Why are Macs 'considered' better for audio recording/editi..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

i can understand where macs had the obvious advantage in the win95/98/me
days of totally instablility and unreliability.. but windows 2000/xp are
extremely stable, pcs are cheaper.. is mac hardware more powerful for
audio processing? whats the story?

two people i know bought macs because they wanted to do some 'serious'
recording but neither of them can really explain why they couldn't
have done it with a pc.. seems silly to learn a whole new OS if there's
no actually benefit..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I always tell people that they need to decide on a software app that
they want to use and pick the appropriate platform. These days that
doesn't even matter much as PT and most of the others work equally well
on both PC or Mac. But, I guess if you wanted to use Logic or MOTU
apps, then Mac is the spot. Nuendo probably works better on PC. Pro
Tools...not even sure anymore.
Later,
m

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Vin wrote:
> i can understand where macs had the obvious advantage in the win95/98/me
> days of totally instablility and unreliability.. but windows 2000/xp are
> extremely stable, pcs are cheaper.. is mac hardware more powerful for
> audio processing? whats the story?

Cheaper is not a big issue when you're talking about maybe $500 cost
difference at the most. If you are 5% more productive on one platform
than the other, then $500 or less is insignificant. The important
thing is to pick the tool that does the job best.

One reason to go with a Mac is that the system software and the
hardware come from the same vendor. There is less hardware
selection available, but what is available is more likely to work
in a hassle-free manner because it is all qualified through
Apple if not manufactured by them. Although it seems odd, by
reducing choice (limiting the hardware that's available), you
actually make things easier because you reduce complexity.
If you only have 3 video cards available, 3 hard drives, one
vendor of RAM, etc., etc., then you can actually test all
possible configurations at the factory and verify that they
all work. You can't do that in the Windows world because there
is just too much variety out there. Likewise, because of lack
of diversity, the third-party vendors (of audio hardware and
software) have fewer configurations to keep track of.

> two people i know bought macs because they wanted to do some 'serious'
> recording but neither of them can really explain why they couldn't
> have done it with a pc.. seems silly to learn a whole new OS if there's
> no actually benefit..

You're starting with the assumption that these people (who are going
to be using the DAW) already know Windows well and don't know Mac OS
at all. That's not a fair assumption. They may know both, or they
may know neither.

Also, you've mentioned they couldn't explain why they couldn't have
done with a PC. But you haven't applied that question in the
opposite direction. How many people do you know who have bought
a Windows machine for audio? Did you ask them why they couldn't
have done it with a Mac? Did they have an explanation?

By the way, one possible reason here is that Macs have always been
more popular with artistic people. My upstairs neighbor is a
graphic artist; she uses a Mac. My dad is an architect; his whole
office used Macs until availability of a particular CAD program
forced them to switch to Windows. The graphic artist that designs
the art for the software I'm working on uses a Mac. One possible
reason for this is just that, well, Macs have more panache than
Windows machines do. Windows machines get the job done, but Macs
do it in style. Creative people relate to that.

- Logan

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dale" <dallen@frognet.net> writes:

> and the technology definitely is mac, first with usb, firewire....
> have you followed mr. rivers recent troubles with firewire on his dell
> laptop in his postings here?

Means nothing. Two of my Macs (totally different models/vintages)
have exhibited really freaky glitches when talking to audio interfaces
or hard drives via firewire. Turned out to be cured by adding an
external firewire card. Fortunately it they were only $10 each, and
diagnosing the 2nd one was pretty easy since I had already been
through it once. But vexing, still. I had to give up a slot for
that?! YMMV.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

please no flame war
hank has a cheap 410
and I do not want to find out how good his aim is

dale

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I honestly think Macs are overrated....great computers, but overrated and
overpriced. The G5's processing power is not much, if any more than the
top-of-the-line PC's which cost less and OSX is no more stable than 2000/XP.
I would even go so far as to say that ProTools is overrated. Of course it is
an industry standard and still probably the best for many purposes,
especially for syncing w/ video. But apps like Cubase do the basically the
same thing, for less $ and w/o proprietary hardware. Plus I happen to like
the interface and overall stability of Cubase better than PT. Again, these
are totally subjective opinions, but anyone who believes Mac is the ONLY way
to go for audio, obviously hasn't done many critical comparisons.

just an aside, IME "mac people" tend to be very, let's say "defensive" of
their platform of choice, almost in a religious sense as if they have
something to prove..."don't question it! just have faith in it's supreme
dominance!".... anyone who dares question apple's superiority will incur the
wraith of a whole legion of mac geeks.....whereas "PC people" really don't
give a damn who agrees with them. Anyway, now that i've berated PT AND Mac
let the flames begin!

