The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
At last: new Mac Pro!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1291
Lives for gear
 
~ufo~'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jweisbin View Post
In 2013 an 8-core base model Mac Pro (trash can) was $5000. The new Mac Pro base model is $6000. Not that far off considering that it is modular and is designed to power and cool a lot more stuff inside.
I think that's an unfair and misleading comparison.
For one, the 8 core was not the base model, a quad core was, then there was a six-core and only then came the 8-core.
Not exactly base model.

Besides, back then 8 cores were still a premium feature.
Now they are pretty much the base line for professional work.

A quad core Mac Pro was kinda insulting in 2013, a six core would be now. An 8 core should be bare minimum in say a 3.5-4K Mac Pro. Not a 6k one.

That case is just hella expensive and the bang for buck ratio seriously suffers.
The new Mac Pro can be quite a monster, but it’s not exactly one at 6k.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1292
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 

My Mac Mini quite easily deals with the graphics requirements of my audio production with a fairly ‘crappy’ integrated GPU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jweisbin View Post
DAW software utilizes the GPU, just not for audio. How do you think scrolling waveform displays are achieved? Put in a crappy GPU and you will see crappy graphic performance.

Does anyone think that Apple is going to release a flagship product that is targeted only to musicians, which are like 1% of the market?

In 2013 an 8-core base model Mac Pro (trash can) was $5000. The new Mac Pro base model is $6000. Not that far off considering that it is modular and is designed to power and cool a lot more stuff inside.

When the 2013 Mac Pro was released, GS users were crying "this machine has two video cards, therefore must be targeted for video editors, not audio". But that's not exactly why it had two video cards. Apple's design goal at that time was to support 3 x 4K monitors, and they could not do that with just one video card inside of that particular thermal package. With the new design, and newer video cards, they can.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1293
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
My Mac Mini quite easily deals with the graphics requirements of my audio production with a fairly ‘crappy’ integrated GPU.
If you have a new Mac Mini then it's got an Intel UHD Graphics 630, which is a pretty highly spec'd GPU, and certainly not 10 years old. So it's not "crappy", but it is an integrated GPU, so it shares memory with the system, rather than having it's own RAM. So that will affect your overall RAM usage etc etc. But if that configuration is working for you, then I am happy for you. But most composers I work with want/need two 4K monitors for editing, and another 4K TV for the video they are working to. Mac Mini is not going to cut it in that scenario, unless you have an eGPU.

Last edited by jweisbin; 4 weeks ago at 01:12 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1294
Gear Nut
I'm going to wait and see how the base model stacks up in benchmarks against the iMac i9 before making a firm decision. Also, it's not entirely clear exactly how upgradable it will be moving forward with some grey areas such as SSD replacement. All those PCI slots and graphics tech are completely irrelevant to Audio of course but if it proves to be as quick as an i9 with the possibility of upgrading the CPU, RAM and GPU over 5-10 years then it may make a worthwhile long term investment. If it fares badly against other solutions in intensive CPU tasks then there will per head scratching over what to get...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1295
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by arvfur View Post
John Paesano uses a Z-series HP filled with 2TB of RAM to load his entire scoring template into RAM:

https://youtu.be/oaOph1Pp_Xw?t=496
Note that he says "not that I would ever need that amount of RAM"... I am curious how much is in active use in such a template.

Note that he also said the RAM cost more the than computer... (this was my original point).

If you are scoring something "mission critical" where every second counts and you have unlimited budget for it, why not, sure... if for nothing more than insurance. But if you have the budget, I would absolutely first max-out the CPU spec before maxing out the RAM. MUCH better use of funds IMHO.

