Apple’s updated Mac Pro will arrive next year and not before

If you'd asked me around this time last year, I might have told you that Apple had apparently lost its interest in the professional market altogether. Instead, last April the company announced that not only was it readying up the iMac Pro, but that a new Mac Pro was also in the works. It's been a year now, so you could be forgiven for asking where it is. TechCrunch was one of a few outlets that was recently invited to talk to Apple about the future of its Pro offerings. Here's the short version: the new, modular Mac Pro "will not arrive before 2019."

To assuage the concerns of Pro users who feel left out in the cold, Apple says it has created a group called the Pro Workflow Team. While this is the first time it's been mentioned publicly, the team has apparently been hard at work working directly with both hired and contracted creators to figure out exactly what sort of hardware and software Pro users need. Also, by working directly with users, Apple can tease out the sort of niggling performance problems that don't show up in your usual type of benchmark. 

The idea is that Apple will take the lessons learned by the Pro Workflow Team and apply them to the new Mac Pro. That all sounds great, but unfortunately Apple didn't really have anything interesting to share about the upcoming hardware itself. John Ternus, Apple's VP of hardware engineering and head of the Pro Workflow Team, says that the machine will definitely be based on a modular design and that a new display is also coming, but aside from that there's precious little information about what kind of hardware could end up in the next Mac Pro.

While some might view this announcement as an acknowledgement of a delay, that's not the case, according to Ternus. TechCrunch quotes him as saying "I don't think the timeline has fundamentally changed." When Apple announced a revised Mac Pro last year, the company was clear that the machine was not slated for release in 2017, but didn't go so far as to say it would be out in 2018 either. Given Apple's typical caginess regarding new products, we'll probably have to wait until next year to hear anything else.

Comments closed
    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    I’m conflicted. I mean, of course the 5 year old CPU sucks.

    But after [b<]FIVE YEARS[/b<] of Fine Wine (TM) GPU development*, those double-Radeon GPUs are probably 50 - 100 times faster than a GV100 that retails for $9000. So in that sense these systems should never receive an upgrade to just let the GPU power go up and up. * Don't believe me? It's called "compound interest" Nvidia fanboys.

    • ermo
    • 2 years ago

    If I wanted a macOS capable workstation, I’d just build a [url=https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersguide/april/2018/<]customac[/url<] and get on with it. Alternatively, one could build a 1950X box with whatever GPU, audio and network card needed to do the job and then boot to linux on a secondary GPU/monitor and install [url=https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM<]macOS in KVM[/url<] while assigning the designated macOS hardware to the VM. The newest AMD CPUs should support all the CPU extensions used by macOS, so this should be able to yield a surprisingly potent macOS workstation on the cheap.

      • Norphy
      • 2 years ago

      I’m sorry but if you need to run macOS on anything other than a toy, building a Hackintosh or a customac or whatever you want to call it is a bad idea. As is running macOS as a VM on anything other than Apple hardware. Here are the problems as I see them:

      1) Lets address the big one first. Licensing and legality. Whether you like it or not, running macOS on a computer which hasn’t been manufactured by Apple is breaking the macOS EULA. That includes running it in a VM if the VM isn’t being run on a Mac. If you’re using this computer for work, you run the risk of being caught and sued for using unlicensed software. It’s not unheard of for organisations like FAST and the BSA to do this. Saying “I need newer hardware than what Apple provide” is not going to sway them here

      2) Although I understand it’s becoming rarer these days, it’s not exactly unheard of for a macOS update to completely break Hackintoshes. You can’t guarantee that third party hardware that you buy will work 100% with macOS either.

      3) Support. You as an individual might not care about support that much but if you’re using this in a professional setting and something stops working, you may need to contact Apple or the software vendor for some support. The first thing they will ask will be either “What’s the serial number of your Mac?” or “What hardware are you running this on?”. If you say “Hackintosh” to either of them, at best they’ll say “I’m sorry, this isn’t a supported configuration”

      4) If your Hackintosh did go wrong due to being a Hackintosh and you had to spend time working around the problem, how much money would you lose while you were spending time fixing it instead of actually doing proper work? Probably more than the cost difference between the Hackintosh and a real Mac.

        • ermo
        • 2 years ago

        Those are all legitimate concerns.

        It goes without saying that doing Real Work(tm) on anything but proper Apple hardware will always be a gamble for exactly the reasons you outline.

        Hence why I wouldn’t *EVER* want to put myself in a position where I’d be dependent on the macOS ecosystem, given their attitude towards the Mac Pro audience (and their attitude towards their macOS user base for the past 5 years).

          • Norphy
          • 2 years ago

          [quote<]Hence why I wouldn't *EVER* want to put myself in a position where I'd be dependent on the macOS ecosystem, given their attitude towards the Mac Pro audience (and their attitude towards their macOS user base for the past 5 years).[/quote<] As much as I like macOS and Macs in general, I can't even begin to disagree with that statement. I'd like to think that Apple are going to change their attitude but I doubt that they will 🙁

            • tipoo
            • 2 years ago

            Here’s hoping they do and the last few years are just the dark days that will soon be forgotten, with their pro workflow team showing they’re willing to spend in that area.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        You’re making an excellent case for never doing anything beefy and mission-critical on macs. What other vendor makes you choose between modern hardware and support?

          • Norphy
          • 2 years ago

          Beefy, I can agree with, assuming you’re not willing to spend £5k on an iMac Pro.

          Mission critical is a little unfair. Macs have been pretty stable IME and just because the Mac Pro is old, it doesn’t mean it’s not any good.

    • Anonymous Coward
    • 2 years ago

    Yeah, they’re just waiting for an ARM chip that beats the old model, so they can put up some comparative benches. It will be completely circular, with one port, which handles all IO, power and cooling, and it will have no buttons.

    • anubis44
    • 2 years ago

    The delay is likely caused by Apple’s decision to use AMD processors instead of Intel’s.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 2 years ago

      If it takes Apple 2+ years to figure out how to integrate OS X on a platform that uses the same X 86 and X 64 instruction sets as their current platform, they may as well throw in the towel now.

    • tipoo
    • 2 years ago

    2013-2019, golly that’s an astounding gap in silicon terms. It would be hard at this point, through their own fault, to just cram updated components in a standardish desktop tower, because then everyone would wonder what took that so damn long. Time for that turnaround was 2015-2016.

    But, I take a bit of heart from their pro workflow team, that they’re investing heavily in hiring pro developers to test workflows and adapt for them shows a commitment to the mac while people were doubting it.

    I’m hoping the Mac Pro allows more min/maxing than the iMac, i.e my workflow will eat all the CPU I give it for data science but doesn’t need Navi Pro GPUs with HBM2 adding to the cost.

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      Even more amazing considering that the 2013 wasn’t much of an upgrade over a decked out 2010 model. Main benefits continues to be AVX support with PCIe storage and video card upgrades possible on the older model.

      • blastdoor
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]I'm hoping the Mac Pro allows more min/maxing than the iMac, i.e my workflow will eat all the CPU I give it for data science but doesn't need Navi Pro GPUs with HBM2 adding to the cost[/quote<] Amen. I would much rather have 2 CPU sockets and a single midrange GPU. The 2013 model was totally misaligned with my needs.

        • spiketheaardvark
        • 2 years ago

        Everyone talks about modularity allowing for upgrades. Perhaps more importantly is the customizablity that it allows. It lets you spend money on the performance you need and not on the performance that some else needs.

    • dragontamer5788
    • 2 years ago

    Hmmm, its kind of sad that Apple is languishing their true hardcore fans.

    I remember back in the early 00s when Apple was in dire straights. Apple fans were always about how much more powerful and better performance their PowerPC Macs were than Intel. They would edit videos or pictures way faster than normal Windows machines.

    I’d argue that the mindset of “professional artist” was what allowed Apple to grow into the iPod / iPad eventually. Sure, the niche is relatively small, but “Professional Artists” are a core part of Apple identity.

    If Apple loses them, then its going to have to shift its identity somehow.

      • tipoo
      • 2 years ago

      I’m hoping that differentiation in chips is something they can win back with the ARM switch. Only unlike Power, where they were very heavily cherry picking scenarios to look good and brag about a lot of the time.

      The risk there is if they ever fall behind Intel chips, it’s a bad look when they can’t just put the fastest chips in their Macs. It would need a sizable and consistent commitment to providing the best chips, not something where they can just forget about updates for a few years by accident.