--

Jonny Durango

"Patrick was a saint. I ain't."

http://www.jdurango.com



"Vin" <i@like.snow> wrote in message
news:xewQd.12670$4I5.563246@news20.bellglobal.com...
> i can understand where macs had the obvious advantage in the win95/98/me
> days of totally instablility and unreliability.. but windows 2000/xp are
> extremely stable, pcs are cheaper.. is mac hardware more powerful for
> audio processing? whats the story?
>
> two people i know bought macs because they wanted to do some 'serious'
> recording but neither of them can really explain why they couldn't
> have done it with a pc.. seems silly to learn a whole new OS if there's
> no actually benefit..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jonny Durango wrote:

> I honestly think Macs are overrated....great computers, but overrated and
> overpriced.

Everytime somebody here who is knowledgable cross-platform goes to the
respective sites and puts together directly comparable non-bottomfeeder
workstation systems the prices are within peanuts of each other and the
advantage is not always PC.

The cheapest PC from Dell is cheaper than the cheapest Mac. And in that
case, it ought to be, with its glorious 90 day warranty.

These are just cyberhammers; pick the one with the handle you like.
Ain't no better about it, in general.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

johnny

did you not have problems with mac and protools in some studio??

> I believe him.

>exactly the point i tried to make in the aside to my post. "Mac
people" are
>the religious fundamentalist whackos for the computer world.....won't
be
>long til they start bombing intel factories heh

and you are preaching from the pc bible.

dale

--

Jonny Durango

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SCSI & Firewire, are data transfer technologies specifically designed
to move HUGE amounts of information around in real time. Macintosh
developed these technologies to serve the creative communities who use
them (music & video)! The PC market is a FOLLOW ALONG market that
adapts to the technologies developed by Apple and others. Yes, there
are professional applications available in recording and in video that
you can use on the PC, BUT, there are far better applications for the
MAC!

Just as the game developers do most of their work for the P.C. crowd,
The music and video developers are Mac minded. Macs are fairly one
dimensional machines. They are made to create things with. PC's are
made for the home, office and for gamers.

Final Cut Pro and Digital Performer RULE! They are strictly Mac.
Except for Cakewalk, almost everything else works on both platforms.
Hardware is even a bigger problem for the P.C. Save yourself 10,000
hours of head aches and get yourself a Mac, you won't regret it.

On the other hand, if you want to walk into BEST BUY and find 200
games and other applications for cheap that will work on your PC and
Not on the Mac. Go for the P.C. But If I were a serious artist who
wanted the best tools for my trade. It's not even a close call.
Better yet, go to a Mac store and open up a G5. Then Go to Best Buy
and open up their nicest PC. You're going to know immediately that
there isn't any comparison between the two machines when it comes to
craftsmanship and design. The application differences are even more
dramatic than the obvious physical advantages enjoyed by the MAC.


Go Create!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Why do Mac people always assume they know which has more panache and
it's a Mac? Mac people are the most insecure consumers in the world.

I use both at work. I don't give a damn which I'm on. i would never
be able to afford expanding a Mac at home the way I can with PC. If
you want a sound card that works well on a PC--just choose from the
tens or hundreds out there, and research it on the web. You'll find
one that you can be 99% sure will work with your setup.

Apple loves to squeeze their users for $$$, that's the difference
between mac and PC. And macs *used to* be more stable.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
newsnAQd.3163$911.2758@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> SongCzar wrote:
> > Better yet, go to a Mac store and open up a G5. Then Go to Best Buy
> > and open up their nicest PC. You're going to know immediately that
> > there isn't any comparison between the two machines when it comes to
> > craftsmanship and design.
>
> This is one reason why I think creative people are attracted to the Mac.
>
> I am a Unix person myself, and these days it makes most sense financially
> to just get a PC and run Unix on it. So I built my own machine a while
> back, and a big part of the process was selecting a case that looks nice.
>
> Only, as far as I could tell after looking far and wide, they simply
> don't exist! There are no nice-looking cases for PCs! I ended up
> with an Antec Sonata, which has a shiny black finish (they call it
> a "piano" finish). It's not butt ugly, but it still doesn't look
> nice. It's got an ugly curved front with a big spot right in the
> middle of the cheap plastic door for a STICKER. Yes, that's what I
> want to do with my expensive computer: put a sticker right on the
> front of it. What is this -- junior high school or something?
>
> And then below that is the spot where the USB ports, etc. hook up.
> It's a nice idea having this there, but it's a big silver (plastic,
> of course) curved door with hemispherical multi-faceted clear
> (plastic, of course) pieces that cap it off and make it look like
> a gigantic Tylenol caplet. Only it has blue LEDs in it (because
> anything with a blue LED is automatically cool), so it's a blue
> glowing gigantic Tylenol caplet right below my junior high sticker.
>
> Oh, and it also has a green power LED, but that thing is located
> about 45% from the top and about 10% from the right size of the
> front panel. What kind of proportions are those? Who on earth
> thinks it looks good to have a green LED at an essentially-random
> position on the front panel?
>
> Meanwhile, I can go pick out a Mac at random at the store, and
> there's a good chance I'll look at it and go, "hey, that thing
> looks pretty cool". Some of them are just dumb looking and a
> little gaudy and/or ill-conceived, but most Macs look pretty cool.

And the run a really really nice version of unix these days.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Jorgensen" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:vqg511p6qnf3bii6pb9gomugqooahs0e6h@4ax.com...
> When my wife and I finally decided on Mac, one of the very real factors is
> that it looks slick, and that helps make it more fun and engaging to do
> work
> on.

And they come in so many different colours.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steven Sena" <xssound@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v8idnRPj8eQaWo_fRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>I have a Mac with Pro Tools and a PC with Cubase.
> The PC with Cubase is a joke and the Mac with Pro Tools actually works...
>

Hi Steve,

Just curious, what are the PC specs, what version of Cubase and what audio
interface?

John L Rice

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Macs have always been more reliable than PCs for audio. When 95/98/ME
was unstable, Macs were reliable for audio. Now that 2K/XP are more
stable, Mac upped it with Core Audio/Midi, while Microsoft does
nothing for audio. Having the same maker (Apple) of hardware/OS helps a
lot. I use a Powerbook, so I appreciate that. I see people with PC
laptops, especially for loops, but generally it's a Mac, even an iBook,
for recording or live loops. Macs are simply more reliable, especially
XP will crash the whole system over any slight anomaly, such as a bad
driver. Panther is more stable at the core where it processes audio,
and has more native drivers. Stability is why people use Macs.

I do audio for video and there's no client I know who uses Premiere or
Vegas. It's always Final Cut and sometimes Avid, and I use Digital
Performer ('can't afford DigiTranslator). This is all Mac stuff.

There's some killer post-production apps that I keep a desktop PC for:
CD Architect and Acid. In fact, I transfer a lot of my Mac songs to CD
Architect because that's a tasty program. But for serious laptop
recording out in the field with people paying me, Mac rocks and NEVER
crashed during a recording session. Believe me, I wouldn't want to rely
on XP with all the hell I put my Powerbook through because XP would
crash....guaranteed.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm not going to disagree that there are a lot of mac users in the
creative areas, but it's probably a lot less to do with the actual
performance of the boxes, or the applications. Meaning, Macs no longer
are SCSI and have any sort of speed advantage over a Wintel box. I can
still build a Wintel box with SCSI drives, firewire, USB2 and every
other feature I care to build. I can usually do this for around $1200,
if not less to have an absolute screamer that is lean, mean and will
work perfectly with my Nuendo/MOTU products.
I think more guys use Macs because of the their design. They just look
cool. And they see them on the cover of Mix and other mags in "pro
studios".
Speaking of creative people in general...I happen to work for Adobe. A
few years ago, you'd find literally EVERYONE that used Photoshop or
Illustrator on a Mac. Now, I don't see that as the case. The Wintel
boxes run these apps just fine, no different than a Mac. Adobe even
stopped producing their Premier Pro product for the Mac platform. They
bought an audio app....Cool Edit Pro, PC only. As much as I love Macs,
they're just computers.
With all of this said, I'm contemplating getting a new laptop for the
house. Do I want to just use my current computer and move it into
fulltime internet and home duties? Do I just get a PC notebook and
continue to use my music computer for music only? One side of me would
love to have a Mac and they're great computers and look cool, but I'd
be having to get all new software like MS Office, etc. Is it really
worth it? Who knows....they sure look cool though....
later,
m

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What kind of application are you going to be doing that any of this
makes a difference? The average high-end PC and the average high-end
Mac are both going to be good enough for almost anything if you know how
to use the machine properly (and someone's written a good piece of
software for it).

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Chip Borton wrote:
> Ok, I probably shouldnt be jumping on this thread so don't kill me to
> bad for asking but ...
>
> So far it seems that most of the posts in this thread (and other
> discussions too) are very subjective answers as to why this or that is
> better.
>
> Can someone really define what is better about one platform or the other
> (aside from reliability issues which is also debatable).
>
> IE: What is the maximum hard disk data xfer speed on each?
> Is there really a difference in the quality/speed of the video?
> Can one handle more plug ins than the other?
> What is "Core Audio" and what actually is going on under the hood?
> What benchmarks have been done for each realating to audio?
> Etc. Etc.
>
> IOW, lets see some numbers and hard data, instead of "I like the case
> better" or "I think xyz is better"
> Lets put pricing/personal preference aside and compare raw data if there
> is any.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Trevor de Clercq wrote:
> What kind of application are you going to be doing that any of this
> makes a difference?