Also... SSDs such as Intel Optane 905p are crazy fast. Even Samsung 970s in standard formats are fast. The sample library does not need to be loaded completely into RAM. In some cases only a small part of each sample is loaded into RAM to act as cache, the rest is streamed from the disk/SSD if/when needed.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1296
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
Also... SSDs such as Intel Optane 905p are crazy fast. Even Samsung 970s in standard formats are fast. The sample library does not need to be loaded completely into RAM. In some cases only a small part of each sample is loaded into RAM to act as cache, the rest is streamed from the disk/SSD.
Well, if you have loads of orchestral voices playing, the difference between playing them from RAM as opposed to from even the fastest PCI SSDs might still be very noticeable.
Read transfer rates of super fast NVMe SSDs max out at around 3.500MB/s whereas DDR4/3200 RAM delivers around 25GB/s (and even the old DDR3/1333 modules in my cheesegrater are at around 10GB/s already).
As I don't have access to such high end stuff myself, I can't tell how much things would differ between, say, a "normal" Kontakt patch using DFD (at least partially) and the same patch loaded entirely into your RAM, but I could imagine that there is something noticeable which would only add up once you use a plethora of those Kontakt instances.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1297
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wattsy View Post
For me to upgrade the chip would require a motherboard and ram change, and the re-sale value of custom built PCs is pretty abysmal.
In good condition certain parts are resalable. A weak CPU may not be, but central motherboards and RAM belonging to this might. At market value of course, but "abysmal" is too much said for parts. What you don't sell can be recycled.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1298
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by VNVNation View Post
All those PCI slots and graphics tech are completely irrelevant to Audio of course
Hello!

Those slots are PCIe. The music store called and left you this offer.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1299
Sky
Lives for gear
 
Sky's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by arvfur View Post
John Paesano uses a Z-series HP filled with 2TB of RAM to load his entire scoring template into RAM:

https://youtu.be/oaOph1Pp_Xw?t=496
I wonder how 2TB and 4TB NVMe SSD will change the need for this. Loading into RAM historically was provided to improve 7200 RPM hard drive performance.

Sky
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1300
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Hello!

Those slots are PCIe. The music store called and left you this offer.
Yes, but most would have moved to TB or USB outboard solutions since Apple abandoned PCIe back in 2012.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1301
Sky
Lives for gear
 
Sky's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Hello!

Those slots are PCIe. The music store called and left you this offer.
These look tasty too:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...rch=yes&sts=ps



Sky
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1302
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky View Post
Thanks for noting that. I have no issue with hackintosh and agree that the two worlds - Hac and Mac - are in fact one, up to now.

I’m considering how T2 and other emerging security technologies may upset this relationship. Will we reach a point where a computer must be architecturally certified in order to connect to certain internet servers, communication channels and data stores? If so, then a Hac builder may need silicon that’s not readily available to them. T2 is a powerful step in this direction. I may not wholly agree with it but acknowledge that T2 may become a cost of admission, at least in the Apple world if not more universally.

Staying on topic, this is an important unknown for making a new CPU decision. Over the lifespan of my next computer, am I better off adopting T2 or avoiding it? I can bet against T2 and buy the last Apple CPU without it - 2019 iMac 27” (or build a hackintosh) - then in a few years find that some things “just don’t work” without the silicon. A T2 Mac Pro could be a safer bet because the implementation must work for media professionals to remain a viable product.

Consider this headline:

Apple restricts online Apple Store access to newer versions of Safari and macOS

https://appleinsider.com/articles/19...fari-and-macos

It’s quite possible that someday this will read:

Apple restricts online Apple Store access to newer computers containing T2 chips

This is all speculation obviously, but feasible.

Sky
If they did this it would break compatibility with non-T2 chip machines. Apple would risk alienating anyone using a non-T2 chip machine... Which would be commercial suicide. The other thing that convinced me to make the leap was the video below... (Also a really good point of reference for people considering this machine... ARM is way way ahead of Intel. The iPad Pro geekbenches on par with the 7700k )

Even if/when Apple move to ARM there's still a good 5-6 year grace period where they'll have to support older non-ARM computers so most likely hackintoshing will be around for the next 5-6 years. (Let alone no one knows how it might evolve between now and then...