        • blastdoor
        • 2 years ago

        Great points

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        Considering the delays they have in getting out a Mac Pro update, I think it safe to say they stopped caring about looking bad.

        Rather the situation right now is just sad and embarrassing.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    The passage of time always seems to be the consistent weak spot in Apple’s ARM-or.

    • hubick
    • 2 years ago

    This is, like, the textbook example of why you shouldn’t lock yourself in to a single vendor.

    • ludi
    • 2 years ago

    Apple has variously produced Macs as a tissue box, a flatscreen Pixar lamp, an actual computer chassis, and a trash can. I assume the 2019 Pro model’s form factor will be a hot contest between a paper shredder and a potted plant.

      • DPete27
      • 2 years ago

      (looks around office for ideas) A stapler would be neat!!

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        Where is my stapler?

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          Sometimes I tell myself, “[url=https://youtu.be/FWhsuqFj8kU?t=1m54s<]This is not my beautiful stapler![/url<]" Sometimes I tell myself, "This is not my beautiful chair!" (yes I got the Milton reference, but I rejected it for something...well, Weird.)

            • dpaus
            • 2 years ago

            I can’t believe you’re that old…

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            I was (checks Wikipedia) eight years old when Polka Party came out, but I distinctly remember it was the only thing I could think of that I wanted for Christmas that year. I got it on cassette.

            • dpaus
            • 2 years ago

            I got it on 8-track. Get off my lawn!

          • Wirko
          • 2 years ago

          It’s still there, hidden behind that large shiny fruit-like badge, see?

          • ludi
          • 2 years ago

          And the truly hilarious backstory…

          [url<]https://news.tinypulse.com/rb-the-surprising-history-of-the-red-swingline-stapler-20429/[/url<]

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            What’s really unfortunate is that the official Swingline 747 in Rio Red looks nothing like the red Swingline from Office Space. Worse, the most recent Amazon reviews complain of constant jams. I have the Swingline from the movie, except in black (edit: something like [url=https://www.swingline.com/us/us/6453/s7064601g/swingline-durable-desk-stapler-antimicrobial-20-sheets-black<]this one[/url<], only older and with the Swingline logo on the side, like Milton's), and it's an amazing stapler. I'll live with the black rather than get the red and then deal with QC issues. Not ashamed to admit that I might have borrowed this stapler from a job when I got laid off. They were closing down the office and my manager encouraged people to just take whatever they wanted since the rest had to be shipped to Mobile, AL. I took a couple chairs, too.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 2 years ago

            I used a gray Swingline 747S at work for decades. The Swingline is solidly built and it staples and clinches more reliably than [b<]any[/b<] Boston stapler that I have ever encountered. However, the ergonomics of the [url=https://paperpro.com/<]Paper Pro[/url<] Prodigy make it my current favorite. We managed to wear one out in just five years of daily use, but the reduced effort makes this a better stapler, even if it won't last for decades. The Prodigy's spring discharge does make a distinctive "click" that Swingline's Optima reduced effort staplers do not.

      • just brew it!
      • 2 years ago

      I vote one of those white cardboard Chinese take-out cartons.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    Any chance one of these upcoming Macs will use Ryzen? Threadripper, perhaps? Or 8C Ryzen models?

      • End User
      • 2 years ago

      No. It will ship with an Apple designed 64-bit ARM-based SoC.

        • blastdoor
        • 2 years ago

        Well…. might as well.

        I mean, by 2019 they will pretty much be a new entrant into the high-end workstation market. So they might as well go nuts and just do whatever they want.

          • DancinJack
          • 2 years ago

          It won’t be ARM based. EU is just hoping and praying, trying to convince the rest of the world.

            • blastdoor
            • 2 years ago

            Yeah, given that they appear to have started work on this last year, 2019 is actually too soon to have a high end ARM CPU designed and produced.

            The fact that Apple has recommitted themselves to the high-end workstation market is great, but it’s so bizarre that they neglected it so badly in the first place. Somebody just really screwed up.

            • tipoo
            • 2 years ago

            Had it been a subordinate, I can’t see a screw up of this scale leaving them…Particularly employed. This makes me think it came straight from the top, almost like a pure logistics guy became CEO and noted that X amount invested in iPhone meant more revenue return than the Mac Pro ever will, or even all macs…

            But, they seem to be listening, so hopefully the ship is righted.

            • End User
            • 2 years ago

            Who said they started down this path last year?

            • K-L-Waster
            • 2 years ago

            Who said they didn’t?

            In the absence of hard data, anyone can speculate any date they want.

            • the
            • 2 years ago

            Apple did pretty much [url=https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives<]here[/url<].

            • dodozoid
            • 2 years ago

            I fail to see where EU fits in Apple considering switching to ARM. And I really doubt that if they ever do, they would be starting with Pro line which is the most sensitive and conservative one…

      • blastdoor
      • 2 years ago

      I’d say maybe a 1% chance or less.

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        Apple has been close to using AMD before. Best evidence is the existence of VLIW4 drives for the AMD cards. Only two chips used VLIW: the Radeon 6900 series which Apple didn’t use and the Llano SoC which Apple didn’t use. Out of those two, it was rumored Llano was going to go into a MacBook class system.

          • blastdoor
          • 2 years ago

          I think AMD would have to offer better performance/watt than Intel and they’d have to demonstrate they can reliably deliver. So far, that hasn’t happened (at least not since Netbust days) and I see no reason to think it will anytime soon.

            • Spunjji
            • 2 years ago

            AMD’s GPUs don’t offer better performance per watt over their Nvidia competitors and haven’t for a few generations, but Apple have still been using those. Honestly when it comes to Apple choosing CPUs I’m pretty sure it’s more about volume of supply and ease of implementation.

            • blastdoor
            • 2 years ago

            For whatever reason, Apple decided to push OpenCL pretty hard. I think that’s why they are with AMD (and probably AMD gives them a great price).

            Apple’s priority with Macs has been thin, thin, thin. Performance/watt definitely matters.

          • brucethemoose
          • 2 years ago

          VLIW4 was Trinity/Richland, Llano was VLIW5 just like the 5000-series cards.

          Frankly, Trinity was pretty bad. Llano was actually decent, but they were binned terribly and had other supply issues. Which, unfortunately, means neither of them were even close to viable for Apple.

      • Growler
      • 2 years ago

      Based on their long history of ignoring AMD’s existence, I’m going to go with “no”.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      Doubtful, as it would hurt Apple’s premium brand.

      • brucethemoose
      • 2 years ago

      EPYC would be a excellent choice for big form factor Mac Pros.

      Likely? Nope.

    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<] To assuage the concerns of Pro users who feel left out in the cold, Apple says it has created a group called the Pro Workflow Team. While this is the first time it's been mentioned publicly, the team has apparently been hard at work working directly with both hired and contracted creators to figure out exactly what sort of hardware and software Pro users need. Also, by working directly with users, Apple can tease out the sort of niggling performance problems that don't show up in your usual type of benchmark. [/quote<] Hardware requirements: Anything newer than 2013 tech. Known performance problem: the CPU and GPU of the current design are FIVE YEARS OLD. I jest, of course. If Apple releases straightforward hardware on a regular cadence, its buyers might catch on that they're just selling computers and balk at their premiums.

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      Could be six years old by the time it ships too. The 2013 Mac Pro started shipping in December but Apple first showed off the system in June’s WWDC.

      As far as cadence goes, upgrades in the Xeon line up are shifting toward an 18 month to two year cycle so development effort that used to be needed is thinning out.

        • UberGerbil
        • 2 years ago

        The hilarious thing is that Apple could skip every other generation of Xeons and still be on an upgrade cycle that’s significantly faster than what they’re actually doing.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          Maybe Apple hasn’t heard of DIY PC building before, and doesn’t realize that there are standards that they could use very cheaply. Derp. There’s no reason to skip every other generation, since it should just be a CPU swap to get the next one. They can just keep the same motherboard and use these cool “socketed” CPUs. If they’d just use standard PCI-Express cards, it’ll be easy to get graphics upgrades, too.

          • the
          • 2 years ago

          That is what is most enraging as just upgrading what they currently have, while not ideal for professionals, would have been better than all the nothing Apple has been doing in the mean time.

      • ET3D
      • 2 years ago

      You mean, like they caught on to the MacBook and iPhone?

      • Spunjji
      • 2 years ago

      I’m pretty sure professional users have been yelling at them on their forums about what they need for years now. The idea that they had to create a whole team for it (as opposed to, you know, just looking at what the rest of the market is doing) is laughably Apple.

    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]To assuage the concerns of [b<]it's only remaining Pro user, Hank Williams of Seattle, Washington[/b<].[/quote<] I caught a typographical error in this article.

      • BIF
      • 2 years ago

      “the concerns of [b<]it's[/b<] only remaining Pro user" I love the game "Fun With Typographical Errors", especially when one helpfully flags one as a typographical error WITH one's own typographical error! Now that's creativity! Caps omitted for clarity... "it's" is a contraction. Always. Short for "it is". "It's" not possessive. "its" is the possessive. Always. That is "its" super power. Always and forevermore. That's just the way it's. ...okay, English is really confusing! 😉 Next week, let's talk about "a lot" versus "alot". And don't forget, the month of May is "Were, Where, We're, Wear, and Ware" month! 😛

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        [url=https://www.diablowiki.net/Diablo_III_Easter_Eggs#Alot<]Blizzard gets it[/url<].

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        (It was a joke, not a typo in the article. Calibrate your humor sensors, human.)

        Please give grammar lessons to my phone’s Swype keyboard! Its prone to selecting the wrong form of words.

    • NTMBK
    • 2 years ago

    Bloody hell Apple, just ship [i<]something[/i<]. Even the trashcan chassis with Skylake-X processor and Vega GPUs would have been a worthwhile improvement. Just. Do. It.

      • Norphy
      • 2 years ago

      While you’re at it, update the Mac Mini as well please. Haswell CPUs are still good but we’re now four generations on from that line. Some quad or hex core Coffee Lake CPUs in that line would be [i<]most[/i<] welcome, as would ThunderBolt 3. Oh and while we're at it, socketed RAM in there as well please. But on that count, I suspect I'd probably have more chance of getting a gold plated unicorn out of them.

      • blastdoor
      • 2 years ago

      They did ship the iMac Pro …

      How would trash can with upgraded Xeon be better than that? Isn’t that more or less wha the iMac Pro is?

        • the
        • 2 years ago

        28 cores vs. 18 cores
        1.5 TB vs. 256 GB memory support
        128 GB/sec vs. 85 GB/sec peak memory bandwidth
        [s<]No PCIe switches necessary vs. required for IO[/s<] Dual 10 Gbit Ethernet vs. single 10 Gbit Ethernet 6 Thunderbolt 3 ports vs. 4 ports in the iMac Pro Native HDMI 2.0 output vs. HDMI 2.0 output via adapter. An upgraded trash can would also likely support newer GPUs. Even at lower clocks to fit into the trash can, there would be two of them for more aggregate performance than what the iMac Pro offs. Apple likely wouldn't utilize the high end Xeon's with Omnipath fabric. However, if Intel did get around to releasing models with on package FPGA's as they've hinted at in the past, Apple could leverage them in an updated Mac Pro using socket 3647. (The iMac Pro's socket 2066 socket will not be getting FPGA options). Edit: Actually neither a socket 3647 based Mac Pro or the current iMac Pro need any PCIe switches for components.

          • blastdoor
          • 2 years ago

          Good points, and a very complete answer.

          Still, though… the iMacPro isn’t nothing, and it does address a lot of needs. The number of people who would have benefited from having a single core system with more than 18 cores has to be pretty small.

          To me the larger irony here is that if Apple would have just kept making the obvious incremental improvements to the big old aluminum tower they probably would have been fine. But that’s hardly an original point — I guess that’s what just about everyone is saying, one way or another.

            • the
            • 2 years ago

            The real alternate universe question here: if Apple kept the tower design going, would there even be a need for the iMac Pro?

            • blastdoor
            • 2 years ago

            Hmm… I’ll say no “need” but they might have done it anyway because it is kind of cool.

      • tay
      • 2 years ago

      I agree, not sure why they couldn’t just do a spec bump for the trashcan and sell that for 2 years starting last year. The iMac Pro could be a stopgap for a lot of people, but it would’ve been simpler to spec bump the trashcan than make a better iMac I think.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      If Mac Buyers realize that these are PCs full of commodity parts instead of computer masterpieces, the premium will be gone.

    • not@home
    • 2 years ago

    By the time it comes out, 90% of the people that would buy it will have already bought something else.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      Something else running Windows.

        • tipoo
        • 2 years ago

        WWDC talk topic: How to lose an age group of future 3D/UHD video and content creators

          • the
          • 2 years ago

          Is that before or after the talk on ‘how to walk after shooting yourself in both feet via hardware design?’

      • UberGerbil
      • 2 years ago

      I don’t know. Back in the PowerMac era, the media-production part of the world stayed glued to their increasingly-antiquated Macs despite the obviously better performance of PCs running the same software. Of course the landscape is very different now vs then, but the loyalty / lock-in is still there. There’s a whole tool-chain of software they’ve bought into that runs on the Mac, and not all of it is available in PC versions. Equivalents are available, but people have to evaluate and adopt them, and then adjust their workflow and training to incorporate them. People hate that.

      Some will defect, especially now that they know they’re going to be treading water for at least another year waiting on Apple — for the real time-is-money content-producers, who have already been itching for something for a while, that’s enough time to make the switch and have it pay off — but some will just grit their teeth and wrap their arms around their BoatAnchor But Beloved Macs.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        What’s left as Apple-only? From my understanding most of the graphics, publishing, and video editing folks have since moved on. Is audio still a Mac Pro bastion?

          • the
          • 2 years ago

          Some users still swear by Final Cut Pro which is obviously Apple only.

          Audio still has a niche on the Mac though most major audio applications are cross platform. Apple does provide built-in AVB drivers for audio over Ethernet for the past couple of years which gives it a huge leg up in some scenarios where as getting the same on Windows requires a special NIC and software.

          • DancinJack
          • 2 years ago

          iOS development is Mac only. That’s a lot of people.

            • brucethemoose
            • 2 years ago

            Do you really need alot of hardware grunt for that?

            • Redocbew
            • 2 years ago

            Probably not. I doubt there’s many developers buying Mac Pros, and honestly I didn’t even know there was an iMac Pro until recently, but even if it’s just laptops that’s still a lot of machines sold from Apple.

            • UberGerbil
            • 2 years ago

            No — a lot of mobile devs I know do their iOS builds on Macbooks; among those who don’t use Apple laptops, an antiquated Mac Mini is usually sufficient for doing the job. But Kretschmer merely asked what was Apple-only, and (hackintoshes and VM trickery aside) iOS development certainly is.

          • dpaus
          • 2 years ago

          A lot of theatre-production tools (QPro, et al) are still Mac only. But I’m seeing the newer generation of users of these tools actually see that as a negative. There’s a good market in Mac-with-software rental programs for that crowd, because few of them can afford to buy a new one for just that use.

            • UberGerbil
            • 2 years ago

            Interesting.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 2 years ago

          For some, audio production is a Mac-only thing, but some of the best DAW software out there is cross-platform. Still, Core Audio is easier to deal with than ASIO, and it’s dead simple to get low-latency output from a Mac. Much easier than on a PC where built-in audio doesn’t have low-latency drivers with exclusive access.

          On the other end of the spectrum, there’s a pretty robust selection of Thunderbolt audio interfaces out there, but basically nobody needs them. Even moderately large studios can get by on 12-16 inputs (less, if you don’t mind moving stuff around…but it seems like if you want close mics on the drums, you need 8 or 10 anyhow), and you can get those from a Presonus StudioLive mixer.

          Even on my Mac, though, I’m using StudioOne and a Presonus 44VSL. The few times I’ve mic’d up a drum kit it was mono overhead, mono room mic, kick, and snare. It makes the sounds I like, so it’s fine, though I hold no ill will towards those who go all out. Either way, nothing ties me to macOS.

          And in fact, the last few recordings I have done were all voiceover things for work. Single condenser mic, pop filter, and Audacity is enough for that. 😆

      • the
      • 2 years ago

      By the time it comes out, they could have migrated over to Windows and then replaced that box before Apple ships something new. The professional side of things typically has a 3 to 4 year upgrade cycle so if users jumped ship in 2014-2015, they’re probably getting a new box this year.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This