Logic Pro X Gets Refresh for Upcoming Mac Pro

[ninecows]

As long as the non-pro hardware are up to scratch and can run a non-pro sized project in logic.

I could easily run 20-30 tracks with effects and vst’s in reaper on a PC back in 2005. 2600 MHz, 2Gb ram and old HDD.
On my 2011 iMac and Logic I hit the roof much sooner.

 

[justperry]

Get a Apple Credit card this summer. You get 3 percent cash back on purchases. Or get a introductory credit card that gives you 0 percent interest Bank of America card for 18 months to pay off the computer, it is only $333 a month. A lot of people spend that going out and doing things every month. Stay at home 18 months with you beautiful fast computer and having fun with a product that will last you 10 years or more!

Pro's won't get the base model.

 

[now i see it]

Oak Felder's review/comment sounds like it came straight out of Apple's marketing dept.

 

[Nicky G]

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

Thank you Apple for your continuing neglect.

Well that's a series of silly statements.

Why not use an iMac, iMac Pro, MacBook Pro? These machines meet the needs of many music people -- which is why a huge number of music people use Macs.

For the crazy setups? Studios? These new Mac Pros will obviously do quite well. Are they really much more expensive than equivalent Windows PCs? Mac Pro desktops (not counting trash can of course) usually stacked up pretty well price-wise against, say, HP pro desktops, back in the day. I don't think this new cheese grater will disrupt that long term trend greatly.

 

[8CoreWhore]

That is great.!

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

Thank you Apple for your continuing neglect.

The pros that can't afford this hardware most likely don't need this hardware. They can use a $3,000 iMac (8 cores, 40GB RAM self-installed) and be fine.
This new Mac Pro is for professional studios. Think Pixar, Paramount Recording Studios. A $40,000 Mac Pro will pay for itself in months or less for them.

Truth is, this new Mac Pro shouldn't start with such a low configuration... Apple just did that for those who still want it but don't need that cases' expandability... where much of the expense lies.

Apple has all levels covered from 15" MBP to iMac, to iMac Pro, to Mac Pro. No one is left out.

 

[dannys1]

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

The standard iMac is perfectly fine for 99% of musicians. The iMac Pro is more than enough for the rest. The Mac Pro is for proper score writers - you don't need that power. It's aimed at the likes of Hans Zimmer.

 

[Icaras]

Update not showing for me on the Mac App Store, even though my version says 10.4.4 and the MAS version says 10.4.5. It just says "Open" on the MAS. Anyone else not able to update to the new version?

 

[Peace]

Update not showing for me on the Mac App Store, even though my version says 10.4.4 and the MAS version says 10.4.5. It just says "Open" on the MAS. Anyone else not able to update to the new version?

Me. I'm on Catalina .

 

[pika2000]

That is great.!

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

Thank you Apple for your continuing neglect.

You know what, actual musicians can make music with whatever they have. I have seen artists create music using just their smartphone, or even an old Windows XP machine, and many are simply using iPads. Real pros won’t be complaining about something being too expensive, they will use the tools they can get and focus in creating. Those are the real pros. The Mac Pro is simply just another tool, but not the only tool.

This is in complete contrast with nerds who are only fixated on the tool itself, thus will complain if a new toy they are lusting cost more than they wanted, even if they are not the target audience to begin with. This is not the definition of pros.

 

[jlocker]

I'm curious: why limit the number of simultaneous threads to 56? Is that actually set in software, or is this software only available on a Mac, for which there are no higher thread counts possible?

This makes me wonder if the CPU will be soldered into the board on the Mac Pro... there are higher core count CPUs out there (not that most people would necessarily want that).

In regards to the software, I regularly code with MPI and OpenMP (mostly the former). I never set arbitrary limits on the number of threads/workers. More is (almost always) better, but 56 is certainly nowhere near the limit of overhead costs.

Looking at the pictures that Apple put out their for the new Mac Pro, it looks like the Xeon processor is held down with a wire holding pins and the air cooled transfer unit is pressed against it. Looks like from the pictures that it will be replaceable. Makes it easy for genius bar support people to fix at the stores

 

[Defthand]

I guess none of the quoted professionals got the memo that an iPad Pro is all you need to produce professional-caliber content.

