JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Recording Studio and Gear Forum Home Studio/PC

Ok, I am opening this up to the masses for suggestions well aware that the opinions will vary greatly.

I am interested in putting together a PC based studio for my home.

I want to be able to record 2 guitars(acoustic, bass, or electric) and 2 vocals at the same time or separate.

Here is my current PC..which I can upgrade if necessary.

AMD FX-53 Socket 939
BFG nForce4 Ultra Motherboard
2Gb Crucial Ballistix PC4000
Ultra X-finity 500W powersupply
19" Samsung SuncMaster 955DF CRT monitor
Creative 5.1 Speakers (Already planning on trashing these)
2 80GB Western Digital 7200 RPM Sata 1.5Gb/s hard-drives
1 74GB Western Digital 10K RPM Sata 1.5Gb/s harddrive
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard
Logitech MX518 8 Button 1600dpi Optical Mouse
Nvidia 7600GS 512MB PCI-e video card


Software I already have:
Windows XP Professional 32bit
FL Studio
Cubase SE
a few others I can't remember right now


I am also a gamer so I know it is capable of handling modern Ram and CPU intensive applications.

So let me know what y'all think and I can give you any other information you need.

Thanks y'all.


Raymond de Leur Jr.
405-382-4950
Singer/Songwriter/Musician

I am no expert but I think what you have already is suitable for a basic home recording studio. I might invest in a large external hard drive say 300gb, ideal for dumping recordings to as they take up so much storage space and you will use up the 200gb or so you have already very quickly which will slow your pc down. Cubase is perfect for your software needs but you may want an interface if recording multi channels at the same time. You may also need to upgrade your soundcard. Speakers are important but I would put replacing your Creative on the back burner till you get the other stuff up and running properly.
Best of luck JIM

Thank You. I was looking at a Creative X-Fi Elite Pro sound card because of a few of the specs it offers.

The Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite Pro features professional-quality digital-to-analog converters (DACs) with 116dB SNR, plus an I/O module with a comprehensive selection of connectivity for audio creation with easy-to-use control knobs for the X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer, X-Fi CMSS- 3D (Creative Multi-Speaker Surround), 3DMIDI, and EAX. The Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite Pro also features 64MB of on-board X-RAM - audio memory dedicated to higher gaming audio quality and performance, in addition to a built-in pre-amp for direct recording, and high-impedance inputs for electric guitars.

Advanced Audio Conversion Engine and Lowest Latency ASIO Recording

As for the speakers they are definitely gone because the amp is going out and the sound quality has gone south.

I also forgot to mention that I have Adobe Audition as well.

Sound blaster will do fine.
I do not know how much you know about cubase. It might be a tad complicated especially the finer in depth functions. A good suggestion for simple recordings is Audacity it is very easy to use compared to cubase and has some neat edit facilities and fx plus it is downloadable free. Once you have mastered the basics you can then progress onto the finer points of cubase. Just a suggestion.
Re speakers I use Creative and would not swap them for anything else I have heard up till now.
Re interface. another alternative is some of the new age mixing desks that have built in firewire or usb connections etc. Try Mackie or Alesys. You may look on a desk as an investment as you can use it for live performances as well killing two birds with one stone. If you go for a mixing desk I would recommend a passive (non powered) one that has more imputs than you currently need saves upgrading.
Just saw your pics. The cowboy hat is the one that works the best.

Jim

Cubase is the standard Software that comes with Tascam stuff. I had it on my home computer, but i wasn't too thrilled about it's capabilities. Using a computer for anything other than recording is (in my opinion) a mistake. especially if you are serious about recording... or serious about whatever else you do. I reccommend a personal home studio, that accepts midi inputs. they have ones that already have harddrives in them and cd burners. i can download from my tascam to my computer, and play with the music. and i can upload from my computer through the midi inputs. but my computer doesn't need thirty programs that don't work well together, and dont work with other programs at all. just my 2 cents. save the computer for gaming.

