Questions about Macs

[sjaguar13]

I am thinking about going with a Mac. I noticed 733mhz go for $600. Are they faster than a P3 733mhz? That seems kinda expensive for a 733. How fast would I need to have an efficient recording setup?

 

[crankz1]

Personally, I wouldn't spend the $600 on a Mac at only 733Mhz, when you could build an AMD or even Intel PC that would run circles around that Mac for that amount of money. The cost to performance ratio would lean me toward a PC option. Though if you are dead set on the Mac platform, best of luck on your decisions.

Processor speed is directly dependant on the total number of tracks you intend to use per project and also the amount of real-time effects processing you will be doing.

 

[Randy5235]

or You could spend like 700-750 anf get a g4 1 gig emac brand new with warranty

 

[pdadda]

I can record and get better latencies on my 400 MHz Mac G4 than on my 2.66 GHz Dell. They each have about the same amount of RAM.

 

[Polaris20]

I was at the Mac store yesterday. Their iBooks are so cool, and they've gotten cheap finally.

I'd love one, but it's a pisser that I'd have to re-buy everything.

 

[Elijscott]

What is the best recording software (in your opinion) (with 8 simultaneous audio tracks) for a MAC G4... ?

 

[thispleasesme]

I'm a happy PC to Mac switcher and I've got to say, if audio is your thing and you can afford what you need in mac gear, then it is the best way, period. I've been using my Powermac G4 dual 1.25Ghz (1gb RAM) for almost two years now I believe and have never been happier, more stable, or as fast as I am now.

As far as multitracking software goes, I'm a fan of MOTU digital performer. Probably because I use a MOTU 896HD firewire interface. I find it has the easiest interface to work with and also integrates seamlessly with my gear.

Logic is also nice, as is protools. Cubase and many of the others are also available.

If all you need is 8 tracks of audio, go with something like MOTU AudioDesk. It's basically digital performer minus all the midi and sequencing tools. Great multitracking app though, and I love the interface. Check it out...

http://www.motu.com/english/motuaudio/audiodesk/body.html

Anyways... If you need a bit more, check out Cubase SL. It's basically the same idea as audiodesk vs. digital performer except it's big brother is Cubase SX.

For 8 tracks at 44.1 16bit or even 24bit 733 G4 should be plenty granted you have a good amount of ram. Hell, 96khz 24bit will probably run fine. My dual 1.25 runs smoooooooooth and quickly doing 36 tracks of 24/96 audio, so I'm assuming half of that will still do really well, as will 733mhz. Keep in mind, the powerpc platform and the wintel/amd platform are completely different as far as clock speeds go. a g4 1.25ghz runs circles around a p4 2.5 or even 3 ghz in most cases. Don't even start with me on the G5s. Oh my how those are amazing.

 

[Sklathill]

I used to use a G4 733 with OS 9.2.2... god I had so much hell with DP3. As much as I love the thing for MIDI editing (Sonar was my close second choice...) I had so many problems with that machine, even though I tried to keep it as clean as a whistle...

In any case, it's not about running circles around the PC/Mac equivalent...it's about the machine doing its job...and it's about you doing your job. If the Mac will get you to your job's end point faster, that's the route you should take, no question.

And don't EVEN get me started in benchmarks. I'm sorry, I'm a child of the PC tweaker generation of the late-90s; those Mac benches...man. I'm not going to say anything more.

 

[elevate]

a g4 1.25ghz runs circles around a p4 2.5 or even 3 ghz in most cases.

Put the crack pipe down.

 

[vestast]

ok Seriously, without everyone getting into a heated debate about what is better and what isn't (ya right that's gonna happen) I have a question.

Now I work with Linux and Solaris at work, but use PC's (Winxp) for recording. One thing I have noticed is that if I take a Linux distribution and install it on the same PC that I used to have Winxp on, I see a huge improvement in the speed of the PC. I don't have any metrics or anything so this is just me going by the amount of time I have to wait around to boot, shutdown, launch apps, etc...

So my question is that I assumed that is it because of the way that Linux utilizes RAM, swap, Disk formats, etc...(I realize XP has made huge strides in this area). Is it not the same with Mac OS's ? I thought they ran on a bastardized BSD kernel ?

Just wondering..

Thanks

 

[elevate]

One thing I have noticed is that if I take a Linux distribution and install it on the same PC that I used to have Winxp on, I see a huge improvement in the speed of the PC.

I haven't used Linux in a while, so I may be completely off base with respect to where it is now, but doesn't this depend a large part upon which desktop environment you're using? I've used Mandrake and TurboLinux and didn't notice a whole lot of speed difference between them and Windows. In terms of sheer OS responsiveness, BeOS is by far the fastest I've ever used.

I think if you're finding Linux "feels" faster, then that may have more to do with prioritization of processes than RAM, file system, pagefiles, etc...

 

[vestast]

I'm using Redhat.

You're probably right. I know that the Mech Engineers at the company I work at prefer to use Linux for complex problem solving as it cuts the process time in half...

Thanks for the reply.