Choosing an Imac! Help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddiebetancourt
  • Start date Start date
E

Eddiebetancourt

New member
Hi all, soon i'll be buying an Imac
The thing is I need help choosing it
There are different processors such like I3, I5 and I7
I will be recording and producing some electronic, hip hop, pop songs and possibly rock songs.
I am forwards to use it with Pt9 or logic, Reason 5.
Will I3 with 16 gb of ram do the work or the I5 is my better option? How about I7?
 
Personally, I think all three options are overkill for a small project or home studio. You could buy or build a much cheaper AMD based PC with Windows for a fraction of the price and have plenty of cpu muscle for just about any audio application you would care to run. You could use the money you save for better instruments or gear.
 
Okay! Will check it out! Personally for Production I find Windows a little bit messy aruond installing drivers here and there, mostly that's why I wanna change to Mac but I will check it out ! Thank you for the reply!
 
Mac's are not much better in the driver department. Buggy drivers are buggy drivers. If you get a quality interface with good support it's not an issue.
 
It all depends on how much you plan to do with effects and soft synths.

If you are planning to use mostly real instruments without a lot of effects, auto-tuning, etc., then CPU doesn't matter much. You could probably use an old Pentium III box or a G4 PowerMac and get the job done most of the time.

If you plan to do a lot of virtual (soft synth) instruments, then you'll want all the CPU you can get, in which case, contrary to the opinion of Murdersgalore, even that i7 iMac isn't overkill, IMHO.
 
Go with the I Mac and Logic pro. I used a p/c for recording for a while, I got a macbook and could not be happier. Thats my opinion wich means squat. Everyone has there own opinion, go with what floats your boat.
 
How to choose a music computer:

*) Get the fastest processor you can afford
*) Get the most ram you can afford
*) Get 3 drives (one for OS/apps/vsts, one for sample libraries, one for audio projects/misc.data)
*) Figure out what software you want to use; most times that will determine what OS you'll have to run.
(Logic only runs on Macs, FruityLoops only runs on Windows, etc.)

Budget is everything, anything else is minor.
 
I mostly agree, with the exception of using multiple drives. I didn't have much trouble with hard drive performance limiting my track counts back when we were still on 6MB/sec. SCSI, and we're now running SATA busses at 6 Gbps (100x as fast). It generally shouldn't be an issue unless your computer is paging to disk (in which case your problem is a lack of RAM, not a lack of disk performance).

Bear in mind that 1 GB of RAM is enough to cache an hour of audio at 96/24. :)

The only reason I might consider using more than one drive is to make it easier to back up just my data, but only if I were on a PC. On a Mac, I'd just use Time Machine and not think twice about it.
 
Sorry but audio buffers wont do that, mostly for latency reasons.
Disk accesses by the OS and apps will lead to clicks, pops and data dropouts.
Alway go with multiple drives for audio and video applications; continuous data streaming is a primary goal.
 
I have the Imac 27 I5 4 gigs of ram, and it floors any other compouter I've ever tried, CPU load ect is a forgotten chapter, I can basicly run as many plugs and tracks as I need

So you should be allright, with either choice
 
The only reason I might consider using more than one drive is to make it easier to back up just my data, but only if I were on a PC. On a Mac, I'd just use Time Machine and not think twice about it.

So you are saying that because you use a MAC your HD is less likely to fail than on a PC? Bare in mind that Time Machine is just backup software and if you back up on the same drive that your data is on there is nothing to spare you from a catastrophic drive failure no matter what type of computer you use. No offense, but you are starting to sound like a fanboy.
 
So you are saying that because you use a MAC your HD is less likely to fail than on a PC? Bare in mind that Time Machine is just backup software and if you back up on the same drive that your data is on there is nothing to spare you from a catastrophic drive failure no matter what type of computer you use. No offense, but you are starting to sound like a fanboy.

Uh... read what I wrote again. What I said was that I wouldn't bother using a separate drive because Time Machine makes it trivial to back up data on your system drive. And as far as I know, Time Machine won't let you back up to the same drive. Not sure how you could possibly have come to the conclusion that I was advising someone to do that....

Speaking as somebody who lost five hard drives in one year (one of which was a Time Machine backup drive), I'm well aware of how badly modern hard drives suck....
 
Last edited:
Sorry but audio buffers wont do that, mostly for latency reasons.

Please read this thread, where I explain the difference between disk buffering and audio ring buffering. You're conflating two largely unrelated concepts.

To the degree that larger disk buffers cause latency, it's in the form of a delay when you hit play or record, and even then, only to the degree that the app has to fill the buffer with data. When we're talking about OS-level disk caches (which is what I was talking about), there is no impact on latency whatsoever.


Disk accesses by the OS and apps will lead to clicks, pops and data dropouts.

Why do you have other apps doing significant amounts of disk access while you're recording? Virus? Your disk activity should be at or near zero when your machine is idle unless there's something wrong.... :)


Alway go with multiple drives for audio and video applications; continuous data streaming is a primary goal.

Data from disk can't really be continuous. A DAW typically reads several seconds of audio from each track file on disk in a single request, and on the way back to disk, it writes several seconds in a single request. Making disk requests in large chunks maximizes drive throughput. The DAW makes the read request way, way ahead of when it actually needs the data (measured in seconds), then keeps it in memory until it is ready to play it, then plays it, then tosses it out (usually). As long as that data gets into memory before it is needed, you don't get clicks and pops. Similarly, as long as it gets written out to disk before you run out of RAM to store it, you don't get clicks and pops. Either way, the buffer used for buffering disk reads and writes is completely separate from (and orders of magnitude larger than) the buffer used for moving audio into and out of your audio interface.

More to the point, clicks and pops are, for all practical purposes, never caused by disk performance. They are almost invariably caused by your CPU being unable to keep up with the audio ring buffer used for actually moving audio data into and out of the interface. This, in turn, is usually caused by one of the following:

  • Using too small a ring buffer
  • Poorly designed USB-1.0-audio-class interfaces (some of which are "USB 2.0" devices) that don't comply with the USB audio spec's requirements for variation in the number of frames per packet (the spec allows for +/-1, IIRC), thus making the audio drivers think that the interface has changed sample rates
  • Other drivers holding interrupts off for too long
  • Other drivers hogging a PCI bus for too long
  • Other apps/drivers/* hogging the CPU.

These days, 5400 RPM laptop drives are on the order of 30-50 Megabytes per second sequential read and write. Ignoring the discussion about how random the accesses are for a moment (they're not very random, unless the DAW is making too short a read/write request), that's 109-182 simultaneous tracks of audio at 96 kHz/24-bit. On some of the slowest laptop drives still being made. Repeat after me: disk performance is not an issue for audio production, and generally hasn't been since last century.
 
Last edited:
What I said was that I wouldn't bother using a separate drive because Time Machine makes it trivial to back up data on your system drive. And as far as I know, Time Machine won't let you back up to the same drive. Not sure how you could possibly have come to the conclusion that I was advising someone to do that....

No, what you said was...

The only reason I might consider using more than one drive is to make it easier to back up just my data, but only if I were on a PC. On a Mac, I'd just use Time Machine and not think twice about it.

Which would lead anyone reading it to believe that you don't use multiple drives and that you would basically only do it if you used a PC now wouldn't it?

And your response is even confusing. You wouldn't bother using a separate drive because Time Machine makes it trivial to back up data on your system drive (which would mean that you back up on your system drive) and then you go on further "And as far as I know, Time Machine won't let you back up to the same drive." meaning that you have to have a separate drive then? Which is it?
 
And your response is even confusing. You wouldn't bother using a separate drive because Time Machine makes it trivial to back up data on your system drive (which would mean that you back up on your system drive) and then you go on further "And as far as I know, Time Machine won't let you back up to the same drive." meaning that you have to have a separate drive then? Which is it?

Ah. I understand the confusion. By "using more than one drive... to make it easier to back up", I meant that if you have your audio data on one drive and your OS on another, then if you just want to back up the audio data, you can back it up by cloning the entire audio drive to a backup drive. To that extent, using a separate drive for the audio data would make it (marginally) easier to back up the audio data.

Time Machine makes that somewhat moot, since it doesn't lend itself to backing up only a single drive in a multi-drive setup.

The original comment was not intended to make any comment at all about the location of the backups (which, as you have noted, should always be on a separate drive, or else it isn't really a backup).
 
Back
Top