New "Mac Studio" from Apple

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by kings79

Maybe you should sell it? Sounds like you hate the thing.

I'm sure he's frustrated. I would be. I think we all would be. But he's not helping himself by making it more difficult for us to assist him. I agree -- selling it might be his best option until a feasible fix for that sluggishness is found. Personally, I'd be looking at each individual plugin and installed applications since the slowdown is likely somewhere in one, or several, of them.

Originally Posted by kings79

This thread is getting pretty useless. Unless someone wants to do some useful tests on some big 5.1 sessions or utilizing the AI for processing.

It's been very helpful to my curious mind, though much of it recently has been distracting. I'm still hoping it attracts more first-hand feedback from Studio/ProTools users, using it in any capacity.

[kings79]

Originally Posted by thebeatless

You’re the only suuuper salty one here. Wtf! I’m annoyed that my purchase isn’t immediately awesome, but obviously I expected some imperfections.

No salt here man. I'm amped or this new tech no doubt.

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

It's been very helpful to my curious mind, though much of it recently has been distracting. I'm still hoping it attracts more first-hand feedback from Studio/ProTools users, using it in any capacity.

+1 with the firsthand feedback. less doom and gloom

[its2loud]

Originally Posted by kings79

I'd personally rather eat broken glass than use a PC for work.


------

This was the funniest thing I’ve read on the DUC in a long time. Thanks for the laugh!

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by DaveP

I think what you are seeing with the CPU Meters both in PT and at the System level is a side effect of Apple's strategy to get the processors on Silicon as efficient as possible. I suspect (And to be clear this is just my theory I have no direct knowledge) what is happening is that the processors like to run as close to 100% as possible using the least amount of power, so for instance instead of using a lot of juice and cruising along at 20% they will run at 90% and then when you demand more they will raise frequency and power and get back to 90 - 100%, they will continue doing that until they max out.

So I suspect they CPU meters will be somewhat useless on Mac Silicon because they don't take into account that the CPU's are capable of continuously scaling power consumption. The same was true to a certain extent on Intel, but the hyper boost only happened on significant loads and most of the time they were relatively accurate.

I think the only way to test the Mac Silicon VS intel is push it till it breaks and compare the breaking point on the one vs the breaking point on the other. That's why you can get those amazing Buffer sizes on the Mac Studio, it is just able to roll with the punches and scale power as needed.

Again this is all just my own hypothesis but it perfectly explains what you are seeing and it makes sense considering the design of the mac studio to maintain efficiency.

Thanks Dave. Interesting theory. "Push it till it breaks" using the NF session by duplicating stems would be a good test to see what the meters are worth.
The M1 laptops definitely stopped playing with CPU errors using the base session and deactivated plugins but maybe the M1 ultra is different.

[BScout]

Originally Posted by ramonetl

I make my living working in the server world for almost 30 years. Maybe I know a bit more than you think. You can also thank Bill Gates for bailing out apple. Im guessing you forgot him doing that that in your version of 45 years of history along with stealing the mouse idea from xerox....

That said my only point was that I would think that apple would offer some upgrade path for current mac pro owners. It was me just thinking that it could be done when i posted that. Hardware is modular and just like you could swap a motherboard in the old days I am sure apple could figure it out. After all these people paid a lot of money for a system that is expandable and upgradable...

I haven't forgotten Gates's/Microsoft's involvement (though it has zero relevance here.)
And that has never been Apple's business model. Famously.

[K Roche]

I am not sure why there is a debate about offline vs realtime bounce Those are simply personal work flow preferences and have nothing to do with the new Mac Studio machine itself do they ?

[Carl Lie]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

It's been very helpful to my curious mind, though much of it recently has been distracting. I'm still hoping it attracts more first-hand feedback from Studio/ProTools users, using it in any capacity.

Me too.

C

[JamesG602]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

Which versions of SSL? The oldest (x86) will simply not operate under Monterey. The next iteration (v6) is a mixed bag -- some work and some don't. The latest (V2) seem to be OK under Monterey, though I have no idea how they'd function on a Silicon Mac.

V6 and some v2. I’ll have to go back and check on which plugins did it specifically.

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by K Roche

I am not sure why there is a debate about offline vs realtime bounce Those are simply personal work flow preferences and have nothing to do with the new Mac Studio machine itself do they ?

It's related if we're going to be required to find as many system resources as possible in order to bounce sessions on the new Mac. My guess is that that's *not* going to be the case for real-world sessions (massive system stress tests, maybe, but that's not real-world). I think we have one case that's being highlighted as problematic whereas others are reporting success, even though unreliable CPU meters might suggest otherwise.

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by JamesG602

V6 and some v2. I’ll have to go back and check on which plugins did it specifically.

I thought so. The v6 plugins that are problematic for me are vocalstrip and x-eq.