Go with your instinct and keep your cash for priority items that will make an immediate and blindingly obvious improvement. Music is an art form, not an exercise in technology for its own sake. The many devices available to capture /*process it come and go, and whichever one you have now will be obsolete and slagged off by all the technos in 10 years time. As you imply, there's probably dozens of ways in which you can improve your artistic performance, and most of them won't cost you any money at all. As Keith Richards said, just practice until your fingers bleed, and then some. And listen back to yourself critically, really listen. Beyond that, two or three hundred quid spent on a couple of low to mid-price half decent electret microphones (or whatever, just for example) is going to make a difference that even a cloth-eared fool will notice; whereas nobody in 'the real world' other than some of our 'golden ears' fraternity is going to give two hoots whether your iMac has a -120dB sound floor or a -60dB one; if it sounds artistically good, that's the only test that ultimately matters. Admittedly I'm not coming from the 'studio recording' angle, I'm a professionally qualified (City & Guilds) sound engineer working part time (semi-retired) and specialising in services to live music. In the last 18 years I must have done several hundred gigs for bands and nearly always I've had some kind of recorder running in the background. I don't have precious time to waste giving it any attention beyond plugging into the desk and setting levels, and mostly it's a waste of time, what with the vast number of ways in which 'live' can come out sounding pretty dire - phase issues, to name but one example. But just now and again, you'll happen to get all your ducks in a row and a great performer will put in a stunning take just when 'the machinery' is working tolerably well. And in total honesty, I might have used almost any media that happened to be to hand. Back along, that might have been nothing but a consumer-level cassette recorder, and having used many and various digital devices since then, a recent recording that the artist singled out for praise was actually done on a restored 1960 all-valve mono Ferrograph reel-to-reeler, which on paper would come out in the Stone Age as regards noise floor/ wow & flutter, etc! Finally, quit worrying about your iMac. That's pretty much all I've ever used to digitise my work; people love or hate it according to the music's merit and it sounds just fine to me, so I suppose some will conclude that I'm obviously deaf, but that's their problem, not mine. In summary, if Frank Sinatra had made a recording on a wax cylinder, people would still be marvelling at his voice and the orchestral arrangement in 50 years time, whereas a third-rate pub band recorded and produced by BBC sound guys (the best), using 'state of the art' technology is still gong to be in the trash bin and forgotten by tomorrow. And I hope that stirs things up, tee-hee!
"Go with your instinct and keep your cash for priority items that will make an immediate and blindingly obvious improvement. Music is an art form, not an exercise in technology for its own sake. The many devices available to capture /*process it come and go, and whichever one you have now will be obsolete and slagged off by all the technos in 10 years time.
"As you imply, there's probably dozens of ways in which you can improve your artistic performance, and most of them won't cost you any money at all. As Keith Richards said, just practice until your fingers bleed, and then some. And listen back to yourself critically, really listen.
"Beyond that, two or three hundred quid spent on a couple of low to mid-price half decent electret microphones (or whatever, just for example) is going to make a difference that even a cloth-eared fool will notice; whereas nobody in 'the real world' other than some of our 'golden ears' fraternity is going to give two hoots whether your iMac has a -120dB sound floor or a -60dB one; if it sounds artistically good, that's the only test that ultimately matters.
"Admittedly I'm not coming from the 'studio recording' angle, I'm a professionally qualified (City & Guilds) sound engineer working part time (semi-retired) and specialising in services to live music. In the last 18 years I must have done several hundred gigs for bands and nearly always I've had some kind of recorder running in the background. I don't have precious time to waste giving it any attention beyond plugging into the desk and setting levels, and mostly it's a waste of time, what with the vast number of ways in which 'live' can come out sounding pretty dire - phase issues, to name but one example. But just now and again, you'll happen to get all your ducks in a row and a great performer will put in a stunning take just when 'the machinery' is working tolerably well.
"And in total honesty, I might have used almost any media that happened to be to hand. Back along, that might have been nothing but a consumer-level cassette recorder, and having used many and various digital devices since then, a recent recording that the artist singled out for praise was actually done on a restored 1960 all-valve mono Ferrograph reel-to-reeler, which on paper would come out in the Stone Age as regards noise floor/ wow & flutter, etc!
"Finally, quit worrying about your iMac. That's pretty much all I've ever used to digitise my work; people love or hate it according to the music's merit and it sounds just fine to me, so I suppose some will conclude that I'm obviously deaf, but that's their problem, not mine.
"In summary, if Frank Sinatra had made a recording on a wax cylinder, people would still be marvelling at his voice and the orchestral arrangement in 50 years time, whereas a third-rate pub band recorded and produced by BBC sound guys (the best), using 'state of the art' technology is still gong to be in the trash bin and forgotten by tomorrow. And I hope that stirs things up, tee-hee!"
I thought I would space it out a bit in paragraphs so that it is easier to read.
