# ~



## Iswhatitis (Jan 26, 2020)

_Server error _


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 26, 2020)

Computers are a headache, and having 3 to maintain multiplies that headache. VEP is an even bigger headache, I personally hate it. Logic, Cubase and Reaper can now build large disabled templates with ease, one Kontakt instance one track, no weird routings to keep track of, no midi channels to fuss over. Load up a Sonnet M.2 4x4 PCIe Card with your samples and loading will be near instantaneous when activating a track. Why complicate things? I also do video production, so the Mac Pro is very appealing to speed that up. My vote is one super computer to maintain your sanity...


----------



## nolotrippen (Jan 26, 2020)

"I definitely love the idea of only having to deal with one computer, but I’m concerned if it ever goes down then I’m shut down completely." If my iMac (new) goes down, I have the internal drive backed up several times. At most, I'd be without one for a day or two while the down one gets repaired, but my history of Macs is they rarely die and then, only after many years of use. On the other hand, if you just have to have more than one brand new baby and can afford it, why not?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> As cool as the new Mac Pro is as an all in one solution, unless one is getting more than 512gb of ram I don’t see how it makes sense to get the new Mac Pro over multiple faster 🖥 iMacs. Anyone can buy a 128gb ram 27” 5k iMac with a 2tb internal SSD. Anyone can buy three of these and create a 24 core iMac network using VE Pro with 384gb ram and three 2tb internal SSDs for $12,000 total (includes price of ram) whereas a loaded 24 core Mac Pro with 384gb ram and 4tb is about $17,000 (does not include price of monitors) and you still gotta buy monitors whereas each iMac is a 27” 5k monitor. Plus if the Mac Pro goes down your whole studio is down. With three iMacs this is not really an issue. Plus, each iMac core is a 3.6ghz 5.0ghz turbo boost speed and each Mac Pro core is only a 2.7ghz 4.4ghz turbo boost speed. People don’t realize that turbo boost does not activate nearly as much as one would assume it does so the iMac is a 33% faster machine for less money. Now if someone wants 1tb-1.5tb ram then get the Mac Pro, but otherwise I’m not so sure this new Mac is worth it unless you want loads of ram. For $16,000 anyone could get four iMacs making a 32 core 512gb ram networked machine and you would still save $1,000 at least. If one is in the middle of a production and an iMac goes down it’s not a big deal when you have 2-4 iMacs in your network, god forbid your one Mac Pro goes down when you need it most.
> 
> What are your thoughts? Anyone agree?



Kinda agree. 

The Purpose of the new Mac Pro seems more geared towards rendering video and multi core performance and Xeon processor.

That’s seems to Be the plan for Apple since they are also getting into content creation and distribution... which btw relies heavily on prores and rendering in a bunch of formats for international distribution.

For composers and music producers a Mac Pro seems extremely overkill imo. 
The only thing that might warrant a Mac Pro is pci cards. Which for mixing large film or recording orchestra is useful.

Seems almost people can use 128gb and be fine w it. Some might need more ram but at that point maybe having several slave PCs would be more ideal and get server racks w Xeon.

Now, the other thing might be the design of the iMac. It’s holds the screen you might not need such high quality screen and it’s fan is right there so not sure about how silent it is.

I think there is a missing link in their line up.
That could something like the mac mini pro where it has higher end i9 and be able to load up w 128gn of ram and give up being so small. Something double the size would be ideal.

But in general I think we have become accustomed to the Mac Pro like it was 10 years ago but that new MacBook Pro 16 inch can go twice as fast as my 2012 Mac Pro and 
It’s so tiny in comparison... so music making doesn’t need that much power that warrants a macpro when several benchmarks and composers reporting being happy w iMac and Mac mini.

With that said, you post falls on a grey area. 
You can get a less spec out Mac Pro with 
128gb ram and 12-16 cores, but you’ll be paying a lot for that pci and design you won’t need, or the same w iMac but Paying a lot for a screen over your needs. 

For large template composers I think a Mac mini with a separate space pc w ton of ram might be better as prices for pc w large ram is much lower than on the mac side.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 26, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> I definitely love the idea of only having to deal with one computer, but I’m concerned if it ever goes down then I’m shut down completely. I remember the days decades ago when I had 40 external synths & samplers, so for me since the Mac has basically replaced the external hardware and I don’t own 40 synths or samplers anymore and haven’t for a while, having 3-4 iMacs powering VI & softsynths replacing those 40 synths and samplers doesn’t seem so bad. VE Pro can be buggy at times but it also naturally lightens the load on my sequencer so I don’t feel like it would matter if I’m running vep on one Mac Pro vs 3 networked iMacs. Back in the day I used to use only one Mac and then eventually got a PC for Gigastudio, though those days are long gone. I’m not sure which is the better path. I certainly prefer the savings and not being tied down to only one computer if it went down.


I remember the days of external gear, but I couldn't afford 40. I had a Kawai K4, Alesis Quadrasynth and a D-50, plus some other minor modules and was always trying to scheme how I could procure at least 5 of each at $1-2000 a pop. The resources we have in a single computer since then is mind blowing...


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 26, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> All those synths and samples I sold a long time ago to be able to afford newer gear. Some of them I wish I never got rid of, others I probably would not be using in any capacity.


Sometimes when I'm writing I have to be careful not to nostalgically creep towards using FM synthesis...


