Log in
Log in
Forgot your password ?
or
Create an account
or
Log in using a Facebook account
EN
FR
NotificationsNo new notification
Computer Music
Products
News
Articles
Media
Reviews
Classified Ads Classifieds
Forums
Tutorials Tutorials & Tips

MAC vs PC : the best solution for home recording/mixing ?

  • 23 replies
  • 19 participants
  • 35,012 views
  • 0 follower
Topic MAC vs PC : the best solution for home recording/mixing ?
Hey,

I know there is already a post on the subject, but the question is now: what are you using for homestudio applications: PC or MAC? And why??
2

Quote: Hey,

I know there is already a post on the subject, but the question is now: what are you using for homestudio applications: PC or MAC? And why??



Hi, i'm using pc, cheaper than mac and it works well, important to known how to install and how to adjust settings. Adviseable to use XP.
The most important thing to know is if your soundcard ( should be pro)
can work together with the processor's chipset.
regards
chris at www.tsunamimusic.be
3
I use PC...

MAC was better some times ago.... but now, with new HW technologies, you can record music without problem with a not so powerfull PC...

If you have a recording studio is a bit different, you have to use CPU with more cache memory, and Pentium or AThlon are not recommended... :!:
4
I recently upgraded my computer recording system. I spent most of my time deciding which OS to go with. I decided to stay with a PC based system. From what I had read, Windows XP was a much more stable platform than previous Windows versions. The music people I had talked to said not all of the compatibility bugs had been worked out with software and the new Apple G5. I spent the weekend tracking drums for a new project. I was using the Digi 002 with Cubase recording 8 tracks simultaneously and the computer never skipped a beat. I think the secret is to use high end components.
5
I think the ability to build to your exact needs is extremely important.. PC has it all the way IMO..

Major Studios most likely use Macs, because they know recording, not computers.. they want to get a package that is ready to go, obviously with PC, you are going to have to piece it together the way you want it.

I got myself a nice little Athlon 64 system, with a main EIDE 128 gig hard drive, and for storing the tracks I have two 120 gig SATA drives in Raid 1.

I personally like Cakewalk Sonar better than any other tool I have used....

Now all I need is the right input card, and my studio will be complete..
6
Hi,

I am a long time MAC user (for graphic design) but have been working now for a software company mainly on PCs for 8 years. Always been a musician and have worked with both Macs and PCs for small projects here and there. Last year I decided to get serious a build a full home recording studio and am getting up to date and comfortable with it now. Here is what I did.

Starting with an existing PC with AMD 850 with 512 mb Ram I installed Cubase SX. For input I used a RME PCI card with a Frontier I/O device. I had borrowed the input devices from a studio firend to try things out (very helpful). I have to say this experience was fantastic! With a slow processor I knew I would be somewhat limited in symultaneous tracks, effects, etc until I upgrade. Knowing the limitations I was very successful in making great recordings 2 - 4 tracks at a time.

The real trick I found was that Windows XP has been stable and reliable. However, I believe my experience as a software technician has helped a great deal with my ability to optimize the OS. Here is a link which will give some great tips on optimizing.

Also, I believe operating with two hard drives is essential. I use my main drive C for my OS,all installed programs (including Cubase and WaveLab). My secondary HD is used ONLY for recorded data.

http://groups.msn.com/ComputerMusic/windowsxpoptimisationsforaudiopcs.msnw
[url]

Couple of updates.

I recently gave back the RME and I/O box and purchased a MOTU 828mkII (firewire) and am currently recording on the same low spec pc. So far so good! :D

I will be updating my pc soon. Plan to install a new Asus motherboard, AMD Duron processor, lots of dual channel ram. Can't wait!
If anyone has any tips on hardware models ...please share.

Joe C, CT
[color=darkred][/color][/url]
7
what a cool page!!!

I see that you know very well How PC works.... so, can you help me?

I need a Notebook to use with my keyboard in live performances (as a sampler) an as a portable studio (with SW like Reason, Cubase and Logic).

But I have some big problems:

- the hardDisk: does a firewire or usb2 disc works well? what's better?
- the soundCard: does a PCMCA soundCard can be used to record in a professional project?

I know nobody that use notebook as studio... it's possible? I think it's, if I can resolve these problems....

thanks
8
Hello,
you'll find everything on the net about HD recording.
About notebook, choose an external soundcard like M-audio, edirol etc..... via USB, pci will cause trouble.
Work with OS XP and install as "standard pc" not as acpi.
Make sure that your s. card is compatible with the MB's chipset.
regards
chris
9
I've not had any first hand experience with PCMCIA cards and audio recording, however a friend of mine has used this exclusively for a few years. He uses a card from RME Hammerfall and makes great recordings.

When I began purchasing new studio equipment this year I had both laptop and desktop recording in mind. I settled on the MOTU 828mkII because of its portability (though I know there are more portable devices available now). This unit connects FIREWIRE and provides me with 10 anolog inputs and outputs, including 2 pretty decent XLR Mic Preamps with phantom power. The unit is very flexible with mixing capabilies on board. From what I've read I could be using a standalone FW HD and really don't need the laptop at all. I've not used this method, though.
I typically use this for live recording. This allowed me to record live shows of my trio as well as start a small side business recording bands live performances (very well I might add).

The laptop I use belongs to my work so I didn't have choice in selecting it, but here is my experience. I use a powerful Sony VAIO P4 2.4 Ghz with 512 Ram. I don't think I'd have chosen this PC because it has too many on board devices, software, etc. from the factory, but all in all it has worked well for live recording.

Hope I answered your questions

Joe C
10
Mac Hands down ,someone said ealier in the post about people geting Macs because they come ready to use an most musicans are not computer tecs,they were right an to me the thing(computer) that comes most ready for the job is better ,plus every body talks about the cost of Macs well you can get A G4 now for $1200(that is cheap when you compare how much you will have to pay to get a decent PC for audio recording) an not have to add another thing to it. So anybody serious about music I would say save your self the hassle an extra money spent on upgrading your PC an buy a Mac. 8)
11
MACs. Garage Band has seriously changed the landscape for home users. Normal people can record, overdub, harmonize and add drum tracks without reading any manuals. The sound quality with a PreSonus FirePod, Rode NT1a and NT5s mikes and a Mac is awesome and there are NO DRIVERS or any software to install. Just plug it in and start recording.

I know a lot of people like laptops so they can record on site, but I use a desktop at home. You can record on site using say a Furman 8L Power conditioner 1u, a PreSonus MP20 stereo preamp/mixer 1u and a Tascam direct to CD recorder 4u in a portable 6u rack.
12
I am currently with Mac. I think the processing flow has always been a little better. Strangely, I have found that the newest recording software has become increasingly unstable on Mac. And, the HT technology that PC are using can really speed things up. I guess that it comes down to wroght processing power. My PC, loves to get caught up and have to think about recording multiple tracks at once, and maybe I'm on the lucky end, but my Mac had never had much of a problem doing anything.
13
Major differences between Mac and Pc's when it comes to Digital Audio Recording.

Through my 20 years of experience both pc's and mac's in the digital audio world
i would recommend anyone that is persuing a career in ANY type of recording purchase a MAC. Apple has designed the mac to handle pro audio VERY well. there is a difference in the way the audio "sounds" while recording onto a system channel
the I/O is unique, and if you are an experienced engineer such as myself you can distinguish the difference. NO i am not speaking of bounced analog/digital sound nor am i speaking of "mixed pre-masterd audio" i am speaking of the audio signal that is heard WHILE RECORDING IN REAL TIME. Mac's are audio work horses and stable, with a mac you dont have to worry about OS hardware compato. the same manufacture designed both the OS and the system which stops alot of harware-software glitches. i am not underestimating the pc its just that i have enough experience to know what's best for pro audio.:)
14
I would have to go with a PC. I do 16 live tracks, and can get a track number that should never exceed my needs even if I get into alot of effects. It seems that alot of your newer software will work better on the PC's. Also, alot of the stuff on a mac is related to using ProTools which has a couple of signiffigant problems. It feels clunky next to something like cubase or nuendo. Also, and more importantly, its hardware is proprietary, and only works with ProTools, and ProTools only seems to like to play nice with the hardware it was meant for, whereas with a PC, the only major thing you have to worry about is getting hardware that is compatible with youre board's chipset. And they are more affordable especially if you do it yourself. Even if you can't there are a number of turnkey dealers that offer DAW's (digital audio workstations) that easily are a better value than the Mac's when you look at what you can actually do. Oh and there is no rainbow wheel of death on the PC.
15
i am using a computer that i made...250 GB..1G Ram..it coast me about 400..........i would use a mac but they are expensive.
but overall mac's are a lot nicer and have really good recording software and they are just plain better
but you can make a pretty good computer if you go on www.tigerdirect.com


-cole
16

%1$s a écrit but overall mac's are a lot nicer and have really good recording software and they are just plain better


have you ever even used a mac?
17
I use Apple Mac for multi-track recording and PC for some audio-editing/creating MP3s. Using the Mac for multitrack is for me most convenient.

Favorite PC's for me are DELL and COMPAQ. Always use the Firewire.
18

%1$s a écrit Ive been trying my hardest to avoid this flame-ish topic, but this morning for some reason I can't hold back anymore. The most important difference, IMHO between using a Windows-based machine and a Mac is the way that the operating system handles I/O and its virtual memory handling. Back in the day macs were far superior to windows machines because it was easier and more sane to have control over virtual memory. Of course, this was in the pre OSX days and the tradeoff was that there was no real multitasking, etc, etc. Classic Mac OS was a nightmare for reliability in alot of ways, but the nice thing about it was that it was simple and easy to control/configure. By comparison, Windows 98 and even 2000 and early versions of XP were horrible about their handling of virtual memory which caused you to need better hardware to have comparible performance while recording.

