u/Illustrious-Prune971

I recently took the IQ Center test and received a score of 133. I also paid for the more detailed report, which broke things down into areas like fluid reasoning, visual processing, working memory, etc.

I know right away that an online IQ test isn’t the same thing as a professionally administered IQ test, so I’m definitely not posting this to claim “my IQ is officially 133.” I’m actually curious about the opposite: how much weight, if any, should I give this score?

If sites like IQ Center aren’t considered legitimate measures of IQ, what exactly are they measuring, and why do these sites exist and present the results as actual IQ scores? I’ve even seen celebrities/public figures mention IQ scores supposedly obtained through online testing sites, which makes the whole thing even more confusing.

What makes this more interesting to me personally is that I’m currently undergoing a full neuropsychological evaluation because of cognitive and memory concerns. I also have a history of a mild TBI/head injury during childhood along with significant childhood trauma, and I’ve been trying to understand whether there could be any long-term contribution from that history alongside other things going on with me. My neuropsychologist is looking at multiple possible explanations rather than assuming the childhood injury is responsible.

I just completed the in-person cognitive testing, which was MUCH more extensive than this online IQ test. There were puzzles, number recall including numbers backwards, memory/story tasks, color-based tasks, and a bunch of other things. I’m waiting for the actual report, so I’m really interested to see what my professionally administered scores look like compared with this 133.

Another thing I find interesting is that I don’t necessarily feel cognitively gifted right now. I’m a musician/producer and creative person, and lately I’ve been dealing with memory difficulties, fatigue, communication issues and concerns about my cognitive functioning. That’s actually part of why I’m being evaluated.

So I’m curious what people here think:

Has anyone here taken IQ Center specifically and later had professionally administered IQ/neuropsych testing? If so, how close were the results?

And more generally, is a score like 133 from IQ Center basically entertainment, a rough estimate of certain reasoning abilities, or does it have any meaningful correlation with standardized IQ testing?

I’m genuinely curious and not attached to the number either way. Once my neuropsych report comes back, I’ll finally have something much more substantial to compare it against.

I currently have the MPC Live 3, but I’m considering getting the XL and keeping both.

The XL would be the main brain in my studio, with my TR-1000, AstroLab, and Live 3 connected to it. I’d probably have the Live 3 synced to the XL.

I’m still pretty new to the MPC world, but the workflow and extra controls on the XL look appealing to me. My Live 3 stays plugged in most of the time anyway, so I feel like the XL could make more sense for my studio setup.

At the same time, I really like the portability of the Live 3. I work retail, so I could bring it to work and make some drums during my break, then continue working on the XL when I get home.

Is anyone here actually using both regularly? I’m curious how people work between them and whether they sync well together. I’m mainly looking to hear from people who have a real use for both, not people who just own both for the sake of owning them lol.

Thanks!

Edit:

I’m using the Franklin SS-6 to connect everything, and I’m tempted to expand the set up. :)

Hey everyone,

I’m trying to figure out whether what I’m seeing is normal behavior or something specific to my setup.

I’m syncing my TR-1000 to an MPC Live 3 over 5-pin MIDI, with the MPC as master and the TR-1000 as slave.

Initially, I thought I was experiencing progressive drift because when I recorded the TR-1000 back into the MPC, the waveform appeared to progressively move away from the grid. I eventually discovered that Warp was enabled on the MPC audio region. Once I disabled Warp and repeated the test, that progressive movement disappeared.

Now the TR-1000 actually stays locked over time, but I’m still seeing what looks like a small amount of jitter.

For testing, I made a simple TR-1000 pattern with a kick on every beat and recorded it into the MPC with Warp OFF. The kicks remain within a small, consistent window around the grid, so there’s no progressive drift, but individual transients move slightly early and late instead of landing in exactly the same position every time.

I’ve tested Tempo Sync on MIDI and Auto, Track Sync on both All Tracks and Layered Gens, and multiple Sync Delay values. Sync Delay lets me correct the overall offset, but the small timing fluctuations remain.

The interesting thing is that it sounds locked to me. I’m mainly noticing this when zooming in and looking closely at the recorded waveforms.

Has anyone else tested the TR-1000 this way with an MPC, DAW, or another external MIDI clock source? Do you see similar early/late variation when recording the audio and looking at the transients against the grid?

