MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

Simon Eves

Sophomore
May 12, 2013
189
0
16
Having just got my shiny new X32 console, I am in the process of setting up for two musicals this summer.

I have a 2010 MacBook Pro 13" (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM and a conventional 250GB hard drive) and my hope is to do all the following in parallel:

(1) Run multi-track recording software (either Reaper or my allegedly-imminent free copy of Tracktor) to capture all 32 primary channels on the X32 over USB (not Firewire, although I could do that instead)
(2) Playing at least 4 (perhaps 6) channels of SFX out of Qlab (2 from the headphones to X32 channels, 4 back over USB to X32 Aux 1-4 set to "Card 1-4")
(3) Run some custom code written in Python to listen for OSC cues from the same Qlab and translate them to low-level OSC to the X32 over wired Ethernet
(4) Run some OTHER custom code written in Python to listen for MIDI DAW-control CCs from the X32 and convert them to OSC to pass over WiFi to a Mac Mini and thence over MIDI to my trusty old Yamaha 01V in the band

My concern is that this is too much for the computer, although in initial tests, recording 32 tracks (48K 24bit) with Reaper only used 25% CPU, and the disk bandwidth is only about ~4.5MB/s which should be nothing for an internal SATA drive which reports about 30MB/s read or write with Blackmagic Disk Speed Test.

As I am only recording *to* the computer, I have cranked up the buffer size (several tens of ms latency) which I assumed would make it more reliable?

As one additional layer of complexity, I plan to try to make Qlab spit out some kind of MIDI message on the live cue triggers and record those alongside the audio as a MIDI track in Reaper/Tracktor, and then, in post, somehow play that MIDI track back into Qlab to recreate the audio for the 4 additional Qlab outputs, given that I cannot record them live (not coming into X32 main channels) with the assumption that any latency in this process would be constant (so I could just slide the fresh SFX audio to match that heard on the ambient mics which WILL come into X32 channels and be recorded as audio).

Am I mad? Will this be too much for the machine? I'd hate to commit to it, and then get glitches which spoil the recording, or (worse) mess up the live shows.

I can maybe get hold of a second computer and multi-channel audio output, and run Qlab on that with analog audio to X32 Aux 1-4, but I'd like to avoid it.

Plenty of time for testing. Just thought I'd ask here for a reality check.
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

My brand new shiny macbook pro has been "dropping out" during recording sessions. I'm thinking I need more ram, in your case strongly advise you road test the hell out of it before show time!!!! If mine wigs out over an 18 channel recording does Not bode well.
 
I lead a worship team at my church. I just last night taxed my MacBook Pro the most that I have in the past. It's a late 2011 model, with the Core i7, SSD with the original spinning drive in place of the CD drive, and 16gb of ram.

I recorded 24 channels into Pro Tools to the internal spinning drive while also running our music tracks, which is 4 separate channels playing back from Ableton Live and Reason, all over Dante. Not a hiccup in performance, but I didn't monitor usage, so I couldn't five you those numbers.

This will at least give you a little idea of what's possible, albeit with a newer generation machine.

Sent from my SCH-I605 2
 
My brand new shiny macbook pro has been "dropping out" during recording sessions. I'm thinking I need more ram, in your case strongly advise you road test the hell out of it before show time!!!! If mine wigs out over an 18 channel recording does Not bode well.

What is your configuration of the MacBook?

USB uses lots more computes than FireWire or Ethernet. The i7 chips do streaming better than the i5 chips. Lots of memory is a must. Not using the internal disk for recording is best. Some DAWs are much leaner than others.

I have one with the i7 chips, 8gb ram and use an external FireWire 800 disk and Dante into Reaper. Oh, it still runs Snow Leopard.

Sent from my iPad HD
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

I definitely second the excess memory and external drive remarks. The external drive allows your playback to be dedicated to the internal drive, and the memory allows you to use such a buffer. 4GB can do it- but seriously, do 8 or even 16 if you can.
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

I definitely second the excess memory and external drive remarks. The external drive allows your playback to be dedicated to the internal drive, and the memory allows you to use such a buffer. 4GB can do it- but seriously, do 8 or even 16 if you can.

What is your actual experience with this setup? What recording software do you use while simultaneously playing back audio? What buffer size worked for you?

Mac
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

What is your actual experience with this setup? What recording software do you use while simultaneously playing back audio? What buffer size worked for you?

Mac

I used to record 16 channels off an old board into an 2009 MacBook Pro, just into Logic at a friend's gigs. It would consistently complain about the drive being too slow after 30 minutes depending on what else I was doing on the computer at the time. First solution I had was to increase the buffer size, but that eats up memory. That particular computer used to have 2GB of ram, and if I tried increasing the buffer size more than the defaults that Logic spat out at me, I found that the computer was then incapacitated due to pretty much no extra memory to use for anything else. Logically (heheh) the answer to that became having a faster drive, so I got a few FW800 drives (most were 100GB or so at 7200 RPM) and that fixed the issues I was having with the drive being "too slow." That was fine and dandy until we tried to use some of the effects from the live effects portions of Logic one show. As soon as we started recording live, the computer decided that it was out of memory, and started paging... everything. The thing became completely un usable, and the thing not only stopped recording, but froze to the point that we did, in fact, have to force it to shut down and start over. A different band member had broken his MacBook Pro of the same model (they got them together, how nice)- but he had gotten a more expensive one with 4GB of memory. We stuck it in, and we were able to do both. We also had less delay at the end of recording for the drive to "catch up" with the input, if you will.

