Macs are better

[mcatalao]

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?

I'm disagreeing on the fact that you're based on an assumption of a big amount in a video from fanboys who are only looking at one side of the equation. A specific type of plugins that normally are only in a part of a project (mixing stage), and a song can have infinite complexity - and surely it is not the mix that will bring your machine down, specially if your base project is audio. So thought I agree that computers will get more and more "out of the way" they will still be there, and you still have to think about those stuff depending on a project.

Track count, plugin count, instance count, it all doesn't matter if you can bring your machine down with the new synth in the block. So most things evolve and plugins evolve too - thus what I said about complexity and context.

That being said, creatively, I don't think anyone is thinking about track and plugin count while creating a project. You just add what you think is right, and work your way around limitations, and knowing your tools is and will always be part of the craft. But for the aforementioned reasons, the blissful state you described is probably unattainable.

You can get that sort of "bliss" from a good instrument. A great piano, built on hundreds of years of craft that does what it does perfectly, and you achieved your best at it - you just think about the music you're making and that's it. Different worlds though!

[guitfnky]

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?

I'm disagreeing on the fact that you're based on an assumption of a big amount in a video from fanboys who are only looking at one side of the equation. A specific type of plugins that normally are only in a part of a project (mixing stage), and a song can have infinite complexity - and surely it is not the mix that will bring your machine down, specially if your base project is audio. So thought I agree that computers will get more and more "out of the way" they will still be there, and you still have to think about those stuff depending on a project.

Track count, plugin count, instance count, it all doesn't matter if you can bring your machine down with the new synth in the block. So most things evolve and plugins evolve too - thus what I said about complexity and context.

That being said, creatively, I don't think anyone is thinking about track and plugin count while creating a project. You just add what you think is right, and work your way around limitations, and knowing your tools is and will always be part of the craft. But for the aforementioned reasons, the blissful state you described is probably unattainable.

You can get that sort of "bliss" from a good instrument. A great piano, built on hundreds of years of craft that does what it does perfectly, and you achieved your best at it - you just think about the music you're making and that's it. Different worlds though!

I didn’t come to this view because of a video. I came to the view because of my own experience. the video is just an example of how close we already are.

[moofi]

At least from experience, everytime I looked at how much faster the computer I worked with got and thought, now it would be much better (what it actually already was compared to what I was being able to do beforehand) demands rose accordingly. Starting with the OS. Granted audioprocessing might not be as demanding as 3D-Animation.
Yet, the soundquality to reach hasn´t been achieved so far letting me at least guess there are going to be more CPU intense audiodevices coming along. Like when I talked to a musicmaking coder about emulating an analog modular, he said at that time (several years ago) , a single oscillator might use up a complete CPU, hence they aren´t coded that way yet due to demands, because a single oscillator might not do that much in musicproduction. The drumsimulation was merely an example of how complex stuff can get. Like mentioned simulation of physical flesh vibrating and resonating. Simulating the gutural sounds of a bear for example.
Though with potentially a new system being around (i7 12700 CPU) I´m interested in how much I can actually get done compared to momentarily where I can basically only produce 4 tracks simultaneously the way I´m producing music with more CPU intense devices on an i7 3770k.
Get me right, I am quite fond of the idea to not having to worry about CPU load anymore and who knows I might be quite off the tracks with my assumptions. Let´s see what the forthcoming years may have in their pockets

Unless 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

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.

the increase in CPU overhead needed to perform audio tasks isn’t increasing nearly as quickly as processing power is. as long as processing power outpaces new software demands, there will come a time when the CPU can handle any audio task thrown at it without needing to freeze tracks or bump up the buffer size.

talking about other non-audio tasks, and unrealistic (not valuable) processing scenarios is comparing apples and oranges. there are already efficient modeling plugins out there. you don’t need to calculate all the atoms and how they interact in a drum just to create a realistic snare sound. there are non-modeled sound libraries that already excel at it.