The new 16” is strong enough for music studio?

Hi,

The new 16" MacBook pro is strong enough for 96/88.2Khz with 150-250 tracks (include bus/aux) with Omnisphere/Alchemy synths and a lot of plugins?

The fans not make too much noise when recording?

MacBook Pro Specs:

2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz

32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory

Today I'm using Hackintosh with i5-4460 and 16GB RAM on drop/chorus I got "system over load" message (48KHZ)

I’m undecided if buy MacBook Pro 16” or wait to new Mac Mini

You would be better off with an i9 27 inch iMac.

The i9 laptops get hot and fans are loud for a studio.

You would be better off with an i9 27 inch iMac.

 

The i9 laptops get hot and fans are loud for a studio.

You tried to work with 16”MBP? I know KSHMR and Oak producers works with MBP 16”

The iMac 27” i9 is too expensive for me.

Hi,

The new 16" MacBook pro is strong enough for 96/88.2Khz with 150-250 tracks (include bus/aux) with Omnisphere/Alchemy synths and a lot of plugins?

The fans not make too much noise when recording?

 

MacBook Pro Specs:

2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz

32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory

 

Today I'm using Hackintosh with i5-4460 and 16GB RAM on drop/chorus I got "system over load" message (48KHZ)

 

I’m undecided if buy MacBook Pro 16” or wait to new Mac Mini

Sounds like a really powerful machine to me, It is possible that you will hear the fans at some points though, on heavier workloads, apart from that it should be great.

I am not sure that there will be a new macmini this year?

The iMac 27” i9 is too expensive for me.

The 16-inch MBP with an i9 starts at 2799 dollars

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/16-inch-space-gray-2.3ghz-8-core-processor-1tb#

The 27-inch i9 iMac starts at 2699 dollars

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch-3.7ghz-6-core-processor-with-turbo-boost-up-to-4.6ghz-2tb#

You put a 512 SSD in it, it comes with a more powerful CPU and graphics card. Add Ram yourself later for half the price and it doesn't get hot and its silent.

We have one in the studio and it's a monster.

The iMac 27” i9 is too expensive for me.

 

The 16-inch MBP with an i9 starts at 2799 dollars

 

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/16-inch-space-gray-2.3ghz-8-core-processor-1tb#

 

The 27-inch i9 iMac starts at 2699 dollars

 

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch-3.7ghz-6-core-processor-with-turbo-boost-up-to-4.6ghz-2tb#

 

You put a 512 SSD in it, it comes with a more powerful CPU and graphics card. Add Ram yourself later for half the price and it doesn't get hot and its silent.

We have one in the studio and it's a monster.

Please excuse the thread hi jack triplets, exactly what spec is your iMac? I have read lots of reports of the fan noise on the 2019 model.

Hi,

The new 16" MacBook pro is strong enough for 96/88.2Khz with 150-250 tracks (include bus/aux) with Omnisphere/Alchemy synths and a lot of plugins?

The fans not make too much noise when recording?

 

MacBook Pro Specs:

2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz

32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory

 

Today I'm using Hackintosh with i5-4460 and 16GB RAM on drop/chorus I got "system over load" message (48KHZ)

 

I’m undecided if buy MacBook Pro 16” or wait to new Mac Mini

 

Sounds like a really powerful machine to me, It is possible that you will hear the fans at some points though, on heavier workloads, apart from that it should be great.

I am not sure that there will be a new macmini this year?

And even if there were a rev to the Mini it would likely just be a speed bump. I love mine, highly recommend it. I also would recommend the iMac over the MBP. If you don’t really need the portability don’t pay for it.

exactly what spec is your iMac?

i9 CPU, 1TB SSD, 32 GB Ram.

It's a monster and the fan noise is normal, not as loud as the laptops.

exactly what spec is your iMac?

 

i9 CPU, 1TB SSD, 32 GB Ram.

It's a monster and the fan noise is normal, not as loud as the laptops.

