Because that what I would rather have. I would rather have a silent M1 than a noisy windows machine. Adding more expensive cooling brings the price up to the M1 chipped computers that are already quiet.
That would actually be nice... Maybe with Starlink 2.0 we will be able to outsource computational power or something, like a subscription service to have a virtual super computer out there in the "cloud", while all you would need are the controllers and a screen. Let's hope the current struggle for world order shift will not mess with our music-makers' needs too much
Sounds like you could be a candidate for Asahi https://asahilinux.org/2022/03/asahi-li ... a-release/ if you're interested in Linux and reverse engineeringdakta wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022Obviously everyone has their own use case,
my computer is used a mix between gaming, 3d rendering, audio production, general use and ECU reverse engineering
the latter requires quite a lot of proprietary software which is windows only (can attempt it on linux) so for this little corner of the universe, mac is not only not better but it's not even in the building - though you could go down the rabbithole of saying its the devs fault for not porting.
dont consider myself a windows fanboy as it has gone down the pan a bit and ill only be going to 11 kicking and screaming but it has functional advantages in this house so you really cant pin a generic macs are better or whatnot stance on these things. just tools for a job
Suite 11 | 12 perpetual license | 
| 
| macOS Ventura | Mac Studio M1 MaxUnix has been one of my essential tools since 80s, and I used to dual boot it up until virtual machines appeared. Now I no longer need to have Linux installed on "bare metal". I've been using it in a virtual machine on Windows for 15 years, that's much more convenient as I have benefits of both worlds at the same time. In terms of variety of available software and GUI quality, Linux will never beat Windows anyway.Billy+ wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022Sounds like you could be a candidate for Asahi https://asahilinux.org/2022/03/asahi-li ... a-release/ if you're interested in Linux and reverse engineering
Yeah this is kind of where I'm at. When I started my job, I got a Macbook Pro and it took me away from PC computing for a few years. Loved it, at first. Then realised that for music there was a bunch of stuff I couldn't use (or if I could use it, that could change at any time if Apple decided to do something funky with an OSX update). And for everything else, I had to run a virtual Windows environment to do very important parts of the job.dakta wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022Obviously everyone has their own use case,
my computer is used a mix between gaming, 3d rendering, audio production, general use and ECU reverse engineering
the latter requires quite a lot of proprietary software which is windows only (can attempt it on linux) so for this little corner of the universe, mac is not only not better but it's not even in the building - though you could go down the rabbithole of saying its the devs fault for not porting.
dont consider myself a windows fanboy as it has gone down the pan a bit and ill only be going to 11 kicking and screaming but it has functional advantages in this house so you really cant pin a generic macs are better or whatnot stance on these things. just tools for a job
only regret is the graphics - the gtx plays every game I throw at it acceptably no issues but I didn't anticipate getting hooked in playing around with video editing/rendering with blender/ da vinci resolve etc. Waiting a bit longer to include an RTX card really would have made sense. I mean I think it depends on what you do. I mostly just do drums (Superior 3) and guitar amps + synths. I've also done some basic orchestration stuff, never hit the RAM limit (stuff like Audio Imperia Nucleus, Chorus, a few instruments from Jaeger). Of course atm I'm mostly hooked on hardware so all my computer has to do is run a few Live drums and effects. I would of course like 32GB just to be a bit more comfortable but honestly can't say I've hit any issues on 16 so far.
This depends a lot on the type of projects you have. If you use a lot of sampled instruments, this will affect the amount of ram you need. If you work more with synths, you need a big CPU but the amount of ram you have is not that important.
Man you already have 6 ms or less latency at land line and that didn't happen yet. It's very difficult to achieve this for audio. I doubt it will happen in the next years. We do this all the time with asynchronous or near syncronous stuff. But any type of processing outsourcing adds latency. Lots of latency. Don't forget, mixing is only a part of the process and though you can manage up to 50 - 100 ms latency while mixing, that can't be said while recording and sequencing with controllers.Hoboys wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022That would actually be nice... Maybe with Starlink 2.0 we will be able to outsource computational power or something, like a subscription service to have a virtual super computer out there in the "cloud", while all you would need are the controllers and a screen. Let's hope the current struggle for world order shift will not mess with our music-makers' needs too much
Of course, you are correct, and indeed I don't use any big sample sets, and I'm running a rather beefy CPU (although it is still a quad-core).