How about Pro Tools since most are familiar with it and it has both
a mac and pc version.


> The average high-end PC and the average high-end
> Mac are both going to be good enough for almost anything if you know how
> to use the machine properly (and someone's written a good piece of
> software for it).

Agreed, they are both good enough ...

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> deepthrob@hotmail.com writes:

> > Last week I had a >>MAC ONLY<< client (has never touched a PC) tell me
> > that 'Mac isn't just a computer, it's a way of life'.

> > I believe him.

> I would, too. I just wouldn't like to have his life.

Not even if you could run Firewire and a LAN at the same time? <g> Get
Mackie to send Kurt A a FW card for his Onyx and we'll meet and test
(and eat, and the rest).

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:59:11 -0800, Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net>
wrote:

>> IE: What is the maximum hard disk data xfer speed on each?
>
>Depends on the hard disk chosen more than anything else. The newest generation of Seagate (Barracuda 7200.8)
drives are the current speed leaders in 7200 RPM drives. The 10,000
>RPM WD Raptor is even faster--but limited to 74 gB, hot, and noisy.
>
Man, I like these drives. After years of avoiding Seagate, I am back.

I converted almost all my drives to the new Barracuda's. They are
fast, cheap, trouble free and dead quiet.


Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<mwood5nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> love to have a Mac and they're great computers and look cool,

I think they look contrived and wanky.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Trevor de Clercq wrote:
> When I say "application" I don't mean software application, I mean a
> situation where it matters. Like a real world "application". For
> example, are you going to be doing a full orchestra 96 tracks to disk at
> 192kHz all while slaved to two 3348 machines and locked to a DoReMi
> video machine? Because for most people's real world "applications" on a
> modern computer, the platform doesn't make a difference as long as the
> operator is familiar enough with the OS and software.


Ok, I got ya... missed the train of thought. Yes I see what your saying.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jonny Durango wrote:

> "Mac people" are
> the religious fundamentalist whackos for the computer world.....won't be
> long til they start bombing intel factories heh


I doubt it.

The way I look at it, I'll buy what I want, with my money.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jay Kadis wrote:
> In article <1108581705.071803.81590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I know nothing about Macs and I don't conjecture about how reliable
> > they are. But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed
by
> > people who know what they are doing.
>
> And Macs can be 100% reliable in the hands of people who don't know
what they're
> doing. Maybe that's the difference?

Maybe so, though I doubt that any tool can be 100% reliable in the
hands of an idiot.

This would, in any event, be consistent with Apple's marketing
strategy, which is aimed at the category of people who describe
themselves as "creative" and are described by IT folk as "technically
incompetent".



>
> -Jay
> --
> x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
> x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
> x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
> x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

dale wrote:
> >But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by
> >people who know what they are doing. There are many, many major
banks
> >and other institutions running on the Windows/Intel platform
providing
> >services far more financially important
>
> get the machine for the job.
> audio data is different from financial data

It's all 1's and 0's.

>
> plus they have IT departments (there is more job security and larger
> workforce when running windows)
>
> dale

So you're saying that:
(1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we
would save on personnel costs; and
(2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested
in saving money

(1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this
market)
(2) is risible.

In any case, a Unix box is more reliable than a PC or a Mac. But PC's
are used for applications that the world considers far more important
than anything that a Mac is used for.

This isn't to say that a PC is better than a Mac for recording music.
My own advice, when asked, is:
(1) If you have the budget for full-blown ProTools, and music is your
full-time profession, then get it, because you'll get more work by
being compatible with the major studios
(2) If you don't have this amount of investment, then buy the computer
you know how to use, and buy software that will run on it.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dale" <dallen@frognet.net> writes:

> yeah sometimes sharing a firewire bus is not happening for audio/video.
> metric halo says if you want to run an external harddrive firewire with
> their MIO, you need to do just that.
> seems all firewire ports are on the same buss, by adding a new card for
> firewire, you have a new buss.

Has nothing to do with sharing; all of my firewire is running off the
new card now. The built-in bus was just broken. Twice.

> mac is not perfect..... it is just another computer, but a better
> built one.

Have you got reliability stats?

I love Macs, but I also believe there's a great deal of mythology
flying around here.

--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:46:36 +0000, huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote
(in article <1108586796.657091.78490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> ):

>
> So you're saying that:
> (1) if we used Apple Mac's as servers for financial applications we
> would save on personnel costs; and
> (2) the people running the financial institutions are not interested
> in saving money
>
> (1) is simply wrong (Apple doesn't make a server and isn't even in this
> market)


Apple does make a server ­ the XServe ­ and has done since 2002.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/


John

--

yorkio65 at yahoo dot co dot uk