The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tim Cook on Mac Desktop commitment Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 6th June 2017
  #781
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

The questions I have are:

1) Is the iMac Pro supposed to be the replacement for the Mac Pro?? This is what was mentioned back in April as a "new modular design, coming next year for the Mac Pro"?

2) Why are they claiming it will use a Xeon CPU? It seems it would be using the Skylake-X "i9-7980XE"?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/30/...re-i9-extreme/

This is technically not a Xeon. But the definition of what is/is-not for a Xeon has become highly confused by Intel marketing inconsistencies, so who knows.

I think as an iMac, this thing is ridiculously impressive. And I think it is enough for 80% of the pro/prosumer market. The price is what it is. The CPU above costs $2,000 retail, so there is no way around an expensive machine in this case.

If this is something different than the new modular mac pro that will come later, this is very cool. If this is their idea of "modular", well that is not so cool, as it is clearly NOT upgradable, expandable etc. And it will still be far below what the top end of a 2018 ultra-workstation/server class machine could be.

Skylake-SP Xeons (i.e. "real Xeons") are up to at least 28-core per socket, and probably 32-core eventually (Google has some already it is rumored.) A simple 2018 update of the 2000-2012 traditional Mac Pro form factor workstation would offer:

2*28 = 56 Xeon Cores!
~4 highest end GPUs, in normal PCIE form so they can be replaced the following year
6 channel RAM
etc.

But this would be big, heavy, loud, and hot, and cost $15k or more maxed out. Personally I'd love to see it.... or some truly modular system that could expand to this level of extremism.

alternatively, to achieve similar extremism, one could theoretically buy 3 of these new iMac Pros and network them with 10GBE, which might be just as good... maybe even better performance per dollar for audio bc of NUMA issues in Dual Xeons.

so the real question is, is this is their idea of the "New Mac Pro" or is it something different?

5K would be nicer at a physical size of 40" or so, but the color specs etc seem quite cool. 8K at 50" or so would be even cooler.

In summary, I think this is the "extreme mid range desktop". It's a very cool product for that market, and should make a lot of people happy. Now give us uber geeks the real extreme workstation/sever class machine also and be king of the uber pro market once again too. After all, if they offer a $20k watch, why not make a $20k computer? If they do it, don't have sticker shock when you see such numbers though, the components that go into these machines are NOT cheap...

...writing from my 12-core Mac Pro Cylanider, on my 4K 40" Samgsung display/TV.
Old 6th June 2017
  #782
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
The questions I have are:

1) Is the iMac Pro supposed to be the replacement for the Mac Pro?? This is what was mentioned back in April as a "new modular design, coming next year for the Mac Pro"?

No.

From Apple:

"In addition to the new iMac Pro, Apple is working on a completely redesigned, next-generation Mac Pro architected for pro customers who need the highest-end, high-throughput system in a modular design, as well as a new high-end pro display."
Old 6th June 2017
  #783
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
No.

From Apple:

"In addition to the new iMac Pro, Apple is working on a completely redesigned, next-generation Mac Pro architected for pro customers who need the highest-end, high-throughput system in a modular design, as well as a new high-end pro display."
ah, OK! Well this is really F-ing cool then!

I know we read this kind of thing in April, but to see it re-confirmed post iMac Pro announcement, on an official Apple press release, is stellar! Excellent news!
Old 6th June 2017
  #784
Lives for gear
 
Polarelch's Avatar
 

So what about the new normal iMacs?
You all keep talking about the iMac Pro, what do people think of the specs of the new normal ones?
Old 6th June 2017
  #785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Jones Sr View Post
10gbe, 128gb ECC Ram, 18 core Xeons, AMD pro graphics with up to 16gb ram, 4 thunderbolts alongside the 4 USB3.0 etc
Why would you expect this to be cheap?
Note that those are the top configuration specs, but 5k is the starting price.
Xeons (single socket) are typically similar priced to i7's with the same specs.
10GBe will be standard soon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
... so session transfer is a breeze.
Cross platform session transfer is a breeze for years now. Our recorder.1 users transfer backups back and forth between the recorder and their Macbooks without issues and top speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ekwipt View Post

Like check this out, it's the first link that came up for me $3000:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16883152214
What do you try to say with that ugly overpriced gamer PC? I don't see any relevance here.

