# PC vs Mac For Recording



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

So I've seen threads similar to this on recording forums and I was interested to see the views of people on here. Are PCs really that unreliable? Are Macs really good enough to justify their ridiculous price tag?

What do you guys use?

(P.S. I wasn't sure which forum this should be in so I placed it here as it is focusing on recording )


----------



## GorillaSalsa (Apr 20, 2009)

It's "common knowledge" that Macs are better, but there's really no substance behind that statement. The only thing OSX has going for it that Windows doesn't is Logic, but is Logic worth the massive price premium? Obviously it is to some.

Use what you're comfortable with, but more accurately, use what you're comfortable with paying for.


----------



## Jagw (Apr 20, 2009)

I've built a few recording PC's for people and i've had no problems with their reliability, if you are going to be strictly using the machine to record with, keep it off the internet and use it only for recording purposes and you are VERY unlikely to get any reliability problems at al.

Macs are good enough to justify the price tag (i'm awaiting delivery of my new Macbook Pro ) but you can get just as good results with a well built PC. 

I think it all comes down to personal preference; if you want to shell out the cash for a Mac, then get one. Chances are you won't regret it, but if you're on a budget, get a decent recording PC built and you'll get just as good results for a fraction of the price.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 20, 2009)

GorillaSalsa said:


> Use what you're comfortable with, but more accurately, use what you're comfortable with paying for.



 Wise.

I use a 3 (or is it 4? Hell, I forget) year old laptop, and it works great.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

When you say ridiculous price tag, have you look into them much?

Even the Macbooks are pretty damn good specs, and they start at &#163;700. PC Laptops with comparable specs are not a lot less to be honest.

In my experience though, yes, PC's are that unreliable. I deal with PC's day in day out at my job through working in IT, and have been using them since the days of Windows 3.11 and when DOS was the first thing you came to when you turned on, and its been a mess ever since Windows 95 came along as far as I'm concerned.

The thing you have to look at with Macs is, my current desktop and laptop may have been expensive, but I've had them 2 years now, and they STILL outperform many PCs and laptops that are released today, in terms of speed and usability. Throw in the fact they seem to be almost made for recording, and you start to see the advantages.

Heres another part. Stephen Platt from Collibus (he posts here) uses a Mac G4 for recording, with multiple tracks, lots of virtual instruments and the like, and doesn't have any problems with it. The G4's are about 4 or 5 generations ago and he's still using the latest software available, I don't know many PCs that old that could run the latest MSN without slowing down....


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 20, 2009)

^ I'm sure all of that is true, but in a practical sense?

My computer, once configured correctly, hasn't given me any problems, and in terms of performance - recording included - is highly reliable. Many other PC users can, and do, say the same.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Apr 20, 2009)

I went from PC to mac because my PC hanged all the time. It was an old computer though. But macs freezes just as much in my experience. I also went to a school that used macs..
Being used to PC I think mac was harder to use in the start, really missed the right-click, haha. But now it doesn&#180;t really matter. If I could go back I would probably buy a brand new PC instead of the mac.

So my conclusion is that it doesn&#180;t really matter what you use for recording.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

so they do justify the price then? I always figured you get what you pay for, and I know Andy Sneap uses G3s and G4s so that speaks volumes for what they are capable of.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

The Dark Wolf said:


> ^ I'm sure all of that is true, but in a practical sense?



How do you mean practical sense?

It cant be any more practical than, the 7 or 8 year old G4's are keeping up with relatively new PCs to do the same things, and I dont know a 7 or 8 year old PC that could.

All I know is, yes, PCs when configured correctly can run reliably, but without any configuration I've found Macs do, and then when they are configured further, they run even better.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I know many people who've bought about 2 or 3 different laptops in the space I've owned mine, then complained about how much Macs cost....


----------



## TimothyLeary (Apr 20, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> so they do justify the price then? I always figured you get what you pay for, and I know Andy Sneap uses G3s and G4s so that speaks volumes for what they are capable of.



G3s and G4s, and G5s were different stuff than the macs nowadays. Those were the days that to me was really difficult to buy a mac.

If you are talking about desktops like iMac(i have one from 2007) I don't think they are ridiculous expensive, but keep in mind that you get a beautiful computer with a great OS but the components are what you see in the others.. so, they can give you trouble too, and that old comments about "my mac can do 2 times better what your normal pc does" are over.. like I said, it maybe true in g4 or g5 era. 

I'm saying that, because a lot of people think that they have to buy a hard disk specific for mac, RAM specific por mac, and so on. That's wrong.

Also, check what audio interface you have or you want, there many people who buy macs and then can't use the audio interface because incompatibility of the firewire chip on macs, specially teh recent ones. i'm talking about firepod, rme, motu, etc.

About the OS, remember that if you don't use original DAW's like cubase, you are in trouble to work with them in OSX. but other things you can easily "find" on net. In the pc side, maybe the windows 7 will bring the light to windows territory.

Now, the good things, you get a great lcd, with good quality, a clean desk, and a decent computer.

Hope it help.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

TimothyLeary said:


> "my mac can do 2 times better what your normal pc does" are over.. like I said, it maybe true in g4 or g5 era.



Given an OS controls how the hardware is used, and I've found Linux ALWAYS runs better on the same PC as one running Windows, I think its far from over 

Windows has to be the jack of all trades due to the amount of hardware it has to take into account, so can never really built with a smaller scope in mind, and can't be optimised for a smaller breadth of hardware.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 20, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> How do you mean practical sense?



I mean in this sense. 



stuh84 said:


> In my experience though, yes, PC's are that unreliable.



prac·ti·cal (prkt-kl)
adj.

Capable of being used or put into effect; useful:

The day-to-day operation, of having and using a PC, especially in regards to recording.

I haven't experienced any issues of unreliability, and I know many others - on this forum, for a specific example - who don't encounter problems that would make a PC considered "that unreliable."

I'm sure what you say about those older Macs is true; I don't know enough about Macs to comment. But speaking in terms of buying and maintaining a PC, while having it function with minimal issues, for recording... perfectly reasonable and possible. Practical.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

I see where you are coming from now, thanks for the clarification 

I guess if you are going to use them for recording only, then PCs will probably be close to, or even as reliable as a Mac for the purpose, but I use both mine, as do many Mac users, for everything, including recording, and the fact that they run so smoothly for recording, without having to be used for that purpose alone, makes them worth their weight in gold for me.

I need my laptop for portable recording, but I also need it for network analysis and simulation of networks too, so I guess my experience comes from the angle of, I can use mine for everything and still not feel like I'm compromising any part of what I do.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 20, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> I see where you are coming from now, thanks for the clarification
> 
> I guess if you are going to use them for recording only, then PCs will probably be close to, or even as reliable as a Mac for the purpose, but I use both mine, as do many Mac users, for everything, including recording, and the fact that they run so smoothly for recording, without having to be used for that purpose alone, makes them worth their weight in gold for me, because I need my laptop for portable recording, but I also need it for network analysis and simulation of networks too, so I guess my experience comes from the angle of, I can use mine for everything and still not feel like I'm compromising any part of what I do.



That's a great point, but I use my laptop in much the same way.

I run Reaper, with tons of plug-ins, and use my laptop for home and live recording. Plus, for all my school and work stuff, for surfing... all the normal shit you'd expect. Not computer intensive stuff, but all the typical things most users encounter. It's definitely not a 'audio only' DAW.

No issues.



