The King Is Dead. Long Live The King! A Studio Computer Story.

László

Only Human
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
35,850
Location
Michigan
I go back a long, long time using computers to create music and audio - the winter of 1986-7.

I've always gotten loaded-up Macs to do the work. They've all been great for their time, but none has enabled true high-resolution digital audio (96-192K) combined with lots of virtual instruments (without latency or occasional stumbling and/or processor overloaded issues) until now.

It's my practice to take my older studio recorder into my office for business stuff, emails, web, etc., and use the new one in the studio, where capability is more important. The other stuff is easy.

Generally, it's simply lust for a new machine, but a couple of weeks ago the older iMac from 2014 I was using in the office finally died. I had to move the late 2019 studio machine upstairs and get a new one for the studio. It was necessity.

I spent about a week researching what I needed. Long story short, I decided on the Mac Studio M2 Max with a 12‑core CPU, 38‑core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine and 96 GB RAM to handle the orchestral sample libraries and high res audio. My research indicated that the M2 Ultra was a factor mainly for video production.

Bottom line, this machine works at all sample rates and doesn't choke on lots of processor-hungry virtual instruments, even at the lowest latency setting.

It's simply what the Great Gods Of Audio ordained to make me happy as I trail off into the sunset.

My son convinced me to try a curved 34" monitor screen so I could see more of a project at once. So I saved a good % of the significant bucks I planned to spend on the 27" Apple display, and got a moderately priced curved screen model.

Its image isn't as gorgeous as the Apple display's. However that drawback is more than offset by the fact that I can see about twice as many measures, and put lots of windows up for plugins etc, without having to switch windows all the time.

My son was right. And the image is still very good, to be honest.

Because the screen is several inches wider than my previous one, I had to move the monitors farther apart by about 6" and move them back by a 3 inches apiece to maintain the necessary unobstructed equilateral triangle between the two speakers and my ears.

With my room treatment, the audio is still what I'd consider excellent, and maybe even a little less tiring on the ears with the monitors not so close.

The curved monitor might be helping to diffuse the sound bouncing off the back of the screen and into the front wall, which I think you get more of with a flat panel monitor; I mention this because on certain vocal tracks I could get a phasey sound I'm not getting any more. Part of that could be the added distance from the speakers bouncing less audio off the desk surface due to the distance and different angle. Hard to say.

I like this little box. I can hardly believe the results I'm getting.

This is the first time I've been able to get very hi-res audio (96-192 kHx), combined with lots of virtual instruments, as a practical reality.

The overall sound quality is noticeably better, not necessarily because of the higher frequency range, but because it sounds more natural, less grainy. First time I've felt my digital audio is truly world-class.

I may get a newer set of D/A converters. I may not.

I saved enough on the monitor to get yet another mic!
 
Congrats, sounds like a smokin' system! And I am sure that monitor is going to be beneficial to your health and well being in more ways than one, kudos to the kid for that call!! So when to we get to hear some new Studio Craptastic productions (I know, ensemble of live musicians for the latest pieces, but you could share a virtual piece now and then to keep us drooling)?
 
I’m on the original M1 Studio, also with a 34” curved monitor (purchased, thankfully, right before my iMac 27 died). It does all of my music stuff well. Mine is the basic one, though… you’ve got the race car! I did add a CalDigit TS4 Thunderbolt port to mine this year, for a little extra connectivity, which I’ve enjoyed. It’s a good unit, if the need presents itself there.

I’m thinking you’re going to be quite happy with that one!
 
I’ve been very happy with my M1 Pro powered MacBook, it handles all my work very well. Upgraded to a Clarett+ 4 Pre earlier this year, too, and it’s been a nice workflow upgrade.

I’ll probably grab one of the M4 Pro models when they arrive, just to stay current, and while I can still get a little something on trade in. Have thought about going to a Mini or Studio, too, we’ll see.
 
That is a monster of a machine, and in such a cute quiet package. What a time to be alive!

The Apple displays are at a premium, but sometimes you just can't get what they offer any other way. I bit the bullet and got the 6k Pro Display XDR a couple of years back. I figure that being the thing I stare at 40 hours a week, it probably amortizes out pretty cheap given monitors tend to outlast the computers at least 10 years.

