|
  |
 G5 Imac?, How will it cope? |
|
|
|
|
 Wed 6 Oct 2004, 02:46
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 14-Mar 04
From: Grand Rapids - US
Member No.: 38,439
|
Just to add a comment... I've been a proponent of using low cost horse power for quite some time - I've used a lot of machines that people say are no good for audio and managed to make some amazing music with them... Granted my situation may be unique: ( Riverdog Productions ) But, I do a lot of professional work... I've used anything from a Grape iMac (in the beginning), to my current workhorse which is a 1Ghz PowerBook... I'm regularly using 16 to 20 tracks for audio with effects, no less than 12 hardware MIDI instruments and then the smattering of internal synths offered by Logic Pro6... I'd say if you're interested in using the new iMac (I certainly will be) you are correct: the iMac video out port will support a separate monitor... I use this setup with my 12" PowerBook as well... (Dual Monitor)... And I think if your working in a similar environment as mine - the iMac G5 will be a perfect fit... Small footprint - Good horspower - reasonable cost... If you're going to record a live band with drums, multiple mics at the same time - 64 or more tracks of audio along with internal synths and effects at 192Khz - I'd certainly opt for a more powerful machine... If you're a small project studio like me - and you make reasonable money with your gear - And you're working with jingles, single artists, maybe 4 mics at a time with under 64 tracks??? - The iMac G5 will do nicely... Hope this helps... 
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed 6 Oct 2004, 03:22
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 17-Jun 03
From: San Rafael - US
Member No.: 19,777
|
I would simply offer this advice. Because it is advice I myself took, and have been very pleased. I would say, get the most powerful Mac you can afford, be is used, or 2 smaller Macs linked together. Right now the lesser powerful Macs can get by, but software is getting more powerful by the month, and your next software upgrade may demand a more powerful computer than you currently have. Even the Panther OS is very processor hungry, and the Tiger promises to be more so. Getting just exactly what you need now may very well leave you wishing you had accounted for the future, and purchased a faster computer. My first Mac was the eMac 700 chip. At the time is worked so so. But then all my favorite programs upgraded to a requirement that my eMac simply could not handle. And I finally realized I had a collection of tools that could no longer fit in my garage. And also, folks who have been making music on Macs for years, know all the tricks about reserving CPU, and are much more efficient in making a lesser powered Mac work for them. I, on the other hand, had very little computer music experience, and was not nearly as efficient as the long term pro’s. So, getting a more powerful computer better guarantees that you will not be left out in the dust as your favorite programs upgrade to higher power requirements, and also helps the beginner to not get tangled up in the frustration of CPU moderation, when they should be and best be using that time to learn to make music. I am a motorcycle nut, and I love my cheap Suzuki. And I am still rather beginner as a rider. But most beginner motorcycles come with really bad suspension that is rather unstable. Ideally, bikes for beginners should have THE VERY BEST suspension; cause great suspension equals a safer bike for a beginner. And that is the same logic I apply to a beginning computer music person. The pros can get away with using very slow systems, cause they are experienced, but the beginners really do better with a computer that lets the music come before the limitations of the computer. And unfortunately, the difference between a really fast computer and a slower one is money. But I would really advise that one get as much power as he or she can afford, and then some. I decided that I would avoid any problems for the next 10 years. I bought a dual processor G5, 2.5. And I absolutely am so happy I did. And that may be more than many can afford, but buy what you can manage to swing. Also, computer that cram lots of features into 1 small box, like the eMacs, tend to give you less power for the money, because making technology smaller is more expensive. You may get more computer for you money if you get an ungainly tower and a big ugly tube monitor, or something of that nature. Not as pretty, but more power for the dough. In summation: Think ahead and don't leave yourself stuck with a system that cannot move with the software times. God Bless, Damon  <- this guy bought exactly what he needed today  <-- same guy 6 months later after finding he can't upgrade his great software to the new and improved versions <--- this guy bought a computer that will work for years <--- same guy 2 years later, very happy he planned ahead... Ps. Sorry for the silly visual aids. But that is what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed 6 Oct 2004, 15:29
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 14-Mar 04
From: Grand Rapids - US
Member No.: 38,439
|
Excellent analogy, tunepoet!! I agree totally... The key is to buy what works for your situation... I guess what I'm saying is - Don't be intimitdated by people who have massive studios telling you that you "CAN'T make music unless you have Whizbang X"... I've been making music with a very modest setup for a long time and have come up with fantastic results... However, If I COULD afford a more expensive machine, I would certainly be the first to plunk the cash for one... Good Luck!
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed 6 Oct 2004, 21:53
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 25-Jul 04
From: Altoona - US
Member No.: 47,587
|
I've been following this thread for some time now, and others like it in other forums (fori?). I'd like to add a few comments of my own. Let me preface them by saying that I'm not breaking anyone else's balls regarding their opinions. That being said...
I'm not a big proponent of having the latest, greatest software or hardware. What matters is what comes out of the speakers. Doesn't matter how you made it. I worked in radio for over 30 years with the crappiest equipment you could imagine (cart machines, turntables, old RCA boards, EV 635A mics, etc.), and turned out award-winning productions. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't have the best you can afford, but if you CAN'T afford the best, you can be very happy with something lesser. Remember, that the software and hardware companies are in business to make money; so you know there's built-in obsolescence and marketing strategies involved in upgrades. Look at the latest fiasco with Logic. Think that wasn't planned? You don't have to have the latest and best to make a great product.