Depends a lot on what you have and the evolution of your instruments. For example, 10 years ago i used studio Reason's combo's refills - heck i still use them today. A Drumkit would use 600 MB ram. Today the same drumkit in the equivalent Re uses more than 1 GB. So that, again, depends on a lot and stuff evolves. Orchestral plugins use more and more ram because they have more and more samples for the same thing - specially legatos have very soft transitions that have increased the amount of loaded samples per instrument in the last 5 years and even if these have hd streaming they occupy more ram that the software needs to allocate nonetheless. So it's not exactly direct as what you say. Those big sample sets, are now bigger and bigger, and you might not be doing stuff differently (and i'm not taking in consideration multiple mics placements and so on. But expanding BBCSO to pro with 5 or 6 mix placements increases the size of the lybrary to 900 GB against... 20 from the core!!!).crimsonwarlock wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022Of course, you are correct, and indeed I don't use any big sample sets, and I'm running a rather beefy CPU (although it is still a quad-core).
But, those big sample sets did already take up a lot of RAM before, that has nothing to do with what Windows would need NOW to run DAW software. If you were using lots of sampled instruments, let's say six years ago, you already would need more RAM, and regardless of what OS you were running. You cannot magically run more sampled stuff on a Mac than on a PC with the same amount of RAM, apart from the difference of the OS footprint, which doesn't make that much difference when you have 16 GB RAM (or more).
Those very large sample sets also existed 15 years ago. The limited RAM was handled by direct streaming from hard disks, so the disk transfer speed was the bottleneck then. With machines getting more and more RAM available, we started to get away from the data streaming bottleneck, and although we now have cheap SSD drives, the available amount of RAM makes it unneeded to get back to direct streaming from disk. The current sample sets are indeed a lot bigger even than what we had back then, but that is a consequence (again) from having more RAM available.mcatalao wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022Those big sample sets, are now bigger and bigger, and you might not be doing stuff differently (and i'm not taking in consideration multiple mics placements and so on. But expanding BBCSO to pro with 5 or 6 mix placements increases the size of the lybrary to 900 GB against... 20 from the core!!!).
I do use drum samples and occasionally sample-based instruments. Pretty big projects as well (50+ tracks with at least 30 tracks of virtual instruments). I still have to see my RAM use come anything close to the 16 GB I have available.
I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with. I didn’t say we’re “there” yet. I said we’re *getting* “there”, and defined what my opinion of future-proof is, and stated that I think we’re close. maybe I’m missing something?mcatalao wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022This would be true if the video showed 1000 instances of the most exquisite waves or softube plugins. As I said in another thread about the same thing, any daw ill be able to run A LOT of stock plugins with a good cpu, regardless it being an intel or a mac or an AMD. Come on, I ran test projects with 400 stereo tracks with the full reason SSL devices on, which are equivalent to using the 3 or 4 inserts they are talking about there... A test I did with Cubase and East west loaded 200 instances of multi sampled violins. A tad more with Reaper. A tad less with Reason 10.4.guitfnky wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022
to me, “future-proof” as far as audio production is concerned means computers getting to a point where we no longer have to think about track count or number of plugins in use. take that one small step further and include not having to worry about increasing our buffer size no matter how far you are into a mix.
All these tests with an Intel i7 4790k! That's... a 7-year-old CPU. And i can run 50 to 100 tracks on that CPU and reason 12 today. Not too shabby - and tbh it's the mastering effect chan that takes my cpu down instead of the rest of the 300 plugins! Just to put things into perspective.
So again... If we compare stuff, let's compare a bit more scientifically or this is a marketing fanboy mess.
