Thinking out load here, tell me why I am nuts (or not)

[Ashermusic]

i will invite you over next month when you will see my new setup and then you will go home and want to open your wrists.

 

Thanks for the invitation! But what you probably don't know is that in situations like this, I'm all about quid pro quo. So after the scars have healed and I recover from my anemia, let's get together and have a game of scrabble; by the time my wife is done racking up points you'll be asking if you could borrow my razor blade.

 

 

Game ON!

[jdoo]

http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html

 

I have no dog in this discussion.. but this graph you posted shows the Mid 2010 Mac Pro systems, out performing the fastest min 2011 iMac systems by 30-40%. ? I am probably not reading what the point you were making with these comparisons. I have an iMac and love it. In fact, we picked up a second system for out in our kitchen area. These dont hold a candle for real processing power to the Mac Pro systems we use at work. ...and the link you posted, drives that point home.

 

I am not saying, don't pick up an iMac. Like I mentioned, i have two and love them. But... if your criteria is fast & cheap - you should consider even a 2 year old 6-core Westmere Mac Pro system. The article you linked says that too (last paragraph).

 

/butting out... 8)

[redlogic]

And with Logic 10 coming out in 3 weeks there's bound to be a whole lot of issues between this new OS and a new Logic, so... oh, wait, did I forget to take my "don't spread unfounded rumors pill" this morning?

Nah...just the old run of the mill Freudian Slip.

[CShorte]

I am in a similar situation. Currently setup with an aging Mac Pro from early 2006 with 12 GB RAM and audio via the Symphony I/O 32 bit card. I am looking to use this current Mac with VE Pro to run AU plugs and I will likely go with a laptop as I am not using all available PCIe slots on the Mac Pro and TB will out-class whatever I could purchase today.

 

Yes, I am sad that my current Mac investment has passed it's prime but happy that it has lasted so long and has potential as a slave device to a MacBook Pro.

[Ashermusic]

http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html

 

I have no dog in this discussion.. but this graph you posted shows the Mid 2010 Mac Pro systems, out performing the fastest min 2011 iMac systems by 30-40%. ? I am probably not reading what the point you were making with these comparisons. I have an iMac and love it. In fact, we picked up a second system for out in our kitchen area. These dont hold a candle for real processing power to the Mac Pro systems we use at work. ...and the link you posted, drives that point home.

 

I am not saying, don't pick up an iMac. Like I mentioned, i have two and love them. But... if your criteria is fast & cheap - you should consider even a 2 year old 6-core Westmere Mac Pro system. The article you linked says that too (last paragraph).

 

/butting out... 8)

 

Yeah, apparently I got a little carried away.

 

What it proves is that the very latest iMac 3.4 and 3.1 are not quite as fast as the most powerful Mac Pros,, although MacWorld's Speedbench has them much closer.. A Mac Pro 3.33 6 Core Westmere in Speedbench had an overall score of 263 while the 3.4 iMac i7(with a 27" gorgeous display) had a score of 252! See pic.

 

MacWorld points out that for the cost of one of these Mac Pros you could buy 2 of the iMacs!

 

So let us say for the sake of argument that for 2-3k you can have 85% of the speed of spending 5-6k AND you get Thunderbolt, which definitely is the future protocol we are all going to want and which the Mac Pro lacks. Unless you have money to burn, no brainer, folks

 

A dear friend of mine has been running huge amounts of stuff in his template over 3 computers but his primary machine has been a 2010 Nehalem 8 core. He had to run a buffer size of 512 and his cores shoed an average of 50-60%. At 256, performance became erratic.

 

This week he replaced it with a 3.4 iMac, put his SSL audio interface in a Sonnet TB chassis and can run the same template at 256 with the cores running at about 30-40%. he is thrilled and he spent 60% of what he did when he bought the Mac Pro.

 

Anyway, I am will be making the move in the not too distant future and I will let you know how it all shakes out.

[Ashermusic]

OK, I bit the bullet. I lined up a buyer for my 1st gen 2.66 Quad Core and ordered a 2.0 Quad Core i7 Mac Mini server with 16 GB to partner with my i7 950 3.06 Quad Core PC with 24 GB. I may however hedge my bets and get a Sonnet Technology chassis to house my RME HDSPe-AIO, while selling my UAD-2 Duo and Solo in favor of a UAD-2 Quad, which will also go in the chassis.