The macs might be better (dunno, but I'll take your word for it), but speaking from the PC side of things, it's A-OK.


----------



## TimothyLeary (Apr 20, 2009)

stuh84, yes, but linux is a different stuff in the way it's you that open the doors you want to your hardware.. mac nowadays to be more friendly use have to accept a large number of hardware, altough i prefer the os x to any windows i worked. 

but i've trouble with it too. I had crashs like the blue screen in pc, i had projects on cubase that shut down completed for reasons i don't know, etc... so if anyone plan to buy a mac, remember.. errors and specially strange errors  happen too.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

TimothyLeary said:


> stuh84, yes, but linux is a different stuff in the way it's you that open the doors you want to your hardware.. mac nowadays to be more friendly use have to accept a large number of hardware, altough i prefer the os x to any windows i worked.



Actually, Linux needs to be open to more hardware than OS X, as OS X has only the small range of Macs it has released to work with, whereas Linux has just as much hardware as Windows to contend with....hence why theres still a lot of hardware that doesn't work with it.

I will agree though, Macs have never, and will never be error free, I just personally find them a LOT easier to deal with. Great GUI and a command line back end should I choose to need it, and compatibility with useful software, just what I need


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

TimothyLeary said:


> so if anyone plan to buy a mac, remember.. errors and specially strange errors  happen too.



yeah when my band recorded our EP, we did it with a MacBook Pro and that stalled a few times in Cubase, which I was shocked by. so really, neither one is more reliable?


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> yeah when my band recorded our EP, we did it with a MacBook Pro and that stalled a few times in Cubase, which I was shocked by. so really, neither one is more reliable?



As this thread has shown, some people find PCs no less reliable, I myself have found PCs very unreliable compared, but not everyone agrees with me, however a lot of people I know do agree with me. I was a dedicated PC user until 2 years ago, and yet now I begrudge using them. Just my personal view though.

I think you can't really make an educated decision without trying both extensively for yourself.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> I think you can't really make an educated decision without trying both extensively for yourself.



I can't afford to try both extensively


----------



## TimothyLeary (Apr 20, 2009)

To be honest I think they are in the same level. In a pc you can get great results if you work with it like a professional, stop install all that games, surf on "strange" websites, strange programs, etc. 

I think we can say mac is more secure, i don't have any spyware program installed or anti virus, and I don't have problems, but they have some vulnerabilities as well.. and people will find more when macs have more and more users.

It's a personal taste too, have you worked with os x ? do you like it? 

Don't think only in hardware, because they are very very similar, so i think you should choose between OS's.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

I've used both PCs and Macs and I found Macs very hard to work with, though I would get used to them if they yielded better results and more reliability. thing is, for a fraction of the price, can PCs be just as reliable? I think they probably can be.


----------



## arktan (Apr 20, 2009)

You know, one of the main problems (or the only one, actually) with PC's is the quality control. A lot of brands just throw in some hardware and don't optimize or engineer it enough so that the system feels "lame" (can't describe it).

I use a ThinkPad T500 (yes, the one with the switch-your-graphics-card-on-the-fly-without-restarting-your-comp-function) and it blows all the other laptops that i used and that my friends use out of the water in terms of felt working performance. Even the ones with reasonably higher specs than my ThinkPad... i blame the quality control and the engineering. And the Linux support of ThinPads is simply 1A. 

That's the advantage of Macs too. HP, DELL, Alienware and so forth don't sell mac-OS's with their computers. If they did then the general view of Macs wouldn't be much different than that of Windows. Mac isn't just an OS, you get some quality hardware with it because not everybody can put it on an own configuration and sell it like Windows. But that comes at a price.

So generally:

If you want/need a good PC: go the thinkpad way (yes, i'm biased  )
If you want a good Mac: almost any will do but avoid the new ones with those Nvidia 8400 and 8600 graphics cards! They're defective (the cards)!


BTW I use Vista64 for recording and gaming and stuff and Opensuse64 for work and stuff.


----------



## GorillaSalsa (Apr 20, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> When you say ridiculous price tag, have you look into them much?
> 
> Even the Macbooks are pretty damn good specs, and they start at &#163;700. PC Laptops with comparable specs are not a lot less to be honest.



Ahem...

The cheapest Macbook as of today has: 

Intel Core 2 Duo 
2GB DDR2 Memory 
120GB hard drive1 
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics 
a $1k price tag

This laptop has:

Double the RAM
Double The HDD Space
A better graphics card
A larger screen
A price tag smaller by $250

It was the cheapest laptop I could find on Newegg with equal to or greater than specs to the Macbook, and it was better. And it's not even made by some knock-off piece of shit company, either. Acer's pretty reputable.



stuh84 said:


> In my experience though, yes, PC's are that unreliable. I deal with PC's day in day out at my job through working in IT, and have been using them since the days of Windows 3.11 and when DOS was the first thing you came to when you turned on, and its been a mess ever since Windows 95 came along as far as I'm concerned.



I run PCs reliably every single day of my life. Have I had PCs crash on me before? yes. Have I had a Mac crash on me as well? Yes. 

Computers crash when you overwhelm them with processes. This is true for either Macs and PCs. Macs aren't immune to crashing, because if they were, the phrase "spinning wheel of death" wouldn't exist.



stuh84 said:


> The thing you have to look at with Macs is, my current desktop and laptop may have been expensive, but I've had them 2 years now, and they STILL outperform many PCs and laptops that are released today, in terms of speed and usability. Throw in the fact they seem to be almost made for recording, and you start to see the advantages.



You can spend just as much money on a PC that will outperform future PCs for a few years in the future. You can also spend a little money for a decent machine that will still be decent in the future. I bought my current computer for $600 when I was 16. I'm almost 20 now and I'm barely replacing it, and only because I want to start doing more intense things like recording music and playing video games that aren't Half Life 2. Other than that, this PC will absolutely last another year or two just fine.



stuh84 said:


> Heres another part. Stephen Platt from Collibus (he posts here) uses a Mac G4 for recording, with multiple tracks, lots of virtual instruments and the like, and doesn't have any problems with it. The G4's are about 4 or 5 generations ago and he's still using the latest software available, I don't know many PCs that old that could run the latest MSN without slowing down....



That's great and all, but G4s were available as early as 1999 and as late as 2004, so that statement could be either absolutely amazing or just expected. I bought my computer in 2005, and it runs things much more complex than MSN just fine, thank you. 

I don't know what computer cave you've been in where the only PCs that exist are $300 eMachines, but good PCs can be just as reliable as Macs, and Macs can be just as unreliable as bad PCs. Price is what really should be the determining factor, and when I'm given the option to double my ram for ~$120 (worst case scenario)* on a PC or ~$1000 on a Mac, I'm going PC.

*worst case scenario being you have to replace every last stick of RAM in your computer, which is unlikely, so this price should really be cut in half.


----------



## PlagueX1 (Apr 20, 2009)

Mac is made for recording, creative things, enough said.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

PlagueX1 said:


> Mac is made for recording, creative things, enough said.



just because it's built specifically with recording engineers in mind doesn't mean it performs better.


----------



## Fionn (Apr 20, 2009)

> and I know Andy Sneap uses G3s and G4s so that speaks volumes for what they are capable of.



you must remeber that Sneap is using PT HD so the puter is pretty much just a host!!! 



> Mac is made for recording, creative things, enough said.


dumb comment!



