Login

Acustica and Macs

If you need to write about anything else please do it here..

Acustica and Macs

Postby lubomba » Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:47 pm

Hi people. Is anyone using an i7 iMac with the new skylake 6700 processor? How is the performance with acustica plugins? How many acquas can you use?

Thanks!
lubomba
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:23 pm

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby jfjer379@gmail.com » Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:04 am

curious on that one too, cause my mac mini late 2012 i7 can actually run twice the instances of amethyst in windows boot camp Reaper 20 instances compared to 10 instances reaper on mac. logic x can actually only run 7 amethysts ,
im shocked how much better windows is running acquas

i really hope newer macs like skylake doesent differ as much as with my mac

if a skylake 6700 running windows can handle twice of the mac with same cpu i dont see a reason for anyone using acquas and nebula buying a mac

me im going for windows all the way now, i just left Logic after many years for reaper and dont regret it :)
i7 5820k • RME • Reaper64 • Win7 64 Pro • Amethyst • Coral • Emerald • Honey • Ivory • LIME • Navy • Pearl • Pink • Pink Comp Bundle • Sand • White2 • Nebula3 Server
User avatar
jfjer379@gmail.com
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby lubomba » Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:38 am

I know exactly what you mean but for various reasons I have to stick with Logic. Macs have a very good resale value so that could justify getting the iMac if the performance is really good. I have a powerful Mac mini too with the 3rd gen i7. its really great but sucks with acustica plugins sadly. The good thing is that it lost very little of its value, so I get good money if I sell it. I think I can use the iMac for a few years and then sell it for good money again. And then maybe move away from logic and mac all toghether. And since acustica plugins are becoming more and more a huge part of my sound I am really looking forward to use many more without having to bounce all the time...
lubomba
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:23 pm

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby jfjer379@gmail.com » Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:50 am

theres absolutely no doubt you will get many more instances with the skylake
i say go for it, and if you do want even more instances at a later time and don't mind using another DAW at a later time you can always use boot camp :)

or you could produce in logic and do the mixing in Reaper for example, best of both worlds :)

Good luck
i7 5820k • RME • Reaper64 • Win7 64 Pro • Amethyst • Coral • Emerald • Honey • Ivory • LIME • Navy • Pearl • Pink • Pink Comp Bundle • Sand • White2 • Nebula3 Server
User avatar
jfjer379@gmail.com
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby lubomba » Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 pm

ok this is crazy!

I found a great deal on the 5k iMac with i7 4ghz skylake and went for it.

The problem is - I can only run exactly the same number of nebula/acqua instances as with my Mac Mini in Logic...

So Giancarlo or Enrique or anyone brighter than me - what's going on? Not only does the iMac feature a higher cpu clock speed (4.0ghz (4.2ghz oc) vs 2.6ghz (3.6ghz oc)) but it also has a newer generation of cpu (6th vs 3rd) which according to you brings all the advantages of core7 and core8. How can it be that they perform the same?

Doing this test...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/apple-l ... ktest.html

...the difference is there (135 tracks vs 100 tracks)

Even the Geekbench 3 benchmark tests I did show the difference. But I thought especially the Acustica plugins would see an even bigger improvement because of the skylake, but it seems to be actually worse comparing the clock speed difference.


I did the "Measure Acqua Effect plug-ins CPU load and consumption" test with Ochre and Emerald


IMAC

CPU brand and model: INTEL SKYLAKE
CPU generation/version*: QUAD CORE i7 6700K
RAM: 8 GB
GPU: AMD RADEON R9 M395 - 2 GB
OS version: MAC OS X 10.11.4
OS architecture: 64BIT
Audio interface/host buffer: F*******e CLARETT / 1024
Audio interface/host sample rate: 44.1
Host name: LOGIC PRO X
Host version: 10.2.2
Host architecture: 64BIT
Acqua Effect plug-in format: AU
Acqua Effect plug-in architecture: 64BIT
Acqua Effect plug-in name: OCHRE / EMERALD
Acqua Effect plug-in number version: 1.4.009 / 1.4.009
Acqua Effect plug-in release version: REL B /REL E
Total number of instances of Acqua Effect plug-ins loaded: 27 / 17



MAC MINI

CPU brand and model: INTEL IVY BRIDGE
CPU generation/version*: QUAD CORE i7 3720QM
RAM: 16 GB
GPU: INTEL HD GRAPHICS 4000
OS version: MAC OS X 10.11.3
OS architecture: 64BIT
Audio interface/host buffer: F*******e CLARETT / 1024
Audio interface/host sample rate: 44.1
Host name: LOGIC PRO X
Host version: 10.2.2
Host architecture: 64BIT
Acqua Effect plug-in format: AU
Acqua Effect plug-in architecture: 64BIT
Acqua Effect plug-in name: OCHRE / EMERALD
Acqua Effect plug-in number version: 1.4.009 / 1.4.009
Acqua Effect plug-in release version: REL B /REL E
Total number of instances of Acqua Effect plug-ins loaded: 27 / 17


Is this normal? There must be something wrong... I really don't know what to do, because the main reason I bought the iMac was to get better usage from Acustica plugins. I can still return the iMac within one week and will probably do so if I don't find a solution to this.