Of course, things are a little more complicated on the mac side now. It seems like virtual memory isn't as big of a performance hit as it used to be and its such an integrated expectation of the operating system anymore on both sides that its hard to make it much of an argument (except what handles what better). I haven't used windows in ages, so I can't say I'm any expert on the topic. The point is that theres nothing magic about a mac or a windows machine that makes it better or worse for one application. The only point is how the software interacts with the hardware and how much hardware you need to get similar performance. My guess is (based on historical evidence of microsoft's inability to stay with the curve) that the Mac OS still is going to give you better I/O handling and better virtual memory performance.

But really, seriously, theres no magic here. There's no secret sauce.


Best and most complete explanation ever :cool:
19
Ive been trying my hardest to avoid this flame-ish topic, but this morning for some reason I can't hold back anymore. The most important difference, IMHO between using a Windows-based machine and a Mac is the way that the operating system handles I/O and its virtual memory handling. Back in the day macs were far superior to windows machines because it was easier and more sane to have control over virtual memory. Of course, this was in the pre OSX days and the tradeoff was that there was no real multitasking, etc, etc. Classic Mac OS was a nightmare for reliability in alot of ways, but the nice thing about it was that it was simple and easy to control/configure. By comparison, Windows 98 and even 2000 and early versions of XP were horrible about their handling of virtual memory which caused you to need better hardware to have comparible performance while recording.

Of course, things are a little more complicated on the mac side now. It seems like virtual memory isn't as big of a performance hit as it used to be and its such an integrated expectation of the operating system anymore on both sides that its hard to make it much of an argument (except what handles what better). I haven't used windows in ages, so I can't say I'm any expert on the topic. The point is that theres nothing magic about a mac or a windows machine that makes it better or worse for one application. The only point is how the software interacts with the hardware and how much hardware you need to get similar performance. My guess is (based on historical evidence of microsoft's inability to stay with the curve) that the Mac OS still is going to give you better I/O handling and better virtual memory performance.

But really, seriously, theres no magic here. There's no secret sauce.
20

%1$s a écrit Major differences between Mac and Pc's when it comes to Digital Audio Recording.

Through my 20 years of experience both pc's and mac's in the digital audio world
i would recommend anyone that is persuing a career in ANY type of recording purchase a MAC. Apple has designed the mac to handle pro audio VERY well. there is a difference in the way the audio "sounds" while recording onto a system channel
the I/O is unique, and if you are an experienced engineer such as myself you can distinguish the difference. NO i am not speaking of bounced analog/digital sound nor am i speaking of "mixed pre-masterd audio" i am speaking of the audio signal that is heard WHILE RECORDING IN REAL TIME. Mac's are audio work horses and stable, with a mac you dont have to worry about OS hardware compato. the same manufacture designed both the OS and the system which stops alot of harware-software glitches. i am not underestimating the pc its just that i have enough experience to know what's best for pro audio.:)


Ummmm....... Sounds different? Give me a break. The computer has nothing to do with sound quality. What audio hardware are you using? Maybe you need to give them the props? The converters in your hardware, not the machine they are plugged into, are responsible for sound quality. Just how much experience do you have ?
21

%1$s a écrit [quote=track_master]Major differences between Mac and Pc's when it comes to Digital Audio Recording.

Through my 20 years of experience both pc's and mac's in the digital audio world
i would recommend anyone that is persuing a career in ANY type of recording purchase a MAC. Apple has designed the mac to handle pro audio VERY well. there is a difference in the way the audio "sounds" while recording onto a system channel
the I/O is unique, and if you are an experienced engineer such as myself you can distinguish the difference. NO i am not speaking of bounced analog/digital sound nor am i speaking of "mixed pre-masterd audio" i am speaking of the audio signal that is heard WHILE RECORDING IN REAL TIME. Mac's are audio work horses and stable, with a mac you dont have to worry about OS hardware compato. the same manufacture designed both the OS and the system which stops alot of harware-software glitches. i am not underestimating the pc its just that i have enough experience to know what's best for pro audio.:)


Ummmm....... Sounds different? Give me a break. The computer has nothing to do with sound quality. What audio hardware are you using? Maybe you need to give them the props? The converters in your hardware, not the machine they are plugged into, are responsible for sound quality. Just how much experience do you have ?[/quote]
super-quote :D
22
Anybody got experience using a Fireface 400 interface w/ a laptop, PC or Mac. Im looking to get a laptop. But I want one thats garanteed to work flawlessly w/ my FF400. Seen some Refurbished Macbook Pro for $1,300 - 1-700, not too bad for a new mach.
Otherwise Im thinking of a HP w/ : Intel Core 2 Duo ,at least 2GHz and 1 GB RAM. Michel
23
I am sure... mac is better. for graphics, recording and video editing.. though VM always create problems either it is mac or PC... here i found this site actually where u can find better deals for ram and softwares.. just thought that u might be interested in. check the http://www.splifit.com... they got cool things on auctions but ... nyway.. thanks. ;)
24
I use PC ONLY to run MX View of Tascam's MX 2424, and I have to restart it every 4-6 hours... so - Machintosh is the way to go.