A huge change looks to be coming for the recording industry

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Unique to one company? Not in comparison to Jobs-era Apple.

I have no idea if you answered 'yes' or 'no' to my question which had nothing to do with Apple but was really about the word "innovation."

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I have no idea if you answered 'yes' or 'no' to my question which had nothing to do with Apple but was really about the word "innovation."

Oh, I was sticking to the thread topic, and the other poster’s comment about Apple.

Your question, “Is there no innovation in the history of automobiles?” was a straw man. Of course there’s been innovation in every product category.

The word innovation simply means “new.” Of course there is new stuff all over the place all of the time. Most of this newness is incremental, and sometimes not necessarily progressive.

The earlier comment about Apple was about something being game changing. Not just new….but different in a meaningful way.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Correct. It’s still a car on wheels, over 100 years later. Not a flying car or swimming car.

Except you missed the actual point of that post which was "chosen personal perspective" of what innovation is or isn't .

Computers in some form were around since 1822 And without a string of already invented innovated and already developed computer tech,, Jobs might have been a Buddhist monk.

All he did was (to use your phrasing ) changed the "degree" of ease of use and practicality of an already developed product and tech...Just like Ford did and now Musk. And your wording "Most of this newness is incremental" perfectly describes exactly what Jobs did, and Ford and Musk, there is little if any objective distinction ... And I think it is inevitable that the pace of innovation tends to slow (until some basic change in tech happens) For example it is rumored Musk is trying to get away from the lithium ion battery, which could be a very significant and innovative change both environmentally and cost wise ...and maybe even efficiency wise ??

But the point still is:: It's entirely in the choice of personal perception of innovation

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Except you missed the actual point of that post which was "chosen personal perspective" of what innovation is or isn't .

Computers in some form were around since 1822 And without a string of already invented innovated and already developed computer tech,, Jobs might have been a Buddhist monk.

All he did was (to use your phrasing ) changed the "degree" of ease of use and practicality of an already developed product ...Just like Ford did and now Musk. And your wording "Most of this newness is incremental" perfectly describes what Jobs did ,

It's entirely in the perception of innovation

It’s all relative. I get it.

But I would prefer to hold to a distinction between innovations that happen by degree, and innovations that — whether by the accumulation of incremental degrees, or by a giant leap forward — amount to a fundamental change in the way the user does things.

Computers in some form have been around longer than you suggest. And smart phones existed before Apple got their hands on them. But it was Apple among others that created new objects that you could carry around with you, which would allow you to listen to music, communicate and access information in fundamentally new ways.

So I would not say a Tesla does that, although the cars that drive themselves, when all the bugs are ironed out, will change the way we live our lives to some degree, surely.

Back to the original point, I don’t think Apple is very innovative any longer.

But yeah. It’s all relative, like anything. This should not stop us from making meaningful distinctions where applicable.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

It’s all relative. I get it.

This should not stop us from making meaningful distinctions where applicable.

Except "making meaningful distinctions where applicable" is also kinda subjective . BUT in fact The Apple M series chip (post Jobs) has in fact caused a "fundamental change" in the way many audio engineers do things.

For one example they can now continue recording with adding more tracks and plugins working in real time (which allows for changing something later on) ---as opposed to having to stop and render the tracks to be able to add more tracks and plugins ----which not only takes longer but does not allow for changing later on (a very "fundamental" change for them ) .... So yes it's all relative to ones chosen perspective of meaningful distinctions ..

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

The word innovation simply means “new.” Of course there is new stuff all over the place all of the time. Most of this newness is incremental, and sometimes not necessarily progressive.

The earlier comment about Apple was about something being game changing. Not just new….but different in a meaningful way.

You seemed to take some exception when I said:

Originally Posted by jim1960

The M1 chip and its memory architecture has been a huge leap forward in processing power. That's seems pretty innovative to me.

As I'm reading how you're defining the word, I don't see why any exception should be taken.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by KevWind

For one example they can now continue recording with adding more tracks and plugins working in real time (which allows for changing something later on) ---as opposed to having to stop and render the tracks to be able to add more tracks and plugins ----which not only takes longer but does not allow for changing later on (a very "fundamental" change for them )

I'm not questioning this, but I'm curious as to how this a hardware issue and not a software issue. Can you explain?

Thanks.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Except "making meaningful distinctions where applicable" is also kinda subjective . BUT in fact The Apple M series chip (post Jobs) has in fact caused a "fundamental change" in the way many audio engineers do things.

For one example they can now continue recording with adding more tracks and plugins working in real time (which allows for changing something later on) ---as opposed to having to stop and render the tracks to be able to add more tracks and plugins ----which not only takes longer but does not allow for changing later on (a very "fundamental" change for them ) .... So yes it's all relative to ones chosen perspective of meaningful distinctions ..

Great to hear! I don’t know whether this is a big deal or not. I know nothing about sound engineering. I’ll take your word for it.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

I'm not questioning this, but I'm curious as to how this a hardware issue and not a software issue. Can you explain?

Thanks.

