|
building new computer for music only..mac or pc
|
View this Thread in Original format
| BTG |
I was thinking logic 7, or cuebase...but cuebase can be on pc.
what are you peoples experiences with mac? does it make a difference? i kinda want it just cuase its neat and trendy and looks professional, but if i go with logic i have no choice anyways.
also anyone use logic? |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
What is your budget?
Macs are good in the high end segment, but a cheap PC is better than a cheap mac in most cases. If you can afford a mac pro then I woud recomend going for that, but if you are choosing between imac or PC then I would go for PC.
The only comparidon I amreally doing is the performance of the hardware per dollar, factoring in OS preference and all that into the recomendations gets way too subjective, that mac pro though, you Dell couldnt make a machine like that for as cheap as apple is doing, that one is really special.
I've only played with imacs and my experience has not been good, so that is why I say apple is not for limited budgets. |
|
|
| LENG |
| i'd say go for pc. it's cheaper and performance wise, they're both on par. price wise, hands down at pc :) |
|
|
| RivalMan |
Warning – long post!
Ok - this is a dangerous topic. Some people swear almost religiously to either one or the other - and also some people discuss the Mac vs. the pc and others discuss Logic vs. Cubase. I’ll TRY to be as unbiased as possible and discuss the matter in a structured manner.
Disclaimer
First of all, let me say, I've used Cubase for years (12 years to be exact) - from some early Atari-versions (which, by the way, is freeware now), over the VST-versions and now the SX-versions. I don't have the same experience with Logic, although I on several occasions have flirted a bit with Logic. Right now, I'm actually considering a switch to Logic. So far these are my findings:
Mac vs. the PC
This distinction doesn’t really make any sense anymore. The new Macs are all based on the Intel CPUs so hardware wise the computers are EXCACTLY the same (or at least they can be, if you build the pc yourself from specifications mirroring the Mac). However, do note that the new Mac Pro is actually sold for less than if you were to build a pc (i.e. Dell) with the same specifications. But you can actually get a similar performance (hardware wise) if you base your pc on the new Conroe CPU (i.e. E6700) and overclock this a little bit. You should, however, be aware that the hardware picks for the Mac Pro are all based on high end hardware, so you can argue that quality-wise the Mac Pro might be superior to a Conroe-based system – but performance wise they’ll be pretty much the same.
So if the difference is not in the hardware, is it in the OS then?
OSX (Tiger) vs. Windows (XP)
First of all, this is a subjective comparison that reflects my own personal opinions – it’s hard to make it anything else. Although I’m impressed with the appearance of OSX, you actually CAN get passed the fact the OSX looks ten times more cool than Windows with all its’ Quartz-extreme boosted flashy graphics, flying widgets, pan/zooming-effects etc.
Stability
My experience is that, if you have a little bit of computer knowledge, you’ll easily get Windows running smoothly today. The days with blue screens and strange application crashes seem to have ended. If you combine quality hardware and update your drivers (and Windows) regularly, you’ll have a system running without one single crash 24/7-365. I’ve done this myself, so I can promise you: It IS possible. Now, some people would argue that 100 % stability is easier to get with a Mac than on a pc. That might be true, considering that people themselves (most of the time) does not assemble a Mac. So the system is delivered to you with a proven combination of tested and working hardware. The pc is more about YOU choosing components that won’t result in an unstable system. That might be an explanation for some of the cases of instability on the pc platform that you see reported sometimes.
Some people might argue that because OSX is based around Darwin (a UNIX-based OS) it is more stable than Windows by definition. I see that as a “religious” argument. Don’t get me wrong: I love working in UNIX environments – all I’m saying is: Windows can be just as stable if you are working on a good setup.
Performance
This is very difficult to compare (and we shouldn’t be talking about general performance here, but rather about performance in respect to audio-based work). Some people would argue that OSX has been optimised to work with the hardware, but I no longer find this a valid argument (considering Macs recent move to Intel). In fact, some people on the insanelymac.com forums have reported that Windows benchmarks are a little bit better than OSX benchmarks, when running tests on exactly the same based setup. Some argues that it’s the other way around. I think a safe conclusion here is that there is NO superiority to either OSX or Windows.
However, one thing should be noted here: Roseatta-based applications and Cubase on the OSX run MUCH slower than Cubase on Windows. If you wanna run Cubase anyway: Do so on a pc – not a Mac!
Available software (AUs vs. VSTs)
I’m not discussing general software availability, but assuming that you’ll want to use Logic or Cubase. So the matter here is really about available plug-ins.
Some plugs are only available on the Mac platform – others are only available to the PC. Probably, it will always be like this. Most plug-ins, however, are available to both platforms.
The ones that are missing most badly on the PC platform are:
• Logics native plugs (i.e. the EXS24-sampler and the synths).
• McDSP plug-ins (if you ever seen the “Mix It Like a Record”-DVD, you’ll know what I’m talking about).
On the Mac you can’t buy:
• Z3TA+
• Sytrus
• - and a lot of software hasn’t been released as universal binaries yet (i.e. Intel-Mac compatible). Among other things this concerns the Powercore and UAD-software.
In general, you’ll probably find that you can buy just as many (and good) AU-plug-ins as you can buy VST-plug-ins.
Core Audio vs. ASIO
OSX uses the “Core Audio” developed by Apple and Windows uses (or should at least) the ASIO developed by Steinberg. Both will give you very low latencies and it’s hard to say if one is better than the other. However, if you do not have (or want to invest in) a pro (or semi pro) audio device, I believe that Core Audio is the better choice. The reason is that this also gives you low latencies even when using built-in audio devices. However, to my knowledge, there’s really no big difference here.
Logic vs. Cubase
Now we get to the point (finally, you might say).
It’s not debateable that most pro musicians use Logic rather than Cubase and that you’ll find Logic (and not Cubase) in most professional recording studios. There are some exceptions to this rule (i.e. The Thrillseekers uses Cubase), but in general Logic seems to be the choice of pros. Why is that?
I’m not sure why this is the case, but there could be several reasons for this (some rational and some not).
Rational arguments
• Logic can use TDM-effects (and DAE-sound engine) if you have a Pro Tools setup. Most pro studios might have such a setup in place to begin with and Logic seems the easier choice.
• Logic has better support of environments (that is at least until Cubase version 4). Pro musicians have tons of outboard gear and thus Logic could be a wiser choice.
• In combination with the AMT8 (or Unitor) Logic has tighter midi-timing. Most pro studios are using external synths and thus timing is of outmost impotency.
• You want to be compatible with other pro musicians and recording studios so you can work hassle free on projects moving from one studio to the other.
Irrational arguments
• Historical reasons. It might be a myth (or might not), but some believe that OSX and Logic is more reliable than Windows and Cubase. This might have been the case in the past (when i.e. Windows 98 and earlier versions were on the market as well as early buggy versions of Cubase). I no longer believe this to be true, but the “knowledge” stays with people, even though the factors change.
• Institutional isomorphism. A person is unsure of which system to choose and looks at his “role models” (i.e. other professional or semi-professional musicians). The assumption is made: “Since they’re using Logic, it must be a better system”.
Besides the issues mentioned above, the sequencers are very much alike and feature-wise they remind a lot of each other. Some thing should be noted however:
• Side chaining in Cubase IS possible, but a pain in the ass to setup. It really slows down your workflow. In Logic side chaining is at a touch of a button.
• When working with virtual instruments, in Cubase you have the hassle of working with a midi track and a VSTi track (and assigning the output of the midi track to the VSTi). In Logic you have designated tracks for instruments, making it easier and faster to work with.
• Key-commands. If you learn to work with key commands in Logic, they can speed up your work flow significantly. You can specify your own key commands and thus personalize your work flow very much.
• Logic is a lot more configurable than Cubase. This is good news and bad news! The learning curve is steeper with Logic, but once you know how to use it, you have a lot of possibilities.
Sound wise both systems are based on 32-bit floating point calculations and the same pan-law rules. In theory this should mean that there shouldn’t be any difference in the audio. However, timing differences between tracks (audio/audio, audio/midi and midi/midi) can result in an audible difference between the systems. I haven’t noticed any difference, however, and I seriously doubt that you will unless you have really golden ears.
The conclusion is (not very surprising) that there is no clear winner between the two sequencers. One advice is however to choose one, learn this sequencer by heart and then stay with this for many years. Once you go down the road and invest in a lot of hardware and software and expand your setup, it can be quite expensive to change your sequencer from Cubase to Logic (or the other way around).
Hope this helped you a little bit in your decision making.
Regards |
|
|
| BOOsTER |
| quote: | Originally posted by RivalMan
Core Audio vs. ASIO
OSX uses the “Core Audio” developed by Apple and Windows uses (or should at least) the ASIO developed by Steinberg. Both will give you very low latencies and it’s hard to say if one is better than the other. However, if you do not have (or want to invest in) a pro (or semi pro) audio device, I believe that Core Audio is the better choice. The reason is that this also gives you low latencies even when using built-in audio devices. However, to my knowledge, there’s really no big difference here.
|
nice post, just one thing...where it's possible on PC one might want to use the ASIO4ALL drivers, which even with low-end integrated audio devices deliver low latency...so it's (I'm guessing) comparable to those on MACs with core-audio :-) |
|
|
| Anz_ |
| oh no, not the mac vs pc thread. Honestly id say go with a pc and just build one so you can get everything you want, you can honestly build a pc to be faster than a mac for far less cheaper.its all personal preferance, mac's are ok imo,dont see what all the hibidy-hooblah is about. my friend uses an imac g5 because he's a graphic designer but even he said it was overpriced,but he loves it, only problem is that it overheats all the time and shuts off on him and its fairly new.id say just go with a custom pc with an amd dual setup. |
|
|
| RivalMan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Anz_
...id say just go with a custom pc with an amd dual setup. |
NO! If you want to go with a pc you should not even for a moment consider AMD dual. There is NO doubt whatsoever that you'll get the best price/performance with a Conroe-setup (Intel). Every test (and I mean that literally) available on the net shows you that NO AMD comes even close to the Conroe. It doesn't matter if you use the computer for gaming, graphics, audio, office work etc. AMD has been outbeaten seriously by Intel this time. Everyone that has tried comparing AMD dual vs. the new Conroe agrees to this!
There's not one single reason to go with an AMD-setup at this time.
Regards |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
performance is one thing but conroe is still relatively new
There is something to be said for having a mature platform that other people have verified is compatible with everything they need and runs stable.
I just built my new conroe system last night, I'm feeling lucky. |
|
|
| Anz_ |
| im just stating what a majority of some people may use at the moment that will give you quite enough power, never really even heard of conroe though.thanks for the info. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| quote: | | • When working with virtual instruments, in Cubase you have the hassle of working with a midi track and a VSTi track (and assigning the output of the midi track to the VSTi). In Logic you have designated tracks for instruments, making it easier and faster to work with. |
And when working with VST instruments with multiple channels, you have to use a work around with a 'root instrument' making it harder to work with. |
|
|
| paulc_dj |
| quote: | Originally posted by RivalMan
NO! If you want to go with a pc you should not even for a moment consider AMD dual. There is NO doubt whatsoever that you'll get the best price/performance with a Conroe-setup (Intel). Every test (and I mean that literally) available on the net shows you that NO AMD comes even close to the Conroe. It doesn't matter if you use the computer for gaming, graphics, audio, office work etc. AMD has been outbeaten seriously by Intel this time. Everyone that has tried comparing AMD dual vs. the new Conroe agrees to this!
There's not one single reason to go with an AMD-setup at this time.
Regards |
Is Intel conroe the Intel Duo chip?
PC |
|
|
| DJ Chrono |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulc_dj
Is Intel conroe the Intel Duo chip?
PC |
Intel Core 2 Duo
E6300, E6400, E6500, E6600, E6700 and X6800 are the conroe chips. All socket LGA775. |
|
|
|
|
