How has your 2018 MacBook Pro performed with PT 2018?

[kedavis]

I’m thinking of upgrading to a 15” 2018 MacBook Pro soon and wanted to get some reports about how Pro Tools is running on these machines. Which machine did you purchase? Have you encountered errors while recording at low buffer sizes? How stable has Pro Tools been? Did you choose 32Gbs of ram? When the fans engage, how noisy is it?

Thanks in advance.

[Darryl Ramm]

I have a max config prior model. They are widely used with Pro Tools and you would hear lots of folks compaining if there were problems.

With DRAM and NAND soldered to the motherboard you are going to want to maximize those...for a machine that will hopefully last years. 32GB definitely if you expect to run lots of VIs etc. plan on maxing our the SSD and running everything off thatt internal drive if you can.

Ultimate lowest buffer/latency depends on the interface. What do you have/run at today on what computer? What issues are you having that make you want to upgrade?

Mostly close your eyes and write the check. If I did not need a portable I might wait for an Mac Pro, consider a Mac Mini.

[kedavis]

Thanks for your response Darryl. I have a Late 2013 MacBook Pro with an UA Apollo 8. I'm a vocalist very sensitive to latency so I record at a buffer size of 32. In the past I've used Console with higher buffer settings, but punching in was a problem so I resorted to recording at lower buffer settings instead. At 32, I get cracks and pops, also pop-up errors. I was wondering if this is lessened in the newer MacBooks.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by kedavis

Thanks for your response Darryl. I have a Late 2013 MacBook Pro with an UA Apollo 8. I'm a vocalist very sensitive to latency so I record at a buffer size of 32. In the past I've used Console with higher buffer settings, but punching in was a problem so I resorted to recording at lower buffer settings instead. At 32, I get cracks and pops, also pop-up errors. I was wondering if this is lessened in the newer MacBooks.

OK glad I asked... At 32 samples you are on the hairy edge and just lucky if it works and I would not be confident it will be more stable with a shinier new MBP. I would try every possible thing to change workflow to work at a larger buffer size or with console monitoring. But spending $3k-$4k hoping for a improvement there seems a waste. Ultimately if it’s a real horrible problem you can always go HDX.

And keep going back over your current system trying to tweak that, disk cache enabled, dynamic plugin processing off, ignore errors not checked, fully optimized, use track freeze/commit as much as you can, etc. you might always squeeze a bit more stability there.

[digiot]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

OK glad I asked... At 32 samples you are on the hairy edge and just lucky if it works and I would not be confident it will be more stable with a shinier new MBP. I would try every possible thing to change workflow to work at a larger buffer size or with console monitoring. But spending $3k-$4k hoping for a improvement there seems a waste. Ultimately if it’s a real horrible problem you can always go HDX.

And keep going back over your current system trying to tweak that, disk cache enabled, dynamic plugin processing off, ignore errors not checked, fully optimized, use track freeze/commit as much as you can, etc. you might always squeeze a bit more stability there.

I am right there with you on that. The only thing that will guarantee low latency tracking is Protools HDX! On paper PT Native should work but as of now, the main stumbling blocks is that any OS over 10.13.4 has problems with low buffer settings! As far as I know you can not run the 2018 MBP on 10.13.4.
Maybe PT2018.11 will finally fix that.

[kedavis]

I wondered if it might be better with the newer computers because at a 32 buffer with my current computer, sometimes there's no errors and only a few pops and clicks when recording. I have tweaked as much as possible (thanks Darryl). Also I have Pro Tools 2018.10 running on 10.13.6, maybe the next qualified version might work better.

This opens up more questions though, would the HD Omni interface and a Native Thunderbolt Core do the same thing as HDX? Would it work with the non-Ultimate version of Pro Tools?

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by kedavis

This opens up more questions though, would the HD Omni interface and a Native Thunderbolt Core do the same thing as HDX? Would it work with the non-Ultimate version of Pro Tools?

"do the same thing"... uh not at all, that would be comparing no IO buffer (and DSP based mixer and plugin processing) to a small IO buffer that leads to unreliable native processing, you may misunderstand the fundamental difference between HDX and native (Pro Tools HD Native or standard) processing.

Hoping that "Hail Mary" approaches like HD native or a new Mac will get you a little better behavior at small buffer size when you are already standing on the edge of such a steep cliff is probably not what you should be thinking about. 32 sample buffer with any native system is likely to be unstable.

HDX and HD Native both need Pro Tools Ultimate to work.

[Downtown_BE]

I wish I could record on 64 samples - as soon as I´m using any plugins I have to go up to 128 to stay stable!

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Downtown_BE

I wish I could record on 64 samples - as soon as I´m using any plugins I have to go up to 128 to stay stable!

Exactly.