MAC people...possible convert here

Hard2Hear

New member
I'm thinking of moving to the dark side and getting a Mac to use for recording. Mind you, I use a P3 800 with win2k that I am fairly satisfied with, I am just doing some research. I have worked with Pc's for almost 10 years, but have never used a Mac, not even once. So I have some questions to anyone who would answer them.

1. Is the video output different? Could I use my existing switchbox and not have to buy (and make room for) another monitor?
2. Is the Mac all SCSI inside? If so, to upgrade and buy another HD, what type SCSI? (wide, wide-ultra, ultra2,etc.?)
3. Is there Half-Life for Macs and does it run over the internet? (sorry, the gamer in me has to ask...)
4. I see at CDW.com that a G4 500mhz machine is going for $2500, where a G4 400mhz is $1295. Would I be dumb to save half the money and get 100mhz less?(granted, there are some other differences)
4b. If a 400 mhz Mac going to give performance near my 800 mhz P3?
5. Is the SDRAM they use for memory the same as SDRAM for a PC?)

Looking foreward to hearing some answers.....
H2H

ps...i'm not getting rid of my 4 pc's. this will be an addition
 
I just did the Mac thing a few weeks ago so, I cannot claim to be the Mac Guru, so I will only answer the questions I can.

>2. Is the Mac all SCSI inside? If so, to upgrade and buy another HD, what type SCSI? (wide, wide-ultra, ultra2,etc.?)

No. Mac is all IDE inside ATA 66.


>4. I see at CDW.com that a G4 500mhz machine is going for $2500, where a G4 400mhz is $1295. Would I be dumb to save half the money and get 100mhz less?(granted, there are some other differences)<

This would depend on what software you use and whether it supports (or will support) dual processors. The 500 Mhz machine is a multi processor machine. The 400 Mhz is only a single processor. So the difference is more than just 100 mhz if your software takes advantage of the second processor.

>5. Is the SDRAM they use for memory the same as SDRAM for a PC?)<

There is a variety of Ram for Mac and PC. The old Mac G4 uses SDRAM PC 100. I believe the newly introduced G4's can go up to 133. So be sure to check the new machines out.

The beautiful thing about MAC is that if you want to, you can run all your windows applications on it for the cost of the software from Connectix called virtual PC. See http://www.connectix.com/products/vpc.html

Hope this helps!

Albert
 
Emeric

Now that you mention it, it does sound pretty funny. reality is that there is a lot more software these days written for Windows than there is for Macs. So if you own a Mac and want to run a windows application at least you got the option. Glad you got chuckle out of my post.
 
Hey Man How are ya?
I'm not sure about the video output deal.

The new G3,G4 Macs are ATA inside. Older PowerMacs With a few exceptions were all SCSI. I was told by a mac tech that an Adaptec2940UW in one of three PCI slots with atleast a 7200 RPM 68pinUWscsi harddrive is the optimal way to go for recording audio.

You can get a Pentium processor to put in the mac, and run your windows apps right along side of your Mac apps. It is a beautiful thing.

From what I understand you should see pretty much the same performance as your 800 p3 from the G4 400.

The SDRAM is "PC100 SDRAM DIMM" I think it is the same , but I'm not quite sure what's in the pc's for RAM.

Macs run great on the internet. I'm using one right now.

Also Macs are alot easier to use. I can't speak about WIN2000 because I've never used it, but there is not as many steps to get around on your mac as on windows making it more user friendy. Look in any "professional" studio and you'll see a Mac. You should check out http://www.apple.com For the lastest G4 733mhz. Pretty spendy, But a real Beast.

Hope this helps.
 
733 or dual 533?

Hey, now that were on the topic, does anyone know which is better for pro tools and/or digital performer-- 733mhz or a dual processor machine? I understand the 733 will let you burn a DVD inside... must be handy!?! --jk
 
Jerry

Neither pro tools nore Digital Performer are optimized for dual processors yet. However, Digital Performer 3.0 which comes out later this year is supposed to support multi processors including the quad processors that may be in Apple's line down the road.

As far as speed, the faster the better.

Albert
 
T.J.Hooker said:
You can get a Pentium processor to put in the mac, and run your windows apps right along side of your Mac apps. It is a beautiful thing.

huh? If this is true, it really blows me away. Please explain.
H2H
 
There is a company called Orange (I think) that makes a PCI PC. You plug it in to your MAC's PCI and you are now dual platform. Cool eh? Additionally, MAC's have always been able to read and save in PC format. The reverse is not true. Before you think I'm some MAC fanatic, I use both PC and MAC. PC for biz, MAC for music. I can afford to choose, and I choose both.
 
AlinMV-

Thanks, thats what I figured-- the 733 is better.

Lets just talk Pro Tools, for the moment. Say, for yucs, I go straight to Mix Plus. Then does the speed of the G4 processor matter all that much-- I mean, at that point isn't the processing offloaded to the external Mix Plus unit anyway?

I'm just wondering if it makes sense to put my $ into Mix Plus hardware NOW and and save it on a cheaper G4. Any thoughts?

peace,
--jk
 
Jerry

I believe the answer to your question is NO.

MIX Plus Retail Cost: 10K (not including Computer and monitor).

G4-MOTU setup: As low as $3000 (including computer and Monitor).

So whatever money you save by buying a slower computer, you will pay 20X by buying the Mix Plus hardware. Not my idea of spending money wisely if you are recording at home.

As you correctly stated, with TDM the processing is offloaded to the Motorola Chip used by Digidesign.

Albert
 
AlinMV:

I guess you dig MOTU.

I just spoke at length to a guy named Brad from Sweetwater who was selling me on MOTU--they don't do Pro Tools, at sweetwater, it seems.

I have two concerns about Motu: 1) audio editing 2) realtime effects. I know that Performer is tops for Midi sequencing, because I have an old version of it for years (old 16 bit version on a Mac 7500)-- it was great (and sequencing is actually my strongest suit) but Performer kindof reeked on the audio editing side. Likewise I used an old version of pro tools on the same configuration-- it was great for editing audio, but didnothing for sequencing.

I really don't know how the new Performer works. I heard that the audio editing is much better now. But what about real-time effects (an 'dats 'da Pro Tools Mix+ joint, I figure-- it comes with Focusrite eq AND compression!).

One thing I know for sure-- if an effect isn't quality, I wont mess with it-- I had a few badpplugins in my day
-- what a disgrace!

So, what's a freak to do? I know that Pro Tools will put me into debtors jail, but I am just tired of playing with toys.

peace,
-jk
 
Jerry

You're absolutely right about Performer vs. Protools when it comes to Midi implementation. Although I am a newbie at the DAW thing, I can tell you that with Performer you get that much more to work with in MIDI. As to audio editing, I have to tell you that I like protools better. The Graphic editing window is easier and more intuitive to use than Digital Performer. Nonetheless, when you compare MOTU's Digital Performer and Protools LE, you can accomplish so much more with DP. It may simply be done slightly more intuitively in Protools.

The reason I got sold on MOTU products is rather simple. I was comparing the digi 001 + PTLE against MOTU's 2408 + DP. There were many problems with getting stuck with 24 tracks for me especially if i wanted to mic a drum kit (as opposed to MIDI drums) and record my keyboard parts in stereo. You can run out of tracks quickly that way. Granted there are workarounds. I just think that for the money, the MOTU combination provides a much more expandable platform and a much more powerful software than PTLE.

Plug ins: AFAIK, there are no real advantages to either Protools or Motu when it comes to real time plug ins. Both have a slew of third party Plug Ins as well as their own which are very competent.

I guarantee you, Digital Performer is not a toy, and neither are the various MOTU hardware boxes. Many TDM users prefer to track both audio and MIDI in Digital Performer and end up editing in protools. IMHO, I think you can't go wrong with either set up, unless all you are interested in is impressing clients, in which case, you should go with Protools.

Albert
 
camn, you sweetheart...

Thanks for the link to RED. I checked out their site. It looks tre cool -- much more affordable than Pro Tools, or should I say, it's actually affordable!

Looks like it works on Win2k-- have you tried it yourself? Do you know anyone who does? I didn't see much on the site in terms of current reviews, though they seem to have had a good year in '97.

In terms of Linux, You'd certainly love it--the command line interface is the real thing, the genuine article, and THE SLASHES POINT THE RIGHT WAY! It's like a DOS box on steroids! -- it's Unix for God's sake, man!!! There aren't any hardware drivers, but who cares-- just write your own!

(If I only had a brain I would).

peace,
jk
 
Most of the UTTER CRAP i hear on the radio gets recorded on a Mac.. I know. And it totally sux. Too bad. I think Eminem sold 7 million copies of a Protool's recorded project.. Dre just plugged his Casio right in.. hit the magic 'arpeggiator' key (remember that!) and off they went. To bad it's not as trendy to be GOOD as it is to record on a Mac..;)

I use Mixtreme interfaces... here's a bunch of poeple who use th other stuff, though.. http://soundscape-digital.com/Users/ForumArch0017.html ...

xoxo
 
ps... Im just throwing out alternatives. The BBC uses soundscape recorders..I hear. I think Americans are just a little biased towards the god-awful PROTOOLS god.

YO, Europeans! Ever heard of Soundscape Digital?
I ask merely for information, you understand..

xoox
 
Yeah... that's makes sense.... stuff on the radio sounds like crap, and since *MACS* are used in most major studios, the *MACS* are the reason behind it.... it doesn't happen to have anything to do with no-talent "artists" or the marketing-oriented music production practices (money over quality). NO - none of that -- the real reason is the OS of the computer systems used in the engineering process... SAY WHAT?????????????????????? :eek:

Camn - I gotta believe you're just yanking people's chain with your comments for fun 'cos I KNOW you're way smarter than THAT kind of logic.......... ;)

Bruce
 
Back
Top