I have a voice-over and advertising studio, and do some small demos, too. I bought a used B&W G3/400 from Penn State for $100, maxed out the memory, added a couple of 120 gb ATA drives, and use Pro Tools LE 5.1.3 with an mBox using OS 9.2...and it works great! I have it networked with a desktop beige G3 which I use for internet, graphics, etc., and for burning CDs, since my burner is SCSI. I have a friend who owns a studio in West Virginia, who is doing prjects for ABC and CBS, among others. He has a big Pro Tools rig, and uses DP...with a G4 using OS 9.2. Another friend, a professional musician who travels all over the world, has a G3 like mine, and turns out remarkable productions in DP4 using OS 9.2.
So, as you can see, it's not what you have, it's what you make. Think about that next time someone asks you to pay a coupla hundred bucks to update something you just paid a grand for three months ago.
Just my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed 6 Oct 2004, 23:44
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 17-Jun 03
From: San Rafael - US
Member No.: 19,777
|
Yes, everyone has a point, and we all defend what has worked for us, and that is fair. Unfortunately, each person has their ideal personal process, and can offer the advice of their process, and it will work great for some, and not so well for others. This is why trial and error tends to be the final judge of what works best for you.
I often hear the advice to fully practice and understand the software you have, because if you have talent, you will be able to make great music on whatever system you have or can afford. And this is good advice. But again, others don’t fit into that process as naturally. Which is why, you really have to experiment for yourself, cause what works for someone else, or many other people, may not work for you.
I find I can do really quick work of producing good sounds using the Reason Program, but I wanted to challenge myself to learn the more advanced processes, of using a separate sequencer to run some powerful plug ins. I did not need to go that route, cause I could do most to all of it with Reason, which can do great acrobatics on a very slow computer, but I wanted to expand my horizons.
One can advise someone to pick a program and a process and work it to the bone, and this will work wonders for many, while others, like myself, tend to do better with lots of tools for inspiration and creative diversity. I am sure there are many folks out there who have sold 10 thousand dollars worth of equipment, because they can do it all with 3 hundred dollars worth of software, but then there are the persons who seem to be more creative when they have a large and powerful studio of tools. But no one can truly tell you what works best for you.
That is why I advise getting the best computer you can afford, in case you wind up in the category of people who do better with a large collection of tools. Because if that turns out to be your ideal process, you will be equipped to facilitate that. And if it turns out that you feel really comfortable with 1 program and a modestly fast computer, you can always sell the big stuff and go that route.
It is easier to build a large system, only to find you can reduce it to a small system and do very well, than it is to start out with a small system, only to find that you have stymied your creative process, for you were one of those persons, like myself, who is best inspired by a multitude of tools and equipment.
A person who sculpts in clay, is better off with too much clay, that he can remove much of it to expose his sculpture, than to try and create a sculpture without enough clay. Because too much clay can always be converted into the exactly correct amount of clay, but not enough clay is always not enough clay. That is the statement I am making about one’s music set up.
Starting out with more equipment than you need, will quicker help you to define and uncover your ideal personal creative process, than starting out too conservative, only to find you have been mired in a process that is not best for you. And that is the goal, to as quickly as possible, find what works best for you.
Blessings,
Damon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu 7 Oct 2004, 00:48
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-Oct 04
From: Calgary - CA
Member No.: 52,340
|
I don't know if starting out with more equipment than you need is best. Processing power, sure. But equipment, doubtful. You can always get new equipment in the future, but constantly upgrading is a waste of money depending on the industry you are in.
Personally, I work more in 3D animation on a Linux based PC, and having top of te line seems to be the name of the game in alot of cases. I found that I had a dual AthlonMP 2000+ rig before, which was soon changed to a P4 3.2GHz system to make use of 8x AGP. The next upgrade is up in the air, but I have a feeling it may be within the next 5 or 6 months. With 3D animation and stuff like that, you never have enough processing power.
However, with music, it really depends. What application are you using, and how proficient are you with it. How much of a factor does the operating system play in your upgrade decision. Maybe the workability of OSX is worth upgrading from your G3. Does the way you work require all the processing power you can get? I guess if you are big on plugins and audio filters and such, processing power may be an issue to continue with real-time filtered audio.
Personally, I wouldn't mind knowing the history of audio processing considering I am pretty new to this whole area, so I am not to proficient on knowing what processes require what kind of resources, and how much. But at the moment, I don't see why you would require top of the line if the tools you are using today work, and work efficiently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu 7 Oct 2004, 15:25
|
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-Oct 04
From: Calgary - CA
Member No.: 52,340
|
Well, Maya is what I use Mainly. It is suggested these days that you look at an Athlon64 system for use with Maya. If you can afford it, go dual Opterons. They just seem to perform better than the Intel processors when it comes to rendering in Mental Ray, and when they release a 64 bit bersion of Mental Ray, you will be smokin. If you are dealing with high resolution textures, or just large ammounts of textures, then it wouldn't hurt to have a couple gigs of RAM sitting in the machine. Keep in mind that if you go with dual Opterons, the RAM will be more expensive as you will need ECC registered buffered memory. For a video card, I highly suggest something from nVidia for Maya. Either the best QuadroFX card you can afford (the FX 1100 is nice) or, because those are very expensive, the best GeForce you can afford. The GeForce 6800 is a very nice card to look at. As for an operating system, the best one I would suggeest is a Redhat based operating system. Maya just runs much more snappy on a Linux based operating system. Either Redhat 9 (Which is unsupported now) or Fedora Core 1. SuSe 9.1 is also nice, but it has some stability issues... at least it did for me with Maya 4.5. Maya 6 is supposed to be much better under Suse, which is also my favorite distribution of Linux.
Hope that helps. If you have any other questions regarding it, don't hesitate to email me at chris (at) enygma (dot) tv, or you can spot me around the www.3dbuzz.com hardware forums and such. Great site for learning 3D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
|