> You know, one of the main problems (or the only one, actually) with PC's is the quality control. A lot of brands just throw in some hardware and don't optimize or engineer it enough so that the system feels "lame" (can't describe it).



exactly, go buy a standerd PC and yeah you'll get shit! Saty away from DELL for sure, and HP infact all the shit pre made redy to use out of the box bulssshit PCs out there!

I've used both MAC and PC alot, used MAC with PTHD at the studio and Windows with LE at home trust me they both crash, one thing I have found is than when a MAC crashes thats it its need a hard re-start, PCs can if left alone for 2mins sort themselves out!!!

I find that my LE system at home is a bit jittery but thats cause i have loads of not quite legal plugins installed, try doing that on a MAC!

Personnaly I think that because people who use MACs just USE them they don't fuck around and install loads of crap they work better but if your careful and keep your PC lean you can get WAY more power for you money, espceially now MACs are just swanky PCs with a better operating system! I prefer OSX defo but XP is fine it works its pretty stable and its tweakable, which is what I want I don't want a OS that is difficult to potimise like OSX!

how many typos!!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

Fionn said:


> you must remeber that Sneap is using PT HD so the puter is pretty much just a host!!!



I don't know what that is


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

GorillaSalsa said:


> I don't know what computer cave you've been in where the only PCs that exist are $300 eMachines, but good PCs can be just as reliable as Macs, and Macs can be just as unreliable as bad PCs. Price is what really should be the determining factor, and when I'm given the option to double my ram for ~$120 (worst case scenario)* on a PC or ~$1000 on a Mac, I'm going PC.
> 
> *worst case scenario being you have to replace every last stick of RAM in your computer, which is unlikely, so this price should really be cut in half.



Like I said in my post, 7-8 year old G4, so try reading what I'm saying next time.

Plus, the same DDR ram thats in most PC laptops is the same thats in Macs, you are looking at Apples site for it, not Crucial, or Newegg, you know, the same you would with a PC?

I've been building and repairing PCs since about 1998, and I just got sick of it. I've got better things to do with my time than research different motherboards, work out which works best, see if there are any chipset issues that could affect the hardware I want to use with it, and then wonder why when I've got it, installed XP/2000/Vista/98/NT or whatever it was at the time, I still think "you know, this doesn't feel any faster".

As I've said in the various other posts in this thread, Macs do crash, but I've had nowhere near as many problems with them as I have PCs, this is MY experience with them, through running, building, reparing and using them for 8 times longer than I have Macs.

All I wanna know is, that PC from 2005, how well does it run Protools LE 7.4, with DFH Superior 2, a virtual orchestra (can't remember which one the guy uses, possibly Garritan) and virtual synths...without falling over? This is what I'm talking about. And as I said, 7-8 years old, not 4....


----------



## TimothyLeary (Apr 20, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I don't know what that is



Pro tools HD I think. Pro Tools|HD 

The computer does the light job and pro tools interfaces do the heavy job.


----------



## KaLeVaLA (Apr 20, 2009)

I used PC before, and have now switched over to Mac Pro.
I have worked on Mac for about 3 years (graphic designer).

I find Mac to be easier to work with, more reliable, faster, and believe it or not..but i got a better sound when recording the guitars..like...tha raw track sounded better. I have no idea why.

The pricetag on Mac is not THAT insane compared to a PC really...and Mac is something you will keep for longer than a year...AND if you want to sell it..you will get much more back than you would for a pc. 

As said..i have a Mac Pro and i havent regreted it for one second!! It is an amazing machine. Oh..and its so silent running btw!!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

this isn't COMPLETELY on topic, but i figure this is as good a place as any to ask the question: does anyone know of a good usb 1.1 compatible audio interface? (yes i have a stone age computer that i record on. i do what i can! )


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

Roland U.S. - UA-101: USB Audio Interface

Thats the only one I actually know that will, and it'll only run at stereo as well.

Might be worth getting hold of a USB 2.0 PCI card to put in your PC? (unless its a laptop then no dice )


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

yea my computer may need some upgrades. i heard that the m-audio fast track pro will run full spec on usb 1.1. truth or myth?

EDIT: my computer is in DIRE need of upgrades


----------



## sevenstringj (Apr 20, 2009)

Once you go Mac, you never go back. 

I'm still using a 5-yr old G4 laptop. While it's not powerful enough to run today's super-intense stuff like 24-bit piano sample libraries, I can record direct in 24/96 no problem. And no viruses. Ever. Despite the porn. 

Quick tip: Apple brand memory is way expensive. You can get one with less RAM and upgrade afterwards for way less.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

Looks like you can, I have to say its not something I've ever had to look for so I'm not greatly experienced in finding interfaces for that 

I think that for the sake of buying a $10-15 USB 2 PCI card, its worth doing rather than restricting what you can actually use.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Apr 20, 2009)

that's true. i didn't know they were that cheap.  

i'll definitely look into that.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 20, 2009)

I can only speak from my personal experience, so take it for what it's worth, which is very little:

I've never had a problem with a PC that I couldn't solve with little-to-no trouble.

I've never had a problem with a Mac that I COULD solve with LOTS of trouble. AND the 'experts' at the Mac store(s) are always pretty useless as well.

I still use a PC (not as my main machine) that's over 8 years old, with no trouble what-so-ever. My main machines (a rackmount and a laptop) are both PCs built by pcaudiolabs, and they're both ROCK SOLID.

My ex girlfriend is on her 4th macbook (all three previous broke or went tits-up for no explainable reason) in 3 years. One of my production parterns in Hawaii is on his 3rd macbook (2 previous had major unexplainable issues) in 4 years.

Apple designs their OS in such a way that it's quite difficult to do simple tasks such as formatting/defragging a hard drive or re-installing the OS itself. While living in Hawaii, I was working on an iMac 800MhZ, and it was the most miserable computing experience of my life. Out of the box, there was some error with the OS install that made it so that I could NOT drag icons -- AT ALL. This rendered several programs almost impossible to use. I tried all kinds of things to fix the problem, and the machine just refused to work with me. It wouldn't allow me to format the hard drive, it wouldn't allow me to reinstall the OS, etc etc, so I was just stuck with this machine that didn't fucking work the way it was supposed to, until we finally sold it.

I will NEVER buy an apple computer again. EVER. I love the iPods, but fuck their computers.

Again -- that's only based on my personal experience. I know TONS of people who own and LOVE their macs.



sevenstringj said:


> Once you go Mac, you never go back.


 
Exactly. I went Mac, and I'll never go back to it.


----------



## Ze Kink (Apr 20, 2009)

I've been a PC user for all my life, but I bought a Macbook Pro about 6 months ago. No regrets. I really like how everything works so smoothly without any real effort. When I was still running a PC, I didn't have a problem with uninstalling the drivers of my Emu 1212m, disconnecting it, making a bios update, taking the battery out for a while, connnecting everything again and installing the older drivers, because updating them had made the soundcard output just a bitcrushed mess and not work at all. I didn't have a problem with installing my ex-FP10 on my MBP either, by just plugging the FW400 connector in and starting to record...

I'm happy with both, as long as they work. There's been a ton of laptops in our family, and from my experience with them, I would never buy an Acer laptop. Everything else has worked with pretty minor tweaking. I think I'd prefer having a desktop PC with great parts for "tough stuff" like gaming (I don't really game though), and then a Mac laptop for recording and as a mobile rig, and also bootcamped if I sometimes need to run some Windows stuff.

