Putting Together My Studio

First of all, I was talking about the most recent June update to the MacBook Pro line, which saw the introduction of the 13" model and a price cut across the range. It was a somewhat recession-inspired change on the part of Apple, but a change regardless.

It's true that "tomorrow's computer" will not always prove noticeable faster than "today's computer", yes. However, in the case of the i7, there are major architectural differences which set it firmly apart from what has traditionally gone before - direct access to the memory modules, QuickPath Interconnect, three layers of CPU cache, and so on. That's a lot more than just 2.6Ghz versus 2.4. If I were in the market for a desktop machine at the moment, my personal inclination would be to insist on the i7, even if it meant waiting a few months. If it meant waiting a year or more then that might be a different story...

I will gladly acknowledge being a technophile, which probably affects my attitude to these things. I like to buy something secure in the knowledge - or at least relative conviction - that it won't go out of date any time soon, that I'm getting a good deal. Others are free to spend their money according to their own desires and needs.

"First of all, I was talking about the most recent June update to the MacBook Pro line, which saw the introduction of the 13" model and a price cut across the range. It was a somewhat recession-inspired change on the part of Apple, but a change regardless."

Well, I checked this morning at the Apple site, and the price for the 17" (which is what I bought a couple of years ago) is still about the same, maybe $100 less retail. True, it's got a bigger hard drive and presumably some new bells and whistles, but things are also missing from it as I mentioned.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The 17" machine of today will be markedly technically superior to that on offer a few years ago. Pricing loses all meaning if you go by what was charged when the technology was current, rather than the value of one in relation to the other. If you were to compare the current cost of components equivalent to those present in your machine with what you originally paid, that would be an illustrative comparison.

I do agree a Firewire 400 port should be included, though. Maybe Apple are trying to scrimp and save...on their premium grade laptop!

"The 17" machine of today will be markedly technically superior to that on offer a few years ago."

"I do agree a Firewire 400 port should be included, though. Maybe Apple are trying to scrimp and save...on their premium grade laptop!"

So do these statements seem contradictory to you too? yes, there will be some improvements, absolutely. Whether or not they are improvements any of us need or would even notice when making music? That's a very specific judgement that can't be answered by automatically assuming that new is better. For example, have you seen the new reflective screens on the MBP? I'm sure Apple thinks they are an improvement, but I'd never use one in my studio because they reflect far more glare than the excellent screen of only 1 year ago.

"Pricing loses all meaning if you go by what was charged when the technology was current, rather than the value of one in relation to the other."

I'm sorry, but pricing never loses all meaning to some of us. if $2500 bought my computer with a slightly smaller hard drive and FW400 and a non-reflective screen 2 years ago, and today it buys one with a larger drive, no FW400 and a screen I can't use in my studio because I like, well, LIGHTS around me when I'm working...who gets the 'better deal'?

anyway, new is groovy, I agree. But holding out for the next generation without knowing precisely what you'd be getting and giving up? Especially when the last generation or two are functioning beautifully, are under warranty, and are available right now for less?

So do these statements seem contradictory to you too?

Not really, since Firewire 800 is backwards compatible with Firewire 400 devices provided you have an adaptor or 6-pin to 9-pin cable. The inclusion of an actual 400 port is more a practical consideration.

yes, there will be some improvements, absolutely. Whether or not they are improvements any of us need or would even notice when making music? That's a very specific judgement that can't be answered by automatically assuming that new is better. For example, have you seen the new reflective screens on the MBP? I'm sure Apple thinks they are an improvement, but I'd never use one in my studio because they reflect far more glare than the excellent screen of only 1 year ago.

That is very true. It's strange since so many graphic designers and other visual artists use Mac as their platform.

I'm sorry, but pricing never loses all meaning to some of us. if $2500 bought my computer with a slightly smaller hard drive and FW400 and a non-reflective screen 2 years ago, and today it buys one with a larger drive, no FW400 and a screen I can't use in my studio because I like, well, LIGHTS around me when I'm working...who gets the 'better deal'?

What about CPU speed? Amount/speed of memory? System bus speed? Hard drive RPM, even? If you don't need/want all that power, then obviously the purchase is not justifiable to you. It's entirely up to the consumer.

anyway, new is groovy, I agree. But holding out for the next generation without knowing precisely what you'd be getting and giving up? Especially when the last generation or two are functioning beautifully, are under warranty, and are available right now for less?

You make a good case, on a practical level at least. My point was in aid of attaining maximum value for money, though - I did not intend to suggest that only the latest generation of a premium grade product would be able to handle realtime audio work. There will come a point, however, when the machine of one or two generations ago is lacking in some respect and needs to be replaced. The current generation of computer technology is usually more future-proof.

Obviously we just have our differing philosophies.

I'm eating all of this up, by the way... even have my popcorn here as I try to form some semblance of understanding about what you're discussing (the details, I understand the general discussion taking place).

Fascinating. Anyways, proceed :)

We can probably go on forever, but I'm good for one or two more responses seeing as we all have different priorities anyway.

"Quote:

So do these statements seem contradictory to you too?"

"Not really, since Firewire 800 is backwards compatible with Firewire 400 devices provided you have an adaptor or 6-pin to 9-pin cable. The inclusion of an actual 400 port is more a practical consideration."

Lol--to me, lowering the price but making you buy an adaptor is a bit of a cheat when saying "New and improved!" And if you live in an isolated area, as I do, not always that practical to find one.

"It's strange since so many graphic designers and other visual artists use Mac as their platform."

Talking about the 'New and Improved!" screen on the MBPros...again, there is yet another situation where the older model will definitely be superior than the new one. Let's see now, the new one has a slightly larger hard drive than mine, but I have to buy an adaptor and I can't stand the screen reflectivity...hard choice! ;)

"My point was in aid of attaining maximum value for money, though..."

I believe that maximum value for the money is never achieved by buying new. There is instant depreciation on an item once it walks out that door. If you buy it in the parking lot before the buyer gets to his car, you'll probably save a couple of bucks. If you buy it a month after he has used it, you'll save even more. And if you buy it a month after the new ones come out, with the screens you wouldn't want to use anyway, you'll save a lot more. Same great value as it was 6 months earlier, but you're paying $500 less for it.

Lol--to me, lowering the price but making you buy an adaptor is a bit of a cheat when saying "New and improved!" And if you live in an isolated area, as I do, not always that practical to find one.

Firewire 400-800 adaptors can be bought quite cheaply, you can find them on Google Product Search. Same goes for 6-pin to 9-pin cables. And if you live rurally, just mail order! :)

Let's see now, the new one has a slightly larger hard drive than mine, but I have to buy an adaptor and I can't stand the screen reflectivity...hard choice!

It also has a bigger hard drive, a faster and architecturally superior CPU, faster system bus, a greater amount of RAM running at a higher speed, and two graphics cards SLI'd together. I agree reflective screens are annoying, but I can't help but think you are being slightly myopic over the whole issue.

I believe that maximum value for the money is never achieved by buying new. There is instant depreciation on an item once it walks out that door. If you buy it in the parking lot before the buyer gets to his car, you'll probably save a couple of bucks. If you buy it a month after he has used it, you'll save even more. And if you buy it a month after the new ones come out, with the screens you wouldn't want to use anyway, you'll save a lot more. Same great value as it was 6 months earlier, but you're paying $500 less for it.

That is certainly quite compelling. I wouldn't normally recommend instant adoption of new technology, as there is almost certainly scope for short term depreciation - except in the case of new Apple machines, whose prices tend to remain static for months. Then again, so does the range of products. It's a clever sales tactic, really.

"And if you live rurally, just mail order!"

Well, there is rural and there is rural--I live in central rural mexico, and the nearest big box is not a very big box, an hour away. Since FW800 ain't exactly happening down here--Mac is barely happening and LCD monitors run $400US for the same thing you'd pay $200 for in the states, and mail order takes extra time and costs extra delivery and duties on top of that, and it is a scallop to send anything back if it is faulty...are you really sure you don't want to just admit that removing FW400 ports from their new generation was a bonehead thing to do, and inconvenient for some of us? ;)

seriously it's not the end of the world, but it's not an upgrade either. it's a cutback, plain and simple.

"It also has a bigger hard drive, a faster and architecturally superior CPU, faster system bus, a greater amount of RAM running at a higher speed, and two graphics cards SLI'd together."

Faster and architecturally superior? I don't know, but my MBP never had a problem handling Logic with a couple dozen tracks running at the same time. if it's speed I didn't need, why pay extra for it now? And buying a new generation MBP would definitely be paying extra, compared to buying current or last generation--you'd pay maybe as much as $1000 less for the latter.

And if it works, what is the problem with that?

" I agree reflective screens are annoying, but I can't help but think you are being slightly myopic over the whole issue."

Ok, here is where we differ and it may be because I come from a position of being a professional recording engineer. I can tell you have not spent time at any recording/engineering forums to hear the overwhelming outrage that Apple chose to change their screens without a single thought to people who do actual work on them. My screen is not a minor tool--it is the one thing I look at more than anything else--more than my piano, my synths, my mixer and so on. if you think I would pay full price for a larger hard drive--when by the way, most serious music-makers don't ever use the internal drive to record on--speed I was happy without AND a screen I don't like, then once again I have to question whether you're really thinking of the person's needs or just a blind determination to have the newest model at any cost.

Remember, the original poster is a musician who wants to do some sequencing and maybe record a track or two of audio. A Mac Pro or a MacBook Pro from 2006 would probably overwhelm him with power and abilities. 2007, maybe even better. 2008, sure, why not? But waiting till the next 2009's come out? I still don't know why you'd recommend that.

" wouldn't normally recommend instant adoption of new technology, as there is almost certainly scope for short term depreciation - except in the case of new Apple machines, whose prices tend to remain static for months."

I got a very good deal for a fully warranty'd and loaded dual quad MacPro that happened to be used for a few months once the new ones came out a few months back.

Obviously we aren't going to agree on which approach to buying new tech is right, so I'll just reiterate the fact that AA is in the market for a Mac Pro, not a MacBook Pro. The i7 heralds a new generation of desktop machines, which is the only reason I would recommend waiting for the next-generation MPs - if he doesn't mind waiting a while. Understand the i7 technology, and you should understand my reasoning in this regard. There isn't really an equivalent technological leap in the works for laptop machines, apart from maybe solid state drives...but those are little more than a footnote compared to the i7, really.

Also, it should be noted that the i7 is not able to be used in a multi-CPU configuration, so the question only applies to the single-CPU Mac Pro.

People should assess their own personal needs and buy technology which meets those needs. In some cases, they might decide to wait for the latest generation because it's better. In others, they might opt for an older model which will still get the job done. I don't think I ever said that people should buy any one thing!

That's about all I have left to say.

Sounds good to me! Nice talking with you.

I use ProTools and just about everyone here in MI, Illinois that make a living off this thing called music uses ProTools. the audio editing is better and honestly I like the way the mixer is set up. It functions more like a real mixer...it's also handles grouping better than Logic.

Logic handles MIDI WAY better, from Recording and Editing. I even like the VST's it comes with. I can dump my MIDI in both but fixing a midi mistake on ProTools is death.

I say get the MAc. I love it. In the end, you have to be comfortable about what you are buying. My next rig is:

MacBook Pro

Mac Mini

digi 003

Waves Diamond

* I really don't see a reason to go Mac, if you're used to a PC. Only the OS is different (and the fact that you can't use Logic/DP/protools on a PC). But frankly you don't need to. Which brings me to the next point.

Actually I hate to disagree with you Nikolas but there is a HUGE difference between audio production done on a PC and one a Mac. In all of my experiences (professional and hobby) over the past nine years or so the Mac provided a smoother, more dependable work situation. I was able to:

*load in about 15-20 more active VST instruments than I could with a fully loaded PC. Keep in mind all of these VST instruments were active, not frozen.

*nearly half of the tracks has some kind of plug-in loaded on it (be it reverb, EQ, chorus, etc). I didn't have to use a single bus!!

*render high quality audio of extremely long sessions, many times with video streaming, and full automation without a single hitch. My PC, which is also a professionally made custom made audio PC that cost over $3,000) cannot do this.

I'm not here to spark a Mac is better than PC flame war. After all, I'm a long time PC user myself and still have one in my personal studio. (But I will be changing over to Mac there as well in about two months.) You CAN create good audio on a PC. I've done it many times! :) But the issue is you have to do more work-a-rounds. You have to be more careful about your active track count to stay within RAM constraints. You have to use more bus tracks to keep things fluid. You'll be more likely to have audio clip outs and render problems when running an intense sessions (which most of my end up being). At the end of the day you'll have to ask yourself: which situation suites me better. If this is just a hobby and you're doing it for the sheer love of it then either one, Mac or PC, is a viable option for you! But if you're doing this professionally where you have deadlines and multiple projects on your plate at one time, you cannot afford to deal with work-a-rounds. You'll need a machine that can get it done every single time and in my professional experience, after working in two production studios over the past three years and as an indie for the previous five, the Mac out performs the PC with regards to audio production. This is also especially true when considering scoring to film. Of course performance isn't the only issue when looking to make a purchase, otherwise we'd all drive luxury sports cars!! If you cannot afford a Mac Pro... then PC may be the best option.

I cannot speak for what is the industry standard or norm in Europe but in the states Macs have had a long standing as being the better performer for audio production. Also based on what I read in Computer Music (which is a UK publication) Macs have a serious strong hold there.

AA: Pro Tools is great, especially HD but most individuals cannot afford this option. Might I recommend you also add in Logic 9 Studio, which just came out a few days ago. I use Logic Studio daily and it is a powerful, deep and very capable application. And at $500 for the pro end version, which comes bundled with a slew of add-ons, it's a great deal!

(No, I don't work for Apple..... sadly. I could really use that employee discount!)

Actually I hate to disagree with you Nikolas but there is a HUGE difference between audio production done on a PC and one a Mac. In all of my experiences (professional and hobby) over the past nine years or so the Mac provided a smoother, more dependable work situation. I was able to:

*load in about 15-20 more active VST instruments than I could with a fully loaded PC. Keep in mind all of these VST instruments were active, not frozen.

*nearly half of the tracks has some kind of plug-in loaded on it (be it reverb, EQ, chorus, etc). I didn't have to use a single bus!!

*render high quality audio of extremely long sessions, many times with video streaming, and full automation without a single hitch. My PC, which is also a professionally made custom made audio PC that cost over $3,000) cannot do this.

This somehow sounds more of a computer vs computer bases, rather than something else. If I can put 12 GB of RAM in my i7, with a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit sequencer (and K3.5 which is 64-bit) I can go all the way, so there doesn't seem to be any RAM limitation either on a PC.

It could very well be that Mac OS are 'better' (in the lack of another word), but architecture is no longer HUGELY different.

Of course your sayings could all be true, I've no idea how to research on that, nor I'd like to really, I'll take your word. I'm just saying that differences are no longer "Take a mac or you're dead" type of thing, and it's mostly a matter of choice. :-/

This somehow sounds more of a computer vs computer bases, rather than something else. If I can put 12 GB of RAM in my i7, with a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit sequencer (and K3.5 which is 64-bit) I can go all the way, so there doesn't seem to be any RAM limitation either on a PC.

Well there is a limitation with regards to the differences in OS. The fact that Leopard can handle up to 32 gigs of DDR3 RAM is insane! 8 cores of processor! While much of the software is playing catch up with the hardware, Mac's OS seems better apt to handle large tasks such as audio production. Windows is playing catch up with Mac currently on it's OS stats. PC RAM limits, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are currently at 16 gigs. At least, that's what I heard recently. I've also heard nothing but horror stories about Vista from many audio pros that tried it out. They went right back to XP or got a Mac. I have high hopes for Windows 7.

It could very well be that Mac OS are 'better' (in the lack of another word), but architecture is no longer HUGELY different.

With Intel in the game, there are more similarities now. But even smaller things like how your harddrives are pre-cached which makes searching for files amongst large pools of data (even three hard drives and many, many gigs of data) much faster than on a PC. Force quitting an application also goes much faster as does restarting the computer. These are small things... but when they're all added up create a faster, smoother, more stable experience.

Of course your sayings could all be true, I've no idea how to research on that, nor I'd like to really, I'll take your word. I'm just saying that differences are no longer "Take a mac or you're dead" type of thing, and it's mostly a matter of choice. :-/

I totally agree with this point. You CAN make great audio on a PC and I've never felt that one would be screwed by going with a PC for professional audio. There are, however, work-a-rounds that I, as well as other audio pros I know, have had to deal with. Some folks get this Macs can do no wrong attitude. I don't have that. I've had Macs crash on me before. I've had the OS freeze up. Macs are not perfect! I'm on a home studio PC right now! :P

I just felt the need to point out some of the recent differences I've found between the two machines. One of the biggest things that does frustrate me is how much more Apple charges than PC does. :sadtears: Especially for their RAM: RIP OFF!!!

Here's something I haven't seen anyone bring up in my quick scan of this thread:

Setting up a network of computers together within your studio.

Here's the idea: create a master PC that will run the applications. Then have some other PCs (or Macs) that will handle the samples. This can work well because the Master coordinates everything and the slave computers only have to handle a small(er) amount of sample storage and playback.

I've been in several studios where this approach was used and the results were great. One studio was set up where it would load up an entire orchestral template of EWQL, ProjectSAM and VSL samples. Impressive! And all tracks are kept active and within one DAW session making it easier for the composer to work. (He had one master and five slave computers by the way.)

Now there are some cons to this set up:

*Cost: You're buying multiple computers. This will also increase your electricity bill most likely.

*Space: You'll probably be best suited to store these computers in another room due to fan noise and heat generated by multiple computers. If you don't have an extra space to store all of these computers then your workspace will become more cramped, noisy and hotter.

*Additional hardware/software: There are both hardware and software solutions on the market that will enable all of these computers to talk to each other and share MIDI data. While not very expensive (at least not in the thousands of dollars range) it will increase the over cost of the studio.

*Difficulty: For some, networking is a breeze while for others it's a major pain. Depending on how tech savvy you are, this might be a hard task in of itself and the rewards not worth the trouble.

It's for these reasons that most home studios opt for the single computer approach. But it's helpful to know this approach is possible!

Thanks,

Nate

Nathan, I think you may have slightly glossed over the hassle with the extra hardware/software necessary to facilitate a good multiple computer setup. Not to mention the time it will take to setup and maintain. Things just always seem to go wrong at the most inopportune times.

Also, I think due to the direction that the computing power of today's computers are going, 5 computer setups are going the way of the dinosaur. You'd probably be able to do just fine with 2-3 of today's high powered computers.

I agree, the power of computer's today is definitely leaning towards a single computer set up. Personally, I would rather have a single computer set up versus a network of computers for all of the reasons I listed under the cons to this set up.

I haven't seen much discussion (or any) about monitors. I really don't recommend serious mixing with headphones. Headphones are fine for tracking but you mentioned wanting to use ProTools for work so I don't know if you are looking to get clients or just want to say to potential contacts that you use ProTools. If it's the latter, then they probably aren't going to care which host you use so long as it sounds good. If the former, then you'll need to look into getting a monitor switching system and headphones for clients.

I started out using Behringer Truth monitors because I thought I'd spend all my money on instruments and gear. This wasn't a bad thought, but I outgrew them and eventually invested in Adam A7s. The difference is night and day. So my advice, for whatever it's worth, is to NOT skimp on monitors. It's better to get lower cost headphones (but still professional grade) and allow more of the budget for monitors.

I went PC because it's much cheaper to build your own system than buying a Mac. If you're pretty set on a Mac, that's fine -- I just think that 4500 dollars is a bit low on the planning end.

Steve is completely right! Monitors are one of the most important parts of your studio. Adams are very good models too. I've used two versions of pro Mackie monitors myself.

So, what kind of performance will I need on a PC as opposed to Mac? I have a Shuttle PC, which is about as large as a shoe box. It has a motherboard with two PCI slots and two DDR2 Ram slots. Is it possible to build this PC to perform as well as the Mac for a lower cost? I already run a video card in one of the PC slots for gaming purposes, but this is something I can always interchange with what I need. I run an SB64 Audio Card in the second PCI slot. Beyond that, there's very little I can do to AMP up performance because of the lack of space. I could always invest in a new tower and possibly purchase a new motherboard with more slots.

But before even going into this, I try to rationalize the cost of this compared to building my studio from the ground up. Obviously I'll be using Logic, is this PC compatible? Last I checked it wasn't, and if having a strong DAW is important, then isn't updating the PC more trouble than it's worth? I'm really not looking to make this more complicated than it needs to be. I just want to have a semi-professional (starter) studio. What would you gurus buy just as a start if you were me and had $5k - $7k to spend? Remember I'm looking for something functional that I can use to build a professional-sounding demo reel and work my way into the industry.

Logic is not PC compatible, but most sequencers are very similar, so if you end up saving money on your PC then it wouldn't cost much more to go to a PC sequencer.

Here's a great website that'll build you a custom audio PC, they'll even tweak it by removing/deactivating the extraneous Windows programs that run in the background so that every ounce of performance is saved:

Reyniers Audio Workstation Computers - Professional Digital Audio Workstations

Octo-Core PC for $1999, not bad...

AA, are you not repeating your original inquiries?

The answers you require can be found within this thread and on Google. But to summarize:

• Logic is available only for the Mac platform.
  
• $5-7k is sufficient to have either an iMac or Mac Pro at the heart of your setup. How powerful the machine needs to be is something you should decide based on your requirements and desires. Jazzooo and I had our discussion on the i7 - if you're willing to wait and spend a bit more then you could pounce once Apple updates the line with this newer and much faster technology.
  
• Any mid-to-high level audio interface from a reputable manufacturer without a million inputs/outputs should be suitable for you. Firewire is probably most convenient.
  
• Your choice of monitors can be determined by visiting a shop and auditioning different models with music you've brought along specially. Remember to factor in the cost of stands/pads/cables etc.
  
• A basic MIDI keyboard controller should meet your requirements. You can add a separate MIDI mixer, use more than one MIDI controller or buy a really fancy MIDI controller if desired and budget stretches.

That's about it. You should put some photos up once it exists by the way. :)