hi, just wandering what scope of machine i'm looking at.
i might be using pro tools on it too..
would a Quadcore be fine, or is a stronger machine recommended?
cheers.
b
64 Tracks on a Mini or 8-year old MBP? Ha ha ha ha ha.
Using what hard disks?
I might be wrong here...
64 Tracks on a Mini or 8-year old MBP? Ha ha ha ha ha.
Using what hard disks?
You're probably not. That sounds feasible. Of course wit those lower spec examples the CPU would be running a little high - but probably still doable.
BTW, why do you say the "audio interface is a critical component."? Just sound quality, or other?
----------
Why would hard-drives matter for playback or editing? Project loading, sure. In any case if it were the oldest intel MBP (whatever that is) I would of course want SSD drives internal and external.![]()
would a Quadcore be fine, or is a stronger machine recommended?
b
Sound quality is one consideration, but in this case I am talking about actual computer performance. The device's drivers pretty much determine how well the computer will handle higher loads at lower latencies.
There has been some independent testing that -while not comprehensive- has been pretty conclusive, and I have experienced firsthand how a single-CPU 1.8GHz G5 with 1GB of RAM outperformed my 2.1 GHz Core2Duo iMac with 2GB of RAM. The difference was an internal MOTU PCI card versus a Focusrite FW device.
IME, MOTU's drivers are the best in the business for Macs. RME are considered the best for Windows, but I have no personal experience with those.
And fast HDD's are important for streaming audio or sample libraries.
if you're running 64-bit it is not as much of an issue as it was a few years back, because you can load the entire project into memory, but the VI devs keep making the sample libraries larger and more detailed so it is still a factor. And if you have 100+ recorded tracks of -say- one hour, you will still be streaming from disk as well.
IME, MOTU's drivers are the best in the business for Macs. RME are considered the best for Windows, but I have no personal experience with those.
Metric Halo have them beat by miles for Mac audio. Not even a contest.
http://mhsecure.com/metric_halo/products/hardware.html
Beats everything in double blind.
Metric Halo have them beat by miles for Mac audio. Not even a contest. Motu is low-middle end. The drivers work. The gear is at Guitar Center. It is affordable. It is not even close to "best".
http://mhsecure.com/metric_halo/products/hardware.html
Beats everything in double blind. Used to master most of the records you listen to via Sonic Studio.
Maybe we had the discussion. Not sure.When you say double-blind test I assume you mean listening tests? I was not talking about sound quality but driver performance, specifically with high VI loads at low latencies.
MH has an enviable reputation as makers of the best Firewire audio devices for Mac, but I have never been able to find any reports on how they operate at low latencies. I am willing to assume that their FW drivers are as good as or better than MOTU's.
But MOTU makes PCI cards, and that is a different ballgame altogether; no FW device comes close to that kind of performance. For Mac, MOTU's are the best performers (pun not intended).
With FW obviously dead in the water, I would not recommend MH until they clarify how they will proceed. It would suck to pay $4000 for an interface that will not be compatible with any future Mac.
But didn't we have a similar discussion about this like a year ago? MOTU's are very reasonably priced, but to dismiss them as mediocre because of their affordability is simply ignoring the facts.
I'll see if I can find that old thread...
"Software-> Driver-> CoreAudio Mac OS X"
![]()
They have their own drivers. At least for the last 13 years.