Old 4 weeks ago
  #1303
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Souter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
Well, if you have loads of orchestral voices playing, the difference between playing them from RAM as opposed to from even the fastest PCI SSDs might still be very noticeable.
Read transfer rates of super fast NVMe SSDs max out at around 3.500MB/s whereas DDR4/3200 RAM delivers around 25GB/s (and even the old DDR3/1333 modules in my cheesegrater are at around 10GB/s already).
As I don't have access to such high end stuff myself, I can't tell how much things would differ between, say, a "normal" Kontakt patch using DFD (at least partially) and the same patch loaded entirely into your RAM, but I could imagine that there is something noticeable which would only add up once you use a plethora of those Kontakt instances.
I've never coded a sample playback engine, and I am sure there are devils in the details, as they say, but:

dataRate = sampleRate * nChannels * bitDepth / 8 / 1000000

(8 bits per byte)
(1000000 bytes per MB)

The RedBook CD Audio case:

44100 * 2 * 16 / 8 / 1000000 = 0.17640 MB/sec

The most extreme possible stereo case:

192000 * 2 * 64 / 8 / 1000000 = 3.072 MB/sec

A common sample library format case:

48000 * 2 * 32 / 8 / 1000000 = 0.384 MB/sec

(or most likely 24bit on disk, so we give an extra 33% just to be nice)

let's use that last one and use not your 3500 MB/sec figure, but say a more conservative 1000 MB/sec (to be extra nice)

does someone need to stream more than 2604 (1000 / 0.384) sample instruments at the same time? Seems quite sufficient to me.

The RAM is needed only as a cache buffer at the start of new sample playback while the disk is seeking the new data. The entire sample doesn't have to be in RAM.

Here's a 2019 article from Spitfire:

https://spitfireaudio.zendesk.com/hc...hen-using-SSDs
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1304
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
wasn't there a whole slew of real time audio related issues when the first T2 chip appeared on newer Macs? Has that been sorted out?


M
Not fixed on the MacBook Pro. The thread below is still going on, people still encountering issues including myself, and it's been almost a year... Which is criminal AFAIC.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads...kling.2128234/
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1305
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottkahn View Post
Most engineers who know computer architecture know this: the Xeon is optimized for server use -- virtualization, rendering farms, advanced scientific calculation, 3D rendering. Intel specifies today that the Core series is their high performance line. And audio processing, which is mostly linear in nature, does not benefit from parallel processing nearly as much as other advanced applications. Fewer cores at higher speeds deliver higher performance vs. more cores at lower speeds, when processing audio and doing various tasks that are design/editing related.
How do you work?
It's almost as if you don't know that not everyone must work with music the same way you do. Some people actually do it all in the box, including the instruments. It stands to reason that the upper performance level that is not wasted power, especially considering low latency, is pretty high up. Even when we do work like you I don't think the numbers add up to support your argument, at least not in theory. You feel they are? If so, please explain.

Work needs to be distributed
As long as each of the single cores are sufficient, with a potential performance tradeoff because of concurrency, for the most demanding instrument track/channel in what we can call a many-core machine and its total processing in an "n"-core processor, then compared to a "n/2"-core processor with faster single core throughput is of lesser value. Simply this is because all tracks need to be processed on one core within the same audio buffer anyway. The lesser the cores the more will a single core have to process multiple tracks/channels. At the same time. How does this not add up?

Throughput and throttling
What people can have now, potentially, is fast enough throughput and many concurrent cores doing real work. As you also do not seem to take potential throttling as well as its absence into your assessment, then I think it's quite incomplete.

Just to illustrate this compare the 8-core i9-9900K iMac 2019 to the 18-core Xeon W-2191B iMac Pro 2017:

The SC GB4 score is about 16 to 22% slower in the latter (According to everymac. Higher number assuming some cores might be slower when all are engaged).

