When do you think Logic Pro 11 will come out?

[machinesworking]

I'll probably be very wrong (I hope so) but I expect another 3-4 point releases before v11.
I'd be very suprised if we see v11 before the end of 2023

I suspect that LP11 will be Apple Silicon only. I just have a feeling that's what Apple will do. Hopefully I'm wrong.

So there’s some european I think law that states you can’t sell hardware that is not compatible with the OS you sell for five years. So Mac OS has five years past the last Intel Mac sold. I know Apple have more or less done this with Logic in reverse, built in obsolescence with hardware about 5-7 years old or more.

So hopefully this translates to Logic and the fact that Apple are still selling Intel Mac Pros, the day they stop selling them is when I would start the death clock for UB2 versions of Logic.

[pdxindy]

What they can do before that is Apple Silicon only features...

[machinesworking]

What they can do before that is Apple Silicon only features...

Yep, the upsell. I'm kinda dealing with that right now, I want to get back into using the MPC software, I liked the results I was getting from the hardware, but the old MPK88 here is not on their list of control surfaces for it. I'm looking at getting an MPK249 for the MPC (plus a synth keyboard bed), and the SL88 MKII... even though I'm not happy with the idea that NI could abandon it at any moment and not work with developers to fix the nki patches etc.

[syntonica]

huh ?

Nothing there... just some mental wankery

Hmmmm.....David Tremblay might be the perfect choice to oversee using the GPU in Apple Silicon for DSP....

Right... the key word there is might. It might also mean nothing...

Due to the very tight integration of the CPU and GPU in these chips, it's more likely something than nothing.

[pdxindy]

huh ?

Nothing there... just some mental wankery

Hmmmm.....David Tremblay might be the perfect choice to oversee using the GPU in Apple Silicon for DSP....

Right... the key word there is might. It might also mean nothing...

Due to the very tight integration of the CPU and GPU in these chips, it's more likely something than nothing.

And he could also have been hired to do the design and dsp of the audio system for the upcoming Apple Car. Might have nothing to do with Logic.

[nightjar]

And he could also have been hired to do the design and dsp of the audio system for the upcoming Apple Car. Might have nothing to do with Logic.

Unlikely. Not the best use of his talents. So poor speculation.

There are degrees of likelihood, and that shapes better speculation.

[lightsfadelow]

I just thought of something that would be really nice - with these new M1/2 chips, we have soooo many cores, yet we can have glitches still it one core is overloaded while 10 other cores are idle. Better core load balancing even on a single track full of heavy plugins would be greatly appreciated.

[sQeetz]

I just thought of something that would be really nice - with these new M1/2 chips, we have soooo many cores, yet we can have glitches still it one core is overloaded while 10 other cores are idle. Better core load balancing even on a single track full of heavy plugins would be greatly appreciated.

When you have one track with FX1, FX2, FX3.... FX3 depends on the result of FX2, FX2 depends on the result of FX1, FX1 depends on the sound of the plugin.
There is no way to distribute this load to other cores AFAIK

[lightsfadelow]

I just thought of something that would be really nice - with these new M1/2 chips, we have soooo many cores, yet we can have glitches still it one core is overloaded while 10 other cores are idle. Better core load balancing even on a single track full of heavy plugins would be greatly appreciated.

When you have one track with FX1, FX2, FX3.... FX3 depends on the result of FX2, FX2 depends on the result of FX1, FX1 depends on the sound of the plugin.
There is no way to distribute this load to other cores AFAIK

I've heard that some people work around this CPU overload situation by moving effects to a buss / group channel, so you have Track 1 (with insert FX1) -> Bus 1 (FX2) -> Master (FX3). In this case, the CPU load on FX1 goes on core 1, FX2 goes on core 2, and FX3 goes on core 3. But the same dependency where FX3 depends on the output of FX2 which depends on the output of FX1 exists.

I think we all take the statement "there is no way to distribute this load to other cores" as gospel because it seems that way today. I'm not an expert on any of this, but I could speculate that the CPU architecture has a lot to do with historical limitations, and for a long time the only architecture was x86.

[sQeetz]

I think we all take the statement "there is no way to distribute this load to other cores" as gospel because it seems that way today.

It's not gospel. It's the way it is.
You can't compute FX3 when you don't have the result of FX1
Bussing doesn't help either. And it doesn't have anything to do with architecture either. It's the same way on x86 and/or on the newer Macs on ARM.
The only thing that can be separated from the audio thread is the GUI, AFAIK...

[syntonica]

The problem with load balancing is that you send a job out and you don't know how much CPU that job will actually take. You can guess based on past performance, but that's no guarantee. I think, traditionally, you just lined everything up and sent them to the CPU, one at a time, in order. You only had one core.

Now, with full threading, the best strategy is to send the next job to the core that is most idle. There are still job dependencies, i.e. VST->FX1->FX2->FX3, but you also have concurrent tracks with similar chains of dependencies, but they can go interleaved, as needed. The oldest job on the queue that's been green-lit goes next.

You also have VSTs that do the same thing, but their efforts are not coordinated with the host, so they can often step on each other's toes, as it were. That's where I see most troubles these days. With a decent host, you'll probably get better performance by turning multi-core off at the plugin level. YMMV, or course, but the newer the host, the more likely it is to be handling the balancing well.

In regards to Logic, I haven't done a full-blown project in it since Logic 7, so I have no clue how well it's handling CPU loads. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[pdxindy]

You also have VSTs that do the same thing, but their efforts are not coordinated with the host, so they can often step on each other's toes, as it were. That's where I see most troubles these days. With a decent host, you'll probably get better performance by turning multi-core off at the plugin level. YMMV, or course, but the newer the host, the more likely it is to be handling the balancing well.

One of the benefits of CLAP is its multicore performance cause it communicates better with the host.

[sQeetz]

One of the benefits of CLAP is its multicore performance cause it communicates better with the host.

So can plugins spread the actual audio workload across multiple cores?
That would be nice. Effects would still need to be processed one after the other, but if a plugin can use multiple cores while it's doing it's thing... cool

[pdxindy]

One of the benefits of CLAP is its multicore performance cause it communicates better with the host.

So can plugins spread the actual audio workload across multiple cores?
That would be nice. Effects would still need to be processed one after the other, but if a plugin can use multiple cores while it's doing it's thing... cool

Various VST plugins have already been multicore (like Diva)... but as Syntonica mentioned, a plugin and host doing the same thing can lead to conflicts/bugs.

CLAP has improved communication between plugin and host so that avoids those conflicts and issues.

[sQeetz]

Various VST plugins have already been multicore (like Diva)...

Disabling multicore on Diva leads to better performance. So much for that....