 

Thunderbolt and the future, look out, here comes Jay!

[Eric Cardenas]

OK, I bit the bullet. I lined up a buyer for my 1st gen 2.66 Quad Core and ordered a 2.0 Quad Core i7 Mac Mini server with 16 GB to partner with my i7 950 3.06 Quad Core PC with 24 GB. I may however hedge my bets and get a Sonnet Technology chassis to house my RME HDSPe-AIO, while selling my UAD-2 Duo and Solo in favor of a UAD-2 Quad, which will also go in the chassis.

 

Thunderbolt and the future, look out, here comes Jay!

 

That's great Jay!

Please keep us posted about your experiences with the new setup.

[Ashermusic]

So far,so good. I used Carbon Copy Cloner to clone my Mac Pro's system drive on the Mac Mini and updated to Mountain Lion. I put my RME and UAD cards in a Sonnet Echo ExpressPo Thunderbolt chassis and it works great, but it is a little noisy so I have to figure out way to isolate it a bit. I connected to my PC slave with VE Pro, and no issues at all. All I need now is an adapter to hook my second monitor up to a Thunderbolt port on the back of the chassis.

 

The 2.0 Quad Core i7 Mac Mini server is not the ultimate Mac but it is waaayyyy faster than the 1st gen 2.66 MacPro that I just sold and with my PC slave doing some of the heavy lifting with my big Play based libraries, it will be a powerful tandem.

[fader8]

In the past the need for pci-e meant that I could not, that I had to have a Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is making it so that is no longer the case.

are you absolutely sure about that, Jay?

 

Can you tell me today, for sure, that the hardware and drivers for a pro audio interface, UAD thing, hard drives, and maybe something else you don't know about yet, are all going to just get along perfectly?

 

Every time a new "wonder-bus" comes along, everybody says its the greatest thing. Until you actually start hanging stuff from different manufacturers on it. I've been hearing it since the Nubus and adb days.

 

Someday I'll decide to become encumbered by progress again and I'll buy a new Mac Pro. It will inevitably have an expansion card giving me 2 or more t-bolt busses. Just like I have cards and expansion chassis's now for extra fw, USB, sata, raid, etc. not because the bandwidth isn't there, but because stuff just can't get along with other stuff!

[Ashermusic]

In the past the need for pci-e meant that I could not, that I had to have a Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is making it so that is no longer the case.

are you absolutely sure about that, Jay?

 

Can you tell me today, for sure, that the hardware and drivers for a pro audio interface, UAD thing, hard drives, and maybe something else you don't know about yet, are all going to just get along perfectly?

 

Every time a new "wonder-bus" comes along, everybody says its the greatest thing. Until you actually start hanging stuff from different manufacturers on it. I've been hearing it since the Nubus and adb days.

 

Someday I'll decide to become encumbered by progress again and I'll buy a new Mac Pro. It will inevitably have an expansion card giving me 2 or more t-bolt busses. Just like I have cards and expansion chassis's now for extra fw, USB, sata, raid, etc. not because the bandwidth isn't there, but because stuff just can't get along with other stuff!

 

In the case of my RME and UAD cards, yes, both anecdotally here and confirmed by RME, UA, and Sonnet. And here's a hot flash: even with a "tried and true" Mac Pro rig, not everything "for sure" is "all going to just get along perfectly". People pay me money to go to their studios and solve those issues all the time and sometimes item A just does not play well with item B.

[Ashermusic]

Holy crap! I opened a project that even with my PC slave doing a lot of the heavy lifting, my aging 1st gen Mac Pro 2,66 Quad Core was struggling with. With the Mac Mini server 2.0 Quad Core i7, look at what is happening!

[Glenn L.]

Yep. The mini rocks.

[Ashermusic]

Not trying to prove anything here, guys, I just think it is interesting.

 

My old Mac Pro 2.66 Quad could run 18 Omnisphere instances and then it was done. I have already loaded 30 on the Mini and I probably could do a couple more.

 

Here's why:

 

Processor Speed: 2.0 GHz Processor Type: Core i7 (I7-2635QM)

 

Details: This model is powered by a 32 nm, 64-bit Intel Mobile Core i7 "Sandy Bridge" (I7-2635QM) processor which includes four independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 6 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).

