Carbon or a powerful Mac?

[mnstudio]

Id' like to know some opinions about this comparison in Pro Tools use:
1. Carbon interface and any other Mac (also a mini)
2. Any audio interface and a Mac 2,7 GHz Intel Xeon E5 12 core with 64 GB RAM (or maybe a future Mac Pro or similar equipped with M1 chip)

How much difference could be there in terms of max usable plugins and/or tracks number?

In other words, how much (or not at all) the Carbon DSPs could be substituted by a powerful Mac? (omitting obviously all other Carbon functionalities, that are great)

[BScout]

The better buy is the more powerful Mac. No question.
The most you get from the Carbon is some DSP power that is limited to AAX-DSP plugins.

A more powerful mac gives you every and all plugins.

[dominicperry]

Carbon has 8 DSP chips - less than half an HDX card. Not enough to run a complex, big mix on. The DSP is intended to give you low-latency monitoring on record tracks, not run all the plugins on your mix.

Dominic

[JFreak]

If you need usable power now, then Carbon. If you can wait until PT/iLok/plugins are Apple Silicon native, perhaps M2 processors too, the the natve route runs circles around anything before. Just not ready for prime time yet.

[dominicperry]

This was the post I was looking for.......

Originally Posted by dominicperry

........ And it doesn't have a huge amount of DSP power - if I run 16 channels at 96KHz (which is effectively 8 analogue inputs and both ADATs running SMUX at 96KHz) then I can put the bx_console_N channel strip and the McDSP channel strip on 15 of them, and that's it. I'm out of DSP. Of course, there's no need to run two channel strips on each track - but instead I could put a chorus or an extra compressor, and then add a reverb or two to auxes. But there's not a lot spare at 96K.
At 48K there's a bit more headroom - I can run 24 bx_console_N strips - one for each channel with about 50% DSP spare. But my point is, there isn't a huge amount left over for a complex mix.

Dominic

[digiot]

Originally Posted by dominicperry

This was the post I was looking for.......

Carbon can only run in Hybrid mode so the mixer never runs on DSP!
HDX is another story as it can run both in DSP-Only mode or in Hybrid mode.
If you never had a problem with running a large mix on a Native system with a ton of VI's and needed to overdub live tracks with low latency, you don't need Carbon. For everyone else out here that runs in to "out of CPU power" problems when overdubbing live tracks, Carbon is the solution!

[JFreak]

Carbon is great but DSP power is not the reason for it. Any current Apple Silicon, even the cheapest, runs circles around that DSP power that Carbon has to offer. I am just waiting for PT/iLok/plugins be Apple Silicon native befoe making any serious benchmark.

[K Roche]

I think the OP needs to post more specific details about exactly what he is doing or wants to do .-----like Personal use or Professional use , over all session track counts, number of VI's, tracking and or mixing, overdubs how many what kind etc. There are just too many possible variables of individual situation to give any kind of informed answer to the OP as stated ..

Because Carbon is the perfect fit for some BUT absolutely not for everyone (depending)

And so the answer to Op as is ----Is #1 yes and #2 yes (depending)

And "omitting" Carbons other features IMO silly because 8 tracks of outstanding mic pre's input and excellent conversion is an integral part of Carbon's value ......

BTW the max number of usable plugin's for Carbon depends entirely on whether or not you are trying to use them in DSP mode or native

In DSP mode you will max out the available Chips somewhere between 20 and 70 tracks (also depending which DSP plugins you are using) In native mode it depends entirely on the computer

Here is a just a quick off hand unrehearsed Demo on DSP ability I made when I first got my Carbon

https://youtu.be/0Qz2lcE9I0Y

[StudioTalk]

I have done extensive testing for the M1 MacBook Air, M1 Pro MacBook Pro, both 14 and 16" models, with 16gb Ram and 1TB Hard Drive. Even the M1 removed the need for DSP for most people, the M1 Pro, simply no need for DSP anymore for the majority of users, home and professional.

My buffer never leaves 32 on sessions over 75 tracks with some VI use, and I have not used the DSP on my Carbon since I got the M1Pro.

Now, the most important thing to consider is how soon do you want to do this. Once all plugins/VI's and DAW's have made native to Apple Silicon, then its a complete game changer, until then, expect some issues depending on what you use. I don't really have any issues since 2021.12 and OSX 12.2 Beta, except for some minor plugin compatibility, as well as with VI's which are not fully ready for Prime Time.

The only Mac I'd consider today are the new M1 MacBook Air, or better yet, the M1 Pro MacBook Pro's, nothing intel. Now if you can wait, the upcoming MacMini Pro will be very compelling.

[abc1mce2]

Originally Posted by mnstudio

Id' like to know some opinions about this comparison in Pro Tools use:
1. Carbon interface and any other Mac (also a mini)
2. Any audio interface and a Mac 2,7 GHz Intel Xeon E5 12 core with 64 GB RAM (or maybe a future Mac Pro or similar equipped with M1 chip)

How much difference could be there in terms of max usable plugins and/or tracks number?

In other words, how much (or not at all) the Carbon DSPs could be substituted by a powerful Mac? (omitting obviously all other Carbon functionalities, that are great)

As said in this thread, you only need the AAX DSP for monitoring and recording in near-zero latency. The PT Carbon interface is an excellent device with great converters and super clean mic pre's. I have an HDX card and before moving over to the Carbon I long ago abandoned using AAX DSP for mixing, just not necessary with the power of modern computers.

If you want to record through (monitor or print to tape) plugins with near-zero latency, the Hybrid Engine in Carbon is excellent for that. The only DSP plugins I use for mixing are the UAD2 offering cause they're not available for native use.