Quote:
I wonder if Apple will be able to implement Turbo Boost 3.0 because it's possible to overclock as i have it in my hackintosh but it's not quite the same thing (windows somehow does it software wise)
Turbo 3.0 is not relevant for audio, unless you bounce 1 minute files at least 48 times a day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
It's frustrating (and for some, cost prohibitive) to have to spend extra to get a decent form factor. But my current studio rig has been great; with the sonnet chassis (for 3 extra swappable drive bays and pcie slots), HDX and a uad box, it's been the best system I've ever used. We spent nearly aus$17k all up (trash can with upgraded RAM, chassis, HDX and one interface) but it's saved so much time in workflow it's a small expense in the grand scheme of things.
For that amount you get a 20 core HDX1 system including license...fully expandable all in 4U, fully warranty
HDX - XI-MACHINES
I know you guys are macheads, just putting a bit of perspective regarding complexity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
If the AMD Threadripper clock speed is higher than the Xeon then the 16 cores could beat the 18 cores of the iMac Pro.
TBH I highly doubt Threadripper is going to be the better performer. For mixing, probably, but for low latency, probably not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
The questions I have are:

2) Why are they claiming it will use a Xeon CPU? It seems it would be using the Skylake-X "i9-7980XE"?

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/30/...re-i9-extreme/

This is technically not a Xeon. But the definition of what is/is-not for a Xeon has become highly confused by Intel marketing inconsistencies, so who knows.
Could be, but it uses ECC RAM, so it most likely will be a Xeon - or a waste of ECC specs which I don't think they will do.

Quote:
I think as an iMac, this thing is ridiculously impressive. And I think it is enough for 80% of the pro/prosumer market. The price is what it is. The CPU above costs $2,000 retail, so there is no way around an expensive machine in this case.
Correct, although I am curious about heat and throttling in this form factor. That GPU will get steaming hot.

Quote:
Skylake-SP Xeons (i.e. "real Xeons") are up to at least 28-core per socket, and probably 32-core eventually (Google has some already it is rumored.) A simple 2018 update of the 2000-2012 traditional Mac Pro form factor workstation would offer:

2*28 = 56 Xeon Cores!
~4 highest end GPUs, in normal PCIE form so they can be replaced the following year
6 channel RAM
etc.

But this would be big, heavy, loud, and hot, and cost $15k or more maxed out. Personally I'd love to see it.... or some truly modular system that could expand to this level of extremism.
Depending on the GPU's, they don't need to be loud. Currently, our dual 2687Wv4 systems are hardly audible even when running Prime. If you add 4 GPU's, noise will be added, but still it would be ok to have it next to you when not doing audio. Last week my colleagues were benching 4 x P6000 and I didn't realize they were full on...

Quote:
alternatively, to achieve similar extremism, one could theoretically buy 3 of these new iMac Pros and network them with 10GBE, which might be just as good... maybe even better performance per dollar for audio bc of NUMA issues in Dual Xeons.
If NUMA is an issue you could use any 10GBe single CPU system and save cost...if you insist on the glossy 5K screen (which is great) the iMac Pro might be the correct system to have.

Quote:
5K would be nicer at a physical size of 40" or so, but the color specs etc seem quite cool. 8K at 50" or so would be even cooler.
We have 40" 4K screens here, without scaling that is the minimum size I would use. 5K on 40" would be too small for me without scaling.
Old 6th June 2017
  #786
Gear Head
 

pile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazlermac View Post
Hey Mahadeva, please keep in mind, its a "pro iMac". I would imagine for a good percentage of content creators this type of machine would be perfect. I wish I could afford to buy one when they get released, however, I'll do just fine with what I have for a few more years.

Then you don't really need it.

If we talk about audio I would like to know how many app. are able to use 18cores/36 threads ?

And who wants to buy a computer without any possibility of hardware evolution for 5000$ ?

Anyway it's good to see Apple coming back in the world of pro but with an evolutive and modular new mac pro instead of the old concept of the iMac...
Old 6th June 2017
  #787
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
TBH I highly doubt Threadripper is going to be the better performer. For mixing, probably, but for low latency, probably not.
The only bad low latency results have been in artificial Kontakt benchmarks. The low latency audio benchmarks are fine. I've put my guess as to why that might be the case in the Ryzen thread.

I would need to see what the clock speed of the 18 core Xeon would be before speculating further.
Old 6th June 2017
  #788
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
The only bad low latency results have been in artificial Kontakt benchmarks.
Not really artificial...
The low latency audio benchmarks are fine. I've put my guess as to why that might be the case in the Ryzen thread.

Quote:
I would need to see what the clock speed of the 18 core Xeon would be before speculating further.
The 18 core will most likely have a moderate clock speed, scaled similar as in the 2013 nMP 12 core vs 4/6/8 cores.
Old 6th June 2017
  #789
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Depends on who you are and who your clients are! Cutting corners isn't worth it if you lose time in the long run.

We recently opened a writing studio - it took me a year of persuading we needed it. I got a 20k budget - could have spent less, but I wanted to make sure the product made there could be used, that it wasn't just a demo space, so I got a top notch mic channel, put a decent vintage 87 in there, and made sure the monitoring was decent.

Since we've had it, it's been booked 5-7 days per week - there's rarely an empty day. We charge it back to the artist at a peppercorn rate (it's a label facility); but not only is it paying for itself (the gear will be covered within the year at this rate), we're also saving more than $200 in external space rentals for every session that happens in house.

So spending 20k is actually a smart move. Likewise spending 17k is nothing if it saves me an hour a day (as offline rendering of stuff sometimes does). That's heading towards $700-1k/ week of value saved. So again - in under a year, it's paid for itself.

I could do it cheaper, but not as reliably..and having the "proper" thing means the right image too.

(and no - unless it's a private place that just happens to be successful for it's owner/operator, no high end studio skimps on toilet paper!)
if that's the case, I'd be saving that company millions lol 20k to build a writing studio? lol wow

its whatever, gearslutz seem to want to spend money than make it. consumerslutz
Old 6th June 2017
  #790
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post

We have 40" 4K screens here, without scaling that is the minimum size I would use. 5K on 40" would be too small for me without scaling.

yes, agree more or less. I am using 4K at 40" as mentioned, and it is about the right DPI. So ya, perhaps 50" of 5K. I don't see the point of extreme DPI desktop displays where the detail is lost at normal viewing distance anyway. The 8k 32" display from Dell is pretty silly IMHO, even though it is cool from a technological standpoint...

...but if we are going up to 8K etc, there comes a point where the display will simply become too big physically to have it realistically be on the desktop, and/or will be problematic for audio as it will interfere with the near fields potentially...

so I think perhaps some balance of "eye candy pixels" with "functional pixels" is probably a reasonable compromise. Probably 8k at 60" or so is about the optimal trade-off in that regard. I doubt anyone wants to sit in front of an 80" display for example...

(I'm also not sure of the health concerns of sitting close to a huge displays for hours, days, weeks, months, years. I do it already, but It's a topic that should be explored in depth...)

hmmm Maybe some kind of wall display at a father distance would be cool... like 100-200" on the wall behind the near fields.... maybe that is the ultimate end goal...
Old 6th June 2017
  #791
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
yes, agree more or less. I am using 4K at 40" as mentioned, and it is about the right DPI. So ya, perhaps 50" of 5K. I don't see the point of extreme DPI desktop displays where the detail is lost at normal viewing distance anyway. The 8k 32" display from Dell is pretty silly IMHO, even though it is cool from a technological standpoint...

...but if we are going up to 8K etc, there comes a point where the display will simply become too big physically to have it realistically be on the desktop, and/or will be problematic for audio as it will interfere with the near fields potentially...

so I think perhaps some balance of "eye candy pixels" with "functional pixels" is probably a reasonable compromise. Probably 8k at 60" or so is about the optimal trade-off in that regard. I doubt anyone wants to sit in front of an 80" display for example...

(I'm also not sure of the health concerns of sitting close to a huge displays for hours, days, weeks, months, years. I do it already, but It's a topic that should be explored in depth...)

hmmm Maybe some kind of wall display at a father distance would be cool... like 100-200" on the wall behind the near fields.... maybe that is the ultimate end goal...
1080p is all you need for audio... hell half the engineers i know are blind and use 720p just to see stuff. 8k wtf are you guys talking about?

consumerslutz
Old 6th June 2017
  #792
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahadeva View Post
Then you don't really need it.

If we talk about audio I would like to know how many app. are able to use 18cores/36 threads ?

And who wants to buy a computer without any possibility of hardware evolution for 5000$ ?

Anyway it's good to see Apple coming back in the world of pro but with an evolutive and modular new mac pro instead of the old concept of the iMac...
Hey Mahadeva,

100% Agree. However I still have a desire to have the shiny thing Even though the shiny I have now is more than capable for what I need (as long as I know where its limits are, and how to work around them).

Thats a very important point regarding the core count, and which apps will take advantage of it. I guess it will all depend on the developers, and the users workflow. The "trash can" supports unto 8 core at the moment, and I think older Pro's even more (Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.93 (2010/Westmere) Specs (Mid-2010, BTO/CTO, MacPro5,1, A1289, 2314-2*) @ EveryMac.com). I haven't come across many complaints - but I don't have any experience myself above consumer core i7 on the Mac platform running music software.

I don't see that as a problem really. In my experience the biggest leaps only come around every six years or so (Intel fab process/architecture/bus speeds/memory types). And when they do, its best to replace all components in the systems. But I suppose its like eating a meal vs grazing. Six of one half a dozen of the other
Old 6th June 2017
  #793
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Not really artificial...
I mean in terms of filling Kontakt instances up with exactly the same instrument(s). Nobody has ever done that in the history of making music, plus quite a lot of people don't use Kontakt so it's a Kontakt benchmark, not a VI verdict.
Old 6th June 2017
  #794
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
1080p is all you need for audio... 8k wtf are you guys talking about?

consumerslutz

...well we have different oppions on the topic then, but that's OK.

I was personally using 3 1600*1200 displays for a desktop size of 4800*1200 in 1998 for production and scoring work. Center monitor was arrange window, left was mixer, and right was for plug-ins, synths and analyzers etc. It helps productivity...

These days I happen to develop plug-ins, and happen to be reasonably decent at it I guess, and I happen to do the GUI design as well. Some of our GUIs sizes won't even fit on 1080p. And I'd personally like to make some 4K full screen GUIs.

different strokes...

I wil bet you a beer however, that Apple releases an 8K display in 2018...

also for your consideration I submit to you my 2012 post on this topic while we were waiting for the 2013 Mac Pro Cylinder:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7976844-post37.html

seems I was not too far off base...

Last edited by Andrew Souter; 6th June 2017 at 05:02 PM..
Old 6th June 2017
  #795
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
...well we have different oppions on the topic then, but that's OK.

I was personally using 3 1600*1200 displays for a desktop size of 4800*1200 in 1998 for production and scoring work. Center monitor was arrange window, left was mixer, and right was for plug-ins, synths and analyzers etc. It helps productivity...

These days I happen to develop plug-ins, and happen to be reasonably decent at it I guess, and I happen to do the GUI design as well. Some of our GUIs sizes won't even fit on 1080p. And I'd personally like to make some 4K full screen GUIs.

different strokes...

I wil bet you a beer however, that Apple releases an 8K display in 2018...
4k isn't even mainstream so who cares. 8k is for videophiles. most people don't even have eye sight good enough to tell the difference past 1080 on a 55" tv. i sure as hell don't lol

I'd bet you a whiskey shot that half this website will buy an 8k display tho lol
Old 6th June 2017
  #796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
so I think perhaps some balance of "eye candy pixels" with "functional pixels" is probably a reasonable compromise. Probably 8k at 60" or so is about the optimal trade-off in that regard. I doubt anyone wants to sit in front of an 80" display for example...
Agree, and no, I tried 2x40" and 4x40", you don't want that. Aside from the nightmare to place speakers and/or having decent acoustics...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
1080p is all you need for audio... hell half the engineers i know are blind and use 720p just to see stuff. 8k wtf are you guys talking about?

consumerslutz
I don't agree, ever since I started using 40" I do not want to go back. They are not expensive anymore either. That doesn't mean that others can't be happy with 720p...


Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
I mean in terms of filling Kontakt instances up with exactly the same instrument(s). Nobody has ever done that in the history of making music, plus quite a lot of people don't use Kontakt so it's a Kontakt benchmark, not a VI verdict.
Nobody does that, no, but it is about performance, not about sample loading. Load up various synths and you will get similar performance results, depending on the synths used. The Kontakt factory library is not that heavy compared to modern good synths.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
These days I happen to develop plug-ins, and happen to be reasonably decent at it I guess
I recognize an understatement when I see one...
Old 6th June 2017
  #797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
4k isn't even mainstream so who cares. most people don't even have eye sight good enough to tell the difference past 1080 on a 55" tv. i sure as hell don't lol

I'd bet you a whiskey shot that half this website will buy an 8k display tho lol
It depends on whether you want quality or screen estate. I prefer the 4K/40" for screen estate. The Apple 5K screens excel in quality when scaling (tbh I haven't used any other 5K screens). We are not talking about watching movies in 1080p or 4K.
Old 6th June 2017
  #798
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
It depends on whether you want quality or screen estate. I prefer the 4K/40" for screen estate. The Apple 5K screens excel in quality when scaling (tbh I haven't used any other 5K screens). We are not talking about watching movies in 1080p or 4K.
who mentioned watching movies? i mentioned 720p because when you work in pro tools, depending on how close you're sitting, you cant see the lil numbers in the transport if your resolution is too high. or have to zoom in on wave forms all the time cuz everything is so small.

screen estate is mute if you can't see what you're working on and most engineers and producers i work with dont use high resolutions at all, even with 5k displays.

not to mention I'd rather use that computing power to drive some plugins, not push pixels.
Old 6th June 2017
  #799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
who mentioned watching movies? i mentioned 720p because when you work in pro tools, depending on how close you're sitting, you cant see the lil numbers in the transport if your resolution is too high. or have to zoom in on wave forms all the time cuz everything is so small.

screen estate is mute if you can't see what you're working on and most engineers and producers i work with dont use high resolutions at all, even with 5k displays.

not to mention I'd rather use that computing power to drive some plugins, not push pixels.
Well, you said "TV", I guess I took that too literally.
Obviously if you use higher resolution you will need a bigger screen or scale down. A 27" 5K screen without scaling is unusable, that is why they don't use high resolutions, or better said, scaling. Exactly what Andrew and I are saying as well.
It is a personal choice, sometimes limited to available space. Many of our customers cannot fit anything larger than 27" or 24", so yes, I see your point.

