I'm curious why you guys need 96 GB or RAM. My ultrabook has 16 GB and can run DAWs pretty well.

In Doug's case, he's doing videos and all that RAM will allow his computer to hold larger videos in memory which results in faster editing and processing times.

In my own case, I'd want a lot of RAM because I use quite a few VST instruments that have very large libraries. Things would run smoother and with fewer hiccups if the computer could hold the bulk of those in memory while I'm using them.

I understand your implied point that at some number it's overkill but I'd rather have too much RAM than too little.

Yeah, for most audio, this is all overkill. But when you're editing 7 cameras worth of multi-cam video, it's a different story. I'll probably wish I had more of everything after a while. For audio, if you're using something like the East-West instrument library, you might want more memory. I didn't actually do any detailed analysis of memory use, tho - it just seemed like the sweet spot to add 64G for $200 to the 32 that came with the box.

No doubt someone simply doing a simple stereo solo instrumental guitar production, or even a stereo guitar and a vocal,
or even with a few over dubs, is not likely to use even 16 GB of Ram ............... BUT

The reality is that here on little old AGF, we have such a wide variation of usage situations , that the notion of "one size fits all" is non existent.

As noted multi-cam video will eat up huge chunks of RAM, and multi VI instruments will eat up large amounts also.

Even my own audio productions with say two mono acoustic guitar rhythm tracks and a Bus , four mono acoustic lead and riff tracks and a Bus , 4 Electric guitar and riff tracks two with 4 playlist version each and a Bus , two other VI tracks and Bus with 4 playlists versions, 8 mono VI drum kit tracks and Bus , a mono lead vocal track with 4 playlists, and a Bus , 4 mono background vocal track with 4 playlist each and a Bus.
All playing back simultaneously is going to push 16 gigs if I have it all loaded in RAM Even with my 24 GB RAM if I have significant editing going on there can be hundreds of edits and I have to purge them, or I get audio playback overload errors.

That said: I would probably opt for 48 GB

Apparently UA just announced LUNA at NAMM which looks interesting for UA users
It is their own fully integrated DAW free to UA hardware owners. Currently for Mac only

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/pro...cording-system

It started quite a Mac vs Windows flame war.

But as for the product itself, I'm not even a little interested. The world didn't really need another DAW. After working with Pro Tools for 17 years, I'm not interested in learning how to do everything all over again. I think this DAW will mostly appeal to folks who are very new to the game. Also, there's a huge drawback that makes it a no-go even if I was interested: no hardware inserts.

No hardware inserts (didn't realise) that is kinda of a big deal to me as well .
Having my M7 and my 3U comp, I would not want to do without.

Well then perhaps this news will be interesting (if you didn't already know) "Folder Tracks" coming to PT.

I only just heard about Folder Tracks yesterday. I don't even know what that means.

Okay... I just looked up Folder Tracks. It would be mildly useful to me, not really a game changer but useful.

They are basically just like folders on ones desktop (which I use a lot to un clutter )
In this case they are a multi track organizational tool
No doubt the usefulness depends on the number of tracks one has in a session.

Essentially a nice easy way to minimize tracks you've grouped (at least that's how I'd envision using it). Or does it make grouping redundant?

Redundant ? I don't know for sure I have not used folders just read lots of comments, so just guessing.
But I think yes a quicker way to hide tracks and clean up a multi-track session, but still see the folder tracks as opposed to say group hide.
But the folder track would also have to have things like solo and mute etc. to really displace groups. It will be interesting to see how they actually work

With only a brief read, it seems similar to routing a bunch of tracks to a bus, so you can then treat a submix as a single entity. But with a somewhat simpler UI?

Final Cut has a similar concept (again, I think...) of Composite Clips, where you can take a collection of video clips along with indiivdual edits, effects and so on, the turn them into a single clip, which you can further manipulate, while still being able to drill down on the underlying elements and make changes as well. Useful at times.

That it will. I wonder when we'll see it. AVID likes to tease things for a long time before delivering. But even when it comes out, I'll probably wait a bit before I update. I still haven't even done the last update for either AVID or UAD.

Seems like I read (somewhere) perhaps as much as 90 days (which would fall within FTC regulations) .