I’m trying to determine whether this is normal MIDI clock jitter, something specific to the TR-1000’s external sync implementation, or something else in my setup.

Update: This is the response I received from Roland Support:

“Thank you for your enquiry regarding timing variation (jitter) when the TR-1000 is receiving external MIDI Clock.

A small amount of timing variation is expected when the TR-1000 is synchronised to an external MIDI clock source, as latency can occur due to the way the unit processes incoming clock signals.

To minimise this jitter, we recommend the following:

* Use the Sync Delay setting (Menu → Project Settings → Sync Delay) to manually compensate for timing discrepancies and align the TR-1000 sequence with the external clock.
* Consider setting Track Sync to ‘Layered Gens’ to reduce latency, though this will disable synchronisation between tracks.

At present, there are no known external MIDI Clock timing issues or planned firmware improvements related to this matter.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Best regards,
Roland Support”

Based on their response, I now have three tests I’m going to run before deciding which workflow I ultimately want to settle on:

1. All Tracks: Keep the MPC Live 3 as the master clock and the TR-1000 slaved via 5-pin MIDI, using All Tracks and adjusting Sync Delay to compensate for the latency.
2. Layered Gens: Keep the same MPC-master/TR-1000-slave setup, but switch Track Sync to Layered Gens and recalibrate Sync Delay to see whether the reduced latency also results in more consistent timing.
3. No MIDI Sync: Completely remove MIDI synchronization between the two. I’ll run the TR-1000 from its own internal clock and simply record its analog outputs into an audio track on the MPC Live 3. This should let me compare the TR-1000’s standalone timing against its timing when following external MIDI clock.

I’m going to record and compare all three and see which one gives me the best combination of timing consistency and workflow.

2nd Edit here:

I wanted to add another update because Roland support followed up with me again and clarified a few things. They merged my support cases, and after going back and forth with them, we confirmed that disabling Warp on the MPC fixed the progressive drift I was originally seeing. What remains is a much smaller timing variation/jitter from hit to hit while the TR-1000 is externally synced.

Roland also clarified that the Sync Delay setting is meant to compensate for the overall timing offset when externally synced, but it doesn’t correct the individual timing variation between hits. They also told me their previous statement saying there were “no planned improvements” regarding external MIDI clock was incorrect and shouldn’t have been included in their earlier response.

They had me test the TR-1000 as the master and the MPC as the slave, but we eventually confirmed that the MPC Live 3 cannot record audio while receiving MIDI Clock, which is an Akai limitation. Because of that, Roland told me to stick with my normal setup: MPC Live 3 as the master clock/transport, TR-1000 synced via MIDI, and Track Sync set to All Tracks.

I’ve now sent Roland a raw, completely unwarped recording of the 8X Bass Drum at 128 BPM using Sync Delay +53, along with a video showing the transient movement on the MPC. They asked for the raw recording, tempo, exact kick/generator, MPC firmware version, and screenshots/video so they could include it in their ongoing review.

So at this point, Roland definitely has enough information to reproduce and investigate what I’m seeing. They haven’t promised a firmware fix or given any timeline, so I don’t want to imply that, but their response is definitely more encouraging than the initial one. For now I’m sticking with All Tracks because it sounds much tighter when several drum parts are playing together, and the small remaining variation hasn’t stopped me from actually making music with the TR-1000.

I’m deciding between three M5 Ultra Mac Studio configurations for professional music production, mixing/mastering, heavy multitasking, and AI use:

* 36-core CPU / 80-core GPU / 96GB unified memory / 4TB SSD
* 36-core CPU / 80-core GPU / 256GB unified memory / 4TB SSD
* 36-core CPU / 80-core GPU / 256GB unified memory / 8TB SSD

My main DAWs are Bitwig Studio and Studio One. I use lots of plugins, oversampling, software instruments, buses, parallel processing, external hardware inserts, and sometimes large sessions. A lot of my production also involves external hardware, so I’m recording audio from drum machines/samplers and routing through analog gear.

My previous computer was a 16-core CPU / 40-core GPU M4 Max MacBook Pro with 64GB unified memory and a 2TB SSD. CPU power wasn’t really my concern, but I noticed macOS using swap fairly often, which made me want considerably more memory with my next machine.

I also tend to keep heavy browsers, ChatGPT, Claude, and other apps open alongside my DAW, and I’m interested in doing more with AI over the next few years, potentially including local AI models.

