PT2023 and Mac Studio disappointments

[audiolex1]

Originally Posted by innerbooty

Hmmm, this is a little concerning. About to pull the trigger on an M2 Studio Max (at least, I think I am), with a Sonnett III chassis for HDX card and UAD Octo. Avid HD IO 16. Are UAD plugins going to slow me down / add latency and end up negating gains from the upgrade? I'll be upgrading from a 2009 Cheesegrater, so I am very much hoping/expecting to see serious gains. Hoping to run a bunch of Kontakt instruments, Roland Cloud and other VIs and run at lower buffer settings. And not get CPU errors!! Am I in for a rude (expensive) awakening...?

If you are recording through the console, you are getting very low latency. Even a little less than carbon. But you need an I/O for that.

The only time latency issues would load up is if you are using DSP plugins on a playback (PT) track while recording.
That is where you are going to see the latency as they have to go through the DSP.
I don't think you are going to get errors with an M2. I think you are going to see a lot of improvement.
Pretty sure Apple has a return policy of like 14 days or something as well.

Take a couple of days install what you usually use and test it out.

[Darryl Ramm]

Hmmm, this is a little concerning. About to pull the trigger on an M2 Studio Max (at least, I think I am), with a Sonnett III chassis for HDX card and UAD Octo. Avid HD IO 16. Are UAD plugins going to slow me down / add latency and end up negating gains from the upgrade? I'll be upgrading from a 2009 Cheesegrater, so I am very much hoping/expecting to see serious gains. Hoping to run a bunch of Kontakt instruments, Roland Cloud and other VIs and run at lower buffer settings. And not get CPU errors!! Am I in for a rude (expensive) awakening...?

UAD plugins running on your UAD DSP cards are going to have around the same significant latency they always have regardless of the host system. What overall impact this has on the system depends on lots of stuff, starting with what measure of performance you care about.

If the goal is to track at minimal latency, then just don't run UAD plugins in Pro Tools. this hopefully is common knowledge, UAD describe all this well, it's why their interfaces offer DSP processing for the console, but I'm assuming all the tracking you do is though HDX and your HD I/O.

If the goal is to just provide more processing power at mix time... well sure hopefully native VIs run with less impact than on the cheesegrater. But UAD DSP plugins are running on the DSP so you are not providing them any more power by upgrading the host computer. And the raw DSP power in these cards vs modern CPUs is well, just not impressive, and that's being polite. Hopefully you can run the native versions of those plugins if they exist. And hopefully UAD will increase the number of plugins they have with native support, although I am guessing there may be some licensing issues they face for some plugins. And yes many of their plugins are very nice, they are very nicer running native when mixing.

If the goal is to run a bunch of VIs at lower latency... meaning you are tracking through the VIs then you should not be using UAD DSP plugins in Pro Tools. And hopefully you are careful about how you combine HDX DSP and native/VI plugins. And if those VIs are actually CPU bound today, and you've worked through all the optimizations and troubleshooting to try to reduce CPU errors on the current systems then hopefully adding more CPU power and setting up the new system well should give you better VI tracking performance. And hopefully you are printing/freezing/committing as many VI and other tracks as possible to reduce CPU load and error sensitivity.

You really don't want to mix up pure-HDX tracking with UAD high latency plugins in the DAW and forcing Pro Tools to jump from the HDX DSP through the H/W buffer over a wet string to the UAD DSP. I hope I'm just repeating the obvious here.

---

There are known problems with HDN and HDX cards in Thunderbolt 3 chassis with NVMe Disk in the same chassis. It would be good to know that there are not problem with HDX and UAD DSP cards in the same chassis (maximum bandwidth used is a lot less, so I hope not, but still). You might want to ask around to confirm folks are doing that OK, I think I've heard folks here say they are. Make sure you understand the HDX card and chassis compatibility issues, and HD Driver issues, lots of stuff on DUC and the knowledge base about all that. As with any new adventure I'd try to get stuff running piece by piece, and tested and get all that done while there is still a chance to return stuff if it's just not working.

[chrismeraz]

Originally Posted by massivekerry

I do notice that the app loads faster. Sessions - not necessarily so.

Same. I have an M1 MacBook. Everything works perfectly well, I can run huge sessions with no problems (I haven't had any problems running huge sessions since 2017 when I built a PC with an i8700k processor). I don't use VI's though.

[EmilILönneberga]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

UAD plugins running on your UAD DSP cards are going to have around the same significant latency they always have regardless of the host system. What overall impact this has on the system depends on lots of stuff, starting with what measure of performance you care about.