 

[seasurfer]

I'm curious: why limit the number of simultaneous threads to 56? Is that actually set in software, or is this software only available on a Mac, for which there are no higher thread counts possible?

This makes me wonder if the CPU will be soldered into the board on the Mac Pro... there are higher core count CPUs out there (not that most people would necessarily want that).

In regards to the software, I regularly code with MPI and OpenMP (mostly the former). I never set arbitrary limits on the number of threads/workers. More is (almost always) better, but 56 is certainly nowhere near the limit of overhead costs.

I doubt that the number of threads is intentionally limited by the software. It's going to be limited by the number of cores on the processor. The new Mac Pro tops out at 28 cores, and with hyperthreading that gives 56 threads.

When Apple bought Emagic in 2002 they discontinued the Windows version of Logic Pro, so it's Mac only. If someone manages to build a Hackintosh Mac Pro with more than 28 processor cores it will be interesting to see if it'll scale beyond 56 threads.

 

[T-R-S]

I'm curious: why limit the number of simultaneous threads to 56? Is that actually set in software, or is this software only available on a Mac, for which there are no higher thread counts possible?

This makes me wonder if the CPU will be soldered into the board on the Mac Pro... there are higher core count CPUs out there (not that most people would necessarily want that).

In regards to the software, I regularly code with MPI and OpenMP (mostly the former). I never set arbitrary limits on the number of threads/workers. More is (almost always) better, but 56 is certainly nowhere near the limit of overhead costs.

56 is the limited because that's the largest INTEL processor you can buy 28 hyper threaded times 2 equals 56!

I own Logic there are some crazy things about GUI - its not possible to work a Logic session in ONE window unlike Pro Tools I can EVERYTHING in ONE window. Plus the Logic configuration window is ridiculous.

 

[Coconut Bean]

Something I have been wondering about this new Mac pro....

What the f have "professionals" been using until now? Because there is currently nothing similar to the performance offered with the new Mac Pro...

Or did apple make a computer (talking about the absolute high end) that doesn't actually have a current user base?

 

[RickInHouston]

My music business is growing as a media composer and I’ve been investing time to research which PC(s) to get as slaves for my main computer so I can offload huge libraries and ram usage from it. But now I’ll rather get this and be without all that hassle with PCs, setting up audio over Ethernet etc. As someone already stated if you’re a pro this computer is a company investment creating tax refunds so it won’t be as expensive in the end.

It reduces your tax burden. 'Creating tax refunds' is not really accurate. You must make more money than you write off (expense). If not, then it's not really worth it, is it? Everything over the lowest expense to make your work more a luxury is money you didn't get to keep in your pocket..

 

[thomas040]

Their version numbering gives me hope that the next big number upgrade will work on iPadOS too.

 

[Coconut Bean]

Yes.

I think the bar has been lowered repeatedly over the past couple decades. Pro musicians used to have access to multi-million dollar Neve consoles (many still do) and under those circumstances none of the prices being talked about matter. Somewhere around the introduction of the Layla everyone thought they could just produce in their garage and have a professional result (in the case of some popular genres they're not necessarily completely wrong). So now you have people who play in their local pubs on Thursday night and produce a self promoted CD in the iOS version of GarageBand who consider themselves "pro" and want their own system at their own price point. Those people are not the target market for this device.

Who Is? As there is no apple computer offering similar to what the new Mac pro will, what have all these ultra pros been using up until now?

Sure as hell they haven't been staring at the beach ball on their subpar apple towers and trashcans. After all they are professionals capable of buying Setups for over $10000...

 

[AppleMad98004]

That is great.!

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

Thank you Apple for your continuing neglect.

If you can't make enough revenue truly using these tools for work, with associated tax breaks, to afford a Mac Pro, you aren't a pro.

 

[MauiPa]

Welp... was running happily along on macOS Sierra until this:

Compatibility: macOS 10.13.6 or later, 64-bit processor

I don't get your complaint. You are saying that you didn't update your OS, so you can't use an updated application? I must be missing something important, cause that sounds like a really stupid complaint. So, now that I feel really dumb, what is the gist of the complaint?

 

[Icaras]

Their version numbering gives me hope that the next big number upgrade will work on iPadOS too.

This needs to happen.