-steve

Howdy Raymond,
You might want to check out Altec Lansing powered speakers...the one with the bass boost.
There was a studio engineer here listening to something on my PC and he went nuts about the sound quality and said he wanted a set for his studio.
The model number is ACS-44,they are small speakers with a big combination boost and power unit.
They really do sound like a high end stereo.
James

Sorry Steve I was under the impression that Cubase was a professional home recording studio, the kind that allows midi and analog imputs. I also thought that many pro studios use Cubase and other Steinberg products as their main software. I was also under the mistaken impression that most if not all PCs have already got hard drives and CD burners etc. How wrong can I be. I was VERY interested to see your comments about using a pc only for recording. Please tell me how else you intend to edit and modify stuff without a PC. I would hate to go back to the days of the reel to reel. By the way I am serious about recording plus a lot of other things.

Altec Lansing speakers are for home use and not suitable as a PA.

Jim

I hadn't heard about Cubase until after i was already schooled up on Pro tools, And advanced Cakewalk. I purchased a tascam Input for my computer, and the computer didn't recognise it. the only program that waoul was cubase, and i had to get that.. which in turn fried my sound card (could have been any of the other software upgrades, and trials that i had running at the time. when it came down to it. a pc is a great way to record music, as long as your computer is built for that purpose. if you want a user friendly pc also to surf the net, or download a buch of stuff, or play games on... forget it. unless computers are upgraded beyond what i understand, which is highly possible.

From what i have gotten from most studios i have talked to, Pro Tools is the program used by them. (they all seem to refer to it as the "industry standard" whatever that means..

the only issue i had, was starting out with with the wrong hardware, and getting more wrong as the time went by. I should have built from the get go with recording in mind. if you do that, Cubase, Cakewalk, and Protools seem to be somewhat equal, there are free versions of all three on line, trails and such.

have a great day,

-steve

Hi Steve there are a number of alternatives to Cubase some are even free but a huge amount of top pros use it. Whichever software you choose is down to budget and personal choice. There are also a huge range of PCs but even the most simple of entry level PC has a hard drive and a Cd or DVD burner. This makes a computer a very flexible and multi task machine. Some folk just have no idea as to what can and cannot be achieved. With my PC I can surf the net, play and store music and any other type of file, print just about anything, copy and save written work and record any sound from just about any source. I can then edit it in a million different ways. I can edit and burn DVDs plus any CD audio or data. I can play games and send and receive emails plus a million or two other things. It does not take the dog out for a walk but no doubt someone will come up with a program that does that. I have a basic bog standard PC that currently is a pain in the proverbial due to malfunction problems as like me it is getting on a bit. I am needing a new one. You are totally wrong in your statement that PCs cannot do certain things. They can and have done for many years. I used to be an analog freak but now digital is everything whether we like it or not.....

Ok, here is my personal spin on it.

If you look at the minimum (and more importantly..recommended) requirements for the hardware and software for computer based recording you will realize that they practically mimic the games of current.

Yes, ideally..you would want your machine to be dedicated. However, with thousands and thousands of dollars in hardware and software who can afford multiple computers plus the energy bills for running it all.

Todays computers are not only faster but also run much cooler than those of yesterday. Computers today are more integrated in to our lives they they ever were thought they'd be.

In todays culture, computers run our cars, are in studios, run the radio stations, are built for HTPC(Home Theater Personal Computer) and etc. Fact is, they are in everything we encounter in a normal day. And if you really want to get technical..they are in pedals for the guitars, amplifiers, etc. They are require processing of some sort...just like a computer which has a CPU (Central Processing Unit).

Another very critical point of interest which no one has seemed to bring up and explain is compatibility. Just like building an awesome gaming machine all the parts must be compatible. If they are not, problems will arise and troubleshooting them because a nightmare. When assembling a computer based anything you have to do your research, visit forums, read reviews, tests, etc and sometimes call the manufacturers and verify that the intended hardware/software is compatible with _________. Hope that helps some of you out. I forget sometimes that everyone doesn't know things like that.

As for the audio....I personally am leaning to a professional level sound card (PCI interface) and a set of THX certified speakers. Of course, if I could afford it I would go gung-ho and get the baddest power-amps, and monitors I could find...but we all can't be loaded like Paris Hilton either...rofl

Hi Raymond This has turned into a great thread.
I agree with most of what you say. Most software is verified as being compatable with the various operating systems etc. It was designed that way. Re designing/customizing or assembling a PC that is a whole different ball game. Unless you know exactly what you are doing I would leave it to an expert. By the looks of things some folk have a hard enough time just operating a PC to perform simple tasks. They should learn that side first before commenting on hardware or software issues.
My advice to everyone. Every village and town has a computer geek. These guys usually for next to nothing will spend many hours helping advising and sorting out problems. If you are not one you should befriend one. They can save you time money and heartache.