I normally replace my Mac every 3–5 years.

My biggest dilemma is whether 96GB is already enough headroom for that ownership period, especially coming from 64GB, or whether I should just go all the way to 256GB and essentially stop thinking about RAM.

And if I’m already going with 256GB, would you go 4TB or spend more for 8TB internal storage?

Which of these three configurations would you choose for this workload, and why?

Do you guys think we’ll ever see a class complaint mode on the TR-1000?

My partner and I have been disagreeing about how we should let our puppies interact, and I’d really appreciate some balanced opinions from people with experience.

We have two puppies: an 11-month-old female Lab mix and a 10-month-old male Great Pyrenees mix. We got them when they were both around 2 months old. This was our first experience raising puppies, so we definitely went into it with some naivety.

I had heard the term “littermate syndrome” before, but I never researched it because I assumed it only applied to puppies from the same litter. Since ours are different breeds and unrelated, I didn’t think it was something I needed to worry about.

We let them bond naturally. They played together constantly, slept near each other, and we honestly treated them like siblings. As they got older, though, we started noticing some challenges. Walking them together became difficult, so we began walking them separately. Feeding them together also became chaotic, so we switched to feeding them separately in their crates, which has worked really well.

What really made me start questioning things was one night when they were playing. They looked completely exhausted but just wouldn’t stop. The play seemed incredibly intense, so I separated them. That sent me down a rabbit hole reading about littermate syndrome and over-bonding.

Now I’m anxious.

My partner feels I’m projecting what I read online onto our dogs and giving too much weight to internet advice. She doesn’t really believe littermate syndrome is a real issue and thinks I’m overreacting. I, on the other hand, worry that they’re becoming so focused on each other that they’re less engaged with us.

For example, if I let one puppy out by itself, it often won’t play with me. It’ll just wait by the gate for the other puppy to come out. Because of that, I started using a gate to give them more one-on-one time while still allowing them to see each other. My goal isn’t to isolate them—I still want them to interact and play together—but I want to be more intentional about it instead of letting them spend every waking moment together.

After talking it through, my partner agreed to try my approach. But now I’m second-guessing myself because littermate syndrome isn’t an officially recognized veterinary diagnosis. I honestly don’t know what’s real, what’s exaggerated online, and what’s simply normal behavior between two dogs that have grown up together.

I have a lot of anxiety and regret about this. I love these dogs, and so does my partner. Sometimes I wonder if I made a mistake by getting two puppies at the same time. Looking back, I think I probably should have raised one to maturity before bringing home another.

People warned me that raising two puppies together would be difficult, but nobody ever mentioned littermate syndrome. And if I’m being completely honest, even if they had, I’m not sure I would’ve changed my mind at the time.

So I’m asking those of you with experience:
Am I overthinking this?

Has anyone successfully raised two puppies of similar ages without major issues?

Is what I’m describing normal bonding, or does it sound like something I should actively work on?

If you were in my position, what would you do differently moving forward?

I’m genuinely looking for thoughtful discussion, not confirmation that I’m right or wrong.

Something the Algorithm said during Camille’s conversation really stood out to me. It implied that if Lucas were digging horizontally toward another silo, it would immediately violation and trigger the safeguard.
That got me thinking about Juliette.

She literally went to another silo (17), survived, and came back. We know Bernard learns about this, so wouldn’t Silo 1 know too? If they know someone successfully traveled between silos, why hasn’t there been an immediate response toward Silo 17?

It feels strange that Silo 1 would still assume Silo 17 is completely dead if Juliette returned with a different suit, helmet, and knowledge from another silo. That alone should tell them Silo 17 isn’t as “gone” as they thought.
It also makes me wonder about Solo in the season 3 trailer. There’s that shot where he’s sitting down and looking down, then up, while he’s being spoken to from someone. Could someone from Silo 1 be reaching Silo 17 through the tunnel? Or is there another explanation?

Maybe the show is saving this for later, but it’s one of the biggest questions I have. If traveling between silos is such a major violation, I’d expect there to be consequences for Silo 17 after Juliette’s return.

I’ve been a huge fan of Silo since the show came out, but lately I’ve started going back and rewatching episodes—and honestly, this show gets even better when you watch it again.

I recently rewatched Season 2, and now I’ve been revisiting scenes from both seasons while watching for Season 3. The second time around, you notice so many details, character reactions, and possible answers that you either overlooked or didn’t fully understand the first time.