 

[MauiPa]

That is great.!

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

Thank you Apple for your continuing neglect.

if they are not pro enough to afford the Mac Pro (ergo don't make very much money), they don't need Intel Xeon processors or ECC Ram, because they can't afford that from Dell or HP either, so that leaves them with i7-i9 processors (which are fine, except if you need to run 24/7 at high capacity), to which there are a plethora of offerings. so what is your point?
[doublepost=1560452203][/doublepost]

That's a big issue for me. Still running Soundtrack Pro here and I bet that breaks it.

if it does, your "Soundtrack Pro" is not very Pro, or not updated in years. But seriously, it could still run on the old OS, so what exactly is your complaint? "Geez I run a seriously old program that the developers have refused to re-compile and update with new features, and I really want to update my Mac to an incompatible version of the OS, oh the horror"?

 

[Rogifan]

No more comments about Apple ignores the pros

Looking good!

No now it’s just kvetching about ignoring enthusiasts/hobbyists.

 

[ipedro]

That is great.!

Now the "Pros" need some computers they can actually afford.

Very few musicians will be able to afford a Mac Pro. So basically all the "Pros" are still with no good hardware options.

Thank you Apple for your continuing neglect.

There’s a distinction between a professional — someone who generates income from their activity — and an amateur — someone who does an activity as a hobby. Being an amateur doesn’t mean you’re not talented, it just means you don’t generate income, or at least enough income to make a living. If you’re a professional and you’re making money doing your activity, then yes, you can afford a Mac Pro because it’s the tool that will make you money to not only pay it off but pay dividends for years to come.

 

[MauiPa]

As long as the non-pro hardware are up to scratch and can run a non-pro sized project in logic.

I could easily run 20-30 tracks with effects and vst’s in reaper on a PC back in 2005. 2600 MHz, 2Gb ram and old HDD.
On my 2011 iMac and Logic I hit the roof much sooner.

sounds like a lot of things changes since then. I remember when I ripped my original CDs onto disk, I used a way old format well below current standards (256 kps AAC = 320 kbs OGG, or so) what I used was pathetic in comparison. Im guessing what you did in 2005 was way different than what you did in 2011+ as well. That being said your reaper program may in fact have been a better fit for you in the first place. You could have always run it on bootcamp on your iMac.
[doublepost=1560452862][/doublepost]

I doubt that the number of threads is intentionally limited by the software. It's going to be limited by the number of cores on the processor. The new Mac Pro tops out at 28 cores, and with hyperthreading that gives 56 threads.

When Apple bought Emagic in 2002 they discontinued the Windows version of Logic Pro, so it's Mac only. If someone manages to build a Hackintosh Mac Pro with more than 28 processor cores it will be interesting to see if it'll scale beyond 56 threads.

"manages"? I bet they are building that now, will only be a matter of time
[doublepost=1560453247][/doublepost]

Not everyone who makes music is a pro. Not everyone who receives monetary compensation for making music is a pro either.

what is your point? they don't need a Mac Pro with Intel Xeon processors to run Logic Pro or Garage Band, or a myriad of other programs, they can use i7-i9, even i3s. You do know that intel sells Xeon's at uber prices for people who want the ECC memory and 24/7 high utilization. If you think that is a crock, google it, and check prices for HP and Dell systems , or off brand workstation providers running latest Xeon.

So seriously, are you trying to say that someone who makes music, but is not a pro needs an expensive 24/7 high utilization computer to make music? No, No, No

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Who Is? As there is no apple computer offering similar to what the new Mac pro will, what have all these ultra pros been using up until now?

Sure as hell they haven't been staring at the beach ball on their subpar apple towers and trashcans. After all they are professionals capable of buying Setups for over $10000...

Back then? Industry specific hardware (analog consoles etc...). Then you moved into a hybrid era of things like Pro Tools with hardware peripherals and interfaces to augment Mac/PC workstations. The progression has been to more and more in silico and software based solutions requiring more general computing muscle to get the job done. To that end, yeah, I'm sure there have been users on nMPs that have been frustrated at the amount of time it takes when using a lot of plugins and such. That's not staring at a beachball but that's waiting for processes to run and time is money. Given the reaction from people working on major projects this direction is welcome.