Thank you triplets. reassuring.

the thing i don't like about the iMac is the inability to put that fan noise, however small, away from your face.

There's no B-socket chip in the 9th gen intel lineup yet, so for now, now.

i9-9900 would fit the thermal/power envelope of mnini if intel made a BGA version.

as far as 16" is concerned, no. 250 tracks at 96khz with any serious processing - probably not. without any serious processing then yes

the thing i don't like about the iMac is the inability to put that fan noise, however small, away from your face.

There's no B-socket chip in the 9th gen intel lineup yet, so for now, now.

i9-9900 would fit the thermal/power envelope of mnini if intel made a BGA version.

 

as far as 16" is concerned, no. 250 tracks at 96khz with any serious processing - probably not. without any serious processing then yes

Most of time I works on 88.2Khz and 100-200 tracks (include vocals, guitars etc) but I don't know how big will my future projects

buy a bigger computer when you make future projects.

Any reason for 88.2k? (there is no reasonable reason)

anyway, 16" will likely struggle with 88.2k at 100-200 tracks with a lot of processing. There's no way to tell tho, check the "logic new multitrack benchmark" viewtopic.php?t=138612

try to see how much your computer handles and compare with scores of others there to see how much more the new one will handle.

What do those i9's run at when under load? I know it's a 5ghz boost. But i'm guessing constant load would be around the 2.5-3.5ghz mark?

That track count at those sample rates just seem a lot to be asking, but it really depends how much the CPU is being pushed (And thus, pushed back) and if there's some heavy plugins there which will bottleneck one of the cores.

Seen a test that says that they saw 3.19ghz under constant load with re-testing, so 16 threads @ 3.2ghz under load is what you can base things on 'worse case', which i'd say is pretty good in such a thin body.

What machine do you use currently? You can get a rough idea on how the 16" would compare and as to how much you will be pushing it. But if you're going from a desktop to a laptop then thermals do make a difference i'm afraid.

I'm curious, tell me you guys, why get an iMac? Wouldn't an older Mac Pro give you a more powerful machine with better specs? Is it the built in monitor that's attractive to you? The all-in-one quality of the iMac?

a pre-2019/20 mac pro is from 2013....

I'm curious, tell me you guys, why get an iMac? Wouldn't an older Mac Pro give you a more powerful machine with better specs?

The i9 iMac kills the highest spec'ed 2012 cheesegrater and 2013 trash can mac pro. Just saying.

I can get a cheap Mac Pro on Ebay though, for like 300-400 dollars.

The 12-cores are more expensive than that, and for audio purposes they are still totally usable with some heavy plugins.

The displays are certainly beautiful. I'm sure you are right. I can get a cheap Mac Pro on Ebay though, for like 300-400 dollars. I'm still on El Capitan... so I'm probably behind the times with you guys.

I still use a 2012 Mac Pro, and while it has great processing power on paper the single core is where Logic can trip up. So yes, they are fantastic bargains and still after all these years run like a work horse, but their achilles heel is how much can be processed within one thread - it doesn't matter if you have 4,8,12,16 or 24 threads if one gets overloaded then Logic will halt.

Compare a 3ghz i5 mini:-

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/436

To a 3.1ghz Mac Pro 2012:-

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/289

And you can see the big difference with single core ability on modern CPU's, hence why the cheesegraters are starting to drag behind now.

I'm curious, tell me you guys, why get an iMac? Wouldn't an older Mac Pro give you a more powerful machine with better specs?

 

The i9 iMac kills the highest spec'ed 2012 cheesegrater and 2013 trash can mac pro. Just saying.

kills is a strong word to use here. iMac's thermals are generally not as generous as Mac Pro's and Xeons are built for sustained loads.

not to mention you can't tuck it away. I don't know what kinds of places you guys work in, but my studio is pretty silent. I spent weeks and $$$ on making my air ducts silent, i'm sure as hell not going to ruin it with fans 40cm away from my ears.

