Anyone using it with a new Macbook Pro yet?

Hi,

I will be using Cubase 6, Wavelab 7 and lots of sample libraries (Kontakt, Vienna Instruments, Eastwest Play). I guess Thunderbolt will help in running these libraries as well.

Yes, I know, I wouldn't bother for a Macbook Pro, but PC laptops are such a hit and miss procedure. How can I be sure that a PC laptop will work regarding FW chipsets, controllers, DPC Latency etc? I don't see anyone having to suggest a specific model unfortunately. While with the Macbook Pro's there is only a couple of models, so if it works for one, you know that it will work for you too.

Hello Daniel, we also met in Musikmesse

Well, that's why I am asking about the performance of RME UFX on a Macbook Pro(the new Sandy Bridge series).
I will be in UK for quite some time so I am not sure if the retailers in Greece could help. And apart from this, the 3XS laptops that they use, are not available for the time being.

So any comments on the performance of the Macbook Pro/ RME UFX would be more than welcome. I have also contacted support about this issue.

I am using RME Multiface II and I want to upgrade to a UFX but since this is going to be my mobile interface as well I am pretty concerned how it will work on my future laptop.

Well, your reply was quite useful Timur.

Do you have an 2011 MBP? Do you think it will be a good choice over another pc laptop?
I was wondering as well why does RME always use Macs in Musikmesse shows? Is it just because of "show off" on flashy macs, or do the interfaces work better on Macs? I am sure that someone from RME has tested a UFX on a 2011 Macbook Pro that's why I started the topic here.

First of all thank you for even suggesting running a test!

I have seen numerous benchmarks on how many Multiband compressors you can run on Cubase and how Windows outperform Macs in these benchmarks.

I really don't find this quite useful.
Although I do a lot of intense mixing with many plugins, I still believe the most important and demanding part is when I arrange.
So a test that would make sense in my case is how many VSTi's can you run (Omnispheres for example) without crackles and pops and at what latency. I would for example take a heavy Omnisphere (or other demanding VSTi) patch, record a three note chord and duplicate the part until crackles start to appear.

And the most important thing is how low can you go on latency when you play live a VSTi? Most of the time I choose to play safe with a 256 sample buffer on my Multiface II, however I KNOW I can get a lot lower if I want to, so if I record a Virtual drum kit or percussion elements and want even tighter timing, I lower the buffers to get even lower latency.

So the most important factor is live VST recording in low latencies. If I can achieve that on a MBP then I wouldn't mind switching to 512 or 1024 samples when mixing if this is absolutely needed.

When I tested the UC 2 years ago I built a test in Reaper and Logic that used instances of NI Reaktor's "Space Drone". I did not count the number of instances, but just made sure to load the CPU close to 100%.

Then I played and recorded through *all* I/Os of the UC at 48 samples on Windows and 32 samples on Logic without dropouts. This test was meant to prove that the RME USB driver/protocol is not a culprit.

Space Drone creates artificial noise and tones, it doesn't need much bandwidth like playing lots of samples through Kontakt, it just eats CPU cycles (and likely may even fit into the CPU cache). I had to trick Reaper to real-time CPU priority, but that's not the RME driver's fault.

The UFX uses the very same USB driver (maybe with some specifics for the UFX) and other than the higher number of I/Os I don't see why it should not work the same. In most real-life situations you won't get close to anything higher than 65% at low buffer setting, likely not even 50%. That is because most audio software and hardware won't allow that.

The drawback of current quad-core CPUs is that they start at a rather low clock-rate (2.3 on mine). And while they will use at least a single TurboBoost blib even when using all cores (3.1 gHz on mine) they will lower clock-rate when temperature increases. Running those 40 tracks (+reverb returns) in the Ableton Live test made my CPU run around 2.5 - 2.8 gHz. Since these values can change depending on fan-speed, ambient temperature and load you never know what your real maximum load is. On Windows you can turn off TurboBoost, but that leaves you stuck at 2.3 gHz (in my case).

That being said, for FX using 4x 2.3 gHz on an i7 (with a prospect to run up to 3.2) is still better than using 2x 2.8 on a Core2Duo.

Last but not least: The most compelling reasons to use a Macbook are either because you need OS X software or because you want to use it on-stage knowing that thousands of other musicians use the same computer. Other than that it might be worth taking a look at a specialized builder like Daniel suggested.

Main problem with off the shelf PC laptops is that you don't know what you get. So either you need to try through a couple of them until you are satisfied or get one from a dedicated builder.

Windows and all the day-to-day software is less of a problem. I'm still mostly using bootcamped Windows here and I install *everything*, including Quickbooks, Office, Games of various sorts, anti-virus (which I can keep active during audio application use), codecs for video/audio playback (watching films via a projector), remote access software for my clients (+VPN connections) and last but not least full internet access. None of all these applications has any negative impact on audio performance (active anti-virus could have, depending on which one you are using), especially since they are not active when I don't want to.