SYNTH ZONE
Visit The Bar For Casual Discussion
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#2753 - 01/28/05 08:17 AM Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
LeoD Offline
Member

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 33
Loc: Lusk, Co. Dublin . Rep.of Irel...
Have always used MS(WorksXP)..as op system on my PC...However am due to change hardware and have heard that Apple is a better choice for Music Production & graphics
Main use of PC is for following
CD Production..(small batches)
Internet...Forums D'load/up loads etc
Music files storage & organization
USB Connection to Tyros..
Various Music S'Ware (cakeW-BIB-S'forge)
Music promotion Fliers & Future net Site
Programme lists/sorts

Any advice appreciated..

Many thanks
LeoD
_________________________
LeoD...Committed to Live
Performance & use of M.Pads

Top
#2754 - 01/28/05 09:38 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
lowfrequencyoscillator Offline
Member

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 49
Loc: atlanta , Georgia , USA
Apple is far better than PCs for music or really just about anything . BUT ! Apple is high dollar stuff . They do have the new MACMINI out , it's a G-4 for less than $600 . The OS X in Mac is promised never to crash . On a PC the promise is that it WILL crash , and often . I use Apple and I love it .
They do cost alot though , really , you must let your budget keep you in line , Check out Apple . http://www.apple.com
_________________________
http://
www.joshuacurry.com/
modify

Top
#2755 - 01/28/05 01:48 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
WDMcM Offline
Member

Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 817
Loc: Ohio, USA
Hi Leo,

I use Vegas Video/DVD Architect, Sound Forge and Photoshop quite heavily on a PC and never had problems. I also use Cakewalk, Band in a Box and other music related software. Again, no problems.

As lowfreq stated in a roundabout way, PC's are less expensive to purchase, primarily because there are so many options in manufacturers. Several studio owner friends of mine use MAC's and love them. It used to be that if your main use was music and/or graphics, then the MAC was the best choice. Things have changed though. There is just as much in the way of high-end music production and graphics for PC as for MAC. The guys that I know using MAC's seem to have just as many problems from time to time as those using PC's.

Good advice for using a PC or MAC for music/graphics is to dedicate the computer to those uses and don't use that computer for web surfing, games, etc. This will allow all system resources to only be concerned with the applications you need rather than having innumerable drivers, internet access, etc. that other programs will use.

Good luck,

Go PC!
_________________________
Wm. David McMahan
The Modulators

Top
#2756 - 02/07/05 01:12 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
LeoD Offline
Member

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 33
Loc: Lusk, Co. Dublin . Rep.of Irel...
Many thanks guys,
good input from you both ...much appreciated....only problem is mon. as usual

Regards

LeoD
_________________________
LeoD...Committed to Live
Performance & use of M.Pads

Top
#2757 - 02/08/05 05:34 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
jrlaudio Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/07/05
Posts: 5
Loc: New York
Apple ... no contest.

I've had problems with PC's, none with Mac. I use my PC for this, the internet. And household stuff. I don't care if it crashes, locks, or fumbles because because some memory is locked up by a program I have recently closed. But when it comes to my music this is unacceptable.

MACs run faster, are more reliable, and are much more intuitive. Ever tried to find all the crap a program installs on a PC. IF you can find the install log (if there is one) or maybe you can if know what something like "{gr3hY56vBKgbl1877nfr0fjJ}.scr" means. Or what error code "7gkf83n" is. What the hells is that? Very few people really know. I do and it's still daunting.

Remember, Windows is the bastard child of MAC OS. Even XP still has some old MAC OS lines of code in it. In the Windows world it is a free for all, due to Windows open-ended architecture, various manufacturers, and software developers taken advantage in their own way of this open-ended architecture. In the MAC world, the architecture is more streamlined and the rules are tighter when designing software for the OS. Also the people who write the OS are also the manufacturers of the hardware, so integration is more streamlined and elegant and less problematic and transparent for the end-user.

In PC land the hardware manufacturers and software developers are given the options and are the ones supported. It is easier and less costlier to develop and implement software for the PC. Which makes Microsoft more dominant in the industry. The end-user really is secondary. Remember Mr. Gates was the first person to really insist that software should not be free. So his leadership will favor software development over all other concerns. He cares very little about compatibility, reliability, security, hardware intergration, or any of the other things vital to an end-user. He wants the industry to be with him, developers to be happy, and the hardware manufacturers to be content, not the end-user. They are after the fact for Microsoft. That's why Windows has an open-ended architecture, but it is also why it has so many constant security issues manifest themselves. Do you really think the manufacturers care that you have a security issue or other problems related to the the free-for-all, open-ended nature of Windows. No. They already have your money if you have their products. Window's end-user performance history has been abysmal and therefore proves this.

This is not the case for Mac users. Apple tried this open-ended approach for a while and it didn't work and they backed away from third parties. It wasn't good for the end-user (and as secondary result its own health corporately within its market), which was a violation of its core principles in its design criteria. However this is also why MAC are not as industry dominant, until end-user performance is the issue. That's why in the marketplace, not the industry, where end-user performance takes precedence over industry strength and costs, like in the music and video production markets, the true reality of COMPUTER USE comes forward, and MAC dominates.

For music and video (performance), or anything ... MAC. For business (cost) or family use (availability & cost), PC is fine.

JRL

[This message has been edited by jrlaudio (edited 02-08-2005).]

[This message has been edited by jrlaudio (edited 02-08-2005).]

Top
#2758 - 02/09/05 02:04 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
LeoD Offline
Member

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 33
Loc: Lusk, Co. Dublin . Rep.of Irel...
JRL,
I really appreciate the lengths you have gone to , to explain the real issues between MS & Apple....you obviously know yor business in this area.

As I already have a (reasonably spectd) PC...which was purchased 2 years ago...for the household...I guess in your mind then it's a 'no brainer'....Mac its gotta be.

I have been looking at the latest Apple range...G5...which ...finance permitting is probably what I will go for...but they aint cheap...especially in Ireland..(where they have a major Mfg Facility by the way).

If you don't mind I may touch base with you again ...for advice on precise model and accessories for my needs/pocket.

Meanwhile many thanks again,

Regards
LeoD
_________________________
LeoD...Committed to Live
Performance & use of M.Pads

Top
#2759 - 02/09/05 03:35 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
WDMcM Offline
Member

Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 817
Loc: Ohio, USA
Hi Leo,

Here is an old but still wise question in the decision making process when buying a new computer. Ask you self what you want to do with this computer purchase, check into the available software that will perform those tasks and that will dictate what type/brand/power level of computer to buy.

I agree with jrl that those people heavily into graphics, pro-level music studios, etc. tend to go for MAC. The MAC is far less susceptible to software problems since software developers must adhere to more stringent rules than those writing for Dos/Windows based machines. That normally also relates to considerably higher software prices. The MAC O/S is constantly being upgraded just like Windows. When a new O/S comes out, it means having to try and make the peripheral devices work with the new O/S which can be a real pain on either platform.

I am not trying to talk you into or out of any particular system, just more to consider.


------------------
Wm. David McMahan
Nat'l Product and Support Manager
Generalmusic USA
_________________________
Wm. David McMahan
The Modulators

Top
#2760 - 02/13/05 11:16 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
MORPH! Offline
Member

Registered: 07/25/00
Posts: 296
Loc: Laguna Beach, California, Unit...
Music Production- Mac
Wav Proccessing
MIDI Proccessing
Sample Proccessing
Synth Emulation
Mac software runs far more foundational to the proccessor than PC format.
JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, it would be SIMILAR to a PC running in straight machine code instead of standardized C++ based software.
Mac software has very little margin for error in it's programming, and so the clock runs with great efficiency whereas with PC software, often times, errors are written in without choice just to perform one portion of a subroutine whereas the rest of the subroutine's functioning is not used. (some programmers call it proccessing fat)
Music Post Production- PC
Wav editing is much faster than a Mac.
Especially when it comes to inserts, simple copy and paste and SOME simple transformations (amplitude, Normalizations, and other post production dynamics.
I like mastering with the PC because it is pretty effortless. However, if a noise reduction is warranted at the material's end of proccessing, I will take it back to a Mac because it is capable of removing noise with "a finer rake" or higher FFT resolution without having to wait a week for it to finish up.
Desktop Publishing- either.dependant on program used. Ms Publisher XP does fine. I I Dont think people examine flyers beyond a hundreth of an inch, but if you have Adobe on a Mac you have 10X the accuracy of publisher (one thousandth of an inch). I say wtf, do you need that accuracy for a flyer? Overkill. Might as well build your flyer with AutoCAD LOL
Internet depends on the proficiency of the user. advanced, a mac. long learning curve to the in's and out's that the mac has capability of. If you are not into port scanning or web harvesting, that's good because it is not nice to do that. Average mousing browser's: Go with a PC for the net.

It depends on the task really.
You can't put a Mac inside a PC, but A G3,4,or 5 can run a software based PC from mac language. Hardware based, up to 8 PC's at one time effortlessly.

It depends on the task. You wouldn't drive a golf course in a Ferrari Marinello, and you wouldn't take a golf cart on the freeway (Anyone with some intelligence anyway)

Things change all the time, so next week, things might be different.
_________________________
MORPH! Sound

Top
#2761 - 02/16/05 01:41 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Pennywizz6 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 434
Loc: Shakopee, MN, USA
Mac has always had the upper hand on graphic design and multimedia compared to PCs. If doing this is all you plan on doing with it, id get a mac.

Phil

Top
#2762 - 02/17/05 11:43 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
RW Offline
Member

Registered: 01/30/01
Posts: 344
Loc: NJ, USA
I read somewhere that PC will be fine so long as it's a pentium 4 chip. I really personally don't know myself and appreciate the question.

Bob
<><

Top
#2763 - 02/17/05 01:56 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Pennywizz6 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 434
Loc: Shakopee, MN, USA
A decent processor such as a pentium 4 (1.6ghz or higher) should be just fine. But that isnt everything. You will want ram! ram is good ram is great and lots of it is a MUST!!! 512mb is minimum, 1gb is adequete any more is just fantastic. Another thing is a video card is a big advantage, over 32mb is prety much minimal on some of this fancy programs, 128 will be just fine.

Phil

Top
#2764 - 02/17/05 05:25 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
LeoD Offline
Member

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 33
Loc: Lusk, Co. Dublin . Rep.of Irel...
Thanks again ,
Thanks guys for all the help...at least I have some independant views to help me make up my mind..

Regards
LeoD
_________________________
LeoD...Committed to Live
Performance & use of M.Pads

Top
#2765 - 02/18/05 08:19 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
3351 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/17/03
Posts: 1194
Loc: Toronto, Canada.
QUick question to all PC users here.
JUst how much latency do you guys experience while trying to run software synths?
How many of them can you run at the same time? (Needless to mention Arturia in this case, since that stuff is really power hungry(
-ED-


[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 02-18-2005).]
_________________________
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.
- - - Oscar Wilde

Top
#2766 - 02/18/05 09:24 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Sheriff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 965
Loc: Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany
Hello Leo!

There's no better way for making music as using an Atari Falcon 030 with FA-8 & FDI controlled by cubase audio. This product is THE reference class until today and has never been topped by any modern computersystems.
Unfortunality this computer isn't produced anymore since 10 years. So, for today there's no better system for making music as an Apple. The Hardware of a PC was never designed for professional working with sound or graphics - it was only made for using in offices.
Virtual synthesises are not really equal to real sysnthesises with analogic oscillators. So the best way for making musik is to use real instruments - believe it or not!

Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff
;-)


[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 02-18-2005).]
_________________________
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

Top
#2767 - 02/18/05 01:05 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
RW Offline
Member

Registered: 01/30/01
Posts: 344
Loc: NJ, USA
What if you're not using soft synths, but just using the PC to record audio tracks, and final mixing?

Would a pentimum 4 2gighz be ok? with say 512 ram?

Bob
<><

Top
#2768 - 02/18/05 02:10 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Pennywizz6 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 434
Loc: Shakopee, MN, USA
Bob, Yes that will work just fine. If it goes real slow, just upgrade to 1gb of ram, a 512 stick will be 60-70 bucks, well worth it.

Sheriff, depending on your system you can run many programs at once. The thing that limits how much you can run is ram. I have 1gb and have never been to the point where I cant run enough programs.

Phil

Top
#2769 - 02/19/05 08:08 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
3351 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/17/03
Posts: 1194
Loc: Toronto, Canada.
Hey SHeriff, your comment on soft synths kind of pre-supposes that we are all after analog emulations. Truth is, most soft synths go far beyond emulations of analog. But to be honest, virtual analog synths do sound damn good and in some cases even better than the real thing. I agree, there are limitations and definite differences in character of sound, but even with all that virtual analog synths sound pretty damn analog in the mix. OFten times even better.

Now, back to what I was originally saying...
Synths like Absynth, FM7, PPG 2.V, Reaktor, Reason are pretty much what drives the virtual synth market. Sure, manufacturers like Arturia and Gmedia tend to focus on the retro shit; but really, how many times does a modern days electronic musician need a Moog emulation? THere are fanatics writing tributes to Tonto's head Expanding band and Tangerine Dream but there aren't too many of those.

Most of us are after grooves, motion pads, heavy morphing textures and your average meat and potato stuff like pianos, strings etc.

So if anyone wishes to limit themselves and stick to just recording TB303s and Moog modular systems using PCs or ancient atari systems - be my guest.

As it was once brilliantly put: "There are too many freaks and not enough circuses".

Now, back to our PC or a MAC delema. A used G4 Mac will do a much better job than any PC. THey won't cost you a fortune BTW.

-ED-
_________________________
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.
- - - Oscar Wilde

Top
#2770 - 02/19/05 03:06 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Sheriff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 965
Loc: Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany
Hi, Bob!

Without using soft synths you don't need too much memory. I had a AMD K6-II/500 and 256MB SDRAM...and it worked good for recording standard audio tracks - even Oxygen (a Cubase clone) worked fine. ;-)
My old Atari uses a SCSI-II interface with 2 MB/s and it is sufficient for recording 8 (up to 16) tracks. So an ATA-33 controller should be more than enough for the most biggest dreams... ;-)

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 02-19-2005).]
_________________________
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

Top
#2771 - 02/19/05 03:45 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Sheriff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 965
Loc: Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany
Hi, Phil!

Nearly all PC systems running win32 are not qualified for synchronisation between HD recording, V.S.T. and midi controller. PC's are great dealers for networking, office programms, etc. which won't need any exactly timings.
The most important advantages of a single task program is: 100% attention of hardware for cooperating with software! - I don't need a 'recorder' which is permanently engaged in background checking this or that nonrelevant thing. I need a wave recorder with full attention to MY interests. ;-)

Nevertheless, a win32 system is already enough for audio recording. But if you need to use V.S.T. imho you better use a PPC.
Otherwise you can also use a DAT or a normal tape for recording...*lol*


------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)
_________________________
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

Top
#2772 - 02/19/05 04:19 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Sheriff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 965
Loc: Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany
Hello Ed!

I can't really disagree!
The point is that we all love our good old synths and won't believe that there is any comparable emulation on market. Another point is that the experience shows us that most mucicians are 'crying' for their 'old and humble sounds' (I'm likewise doing it).

Otherwise the new technics brought us new possibilities and also new 'colours' (in my special case there is no need for any V.S.T. because of my V.A.S.T. in K2000). :-)

I'm using a lot of modern digital sounds but I would never dispense with my analog colours from Yamaha V-50 (I think it has a DX-7 machine inside?).

"Yes, give me the whole new techs but never scrap my old techs away!" ;-)

It lasts years before I can handle a complex technical thing nearly perfect. So it's logical to say: "The old thing sounds better than the new once!"
Isn't it? ;-)


------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)
_________________________
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

Top
#2773 - 02/19/05 06:42 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
3351 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/17/03
Posts: 1194
Loc: Toronto, Canada.
As I thought. It's funny how delemas always create new delemas?
Kind of a delema within another delema paradoxe?
But before I get carried away..

See, it's like with my DX7 and TX816 modules. I love that stuff. It is no match for FM7 or any other advanced FM synth (like FS1R or DX200). But there are some tone qualities and little things like the way the envelopes respond that can't be simulated with the software (or new hardware for that matter.

To think of it FM itself isn't exactly top of the line nowadays. Yet I'm still hooked on it.

And hey, speaking of synths (Like that's unusual around here) an AN1X plug-in board for my Motif ES8 is a very cool little synth. It doesn't really have any of the tone qualities of the classic analog instruments but it does sound analog. Lack of knobs and a bit of limitations in ranges is about it. THe rest is just awsome.

My Novation nova is standing right next to me and yet I haven't touched it in weeks....

-ED-
_________________________
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.
- - - Oscar Wilde

Top
#2774 - 02/20/05 01:53 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
freddynl Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 1150
Loc: netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by 3351:
QUick question to all PC users here.
JUst how much latency do you guys experience while trying to run software synths?
How many of them can you run at the same time? (Needless to mention Arturia in this case, since that stuff is really power hungry(
-ED-
[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 02-18-2005).]


Hello Ed,

I don't use softsynth's but I do record in realtime sometimes 32 tracks at the same time
(16 tracks stereo)
Sonar and Cooledit running at the same time.
No measurable/audible latency

This is on my old PC Pentium III 500!

But I have to admit that:
1. I built this PC myselve
2. It's dedicated for audio/graphics only
3. I use two delta 1010 19" rack units.
(so the A/D converters are in the 19"rack and don't use processor time)

The O/S is win 2000 professional
ram 512mb

The only hardware I upgraded was the video card., (Hercules 8500 as I use two monitors)

Never had to re-install the O/S
Still working without a problem.
_________________________
Keyboards/Sound Units: Kurzweil 2600S, Roland VR-760, Acces Virus C, Roland G-800, Akai AX60, Minimoog, Machine Drum, Roland R8-M, mediastation x-76

Top
#2775 - 02/21/05 08:37 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Sheriff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 965
Loc: Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by 3351:
But there are some tone qualities and little things like the way the envelopes respond that can't be simulated with the software (or new hardware for that matter.


That's what I meant as I've written: "Virtual synthesises are not really equal to real sysnthesises with analogic oscillators." ;-)
The fact is that all oscillators built in the past had their own characteristics. The same fact is true for the LFOs, AMPs, FXs, etc.
V.S.T. tries to emulate all those hardware in all characteristics. Unfortunality there are really some physical barriers to do so. The result is an engine which sounds 'not really equal', 'nearly the origin', 'pretty good' or something like that. Otherwise you'll get new 'colours' so why not? ;-)

Quote:
Originally posted by 3351:
And hey, speaking of synths (Like that's unusual around here) an AN1X plug-in board for my Motif ES8 is a very cool little synth. It doesn't really have any of the tone qualities of the classic analog instruments but it does sound analog. Lack of knobs and a bit of limitations in ranges is about it. THe rest is just awsome.

It's a shame but I don't know the most synths you're enumerating (except DX7). But I've readed between your lines that you're using a lot of soft synths. I guess that soft synths are less expensive than hard synths? ;-)

Oh...by the way...the Atari Falcon 030 doesn't really make me feeling limited because of its MFP. This little chip gave the Atari a special interupt for the midi controller on board. This gave many professional studios in Germany the reason to keep on 'tracking' with their Falcons. Furthermore there are newer TOS systems with higher efficient CPUs (but that's another story). ;-)
Other (modern) systems have no special midi interupt. So they need a software driver to translate the PCI (or any other) interupt into a midi interupt. The latency for example in PC systems is created by the very high bus traffic developed by win32. This problem had exist for a long time until some manufacturers created a new standard in cooperation with MS - ASIOdirect! Authoritatively participated in creating the new standard was the Cubase's developer Steinberg. An assistant of Steinberg personally told me that ASIOdirect domineers the most backing functions of win32 systems. This means that you'll need an audio card which supports ASIOdirect and any software (for example Cubase) which also supports ASIOdirect. That's imho the only way to use an external keyboard without latency under win32. By the way, this standard isn't used under Mac OS.
Unfortunality another problem appeared - the mainboard's chip set. The most PC mainboards today use the VIA chip set. It emerged that this chip set doesn't fully support the PCI bridge. So the ASIOdirect doesn't work correctly.
Win32, the never ending story... ;-)

How many soft synths could be used at the same time? Every soft synth program has its own source code size which is using RAM. Every sound texture created or used by those programs also uses RAM. So it isn't easy to say how many synths.
A music dealer told me that 512 MB were enough for parallel running of 3 soft synths. (which not automatically means that 1 GB affords capacity for only 6 synths). But what would you do with so many synths? You're not making live music, are you? ;-)


------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)
_________________________
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

Top
#2776 - 02/21/05 09:07 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Pennywizz6 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 434
Loc: Shakopee, MN, USA
Freddy,

How does the two monitors work? Ive always concidered that, but didnt know how it would work.

Phil

Top
#2777 - 02/21/05 12:43 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
freddynl Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 1150
Loc: netherlands
Hello Phil,

That works great.
Specially if you run more as one software program.
you basicly make one large screen en place the software windows where ever you like.
F.i. I have usually Sonar running on one screen, Cooledit and the delta mixpannel on another screen.
Due to this setup I can use larger fonts as well.

The Hercules card works great as you can use analogue en digital monitors at the same time.
(I use a 21"dell trinitron + a 19"dell flatscreen at the same time)

Ofcourse you can also set up the monitors for having them on different places just to monitor the other monitor. etc...

If you have more as one system and use a switch between two systems you have again other handy setup possibilities etc...

Fred
_________________________
Keyboards/Sound Units: Kurzweil 2600S, Roland VR-760, Acces Virus C, Roland G-800, Akai AX60, Minimoog, Machine Drum, Roland R8-M, mediastation x-76

Top
#2778 - 02/22/05 12:11 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
3351 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/17/03
Posts: 1194
Loc: Toronto, Canada.
Hey I know what you meant Sheriff. It is just that your original comment almost implied that it is better to use real analog synths as in oppose to software instruments. I have simply expanded that idea by pointing out that there is more to the sound of today’s electronic music (as well as all the music made with electronic equipment) than analog sounds and analog emulations. Not that you disagreed with that.

How many soft synths do I need to run at the same time? Well, I usually run about twenty of them when I get really creative. On top of it I run tons of plug-ins and FX. I only bounce to disc once the piece is complete. Why do I do that?
Because I can you PC crippled people!!! LOL

My G4 Mac handles it all quite nicely (considering it is only a 933Mhz machine with the bus speed of a 133Mhz).

Half the stuff I write relies on huge sample libraries (spectrasonics stuff) and running multiple software samplers (Like my Emagic EXS24) is a lot more convinnient than running tons of hardware and having to wait for it all to load (provided there is an autoload function that even AKAI samplers do not handle that well). Another reason for me being such a control freak is the fact that I really like being able to go back and change any parameter on any synth without having to re-record it. Just open Logic file, change what I want, bounce to disc and bingo – I am done!!!
Time in the studio is precious, so waiting around for stuff to be re-recorded and having to scroll through tons of files is out of the question. That bullshit annoyed me in the 90s. No more of that. My patience has a limit. LOL

Of coarse, for all the fans of pain and suffering of having to do all that I strongly recommend an Atari or a PC. Or both, to make the pain worse. I actually own a custom built PC just for that. Just to remind myself how miserable it can be. Well, no I am just joking. PCs can do nicely with audio wave editing. And many other things. I am actually writing all this using a PC.
But not for much longer... Damn WIN XP is about to die from another virus. Way to go Norton!!! ALthough it could be that SP2 bugger that I tried to install last night. I had problems with that stupid update before, but I guess some people just don't learn!!! Try and fail, try again.
Regards,
-ED-
_________________________
A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.
- - - Oscar Wilde

Top
#2779 - 02/22/05 01:20 PM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
freddynl Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 1150
Loc: netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by 3351:

Way to go Norton!!! ALthough it could be that SP2 bugger that I tried to install last night. I had problems with that stupid update before, but I guess some people just don't learn!!! Try and fail, try again.
Regards,
-ED-



Ed,
The first thing I allways do with PC's from friends and clients, IF I see Norton IS; REMOVE Norton immediately.
Norton is causing 50% of the problems of slow PC's.
You don't need Norton unless you are a real digibeet (sorry don't know the english word)
You should look at your PC and say to yourselve what do I need.
Everything else can go!
In other words strip your PC virtually and stop installing crap.
If you only could install all these crap on a MAC, you would have the same problems most
PC users have.

A PC is like playing in a band!
You can recognise a good musician in what he is not playing!
_________________________
Keyboards/Sound Units: Kurzweil 2600S, Roland VR-760, Acces Virus C, Roland G-800, Akai AX60, Minimoog, Machine Drum, Roland R8-M, mediastation x-76

Top
#2780 - 02/23/05 02:59 AM Re: Best for music IBM/MS or Apple??
Sheriff Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 965
Loc: Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany
Quote:
Originally posted by freddynl:
...Norton is causing 50% of the problems of slow PC's...


And the other 50% comes from windows itself...*lol* ;-)

That's another reason why I'm using Atari-TOS because of its transparence for the user. No file will be copied in any folder without the control of the user (ok, I'm an old software engineer for TOS applications so I really know what TOS really does). :-)
I thought that working with Mac OS seemed to be the same because both systems were based on the 68k CPU. Unfortunality I have no experience with this OS. :-(


------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)
_________________________
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  Admin 



Help keep Synth Zone Online