Best iMac Pro configuration for heavy Reason 10 use?

Want to talk about music hardware or software that doesn't include Reason?
squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

11 Dec 2017

I want to be able load projects with lots of tracks, rack instruments, VST instruments, effects etc. (Though I should probably note I don't use a ton of sample-heavy instruments.)

What specs should I aim for if I get the new iMac Pro?

Would Reason be able to take advantage of an 18-core processor? Would it offer a very noticeable performance increase from the 10-core processor?

How much 2666MHz DDR4 RAM should I aim for? The max is 128GB.

Since Reason doesn't have a "freeze tracks" option, I find myself amassing a lot of effects and instruments and before I know it, my 75-track song won't play. Or I can't record without hiccups.

I have the Element 24 from Apogee, BTW. I noticed a big performance increase when I got that. I guess because it handles some of the processing on its own.

Let me know if you have any info around this. Thanks in advance!

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

11 Dec 2017

squint wrote:
11 Dec 2017
I have the Element 24 from Apogee, BTW. I noticed a big performance increase when I got that. I guess because it handles some of the processing on its own.
It probably rather has to do with the fact that it runs on thunderbolt, i.e. PCI, which doesn't use as much CPU power as USB.

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

11 Dec 2017

Ah ok, thanks normen. Any thoughts on iMac Pro specs I should aim for? Is anything a waste of money when it comes to Reason performance? i.e. an 18-core processor, or going to 64 or 128 RAM, if I'm not using a bunch of sample-based instruments? Though I think I read something else DAW-related uses a lot of RAM, but I forget what now.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

11 Dec 2017

squint wrote:
11 Dec 2017
Ah ok, thanks normen. Any thoughts on iMac Pro specs I should aim for? Is anything a waste of money when it comes to Reason performance? i.e. an 18-core processor, or going to 64 or 128 RAM, if I'm not using a bunch of sample-based instruments? Though I think I read something else DAW-related uses a lot of RAM, but I forget what now.
You don't need to spend much on the graphics card, the CPU(s) are basically everything in terms of "power". SSD will make stuff feel faster but not give you more instances or tracks. More RAM will allow you to load more samples.

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

11 Dec 2017

Ok so Reason can take advantage of the 18-core processor? I'll be less likely to run out of CPU power with that vs the 10-core?

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

11 Dec 2017

squint wrote:
11 Dec 2017
Ok so Reason can take advantage of the 18-core processor? I'll be less likely to run out of CPU power with that vs the 10-core?
If you often deal with "75-track songs" then yes.

RandyEspoda
Posts: 275
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

11 Dec 2017

squint wrote:
11 Dec 2017
I want to be able load projects with lots of tracks, rack instruments, VST instruments, effects etc. (Though I should probably note I don't use a ton of sample-heavy instruments.)

What specs should I aim for if I get the new iMac Pro?

Would Reason be able to take advantage of an 18-core processor? Would it offer a very noticeable performance increase from the 10-core processor?

How much 2666MHz DDR4 RAM should I aim for? The max is 128GB.

Since Reason doesn't have a "freeze tracks" option, I find myself amassing a lot of effects and instruments and before I know it, my 75-track song won't play. Or I can't record without hiccups.

I have the Element 24 from Apogee, BTW. I noticed a big performance increase when I got that. I guess because it handles some of the processing on its own.

Let me know if you have any info around this. Thanks in advance!
The best iMac Pro for Reason, currently, is a custom built Windows PC ;)

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

11 Dec 2017

I've built a lot of custom PCs in my day (and custom Macs, which of course are really just PCs), but I'm afraid those days are done.

I also work for Apple so I get a huge discount off things like iMacs, iPhones, Mac Pros, iPads etc.

The worst thing about making a custom PC is trying to sell it as one whole unit. Nobody wants it. You have to sell the individual parts. You can sell a Mac a year later for almost what you paid for it. That works especially in my case because of the discount.