Now, granted, it is a different application, but it has the same ideas behind it. I was able to get away with 19 inputs, all recorded, processing on 3 of them, to 3 outputs, with an external drive and 4GB of memory, all of them at 16 bit/44.1k. He's trying to get 32 in, as well as 4+ outputs used for SFX cues. Only reason I suggested the 16 GB was because that pretty much frees up enough extra memory to deal with the added sound cues accurately and properly timed (we sometimes had issues with excessive latency in our returns), in addition to any other random background programs that may or may not come on during the gig. I just feel that without the external drive/extra memory that the SFX may lag behind what he is used to.

And I am terribly sorry, but I don't remember what the buffer size was.
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

Not sure who "mackerr"'s question was aimed at. I'm only just putting the system together, so mostly I'm speculating just based on my experience as a software engineer...

I concur with the fear that a slow hard drive might cause glitches if QLab decides it needs to go off and load a multi-megabyte audio file to play next while Reaper is recording 32 tracks.

I will run a lot more tests, but in the meantime I decided to solve the slow drive problem by doing what I've been planning to do to that computer for a while now anyway, which is to replace the mechanical hard drive with a 240GB SSD, which I just ordered.

I'll let you all know how I get on, if you're still interested...
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

Not sure who "mackerr"'s question was aimed at.

Look at this post. See where it says your name where I quote your message? Now look back at Macs post and see to whom he was replying. It's right there in black and blue.....
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

Meanwhile, back at the OP....

i think your machine will work. I'm using a 4core PowerPC mac to record from two X32s simultaneously. Using reaper I record 48 tracks in 90 minute chunks for our Sunday morning church services. My machine compares very closely with yours performance wise. In fact, on Mac Benchmarks our machines are right next to one another. I use a second internal drive to track to now, but I used to use the system drive with no problems.

You might want to consider using a second small interface to record the 6 tracks of playback audio on reaper rather than try to recue it later. You can run multiple interfaces on a Mac very easily. Seems simpler than dealing with recording the MIDI. but that's your call.
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

My brand new shiny macbook pro has been "dropping out" during recording sessions. I'm thinking I need more ram, in your case strongly advise you road test the hell out of it before show time!!!! If mine wigs out over an 18 channel recording does Not bode well.

what makes you think you need more ram? restart your machine and that resets the activity monitor. do whatever heavy lifting you were doing and then check the activity monitor. if you dont have any or much activity in the page outs category, you dont need more ram. 4-8gb is plenty for most uses especially if you dont have 20 applications and 30 browser windows open.
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

What is your configuration of the MacBook?

USB uses lots more computes than FireWire or Ethernet. The i7 chips do streaming better than the i5 chips. Lots of memory is a must. Not using the internal disk for recording is best. Some DAWs are much leaner than others.

I assume you mean the internal hard drive yes? Tis interesting, I would have thought sending the audio data down USB would create a bottle neck? It's doable with this software, shall have to give it a try.

what makes you think you need more ram? restart your machine and that resets the activity monitor. do whatever heavy lifting you were doing and then check the activity monitor. if you dont have any or much activity in the page outs category, you dont need more ram. 4-8gb is plenty for most uses especially if you dont have 20 applications and 30 browser windows open.

Just voodoo really, my last mac (5 years old before dying) was hotted up with extra ram and it never gave me any grief ever. Being that this one is benefiting from 5 years of development and progress (and comes with the same amount of ram) I thought it would be better, it's certainly not "Just Working". Will check out the activity monitor and see what's going on.
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

I installed my new SSD drive this morning. It feels like a new machine. Then I hooked it up to the X32, and recorded 32 tracks for about an hour in Reaper, while hammering Qlab with all sorts of complex stuff, outputting to four channels back to the X32 (Card 1-4 -> Aux In 1-4) and it never once went over about 30% CPU according to iStat Pro, and the recorded audio was glitch-free. Given that my disk read and write bandwidths (according to Blackmagic Disk Speed Test) are now both of the order of 200MB/s, I would hope that sustaining a 4.5MB/s continuous write while doing other stuff is going to be much of a problem. More testing to follow, of course.

OK, so I kinda answered my own question, but thanks for the confidence boost anyway, guys! :)
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

I installed my new SSD drive this morning. It feels like a new machine. Then I hooked it up to the X32, and recorded 32 tracks for about an hour in Reaper, while hammering Qlab with all sorts of complex stuff, outputting to four channels back to the X32 (Card 1-4 -> Aux In 1-4) and it never once went over about 30% CPU according to iStat Pro, and the recorded audio was glitch-free. Given that my disk read and write bandwidths (according to Blackmagic Disk Speed Test) are now both of the order of 200MB/s, I would hope that sustaining a 4.5MB/s continuous write while doing other stuff is going to be much of a problem. More testing to follow, of course.

OK, so I kinda answered my own question, but thanks for the confidence boost anyway, guys! :)

great, now I have SSD envy. Thanks a lot ! :)
 
Re: MacBook Pro Processing Bandwidth Reality Check

My brand new shiny macbook pro has been "dropping out" during recording sessions. I'm thinking I need more ram, in your case strongly advise you road test the hell out of it before show time!!!! If mine wigs out over an 18 channel recording does Not bode well.

Just a thought, what audio sequenzer do you use? Studio One?
If so, maybe look into this-->
Studio One 2.5.2 now available!