New Mac Mini released

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

I've been tracking at 64 with my DIGI 002 for well over a decade now.

Considering the computers I used during that time have been exponentially less powerful than the Mini, there is no reason to expect to have to go backwards in performance (I understand if Mojave has "broken" Pro Tools performance; if this is true, I'll just have to wait until Avid releases a fix or just use Logic/Reaper to track).

Sure, sometimes I have to deactivate a few plugins when the client wants to track deep into mix time, but with proper gain-staging it isn't an issue.

The entire point of the Slate VRS-8 is to monitor thru the software. If this cannot be done at a reasonable buffer size, it defeats the entire purpose. If Pro Tools can't do it, I'll bet Logic/Reaper can. So where does that leave us here?

It leaves folks who want to do that in latest releases on newest macOS releases waiting for Avid to fix know issues and then trying and seeing what they can do. That's your choice, use other hardware, a different DAW, or OS versions or operate at larger buffer sizes. Whatever... your choice. That's all. My main point was *exactly* that there are known issues right now for folks who want/choose to operate at such small IO buffer sizes. And if you can find a way not to do that... well your life might be easier. Again it's your choice.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

Can you?

Comb filtering is everywhere. If you kick your floor wedge a foot away it also changes sound slightly. Your brain has just learnt that this oldskool thing doesn't have anything wrong with it so you keep playing as before.

Buffer is too large when you hear clear echo/delay as in 512 buffer in a 48k session. IMO, if 256 buffer is playable (and it is) then it is good enough for a tracking session.

(and the point of headphones being so much closer to ear, then how come people don't complain in-ears that are even closer, and a millimeter difference in how deep you have them makes -- in theory -- greater difference in comb filtering than anything. people just get used to whatever gear they use that are GOOD ENOUGH to be playable)

I have used in-ears in tracking sessions with 256 buffer (48k) for +15 years successfully. Only time when someone has ever complained about echo/delay is when I accidentally instantiate a plugin that has too much latency. Proving the point of good enough.

[Balanced Jack]

Can we get back to the performance of the Mac Mini (and Pro Tools)? Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I have used in-ears in tracking sessions with 256 buffer (48k) for +15 years successfully. Only time when someone has ever complained about echo/delay is when I accidentally instantiate a plugin that has too much latency. Proving the point of good enough.

That's cool that you've proven your own point but in my +15 years of experience, 256 at 44.1 is flat-out undoable (not even close). 128 at 44.1 gets noticed rarely, almost always by drummers or vocalists (I can clearly hear it and it bothers me, so whether it's "GOOD ENOUGH" is at least debatable). 64 is great and its what I CHOOSE to track at 95% of the time because I have the capability to do so and feel I owe it to the talent.



YMMV, of course, which is why our experiences are not gospel.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Balanced Jack

Can we get back to the performance of the Mac Mini (and Pro Tools)? Thanks.

^^ this.

Sorry, but sometimes I just feel the need to mess up with the better-number-is-better discussions. Back to topic, at least for myself.

[AlexLakis]

I know, right? It's a hot-topic as it should be! But a topic for another thread.

Apologies for being cantankerous in the morning.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

I know, right? It's a hot-topic as it should be! But a topic for another thread.

Apologies for being cantankerous in the morning.

No worries, we've all been there :facepalm:

[LDS]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

That's cool that you've proven your own point but in my +15 years of experience, 256 at 44.1 is flat-out undoable (not even close). 128 at 44.1 gets noticed rarely, almost always by drummers or vocalists (I can clearly hear it and it bothers me, so whether it's "GOOD ENOUGH" is at least debatable). 64 is great and its what I CHOOSE to track at 95% of the time because I have the capability to do so and feel I owe it to the talent.

YMMV, of course, which is why our experiences are not gospel.

But surely the only figure that matters is round trip latency? Sample buffers impose their own latency, but they are the lesser, more predictable, and controllable half of the equation. The bigger influence will be the interface and the quality of it's drivers.

What is "GOOD ENOUGH" is quantifiable in real terms as a millisecond value. From there, it is simply a case of choosing an interface that fits the bill. If that figure happens to be 12ms, then that is an Echo Audio Audiofire12 running at 64 sample buffers... or an RME UFX+ running at 256 sample buffers.

[JFreak]

002Rack from 2002 was perfectly fine with 48k sessions and 256 buffers ... what has changed?

[Balanced Jack]

FFS people ! Can you put your “my latency is smaller than yours” conversations aside and keep things to the new Mac Mini’s performance and all will be well with the world. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk