What is faster?......

Discussion in 'Microphones (live or studio)' started by swanmusic, Oct 25, 2005.

  1. swanmusic

    swanmusic Guest

    A desktop with 3.2GHz Intel processor, 2Gig RAM, 2 Internal Hard drives (120 + 300 GB) Windows XP or

    Powerbook 1.67, 120GB 7200 Hard drive, 2 Gig of RAM and external firewire/USB harddrive of 300 GB.

    Which one would be efficient and fast to work with? Or would they be the same?
  2. iznogood

    iznogood Member

    Feb 9, 2004
    the desktop has more horsepower....

    but i bet you would make alot more music on the laptop.... :cool:
  3. maintiger

    maintiger Well-Known Member

    Dec 3, 2003
    Whittier, California, USA
    hey, they both have their uses- laptop for remote, then come back and mix on the desktop- that's what i do and am happy... :D :D
  4. swanmusic

    swanmusic Guest

    iznogood, you are right. I think I will make a lot more music now that I think about it. I'm just questioning the power of my brain for not thinking about it earlier! :)

    How is it that on desktop the horsepower more though? I have heard 1.67 Powerbook to have as fast a processor as a 3.2 desktop. (One guy at mac store told me that. My friend who runs a studio also told me the same).

    maintiger, How is it different to mix on a laptop which is as fast as the desktop?
  5. iznogood

    iznogood Member

    Feb 9, 2004
    as a giant mac fan i must say that what they told you is dead wrong.....

    although powerpc processors are faster pr. GHz it's not that fast......

    but horsepower is not all that matters.....

    my analogy is cars..... who wants a car with 900 hp that can't stand the weather?? and has to go and be fixed every other week??

    someone needs a ferrari.... i need a mercedes.... :cool:

    this one: http://www.kleemann.dk/site/Main/thecars/slkr171 to totally undermine my analogy!
  6. maintiger

    maintiger Well-Known Member

    Dec 3, 2003
    Whittier, California, USA
    I have a 12" ibook that I use for remote only with a 7200 external hardrive- I don't really mix with it, when I bring the tracks back to the studio I plug the external drive in my G5 tower and i mix there-
    The ibook just gives me the freedom to go and record on location and track drums in cool rooms, then I bring it back to the studio.

    Another use I have for the laptop is as a playback engine for a musical we are presenting. I have the 17 songs of the musical set up as chunks in dp and I play them back through a motu 828mkii. that gives me the flexibility of stereo outs as well as 8 individual outs I route out to the pa and also to amps. For example the bass goes to a bass amp, the guitar leads to a guitar amp, the keys to a keyboard amp. Plus all the tacks go to the pa in stereo as well. This set up is similar to what some of the tours (like madonna's) are using. (Except I believe they use a G4 tower) It gives you the freedom of say muting the bass part if you have a live bass player, or the piano or guitar or whatever. In our particular set up so far (depending on the performance) we are using 2 live percussionist, a guitarist, a piano and a bassist playing live. The rest of the tracks reside in the ibook. So far it has worked like a charm.
  7. axel

    axel Guest

    Iznogood wrote:

    I second That.

    you will have much more time making and recording music rather then fixing your system... go MAC.

    also if you decide to go MAC use firewire NOT usb for all audio related connex, soundcards HDs and the like... a nice powerbook running DP or Logic, firewire soundcard and firewire 7200rpm audio drive and you are dead stable up and running my friend....

    happy making music.
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    Feb 10, 2001
    ok mac heads i have to say it


    if you want to talk about win 98 vs mac os back then i would be inclined to say you have a legit comment.
    (and win 3.1/98 is what made mac get in the lead and PT choosing it)

    since win 2000 that has changed.
    since XP (and a properly built for audio computer) windows doesnt crash anymore or less than OSX.

    in fact OSX is more bloated then even windows XP (which is hard to believe)

    there are issues with core audio, there were issues with firewire just recently.
    never mind the power or lack thereoff.

    truth is they both work very well.

    now powerbook 1.6 please. fine for grabing a few tracks mobile
    but not what i call a mixing box.

  9. iznogood

    iznogood Member

    Feb 9, 2004
    i'm yet to experience a stable windoze system......

    loads of my friends are pc builders and supporters......

    every single time i sit down at a windoze machine (with someone who really knows it) something goes wrong..... i don't know why that is... and i don't care.... it always takes them hours and hours to get things to work...... and for some reason none of those machines were connected to the internet..... shouldn't ANY computer in the year 2005 be on the net?? imo they should....

    just my experience.... if yours is different fine for you.... but don't call my experience bullcrap.....

    let me ask you a question.... do you think there's ANY reason a mac costs more pr. horsepower..... or do you think all mac users are just idiots who want to pay more just because macs are more beautyful??

    (6 years on the net without virus or protection... and counting)
  10. dabmeister music

    dabmeister music Active Member

    Jan 11, 2003
    Woodbridge, Va
    Home Page:
    Having gone through countless nights/days trying to figure out "what is going on with this piece of sh*t", I've become one of the fortunate few who's having quite a very pleasing experience with the "XP Pro" rig I currently have. But by todays standards, it's starting to show a little gray around the edges. But what really counts is its stablity & reliability. It holds up through the long sessions I might encounter over the weekends and that's been like that for the past year and a half. But looking ahead, I do see a slight advantage leaning towards Intel. Since the word is out about Macs incorporating Intel processor/chipsets (unless something's changed), that further strengthens my beliefs. However, I'd like to get my hands on one of the new cream of the crop Macs whenever they become available. So IMO, the bottom line is the most bandwidth. And between the 2 setups mentioned, of course I'd side with the Intel with the addition of a faster 10k to 15k HD.
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    Feb 10, 2001

    it would seem not too good at it then.

    not calling your "experiance" bull crap
    but i am calling your blanket statement of all pcs bullcrap.

    no comment on the cost of macs.
    cant wait to see how much they will cost with the Intel chips.
    i am guessing less.
  12. KyroJoe

    KyroJoe Guest

    Agreed ADK! The Mac is still better than PC myth is exactly that... MYTH! Urban Legend!
    Once upon a time that may have been true, but all that has changed forever with the Linux and XP OSes and Intel's Pentium 4.

    Having been involved with computers since the earliest TRS Model I, and building machines since the APPLE II+.
    I do know exactly what I'm talking about! In a previous life (at least it feels like that now!) - I had several very successful endeavors in computers including building, modding and overclocking PC's for government, engineering and aerospace applications. (And if you can believe it, it was MUCH more stress than the music industry! Now I'm back to my first love - music!)

    The really BIG difference between the two platforms is this:

    MACs and its components are manufactured to exact APPLE COMPUTER specs.
    PC's on the other-hand are OPEN. There is no one company spec, there are only industry standards.

    PC's can range in price from about $400 - $4000+, and up to millions for the really powerful multiuser systems!
    Yet to the newbie these can appear to be equal machines. That is very incorrect.
    Many factors affect computers and the 4 most common are SOFTWARE, EMI, HEAT and POWER (AC quality).

    You have to look at it this way. Today, any Tiawanese businessman can buy assembly robots and parts
    and set up a computer manufacturing plant in his garage. Literally! I am not joking or exagerrating.
    There are quite a few that do this!

    The problem with this is TESTING! Sure the individual parts are tested, but they are not tested in their
    final assembled and installed form. Without the rigorous testing of the big name board manufacturer's they
    are destined for trouble! Even these big name manufacturers apply varying degrees of quality control based
    on the final retail price of their boards.

    The facilities for testing heat stress and flex, Electro-Magnetic Interference, and various power purity levels are expensive and add to the cost of production. When it comes to PC's the addage "You get what you pay for" absolutely applies.

    So back to where we were.

    In general, stay away from the bleeding-edge in PC technology advancement! You need to wait at least 6-10 months for a new product to be used and experience its inevitable issues and bug corrections to get stability and reliability.

    If you really know what you are doing when it comes to PC's, dollar for dollar you can easily have a machine that will SMOKE any MAC six ways to Sunday.
    If you have access to a reliable and proven PC guy/store then you will enjoy trouble-free high performance from your PC. If you don't have such a guy for your custom machines or you don't buy server or workstation class and quality PC's from big name manufacturers (ie: DELL), then the simplicity and ease-of-use of the MAC is your best bet.

    But never ever make the claim that MACs are better, more reliable or more powerful than PC's.
    That claim is completely untrue!

    Kyro Studios
  13. axel

    axel Guest

    KyroJoe wrote:
    that myth has made me and ALL of my collegs i have ever met in person or worked with making, producing and recording music since over 15 years for a living. without trouble.

    which has not been a single case not a SINGLE one from people working on PCs, except on THIS FORUM.
    i know several dozen musicians and engineers who swapped to MAC, NO one ever swapped to a PC, and they all did it because they where fed up with computer issues, i am talking people working on a daily basis with them as ENGINEERS OR MUSICIANS NOT AS "IT" GUYS like you scott (adk) this is not an offense, just it seems like you know how to fix and twiddle with PCs, i don't, for me it's no fun at all to twiddle on f*&ing comps, i twiddle rather on compressors or EQs or play an instrument, while you build computers, however it's actually a waste of time.. why should i convince someone to invest into quality??? there is no sense in it :roll: !!!

    besides Logic and Peak are not avialable for PCs, so for me never a PC.
  14. maintiger

    maintiger Well-Known Member

    Dec 3, 2003
    Whittier, California, USA
  15. KyroJoe

    KyroJoe Guest

    Just like there are good ENGINEERS and MUSICIANS and lousy ENGINEERS and MUSICIANS, the same applies to PCs.
    There are good PCs and lousy PCs.