So you have to look at these types of videos with a grain of salt because they can be "made". Chances are, if you test the same DAW, with the same Plugins, the delta is not as big (and tbh they are not comparing anything to anything. What I mean is, 1000 plugins means absolutely nothing if you don't compare and don't look at all variables) for a similarly spec'ed pc and cpu. It's true the different cpu architecture puts some difficulty, and now you have 2 different aspects at this - not only you have a new arch that Intel is also doing in the new 12th gen but Intel's and AMD's are still CISC and Mac's turned again to RISC. That being said, I doubt the RISC instruction set is that amazing - It's just a matter of time that Intel's get on the same level. In the end, I guess if the compilers are good, it will always come down to metal.
As for the Windows vs OSX rant... Man with reason, cubase, ableton, reaper or any other daw that works both with windows and mac, once you stick your head on the daw, does it really matter? I like windows but i'd work ok with OSX or linux (amof, i have more experience with linux than with OSX) so i guess it's just a matter of getting used to the OS. As long as it's a graphical environment with apps and windows, come on...
And stability is now NOT an issue. Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 have been super stable (I've been working with windows since 1996).
I'll step in here and say I still gotta turn it on and get to opening the DAW... it matters!
. guitfnky wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022I think the “future-proof” question is the more interesting one. honestly, we’re already there, or on the cusp of “future-proof” for modern computers, as far as audio production is concerned. the video posted here is as good a demonstration of that as you’re likely to find.
to me, “future-proof” as far as audio production is concerned means computers getting to a point where we no longer have to think about track count or number of plugins in use. take that one small step further and include not having to worry about increasing our buffer size no matter how far you are into a mix.
there will be a point in the next few years where any new computer will barely shrug at the workload of even the most demanding projects, and to my mind, that’s when you’ve got a music production computer that’s as future-proof as we’ll ever see—one that will keep up with everything you throw at it until the hardware itself gives up.
the only thing needed for future-proofing (as far as that’s actually possible) is for the system to do everything users need in order to produce music without hitting a wall, up until the hardware fails.moofi wrote: ↑19 Apr 2022Unless there is some magic new invention regarding processing power like possibly quantum computers I don´t really think we are there any time soon. Simply because of the effect of when there is faster hardware available bascially the software gets more demanding aswell. In ´98 when I just had started working with 3D software I said I could use 100 times the processing power and it still wouldn´t be enough. Now the computers are even more than a 100 times faster and well, the time it needs to render a complex scene is still pretty high. If you render a scene, where one picture in HD needs something like 8-24 hours the processing power needed to make it effortless in a 6000+ frame rendersequence is pretty high. I know, you are talking about audio, then, like said, once available the software just uses more complex algorithms aswell. Imagine physical modelling. I heard once to calculate a drumstick hitting a drum and the vibrations it creates over the surface is close to rocket science and that´s a single drum. I don´t really think we have reached the level of realistic mimicing yet where you would say you wouldn´t need any more quality than that. And I at least assume if you had the approriate CPU cycles stuff like simulating animal voices taking an appropriate amount of physical elements like actual flesh vibrating and resonating along, would appear. Could be that we are reaching your mentioned situation at some point, yet I would give it a little more time
guitfnky wrote: ↑09 Apr 2022I think the “future-proof” question is the more interesting one. honestly, we’re already there, or on the cusp of “future-proof” for modern computers, as far as audio production is concerned. the video posted here is as good a demonstration of that as you’re likely to find.
to me, “future-proof” as far as audio production is concerned means computers getting to a point where we no longer have to think about track count or number of plugins in use. take that one small step further and include not having to worry about increasing our buffer size no matter how far you are into a mix.
there will be a point in the next few years where any new computer will barely shrug at the workload of even the most demanding projects, and to my mind, that’s when you’ve got a music production computer that’s as future-proof as we’ll ever see—one that will keep up with everything you throw at it until the hardware itself gives up.
Users browsing this forum: Popey and 14 guests
Share and download patches!
Join ReasonTalk on Slack!