If the goal is to track at minimal latency, then just don't run UAD plugins in Pro Tools. this hopefully is common knowledge, UAD describe all this well, it's why their interfaces offer DSP processing for the console, but I'm assuming all the tracking you do is though HDX and your HD I/O.

If the goal is to just provide more processing power at mix time... well sure hopefully native VIs run with less impact than on the cheesegrater. But UAD DSP plugins are running on the DSP so you are not providing them any more power by upgrading the host computer. And the raw DSP power in these cards vs modern CPUs is well, just not impressive, and that's being polite. Hopefully you can run the native versions of those plugins if they exist. And hopefully UAD will increase the number of plugins they have with native support, although I am guessing there may be some licensing issues they face for some plugins. And yes many of their plugins are very nice, they are very nicer running native when mixing.

If the goal is to run a bunch of VIs at lower latency... meaning you are tracking through the VIs then you should not be using UAD DSP plugins in Pro Tools. And hopefully you are careful about how you combine HDX DSP and native/VI plugins. And if those VIs are actually CPU bound today, and you've worked through all the optimizations and troubleshooting to try to reduce CPU errors on the current systems then hopefully adding more CPU power and setting up the new system well should give you better VI tracking performance. And hopefully you are printing/freezing/committing as many VI and other tracks as possible to reduce CPU load and error sensitivity.

You really don't want to mix up pure-HDX tracking with UAD high latency plugins in the DAW and forcing Pro Tools to jump from the HDX DSP through the H/W buffer over a wet string to the UAD DSP. I hope I'm just repeating the obvious here.

---

There are known problems with HDN and HDX cards in Thunderbolt 3 chassis with NVMe Disk in the same chassis. It would be good to know that there are not problem with HDX and UAD DSP cards in the same chassis (maximum bandwidth used is a lot less, so I hope not, but still). You might want to ask around to confirm folks are doing that OK, I think I've heard folks here say they are. Make sure you understand the HDX card and chassis compatibility issues, and HD Driver issues, lots of stuff on DUC and the knowledge base about all that. As with any new adventure I'd try to get stuff running piece by piece, and tested and get all that done while there is still a chance to return stuff if it's just not working.

I have plenty of TB2 UAD gear (3x Apollo + 2 xSatellite) on several machines and no issues with 128 Samples buffer size. Even back in the day with the FW devices it worked with lower buffer sizes. I would have a close look on the plug ins used and see if one is the culprit.
Maybe it's the UAD drivers, I'm still on Monterey.

[innerbooty]

This is all really good info. And the possible issues between UAD and HDX and external chassis and HD drivers is all part of what makes me nervous about this big upgrade. I do plan to NOT use an NvME drive in the chassis, which is kind of a shame because I will have that extra slot. I'm not using nearly as many UAD plugs as I used to. The Massenburg EQ a lot. A bunch of 'verbs. 2500 and 33609. I do need to overdub audio in an existing mix session with some regularity. I've been doing that with audio on my cheesegrater with no real problems, thanks to HDX. But I have annoying latency issues with MIDI tracking when using VI's and instrument plugins now. I have to turn Delay Compensation OFF when doing MIDI tracking in a mix session, and disable any UAD plugs that might be on an instrument aux track (like the UAD 2500 compressor on drums) I really hope the MIDI will be tighter and more reliable on a new rig with the newest version of PT, and that MIDI Delay Compensation will be reliable. (I'm still on 2021.6, which is very nicely stable, except for a bug importing Mp3's, which is easy to workaround) Beyond puttering with my own music I'm doing mostly audiobooks for kids these days, so lots of FX and VI tracks, with occasional overdubbing of VO, guitar, bass, live audio instruments.

What I plan to do is keep working on my current rig while I slowly setup the new one. The idea of installing all my plugins again is a very painful thought!

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by EmilILönneberga

I have plenty of TB2 UAD gear (3x Apollo + 2 xSatellite) on several machines and no issues with 128 Samples buffer size. Even back in the day with the FW devices it worked with lower buffer sizes. I would have a close look on the plug ins used and see if one is the culprit.
Maybe it's the UAD drivers, I'm still on Monterey.

Are you using the UAD DSP plugins on tracks with active inputs? If not I hope the signal path should be using the high latency aka disk playback buffers and will have a hardware buffersize of 1024 or 2048 samples not what you set for the H/W buffer size. I should have mentioned that before. This would be something interesting to check on some sessions. This could significantly change issues depending on how many tracks/plugins see the smaller H/W buffer size.