RandyEspoda
Posts: 275
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

12 Dec 2017

squint wrote:
11 Dec 2017
I've built a lot of custom PCs in my day (and custom Macs, which of course are really just PCs), but I'm afraid those days are done.

I also work for Apple so I get a huge discount off things like iMacs, iPhones, Mac Pros, iPads etc.

The worst thing about making a custom PC is trying to sell it as one whole unit. Nobody wants it. You have to sell the individual parts. You can sell a Mac a year later for almost what you paid for it. That works especially in my case because of the discount.
In that case take the best Apple has to offer :puf_bigsmile: :puf_bigsmile: :puf_bigsmile:

EDIT: with the most number of cores possible. Reason loves multiple cores, the more the better.

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

12 Dec 2017

Cool ok that’s what I was trying to figure out thanks.

User avatar
motuscott
Posts: 3420
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Contest Weiner

12 Dec 2017

RandyEspoda wrote:
11 Dec 2017
The best iMac Pro for Reason, currently, is a custom built Windows PC ;)
So over Apple and their phone kotoing. This used to be artist's software, y'know configurable, upgradable.
That's the past.
Just got my first smartphone. Android. F U Apple.
Who’s using the royal plural now baby? 🧂

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 2037
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

13 Dec 2017

Apple has announced that the iMac Pro – a workstation-class version of its popular iMac line, will be available order starting 12/14/2017.

The iMac Pro promises to be wicked expensive, with an 8-core, 32 GB model starting at $4,999. But it also promises to be wicked fast – the most powerful Mac ever made.

It’s an iMac Pro for professional media producers, offering up to 18-core Xeon processors, up to 22 Teraflops of graphics computation, 32-128 GB RAM, a 27″ 5K display and up to 4TB of internal SSD.

Geekbench scores for the mid-level iMac Pro are three times the current Macbook Pro’s Multi-Core performance:



We have not seen any perspectives yet from musicians or audio producers. But video producer Vincent Laforet has tested the 10-core model and calls it ‘a killer machine for any serious photographer, filmmaker, or VR producer’.

He notes: “I’ve seldom seen a jump this dramatic before on any new generation of Macs – 20%-30% speed increases are the norm … NOT 200%-300% increases.”
https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

13 Dec 2017

I'm getting all my work done on a MacBook Air. Just a regular iMac would be more than enough in eyes for sound production.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 2037
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

13 Dec 2017

Just once JL. Stop with the DOWN PITCH.. we know, we know... you like LESS...
I want 'a little more than enough'... there.

All the belly-aching about speed and resources with MBPros and you bring up the AIR... again.
I have an Air... yah!!! I have a MBPro ... yah!!! ... so do others.. and I hear many complaints.

Now... anybody want a computer 3 times faster... than a MacBook PRO?
Make you own decisions based on your needs/dreams.

Listen, some people REALLY want to make GOOD STRONG MUSIC. now just EQ church songs.
They are just two different processes. accept it.

Because you need less resources for your work, doesn't mean some dont need more.
joeyluck wrote:
13 Dec 2017
I'm getting all my work done on a MacBook Air. Just a regular iMac would be more than enough in eyes for sound production.

RandyEspoda
Posts: 275
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

13 Dec 2017

motuscott wrote:
12 Dec 2017
RandyEspoda wrote:
11 Dec 2017
The best iMac Pro for Reason, currently, is a custom built Windows PC ;)
So over Apple and their phone kotoing. This used to be artist's software, y'know configurable, upgradable.
That's the past.
Just got my first smartphone. Android. F U Apple.
As for cell phones, they ALL suck, including Android.
Hardly ever even use it anymore except for calling and sms.

Cell phones is what I'm so over. Ugh !

RandyEspoda
Posts: 275
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

13 Dec 2017

O1B wrote:
13 Dec 2017
Apple has announced that the iMac Pro – a workstation-class version of its popular iMac line, will be available order starting 12/14/2017.

The iMac Pro promises to be wicked expensive, with an 8-core, 32 GB model starting at $4,999. But it also promises to be wicked fast – the most powerful Mac ever made.