The displays are certainly beautiful. I'm sure you are right. I can get a cheap Mac Pro on Ebay though, for like 300-400 dollars. I'm still on El Capitan... so I'm probably behind the times with you guys.

I still use a 2012 Mac Pro, and while it has great processing power on paper the single core is where Logic can trip up. So yes, they are fantastic bargains and still after all these years run like a work horse, but their achilles heel is how much can be processed within one thread - it doesn't matter if you have 4,8,12,16 or 24 threads if one gets overloaded then Logic will halt.

 

Compare a 3ghz i5 mini:-

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/436

 

To a 3.1ghz Mac Pro 2012:-

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/289

 

And you can see the big difference with single core ability on modern CPU's, hence why the cheesegraters are starting to drag behind now.

geekbench results are to be taken with a grain of salt.

The problem is mini will drop after a while (macbook pro moreso), while the Mac Pro will keep the performance score consistently.

you can "boost" mini by opening up the bottom and sticking a fan underneath to improve airflow tho.

I've had my foot in windows hardware for a while now, and undervolting CPU's and thus managing temps and throttling is incredibly popular/easy in the windows domain, i'm surprised this isn't discussed more in the world of macs as throttling is always a subject that comes up for i7/i9 machines.

And yes, benchmarking should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's the easiest way of demonstrating how modern CPU's can crunch through instructions with the right conditions.

I've had my foot in windows hardware for a while now, and undervolting CPU's and thus managing temps and throttling is incredibly popular/easy in the windows domain, i'm surprised this isn't discussed more in the world of macs as throttling is always a subject that comes up for i7/i9 machines.

 

And yes, benchmarking should be taken with a grain of salt, but it's the easiest way of demonstrating how modern CPU's can crunch through instructions with the right conditions.

because its generally locked on the new i7/i9 machines

https://volta.garymathews.com

(yes if you were wondering, i know almost everything joking)

Ah ok, that explains why then!

Maybe Apple should make you the new Siri with your knowledge?

"Ploki... "

"Yeah, what?"

"....Please let me use my phone, you said i could after the aptitude test this morning but it's still locked!"

I should mention that my RME Fireface 802 uses FireWire. I've never tried to adapt it to lightning; not sure how that works. So an older Mac Pro may make sense for myself, for that reason.

Fireface 802 also works via USB.

And you mean thunderbolt, not lightning.

And no worries. You need two adapters (Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt2 and Thunderbolt2 to Firewire 800) but it works absolutely perfectly.

Been using it like that for at least a year on both Fireface 400 and 800.

Right! Sorry. Thunderbolt. So you've been adapting to thunderbolt for years with no trouble?

I don't think I would want to use it USB... I have always imagined that would be a slower connection.

I should mention that my RME Fireface 802 uses FireWire. I've never tried to adapt it to lightning; not sure how that works. So an older Mac Pro may make sense for myself, for that reason.

Fireface 802 also works via USB.

And you mean thunderbolt, not lightning.

And no worries. You need two adapters (Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt2 and Thunderbolt2 to Firewire 800) but it works absolutely perfectly.

Been using it like that for at least a year on both Fireface 400 and 800.

I'm doing a similar thing, running a MOTU 828mk3 from Firewire to a OWC Thunderbolt hub, connected through a TB2-TB3 adapter. Seems to work fine for me.

In this case the RME unit is FireWire 400.. so I would need to adapt that to Thunderbolt.

I use 400 and 800, one is in studio one is for live rig with the same adapter chain. (annoying but works)

Also tried it with 802 we have at uni, with the same adapter chain and it worked fine.

For 800, i go Thunderbolt3 to Thunderbolt2 adapter cable, Thunderbolt2 to Firewire 800 adapter cable, FW 800-FW800 cable. (three part cable)

For 400 i go Thunderbolt3 to Thunderbolt2 adapter cable, Thunderbolt2 to Firewire 800 adapter cable, FW800 to FW400 cable. (also three part)