My Studio Set up

[Bisson820]

you're very good at trying to be condescending...

youre confusing your rare case of a PC lasting with proven statistics...

i dont care about your backround or what you have or dont have... there are odd ducks to every situation...

my backround... been a PC guy all my life untill i learned about both.... recreationally.. i still own a PC as my laptop.. im on it right now...

im not saying they arent capable (said that about 5 times now)...

but mac is better for what im doing... by tenfold.

 

[Jeff_D]

anyways...

my plan is using 6 mics on an average drum kit.. 1 or 2 on the kick... depending... 3 or 4 on the toms/snare depending.... and 2 overheads regardless...

with the other 2 inputs im planning on having bass and rhythm going with the drums. just to get the foundation of the song down.

On drums now, I use;
1 kick- AKG D112
1 Snare - Senn e609
2 Overhead - Pair Octava mk012 small diaphragm condensers
3 tom mics - random mics (I just picked up the sm57 knockoffs from Orange county speaker, but havent tried em yet).

So... thats 7 mics.
Plus, I also record bass, 2 guitars and 3 vocals (live band practice recordings), so that makes 13 simultaneous... So, 16 channels is safe for me.
My point is, when doing full bands, its easy to surpass the limitation of 8 channels, so go for more or prepare for expandability.

 

[Jeff_D]

you're very good at trying to be condescending...

Not my intention at all. Just conversation. If I was trying to be rude or condescending, I'd be calling you names by now.

 

[Jeff_D]

with proven statistics...

link?


....

 

[Bisson820]

On drums now, I use;
1 kick- AKG D112
1 Snare - Senn e609
2 Overhead - Pair Octava mk012 small diaphragm condensers
3 tom mics - random mics (I just picked up the sm57 knockoffs from Orange county speaker, but havent tried em yet).

So... thats 7 mics.
Plus, I also record bass, 2 guitars and 3 vocals (live band practice recordings), so that makes 13 simultaneous... So, 16 channels is safe for me.
My point is, when doing full bands, its easy to surpass the limitation of 8 channels, so go for more or prepare for expandability.

cool mics, but im never planning on recording a full band at once... very much against it... but tahts just my style i guess.

 

[Fishmed]

The only computer I trust for tracking audio is the Alesis HD24.

 

[RAMI]

you're very good at trying to be condescending...

He's not being condescending at all. He's being quite gracious, as opposed to this:

Jeff.... sorry dude... but after hearing that you think PC has an equivalent life expectancy as a Mac just destroys your credibility to me..

That's condescending if you ask me.

i used to be in your shoes man.... thought mac was a hype.

He never said that. He said this about 10 different ways, though:

Macs can be great.

So, you seem to have a comprehension problem, too.

 

[Jeff_D]

cool mics, but im never planning on recording a full band at once... very much against it... but tahts just my style i guess.

Gotcha. Even if you are doing just drums and scratch backing tracks, 8 channels is about the limit. Its easy to find you're self wishing you had just one or two more channels.

 

[Bisson820]

im sure it is... feel like paying for the extra channels for me?

 

[Jeff_D]

im sure it is... feel like paying for the extra channels for me?

not really, but if you go for an interface now that has ADAT in or that is known to work with multiple interfaces, you can safe yourself some headache down the road when you just can't do with out the extra channel upgrade anymore.
























































or, you could save a couple bucks on the computer & software, and spend more on more channels now.

ok, now I'm fucking with ya.

 

[Fishmed]

im sure it is... feel like paying for the extra channels for me?

You could go with the 1640i instead of the 1620i to get twice the mic pres and balanced inserts which is a MAJOR PLUS if you did want to venture into outboard gear in the future.

 

[Jeff_D]

link?


....

Still waiting on someone to post those "proven statistics" that a Mac has a longer life than a PC...

With the pace that new computer technology comes out, how long do you expect a computer to last? 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? (that question is directed at anyone who'd care to answer)

 

[Fishmed]

Still waiting on someone to post those "proven statistics" that a Mac has a longer life than a PC...

With the pace that new computer technology comes out, how long do you expect a computer to last? 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? (that question is directed at anyone who'd care to answer)

I think that technology will change before your computer's hardware fails completely; granted, individual parts may crap out... usually the hard drive.

The question you have to ask yourself, do you want to get longevity out of an old PC that cannot run the latest programs, or do you want to upgrade every several years to take advantage of the newest technologies?

In the big picture, there is little difference between Mac and PC. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, so it boils down to the end user. What are they most comfortable with to do their job efficiently. I have used PCs from the beginning of recording life, but I have nothing against Macs and the people who use them.

 

[Bisson820]

just out of boredom... went to the mac store and the dell store.

Mac: 21.5 inch iMac
RAM: 8 GB
OS: snow leopard
processor: 3.06 GHz Duo
Hard Drive: 500GB

Price: 1,399.99

Dell: Studio XPS with 21.5 inch monitor
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7
Processor: 2.66 GHz
Hard Drive: 750GB

Price: 1,349.99



I'll take a mac!

 

[Fishmed]

just out of boredom... went to the mac store and the dell store.

Mac: 21.5 inch iMac
RAM: 8 GB
OS: snow leopard
processor: 3.06 GHz Duo
Hard Drive: 500GB

Price: 1,399.99

Dell: Studio XPS with 21.5 inch monitor
RAM: 8GB
OS: Windows 7
Processor: 2.66 GHz
Hard Drive: 750GB

Price: 1,349.99



I'll take a mac!

Building your own computer is the way you to go for PCs. If you shop around for your parts it can be cheaper and more specific for your recording needs.

 

[Bisson820]

Building your own computer is the way you to go for PCs. If you shop around for your parts it can be cheaper and more specific for your recording needs.

why go through the hassle of that just to try to match what the mac does for the use that it will be getting?

also a processor difference such as that and the OS difference is reason enough to prefer mac even if the PC was $400 cheaper.

the biggest problem with PC is it has so many different brands that all run the same operating system... where as mac and its OS are made for eachother.

its a very light operating system compared to anything that windows has created..

even tho windows 7 is significantly lighter than XP and Vista were/are.. it is still much heavier than snow leopard.

the lighter the OS the more machine functionality you will get..

ALSO the UNIX foundation in mac puts a serious edge over PC..

all this stuff increases mac performance and reliability.

(keep in mind i previously said im still using a PC for recreational use )

 

[iownrocknroll]

The iMac is not expandlable, the Dell is. iMac will not support E5505/i7

good luck running certain applications on a 64 bit mac.

such as the entire creative suite.

if you're going mac, go mac pro.

the imac is outdated

 

[Bisson820]

The iMac is not expandlable, the Dell is. iMac will not support E5505/i7

good luck running certain applications on a 64 bit mac.

such as the entire creative suite.

if you're going mac, go mac pro.

the imac is outdated

outdated? are you using the wrong term? because the iMac is new on the line.

and there's no reason for me to expand at this point....

i honestly dont see the point your tyring to make.

if your ignoring the advantages and vocusing on those 2 things you mentioned, then i'd consider looking at a broader spectrum.

and everything is going 64 bit.. tahts the problem vista had is they jumped the gun and went 64 bit without really considering talk back at all... now the rest of the things are molding that way.... however vista is HUGE and really drops performance strictly from that.

and the mac pro is out of my current budget... but i wish!

 

[Fishmed]

why go through the hassle of that just to try to match what the mac does for the use that it will be getting?

also a processor difference such as that and the OS difference is reason enough to prefer mac even if the PC was $400 cheaper.

the biggest problem with PC is it has so many different brands that all run the same operating system... where as mac and its OS are made for eachother.

its a very light operating system compared to anything that windows has created..

even tho windows 7 is significantly lighter than XP and Vista were/are.. it is still much heavier than snow leopard.

the lighter the OS the more machine functionality you will get..

ALSO the UNIX foundation in mac puts a serious edge over PC..

all this stuff increases mac performance and reliability.

(keep in mind i previously said im still using a PC for recreational use )

You won't get any disagreements with me on Windows; that is why I stated earlier that the only computer I trust for tracking is the HD24.

 

[iownrocknroll]

no Outdated is the right term. last time I checked, that iMac was not using the e550x which is the new chip and does not support the fastest memory speed.

DDR will not run correctly unless divisable by 3. so 6, 12, 18 GB. etc. not 8.

Windows is on their 3rd 64 bit OS. Mac is on there first.
and really if you wanna be technical Windos Data center was 64 bit back in the year 2000

there was a point in time where MAC handled PAE slightly better then windows on the Workstation platform only. but that's another post

the kernel in MacOSx is a far cry from unix. the only thing unix about it is the terminal.

it's really an objective C based OS

I currently am incharge of 200 PC's and 12 Macs, 20 windows servers 2 mac servers and 6 unix/linux servers

also my studio consists of 2 macs and 3 pc's.