It’s an iMac Pro for professional media producers, offering up to 18-core Xeon processors, up to 22 Teraflops of graphics computation, 32-128 GB RAM, a 27″ 5K display and up to 4TB of internal SSD.

Geekbench scores for the mid-level iMac Pro are three times the current Macbook Pro’s Multi-Core performance:



We have not seen any perspectives yet from musicians or audio producers. But video producer Vincent Laforet has tested the 10-core model and calls it ‘a killer machine for any serious photographer, filmmaker, or VR producer’.

He notes: “I’ve seldom seen a jump this dramatic before on any new generation of Macs – 20%-30% speed increases are the norm … NOT 200%-300% increases.”
https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/
Imo this is again just a lot of smoke and mirrors, as we're used from Apple.
Don't count on it that in practice it will perform '300% better', cause it won't.
Not by a long shot.
It's called marketing, and basically what happens with marketing is they lie and boast the figures.

I'm sure it will be better than anything 'Apple' before, but I can tell you for sure that for HALF that price,
we can build ourselves a Windows PC that performs at least as good as this (supposedly) rocket ship apple thingy.
Given a bit of overclocking, which is free, costs nothing, this apple is being left behind pretty friggin fast.
I mean 5 grand for an 8 core ??? Give me 2 grand and I'll blow that sucker away on PC, bigtime. No doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure apple is decent material, but for that price they can blow me. They're just a bunch of thieves.
For that price I'll build a PC that outperforms it any time of the day.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

13 Dec 2017

RandyEspoda wrote:
13 Dec 2017
Imo this is again just a lot of smoke and mirrors, as we're used from Apple.
Don't count on it that in practice it will perform '300% better', cause it won't.
Not by a long shot.
It's called marketing, and basically what happens with marketing is they lie and boast the figures.
While I do appreciate your healthy skepticism about Apple they have a very good track record in terms of the performance values they put out, they almost always correspond to real world values measured by independent third parties later. As opposed to many other hardware manufacturers.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

13 Dec 2017

joeyluck wrote:I'm getting all my work done on a MacBook Air. Just a regular iMac would be more than enough in eyes for sound production.
I don’t consider myself one of the “too many tracks” type of producer, especially coming from the 4-track world initially. I know how to minimize my productions from experience. And yet I constantly run up against the limits of my decked out 2015 iMac.

For one thing, wouldn’t it be great to run big songs at low buffer settings? Wouldn’t it be great to leave alt tracks in place without worrying about the CPU they eat?

I too am looking at the new iMac Pro. Not sold on it yet, but hoping it will meet my needs for my music production, RE development, and new-found hobby: 4K 60FPS video (and experiments with 5-6k and 10 bit video).

Will probably wait for a few months and see how this new iMac stacks up (and see what the new Mac Pro rumors suggest).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

13 Dec 2017

O1B wrote:
13 Dec 2017
Just once JL. Stop with the DOWN PITCH.. we know, we know... you like LESS...
I want 'a little more than enough'... there.

All the belly-aching about speed and resources with MBPros and you bring up the AIR... again.
I have an Air... yah!!! I have a MBPro ... yah!!! ... so do others.. and I hear many complaints.

Now... anybody want a computer 3 times faster... than a MacBook PRO?
Make you own decisions based on your needs/dreams.

Listen, some people REALLY want to make GOOD STRONG MUSIC. now just EQ church songs.
They are just two different processes. accept it.

Because you need less resources for your work, doesn't mean some dont need more.
joeyluck wrote:
13 Dec 2017
I'm getting all my work done on a MacBook Air. Just a regular iMac would be more than enough in eyes for sound production.
Haha sorry. I guess I forgot to mention that I have the top of the line Air :cool: 2.2GHz i7 :mrgreen:
And sorry, I meant to ask what the OP, squint, is using now... As my intent was only to suggest that someone might not have to spend $5000+ on a computer for audio. I don't expect everybody to be able to do their projects on an Air, but I just appreciate the idea of people not spending more than they have to.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

13 Dec 2017

selig wrote:
13 Dec 2017
joeyluck wrote:I'm getting all my work done on a MacBook Air. Just a regular iMac would be more than enough in eyes for sound production.
I don’t consider myself one of the “too many tracks” type of producer, especially coming from the 4-track world initially. I know how to minimize my productions from experience. And yet I constantly run up against the limits of my decked out 2015 iMac.