Gratz on the new machine, it'll probably pay for itself, and even if not, you get to enjoy using it!
 
Congrats, sounds like a smokin' system! And I am sure that monitor is going to be beneficial to your health and well being in more ways than one, kudos to the kid for that call!! So when to we get to hear some new Studio Craptastic productions (I know, ensemble of live musicians for the latest pieces, but you could share a virtual piece now and then to keep us drooling)?
I will, of course!
 
I’m on the original M1 Studio, also with a 34” curved monitor (purchased, thankfully, right before my iMac 27 died). It does all of my music stuff well. Mine is the basic one, though… you’ve got the race car! I did add a CalDigit TS4 Thunderbolt port to mine this year, for a little extra connectivity, which I’ve enjoyed. It’s a good unit, if the need presents itself there.

I’m thinking you’re going to be quite happy with that one!
I think so! My son got the M1 Studio when it came out and loves it, by the way.
 
96 GBs of RAM?!??!

JFC… my M1 MacBook w/16 GBs plays back 100’s of audio and virtual instrument tracks with sloppy efx management while I have 20 tabs open to live cams and dark web porn going on in the background.
The reason for a ton of RAM is that virtual orchestral instruments operate differently from the VIs that you're used to using.

High end - that is, realistic sounding - orchestral sample libraries are RAM memory hogs, whereas synth VIs are mostly processor-intensive.

Even in the case of VIs using samples as oscillators, the size of the samples is very small, and except for one-shots, they're looped. Not much needs to be loaded in RAM. This allowed the sample based synths of the '80s, like the PPG Wave to work at all with its miniscule amounts of RAM memory.

On the other hand, to have an orchestral string section play realistically, you're not only loading in, say, Long Strings, you're loading several other articulations (f'rinstance, Legato, Multiple, Con Sordino, Legato, Pizzicato, Sul Ponoticello, Harmonics, Staccato, Spicatto, etc,) at the same time. You're also loading in Woodwinds, Brass and Percussion groups the very same way -- lots of articulations are loaded into RAM at the same time.

We also often stack articulations. For example, say you want a little more attack in the note, but the usual amount of sustain. You might load both a Spicatto articulation and a Long articulation, stack them, and you get that hotter attack but the note still sustains.

A realistic full orchestral score for picture using sample libraries will have over 100 tracks, each with its own set of samples loaded.

There are two interrelated tech factors to grok when you're playing and recording a full set of orchestral samples like the above:

1. The first thing you think about is Preload Buffer Size: This is the size of the samples that are preloaded into memory. Small preload buffers put a strain on the CPU. Recording and playback can get glitchy, and you hear the fans on the machine going like crazy.

With a small buffer size the CPU can't handle as many processing plugins (processing plugins like compression, EQ, etc., rely more on CPU than RAM).

Larger buffer sizes load more samples into RAM, which reduces CPU strain, but the drawback is that you need lots of RAM for larger buffer sizes!

2. The second consideration, Stream Buffer Size requires similar balancing. That tells the computer how many samples need to be kept in the RAM for each audio recording stream at one time.

Bigger stream buffer sizes need more RAM, but again, reduce CPU strain.

3. Most of the good orchestral playback plugins let you adjust the Preload Buffer Size and the Streaming Buffer Size to accommodate your machine's capabilities.

For reference, this is an example of potential RAM usage in only one orchestra section in a very realistic-sounding sample orchestral library (keep in mind, I'm preloading lots of orchestral sections):

Spitfire's Abbey Road First Violins' file size is a whopping 85 Gigabytes. There are about a dozen different articulations loaded at once.

Other instruments have similar file sizes. I'm also preloading all the articulations for Second Violins, all the articulations for Cellos, all the articulations for Basses, and then a similar thing for Woodwinds, Brass and Percussion.

When the music plays back, or when I'm recording, I'm streaming all of these tracks at once.

So you can see, when you're recording a full orchestra with Tutti passages, you're using a LOT of samples, and they're all preloading and streaming at once.