Thanks everybody for any help on this!
lubomba
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:23 pm

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby markgalup » Fri May 20, 2016 2:00 am

Hey all,

Posting this here as well as in the Mac Acustica and Acqua General Discussion GS forum.

I pushed my machine to the max for these tests and found interesting results.

2010 Mac Pro dual 6-core 3.33ghz Xeon 16GB RAM with SSD running OS X 10.10.5

PINK had all bands of A EQ in, Pre In, and Comp in on FFW with Insane mode

Pro Tools 12.4 (w/o Dyn Plug Proc; Hyper-Threading off; 1024 buffer; 24/48)
Bluecat W/ PINK VST
Total number of mono audio tracks before maxing out cores: 23
Total number of mono audio tracks able to playback audio before maxing out cores: 22

AAX PINK
For the first 5 instances, the load across the cores was very unstable. Spikes were occurring on random cores and loads were not building up evenly at all. Once I added more than 5 the load began to increase evenly across the cores with every new instance.
Total number of mono audio tracks before maxing out cores: 21
Total number of mono audio tracks able to playback audio before maxing out cores: 19


REAPER (Hyper-Threading on; 1024 buffer; 24/48)

Reaper allowed me to continue inserting instances of PINK after cores were full. The DAW would playback, but visually, the curser and meters looked very jerky once it got to this level.

PINK VST Insert
Total number of mono audio tracks before maxing out cores: 22
Total number of mono audio tracks before crashing: 27

Total number of mono audio tracks able to playback audio before maxing out cores: 21
Total number of mono audio tracks able to playback audio before crashing: 27

AU was almost the same in Reaper.

Trying to insert two Pink VSTs on one track - the only track in the project - crashed the DAW twice in a row (!), then proceeded to work.


Once NYRV Agent 1.4 is released properly, I will revisit this, especially in PT 12.4.

General conclusion: Reaper doesn't smoke PT 12.4 as I honestly wish it had. I am completely ready to ditch PT and I may do so simply because Reaper was slightly better performance-wise, and definitely more stable, as well its obviously infinite customizability.

Another fact for consideration: even though Pink (read: AA Acqua Core8) functioned this way, Reaper handled Ozone 7 with total ease (0.3% cpu) compared to it crippling PT comparatively. This could mean that, though Pink still took quite a toll, any other plugin overhead would be greatly reduced, allowing more room for Acquas.

Any thoughts would be welcome, especially from those of you who are more experienced with Reaper. Are there any specific settings in Prefs that I should be taking advantage of, etc.? I had it using 24 cores, and I tried other buffer sizes but 1024 seemed most optimized.

Best,
MG
Mark Galup
Producer/Engineer/Mixer/Mastering Engineer
ReelRecording.com
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Acustica Audio Dealer for the USA
User avatar
markgalup
Member
Member
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:15 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby giancarlo » Fri May 20, 2016 4:42 am

For a 2010 cpu it is good.
Normally performances double at each year.
You should get 32-64 times more now. But since the Moore law is FALSE because things cannot run in parallel fashion, I would say you could get today only 4x. So we are in the usual ballpark, 60-120 pink instances
User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 9173
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby bictor » Fri May 20, 2016 3:13 pm

Hi there, im also in the same boat... Y just got a skylake 6 gen i7 (mac) + 16 Ram just for working with this amazing tools.

My maximun where 32 instances, Honey, Titanium, Amethyst, Murano and Emerald.

Maybe i could load some more... But with this 32 my computer and the fans were working hard.

Regards,
Sand, Navy, Honey, Pink, Purple, Mix, Curve, Emerald, White, Scarlet, Prime Comp II, Caribou, Pink Compressors, Titanium, Aquamarine, Coral
bictor
User Level IV
User Level IV
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:20 am

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby lubomba » Fri May 20, 2016 3:43 pm

good to see some reports!

@bictor

I can load more or less the same amount of plugins but I have never heard the fans :?:
Maybe because Logic and Reaper both crashed before the fans could kick in I guess...

Which DAW did you use?
lubomba
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:23 pm

Re: Acustica and Macs

Postby lubomba » Fri May 20, 2016 3:55 pm

markgalup wrote:
Another fact for consideration: even though Pink (read: AA Acqua Core8) functioned this way, Reaper handled Ozone 7 with total ease (0.3% cpu) compared to it crippling PT comparatively. This could mean that, though Pink still took quite a toll, any other plugin overhead would be greatly reduced, allowing more room for Acquas.




That's actually interesting!

With Ozone 7 there is a difference in ProTools and Reaper. With AA plugins not! I came to the same conclusion doing tests with Logic and Reaper.

So this is a clear evidence that the "bottleneck/restriction" has to do with the relation Acustica Audio - Mac OSX. Also from my tests there is no difference in using AU or VST
lubomba
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:23 pm

Next

Return to Other things

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BCz, jpn and 4 guests