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> The problem is the Mac mini is not technically user upgradeable ram and the iMac and Mac Pro are. I’m not paying Apple 4-5 times the price for ram one can get at Amazon. Also the Mac mini limits you to 64gb and an i7. I’m guessing Apple does not want to cannibalize iMac sales by having a Mac mini that’s too powerful even if it would be cool for composers. Apple used to let Mac mini and MacBook owners upgrade their own ram, those days are just about dead 💀 because the company is too focused on stock price and shareholders.




for the mini you can upgrade on your own. not as easy but doable. 
but yep, its obvious they want to keep the mini out of the imac range of power. 
i would get an i9 mac mini in a jiffy if apple updated it this quarter to just upgrade the cpu. 
even the i7 is ptrrty cool.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 26, 2020)

Apple doesn’t have an optimal solution for musicians today. I do think the new macpro is the best compromise currently though a very expensive one. Personally I’m waiting for either an i9 Mac with pci slots or whatever is coming next with amd who knows what but something with higher practical clock speeds.

if I were needing a new machine today I would probably build an i9 hackintosh but the future is uncertain with those also.


----------



## samphony (Jan 26, 2020)




----------



## AlexRuger (Jan 26, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> Computers are a headache, and having 3 to maintain multiplies that headache. VEP is an even bigger headache, I personally hate it. Logic, Cubase and Reaper can now build large disabled templates with ease, one Kontakt instance one track, no weird routings to keep track of, no midi channels to fuss over. Load up a Sonnet M.2 4x4 PCIe Card with your samples and loading will be near instantaneous when activating a track. Why complicate things? I also do video production, so the Mac Pro is very appealing to speed that up. My vote is one super computer to maintain your sanity...



The longer I go, the more I agree with this. Though, as I went down the disabled template rabbit-hole, I had a thought:

If you're going to have to enable the track anyway, what's the difference between having a disabled template and just having a meticulously organized collection of track presets? Pre-set routing, I guess, but even that is something I'm finding more and more I don't love being locked into. And when you work this way, even MIDI tracks (and therefore rack instruments) are gone -- just load up one instrument track per instance of whatever (including Kontakt), and route it to wherever you go. So, at worst, you can probably re-route to allow for stem batch export if you need to without too much fuss.

The purpose and medium of your work affects this, of course -- any TV work I do follows the "have a template and don't fuck with it" approach -- but for anything on either less of a rigid timeline, or even for work that's still pretty quick but is more of a one-off-per-project thing like film and games, it feels to me that the only difference between a disabled template and having lots of track presets is the list in which the tracks are stored/recalled: in your project window, or in the track presets databased.

And the more and more I develop my favorite instrument/plugin chain combos, the ability to save Quick Controls layouts within said track presets actually starts to give this way of working the speed leg up over disabled templates.

I suppose you do lose time by looking for/trying out the right preset, but you're probably going to tweak it anyway, so I consider all of that just part of the creative process. Which, as much as I love templates, is something that seems to be constrained by them, at least for me -- my propensity for falling back into my old bag of tricks is highly increased when it's all there and ready to go.

This might just be my post-JXL/Elfman "big everything" PTSD talking though. I'm very much in a place of liking small, modular, blank slates, as opposed to building these very large *things* that feel as if they now need to be constantly maintained. Instead, it feels quite nice to be like "hey that's a cool sound," save it as a preset (just make sure your naming is rock-solid...but also don't stress too much, as that's the point), and now it's available everywhere. The new Cubase project import settings really help this along, too.

Anyways, just spitballing and offering up a different perspective. I for one am very much landing in the camp of "one computer" (though I'll still probably use a Pro Tools or Video Slave picture rig until the day I die, as that workflow can't be beat, so technically two), and I grow more and more in favor of ditching VEP altogether every day.

I'm in a place where I need to replace my DAW rig. I was considering building an i9 PC -- "This Is The Way" -- but I'm seriously considering just grabbing a spec'd out 16" MacBook Pro for my rig and calling it a day. And then Mini's for everything else, as needed. A decent Mac Mini always been the right choice for the Pro Tools/Video Slave picture machine, so that one is obvious. I've been Mr. PC in recent years, but macOS has always and forever remained my favorite OS. Might as well just go with it, as the power is there once you stop concerning yourself with having everything loaded up at all times.

And if you find you still need a VEP server, buy a Mini with the best CPU you can afford, 8GB of RAM replaced with 64GB of OWC, and, again, call it a day. It'll be great, performs great, and comes out to less than what I would pay to build a PC. It's not the be-all-end-all, but it's simple and clean and fungible and scalable, and if you're no longer concerned with keeping every library you own loaded up at all times, does it really matter that you can't?

</Sunday morning coffee rant>


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 26, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> The longer I go, the more I agree with this. Though, as I went down the disabled template rabbit-hole, I had a thought:
> 
> If you're going to have to enable the track anyway, what's the difference between having a disabled template and just having a meticulously organized collection of track presets? Pre-set routing, I guess, but even that is something I'm finding more and more I don't love being locked into. And when you work this way, even MIDI tracks (and therefore rack instruments) are gone -- just load up one instrument track per instance of whatever (including Kontakt), and route it to wherever you go. So, at worst, you can probably re-route to allow for stem batch export if you need to without too much fuss.
> 
> ...


That was an excellent read, thanks for taking the time to write it out...


----------