    And NO, the MYTH is a myth because of what you'll read in my last lines above. (ease-of-use)

    And watch it with the "IT-Guys" label! Maybe Scott but not me.
    I've been recording for about a decade I just have the knowledge in computers from education and experience!
    As a business owner with good people I had that freedom to do what I wanted. When I used "NOW" above,
    I didn't mean NOW as in any time recent or that this was just a weekend hobby for me!

    Most recording engineers, other than a small number, have very little knowledge in the field of computers.
    They want to spend their time making music not understanding computers.
    Entirely understandable!
    I don't blame them at all.
    Even I defer to manufacturers these days, albeit with my spec and recommendations, or I'd never get my RE/ME work done!
    I do however blame the ones who, without knowing about computers or understanding them, make untrue claims!

    So I do agree with you that the use of MACs is wide.
    But it's the old industry lemming route - the do what the Joneses do.
    (Like NS-10's and U67's! Gotta have em cuz that's what is expected)
    (You just know that some musician is going to walk in and ask where the hell those white coned speakers are that everyone else has and if you don't have them you have go through the long-winded hassles of explaining the benefits and superiority of whatever monitor is that you use. Same applies to PT on MACs in your studios!)

    Does that make MACs a BETTER, more capable or more RELIABLE platform. NO! Absolutely not.
    More common, but not better nor more reliable. I use both MACs and PC's at my studio and I'll tell you that my PC's outperform my MACs any day and are far more reliable!
    Not my opinion, this is FACT.
    I'll do all my work requiring any real "horsepower" on PC's!
    (PC's also run the storage on the network)

    Axel, there is a difference between FACT and OPINION!
    In your, and maybe many more non-computer-savvy RE's OPINIONs MACs are better, this however does NOT make it a FACT.
    It's effective marketing!
    Pro-Tools on MACs are stacked in the industry and at the schools, so people continue to use what they are familiar with (I work with some guys that won't touch the PC's). BUT, this still does not make MACs any MORE RELIABLE, MORE CAPABLE or BETTER!! You might even take a moment to notice that I did say that if you're not the tech-head tweaker type then go for a MAC.

    Kyro Studios
  16. emokidsimon

    emokidsimon Guest

    there both usefull, but at the end of the day i would want to do my music creation works on the mac.
  17. maintiger

    maintiger Well-Known Member

    Dec 3, 2003
    Whittier, California, USA
    macs are definitely sexier :wink:
  18. iznogood

    iznogood Member

    Feb 9, 2004
    "But never ever make the claim that MACs are better, more reliable or more powerful than PC's."

    i never said they were more powerful :lol:

    kyrojoe.... did you ever have to mix records for a living?? just wondering....

    for some reason the argument always turns to some genius pc builder who really knows what he's doing talking about .... well what kyro said....
    but what you geniusses sometimes forget is that people (that buys pc's) mostly buy crap pc's.... cause they're not willing to spend the money on a quality machine....

    and.... kyro..... you seem to know alot about computers.... maybe you can answer some questions for me....

    why does all the programmer type geeks prefer linux if windoze is all that fabulous?? why do all (pc users) i know get spyware and viruses all the time.... while i'm surfing for porn in the middle of a session... with no problems.... and remember.... alot of software requires you to turn off virus protection.... why does macs hold their used prices better??

    but anyway.... who cares..... it's not my job to save the world....

    go ahead..... buy some "really powerful" crapheap for all i care..... then spend 1000+ hours/posts on rec.org on figuring out what motherboard/gpu/firewire card/blablabla..... and another 100 hours how to save 50$ on building it..... then you'll be able to write a post longer than the end titles of titanic bragging about it....

    then i'll go ahead and make some money using my mac....
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guests

    Feb 10, 2001
    LOL now that i have to agree with
    Apple has got to have the best engineers for form and function.
    and well built (as in sturdy).

    closest thing i have found is the Lian-Li cases.


  20. emokidsimon

    emokidsimon Guest

    if i knew you in person, id buy you a pint down the pub 'IZNOGOOD'. I agree a lot, PC's can be good for Recording & Mixing Down, but you need a lot of time, money and patenice to get something decent going with a PC. i mean for gawd's sake, why do most bands use Mac's to record & mixdown on?
  • AT5047

    The New AT5047 Premier Studio Microphone Purity Transformed

Share This Page