Mac Studio: M1 Max vs. M1 Ultra?

[abernathy]

The Mac Studio appears to be the Mac upgrade I've been waiting for to replace my iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015). I'm wondering what the real world advantage is for the Ultra chip. I use Logic with a lot of processor heavy plugins (u-He synths, IK tape effects, etc.). If single-core performance is about the same between Max and Ultra, and the Max has 24 cores, am I ever likely to notice a benefit to the Ultra?

And a big concern is fan noise. Do we imagine the Ultra to be noisier in general, or just when it's doing a huge amount of processing? Wondering if for general Logic work the Max and Ultra should be equally quiet.

[DMuzik]

Those 24 cores are GPU-cores, Max has 10 CPU-cores.

[jancivil]

I consider this high end is for heavy video professionals really

What in the DAW realm actually will use 10 cores?

[superscan]

Single core performance is nearly the same in all M1's.

Logic assigns each track to a thread. Enabling multi-core within each instrument/effect is desirable. So in total for your project(s), the more cores / threads will help you overall.
Changing focus (highlighted "Live" track) prior to playback can also affect your single core performance. Moving it off of a CPU-hungry track to a dummy / audio track with minimal use will help in spots. I do this when Serum goes bananas at 96Khz.

I've found that Vienna Ensemble Pro drastically tamed those single core monsters on my Mac Pro Trashcan.

Fan noise TBD, but my experience with the Trashcan design (which is similar to the studio) has been stellar even with a runaway CPU usage (I didn't even notice). I've gone to expense to have a quiet studio, and the absence of extraneous noise is of upmost importance. If it ends up being an issue, Apple (and most retailers) allow returns within 30 days.

[superscan]

I consider this high end is for heavy video professionals really

What in the DAW realm actually will use 10 cores?

I use Logic Pro 10.7.2 - 8 Core /16 thread Xeon Mac Pro 2013. Easily max out with CPU hungry plug-ins, or typical 60-100+ track count in modern Pop / R&B tracks.

[abernathy]

Thanks for the input everyone! Really helpful.

[Synth Master Jedi]

I consider this high end is for heavy video professionals really

What in the DAW realm actually will use 10 cores?

Logic does I guess.

I suppose that running Logic on the Ultra machine must be sick, having 20 of those cores.

The Ultra is too pricey for me, but that's ok, so I'll just have to settle for the Max, and I can't wait to be using Logic with 10 of those cores pretty soon.

It is going to be so many times more powerful than my current setup.

[m-ac]

I went from a 2013 mac pro to an m1 mini. I pretty much max out the mini in almost every single project, but I use a lot of cpu heavy kontakt libraries (slate and ash, heavyocity etc), run synths in high or ultra where the options givemn, and use a 128 buffer. I've ordered a 20 core ultra and I can't wait to get stuck in. Should last me a few years before I feel the need to upgrade again.

[jamcat]

I consider this high end is for heavy video professionals really

What in the DAW realm actually will use 10 cores?

Multitracked audio processes each audio channel as a thread. So theoretically, each channel will be distributed to its own core until all cores are in use, and then it will start doubling up, then tripling, etc.

So if you have 10 tracks, you will use 10 cores.
Group busses and master complicate the picture a bit, since the processing of the group is dependent on every channel feeding it finishing first before forwarding.

If you're doing CPU heavy instruments or FX, your realtime threshold can get eaten up pretty quickly. Ideally I would want one core for every 2 audio channels. Of course if the M1 can handle 10 instances of IK Tape Machines on a single core without breaking a sweat, that changes the equation.

We really won't know until IK releases M1 native T-RackS. And with this being IK, we may be waiting awhile.

[Synth Master Jedi]

Ideally I would want one core for every 2 audio channels.

1 core for every 2 audio channels?

I can't even imagine that. I've been running a dual core machine for 5 years and my Logic sessions are 100+ tracks, so for me it works out to about 50 channels per core currently.

I look forward to seeing what 10 cores of M1 will get me in Logic, compared to what I get now. I imagine thousands of tracks and hundreds of plugins.

[jamcat]

Ideally I would want one core for every 2 audio channels.

1 core for every 2 audio channels?

I can't even imagine that. I've been running a dual core machine for 5 years and my Logic sessions are 100+ tracks, so for me it works out to about 50 channels per core currently.

I look forward to seeing what 10 cores of M1 will get me in Logic, compared to what I get now. I imagine thousands of tracks and hundreds of plugins.

100 tracks at once?
That would be a lot going on.

I do maybe 16 to 20. But I'm recording traditional band stuff in a traditional tape-style approach. So just one or two tracks each per instrument for guitars and synths. A couple for vocals, maybe some double tracking here and there. Plus around 8 for (physically modeled) drums. But, each track goes through a "recording" console and a "mixing" console, because albums are recorded through one console to tape, then mixed off that tape on another console, usually in a completely different studio. I think through the entire audio signal from beginning to end, and reproduce it. Each recording console channel has any ampsims I'm using and/or preamp+channelstrip going into tape emulation, then they get sent to a mixing console with a channelstrip for each track and my send effects. Master has buss comp and mixdown tape. And I use console emulation Mix Engine FX in Studio One on the "mixing" console.

That eats all of my CPU on my 8-core Intel. I'm still waiting on M1 native plugins from a lot of vendors (IK, bx, Relab) so I can't test it out on my M1 Mac Pro yet.

I also do physically modeled string sections using currently about 25 individual SWAM players, each with an instance of Virtual Sound Stage 2, and that also eats my entire CPU. I'd like to be able to do all of the above together in realtime. That's my dream. I have no idea what CPU that will require, but I'm pretty sure it needs to come from Apple.

[Synth Master Jedi]

Ideally I would want one core for every 2 audio channels.

1 core for every 2 audio channels?

I can't even imagine that. I've been running a dual core machine for 5 years and my Logic sessions are 100+ tracks, so for me it works out to about 50 channels per core currently.

I look forward to seeing what 10 cores of M1 will get me in Logic, compared to what I get now. I imagine thousands of tracks and hundreds of plugins.

100 tracks at once?
That would be a lot going on.

I do maybe 16 to 20. But I'm recording traditional band stuff in a traditional tape-style approach. So just one or two tracks each per instrument for guitars and synths. A couple for vocals, maybe some double tracking here and there. Plus around 8 for (physically modeled) drums. But, each track goes through a "recording" console and a "mixing" console, because albums are recorded through one console to tape, then mixed off that tape on another console, usually in a completely different studio. I think through the entire audio signal from beginning to end, and reproduce it. Each recording console channel has any ampsims I'm using and/or preamp+channelstrip going into tape emulation, then they get sent to a mixing console with a channelstrip for each track and my send effects. Master has buss comp and mixdown tape. And I use console emulation Mix Engine FX in Studio One on the "mixing" console.

That eats all of my CPU on my 8-core Intel. I'm still waiting on M1 native plugins from a lot of vendors (IK, bx, Relab) so I can't test it out on my M1 Mac Pro yet.

I also do physically modeled string sections using currently about 25 individual SWAM players, each with an instance of Virtual Sound Stage 2, and that also eats my entire CPU. I'd like to be able to do all of the above together in realtime. That's my dream. I have no idea what CPU that will require, but I'm pretty sure it needs to come from Apple.

They're not all playing at the exact same time, but yes, I often have that many tracks, depending on the kind of track I am doing of course. I mostly do electronic/pop/synth sort of stuff and I guess it's not hard to reach high track counts these days because there are far fewer constraints compared to before. I could always bounce or consolidate some tracks to make the total count lower, but I usually don't bother, unless I am forced to.

I have never used the SWAM player before or the Virtual Sound Stage, but I am aware of them and I can imagine that using 25 of them each with their own instance of Virtual Sound Stage sounds extremely CPU intensive.

I used to work in a few commercial studios a long time ago, so I think that I know what you are trying to achieve with your "recording" console and "mixing" console method when you are recording
those traditional bands. Sometimes people would track on an old Neve and then mix on an SSL for example. Yep, I guess if somebody is looking for a certain sound, then why not use the same method as the way the people used to do it, or at least approximate that method the best one can using the digital tools available today.

Even though we do different genres of music, I also do things in an "old school" way sometimes, if there's a certain sound or vibe I'm going after.

[SLiC]

A symphony orchestra has no more than 100 instruments, so I guess if you were using a virtual instrument for each individual player rather than having string sections etc you could use 100 tracks. Most commercial albums don’t use anything like that…but if your entire studio is just a computer then you can justify a good computer….it costs no more than my modular did or a couple of good guitars…

[ghettosynth]

Here's a slightly different take on this. Given that the single core performance of the M1 series is similar (identical?) across the line, and, given that the M1 based Macs have been out for more than a year, I would choose the Max over the Ultra. It seems that the kinds of multi-core workloads that would stress a Max aren't going to be all that common, but that single core performance demands are likely to continue to increase over time.

Given the huge price premium to go Ultra with limited gains elsewhere unless you need 128GB or ram or are doing extreme video production, you're probably better off buying the Max now, and then using the difference to upgrade to an M2 based Studio in a few years.

My pick today would be the Max based Studio with the base level CPU, 32GB, and 2TB. I think that's the sweet spot, insofar as any Apple pricing can be described as such, for audio production. If you're using a huge amount of sample based libraries then 64GB might be worth the extra dosh.

[abernathy]

Here's a slightly different take on this. Given that the single core performance of the M1 series is similar (identical?) across the line, and, given that the M1 based Macs have been out for more than a year, I would choose the Max over the Ultra. It seems that the kinds of multi-core workloads that would stress a Max aren't going to be all that common, but that single core performance demands are likely to continue to increase over time.

Given the huge price premium to go Ultra with limited gains elsewhere unless you need 128GB or ram or are doing extreme video production, you're probably better off buying the Max now, and then using the difference to upgrade to an M2 based Studio in a few years.

My pick today would be the Max based Studio with the base level CPU, 32GB, and 2TB. I think that's the sweet spot, insofar as any Apple pricing can be described as such, for audio production. If you're using a huge amount of sample based libraries then 64GB might be worth the extra dosh.

You nailed it for me. I ordered the base Mac Studio, but went a bit crazy with 64GB and 4TB - I have a ridiculously large lossless Music library + my sample libraries which will all fit internally now. Just a nice convenience of speed and ease of backup. I've typically kept my main Mac for 6+ years, but with the predicted pace of Apple Silicon improvements I imagine upgrading much $ooner. And after hearing that the Ultra weighs 2 POUNDS more for the cooling needs, I'm more convinced it's an edge case machine I don't need at all. Now... I didn't plan for the Studio Display taking a month longer to get than the new Mac! I need to come up with a temporary monitor...