If you want low latency, smooth performance, and so on, it's better to have lots of RAM. This frees up the CPU for other uses, like other plugin processors like reverb, compression, EQ, and so on.

I'm also often scoring to picture. The video I stream onscreen while working uses RAM and processing power as well.

The more RAM, the better when you're doing this kind of work.

As computers have gotten more and more capable, the creators of the orchestral libraries simply make the stuff more realistic with higher audio resolutions, more articulations, larger sample sizes, and more expressive features that respond to touch. The new libraries are incredible, and leave the stuff that was created only a couple of years ago in the dust.
 
Last edited:
The Apple displays are at a premium, but sometimes you just can't get what they offer any other way. I bit the bullet and got the 6k Pro Display XDR a couple of years back. I figure that being the thing I stare at 40 hours a week, it probably amortizes out pretty cheap given monitors tend to outlast the computers at least 10 years.
I agree, the Apple displays are gorgeous, and I've been using them as they're built into the iMacs I moved to by 2013-14 when they did as well or better than my old Mac Pro. I also used Apple displays previously.

That's why I was prepared to buy one.

But for scoring, the more measures you can actually see, the easier it is to score picture. There are lots of controls, there are markers to jump to, you need certain plugins up and ready to work with, etc. In addition to the audio, there's picture onscreen at the same time.

I definitely took a hit in picture quality with this curved screen monitor, and previously I wouldn't have. But the ability to have a lot of screen real estate was tempting, and is a good tradeoff. It was also inexpensive. If I don't like it, I can give it away, get the Apple display, and I'll have learned my lesson at low cost.

And Logic and Luna, the DAWs I use, have very simple interfaces that actually look like hardware, and are pretty dull, unlike photos, graphics, etc.

Again, let me stress that I only use this computer for scoring and recording. I use the i9 iMac I bought in early 2020 in my den with its beautiful screen for everything else.
 
Last edited:
I should mention that for many years, the big time film composers have been using Vienna Ensemble and running 3-4 maxed out, high end computers at one time just to do their mockups.

Vienna Ensemble is a program that lets the additional computers be controlled from one screen as though they were part of the main machine.

Many of them hire orchestras and record their own sample libraries that no one else can use. It's pretty amazing they have the resources to do this AND to hire programmers to edit and put them in software form. This is how Spitfire Audio got started, with two TV and film scorers who needed to record full orchestras.

They'll also run high resolution video on large TVs, so when producers and directors come over to approve the score and/or each cue, they see a nice picture. To avoid taxing their machines, they'll sometimes run the video computer on Ensemble as well, so everything is in perfect sync.
 
Last edited:
I also hear people say, no problem with RAM and processor speed, just bounce the tracks.

Well, try and accommodate picture changes quickly with bounced audio tracks, or correct a note, or the arrangement. It's a freaking nightmare. With my i9 machine I was still forced to do it from time to time, and it has 64 GB of RAM.

That's why I upped it to 96.
 
Last edited:
The reason for a ton of RAM is that virtual orchestral instruments operate differently from the VIs that you're used to using.

High end - that is, realistic sounding - orchestral sample libraries are RAM memory hogs, whereas synth VIs are mostly processor-intensive.

Even in the case of VIs using samples as oscillators, the size of the samples is very small, and except for one-shots, they're looped. Not much needs to be loaded in RAM. This allowed the sample based synths of the '80s, like the PPG Wave to work at all with its miniscule amounts of RAM memory.

On the other hand, to have an orchestral string section play realistically, you're not only loading in, say, Long Strings, you're loading several other articulations (f'rinstance, Legato, Multiple, Con Sordino, Legato, Pizzicato, Sul Ponoticello, Harmonics, Staccato, Spicatto, etc,) at the same time. You're also loading in Woodwinds, Brass and Percussion groups the very same way -- lots of articulations are loaded into RAM at the same time.

We also often stack articulations. For example, say you want a little more attack in the note, but the usual amount of sustain. You might load both a Spicatto articulation and a Long articulation, stack them, and you get that hotter attack but the note still sustains.

A realistic full orchestral score for picture using sample libraries will have over 100 tracks, each with its own set of samples loaded.

There are two interrelated tech factors to grok when you're playing and recording a full set of orchestral samples like the above:

1. The first thing you think about is Preload Buffer Size: This is the size of the samples that are preloaded into memory. Small preload buffers put a strain on the CPU. Recording and playback can get glitchy, and you hear the fans on the machine going like crazy.

With a small buffer size the CPU can't handle as many processing plugins (processing plugins like compression, EQ, etc., rely more on CPU than RAM).

Larger buffer sizes load more samples into RAM, which reduces CPU strain, but the drawback is that you need lots of RAM for larger buffer sizes!

2. The second consideration, Stream Buffer Size requires similar balancing. That tells the computer how many samples need to be kept in the RAM for each audio recording stream at one time.

Bigger stream buffer sizes need more RAM, but again, reduce CPU strain.

3. Most of the good orchestral playback plugins let you adjust the Preload Buffer Size and the Streaming Buffer Size to accommodate your machine's capabilities.

For reference, this is an example of potential RAM usage in only one orchestra section in a very realistic-sounding sample orchestral library (keep in mind, I'm preloading lots of orchestral sections):

Spitfire's Abbey Road First Violins' file size is a whopping 85 Gigabytes. There are about a dozen different articulations loaded at once.

Other instruments have similar file sizes. I'm also preloading all the articulations for Second Violins, all the articulations for Cellos, all the articulations for Basses, and then a similar thing for Woodwinds, Brass and Percussion.

When the music plays back, or when I'm recording, I'm streaming all of these tracks at once.

So you can see, when you're recording a full orchestra with Tutti passages, you're using a LOT of samples, and they're all preloading and streaming at once.

If you want low latency, smooth performance, and so on, it's better to have lots of RAM. This frees up the CPU for other uses, like other plugin processors like reverb, compression, EQ, and so on.

I'm also often scoring to picture. The video I stream onscreen while working uses RAM and processing power as well.

The more RAM, the better when you're doing this kind of work.

As computers have gotten more and more capable, the creators of the orchestral libraries simply make the stuff more realistic with higher audio resolutions, more articulations, larger sample sizes, and more expressive features that respond to touch. The new libraries are incredible, and leave the stuff that was created only a couple of years ago in the dust.
Yeah, I’d unplug that thing every night out of fear it would become sentient.
 
I definitely took a hit in picture quality with this curved screen monitor, and previously I wouldn't have. But the ability to have a lot of screen real estate was tempting, and is a good tradeoff. It was also inexpensive. If I don't like it, I can give it away, get the Apple display, and I'll have learned my lesson at low cost.
First, congrats on stepping into the Apple Silicon era. And this has to be one of the few forums on earth where the acoustic reflective qualities of monitors are discussed.

For monitors, it's not an either/or decision between what you have now and an Apple monitor and one of the huge benefits of having the Mac Studio is that you can use a monitor that fits your needs exactly. There are excellent curved monitors from reliable brands such as Samsung, Dell UltraSharp and LG. Personally, I've been buying Samsung exclusively for the last 15 years: four monitors and four TVs, have had no problems with any of them and the image quality on both my primary TV and monitor is superior to that on my 2020 Macbook.

For someone not doing gaming or video production/color grading, the primary attributes of a monitor are: size, resolution, peak brightness, dynamic range, and color gamut. In your case, a peak brightness >1000 nits or a color gamut that covers the entire DCI P3 color space are perhaps not super important. But there is something that you don't like about your current monitor and having read enough of your posts, it seems that you like really good kit, especially for those items that you use all the time.

So what don't you like about your current monitor and what are the characteristics of your ideal monitor? Or perhaps you're lucky and you already have a great monitor and it just needs adjustment or calibration.
 
Last edited:
Les,
When you compared the 34" curved screen and the Apple 27" flat screen, what was the cost difference, and who makes the curved screen?

In the not-too-distant future I'll likely bump up to the Apple Mini or Studio M2 with bells and whistles as well...and then just keep the unit well-maintained with the annual service contract.
 
Back
Top