For one thing, wouldn’t it be great to run big songs at low buffer settings? Wouldn’t it be great to leave alt tracks in place without worrying about the CPU they eat?

I too am looking at the new iMac Pro. Not sold on it yet, but hoping it will meet my needs for my music production, RE development, and new-found hobby: 4K 60FPS video (and experiments with 5-6k and 10 bit video).

Will probably wait for a few months and see how this new iMac stacks up (and see what the new Mac Pro rumors suggest).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Yeah I understand that of course. And for video, it makes the decision even easier I suppose. And the new Mac Pro could be worth the wait. Having something that can easily be upgraded is nice. Dare I bring up my PowerMac G4 Cube, which I used for Reason 1-4. I still have it. It had a pretty cool approach to quickly accessing it's components.
@ 3:02

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

13 Dec 2017

Probably overkill for audio, but those specs are fantastic. If I could afford one I wouldn't hesitate. You probably won't se a video from an audio/music perspective, but if it does well for video which is pretty demanding) It'll do just as good, if not better for audio. Buy this and you won't need a new computer for a long time.

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

13 Dec 2017

joeyluck wrote:
13 Dec 2017
O1B wrote:
13 Dec 2017
Just once JL. Stop with the DOWN PITCH.. we know, we know... you like LESS...
I want 'a little more than enough'... there.

All the belly-aching about speed and resources with MBPros and you bring up the AIR... again.
I have an Air... yah!!! I have a MBPro ... yah!!! ... so do others.. and I hear many complaints.

Now... anybody want a computer 3 times faster... than a MacBook PRO?
Make you own decisions based on your needs/dreams.

Listen, some people REALLY want to make GOOD STRONG MUSIC. now just EQ church songs.
They are just two different processes. accept it.

Because you need less resources for your work, doesn't mean some dont need more.

Haha sorry. I guess I forgot to mention that I have the top of the line Air :cool: 2.2GHz i7 :mrgreen:
And sorry, I meant to ask what the OP, squint, is using now... As my intent was only to suggest that someone might not have to spend $5000+ on a computer for audio. I don't expect everybody to be able to do their projects on an Air, but I just appreciate the idea of people not spending more than they have to.
I was using

4ghz quad-core intel core i7 turbo boost up to 4.2 ghz
32gb 1867mhz ddr3 sdram - four 8gb
3tb fusion drive
amd radeon r9 m395x with 4gb video memory

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

14 Dec 2017

Hey guys

Ended up getting this:

2.3GHz 18-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.3GHz
64GB 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory
4TB SSD
Radeon Pro Vega 56 with 8GB of HBM2 memory

User avatar
tronam
Posts: 486
Joined: 04 Mar 2015

16 Dec 2017

squint wrote:
14 Dec 2017
Hey guys

Ended up getting this:

2.3GHz 18-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.3GHz
64GB 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory
4TB SSD
Radeon Pro Vega 56 with 8GB of HBM2 memory
I work for the fruit company too, so I’ve definitely been tempted by this. I would probably be fine with the 8 core though. 18-core feels almost ludicrous for audio production outside of huge orchestral templates, but then again there are certainly a few CPU hungry synths that could stress a system like that with enough polyphony and layering.
Music is nothing else but wild sounds civilized into time and tune.

squint
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jun 2015

17 Dec 2017

well, we can’t sell for a year, so i’d rather be safe than sorry. i use a literal ton of REs/VSTs and Props won’t give us a darn Freeze Tracks option. :(

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests