Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Is this a good computer for a home studio?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Classified
    Posts
    3,983
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Sign in to disable this ad
    Originally posted by jasedee
    For audio......get a mac.
    PC's are just as good if not better.
    I dont read long posts....

    Please Check Out The Links!
    my sound click page
    mikey cat sound click page

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    537
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    My old computer was an Emachine 633 celeron, 316mb of ram, 20 gb harddrive and a sound blaster live.

    bout 50% of the tracks I did were mistaken for studio tracks. although the people that claimed this werent studio knoledgable at all, other producers commented on the quality on it

    if I can do it on that hunk of crap, you can. your set up is fine. dont sweat the Xeon crap, just make music

    pz
    -SONiK-
    http://www.toxiksoul.com
    http://toxiksoul.securityfreaks.net/banner.jpg

    #1 pickup line of all time: "Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"

    Creator of the Sonik TS destruction campaign

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    SC - USA
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    By all means, I didn't mean that you needed a xeon to get a good sound!!! I was simply stating, if you have the money to spend its the best way to go...in my opinion (this is an opinion only, but I am a certified computer technician) .....I recorded for years on a peice of crap until I was old enough to buy my own equipment and I had lots of great comments on the recordings....do what you can with what you have....

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney,Australia
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by CubaseRox


    PC's are just as good if not better.
    Well......if the PC is specially designed for audio, and are not clogged up with other appz, then I would have to agree with you that a PC can do just as good a job as a Mac (I doubt better though). But alot of people here seem to think they can order a Dell computer with a soundblaster card and have an awesome system, which you just cant do.

    I see so many people with problems with their PC's and audio software/hardware, and then I just sit back and relax with my stable, reliable, fast Mac and laugh!!!! Hahahahaha.......

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Classified
    Posts
    3,983
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by jasedee


    Well......if the PC is specially designed for audio, and are not clogged up with other appz, then I would have to agree with you that a PC can do just as good a job as a Mac (I doubt better though).
    Why do you doubt it could be better. I wasnt saying it in terms of computer vs. computer. I was referring to the software used. Lets say I haved a PC running Cubase SX, and you have a Mac using some 8 audio track software with no MIDI. Do you think the PC cant do better then?

    Secondly there isnt anything you can do on your mac that I cant do with my PC.

    They are both computers!


    But alot of people here seem to think they can order a Dell computer with a soundblaster card and have an awesome system, which you just cant do.
    Dell? c'mon dont make me laugh. Us serious PC users i.e. computer gamers, graphics moguls and audio cats prefer the custom built PC.


    I see so many people with problems with their PC's and audio software/hardware, and then I just sit back and relax with my stable, reliable, fast Mac and laugh!!!! Hahahahaha.......

    Stop it right there! Macs have just as many descrepancies as any PC. They crash, freeze up etc.

    They are all basically the same in the stability department. I prefer a PC for compatibility reasons, and the parts are easy to get.
    I dont read long posts....

    Please Check Out The Links!
    my sound click page
    mikey cat sound click page

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mars Rover?
    Posts
    1,078
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    macs are just too damn expensive, i would still be using one but i just dont have the cash. and thats what it really comes down to, both pc's and macs can do the same things as far as audio work goes but pc's have macs beat by over $1000 sometimes.
    I play piano, guitar, drums, and trombone. I'm a regular one man band. Ask me something about computers, 90% of the time I'll have the answer.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney,Australia
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I guess I am just talking from my own experiences here......I was a PC user for years, and mocked the trendy, overpriced mac users to no end.

    Then, I went out and bought a G5. I have never had a problem with it, no freezes, no crashes, nothing. It is rock solid. All my software is compatible with it, aswel as my hardware, which cant be said for alot of PC's out there because there are so many companies making PC parts, that it is just impossible to test audio hardware with all of these, to check compatibility.

    The rest of my family use PC and they are continuosly breaking or crashing etc.....

    Im not saying that you are using some crap machine, but alot of kids out there are buying/stealing audio software, running them on a cheap Dell machine, and then complaining cos there new audio interface is not compatible with their motherboard and things arent working as they should.

    All im saying, is that in my opinion, and from my experience, a stock standard, off the shelf Mac, is a far superior machine, than a similarly spec'd PC.

    Anyway, each to his own yeah?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    15,587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    sleepy...I beg to differ..

    I have a dual xeon board that I run my webserver from and it is every bit worth the money I paid....

    I wouldn't doubt that your machine would make a great webserver. That is what Xeons are intended for. Of course they will perform well in other applications due to the increased cached but I personally do not feel that the added bit of performance is worth the premium price.


    When I first got it, I took it up to the technical college near me to show it to a buddy of mine (one of the instructors) and they were ALL druelling over it!!! It has been running w/o reboot now for almost 200 days!!!!!
    Just like any other clean well-maintained system can do. Although I agree that it's hard to go wrong with ALL-intel. They are great at coding software for their hardaware.

    People just generally go with AMD because they're cheaper..and from my experience, they are just that....CHEAPER...everyone on this website has been saying in every post (when you're talking about recording equipment, cheap is not the way to go) ....and I say it is NOT the way to go when choosing your computer system either!!

    My system is not top-of-the-line, but it is pretty speedy at "only" 2800+ pr rating.

    ....ALSO, I NEVER SAID XP DID NOT SUPPORT DUAL PROCESSORS!!!! Where did you pull that out of your A$$????
    XP home does [I]not[I/] support dual-processors, it is fact. I meant "you also didn't mention", not "you also didn't mean", that was my mistake. I do a lot of those I have noticed.

    I said XP does not support 64-bit processors like the Xeon so it makes it think that it has 2 32-bit and YES, it does handle as many processes as 2 32-bit processors of the same speed....TRUST ME, I'VE BEEN DOING IT!!!!

    1 64 bit processor does not equal 2 32-bit processors. A 64 bit processor running Windows XP 64 beta with 64 bit drivers and an application that takes advantage of 64 bit processors will run better but hardly at twice the performance.

    Dual core processors are designed to allow faster processing without the increase power drainage and they are based off of the 64-bit technology...so with a dual core processor that is 64-bit, you will have the speed of 4 32-bit processors (not necessarily speed, but databus width...allowing twice as many processes at one time so if you're loading a webpage or just typing in word, NO, you wont see a difference....the difference comes when you're pushing the system (e.g. webhosting, recording, etc.)....here is an article from PCWorld.com

    "Several chip makers are looking to dual-core designs as a way to increase the performance of next-generation processors without the constraints imposed by rising levels of power consumption in single-core processors. Two common methods of improving the performance of a single-core chip are increasing clock speed or adding cache memory, both of which require more power.


    Covered this one.

    A dual-core chip is basically two separate processors on a single chip. Those two processors can outperform single-core processors on most multithreaded applications while running at lower clock speeds and consuming less power.

    Sure, common sense.


    An application with multiple software threads will run faster on a dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded applications running on a single-core processor must wait for one thread to finish before another thread can be processed."

    Okay, common sense also.
    Last edited by sleepy; 08-29-2004 at 09:25 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •