Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 21, 2007 Members Share Posted November 21, 2007 I believe that the new iMacs do really well with external drives. I swing both ways. I've used PCs and Macs for music, and am typing on a PC right now. I chose to buy the G4 because I was a victim of Windows 95, and at the time swore I'd never use a Windows product for music again. But times have changed, and XP (I can't comment on Vista yet, although I'm sure it'll be fine) is actually stable, and you can do some good work on that. So I wouldn't get too hung up on the operating system. I think you can do really good stuff with either, and in fact, if you're more familiar with a PC, you should consider sticking with one. So you can either consider creating a higher-performing PC out of the one that you have - sticking a lot more RAM and maybe even replacing the CPU, or if you are committed to buying another computer, make sure that one has ample RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 21, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 21, 2007 Yeah thanks... i have been working music on pc for about 5 years without any problem. I have seen that most people moaning about windows xp being crap is because the way they use it. A client of mine (I also sell computers) came to me asking why his new computers was too slow. He had 3 firewalls active, 2 antivirus and 2 spyware programs, along with some other stuff to "beauty" windows graphics. I know xp does the job, but for the price the new macs look great. And sicerely IMHO Mac OS is a better, cleaner (interface wise) OS. For now, it will be mbox runing along with cubase sx 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 You WILL have serious issues running PT with less than a GB of RAM... getting that 512 MB upgraded should be priority #1 if you plan on running PT. If you have a dual core CPU, by all means, use it! It makes a BIG difference with PT 7 or higher. I'm not as certain about single CPU's with Hyperthreading, but IIRC, they have the buigs worked out on that now, and so you should be able to use that too, although the benefits are not as great as thjey are with a true dual core CPU system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 21, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 21, 2007 They say in the manual that if you have hyper threading you could have better performance by disabling it, and you should try I have been researching... i am using a toshiba laptop that got to me in a trade. Until now i havent realized that it shows as 2 cores, but it is just a pentium 4... i dont get it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 22, 2007 Members Share Posted November 22, 2007 I know it's almost a mantra that people say, but it's so true: RAM is cheap. Kick it up as high as your wallet will allow. It's not like your computer is gonna give you a dialogue box saying, "Oh no, that's too much RAM!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 22, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2007 I know it's almost a mantra that people say, but it's so true: RAM is cheap. Kick it up as high as your wallet will allow. It's not like your computer is gonna give you a dialogue box saying, "Oh no, that's too much RAM!!!" :D:cop::D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 22, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 22, 2007 Hi guys... What about coreaudio apps? will the m box work with say logic pro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 That is a question for which I honestly do not know the answer. I'm sure you can find out over on the DUC at www.digidesign.com though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 23, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2007 Thanks I was googling it and i got bored before thinking about the duc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 23, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2007 I found it in the manual once again sorry Core audio drivers are automatically installed when you install pro tools on a macSO i added 1 GB of ram and it is running much more smoothly at 256 samples buffer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 23, 2007 Members Share Posted November 23, 2007 Very good. There's a few things you can experiment with. I can't remember the technical terms, but one of the things that you can experiment with is the allocation of RAM towards Pro Tools. Now, there's a point in which if you allocate TOO much RAM to Pro Tools, it actually starts running worse, so you have to try and find the optimal setting for this. Then, of course, the other one is the buffering. And this can be adjusted, depending on what you are doing. For example, if you are overdubbing vocals, you can adjust the samples (buffer) to a lower sample, and also tweak some other setting in one of the drop-down menus so that there is no latency (I'm sorry, I can't remember the exact terms right now, just woke up). But then, if you are mixing or editing, you can increase the buffer and turn off the "no latency" setting (again, I'm sorry, I can't remember the exact terms, but I think you know what I mean). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 23, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2007 Thanks ken, Ill try. What amazes me is that the manual says that if you have a cpu with hyper threading( and i do) you should experiment disabling it, it could have3 a better performance without it. I am liking pro tools very much... one of the "features" on top of my wishlist is GUI. Pro tools has certainly one of the cleanest, and clearer of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 23, 2007 Members Share Posted November 23, 2007 It's fairly easy to figure out, and quite flexible. I honestly can't compare it to other current DAWs, of which there are many good ones. And your version of Pro Tools would likely be mind-boggling to me since I am primarily using 5.1 LE (yes, I do have 6.4, but don't use it very much because most of my plug-ins are with 5.1). I'm using some really old stuff, horse-and-buggy stuff, something like six and a half years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 23, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2007 It came with 7.3 and all the great software of the ignition pack 2... It is great. Einstein said: imagination is more important than knowledge I guess it translates in the studio as: Creativity is more important than gear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 24, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 24, 2007 Just for curiosity...What other daw have you tried ken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 24, 2007 Members Share Posted November 24, 2007 The only other DAW I've ever used extensively is SAW+ by IQS, which I really liked. This was about ten years ago. It was very efficient, lightning fast with redraws and edits, intuitive (at least to me, anyway - it doesn't follow standard keystrokes, though, which is maddening for many), and fun to use. To a far lesser degree, I've also used Voyetra and Cakewalk, both of which I reviewed for EQ Magazine some years back. I should mention that doing a comprehensive review in 1000-1500 words is very difficult, requires a lot of testing and thinking and editing, and was harder than most research papers I've written (and I have a Master's Degree, so that's really saying something). It really takes a different mindset and a lot of brevity in what one wants to say. I mention this partially for people to bear in mind when they read reviews, especially reviews of DAWs that do ten million different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I found it in the manual once again sorry Core audio drivers are automatically installed when you install pro tools on a mac SO i added 1 GB of ram and it is running much more smoothly at 256 samples buffer.... Cool! Make sure you have your system priority set to "Background services" as per the PT Getting Started Guide... if you're not running any / many plug ins, you should be able to reliably track at the 128 sample latency setting. (Right click on My Computer / Advanced tab / Performance / Advanced / Processor Scheduling = Background Services). As Ken said, you can increase that to the maximum setting (1024) to maximize plug in counts when mixing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 24, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 24, 2007 Cool! Make sure you have your system priority set to "Background services" as per the PT Getting Started Guide... if you're not running any / many plug ins, you should be able to reliably track at the 128 sample latency setting. (Right click on My Computer / Advanced tab / Performance / Advanced / Processor Scheduling = Background Services). As Ken said, you can increase that to the maximum setting (1024) to maximize plug in counts when mixing. Thanks Phil Last name i had the same problem than before upgrading the ram. I dont know what happened. This configuration you mention is already set in my comp. I was just recording an old cassete to a mono track. Ill have to check. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 24, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 24, 2007 The only other DAW I've ever used extensively is SAW+ by IQS, which I really liked. This was about ten years ago. It was very efficient, lightning fast with redraws and edits, intuitive (at least to me, anyway - it doesn't follow standard keystrokes, though, which is maddening for many), and fun to use.To a far lesser degree, I've also used Voyetra and Cakewalk, both of which I reviewed for EQ Magazine some years back.I should mention that doing a comprehensive review in 1000-1500 words is very difficult, requires a lot of testing and thinking and editing, and was harder than most research papers I've written (and I have a Master's Degree, so that's really saying something). It really takes a different mindset and a lot of brevity in what one wants to say. I mention this partially for people to bear in mind when they read reviews, especially reviews of DAWs that do ten million different things. SAW studio is super duper expensive right? It is coded in assembler, that is why it is so fast. It is almost machine (1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 24, 2007 Members Share Posted November 24, 2007 I don't know how much SAW stuff is now, but SAW+ was $600 in 1996. They most likely have varying prices, depending on what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I used to use SAW back in the 1990's. It was a good program at the time, and I'm sure the later versions are even better, but like Ken, I have not really used it in ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 25, 2007 Members Share Posted November 25, 2007 SAW Studio Products In case you are interested in pricing, which starts from $300 on up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mobobog Posted November 28, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 I was recording just one mono audio track and pro tools kept crashing... then i search to find what was wrong, god! just one mono track. I was recording to the internal HD in my laptop... I have an external drive, but then again GOD! just one mono track... so i discovered this laptop has a {censored}ty 4200 rpm drive... wow! Not just a single mono track without crashing on a 4200 RPM drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 I'd think you'd get more than a single mono track, even off the C drive, and even if that C drive was only spinning at 4200 RPM (all of which are definitely NOT recommended). What error number ("DAE Error-1115" or whatever) did it give you - or did it just crash to the desktop or...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted November 28, 2007 Members Share Posted November 28, 2007 4200 rpm!! Wow!!! Definitely, NONE of that is recommended for any sort of performance!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.