It's a hardware issue because the software didn't have to change. The change that was needed was computers with enough processing power to pull it off. The new M-macs have done that. And while a major complaint about Mac has long been the pricing, the new Mac-minis are a lot of bang for not too many bucks.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The Apple M series chip (post Jobs) has in fact caused a "fundamental change" in the way many audio engineers do things.

For one example they can now continue recording with adding more tracks and plugins working in real time (which allows for changing something later on) ---as opposed to having to stop and render the tracks to be able to add more tracks and plugins ---

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

I'm not questioning this, but I'm curious as to how this a hardware issue and not a software issue. Can you explain?

Thanks.

I can vouch for incredible abilities of the Mac Studio Mi Max. I have been an owner now for about nine months. Often I like to layer & record four Virtual instruments at the same time. I can create some pretty lavish sounds that way. If I tried layering just two before, my old computer would crash.

My knowledge of computers and how they work is very fundamental. So I would not be able to answer your question with accuracy of hardware versus software. I do know that some software is easier on CPU than others. A common complain I hear from others about certain programs. Regardless, if you want that sound, that program..you have to live with how it was designed. And there are literally thousands of different programs available. No one wants to not purchase a program because it is too cpu heavy. Yet, that has been a criterion, and understandably so, for some. So far, knock on wood, I have not had worry about that with the MI max chip.

There is a special type of freedom, when you don't have to worry if something is going to work or not.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

I'm not questioning this, but I'm curious as to how this a hardware issue and not a software issue. Can you explain?

Thanks.

As Jim said the issue was running out of CPU power on larger sessions with lots of instances of processing heavy plugins and VI's

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by jim1960

It's a hardware issue because the software didn't have to change. The change that was needed was computers with enough processing power to pull it off. The new M-macs have done that. And while a major complaint about Mac has long been the pricing, the new Mac-minis are a lot of bang for not too many bucks.

IMO, this is incremental change that doesn't really do much that is different from what Intel and AMD are doing, and the kind of incremental change that has been happening since the first small computer was sold. I don't see that as as the kind of game changer the iPod and iPhone were, which was the point I was trying to make in my first message.

According to tests I've seen, the performance of current Intel i7 CPUs typically meets or exceeds that of Apple's M1. Given the same software I should be able to do this with my new i7 system. Of course, if this is a function of Logic, I won't be able to do it, but again, that is a software, not a hardware, issue.

I'm not bashing Apple, but I don't see faster and more powerful CPUs as innovation. They are just doing what the rest of the industry is doing.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

IMO, this is incremental change that doesn't really do much that is different from what Intel and AMD are doing, and the kind of incremental change that has been happening since the first small computer was sold. I don't see that as as the kind of game changer the iPod and iPhone were, which was the point I was trying to make in my first message.

According to tests I've seen, the performance of current Intel i7 CPUs typically meets or exceeds that of Apple's M1. Given the same software I should be able to do this with my new i7 system. Of course, if this is a function of Logic, I won't be able to do it, but again, that is a software, not a hardware, issue.

I'm not bashing Apple, but I don't see faster and more powerful CPUs as innovation. They are just doing what the rest of the industry is doing.

If you can get the results this guy got with an i7, I'd love to see it.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by jim1960

If you can get the results this guy got with an i7, I'd love to see it.

My point is that faster and more powerful is normal in the computer world, and not game-changing like the iPhone. All the CPU and GPU vendors have faster and more powerful.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

IMO, this is incremental change that doesn't really do much that is different from what Intel and AMD are doing, and the kind of incremental change that has been happening since the first small computer was sold. I don't see that as as the kind of game changer the iPod and iPhone were, which was the point I was trying to make in my first message.

Everyone is not only entitled to, but valid in their subjective opinions on subjective terms like "game changer or innovation". There is no right or wrong or correct or incorrect to be found .. And so the argument seems kinda circular and kind of pointless, because it's foundation is subjective personal opinions and interpretations of subjective terminology .

According to tests I've seen, the performance of current Intel i7 CPUs typically meets or exceeds that of Apple's M1.

Very likely true, given the current Intel chips are 13 th gen. released Oct 2022 .. And the M1 was released Nov 2020 ---2 years prior .... The Intel chip that was current when Apple came out with M1, was the Gen 10 i7 and did not bench mark competitively to the M1.

Given the same software I should be able to do this with my new i7 system. Of course, if this is a function of Logic, I won't be able to do it, but again, that is a software, not a hardware, issue.

Huh ? obviously you are not going to be able to run Logic on a PC. So thats not going to work ? A more valid comparison would be run a test with a multi OS platform capable DAW like S1 or PT with a 13th gen Intel machine that specs out similar and costs relatively the same as an Apple M2 Pro Mini

I'm not bashing Apple, but I don't see faster and more powerful CPUs as innovation. They are just doing what the rest of the industry is doing.

And here we have circled around to the beginning "Your personal perspective"
And from my personal perspective :: You have it backwards ,, the rest of industry is just now finally catching up to what Apple was doing 2 1/2 years ago and I do "see" that as innovation --- And like Joni said we go round and round and round in the circle game :