Better for music : Mac or PC?

This almost goes with saying, but Mac. Yup. I'll let Momus evangelize more on the subject. ;-)

Especially with the new microsoft-imposed limits on MP3 recording quality. (Which are rumored to extend beyond their own engine: Bug? Feature? Conspiracy? Idiocy? The effects are all one and the same.)

Except -- what about unix? Generally suXor with regards to any media drivers, except the latest and greatest DVD cracks, and probably solutions to all corporate-imposed media limitations are all probably available there first.

Although I use Macs devotedly (mostly for internet-related stuff and writing) and love their usability and design, I have to say that for music I miss my old Atari ST. It had MIDI ports right out of the box, unlike any Mac I've seen. My current iMac doesn't even have a sound in port, let alone MIDI ports! So although I love my Macs, all three of them, and do sequencing and sound editing on them, I do my recording on external boxes like the Roland VS880, Akai samplers, etc. Real sliders and knobs are to their onscreen cousins what real sex is to virtual.< BR>
When it comes to music, Apple leaves a lot to be desired, and leaves a lot to outside developers, who (eventually) step in with add ons.

I *still use* my Atari ST, running Emagic's Notator which is a wonderful program.

Ithink the hard drives of most macs are faster and more reliable for data writing with respect to recourding audio. I bought a cheap Compaq after a year of lusting afert a G4 and not being able to afford it. It was 600$ and it cam e with DVD and cd-r. I am pretty happy with it but wehen I try to do something other than surf the net I get strange failures. When I play back the audio it fuzzes at times oddly. Momus,I agree real knobs trump cyber ones. Yet I think to myself " Be mendicant! You can't afford a hard disk recourder! Let's hope my new digital wife the Compaq can fulfill my every technological need.

the new iMAC (includes a CD burner)

I find myself unhappy with the imacs, despite their belated cd burners. THe screen is too small, there are no pci slots, and adding ram is damn near impossible. And why doesnt the cube have a bloody analog auido input?

I used to believe that Macs were the better machine, and if you are using something along the lines of a Pro-Tools system, this may still be the truth. But for us mere mortals the choice isn't as clear cut.

Personally speaking, PC's now have the edge. Since Athlon and Intel have been fighting a war over the quickest processor speeds in recemt years this has both pushed up the speed of processors, and reduced their price. Motorola (which Apple use in their Macs) have struggled to keep up, and have only just hit the 1 gigahertz mark (I think) while PC processors are threatening to go far higher than 2 gig very soon.

Add this to the relatively quick evolution of the PC's architecture and OS compared to the Mac in recent years, the traditional view of a Mac being twice as powerful, and stable, as a PC no longer rings true.

When you also consider that many companies now release their new programs on PC first, and the far higher user base for PC's means a greater range of software (including freeware and warez) you have a pretty strong argument for choosing a PC if you are a newbie. You should also consider that PC hardware is much cheaper than a Mac and that you also have a much wider choice, rather than picking a choice of a few pre-built systems by the same company.

If you currently use a Mac I would probably not advise you to change however, and visa versa. A very good site for this kind of debate is:

www.dancetech.com

go to their forums section, search the archives, and you should pages and pages of opinion on the subject.

At the end of the day they are just two VERY slightly different computer environments. Hope this helps.

Thanks chewsadoo! I have heard however that mac processors use a higher bit processign chunk than pc but it may not matter in a given application.

You shouldn't be directly comparing clock speeds across platforms in order to gauge performance - they don't correspond like that in terms of actual speed.

Or so I was told once by a magic profiling elf.

I use an atari STE, and I'd recommend it to anyone. I use the last- but-one version ov "cubase", and I sync it up to a vestax 8-trax0r hard disc recorder for recording guitars & pre-midi synths. It works perfectly. I've used modern PC/Mac music apps, and find them to suffer from the "bloatware" syndrome. You get bogged down in the process, which is extremely tiresome. Another advantage is price - when my atari crapped out last year, I bought another, C/W monitor, for fifty quid. Is it ok to post a want ad here? I'm looking for either the latest version of Steinberg "Avalon" or Digidesign "Sound Designer" for atari format. Also, the D/A convertor Steinberg marketed to go w/"Avalon". No crax0red progs, please! contact me @ thee above address. Thanx!!!

x0x0

actually i agree with momus, get a hardware sequencer, and a digital recorder or a mixer and a DAT machine. the problem with using a pc wfor music is that there is a small delay due to USB. this delay only increases if you are using hard disk recording, effcts (plug ins) or softsynths. this delay can last up to 100 milliseconds, and makes it difficult to get certaim elemnts (like drums) sounding right. so it would probably be better for you to get a hardware sequencer,and another form of recording, and use you current computer for the internet and other odds and ends.

You don't need to use USB on a PC at all, in fact I have my USB ports turned off to optimise performance.

What I believe you're talking about is what is known as latency, something which affects any piece of electronic machinery. The advantage with hardware sequencers, samplers, synths etc. is that they are purpose built for one job, with the result that latencys are kept very low from under 1 milesecond to around 5 mileseconds or so. As computers are designed for many tasks it is harder to keep such stability at such low latencys as there are many more background tasks, therefore the latency has to be increased. Latencys of 100 milleseconds used to be the best you could hope for, but new types of drivers (e.g. ASIO), and increased PC speed means that latencys down to 1 millesecond are possible, although admitedly rare.

Personally I use two different settings on my PC, with for the record the Terratec EWS88MT soundcard. When I am playing a soft-synth I use a setting of about 5 milleseconds which is impossible to detect to anyone but the most naturally gifted musician (which I am far from being), and most will find it hard to detect a lag with anything below 20 milleseconds. For safety, however, I use a setting of 65 milleseconds (the highest allowed with my drivers) when I record live instruments to prevent the possibility of drop-outs, while using an external mixer to monitor what I'm recording in my headphones.

Don't make what I tell you persuade you that using a computer is the best solution, it is just one of them. The advantages of using a PC (or mac) to record is that once you have your computer and sequencing package it is then comparatively cheap - or even free if using one of the hundreds of soft-synths, drum machine, samplers, effects plug-ins available from bedroom developers - to upgrade your system. But, and this is a big BUT, it can be a chore to set up a smooth running system, and to look after your system to keep it running smooth. This means NO internet, NO games, NO graphics packages etc. Unless you have a dual-boot machine: more time spent setting up your machine.

With purpose built hardware you get the advantages of a rock-solid stable set-up, and you are hands on (no fiddly menus, just simple sliders etc.), but at a higher cost, and with less variation.

At the end of the day, however, remember that it is what you do with your equipment rather than how much you have. For example Lee 'Scratch' Perry produced all his best work with little more than a few microphones, a four track tape machine, a phaser, and a delay.

yes I experienced tah delay when I tried to record overdubs on my Mac Preforma 6360. I found it unbearable. The manual said it was unavoidable, but I felt liek they just didnt want to develop the softawre more. I use a Tascam 414 fast speed tape 4 track, and I have to say I am suprised how good it sounds. I guess digital can wait after all! The 8 track minidisc recourders from Yamaha seem alluring though.