 

This system also supports "Turbo Boost 2.0" -- which "automatically increases the speed of the active cores" to improve performance when needed (up to 2.9 GHz for this model) -- and "Hyper Threading" -- which allows the system to recognize eight "virtual cores" or "threads."

[triplets]

4 or 5 years in CPU technology is a lot.

[shivermetimbers]

I have read somewhere that some of the people who purchased the mini server did away with the server portion of the mini to help free up processing and space. Would there be an advantage to do so?

[Glenn L.]

AFAIK, the server is only an app (or group of apps under the umbrella of 'Server') that needs to be turned on. I haven't tampered with it yet, nor do I intend to. Hmmm.... just looked at the icon in my App folder, and it is crossed out. I must need the ML version of it, I guess. So, I'd answer no. The Server app only takes up 36 mb. I think I'll delete it, as it is unusable anyways.

[Eric Cardenas]

How is everything working out so far?

The Mac Mini seems to have been a really good choice.

 

I have a couple of questions about the Sonett card question:

How many milliseconds do you get as roundtrip latency at an I/O buffer of 32 samples?

Is the RME driver reporting the correct value when being used through thunderbolt or do you have to somehow compensate for the protocol?

[Ashermusic]

How is everything working out so far?

The Mac Mini seems to have been a really good choice.

 

I have a couple of questions about the Sonett card question:

How many milliseconds do you get as roundtrip latency at an I/O buffer of 32 samples?

Is the RME driver reporting the correct value when being used through thunderbolt or do you have to somehow compensate for the protocol?

 

I have noticed no difference from the way it feels playing through the RME card on my old Mac Pro in the pci-e slot and playing on the Mini with the RME in the chassis so I have not done any measurements. And with the big stuffI I use , 32 or 64 has never been an option for me, only 128 with smaller projects and 256 with larger ones and with the increased speed of the Mini it seems that will be usable more often now for me.

 

Anyway Logic reports 3.1. ms at a buffer size of 32.

[Eric Cardenas]

Anyway Logic reports 3.1. ms at a buffer size of 32.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Is this at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

I would be very interested in knowing if it is reporting correctly. Couldn't you just patch a cable and ping?

[Ashermusic]

Anyway Logic reports 3.1. ms at a buffer size of 32.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Is this at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

 

48 kHz. I would be very interested in knowing if it is reporting correctly. Couldn't you just patch a cable and ping?

 

I am leaving for a10 day vacation tomorrow and have a boatload of things I need to do. Remind me when I get back.

 

OH, btw, patch a cable from the RME's what,? out to in and how do I "ping"it?

[Eric Cardenas]

Anyway Logic reports 3.1. ms at a buffer size of 32.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Is this at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

 

48 kHz. I would be very interested in knowing if it is reporting correctly. Couldn't you just patch a cable and ping?

 

I am leaving for a10 day vacation tomorrow and have a boatload of things I need to do. Remind me when I get back.

 

OH, btw, patch a cable from the RME's what,? out to in and how do I "ping"it?

 

Great! I love vacations. I'm also going away for a week in a couple of days. Mallorca here I come.

 

Yes. Out A to In B or whatever. Insert an I/O plugin on a mono channel. Set the Out and In to AB and hit ping.

[Eric Cardenas]

Man!

I forgot to remind you.

Did you try the loopback test?

[n6smith]

Though this is quite an old thread, I thought I'd give a quick update a couple of years later in regards to the Mac Mini Server i7 2.0Ghz

 

My MMS have proven itself to be quite the little workhorse around here... Stable, reliable and for the price, one of the best buys I have made... So much so, I bought 5 in total over the last 2+ years... Apple still sell them via their refurbished store.. at a greatly reduced price every now and again.. The last one i bought in June cost me $749..

 

I mainly use them as slaves via VEP but also as test bed machines for trying out updates to OS X and Logic prior to installing on my main studio Mac... and all of them are still running as they did the day i first bought them. No issues.. no problems... and the twin 7200rpm drives built in are still all flying along! I did update three of them to 8GB via Amazon for about $40.. and two of them to 16GB again via Amazon using Kingston Ram for $74.... but other than that, they are still the same as when I bought them.

 

Conclusion:

 

The 2011 MMSs are still pretty fast and reliable 'beasts' in my opinion..compared to later models...for what they cost... and if you can get one via the refurb store, they are still, quite the 'steal'.