How many tracks/channels can be processed?
As each track/channel needs to be processed on one core any core needs to be able to process what is thrown at it or there will be dismal audible results when working real time. Let's assume that a single track/channel takes 15% of each core and you can only stack tracks/channels until you run out of CPU. Let' also assume hyper-threading works out in our favour. With the hope that everything else of the system can manage with what's left then, in theory:
  • the 8-core iMac would be able to process maybe around 96 tracks or channels with 6 tracks/channels per core
  • the 18-core iMac Pro would be able to process maybe around 180 tracks or channels with 5 tracks/channels per core
Also when we assume the latter is 35% slower when using many cores and thusly can only handle 4 tracks/channels per core it will still be able to process about 144 tracks.

You need to explain why these "number of concurrent threads" offsets are not realistic. Why aren't they? I think they are.

Pre-judging
Of course these are just some numbers and nothing beats actual testing. Which makes it somewhat interesting to learn some members here pre-judge a non-tested machine (far as I know the Mac Pro haven't been tested yet). Maybe this is based on sound theory and experience, but nevertheless.

Last edited by Mikael B; 4 weeks ago at 03:53 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1306
Gear Nut
 
Wattsy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
In good condition certain parts are resalable. A weak CPU may not be, but central motherboards and RAM belonging to this might. At market value of course, but "abysmal" is too much said for parts. What you don't sell can be recycled.
I never stated they couldn't be resold. But fair call, "pretty abysmal" may be an overstatement. Perhaps "pretty bad" would have been a better choice of words.

There are many, many pros to building a custom machine but I've never seen anyone tout resale value as one of them. Particularly in the broader context of comparisons to buying one of Apple's. I knew that going into all my custom builds.

As mentioned earlier in the thread my best estimates peg the resale value of my 2016 hack about on par with my 2012 MacBook Pro, and I spent more on the hack. There's a guy trying to sell the same MoBo + CPU + ram as I've got for AU$850 and it's been up for months, for all my fellow Aussies reading this I say tell him he's dreamin'.

I think this is an important point to consider for those building a hackintosh on economic grounds, and is also the reason I suggest keeping an eye on Apple's product lifecycles. If Apple do a complete redesign of the iMac later this year, the machine you buy today will be looking pretty dated by the time you go to sell it in 4-5 years.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1307
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
does someone need to stream more than 2604 (1000 / 0.384) sample instruments at the same time? Seems quite sufficient to me.
We're not talking about sampler instruments but voices here.

Take, say, a 5 note chord. Nothing special, really.
Now, take a look at some complexed sampler patches. They may as well layer several zones over the entire velocity range. Let's just say 3 for this example. So there's your 15 voices (samples) used up already.
Now, you found that nice patch with 3 voices per note - but it's not exactly sounding like what you had in mind, so you just slap in another layer, again using 3 voices per note. We're at 30 voices played simultaneously already. For a simple 5 note chord. Add a bit of sustain pedal stuff to it and during the transition from one chord to another there's 60 samples already, all of which have to be played simultaneously.
And now have a look at those huge tutti orchestra patches and you will easily see that 3 voices/samples per note is in no way exaggerating or anything. Depending on how the library is organized, they may not have sampled the tutti orchestra but the individual sections instead and then layered them inside the sampler. So it's not all too unlikely that each note you play will trigger 10-20 samples simultaneously. Let's now go for the 20 samples (maybe not too common, yet these exist, especially once you decide to layer multiple patches) and add another note to our chord and use layers and the sustain pedal and we're at 6x20x2x2 - that's a whooping 480 samples which will all have to be played at once.
And finally, start bringing in all the rest of Mahlers 8th symphony - you get the idea.

Then there's seek and access times. Perhaps these are even more crucial than the raw data transfer numbers (I mean, you don't want fast runs being interrupted by sample seek times...), but usually the faster the storage media, the faster seek/access times you get. And while I'm too lazy to look things up right now, I'm pretty sure that things stored in your RAM will offer way faster access times compared to them being stored on even the fastest NVMe SSDs.

And finally, while I don't know how Kontakt is treating things internally, Logics EXS allows you to load samples in 32bit float internally (likely for better sonic results, from all I remember aliasing on larger pitch shiftings gets less when you use that option), which will increase their size.

Sure, right now we may argue whether the comparatively high cost of RAM might be justified by the net outcome - but once prices drop (which they will), I'm sure that many people will take advance of loading as much as possible into their RAM. If I could afford any such a system, I would defenitely do so. And I'm sure that, now that SSDs are more or less bog standard, this will be another step towards rather significant performance improvements.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1308
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by jweisbin View Post
DAW software utilizes the GPU, just not for audio. How do you think scrolling waveform displays are achieved? Put in a crappy GPU and you will see crappy graphic performance.

Does anyone think that Apple is going to release a flagship product that is targeted only to musicians, which are like 1% of the market?

In 2013 an 8-core base model Mac Pro (trash can) was $5000. The new Mac Pro base model is $6000. Not that far off considering that it is modular and is designed to power and cool a lot more stuff inside.

When the 2013 Mac Pro was released, GS users were crying "this machine has two video cards, therefore must be targeted for video editors, not audio". But that's not exactly why it had two video cards. Apple's design goal at that time was to support 3 x 4K monitors, and they could not do that with just one video card inside of that particular thermal package. With the new design, and newer video cards, they can.
But think about the core count then vs now. 8 Cores at that time was on the high side for a base model Mac. The new machine should start with more cores than the latest MacBook Pro offers that's for sure... And the 256 GB SSD and RX 580 just looks like Apple being stingy. The least they could have done is start with a few more cores and a 1TB SSD, eating a small profit in exchange for some enthusiasm.


About production houses... What video production house would buy this thing with an RX 580 and a 256 GB drive? So the assumption is production houses will spec it upward...

Why then did bring out David Earl to do his presentation if they aren't banking on it appealing equally to the musician crowd? Unless the goal is only to appeal to film composers the price to performance ratio isn't winning over the music crowd. And, using Kontakt in the presentation only makes it that much more clear how inappropriate the 256 GB drive is...

It just seems like a really weird base model that isn't ideal for either.

And as an Apples to Apples comparison, (pun intended I guess...)
The New 15 inch Macbook Pro 8 core starts with a 512 GB drive and 560x for $2800...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1309
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
We're not talking about sampler instruments but voices here.

Take, say, a 5 note chord. Nothing special, really.
Now, take a look at some complexed sampler patches. They may as well layer several zones over the entire velocity range. Let's just say 3 for this example. So there's your 15 voices (samples) used up already.
Now, you found that nice patch with 3 voices per note - but it's not exactly sounding like what you had in mind, so you just slap in another layer, again using 3 voices per note. We're at 30 voices played simultaneously already. For a simple 5 note chord. Add a bit of sustain pedal stuff to it and during the transition from one chord to another there's 60 samples already, all of which have to be played simultaneously.

Exactly. Now add round robin, realtime FX etc.

Have four parts like that in your arrangement -nothing exceptional- and there's hundreds of voices at work. That's not 40 tracks of audio with compression and EQ.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1310
Gear Nut
 
Wattsy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdeadbaby View Post
But think about the core count then vs now. 8 Cores at that time was on the high side for a base model Mac. The new machine should start with at least 10 cores... (More cores than in the New MacBook offers that's for sure...) And the 256 GB SSD and RX 580 just looks like Apple being stingy. The least they could have done is start with a few more cores and a 1TB SSD, eating a small profit in exchange for some enthusiasm.

About production houses... What video production house would buy this thing with an RX 580 and a 256 GB drive? So the assumption is production houses will spec it upward...

Why then did bring out David Earl to do his presentation if they aren't banking on it appealing equally to the musician crowd? Unless the goal is only to appeal to film composers the price to performance ratio isn't winning over the music crowd. And, using Kontakt in the presentation only makes it that much more clear how inappropriate the 256 GB drive is...

It just seems like a really weird base model that isn't ideal for either.
From my point of view I see each of the components offered in the base model as the bare minimum on a per-component basis. Taking away the price/value considerations of the base model and whether Apple is making an unfair profit margin on it I'm glad that they have taken this approach. If I were to spec a machine I would choose the lowest possible graphics card, 32GB ram, and likely up the CPU. I don't want to be paying a higher price for a stock config that has components I don't need.

I would also choose the 256GB system drive. I'm all but certain these will be replaceable/upgradable as I've taken as close a look at the machine as I can, and there is a small plastic shroud that comes off giving access to the drives. I'm not fussed whether they are proprietary Apple drives or if we'll see 3rd party offerings. If Apple were to design access like this and not allow me to change/upgrade the drives I would not buy the machine.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1311
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by VNVNation View Post
I'm going to wait and see how the base model stacks up in benchmarks against the iMac i9 before making a firm decision. Also, it's not entirely clear exactly how upgradable it will be moving forward with some grey areas such as SSD replacement. All those PCI slots and graphics tech are completely irrelevant to Audio of course but if it proves to be as quick as an i9 with the possibility of upgrading the CPU, RAM and GPU over 5-10 years then it may make a worthwhile long term investment. If it fares badly against other solutions in intensive CPU tasks then there will per head scratching over what to get...
Just realize that upgrading the CPU yourself will void the warranty... This has always been Apple's position... And as I mentioned a few pages back they've done the same thing with the SSDs in the iMac Pro. (Which I didn't realize until looking into it...) Would be surprised if the NMP doesn't come with the same catch...

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/i...d-storage.html
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1312
Gear Nut
 
Wattsy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdeadbaby View Post
Just realize that upgrading the CPU yourself will void the warranty... This has always been Apple's position... And as I mentioned a few pages back they've done the same thing with the SSDs in the iMac Pro. (Which I didn't realize until looking into it...) Would be surprised if the NMP doesn't come with the same catch...

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/i...d-storage.html
The difference being that you don't have to "crack open" the Mac Pro in order to get to the drives. Not saying you won't turn out to be correct, but opening a sealed machine yourself to change the components is likely to always void the warranty.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1313
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Souter View Post
I've never coded a sample playback engine, and I am sure there are devils in the details, as they say, but:

dataRate = sampleRate * nChannels * bitDepth / 8 / 1000000

(8 bits per byte)
(1000000 bytes per MB)

The RedBook CD Audio case:

44100 * 2 * 16 / 8 / 1000000 = 0.17640 MB/sec

The most extreme possible stereo case:

192000 * 2 * 64 / 8 / 1000000 = 3.072 MB/sec

A common sample library format case:

48000 * 2 * 32 / 8 / 1000000 = 0.384 MB/sec

(or most likely 24bit on disk, so we give an extra 33% just to be nice)

let's use that last one and use not your 3500 MB/sec figure, but say a more conservative 1000 MB/sec (to be extra nice)

does someone need to stream more than 2604 (1000 / 0.384) sample instruments at the same time? Seems quite sufficient to me.

The RAM is needed only as a cache buffer at the start of new sample playback while the disk is seeking the new data. The entire sample doesn't have to be in RAM.

Here's a 2019 article from Spitfire:

https://spitfireaudio.zendesk.com/hc...hen-using-SSDs
Yeah, I haven't used Kontakt's memory server in years... My templates run around a few hundred instruments (loaded) at a time and NVMe hasn't been a bottle neck at all... Plus Kontakt is coded very well, loading only a small chunk of each sample in RAM for even better disk IO...

For the cost of 2TB of RAM, (good god I don't even know what that would cost but it would be STEEP! Probably over 10k!), you'd be better off using multiple NVMe drives. And almost certainly have money left over to buy another Mac Pro

FYI this is the ultimate way to fly with Kontakt... It's a little pricy, (still less expensive than upgrading the NMP's drive to 1 TB), but has a PLX chip which lets you basically take advantage of all PCIe lanes from each drive simultaeously... So basically you can host up to 4 NVMe drives on a single card while taking advantage of full speed on each drive, all from a single PCIe slot. It's the dogs bollocks as they say :p

http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA_ne...1-overview.htm
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1314
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzi View Post

I agree with another poster that 256gb ssd in base model is insulting--its clear that the base model is intended to be undesirable to encourage upgrading. I think that's a mistake--having a base model that looks inadequate compared to what people already have--it weakens the brand perception. Its like a $2,000 a night hotel room where you have to pay extra for bars of soap.
IMHO insulting wasn't the aim, it was to hide the fact that the first decently specced model will cost more than $10k, $17k with the monitor & stand / $24k with a dual monitor.
At least one won't have to purchase a gold Apple Watch to clearly establish one is full of $$$ / probably crap too.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1315
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wattsy View Post
From my point of view I see each of the components offered in the base model as the bare minimum on a per-component basis. Taking away the price/value considerations of the base model and whether Apple is making an unfair profit margin on it I'm glad that they have taken this approach. If I were to spec a machine I would choose the lowest possible graphics card, 32GB ram, and likely up the CPU. I don't want to be paying a higher price for a stock config that has components I don't need.

I would also choose the 256GB system drive. I'm all but certain these will be replaceable/upgradable as I've taken as close a look at the machine as I can, and there is a small plastic shroud that comes off giving access to the drives. I'm not fussed whether they are proprietary Apple drives or if we'll see 3rd party offerings. If Apple were to design access like this and not allow me to change/upgrade the drives I would not buy the machine.
I hear you.. I'm glad they at least did a cheese grater 2.0 for sure... And I'll admit I was surprised. What didn't surprise me was the base price, and specs that are underwhelming... Anyway if you do buy one at least realize that filling an SSD up is a bad idea... (You may well know this...) Just saying I've had SSDs die on me, running them close to full is a good way to shorten their life span.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1316
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wattsy View Post
The difference being that you don't have to "crack open" the Mac Pro in order to get to the drives. Not saying you won't turn out to be correct, but opening a sealed machine yourself to change the components is likely to always void the warranty.
I kind of wouldn't put it past Apple to do this, but it is all speculation for now...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1317
Gear Nut
 
Wattsy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdeadbaby View Post
I hear you.. I'm glad they at least did a cheese grater 2.0 for sure... And I'll admit I was surprised. What didn't surprise me was the base price, and specs that are underwhelming... Anyway if you do buy one at least realize that filling an SSD up is a bad idea... (You may well know this...) Just saying I've had SSDs die on me, running them close to full is a good way to shorten their life span.
Definitely, which is why replaceable drives is pretty high up there for me when considering pulling the trigger on one of these machines. And why I've been rambling on about my findings so much

I always have clones of my drives in storage on my NAS, shoutout to Carbon Copy Cloner which is a great tool! I've been trying to ascertain whether the T2 would cause me any grief in this regard, but I haven't come across anything yet.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1318
mfx
Lives for gear
 
mfx's Avatar
 

Oh so glad to not be mac_entised.
More money than sense as ever with macs.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1319
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jweisbin View Post
I'm happy for you. But most composers I work with want/need two 4K monitors for editing, and another 4K TV for the video they are working to. Mac Mini is not going to cut it in that scenario, unless you have an eGPU.
True dat. I heard Mozart wouldn’t even turn up to the office if three 4K monitors weren’t provided.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1320
Lives for gear
 
Monkey Man's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VNVNation View Post
Yes, but most would have moved to TB or USB outboard solutions since Apple abandoned PCIe back in 2012.
... except for the hordes of peeps who stuck with their cheese graters, waiting all the while for a new tower that would accommodate their reliance on PCIe.
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