaning less heat / draw, still a bit more powerful than an M2 24 core ultra). Cost: 549 (give or take). Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 (Low dB and supports CPU's up to 250W TDP, 13900F is 219W max) Cost: 78.
MSI MPG Z790 CARBON (never really had any issues with upper end MSI or ASUS and I'm using this board). Cost: 379. 128GB Kingston Fury DDR 5600 (I never use more than 32GB but you seem to like your RAM so) Cost: 400. 4TB Kingston FURY Renegade M.2-2280 (Main (OS) drive, these have a 7Gbps Read / Write. Yes you heard that right, these are crazy fast) Cost: 561 4TB Kingston FURY Renegade M.2-2280 (Samples / work drive, again crazy fast (used 8X PCIE lanes thus far)) Cost: 561 Kingston DC500M 3.8TB 2.5" SATA III SSD X 2 (Spares / backup etc. 500Mbs read / write) Cost: 614 Corsair SF-L 1000W PSU Gold (Not really needed but if you decide to add GPU's etc. then it has more than enough power) Cost: 201 Fractal Design Define 7 XL Full Tower (Better air flow in a full tower which will keep your CPU quieter) Cost: 193
You can add a GPU if you wish however there's only 12 PCIE lanes left in this build, that's more than enough for general gaming etc. (if you do so) but I'd avoid trying to max out an RTX 4090. If for whatever reason that's what you're after simply remove one of the M.2 drives, also you'll need to purchase Windows if you don't already have an up to date copy of course.
Total cost: 3536
Now to compare the Mac:
Apple M2 Ultra 128GB Memory 8TB SSD Storage (max you could spec)
Cost: 7199
Now let's compare to a custom built PC:
I had a look at a Threadripper machine and that was 6615 with 2TB of storage and 32GB of memory, another was 10K for a 13900K. It does make the Mac Studio look like a bit of a bargain really, heck you're not far from my neck of the woods I think. For those sort of price differences I'd build, install and test the machine myself and it would still cost you thousands less.
A stock Mac M2 Ultra (64GB Ram, 1TB SSD) bought by my son for me at Edu discount (he's doing a Masters in Computer Science) will cost me 3800. A sonnet drive enclosure with 2 x WD 4TB drives will cost me 900, plus 3 Samsung 2TB T7 SSD's Total 5100 As it happens I then need a new RME USB 2.0 interface and UAD Satellite as my RME and UAD-2 are both PCIe (but let's take that out of the equation) it's a one of cost of changing to Mac. A Scan 3XS pro built system (I've used them many times before) 13900k 64GB RAM 16TB drives Cost 3300 AMD 7950X .... virtually the same price. So the cheaper option is the PC route and definitely in my case as I'll need to spend a further 2000 as a one of cost for the RME interface and UAD satellite. Each is currently a compomise. 13900K has issues with Cubase and E cores. AMD doesn't work with my UAD-2 Quad PCIe (Octo's are OK) but I'd need a new UAD Satellite to use with a Apple Studio Apple Studio Cubase has to be in Rosetta to work with UAD-2 DSP plugins. So, I'm stuck and tearing my hair out for the last two weeks (I'm bald anyway LOL) Apple has a great eco system, I use an iPad Pro and an old intel iMac, Macbook and my iPhone for my daily drivers and air drop and iCloud are great. I'd like to go back to experimenting again a bit with Logic X for writing (but I can do that on an M2 Macbook Air laptop or Mini in my writing room) Perhaps a Studio M2 Max is all I need and at 2400 for a 64GB, 1TB SSD it's not going to break the bank. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2023 14:01:34 GMT -6
So, I'm stuck and tearing my hair out for the last two weeks (I'm bald anyway LOL) Apple has a great eco system, I use an iPad Pro and an old intel iMac, Macbook and my iPhone for my daily drivers and air drop and iCloud are great. I'd like to go back to experimenting again a bit with Logic X for writing (but I can do that on an M2 Macbook Air laptop or Mini in my writing room) Perhaps a Studio M2 Max is all I need and at 2400 for a 64GB, 1TB SSD it's not going to break the bank. For that price it's a bit of no brainer IMO, go for the Mac, it supports cubase so job is a good one. |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jul 25, 2023 8:30:49 GMT -6
I’ve done custom PC builds my entire career. Til now. With a truly powerful graphics card calculated into a pc build, the Mac Studio Ultra w 64GB and 1TB internal came in lower than the PC build. AND if you calculate the hours saved on the build, I came out way ahead. Hours I can be up and running and working. YMMV
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 25, 2023 9:43:18 GMT -6
I’ve done custom PC builds my entire career. Til now. With a truly powerful graphics card calculated into a pc build, the Mac Studio Ultra w 64GB and 1TB internal came in lower than the PC build. AND if you calculate the hours saved on the build, I came out way ahead. Hours I can be up and running and working. YMMV I'm confused on one part of this single core - multicore performance thing. I have an Intel 4930K (9 years old) 6 core (12 threads) overclocked to 4.2Ghz - I run Cubase Pro 12. I turn all my VI's to audio for mixdown and that also takes care of archiving (neat) and during mixing at 1024 buffers (RME PCI-e) on my 4930K I can run 100+ audio tracks with 200 or even 300 plugins natively and then on top I have my UAD-2 cards running DSP UAD plugins and I'm hybrid with hardware on the stereo mix bus. So clearly I have no need for more power at the mix stage - odd really as my PC is 9 years old! It's during the writing arranging stage that I have issues running at my desired low latency of 64 or 128 buffers with Superior 3, Ivory II, Keyscape, UH-w Repro 5 Omnisphere, Abbey Road Two etc .... now my PC falls apart real quick and I'm stuck!! So what do I need? Better SC performance or better MC performance or both (maybe my DDR3 RAM is too slow?) I've noticed UH-e synths have very good MC load spreading. If I'm OK for mixing on my near decade old 4930K then do I need an Ultra M2, 13900K, AMD 7950X just to solve the issue of low latency VI playing. Or would a Mac Studio Max M2, Intel i7 13900K be all I need? I seem to have two sperate needs. Live VI's .... I'm stuck Mixing down audio and plugins only - I'm covered even now. Definitely confusing this stuff, at least it is for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2023 11:11:27 GMT -6
Okay, where modern CPU's really shine is the ability to multi-thread meaning they distribute tasks to a scheduler that run functions across different cores. Again, your DAW (dependant on how its coded) will split every channel across said different cores. Think about it this way, your CPU has six cores so by the time you've added a seventh VST one of the channels (or CPU cores) will have two instances of a VI on it. That will probably cause it to fall over immediately dependant on how CPU heavy the VI's are.
If you had an I9 13900K for example which is 24 cores you could run 24 VST's and they'd have access to the entire core (minus background apps) which also has over double the single core performance of your 4930K. So ultimately the chances of you running into issues will decrease dramatically. That's not to say that with quite a few plugs (like Dan's love of TDR's insane mode) slapped over a VST on the same channel the CPU wouldn't still tank. Of course (and I don't want to get too deep here) some VST's are capable of multi-threading, so take Kontakt "voices" if you enable MT it should distribute the workload (see below / multiprocessor support):
I also looked up the way Cubase does it, I already stated earlier in this thread that Pro Tools works the way I specified but so does Cubase apparently.
What you essentially need is a better CPU, you don't realise how fast a current top of the range I5 is compared to that 4930K never mind a 13900. There's no comparison and to be fair that 4930K was never a lightning fast CPU to being with. Also just to note faster RAM & SSD's with high bandwidth running over PCIE really did help in terms of speed.
P.S there's a lot more to it but please feel free to ask, I'm always here to help if I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jul 25, 2023 11:12:42 GMT -6
I’ve done custom PC builds my entire career. Til now. With a truly powerful graphics card calculated into a pc build, the Mac Studio Ultra w 64GB and 1TB internal came in lower than the PC build. AND if you calculate the hours saved on the build, I came out way ahead. Hours I can be up and running and working. YMMV I'm confused on one part of this single core - multicore performance thing. I have an Intel 4930K (9 years old) 6 core (12 threads) overclocked to 4.2Ghz - I run Cubase Pro 12. I turn all my VI's to audio for mixdown and that also takes care of archiving (neat) and during mixing at 1024 buffers (RME PCI-e) on my 4930K I can run 100+ audio tracks with 200 or even 300 plugins natively and then on top I have my UAD-2 cards running DSP UAD plugins and I'm hybrid with hardware on the stereo mix bus. So clearly I have no need for more power at the mix stage - odd really as my PC is 9 years old! It's during the writing arranging stage that I have issues running at my desired low latency of 64 or 128 buffers with Superior 3, Ivory II, Keyscape, UH-w Repro 5 Omnisphere, Abbey Road Two etc .... now my PC falls apart real quick and I'm stuck!! So what do I need? Better SC performance or better MC performance or both (maybe my DDR3 RAM is too slow?) I've noticed UH-e synths have very good MC load spreading. If I'm OK for mixing on my near decade old 4930K then do I need an Ultra M2, 13900K, AMD 7950X just to solve the issue of low latency VI playing. Or would a Mac Studio Max M2, Intel i7 13900K be all I need? I seem to have two sperate needs. Live VI's .... I'm stuck Mixing down audio and plugins only - I'm covered even now. Definitely confusing this stuff, at least it is for me. I’m not a total tech geek so I haven’t spent much time diggin into single core/Multi-Core. But faster processors/RAM/hard drives and high graphics processing to take the load off the CPU makes all the difference in the world for using Virtual instruments. That’s where new computers make a huge difference. For mixing and for high audio track counts, and most non VI plugins, even 5-10 year old computers can work quite well. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 25, 2023 12:16:45 GMT -6
Okay, where modern CPU's really shine is the ability to multi-thread meaning they distribute tasks to a scheduler that run functions across different cores. Again, your DAW (dependant on how its coded) will split every channel across said different cores. Think about it this way, your CPU has six cores so by the time you've added a seventh VST one of the channels (or CPU cores) will have two instances of a VI on it. That will probably cause it to fall over immediately dependant on how CPU heavy the VI's are.
If you had an I9 13900K for example which is 24 cores you could run 24 VST's and they'd have access to the entire core (minus background apps) which also has over double the single core performance of your 4930K. So ultimately the chances of you running into issues will decrease dramatically. That's not to say that with quite a few plugs (like Dan's love of TDR's insane mode) slapped over a VST on the same channel the CPU wouldn't still tank. Of course (and I don't want to get too deep here) some VST's are capable of multi-threading, so take Kontakt "voices" if you enable MT it should distribute the workload (see below / multiprocessor support):
I also looked up the way Cubase does it, I already stated earlier in this thread that Pro Tools works the way I specified but so does Cubase apparently.
What you essentially need is a better CPU, you don't realise how fast a current top of the range I5 is compared to that 4930K never mind a 13900. There's no comparison and to be fair that 4930K was never a lightning fast CPU to being with. Also just to note faster RAM & SSD's with high bandwidth running over PCIE really did help in terms of speed.
P.S there's a lot more to it but please feel free to ask, I'm always here to help if I can.
Thank you for your reply and being so helpful - it's very kind of you. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 25, 2023 12:23:15 GMT -6
I'm confused on one part of this single core - multicore performance thing. I have an Intel 4930K (9 years old) 6 core (12 threads) overclocked to 4.2Ghz - I run Cubase Pro 12. I turn all my VI's to audio for mixdown and that also takes care of archiving (neat) and during mixing at 1024 buffers (RME PCI-e) on my 4930K I can run 100+ audio tracks with 200 or even 300 plugins natively and then on top I have my UAD-2 cards running DSP UAD plugins and I'm hybrid with hardware on the stereo mix bus. So clearly I have no need for more power at the mix stage - odd really as my PC is 9 years old! It's during the writing arranging stage that I have issues running at my desired low latency of 64 or 128 buffers with Superior 3, Ivory II, Keyscape, UH-w Repro 5 Omnisphere, Abbey Road Two etc .... now my PC falls apart real quick and I'm stuck!! So what do I need? Better SC performance or better MC performance or both (maybe my DDR3 RAM is too slow?) I've noticed UH-e synths have very good MC load spreading. If I'm OK for mixing on my near decade old 4930K then do I need an Ultra M2, 13900K, AMD 7950X just to solve the issue of low latency VI playing. Or would a Mac Studio Max M2, Intel i7 13900K be all I need? I seem to have two sperate needs. Live VI's .... I'm stuck Mixing down audio and plugins only - I'm covered even now. Definitely confusing this stuff, at least it is for me. I’m not a total tech geek so I haven’t spent much time diggin into single core/Multi-Core. But faster processors/RAM/hard drives and high graphics processing to take the load off the CPU makes all the difference in the world for using Virtual instruments. That’s where new computers make a huge difference. For mixing and for high audio track counts, and most non VI plugins, even 5-10 year old computers can work quite well. Thanks drsax, I think you're right, it's the VI world where I need the big improvement. I just need to be careful I don't waste money on pointless power I'm not going to be utilising as Shadowk pointed out in an early post. I'm not doing 80 piece orchestral works, so at this point I am wondering if a Mac M2 Ultra/13900K for example is OTT and a M2 Max/i7 13700 is enough to cover my VI needs after all my 4930K already covers my mixing needs! I need to make a decision soon, as I have the summer off from work and it's a great opportunity to make the switch to a new system. Darn my OCD, I'm cr*p at making decisions |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Jul 25, 2023 12:28:08 GMT -6
I’m not a total tech geek so I haven’t spent much time diggin into single core/Multi-Core. But faster processors/RAM/hard drives and high graphics processing to take the load off the CPU makes all the difference in the world for using Virtual instruments. That’s where new computers make a huge difference. For mixing and for high audio track counts, and most non VI plugins, even 5-10 year old computers can work quite well. Thanks drsax, I think you're right, it's the VI world where I need the big improvement. I just need to be careful I don't waste money on pointless power I'm not going to be utilising as Shadowk pointed out in an early post. I'm not doing 80 piece orchestral works, so at this point I am wondering if a Mac M2 Ultra/13900K for example is OTT and a M2 Max/i7 13700 is enough to cover my VI needs after all my 4930K already covers my mixing needs! I need to make a decision soon, as I have the summer off from work and it's a great opportunity to make the switch to a new system. Darn my OCD, I'm cr*p at making decisions for anyone using Virtual Intruments, new powerful computers are not a waste IMO, because even if you don’t need all that power today, you will in the years to come as virtua instruments and plugins become more powerful and CPU intensive. In the long run, I have NEVER regretted having a computer with extra power today. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 25, 2023 12:34:40 GMT -6
Thanks drsax, I think you're right, it's the VI world where I need the big improvement. I just need to be careful I don't waste money on pointless power I'm not going to be utilising as Shadowk pointed out in an early post. I'm not doing 80 piece orchestral works, so at this point I am wondering if a Mac M2 Ultra/13900K for example is OTT and a M2 Max/i7 13700 is enough to cover my VI needs after all my 4930K already covers my mixing needs! I need to make a decision soon, as I have the summer off from work and it's a great opportunity to make the switch to a new system. Darn my OCD, I'm cr*p at making decisions for anyone using Virtual Intruments, new powerful computers are not a waste IMO, because even if you don’t need all that power today, you will in the years to come as virtua instruments and plugins become more powerful and CPU intensive. In the long run, I have NEVER regretted having a computer with extra power today. Good point. You're right when I got my 4930K 9 years ago - I thought great I'll never need another computer. Ever. Doh! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2023 15:48:05 GMT -6
for anyone using Virtual Intruments, new powerful computers are not a waste IMO, because even if you don’t need all that power today, you will in the years to come as virtua instruments and plugins become more powerful and CPU intensive. In the long run, I have NEVER regretted having a computer with extra power today. Good point. You're right when I got my 4930K 9 years ago - I thought great I'll never need another computer. Ever. Doh! I wish it worked that way, so I just did a quick test with my MBP and ran 10 instances of Studio Drummer inside Logic. It has a handy tool which allows you to monitor the CPU threads, most of them were running at 25%, one wasn't doing anything and the final one which is probably running the DAW plus other stuff was maxing out. Guess what? I started getting pops, crackles etc. So I excluded that core from the pool and I ran a lot more instances.
Studio Drummer isn't light and factoring in the I5 in my other machine is 3.5X faster (or more), we're talking a lot of VST instances here (100+). Although again as I've been saying it doesn't matter how fast the CPU is if you're unware of the problem or the code is sloppy. Although it's far cheaper to replace a VST than it is a machine.. I'm not saying you shouldn't upgrade, an I7 13700F is not too far from an M2 Ultra and in both instances you'd need a new machine (for PC one has to consider socket compatability, RAM type, then why not go for fast SSD etc.) Ultimately, do you prefer Mac or PC?! Or are you like me who doesn't really care?
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 25, 2023 16:32:05 GMT -6
Good point. You're right when I got my 4930K 9 years ago - I thought great I'll never need another computer. Ever. Doh! I wish it worked that way, so I just did a quick test with my MBP and ran 10 instances of Studio Drummer inside Logic. It has a handy tool which allows you to monitor the CPU threads, most of them were running at 25%, one wasn't doing anything and the final one which is probably running the DAW plus other stuff was maxing out. Guess what? I started getting pops, crackles etc. So I excluded that core from the pool and I ran a lot more instances.
Studio Drummer isn't light and factoring in the I5 in my other machine is 3.5X faster (or more), we're talking a lot of VST instances here (100+). Although again as I've been saying it doesn't matter how fast the CPU is if you're unware of the problem or the code is sloppy. Although it's far cheaper to replace a VST than it is a machine.. I'm not saying you shouldn't upgrade, an I7 13700F is not too far from an M2 Ultra and in both instances you'd need a new machine (for PC one has to consider socket compatability, RAM type, then why not go for fast SSD etc.) Ultimately, do you prefer Mac or PC?! Or are you like me who doesn't really care?
I'm like you, I don't care if it's Window or OSX - they're both effective modern OS. I have PC's and Apple gear in my studio, living room and home office, I like them all equally. If I go for a Scan 3XS 13900K system it comes with an AIO water cooler. Are those AIO's reliable longer term? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2023 17:15:45 GMT -6
I'm like you, I don't care if it's Window or OSX - they're both effective modern OS. I have PC's and Apple gear in my studio, living room and home office, I like them all equally. If I go for a Scan 3XS 13900K system it comes with an AIO water cooler. Are those AIO's reliable longer term? I had a Corsair H100 WC in my old machine, they're loud (very loud under full load) and after about three years they started making whirring noises so I gave up and bought a Noctua. Also replaced the CPU, Mobo, RAM and SSD  .. Well, I was already changing bits lol.
I'll have a look round for you, if it's 1 or 2TB SSD than they'll be much easier to find and cost a lot less.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 26, 2023 3:09:18 GMT -6
I'm like you, I don't care if it's Window or OSX - they're both effective modern OS. I have PC's and Apple gear in my studio, living room and home office, I like them all equally. If I go for a Scan 3XS 13900K system it comes with an AIO water cooler. Are those AIO's reliable longer term? I had a Corsair H100 WC in my old machine, they're loud (very loud under full load) and after about three years they started making whirring noises so I gave up and bought a Noctua. Also replaced the CPU, Mobo, RAM and SSD .. Well, I was already changing bits lol.
I'll have a look round for you, if it's 1 or 2TB SSD than they'll be much easier to find and cost a lot less.
That's one of their prebuilt systems. The last one I bought from them was a custom system, and this time I would go down the custom route again. I spec'ed out a 13900K which they supply with a Be Quiet 280mm AIO. I've never had an AIO and I hear horror stories about them leaking and being noisy - though Scan assure me their AIO's are definitely not noisy. I was all set to get a 13900K a while back and then the whole thing came up about Cubase Pro 12 having issues with 13th gen Intel CPU's due to the P and E core hybrid design and then there's the heat and potential noise. That's when a few people suggested to me I should take a closer look at Apples M2 CPU machines and then someone at Scan suggested perhaps I'd like an AMD 7950x. Ever since I've been going around in circles with option anxiety. It's not like these high end systems are cheap and they all come with some sort of compromise. 1st world problem - I get that, so I'm not really complaining or moaning here, I just want to get this purchase right as it has to last me a long time! |
|
|
|
Post by professorplum on Jul 26, 2023 21:18:35 GMT -6
On a 2018 i7 Mac Mini w/ 64gb RAM that's starting to feel its age, especially with VSTs/heavy CPU mixing plugins. Want to spring for M2 but sounds like M3 is right around the corner next year? Wondering if its worth the wait and if they'll push the desktop M3 Macs to next fall or if they'll come out earlier...
|
|
.. Well, I was already changing bits lol.
