Mac Studio - options

[hammerman]

Thanks again for a good solution. I assume I can get an HDMI to Thunderbolt adaptor for the Apple Studio Display. I wonder what the limit is for Thunderbolt and why. I will definitely stay away from the 1 year warranty Corning cable.

[nk_e]

Thanks again for a good solution. I assume I can get an HDMI to Thunderbolt adaptor for the Apple Studio Display. I wonder what the limit is for Thunderbolt and why. I will definitely stay away from the 1 year warranty Corning cable.

Oh that's right. I forgot that the Studio Display was TB only...I see plenty of HDMI-to-USB C adapters out there, but have no idea if that would work with your monitor. There are plenty of people more knowledgeable on stuff like that than me in this forum...

A final kludge that may be bordering on the ridiculous at this point: Any thought to getting a cheaper monitor just for the mobile cart? The studio display would remain your main monitor in a fixed locale, but you could have an inexpensive monitor that is mobile. If you are not using it for color dependent work at your other stations, it might offer a solution if a HDMI-to-TB adapter does not exist.

I'm going to bow out as I feel my usefulness is fast declining here. I wish you much luck!

[mikehalloran]

…
In all honesty, even if that test was true, I wouldn't be extremely sad that my $4,000 Mac Studio is THAT close to that 28 core, what was it... $30k? $50k?... Mac Pro.

Yea, that. I'm just as un-sad as you are.

I downloaded the test file just to see how bad was bad… I'll spare everyone including myself the paper I would have to write on why.

Thanks again for a good solution. I assume I can get an HDMI to Thunderbolt adaptor for the Apple Studio Display. I wonder what the limit is for Thunderbolt and why. I will definitely stay away from the 1 year warranty Corning cable.

No such thing as an HDMI to Thunderbolt adaptor but that's ok. Some monitors do require TB3 or TB4 cables including all 5K, 6K and 8K that I've seen — but most 4K do not. Apple does not require a TB monitor with the Studio/Mac Pro/M2 Pro etc.

You can get USB-C HDMI and DisplayPort cables. Inexpensive and my LG 4K monitors work great with them.

Do not assume that any TB cable supports the HDMI protocol, however. Read the fine print as many TB3/4 cables specifically exclude HDMI, DP or both. Likewise, most TB3/4 cables exclude USB 2 also — if 480kB/s is not mentioned, it won't. Many complaints that interfaces and printers don't work with new Macs after all that money spent on (insert cable here).

MOTU USB interfaces require USB 2 and older MIDI boxes require backward compatibility to USB 1.1 — which USB 2 supports, USB 3.x is a separate set of protocols — if the cable ain't wired to support the older protocol, it won't.

To solve the printer/interface problem, there are USB-C Printer Cables on the market. These support USB 2/USB 1.1 and nothing else.

[hammerman]

Well, I made the switch! It took two days of installing and setting up preferences, exporting and importing keyboard shortcuts, presets, templates, etc. Then another day to take down my old system (1296 modded by BLA) and adding a 624 and an old firewire 8-pre connected to the 624 via optical for 8 additional inputs. Wrapping my head around AVB mixing. I am using the Interface + Mixer preset. Had a problem getting the reverb to work - had to double click a number of faders to get it to activate (when the reverb level was already at 0dB). I am using the Apple 3 meter Thunderbolt 4 cable and made it work with my cart which has the monitor, keyboard, Contour Shuttle Pro and Wacom tablet. Whew! Installed everything on the 4TB drive. I've had a number of glitches and crashes but overall, not so bad. Everything is AS native except for Altiverb MAS (too many projects using the MAS version to switch to AU). It's been a process but so far, so good. I had a 6 hour session and overall smooth sailing. Thanks again for all your help!

[James Steele]

I am using the Interface + Mixer preset. Had a problem getting the reverb to work - had to double click a number of faders to get it to activate (when the reverb level was already at 0dB).

You may be sorry you DID get the reverb to work! The reverb that uses the built in DSP isn't that good. I ended up getting an old Lexicon outboard unit that had SPDIF in and out to use for "comfort reverb."

[hammerman]

I am using the Interface + Mixer preset. Had a problem getting the reverb to work - had to double click a number of faders to get it to activate (when the reverb level was already at 0dB).

You may be sorry you DID get the reverb to work! The reverb that uses the built in DSP isn't that good. I ended up getting an old Lexicon outboard unit that had SPDIF in and out to use for "comfort reverb."

Ha! You're right James! I'm playing with all the parameters and not impressed at all. I have some old Lexi verbs and may do the same thing LOL!

[James Steele]

I am using the Interface + Mixer preset. Had a problem getting the reverb to work - had to double click a number of faders to get it to activate (when the reverb level was already at 0dB).

You may be sorry you DID get the reverb to work! The reverb that uses the built in DSP isn't that good. I ended up getting an old Lexicon outboard unit that had SPDIF in and out to use for "comfort reverb."

Ha! You're right James! I'm playing with all the parameters and not impressed at all. I have some old Lexi verbs and may do the same thing LOL!

Yep... sadly that's been the consensus. I struggle to find something useable, tweaking parameters, as have others on this forum did, and we all came up empty, sadly. I just don't think there was enough DSP horsepower in the interfaces to come up with a decent sounding reverb. I bought a used Lexicon MX200 (I think that's the model) off my local Craiglist since it had SPDIF in AND out. That way I didn't have to sacrifice any of the precious analog I/O on my 828es.

[mikehalloran]

Some random thoughts:

After reading this yesterday, I was planning on finding this thread and posting. Guess what? ZDNet thinks the Studio M2 is good.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-mac ... ra-review/

I've been speaking to a number of Apple engineers and employees recently. I never ask for nor receive proprietary info but I learned this without any promises to secrecy:

Among M1 owners, there seems to be very little enthusiasm for the M2 and upcoming M3. The reason is simple: The M1 was such a milestone but the M2 is an incremental upgrade by comparison. Ok, we've seen that for years in the 9xxx, G3/4/5, Intel series but users could actually see performance boosts and, if your machine was 3+ years old, you were singing "409" (savin' up my nickels, savin' my dimes). M1 owners trying out M2 machines in Apple stores aren't seeing it.

The Mini M2 Pro and latest Mac Pro do not have Mi equivalents. The M1 MBAir has a USB-C power cable while the M2 version has MagSafe — enough for me to consider it but not enough to think about replacing my wife's.

This caused me to speculate that Apple might be behind the recent flurry of M3 rumors. My reasoning is that the ones I'm reading are quite specific and are focusing on the anticipated battery life of the next M3 laptops. None of my friends could confirm this, of course, but all agreed that I made a lot of sense. Frankly, I don't care if there's an M3 Studio next year or the 24" iMac but an M3 laptop to replace my 2012 MBP? Yea, I can wait. The oft-rumored 27" or 32" iMac would interest me but only if real—that one's been around for 3 years and holds little interest anymore.

There's an M1 Ultra 128GB/8TB in the Refurb Store for $300 more than the M2 128GB/8TB with a 60core GPU or $600 less than the 76core GPU at EDU pricing. (Giddy-up, giddy-up 409).

I can buy one but would prefer to have a job first. I'm looking...

[James Steele]

Just found out about this video. Haven’t had a chance to watch yet. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Digital Performer wasn’t included in the comparison. Sigh.

[mikehalloran]

Just found out about this video. Haven’t had a chance to watch yet. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Digital Performer wasn’t included in the comparison. Sigh.

Agreed about DP. That would have been far more useful than some of the info he gave.

A lot of his advice is good on the M1 Pro vs M2 Pro for audio production only but he lost me after that. He looks at everything through the "cheaper is better" lens which makes him recommend that we build our own PCs. Yea, right. Like any other PC person' he hasn't a clue about integrated RAM in Apple Silicon.

His storage recommendations are based on him thinking he knows everything because he knows a little. Had he bothered to learn about it, he'd be recommending the M1 over the M2 for smaller storage and the M2 Pro for larger in laptops and Minis. Anyone sharing files with others over the cloud needs a lot more than he is recommending thanks to changes that Apple made in Monterey 12.3.

I hate reviews where the talking head is trying to save me money without acknowledging that users who are not he might have different needs. No mention that the M2 Pro supports up to three displays on the Mini (built-in + 2 external on the laptop) while the M1 Pro supports only two. This is important to many users.

[James Steele]

Yep. I didn’t vet the video. Just shared it.

If I recall correctly, where he talked about building a PC, it sounded like he was talking about something like a VEP server, that you could load with a lot of RAM for cheap if RAM was the more important factor, for sample libraries etc?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Michael Canavan]

I ran across this in case anyone is curious. Still trying to sort the new options out.
https://www.facebook.com/HaMacNews/post ... 9Lz3cb1r6l

No real world examples were harmed making that ridiculous test.

I don’t believe that a 28 core MP 7.1 handles 64 bit audio and pug-ins (386 tracks) better than an M1 (311) or M2 (364) Ultra Studio. That the M1 Mini can only handle 102 and the M2 Mini only 80 tracks tells me a lot about the test and nothing about the hardware.

Yeah that's fishy, most people do really bad housekeeping with these tests, even in the video in the link there's an obvious glitch in the audio and right afterwards he comments that it's doing fine...


The one good thing, there's a simple Diva to failure test on that site, which paints an interesting picture.

I tweaked it for modern times, 48k 128 buffer. Also set Logic to it's best settings for this sort of thing.

105 tracks in Logic, 136 tracks in DP and Reaper.

DP has improved a bit, and Logic is really falling behind, funny how you would think it would be as efficient as DP or Reaper? Anyway Reaper in every test I've ever done usually comes out a few points ahead of the rest, but MOTU is using all cores in the Mac Studio here. That's probably it in terms of Logic, even forcing it to use all cores it holds back on the Efficiency cores. So that pans out if Efficiency cores are more or less half the power of Performance cores:

Logics 105/16 =6.56 VS DP and Reapers 136-105=31, 31/8=3.875

I'm sure there's more going on than that, it's just cool than the numbers add up at all like you would expect, but the obvious thing is Logic fails at fully using the power in the Studio here, and DP does not.

[James Steele]

...but MOTU is using all cores in the Mac Studio here.

That's what I was wondering. You saved me the hassle of trying to figure it out for myself.

Funny thing in the video that I shared (before I saw it) is people can claim you don't need the M1 Ultra for audio work, but I sure wish I could have afforded it, since audio work relies on CPU and the Ultra has (theoretically) twice the CPU power.

Audio is easy... so long as you print all your tracks. But I find what really taxes any computer are virtual instruments

[mikehalloran]

...but MOTU is using all cores in the Mac Studio here.

That's what I was wondering. You saved me the hassle of trying to figure it out for myself.

Amen! Thanks for that.

Funny thing in the video that I shared (before I saw it) is people can claim you don't need the M1 Ultra for audio work, but I sure wish I could have afforded it, since audio work relies on CPU and the Ultra has (theoretically) twice the CPU power.

Audio is easy... so long as you print all your tracks. But I find what really taxes any computer are virtual instruments

Yea, early in that video, this guy mentioned that if you were doing mixing and bla, bla, bla, you might need something more powerful—but then dismissed it because he knew what we needed. So, audio people don’t do mixing and mastering? By the time he got around to dismissing the 12 core because it cost $300 more, I already knew he hadn’t a clue.

His raw performance tests were good and he should have left it at that. I already suspected that an M2 Ultra Studio would not offer superior performance over the M1 version and his tests demonstrate that. With the prices being so close, I’ll go with the M2 — unless I can find a significant bargain on the M1 and then I’m on it.

Would a 32GB M2 Pro Mini work for me? Right now, yes but the right project would cause me to hate the fact that I had skimped. Would it outperform my 18 core iMac Pro? Not likely except video, perhaps.

[Michael Canavan]

His raw performance tests were good and he should have left it at that. I already suspected that an M2 Ultra Studio would not offer superior performance over the M1 version and his tests demonstrate that. With the prices being so close, I’ll go with the M2 — unless I can find a significant bargain on the M1 and then I’m on it.

The M2 offers roughly 15% more performance, basically the sort of increments that we expected and got from Intel etc. It's why IMO it's always smart if you can to wait at least 5 years in between new Macs.

The caveat, there is an 80 odd page thread on Gearspace about the Studio, and a lot of people complain the M1 Studio gives a high pitched whine, I can't hear a thing from the M2 Studio Ultra here, even putting my ear up against it. There is a significantly different fan setup in the Studio, that was a consideration too as well as raw power.

Would a 32GB M2 Pro Mini work for me? Right now, yes but the right project would cause me to hate the fact that I had skimped. Would it outperform my 18 core iMac Pro? Not likely except video, perhaps.

It would probably be the opposite actually. The M2 Mini does very very well in CPU performance tests, but the MIni doesn't have much graphics cores. Top end model Mac Mini comes with the same 12 core CPU as the base Mac Studio, but only a 19 core GPU compared to a 30 core GPU in the Studio. Basically raw CPU wise the Mini would more than keep up with your iMac, but probably even the iMac GPU would do as well as the 19 core GPU. Geekbench results indicate the Mini is ridiculously overpowered by the M2 chip in it that's essentially the same raw CPU wise as the Mac Studio.

The one area where the M1 Air struggles is with GPU at 8 cores, though at more than twice the GPU in the Studio Max it should be fine.

Future proofing is a large reason I went with a Studio Ultra, I don't want to have to think about computers for at least 5 years if not 10. It's dead quiet, starts up in 10 seconds, and is total overkill for 95% of what I do.