Judge Meadows is probably the biggest example for me.
During my first watch, I didn’t care that much about some of her scenes. But after going back, I was amazed by her character and performance. Her reaction when she entered the Legacy room, how quickly she wanted to leave, and the fact that she couldn’t even tell Bernard what she discovered in Salvador Quinn’s book all feel so much more significant now.

Watching her scenes again while understanding more of the larger story completely changes them. There is so much fear, regret, and knowledge beneath everything she says. Her interactions with Bernard are incredible because you realize that they both know far more than they can openly discuss, yet neither of them truly understands everything.

Solo is another character who becomes even more impressive during a rewatch.

When you return to his first episodes in Season 2, you can immediately see that he is essentially a traumatized child trapped inside a grown man’s body. The way Steve Zahn plays him is incredible. His speech patterns, emotional reactions, excitement, fear, and attachment to Juliette all make more sense once you understand what happened to him.

Then, when you return to the emotional moment between Solo and Juliette near the end of the season, it hits much harder. Their relationship became one of the most unexpectedly emotional parts of the entire show.

I’ll also admit that I spoiled the books for myself. I haven’t fully read them, but I’ve researched what happens and know quite a bit about where the larger story goes. I attempted to read the novels, but Hugh Howey’s writing style just wasn’t for me.

Personally, I think the show handles the material better.
The performances, visuals, atmosphere, dialogue, and slower character development elevate the story. Of course, television and novels are completely different mediums, but the adaptation has made this world much more compelling to me.

What fascinates me most is going back and watching how different characters respond to the desire to go outside—or simply to know the “truth.” Once you understand more about the Founders and the purpose behind the silos, the entire situation becomes even more disturbing.

These people were placed into a controlled environment, denied their history, watched constantly, manipulated through fear, and punished whenever they became too curious. The more I understand about the system, the more evil the Founders appear.

Even characters like Bernard, Sims, Camille, and Juliette become more interesting on a rewatch.

Camille being considered for a major leadership role makes much more sense when you pay attention to how observant, strategic, and composed she is throughout Seasons 1 and 2. She understands people, knows how to influence situations from behind the scenes, and rarely reveals everything she is thinking.

Then there is the revelation that the Algorithm—or someone connected to the larger system—is actively watching and influencing what happens inside the silos. That is completely insane to think about.

I’m especially excited about the tunnel.

There appears to be a shot in the Season 3 trailer showing Juliette, Camille, and another person inside or near the tunnel. I have no idea where that scene is going, but it has me extremely excited. The trailers have done a great job of showing enough to create questions without revealing the entire season. Most of the footage seems like it could come from the first three episodes, while several shots are still almost impossible to place.

I also appreciate this subreddit because people here have answered questions and pointed out details that I never would have noticed by myself.

For example, Bernard says there are 51 silos, yet the wider image appears to show only 50. I saw someone suggest that the 51st silo could be separated from the others or located beyond the main group. I don’t know whether that theory is correct, but the possibility makes the entire experiment feel even more cruel.

It makes you wonder whether one silo serves a completely different purpose—or whether the people inside the other 50 are being observed from somewhere else.

I know Season 2 receives a lot of criticism, especially for its pacing, but I honestly think it becomes much stronger during a rewatch. Season 2 is where many of the deeper questions begin receiving answers. It expands the world,, and gives greater meaning to details from Season 1.

At first, I thought Fallout might be better than Silo, especially when comparing their first seasons. But now I think they are trying to accomplish very different things.
Fallout is more immediately entertaining and energetic, while Silo is slower, darker, and more psychologically focused.

For me, Silo ultimately has the stronger storytelling because it makes me desperate for answers. It makes me want to rewatch scenes, analyze characters, study the trailers, and question every detail.

I love shows such as Mr. Robot, and I’m also a huge anime fan—especially Attack on Titan and Dorohedoro. But Silo has become one of those rare shows that completely consumes my attention.

In my opinion, Silo is Apple TV+’s best show.
The writing, acting, production design, mystery, and character development are all top-notch.

I’m extremely excited for Seasons 3 and 4, but I already know I’m going to miss this world when the series ends.
This show is so fucking good.

Has anyone else found that Season 2 became significantly better after rewatching it? And which character or storyline changed the most for you once you watched the series again?