Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > General Discussion & Off Topic > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-24-2018, 05:05 PM
Darryl Ramm Darryl Ramm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 14,931
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-25-2018, 07:15 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 21,474
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis View Post
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.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-25-2018, 07:32 AM
Balanced Jack Balanced Jack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-25-2018, 07:43 AM
AlexLakis AlexLakis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 1,296
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-25-2018, 08:06 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 21,474
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balanced Jack View Post
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.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-25-2018, 08:55 AM
AlexLakis AlexLakis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 1,296
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

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.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-25-2018, 01:08 PM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 21,474
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis View Post
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:
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-27-2018, 02:58 AM
LDS LDS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 955
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis View Post
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.
__________________
littledevilstudios.com.au
Pro Tools Ultimate 2020.12. OSX 10.14.6. HDX1. DAD DX-32R. DADman 5.4.5.1. Mac Pro 2013. 10 Core 3.0gHz. 64Gb. Blackmagic Extreme HD. Sync HD. Dobly Production Suite 3.5.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-27-2018, 01:54 PM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 21,474
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

002Rack from 2002 was perfectly fine with 48k sessions and 256 buffers ... what has changed?
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-27-2018, 02:36 PM
Balanced Jack Balanced Jack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 64
Default Re: New Mac Mini released

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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mbox Mini (3rd gen) not connecting in High Sierra on old Mac Mini or new iMac Hoevelmann FireWire & USB Audio Interfaces (Mac) 0 04-26-2018 09:49 AM
Mac Pro 12Core vs Mac Mini 4Core.. Mac Mini wins Venshield General Discussion 12 12-06-2017 07:32 PM
FS: Apple Mac mini 2012 quad i7 2.6 in Sonnet XMAC MINI SERVER rack Jamie Mac Buy & Sell 1 07-02-2017 11:50 AM
Am I Missing Something?! Mbox Mini, Mac Mini, Shockingly Bad gunark 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 9 12-07-2010 12:58 PM
Any Mbox2 Mini/MAC Mini Intel Users? Need help with Reason Mbox2digi 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 07-31-2007 07:37 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com