But let's not highjack the original topic...
Old 6th June 2017
  #800
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Nobody does that, no, but it is about performance, not about sample loading. Load up various synths and you will get similar performance results, depending on the synths used. The Kontakt factory library is not that heavy compared to modern good synths.
I haven't seen any direct, DAWbench-like comparisons between Ryzen and Intel using other synths. I'd be interested in seeing the results if they have been done.

Yes, modern synths can use a lot of CPU, but samplers use an awful lot more memory than pre-calculated wavetables or single/several cycle oscillators.
Old 6th June 2017
  #801
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
who mentioned watching movies? i mentioned 720p because when you work in pro tools, depending on how close you're sitting, you cant see the lil numbers in the transport if your resolution is too high. or have to zoom in on wave forms all the time cuz everything is so small.

screen estate is mute if you can't see what you're working on and most engineers and producers i work with dont use high resolutions at all, even with 5k displays.
well when we talk about "more pixels" we are talking about two things:

1) more pixels used to rasterize the same GUI element at the same given resulting physical size. "more pixels per gui element" This means shaper pictures, crisper and more readable fonts, prettier circles, etc. This stuff is *mostly* of concern to visual artists, yes, but it does help to some degree to help make your DAW MORE readable. That tiny PT font size might actually be readable at the same size if the "A" character can be drawn with 64 pixels instead of 32 so that it can be better rasterized and anti-aliased for example... pre-post retina display comparisons, easily prove this sort of thing for example...

2) showing more information simulataneously: keep the "pixels per gui element" the same, but show more GUI elements. Instead of switching between mixer, arrange, plug-in, visualizer, etc etc, keep them all open and visible at the same time. The analog recording studio was basically like an airplane cockpit with hundreds of devices, knobs, displays, that are always visible at a glance or the turn of the head. This is more ergonomic and results in less RSI etc, and helps productivity...

#2 is more interesting for DAWs for the most part. 4K, 5K, 8K is interesting 80% because of #2 , and 20% because of #1 IMHO...

it is no wonder that people still argue over digital vs analog in 2017, or even plug-in vs hardware reverb, where the alg is the same and both are purely digital. IMHO tiny plug-in (and DAW) GUIs are largely responsible for the perception of a sh*ty user experience that makes people still prefer working the old way. The sound quality has already been there for quite some time... what is still lacking is the human interaction/interface with the computer.

navigating around tiny, illegible GUIs with a mouse or track-pad is archaic. No wonder no one really enjoys it.

more pixels improves at least one aspect of this weak link...

just check out the Cubase 9 mixer on a 40" 4K screen for example, and compare to cubase 6 for example...

visually things will start to converge in terms of both resolution and scale to physical reality, and there will be no more weak link...

check back in 2020 and let's see if we are still debating such things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claborn View Post
not to mention I'd rather use that computing power to drive some plugins, not push pixels.
GPU handles display in almost all cases, and it's resources are (sadly) almost never used for audio processing, so it is not a matter of competing resources...
Old 6th June 2017
  #802
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

...and yes, exactly as DAW PLUS said, and you point out, and I said originally as well, there is a limit to "how many pixels per inch" is usable for a given physical size screen. Very high resolution displays really must be large enough physically to be able to do anything useful with all those pixels for our music/audio purposes.

Hence 4K should really be about 40", 5K should probably be bigger, and 8K should ideally be much bigger, but it will get so big that it will be infeasible to use as a normal desktop display, so some compromise of say "let's use half of the extra pixels to make things shaper (even if it is slightly wasteful in that it produces higher resolution than most people can actually see at expected viewing distances), and the other half to show more info" is probably a reasonable compromise...

everyone agrees that 8K in 32" is pointless for a DAW example...

so let's hope Apple's hypothetical 8K display is 60"

but ok, let's not hijack, even if it is pretty fundamental point to the future of "desktop computing"....
Old 6th June 2017
  #803
Gear Maniac
 
ztjangle's Avatar
I've been a Mac Pro defector in favor of Hackintoshes for about 8 years now. I'll never go back to original Macs because building a hackintosh (a computer put together of pc parts but with installed Mac OS on it) is a breeze, one can have a faster system than the original Mac Pro, more customizable and expandable, better graphics and all for less than a half price of a Mac. There are always great new Mac OS friendly motherboards available, supporting the latest Intel processors that Apple is typically late in implementing.