With my limited experience with Apollo interfaces we sure as heck could see things break at say 256 sample hardware buffers/96kHz sessions if the DSP plugins were enabled in Pro Tools (some of these would have been on input tracks).

But regardless, I think you need to be careful about what you might get to work and what is general advice or more specifically what to think about when there are problems. If folks are having CPU or Hardware buffer type errors when they have UAD plugins in a session then increasing the hardware buffer size is one of the first things to try because of how UAD DSP plugins work and the high latency to get to the DSP. And yes this will depend on what you are doing, combining CPU hungry native VIs with UAD plugins in a session might well exacerbate problems, having other plugins in the session that are not so stable might as well (so yes you might go looking for them also). It's also great of course to avoid this while tracking and if possible just run those plugins in the Console on UAD interface.

[moogboy100]

Pro Tools is not "optimized" for Apple Silicon. Yes, it runs natively on AS (and runs really great too), but that's not the same as optimized.

For example, a 12-Core M3 Pro has 6 Performance cores and 6 Efficiency cores. According to PT's cpu usage and Activity Monitor, it only uses the 6 performance cores. The 6 efficiency cores are ignored. Likewise the GPU cores also ignored by PT. Finally the SOC's Media Engine for accelerated video processing is also ignored by PT.

The performance gains of Apple Silicon are much more noticeable when using Apple Logic and Final Cut Pro, for example, which are fully optimized to use all the architectures on the chip.

PT will just seem to be able to handle more plugins, etc. But you're not gonna see dramatic improvements in, say, offline bouncing and transcoding video bounces. I still see PT sessions struggle to offline bounce an intensive mix at 1.0x speed on an M2 Ultra Studio (in Rosetta I'll admit).

But I'll still take it over an Intel any day. The systems run smooth, produce no heat and draw so little power.

[innerbooty]

Thanks, yeah, just to add detail, I never track with any plugins, UAD or otherwise. (Also, I don't have UA interface, so I'm not sure about using the UA Console vs. Pro Tools) The only time I ever track with plugs is if I'm using an AAX DSP amp sim for guitar or bass. But even then I have found in the past I've needed to disable Delay Compensation. There have been times I've recorded a gtr pass with AAX DSP plugins, with Delay Compensation ON, and when I play it back with the track no longer in Record mode, the timing is totally off.

Also good to know about what Silicon Cores Pro Tools actually uses. Another thread in the Mac forum has been helpful about this too, which led me away from getting an M3, since most of that fancy horsepower isn't even utilized in Pro Tools. I don't need everything to be super blazing, Offline Bounce, etc. I just want the process of mixing, tracking and editing to be as fast and stable as possible. And to be able to run VIs without stressing out about it as much.

[juh]

Thanks all for your responses.
To answer Darryl, I do actually use some UAD plug-ins, primarily on auxiliary tracks for reverbs, never when tracking.
As I said what bothers me the most is that the difference between my old system and the new one isn't as significant as it should be, considering the power of the Mac Studio. Before, I could use a substantial number of virtual instruments without having to print or freeze them. And I believe that with my new system, I should be able to avoid that.
I'll try as you suggested, to have a look at 'systems optimization and troubleshooting' page, but I would tend to think like Moogboy, Protools might not be optimized for Apple Silicon yet...

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by juh

Thanks all for your responses.
To answer Darryl, I do actually use some UAD plug-ins, primarily on auxiliary tracks for reverbs, never when tracking.
As I said what bothers me the most is that the difference between my old system and the new one isn't as significant as it should be, considering the power of the Mac Studio. Before, I could use a substantial number of virtual instruments without having to print or freeze them. And I believe that with my new system, I should be able to avoid that.
I'll try as you suggested, to have a look at 'systems optimization and troubleshooting' page, but I would tend to think like Moogboy, Protools might not be optimized for Apple Silicon yet...

Keep looking something seems clearly wrong here and hope you can sort it out. Slow down and follow the troubleshooting doc carefully. Ask if you get stuck, describing exactly what test you are dong/instructions you are following and what you see.

Trash prefs frequently between doing other tests using the PT Prefs tool. And a tip that might help, or help you at least move faster, is to do things cumulatively even if not clear in the instructions (e.g. remove all the plugins, test with the core ones that will be automatically reinstalled, if that does not help, do not put all the plugin back, but change the playback engine to the Mac speakers/built-in output, if that does not work, keep it with only the core plugins and Mac speaker playback engine and test from a new admin account.. the idea being to keep tearing stuff down to the simplest/most likely to work things until it works OK and then you can try putting other stuff back).