New Mac Mini released

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

I went with the 256GB internal because I don't install sample libraries on my C: drive. I have a separate drive for that. If Pro Tools.exe is a 4TB file in a couple years, I will eat my hat.

Yea, keep that hat -- PT6 installer was less than 50 MEGAbytes, only grew to DVD size in PT8 because of AIR virtual instrument libraries

[StratoBobster]

Hey Alex - Any news at your end?

[AlexLakis]

Still wrapping up tracking for this one project and then I'll have a chance to gut my desk and hook up the VRS-8s. SOON.



I can also test the VRS-8s out in Logic if anybody is interested.

[AlexLakis]

DAW:

2018 Mac Mini (max processor, 32GB RAM)
OSX 10.14.1
2x Slate VRS-8
Pro Tools 12.6

Sample Rate / Bit Depth:

44.1 / 24

Playback Engine:

Playback Engine: Pro Tools Aggregate I/O
Buffer Size: 64
Video Engine: Disabled
Ignore Errors: No
Dynamic Plugin Processing: Yes
Disk Cache: 2GB

The Tests:

Test 1: Set up 1 Master track, 4 aux sends for headphones, 16 audio tracks w/ the 4 sends on each audio track. Recorded 16 tracks for 15 minutes.

Results: Flawless victory. CPU holds fast at 4%. Disk Cache ran out at about 10 minutes, no hiccup. Pro Tools GUI is snappy and responsive. Can surf the net while recording. Mini is cool to the touch.

Test 2: Set up 1 Master track, 4 aux sends for headphones, 1 aux verb (Valhalla Vintage), 1 aux delay (Repeater), 16 audio tracks (inserts: Equilibrium vanilla w/ 4 nodes active, Slate VMR w/VCC+CustomEQ+Distressor) w/ the 6 sends on each audio track. Recorded 16 tracks for 15 minutes.

Results: Victory. CPU spikes between 15% and 50% (core distribution is poor). Pro Tools GUI is snappy and responsive (move between edit window and mix window, volume dialogue and send dialogues, etc.) Unfortunately, bringing up almost any plugin GUI resulted in a CPU Overload error within a few seconds (the only plugin tested that seems to be immune is Equilibrium). Mini is hot as hell to the touch.

Test 3: Set up 1 Master track, 4 aux sends for headphones, 1 aux verb (Valhalla Vintage), 1 aux delay (Repeater), 33 audio tracks (inserts: Equilibrium vanilla w/ 4 nodes active, Slate VMR w/VCC+CustomEQ+Distressor) w/ the 6 sends on each audio track. Recorded 1 track for 15 minutes.

Results: Victory similar to above. CPU spikes between 25% and 60% (core distribution is better, tho). Pro Tools GUI is snappy and responsive (move between edit window and mix window, volume dialogue and send dialogues, etc.) Unfortunately, bringing up almost any plugin GUI still resulted in a CPU Overload error within a few seconds (the only plugin tested that seems to be immune is Equilibrium). Mini is hot as hell to the touch.

Tests 4 & 5: Same as tests 2 & 3 but at 128 buffer size.

Results: Flawless victory. CPU holds fast at 15% (core distribution is even better). Can open plugin GUIs and edit controls at will, nice and snappy, can surf web. Mini is cool to the touch.

Conclusions/Thoughts:

-This is an awesome rig for tracking bands. It may not be infallible, but it is a BEAST.

-Please note that all CPU results are solely based on Pro Tools' own CPU monitor.

-The Mac Mini ran cool and completely silent almost the entire time. Only recording multiple tracks at a buffer size of 64 with a bunch of plugins made it heat up (and it cooled down pretty quickly afterwards). Under full load, I could not hear it 2 feet in front of my face in a dead room (I can only hear it if I put my ear right up to the rear of the unit).

-I wonder if an eGPU would alleviate the CPU overload errors I encounter when opening/editing plugin GUI while tracking at a buffer size of 64?

-I am reluctant to upgrade to the latest version of Pro Tools in fear of disrupting the stability of the DAW as it is. Maybe it would solve problems, maybe it would create them, I don't know and I don't intend to find out unless needed.

-The VRS-8s run pretty darn hot. I would give them a free rack space above for ventilation. Pots/switches are firm, smooth, and even. Oh...I guess they sound pretty good too.

[Darryl Ramm]

Lots of great info. Thanks!

But folks please remember there is a known problem on Mojave with smaller IO buffer sizes.... presumably the main reason why it's not officially supported yet. So getting too worried about glitches at 64 samples right now does not make a lot of sense (and is it really worth running at 64 samples anyhow?)

[StratoBobster]

Alex - Thanks again for blazing the trail. I appreciate your reports.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

(and is it really worth running at 64 samples anyhow?)

^^ this.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

(and is it really worth running at 64 samples anyhow?)

Originally Posted by JFreak

^^ this.

Considering most professional engineers I know refuse to track clients thru the software buffer all together and insist on zero latency solutions, I'd say there's at least a market for it. I can easily hear/feel the difference between 64 and 128 at 44.1, so I'm assuming most of my clients can too...Can you?

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

Considering most professional engineers I know refuse to track clients thru the software buffer all together and insist on zero latency solutions, I'd say there's at least a market for it. I can easily hear/feel the difference between 64 and 128 at 44.1, so I'm assuming most of my clients can too...Can you?

Yes but hoping for something and being able to get it are different things. I want to date Scarlett Johansson, and that apparently ain’t happening. Having something that can be stable in practice with real plugins at very small buffer sizes is likely the same, well without risking the restraining order. If you want to operate at 64 or 32 sample (or lower) type latencies reliably I would suggest looking at hardware monitoring or HDX... exactly what many professional engineers are doing today... as you point out. By all means keep banging away trying, wait for Avids fixes, etc. but you are deciding to work on the edge of a cliff....

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Yes but hoping for something and being able to get it are different things. I want to date Scarlett Johansson, and that apparently ain’t happening. Having something that can be stable in practice with real plugins at very small buffer sizes is likely the same, well without the restraining order. If you want to operate at 64 or 32 sample (or lower) type latencies reliably I would suggest looking at hardware monitoring or HDX... exactly what many professional engineers are doing today... as you point out. By all means keep banging away trying, wait for Avids fixes, etc. but you are deciding to work on the edge of a cliff....

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?