Why no Acer? The other one had fans that weren't powerful enough, so it would boot after about 3 hours running a game because it overheated. Pretty soon after the warranty ended, the graphics card melted because of the overheating, making the computer completely useless. We also have the Aspire One, which shuts down after being on for about 2 minutes; me and my dad both suspect it's the same fan problem again.

I also prefer to run Linux on my PC's BTW.


----------



## Fionn (Apr 20, 2009)

> I don't know what that is



Pro Tools HD its a PCI based DSP audio program, its what "the pros" use, it can handle 192 tracks at 192kHz etc etc, basically expensive as fuck! not worth it nowadays with 8core macs etc, Digidesign - The Industry Leader in Digital Audio and Live Sound if your interested


----------



## darren (Apr 20, 2009)

Use whatever you're comfortable with. My band records on PCs using Sonar 8, and it's pretty reliable, and there are tons of plug-ins available for it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 20, 2009)

ah you kids with your abbreviations!

of course I know what Pro Tools is


----------



## Slampop (Apr 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I can only speak from my personal experience, so take it for what it's worth, which is very little:
> 
> I've never had a problem with a PC that I couldn't solve with little-to-no trouble.
> 
> I've never had a problem with a Mac that I COULD solve with LOTS of trouble. AND the 'experts' at the Mac store(s) are always pretty useless as well.



hahaha, they ARE totally useless, and really, it doesn't matter, what matters is what interface you use, how much memory you got etc. if the computer runs the damn program of choice, there will be no real difference. Mac is retard friendly for general stuff and PC can be completely pwned with a decent amount of knowledge. despite everything that has been said, with a mac, there is not a lot of easily obtainable cracked software as there is for PC, so prepare to be broke (depending on what you require of course, just saying PC has been a standard and there are many more "options" available)...not that i condone, nor take part in those sort of shenanigans.  Also, PC being the "standard," you will find many more solutions to any problems that come up. i have used both mac and pc btw...i stick with PC for recording, and my mac has become my online computer, cause they are very user friendly and "virus free," but like i said, noone will ask after hearing a recording done by the same program with all the same equipment..."so...was that Mac or PC...sounds like a Mac." i don't know, just my  hahaha


----------



## Fionn (Apr 20, 2009)

> of course I know what Pro Tools is



sorry i thought you didn't my bad!


----------



## rahul_mukerji (Apr 20, 2009)

Personal experience:

I've been using Windows (XP) for the longest time with a Firewire interface and I've never had issues that made me think twice about switching. I must admit I did try Linux but that did not work out too well for recording purposes. My computers have been Pentium III's and I recently upgraded to a Quad Desktop.

Since Macs now run XP on them, you could just go in for a Macbook and install XP and have the best of both worlds. In fact if you take a Mac, install XP and then install Wubi or the Wubi for Mint (the linux flavour) over XP you'd have 3 OS's on a laptop and then you can rule this world with thy geekyness (which i will one day do ... just not yet )

I would say, whatever you choose make sure you do so based on a couple of things:


 Are the plugins you want compatible with the OS (some plugins may be mac-only or windows only) ?
 Are you already familiar with a certain software. E.g. if you already know DP6 or PT then you could go for a mac, but if you're well settled into Cubase or Sonar, Acid, then PC might be a better option.
 Windows generally has a lot more options as opposed to Mac, but since Macbooks can now run XP, thats almost insignificant.

Stability wise I haven't had too many issues with my PC's, except when I overloaded the PC with a ton of VSTi's.


----------



## newamerikangospel (Apr 20, 2009)

Well, the biggest thing that I see in the Mac vs PC debate, is that most macs have the capability for 16Gbs of ram (and see the entirety of it). Plus, I haven't seen any standard market computers using dual quad cores in their machines. I haven't really researched it, but the $5k pricetag for a mac pro with 8cores and 64gbs of ram (or whatever the new ones hold) is about par with a custom PC built with the same specs. Also, Macs have a more solid operating system that I have seen (this isn't talking about freezing, but inconspicous things that cause PC errors, like memory allocation). 

I can get a dual-dual core (4 cores) and 16gb capable Mac for $1500, with a 1gig video card that was made for dual monitors (has two dedicated outputs) and a faster bus speed then any PC I have seen for that price. But my little $500+upgrade (ram, video card) Compaq handles the recording I do now. 

I guess its like there is probably a good playing squire out there (PC), but its more of a safe bet to go with a custom shop (mac).


----------



## synrgy (Apr 20, 2009)

newamerikangospel said:


> Well, the biggest thing that I see in the Mac vs PC debate, is that most macs have the capability for 16Gbs of ram (and see the entirety of it). Plus, I haven't seen any standard market computers using dual quad cores in their machines. I haven't really researched it, but the $5k pricetag for a mac pro with 8cores and 64gbs of ram (or whatever the new ones hold) is about par with a custom PC built with the same specs. Also, Macs have a more solid operating system that I have seen (this isn't talking about freezing, but inconspicous things that cause PC errors, like memory allocation).
> 
> I can get a dual-dual core (4 cores) and 16gb capable Mac for $1500, with a 1gig video card that was made for dual monitors (has two dedicated outputs) and a faster bus speed then any PC I have seen for that price. But my little $500+upgrade (ram, video card) Compaq handles the recording I do now.
> 
> I guess its like there is probably a good playing squire out there (PC), but its more of a safe bet to go with a custom shop (mac).


 
Yeah, that's all well and good _*on paper*_.



Now, show me a DAW program that can actually take advantage of any of that extra power. The software companies making the DAW programs are still writing their software to cater to the 32 bit OS crowd. (a 32 bit OS can only support 4GB RAM)

Your guitar analogy is terribly flawed. A Mac is *hardly* a custom shop. A custom shop would be a PC Built by a specialty company that builds the computer to your specs, just like a custom guitar, like the folks that built mine @ www.pcaudiolabs.com . If a PC is something like a Squire, then a Mac is something like an Epiphone -- totally comparable to each other, only really different on the surface (the brand name), and sometimes at the price tag.

Sure, an over-the-counter Compaq/Acer/Whatever PC is going to be a piece of crap, but so is an over-the-counter Mac, at least when comparing either one to a custom build.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Apr 20, 2009)

i prefer macs in all areas, over pc´s. and as a result, i also do all my recording on mac, and i´m a million times more content now than i ever was with a pc. tadaah


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Yeah, that's all well and good _*on paper*_.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, show me a DAW program that can actually take advantage of any of that extra power. The software companies making the DAW programs are still writing their software to cater to the 32 bit OS crowd. (a 32 bit OS can only support 4GB RAM)



I'll point you directly to Apple.....given that Logic can use more than 4GB.

And OS X is 64 bit native now, it can run 32 bit apps, but runs 64 bit too


----------



## Slampop (Apr 20, 2009)

THIS IS MADNESS!!! 


...and the fighting continues, hahaha.


----------



## GorillaSalsa (Apr 21, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> Like I said in my post, 7-8 year old G4, so try reading what I'm saying next time.



If you read what I said, you'd know that I said that same G4 could be as new as 5 years old, so try not glimpsing over shit before you make assumptions.



stuh84 said:


> Plus, the same DDR ram thats in most PC laptops is the same thats in Macs, you are looking at Apples site for it, not Crucial, or Newegg, you know, the same you would with a PC?



That's great, but I don't have to worry about voiding a warranty with my homebuilt PC. Try cracking open a mac to install ram without paying shitloads of cash or voiding the warranty.



stuh84 said:


> I've been building and repairing PCs since about 1998, and I just got sick of it. I've got better things to do with my time than research different motherboards, work out which works best, see if there are any chipset issues that could affect the hardware I want to use with it, and then wonder why when I've got it, installed XP/2000/Vista/98/NT or whatever it was at the time, I still think "you know, this doesn't feel any faster".
> 
> As I've said in the various other posts in this thread, Macs do crash, but I've had nowhere near as many problems with them as I have PCs, this is MY experience with them, through running, building, reparing and using them for 8 times longer than I have Macs.



That's where the difference is in effort. If you're fine with just blindly clicking a few radio buttons and entering your credit card, that's fine. But if you've got better things to spend $2k+ on than a computer, a PC and a little effort goes a LONG way.



stuh84 said:


> All I wanna know is, that PC from 2005, how well does it run Protools LE 7.4, with DFH Superior 2, a virtual orchestra (can't remember which one the guy uses, possibly Garritan) and virtual synths...without falling over? This is what I'm talking about. And as I said, 7-8 years old, not 4....



I wouldn't be able to tell you, but even if it didn't run those things well, I could build a new PC that did and add the cost of the old one and still have money left over vs. a mac.


----------



## Origins (Apr 21, 2009)

I´ve been on PC for my whole life and only changed for Mac 6 months ago.
I´ve been an idiot to wait so long, just because of the price of such products.
Seriously.. there´s no way to compare a PC to a Mac.
It´s like comparing a Renault 5 to a Porsch 
I know that there is always a way to upgrade a PC to get a monster, but if you are not a big technician or a lucky guy, it just drives you crazy, waste your time and your money.
So far I didn´t get any problem of any kind with my Mac.
The interface is clear, instinctive and much more logical (with a PC you have to get how to control it by any way you can, even if it doesn´t make any sens..).
I use Logic studio for my recordings, and I don´t need anything else. It´s just what I always expected from a computer about music.
Quality has a price, but I don´t regret it.
If you didn´t make your choice yet, give a try to Mac!!


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 21, 2009)

Edit: Removed this post, I cannot be bothered any more, going back to recording. On my Macs. Without issue....


----------



## synrgy (Apr 21, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> I'll point you directly to Apple.....given that Logic can use more than 4GB.
> 
> And OS X is 64 bit native now, it can run 32 bit apps, but runs 64 bit too


 
1. So you're saying you're fine with justifying 16gb of ram even though only ONE program on the market can make use of any more than 4? What about those of us that think Logic has the most unfriendly interface of any DAW on the market? (I wrapped my brain around cubase, ableton, reason, fruityloops, acid, reaper, and tons of other daw/sequencer programs without any trouble, but I can't wrap my brain around Logic to save my life..)

2. Windows offers the same options. The OS doesn't matter -- the software you want to run on the OS does.

All this is moot anyway. The OP was talking about recording specifically, in which case pc vs mac is basically "6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other".


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 21, 2009)

yeah people have started PC general vs Mac general, but I did specify for recording.


----------



## Ze Kink (Apr 21, 2009)

This is becoming totally ridiculous.

I wonder how much of a performance boost the OpenCL in Snow Leopard will give.


----------



## arktan (Apr 21, 2009)

i think that this sums it up fairly well:

Macs = good engineered (i'll call them "M" from now on)
Lots of PC manufacturers = bad enginereed ("B")
some PC manufacturers = good engineered ("P")

M -> good for recording
P -> good for recording
B -> bad for recording

The difference between M's and P's is usually just the OS. Not the quality of the system as a whole. That's why comments like
"OMG, lulz, pc sux" or "Omg, mah mac doesnt crush" or "Mac sux" and "PC is a Volkswagen and Mac is a Porsche" (car enthusiasts, do you see the irony in this?  ) and so on are pure fanboyism (like me with my ThinkPad  )

A good engineered Mac and a good engineered PC will both get the job done on a much higher level than we hobby-writers (and most non-hobby writers) need.

EDIT: I forgot to add a "From my point of view"


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 21, 2009)

arktan said:


> or "Mac sux" and "PC is a Volkswagen and Mac is a Porsche" (car enthusiasts, do you see the irony in this? )



haha yeah 

but surely some slapped together cheap PCs with lots of RAM and high processing power, if maintained well, will perform well enough too? I'm talking about HP and Dell here, HP in particular.


----------



## synrgy (Apr 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> haha yeah
> 
> but surely some slapped together cheap PCs with lots of RAM and high processing power, if maintained well, will perform well enough too? I'm talking about HP and Dell here, HP in particular.


 
It can certanily be done, yes -- though you may be better off (both budget wise and functionally speaking) just doing a barebone kit and adding the components you need.

If you go with one of the major manufacturers, you'll basically want to format the HD and re-install the OS *first thing*, to get rid of all the proprietary bull-shit software they install at the factory that's going to serve you virtually no purpose other than to eat up your precious RAM and CPU.

What's your budget?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 21, 2009)

synrgy said:


> It can certanily be done, yes -- though you may be better off (both budget wise and functionally speaking) just doing a barebone kit and adding the components you need.
> 
> If you go with one of the major manufacturers, you'll basically want to format the HD and re-install the OS *first thing*, to get rid of all the proprietary bull-shit software they install at the factory that's going to serve you virtually no purpose other than to eat up your precious RAM and CPU.
> 
> What's your budget?



yeah as soon as I got it I'd install XP Pro alongside Vista and opt to never use Vista. it's a bitch that you can't delete Vista but nevermind.

my budget is like £500-£600 and I'm looking at a HP machine which is £530, this is the one:

HP Pavilion a6744uk Desktop PC and TFT Monitor from PC World - Cheap HP Desktop Computers and the latest HP Desktop PC deals.

will 2.3 GHz be enough to run Nuendo, Reason 4 (5?) and Superior 2.0 all at the same time?


----------



## synrgy (Apr 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> will 2.3 GHz be enough to run Nuendo, Reason 4 (5?) and Superior 2.0 all at the same time?


 
Oh fuck yeah. Thing to remember is that the GHz rating is basically 'per-core', so a dual core 1.0GHz is actually 2.0GHz, and this 2.3GHz quad core is basically 9.2Ghz. My rackmount is a 3.0GHz quad w/4gb RAM, and it fucking SMOKES. I haven't even been able to put a dent in the cpu processing while simultaneously running Ableton (or Cubase, depending on my mood)/Reason/multiple instances of Guitar Rig 3/multiple VSTi units.

That being said, for the price I still think you'd be better served by a barebone kit spiced up with your specific components, that way you're only paying for what you need. IE -- if you're wise, your new machine will NOT be an internet machine, so it doesn't need the wireless card that comes standard in all major maufacturer's builds, and that money could go towards something like a decent 3rd party PCI audio interface card. Plus, you probably already have shit like an LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, a CD burner that works just fine, etc, so why buy all that again?


----------



## arktan (Apr 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> yeah as soon as I got it I'd install XP Pro alongside Vista and opt to never use Vista. it's a bitch that you can't delete Vista but nevermind.
> 
> my budget is like &#163;500-&#163;600 and I'm looking at a HP machine which is &#163;530, this is the one:
> 
> ...



It should suffice but for how many years do you intend to use that system for sound-editing/recording? The thing is that it could run future recording programs better than todays if you install a 64-bit system with a future 64-bit recording program. The intel Q8200 Processor can compute in 64-bit so if you put later a 64-bit OS on your comp and a 64-bit recording program (which don't exist yet today from what i know) you should end up with a faster system than you bought for 32-bit applications...
The question is only: When will the first (reasonably priced) sound-programs be available in 64-bit? Does someone here know that?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 21, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Oh fuck yeah. Thing to remember is that the GHz rating is basically 'per-core', so a dual core 1.0GHz is actually 2.0GHz, and this 2.3GHz quad core is basically 9.2Ghz. My rackmount is a 3.0GHz quad w/4gb RAM, and it fucking SMOKES. I haven't even been able to put a dent in the cpu processing while simultaneously running Ableton (or Cubase, depending on my mood)/Reason/multiple instances of Guitar Rig 3/multiple VSTi units.
> 
> That being said, for the price I still think you'd be better served by a barebone kit spiced up with your specific components, that way you're only paying for what you need. IE -- if you're wise, your new machine will NOT be an internet machine, so it doesn't need the wireless card that comes standard in all major maufacturer's builds, and that money could go towards something like a decent 3rd party PCI audio interface card. Plus, you probably already have shit like an LCD monitor, keyboard, mouse, a CD burner that works just fine, etc, so why buy all that again?



oh yeah I forgot it was Quad Core 

I could get my old man to build me one, as he's pretty well versed in building PCs, but I'd rather just buy one and have it sooner!


----------



## synrgy (Apr 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> oh yeah I forgot it was Quad Core
> 
> I could get my old man to build me one, as he's pretty well versed in building PCs, but I'd rather just buy one and have it sooner!


 
Dude, you can construct sentences just fine, which gives me faith that you're smart enough to construct a LEGO set, which in turn means you should be able to put together a PC with no trouble at all.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 21, 2009)

while I probably could, it's easier/quicker to buy one


----------



## thedonutman (Apr 21, 2009)

I've not had any problems with recording on my PC, or at least any problems caused by the fact that it is a PC. I've had a few software and driver problems, but that's due to M-audio being incompetent. My PC isn't exactly a fire breathing monster in terms of specs and it never really was even when I first built it (~4 years old), but it handles everything I want to do just fine (ie amp sims, EQ, other vsts + virtual instruments for a full song) and is very stable.

For pure audio purposes, providing I had the cash, I would get a Mac Pro. Like people have said hardware support for Mac is good, Apple's software development is closer to their hardware development. Vista is terrible and building your own PC can have problems like hardware conflicts that you didn't know about, but I've never had any real problems with anything I've put together.


----------



## Ze Kink (Apr 21, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> while I probably could, it's easier/quicker to buy one



At your price range, the PC and Mac options are:

If you want things to be easy, I really recommend going Mac. Save up about &#163;100 and get the white model, it still has a Firewire connection (still can't understand why they took it off from the new ones ). Then just max the ram at 4gb (any compatible ram will work, not just Apple's ridiculously overpriced stuff!). When you get more money down the road, grab an Apogee Duet or if you need more inputs, M-audio Profire 2626 (stay away from the older M-audio interfaces).

PC side isn't really any more difficult, but still probably not as much of a breeze as with Macs. First off, make sure that it has a Texas Instruments Firewire chipset, otherwise you WILL have problems. I'd recommend going with Vista 64 and as much ram as possible. Then grab the best Firewire interface you can afford and buy Reaper as your DAW. Get as many free plugins as you can, perhaps buy a few Stillwell or Voxengo plugs too.

With PC, you'll be finding a lot of good and free stuff. And probably you can get teh warez easier too, if that's the way you want to do things...


----------



## IconW (Apr 21, 2009)

Mac or Pc? That's always the question.

I use macs and pc's, but somehow I still prefer pc's. I'm not sure why but somehow pc feels more like machine I like to use when I record or mix. Maybe it's because I've had more good experiences with pc's than mac's (suprise...? )
Mac is mac. It is and works (at least some of the time). Pc is...well...you gotta make somekind of a "realitionship" with it. Yeah, If you have lost your marbles, like me and use pc. 

But still. Both of them works if you keep them in condition. It's more about what you like and especially how you like to work...and that's more about the programs that you use.
And yeah. Pc is little bit cheaper....if you find right hardware and you can get along with it. Mac is mac...pc is what you make it to be + some luck.

That's my opinion.
And these pc vs. mac conversations are allways little bit  imho.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 21, 2009)

IconW said:


> And these pc vs. mac conversations are allways little bit  imho.



how so? I find it interesting.


----------



## PlagueX1 (Apr 21, 2009)

I still stick with Macs are made for creative things. Regardless if you all think it is dumb comment or not I could care less. Macs in my opinion WILL outperform PC's in terms of ease of use. It does take getting used to Mac OS first, once you learn it you will likely love it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

PlagueX1 said:


> Regardless if you all think it is dumb comment or not I could care less.



chill out man no-one challenged your opinion 

I think I'm going to go PC and keep it internet-free and maintain it well, that should serve me just fine


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 22, 2009)

synrgy said:


> 1. So you're saying you're fine with justifying 16gb of ram even though only ONE program on the market can make use of any more than 4? What about those of us that think Logic has the most unfriendly interface of any DAW on the market? (I wrapped my brain around cubase, ableton, reason, fruityloops, acid, reaper, and tons of other daw/sequencer programs without any trouble, but I can't wrap my brain around Logic to save my life..)
> 
> 2. Windows offers the same options. The OS doesn't matter -- the software you want to run on the OS does.
> 
> All this is moot anyway. The OP was talking about recording specifically, in which case pc vs mac is basically "6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other".




You never asked about the DAW you want, you asked for a DAW which supports it. I pointed you to one. Stop splitting hairs.


----------



## Fionn (Apr 22, 2009)

the problem with cheap pre built PCs are the mobo, I emailled Dell omce to find out what mobo they used it some "higher end" PC of thiers, got no reply, why? Cause they didn't want to tell me its a pile of shit!!! Also they always come bloated with pointless ware that is only there for you to either have to delete or pay for!!! Go buy a PC from say PCSPECIALIST.CO.UK - Custom PCs, Custom Computers, Custom PC, Custom Built Computers, Gaming PC and they will built it for you test it and ship it for fuck all.

honsestly don't do it, (buy HP that is) got to the link above or go to www.dv247.com and get a Synergy, amazing PCs for little cash (comp to a MAC). you wont regret it, I know people who have Dells, Compaqs, HPs etc they are always fucking up!!! I have had my PC form PC Specialist for 5 years Core2Duo 3gb ram etc and its stable and works well, have a efw PT problems due to dodgy plugins but thats my fault!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

I don't want to pay &#163;800+! thanks for the suggestions though 

question: if you have a more powerful processor, do you need less RAM?


----------



## JoshuaLogan (Apr 22, 2009)

buy all parts and put together a pc yourself


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

JoshuaLogan said:


> buy all parts and put together a pc yourself



we've already established that I don't want to do that.


----------



## JoshuaLogan (Apr 22, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> we've already established that I don't want to do that.



why not? it's really not hard at all and is the best way to get the most for your money. I bought the parts for my pc and put it all together for around $1000... the same computer bought from a company who builds custom PCs would be about $1800... something equivalent to it in the Mac world would be even much more than that. I could have spent less money too.. probably could have kept it down to $750 and still had a really, really capable PC


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

JoshuaLogan said:


> why not?



I knew you were going to say that  

can we get back on topic now please?


----------



## JoshuaLogan (Apr 22, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I knew you were going to say that
> 
> can we get back on topic now please?



I don't see how what I said is off topic, but okay dude 

rolling your eyes at people who are giving you advice and potentially helping you save money. sweet. haha


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

JoshuaLogan said:


> I don't see how what I said is off topic, but okay dude
> 
> rolling your eyes at people who are giving you advice and potentially helping you save money. sweet. haha



I'd already stated beforehand in the thread that I _don't_ want to build one. so why suggest it?

I understand that you only want to help, it just seems like such an odd suggestion if you already knew that I don't want to build one I want to buy one.


----------



## flexkill (Apr 22, 2009)

PC FTW!!!! Mac is over priced shite!!!!!!!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> question: if you have a more powerful processor, do you need less RAM?


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 22, 2009)

Not really to be honest. The RAM would be a bottleneck for the processor if it was less. Basically the RAM is supposed to work as a place to store information temporarily, say, samples when recording. A lot of samplers have a direct from disk option however, hard disks run a lot slower than RAM. So while the amount of RAM doesn't cause a speed increase in terms of the speed a small single process, or multiple small single processes would take, it means a lot less accessing files from the hard drive itself, and in this case speed up the system when doing something a little more intensive than general browsing and surfing.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> Not really to be honest. The RAM would be a bottleneck for the processor if it was less. Basically the RAM is supposed to work as a place to store information temporarily, say, samples when recording. A lot of samplers have a direct from disk option however, hard disks run a lot slower than RAM. So while the amount of RAM doesn't cause a speed increase in terms of the speed a small single process, or multiple small single processes would take, it means a lot less accessing files from the hard drive itself, and in this case speed up the system when doing something a little more intensive than general browsing and surfing.



 I think I understood that


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 22, 2009)

In my experience (unlike almost every "office" type app you use), RAM is not the bottleneck for audio, the processor is. Before my machine got upgraded, I was running CPU loads of 94-97&#37;, but only using about 1GB about RAM.

Multi-core is definitely the way to go, though, if your audio app supports it.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 22, 2009)

eaeolian said:


> In my experience (unlike almost every "office" type app you use), RAM is not the bottleneck for audio, the processor is. Before my machine got upgraded, I was running CPU loads of 94-97%, but only using about 1GB about RAM.
> 
> Multi-core is definitely the way to go, though, if your audio app supports it.



Aye, I know people who run so little RAM for recording it seems daft. However, it depends how much sampling you are doing. When I'm recording everything live like I am for the bands latest recordings, it barely touches the RAM, however when I've been using programmed drums, virtual orchestras and the odd virtual instrument, its nearly maxed out my 4 GB in my Mac Pro.

Theres always the Direct-From-Disk options, but they run so slow its criminal sometimes


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> however when I've been using programmed drums, virtual orchestras and the odd virtual instrument, its nearly maxed out my 4 GB in my Mac Pro.



ah, I would be using all 3, very useful information


----------



## synrgy (Apr 22, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ah, I would be using all 3, very useful information


 
What he said was weird to me, cause I've only got 3gb in my laptop pc and 4gb in my rackmount, and both machines let me run more simultaneous samples/VSTi's/programs then I could possibly ever actually need to run at once (I was literally _trying _to max out my cpu), and even then I'm only at about 20 or 30% usage... 

But 'Macs are better', so what do I know.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 22, 2009)

Enjoying poking fires?

You'll get burned eventually dude 

Seriously, if you are running a 2 GB drumkit sample set, on top of 1 GB of orchestral samples, and then other synthesizer modules on top, ONLY from RAM, not from Direct-From-Disk options, you WILL max out 4 GB of memory, because thats where it stores samples. Not a lot more to it really....


----------



## synrgy (Apr 22, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> You never asked about the DAW you want, you asked for a DAW which supports it. I pointed you to one. Stop splitting hairs.


 

I had meant to imply more strongly that I was asking about a _cross platform_ DAW.

Besides, splitting hairs or not what I said was valid. I'm sorry if it ruffled your feathers, but none of us should take the internet personally.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 22, 2009)

while I do believe that Macs probably are much better in the long run, I also a) can't afford it and b) think that a PC could do the job I need doing just fine so I'm gonna leave it at that.

thanks for all the info men


----------



## synrgy (Apr 22, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> Enjoying poking fires?
> 
> You'll get burned eventually dude
> 
> Seriously, if you are running a 2 GB drumkit sample set, on top of 1 GB of orchestral samples, and then other synthesizer modules on top, ONLY from RAM, not from Direct-From-Disk options, you WILL max out 4 GB of memory, because thats where it stores samples. Not a lot more to it really....


 
Who's splitting hairs now? In the post where you said your 4gb were taxed, you made no mention of 'ONLY from RAM'.


----------



## stuh84 (Apr 22, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I had meant to imply more strongly that I was asking about a _cross platform_ DAW.
> 
> Besides, splitting hairs or not what I said was valid. I'm sorry if it ruffled your feathers, but none of us should take the internet personally.



I wasn't taking it personally, I was just pointing out I'd done what you asked, and you'd called me out on it. I was merely trying to make sense of telling someone they are wrong for providing what you asked.

Also, the cross-platform part....why is that an issue here if we're talking about Macs vs PCs? You were talking in response to a Mac Pro being loaded with 16 GB of memory, asking whats the point when no DAW supports it, I provided an example of the one that would use the 16 GB in a Mac Pro. How does something being cross platform actually make any difference when discussing the Mac Pro?



synrgy said:


> Who's splitting hairs now? In the post where you said your 4gb were taxed, you made no mention of 'ONLY from RAM'.



"Theres always the Direct-From-Disk options, but they run so slow its criminal sometimes"

Given that Direct-From-Disk is running samples from RAM and the hard drive, and without using Direct-From-Disk means using only RAM, I thought it would be implied. I guess not.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 22, 2009)

flexkill said:


> PC FTW!!!! Mac is over priced shite!!!!!!!



Try to contribute to a rational discourse, m'kay?


----------



## synrgy (Apr 22, 2009)

Rabble. Rabble Rabble!!



Enjoy your new machine dude.


----------



## El Caco (Apr 22, 2009)

For recording RAM is your friend. You can survive with little if you are not using a lot of plug-ins and lock down your tracks.

The initial question was answered correctly at the beginning of the thread, if it is just for recording both are fine, which is superior comes down to which is more productive for you and if you need Logic.

However you asked the question, is the price is justified? I don't think this was answered completely. The mistake most people make is looking at entry price and even entry price it is not simple. Macs can be expensive to get into but you can also get a Mac very cheap however what is more significant IMO is the ongoing cost. My Mac mini for example will do everything the average person would want to do easily, it cost $850 AUD if I sold it now I would lose only a couple of hundred dollars because low end macs hold their value, this means the cost of owning that mac has been less then $100 AUD per year. Macs also use very little power, this means that compared to some PC's they may save a decent amount on your power bill. 

My 24" imac can be sold on eBay for the same amount I paid for it, crazy I know but for some reason people are willing to bid more for a second hand Mac on eBay then you can buy a new one from the Apple refurbished store for. This means if you buy the right model new from the refurbished store and upgrade often the actual cost of ownership can be very low.

My MBP is a different story, I bought it second hand for $2000, I am selling it here for $1000, it will go for more on eBay but based on that price the cost of ownership is close to $400 per year which is about the same as a Windows laptop. So the high end Macs can cost more to own especially if you hold on to them as long as I did with that one.

Overall as you can see the cost of owning a mac can be less then a PC. I have said it before, I am more productive on a Mac, I prefer the way they operate and I prefer Mac software.

However I use my Macs for everything and one thing I would like to point out is Macs are not always more reliable then Windows PC's. I run a bit of third party software as well as a developer version of xquartz and Safari 4 beta, as a result my iMac is just as unstable as any Windows PC. However I do not have to run a security suite so money and system resources can be saved there, at this time the few threats that exist for macs are easily avoidable and in the entire time that I have owned Macs I have never needed to reinstall my OS and I have spent only a couple of hours in these many years on maintenance.

Having said all of that if you feel more comfortable on Windows and do not need or want any Mac software none of this matters, even if the Windows PC worked out more expensive, that is the one you should use.


----------



## newamerikangospel (Apr 23, 2009)

Wow. Put Mac vs. PC right up with politics and religion on the discussion block


----------



## 7slinger (Apr 23, 2009)

apologies up front because I did not read the entire thread, so this has probably been covered.

There is no answer to this question. Both mac and pc do the job just fine. Pick the machine that you are most comfortable with or can get the better deal on.

This argument will rage on as long as mac and pc exist as separate entities

I kinda just said titties there, and it made me giggle


----------



## sethh (Apr 24, 2009)

a slight off-topic if you pardon me (though still relevant to main topic in a way)

i just converted to a Mac after being a PC user my whole life and i'm not fully familiar with the plugin selection on OSX. assuming there are great plugins that a Windows user wouldn't know to look for, could you please recommend me some of 'em? also i haven't tried both yet but which do people here prefer on a Mac and why - Pro Tools or Logic?

thankz


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 24, 2009)

this thread has turned into a fountain of knowledge for all


----------



## Ze Kink (Apr 24, 2009)

sethh said:


> a slight off-topic if you pardon me (though still relevant to main topic in a way)
> 
> i just converted to a Mac after being a PC user my whole life and i'm not fully familiar with the plugin selection on OSX. assuming there are great plugins that a Windows user wouldn't know to look for, could you please recommend me some of 'em? also i haven't tried both yet but which do people here prefer on a Mac and why - Pro Tools or Logic? thankz!



There's not as many good free plugins as for PC, that's for sure. That said, I only really miss the Kjaerhus package, Gclip and Fish Fillets (which do have Mac versions, but only for older PowerPC's).

I recommend that you start there: KVR Audio

That's what I did, and I found a few that I downloaded, and will try when I get my rig back together. So far I've just been using the OSX version of Reaper and the plugs that come with it (which are pretty good).

If you mean better plugins that you need to pay for, those nearly always have Mac versions available as well. I'm probably going to purchase some Stillwell and Voxengo plugins in the near future; I've been liking some of the Stillwells a lot, they also come with Reaper as "rough versions".

I don't really like PT LE because of the silly restrictions and lack of ADC (even if you can solve it with the Mellowmuse plugin). I've been thinking about buying Logic but I need to try it first. Apparently the plugins and virtual instruments that come with it are very good. Logic also comes with Mainstage. I also read that it might get an update soon, so if I end up liking it, I'll still probably wait a bit longer to know if the rumours are true.


----------



## El Caco (Apr 24, 2009)

This is the rumour regarding Logic Pro Apps and MacBooks to see update at WWDC | 9 to 5 Mac

The problems with that rumour is Apple have never announced pro apps at WWDC and it is highly unlikely that Apple would release Logic 9 before Snow Leopard. I am guessing that an announcement regarding Snow Leopard is likely but I doubt Logic 9, most people expect a major update to Logic 8 before Logic 9 is released. Even if Logic 9 is announced I wouldn't expect it to be out until early 2010.

Another thing to consider if you are holding out is early adopters of Logic 8 complained that it was very buggy and are in no hurry to upgrade as they believe that Apple has finally got it right so now would be the best time to buy and then upgrade to Logic 9 express for $99 or studio for $199 once they sort the bugs out with it.

The thing with technology is there is always something new coming out and if you wait for the new thing you never buy anything, the best time to buy is when you need it.


----------



## Harry (Apr 24, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> If you have a more powerful processor, do you need less RAM?



RAM, CPU and the Front side bus all seem to come together in making a high performance machine. although IIRC with the new Core i7 CPU does away with what is normally thought of as a FSB. And now that FSB bottle neck is taken out of the equation, in general it can run more efficiently.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Apr 24, 2009)

s7eve said:


> This is the rumour regarding Logic Pro Apps and MacBooks to see update at WWDC | 9 to 5 Mac
> 
> The problems with that rumour is Apple have never announced pro apps at WWDC and it is highly unlikely that Apple would release Logic 9 before Snow Leopard. I am guessing that an announcement regarding Snow Leopard is likely but I doubt Logic 9, most people expect a major update to Logic 8 before Logic 9 is released. Even if Logic 9 is announced I wouldn't expect it to be out until early 2010.
> 
> ...



Actually ,I was awaitnig that even before I read the article.

The price of the Logic 8 studio droped 300euros here and that made me think of the update.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Apr 26, 2009)

So a lot of you guys seem to know quite a bit about the computer realm, so maybe one of you guys knows what the hell is going on with mine...
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/recording-studio/84594-wtf-mang.html
and to all you mac guys on this topic...I just went to the apple site to see what they had going on...whats up with that mini mac???? any experience with them? for 600 bucks, Im seriously thinking about making that my next purchase...its got pretty much the same specs as a baseline imac from what i can tell, and ive heard a lot about macs being built specifically for multimedia (recording, movie making, gaming, etc) Ive only had experience with macs in middle school when there were still those big ass flimsy disks and the screens were about 8 inches (hell yeha oregon trail!!!) if these mini macs are for real, im def gonna look more into it.


----------



## El Caco (Apr 28, 2009)

The Mini mac is for real. You have to supply your own keyboard, mouse and monitor or you can buy them from Apple but if you are happy with what you have already then no need. The newest Mac Mini now has the ability to run two monitors as well.

I have an older model and it's a nice little multi purpose family computer that handles general day to day tasks fine.


----------



## XxXPete (Apr 28, 2009)

I can attest to the statement that "pc's with vista 64 ......suck ASS!"


----------



## Lenny (Apr 29, 2009)

I went to mac after 10 years of pc, i built a pc for audio and it crashed too many times, maybe not common,but i was stressed and frustrated, got a mac, not a single problem, yet


----------



## drmosh (Apr 29, 2009)

XxXPete said:


> I can attest to the statement that "pc's with vista 64 ......suck ASS!"



I can attest to the fact that my recording PC, running Vista 64 has never crashed a single time and runs great.


----------



## Drow Swordsman (Apr 29, 2009)

I'm not going to get into the argument of why PC's suck or why Macs are awesome, I will simply state my experience.

I've had PC's pretty much my whole life, and while never had any miserable times with any of them, I still disliked the troubles they had now and again (whether it be viruses, random mishaps, massive slowdowns, etc.).

I got a MacBook Pro back in January (with this site's support being one of the reasons I considered it) and I've never had a computer of any kind that I've ever felt I've LOVED until I got my MacBook Pro. I don't think I'll ever go back to running a PC.

With Crossover Games Mac I've also had no trouble playing the (few) games I play (Counterstrike 1.6, Source, etc).


----------