As far as the Mac OS, Windows or Linux are not even an option when it comes to pro audio, although you can have them installed on separate drives easily if you need them for non-audio purposes, like technical design work that I do (Windows) or safer internet browsing (Linux).
Old 6th June 2017
  #804
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ztjangle View Post
I've been a Mac Pro defector in favor of Hackintoshes for about 8 years now. I'll never go back to original Macs because building a hackintosh (a computer put together of pc parts but with installed Mac OS on it) is a breeze, one can have a faster system than the original Mac Pro, more customizable and expandable, better graphics and all for less than a half price of a Mac. There are always great new Mac OS friendly motherboards available, supporting the latest Intel processors that Apple is typically late in implementing.

As far as the Mac OS, Windows or Linux are not even an option when it comes to pro audio, although you can have them installed on separate drives easily if you need them for non-audio purposes, like technical design work that I do (Windows) or safer internet browsing (Linux).
thats what im talking about!! innovation, tinkering, real engineering!

you guys can keep your 8k discussion, we aren't playing on the same field apparently.
Old 6th June 2017
  #805
Gear Maniac
 


Ok, bad humor
Old 6th June 2017
  #806
Gear Maniac
 
ztjangle's Avatar
I have a 28" 4k monitor that I use with my Hackintosh for audio recording (Logic Studio). One really needs to have a perfect vision to use the full resolution, so I keep it set at just a notch above 2k. And it's plenty sharp and bright, I keep it at the lowest brightness. Having a second one next to this one would not even make my graphic card blink. But I don't really need it. The new NVidia 1000 series cards are now Mac OS supported (I have a GTX970) and can do 8k resolution without a hickup, 2 of them if need be.
Old 6th June 2017
  #807
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 

The main market for those 5k iMacs are video/film editors & special effects. Movies are now shot with 4k cameras at minimum, and 4k is used in plenty of film theater projectors. People used to downgrade to HD to be able to edit, but now you can work straight in the resolution the movie was shot, using these iMacs ( or other computers plugged into 4/5k monitors )

So yes, they are of little use to audio people. But we're not the center of the world either......despite what Gearslutz would tend to make you believe.
Old 6th June 2017
  #808
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
ah, OK! Well this is really F-ing cool then!

I know we read this kind of thing in April, but to see it re-confirmed post iMac Pro announcement, on an official Apple press release, is stellar! Excellent news!
There's a lenghty interview with Schiller and Federighi with more details about their plans, here : https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/tr...ples-pro-macs/

That's where they announced plans for the iMac Pro and the modular MacPro.
Old 6th June 2017
  #809
Gear Addict
 
FrankieP's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceman View Post
The main market for those 5k iMacs are video/film editors & special effects. Movies are now shot with 4k cameras at minimum, and 4k is used in plenty of film theater projectors. People used to downgrade to HD to be able to edit, but now you can work straight in the resolution the movie was shot, using these iMacs ( or other computers plugged into 4/5k monitors )

So yes, they are of little use to audio people. But we're not the center of the world either......despite what Gearslutz would tend to make you believe.
This! DaVinci Resolve users will probably salivate all over this. For audio work, it's way overkill.
Old 6th June 2017
  #810
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
From my brief reading about the new iMac pro's and whatnot, it seems they will be great for video people, and of course some improvement in terms of processors for us audio guys, but does the price really justify the ratio of performance we will see in audio? Haven't read closely enough about the processors and whatnot... but doesn't even Apples own Logic have issues with core spreading with Kontakt etc? (with workarounds I somewhat remember but....)
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump