Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Mac Studio for Composers - Tested!

David Kudell said:
As far as the buffer, (spoiler alert for the next video about VEPro on the Mac Studio) the reason for 192 is because in my testing, that's the lowest you can go using VEPro without getting a small pop when stopping playback. This is likely due to the fact that there's only 4ms of latency at 192, and the audio needs to travel from VEP back to Cubase.
Click to expand...
Please make sure to report that to VSL in case there is something they can do about it. 4ms latency is pretty darn good though.
 
one comment I have about latency. Latency does not change with different CPU's. Latency is a direct multiple of the buffer size, regardless of what CPU you are using. the only difference is whether or not the cpu will start sputtering and coughing or not with smaller buffer sizes. I think some of the latency numbers being quoted here seem lower than reality so they might want to check that out.

Also note that only your live tracks are subject to the small buffer size. Most daws use larger buffer sizes for all the other tracks whether you choose it or not.

I haven't been following all the latest Apple Silicon news and benchmarks so I'm not sure how they fare with single core performance, but my own understanding is that they aren't necessarily making that big of an advancement there. That is the thing that will determine how well your tracks will be able to handle the smaller buffer sizes.

so the interesting test for AS or any other computer, regarding latency, is how small of a buffer size can you use reliably without getting pops and clicks, with a real cpu hungry instrument and plugins in play on it? that is what will ultimately determine how low you should set your buffer size, which will determine exactly the amount of latency you will have.

theoretically, 192 sample buffer is 4ms each direction, (8ms round trip). That does not include any additional latency sometimes added by the interface's driver as additional forced latency, and or other buffer's added by the DAW. 4ms would be the absolute minimum one way latency at a buffer setting of 192, and could be higher in many interfaces. That also does not account for midi delay. Anything under 5ms is considered extremely good and most people are probably using something more like 10ms.
 
1 ms roughly equals 1 foot of distance from a sound source. I don't play with my head inside the piano, or my ear place up against the Leslie or a monitor speaker. And my bandmates don't sit in my lap, (at least not when we are on stage performing.)

An issue bigger than CPU latency for many VIs is how tightly samples are trimmed at their front end. Playability vs Realism is at issue here. For this reason, I will sometimes perform parts with a tightly edited sample set, then replace with a set that gives us more attack detail.

When recording with mics, round trip latency is only an issue when monitoring thru a DAW. It can be especially bothersome for vocalists. I choose hardware monitoring for this reason.
 
HCMarkus said:
1 ms roughly equals 1 foot of distance from a sound source. I don't play with my head inside the piano, or my ear place up against the Leslie or a monitor speaker. And my bandmates don't sit in my lap, (at least not when we are on stage performing.)

An issue bigger than CPU latency for many VIs is how tightly samples are trimmed at their front end. Playability vs Realism is at issue here. For this reason, I will sometimes perform parts with a tightly edited sample set, then replace with a set that gives us more attack detail.

When recording with mics, round trip latency is only an issue when monitoring thru a DAW. It can be especially bothersome for vocalists. I choose hardware monitoring for this reason.
Click to expand...
As a vocalist, I monitor through Luna using my apollo and run that as an unmonitored input into several Cubase audio tracks. Works like a charm, and there is zero latency whilst tracking. (M1 Max Macbook)

I'm sure I can set things up in Cubase to have no latency as well, but this is what works best for me since I like to run preamps through the apollo along with the rest of my tracking chain.
 
One thing that surprised me about the Mac Studio is how good the headphone out sounds. I work almost exclusively with headphones.

Maybe people don't mention it because most people doing audio and music on their Mac Studio are probably using audio interfaces and perhaps they haven't even tried it.

I have some older audio interfaces lying around, but when I got the M2 Max Studio some months ago, none of the older interfaces would be compatible, so my plan was to use the internal audio for a little bit while I decide which new interface to get.

Many months have now passed and I still haven't bothered to get an audio interface yet, as the internal has actually been working pretty good for my purposes and the headphone out is the best I've ever heard coming from any computer that I've ever used.

I'll still end up getting an audio interface because eventually I might need to record some audio or some vocals into the machine, but I'm in no big rush as the quality of the headphone out has been a pleasant surprise to me.
 
Man these things cost about the same as a car, I can only do this if I can get tax deduction for the investment.

How long is the expected life cycle on a machine like this?
 
GtrString said:
Man these things cost about the same as a car, I can only do this if I can get tax deduction for the investment.
Click to expand...
As I'm sure you are aware, if you use your computer to make money in any field of work, this is entirely possible.

GtrString said:
How long is the expected life cycle on a machine like this?
Click to expand...
The facts that 1) Apple is all-in on Apple Silicon, and 2) the company's iPhones have a solid history of long-term iOS support, suggest that macOS compatibility for each generation of AS computers may well remain for an extended period.

Then it all depends on how "cutting edge" you need to be. I fully expect my Mac Studio Ultra to be sufficient for my needs for many years.
 
Yeah, I've had Macs for almost two decades now, but have noticed a dramatic increase in the frequency of new OSX versions, and a decline in the Diy update'ability, along with more incompatibility issues - so I worry lifespan expectancy has gone down while prices has increased quite a bit. So I think the concerns and a bit of caution is legitimate..
 
GtrString said:
Yeah, I've had Macs for almost two decades now, but have noticed a dramatic increase in the frequency of new OSX versions, and a decline in the Diy update'ability, along with more incompatibility issues - so I worry lifespan expectancy has gone down while prices has increased quite a bit. So I think the concerns and a bit of caution is legitimate..
Click to expand...
Legitimate, yes. OTOH, unless you want to wade into the world of Windows, your options are limited.

That said, the monolithic nature of the new Macs and the cool temps at which they run suggest they should hold up well over many years of service
 
At this point I’m indifferent whether Windows or OSX. I can work with both. Compared to 20 years ago, you can now build a rock solid Windows machine with top specs compared to Apples lackluster and overpriced configurations.

I do appreciate Apple’s software, but their quality has deteriorated in recent years, why it’s become much closer between the two imo.
 
GtrString said:
I do appreciate Apple’s software, but their quality has deteriorated in recent years, why it’s become much closer between the two imo.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you come to that conclusion... IMO, current Apple hardware is most excellent. Different than it used to be, but top-notch fit and finish. Whether you choose to use it is another question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom