PC or Mac?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnnyO
  • Start date Start date
J

JohnnyO

New member
Well, I'm looking for some hard answers to the age old question - Mac or PC.
I am a PC user who is willing to make the switch for the sake of putting together the best possible digital studio. This will be an expensive pain, so I don't want make the change unless there is a definite gain (I would probably have to get a new PC too if I went that route). I get very vague answers from the pro Mac people so I am searching for some real info.
Any advice or good resources?

Thanks in advance.
John Sestak
 
I don't hold a grudge against the Mac and everyone that uses one, but I do prefer PCs for just about everything, even recording. That said, here's what I've come across in looking into this same quesiton for myself a while back.

Macs are limited in choices for soundcards, software, etc. If you are wanting to get the Digi001 and ProTools LE and don't want to bother with the potential problems with the brand new version for the PC (which is only Win98 now anyway), the Mac might be the way to go. I think you can get hardware that's better for the PC, but that ProTools LE is really cool from what I've seen. You can get a quality setup with a Mac, but it's going to cost some serious cash, mainly just for the G3 or G4 horsepower. Whereas with a PC you can get decent quality at much cheaper prices, and there's so many options that it'll take a lot of research just to narrow it down to a few choices for soundcards.

The Mac might be a little more stable for recording, but I think that's mainly because you wouldn't be using if for many different purposes. If you dedicated a PC to nothing but recording and ran NT or Win2k you can get a machine that's practically just as reliable. Using a PC for multiple purposes isnt't a problem, just be prepared for the occasional crash by backing up everything regularly.

Another thing I think important is that most people here doing computer based recording are using PCs, and are more likely to be able to help if you run into problems with PC based hardware and software. Then again, maybe no one using a Mac is posting because they aren't having any major problems. :D Seriously though, lots of people here that can answer questions concerning PCs and all the recording stuff related to them.

As you say yourself there's many other things you can do with a PC, and you could buy one machine for everything instead of a Mac to record with and a PC for everything else. That's a big money savings right from the beginning.

If you were completely on the fence in terms of which way to go, didn't really care to own a PC or didn't plan to buy another PC already, and have the dough to drop on a good Mac recording setup I'd say consider both options. Since none of that seems to apply to you except for the money part, I'd go with the PC.
 
Once you've had a MAC you'll never go Back!
PC's are for business not music or art.
Rock On!
 
On the job I use Windows all the time, with it's problmes and virusses (lately). At home I use the Mac alll the time for all my purposes.
There is not one window file that I can't read or rewrite on my Mac.
That is the main advantage using a Mac. The opposite way doesn't always work as fawless (without professional-expensive help).

When you want to record audio, you need PCI slots, a lot of RAM, and you need a hard disk that can read and write very fast. 72.000 tours is fair.

At this very moment it seems that all future audio equipment will run under Linux or BeOs. These operating systems can both run on a PowerMac, G3 or G4. I'm not so sure if that is the same with all Intel based computers.

With all the Windows people around one could say that it has more usable programmes. My experience is that Mac people are more productive, and understand what a computer has to do, and were it has problmes with. I often help my Windows collegues understand why some things like scanning and graphics take more power from their computer.

MacOs works directly into the hardware. Windows still basicly run on a Dos backbone, with all it's related problems.

What the Mac rep. probably said is that some cards take over a part of the processing speed that is needed to work with audio. But they do the same thing on a Windows computer. I've seen both systems run, and the reason for crashing is ususally the not knowing on how to configure a computer, what ever brand it is.
You mainly need a fast "hard disk" and a lot of Ram. A fast processor does a lot, but the amount of MB's you'll be writing and reading with audio is very big. By preference have 258 MB Ram or more. See what you can get.
 
Thanks for the info - keep it coming.
Yah, I guess the main issue is what am I really gaining by making the extra investment into a Mac.
I met a Mac rep, who did give me some techy talk on the matter, stating that Mac has seperate processing ability for such work and PC does not, nor will it any time soon.
Make sense?
I guess I'm hoping for more info like that.
What specifically are my gains and losses.
NO one really seems to know - so why the war (as wars go)?
Thanks all.
 
Well... some advantages of PC:
1. cheaper
2. more flexible
3. many applications
4. many effects plugins
etc.

... but:
Even with direct x controlling many effects simultaneous, the Mac performace is greater... but with less effects

So if you will use the computer just for store the tracks and some basic effects and a single track soft type.... try MAC .... i never had one ! :) But G3 is so cute.... G4 is ugly... :)
 
I think the age old debate is mostly filled with outdated info, rumors, and faith. The Macs might have a small edge in stability and performance, but faster processors and better software are slowly evaporating the differences.

The bottom line is you have a decent chance of fighting with your components to get them to play well together. That's just how it is at this stage in the game. I'd suggest using the platform you feel most comfortable troubleshooting when issues creep up.
 
What? nobody's mentioned the Commodore 64? But it's the ultimate in DAW.

Actually. there was a good thread on this topic about a month ago, which was quite well balanced and extensive, but I think the site search is still kaput, so I can't locate it. Dragon's promising to change to a database soon, so maybe you'll be able to locate some of the better older threads about this topic.

- gaffa
 
Really, it's like the blondes-vs-brunettes-vs-redheads debate...more personal preference than anything else. If you doubt that, look at all the emotional reactions you get when you ask this question.

The real truth:

Talking about PCs as though they still ran on DOS, and "only Macs are good for creative work" is a desperate last-ditch ego trip. It's malarkey. So is the "Macs don't crash and are easier to use" thing...that was true in the late 1980s...not now.

Whichever platform you prefer, that's the one you should use. Period. There are an ample number of programs and hardware packages for each.
 
My continued thanks for the helpful replies.
Funny the commodore 64 came up. I started sequencing (years ago) on a 128 (which is sitting right next to my PC) and absolutely loved it.
In fact I was rather disappointed when I switched to the PC and Cakewalk (ver 3). It syncs poorly with my 8 track and the editing features were not even close to the features on my Dr T's sequencer for the 128.
I moved on for the sake of new technology
....I hope Cakewalk is better by now.
These matters were more software orientated though.

So, maybe my main concern should be with the software, etc. and not the machine running it.

John
 
The sound chip from the Commodore 64 is used in a Swedish made synth (SidStation or something) nowadays so they must have been on to something with the ol' Vic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top