Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which Mac Studio for music production? Max M2 vs. Ultra M2
- Thread starter Soundflut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The M4 Mac mini 2024 vs Mac Studio M1 Ultra
The Mac mini 2024 vs Mac Studio M1 Ultra: How Apple’s Entry-Level Desktop Holds Up in Pro Audio: UPDATED | Production Expert
For audio professionals running intensive Pro Tools sessions, every percentage of CPU and memory matters. In this article, we’re comparing the performance of Apple’s new Mac mini 2024 with the Mac Studio Ultra to see whether Apple’s lower-priced option can hold its ground.
www.production-expert.com
Meh, my gaming PC is much better than this, and I use it to game and not much else.
I still bought an M2 Ultra Mac Studio, as it is great, even for my huge orchestral projects with spitfire orchestra, but also tons of plugins, reverb, etc., yet it stays completely silent.
How can you possibly work with an 13900k(f) is beyond me, that thing is so loud, you need a proper 360AIO just to cool it well enough. No way I would record with it in the same room, I can barely game peacefully next to it lol.
Also, I know many people like OP, who claim they have "massive" projects, which is funny to me, as a composer. They should just buy istats, and check their actual usage while doing these projects in Logic.
honestly there are so many styles of using Logic that I find Logic benchmarks pointless. I don't use massive sample libraries. I have one or two softsynths with modest sound libraries. But they are not significantly impacting memory. I've also rarely exceeded 24 tracks in a project. I do use a lot of plugins. And I do require 24 in 24 out simultaneously. I've even picked up 14 cores with of UAD DSP in the past to maintain headroom on plugins.
I also know folks who work 100% in the box with no sample libraries. Just tons of soft synths and plugins.
I also know folks who work 100% in the box with no sample libraries. Just tons of soft synths and plugins.
You are wrong, that's exactly why you NEED a benchmark, but we still haven't figured out one that measures the "raw power" of the device
I use hundreds of tracks, and massive sample libraries, basically more than anyone else, and I just stick to buying the "best and most expensive" Mac out there. And I also always consider the noise and thermal envelope, that's why I have a Mac Studio 192gb/M2 Ultra, rather than a MBP 16 M4 max.
But I agree with you, the problem is that most people don't know how to differentiate between amateur Logic users and professionals.
And with professionals, you have to ask if the person is doing complex orchestral compositions for movies or video games or something, constantly having to churn out new music, or is it someone that only records a band and adds minimal effects, where even a new mac mini would serve well.
I'm wrong that I find benchmarks useless?
Ok, thanks for telling me what I think.
Your wrong for using hundreds of tracks. The Beatles produced timeless albums with only 8 tracks. Are you better than the Beatles?
Oh wait, you say you don't have the same production style as the Beatles? So comparing by track count is nonsensical? Hmm ok.
The track count benchmark provides an easily comparable quantifier for the general audio processing power of the given system. Think of it like the CPU multi-thread benchmark score, but caps when audio drop out / jittering happen. Having a single frame of reference helps people determine how much faster a new system is compared to what they already have, even when they don't use many tracks but perhaps use processing powers elsewhere like plug-ins.