Interesting facts.

The computer that put men on the moon took up a whole multi story building and cost billions. Currently the chip on a microvave oven is hundreds of times faster and has many times more computing power.

The expensive state of the art PC I bought 4 years ago is by todays standard stone age, obselete and a joke.

I built the PC I am on write now less than 2 years ago...it was top of the line when I built it. Now it is considered outdated too.

P.S. Computer technology is so fast that after you place an order for parts and receive them...they are outdated before you are finished assembling them..rofl

Hey Raymond at least they get cheaper but don't tell anyone or they will start jacking up the prices again.

I have run into band musicians that go back and forth on the subject of computer technology.
One being that the original method of the patch chord, amp, and analog mixing cosole is the best presentation of any raw talent there may be and the musicians resourcefulness.
The opposite thinking to that is that computer technology brings out the best recorded presentation and shows the musician in a way they never could have with earlier technology.
I do admit that some of this computer technology knocks me out.
Being someone that likes conceptual type of music and space age sounding cinema type music, I would'nt have a chance sounding like that with pre-dated technology.
But there seems to be a sameness and something very derivative about computer based recording equipment.
Though maybe that could be my lack of resourcefulness.
I'm not far into recording outside of .wav and a souncard yet, even though I have been attempting to make strides.

I have purchased a TASCAM US-122L and am tracking down a real singers mic instead of a small $5 one used for oratory on taped SA's.
But there are people that have done magnificent things off of little technology. And it does'nt sound difficult once they have a method down.
All I have orchastralwise are some synth sounds, mainly the string sound, and I like making up my own chords and open tune.
I want to be more of an inventive type than a skilled, consumate type.
But I came to JPF to have structure in what I do.
I have an idea of how I want to sound and strive for that no matter how unprofessional others may think I sound.

I am all for technology, as long as the technology does'nt narrow my vision.

But I'm still trying to learn the fundamentals of a song before I could really say for the recording aspect.

It sounds like many of you in this post have been at that for awhile.

Great Thread!

Matt

Hey Matt, A bit of deja vu here
I do not buy the idea of people doing great things with little technology. I would say the opposite. Over the years technology has enabled many mediocre untalented people to make passable recordings. Any record label puts an artist or band into the recording studio and throws the works at it using all available technology to make them sound good. When was the last time you heard somebody recreate anything approximating their recording in a live performance. Even in the sixties with limited technology the so called live, raw talent rock bands you keep mentioning used every trick in the book to sound good.

Hi Raymond,

You have a very good computer to start with. If you find you need more hard drive, it's very cheap now. What I would reccomend is looking into M-Audio Pro Tools. It works right with your PC. I just set up a studio with it, and for the money, less than $400, it will give you all you're looking for. Look it up on EBay to get all the specs. You'll be pleasantly surprised, I was. You can go with a 2, or 4 line in system. If you want more, M-Audio has systems that go there too. They also come with lots of neat software included. Don't forget to set up the acoustics in your room. Good luck with your studio.

Hmm. I have a slightly different take on this - I agree that no matter what, you want to bring everything to bear that will make your "record" sound good. That might be studio stuff, but it'd also be a great producer, taking the time to write great songs, etc. etc.

I would also say that as we go forward, the internet is going to continue to reduce the control the record companies and major media outlets have over music. Thus "success" is going to go back to depending on reality: "are you a good performer, do you put on a good show, does your music connect with the audience" are the questions that must have a yes answer.

So my own take on your latter comment is that if I'm gonna play out as a method of promoting my music and connecting with the audience, I want to recreate my 'sound' as much as possible. But there's a limit to what I can do as an independent artist as far as throwing technology at it.

So necessity becomes a virtue: one way to limit the tech hoop jumping is to keep the recording "realistic", by not turning it into something I can't reproduce live.

FWIW

John

Hey John You kinda missed my point. Matt was stating that certain bands use little technology and still produce great sounds. This is an ongoing viewpoint from an old thread he keeps bringing up. I was just stating that he was vastly underestimating the amount of technology the so called "non tech" bands he mentions actually use. I still feel that a lot of recording artists use technology to hide their inadequate talents rather than using it to enhance the obvious talents they have. The point about a great song and performance still sounding good without being "doctored" is perfectly valid unfortunately nowadays great songs are like hen's teeth, very rare. So instead they use technology to make mediocre songs sound good. I am fed up watching bimbos or boy band types lip sync to backing tracks because they obviously cannot sing live or produce live music like the recording.

Big Jim:

"I still feel that a lot of recording artists use technology to hide their inadequate talents rather than using it to enhance the obvious talents they have."

You state what I am saying a lot better than I ever could.

For me, it was loving listening to all these great rock bands to discover where I was with myself was more like a discoteqthe.

I want to know where my flaws lay.
But I know I can't just be set back in early times for my spite of technology.

I wonder though how The Beatles may sound today if they came about with the new technology.
And what may have been lost or found with it.

Matt

Jim: I understand now. Thanks -

John

Hey Matt. The fact that old rock bands and groups like the Beatles made such great ground breaking music without the modern digital technology WE TAKE FOR GRANTED is more about their playing and songwriting ability than the basic technology they used. Any band of the sixties or seventies would and could have produced much better music either live or in the studio given the modern equipment and techniques. Despite this technology very few bands in the last few years have produced anything truely original or mind blowingly brilliant.
Matt your flaws are just simple inexperience and lack of knowledge. Learn to play properly and learn about PCs and the proper equipment needed to play and record music.
There are no short cuts to learning your craft. You have to develop talent it just does not simply appear. Like picking up a guitar for the first time and expecting to play mind blowing riffs and chords.... it just cannot happen.

That's what I am out to do.
Songwriting first, technology second.

I look at recording and the songwriting process as a tree.
I'm trying to lay down those roots.

Anyone attempting songwriting has their own mental picture of how they want to sound.
Whether the end result is an improvement depends on what the creator of that work is looking for.
Pro-Tools and knowing where the A chord goes can't get someone their alone.

Now if I could find where that A chord goes.

Matt

Edit: I thought I should add, that despite the terminologies in music, organized music at it's most basic level is playing specific notes in root to a given beat. And a kid that wants to be taken seriouisly in songwriting would cop riffs to create songs. At least myself and anyone I know of that did that and played in bands.
Seeing to it that the listener hears the familiar in the given song.
Most music is an imitation of another form. People have even mentioned all kinds of influences with what I do even trying to stray away from anything that sounds copped.
I am to the thinking that it is in ones sound and originality that sets them above, not physical talent.
The Beatles may have been very inventive and talented, but they were also new and fresh.
So much so, that they were turned down for recording contracts many times before they had one.
I don't have those stars in my eyes with what I am doing, and do recordings for the love of doing it more than anything.
It's one thing to learn the basics and cop riffs.
It is another thing all together to do something new and try to follow that vision.
In the last 3 years I have been on the net, musicians like that either get back that they do not know the fundamentals and, or are not serious musicians, or there are people that consider what they do fresh and new - a plus.

Some just like to play the type of music they love, others like trying to stray from that.
But how far technology can add or diminish a recording is always going to depend on the user, and what Jim says, how one knows about the use of that technology.
But what is done with technology, in any form, is important as well.

Matt

Going back to the original questions about the PC, the one you have is more than capable of producing excellent results for audio recording. I would question the use of any Soundblaster card. Sorry, they are just not of pro quality. The main limitation they've had in the past (besides mediocre converters) is the latency. This is a big deal in computer recording. A professional audio interface will enable latencies down to 3-4ms, which is really what you need for overdubbing parts.

Gaming PCs are usually some of the highest-end computers around. The main difference between those and audio workstations would be less of a need for high-quality graphics (a 512mb graphics card is pretty much overkill for audio production); and hard disk space: you need a lot of it for audio. I would suggest 300GB 7200 drives at today's prices.

The 10K rpm drives are also very leading edge (there are now 15k rpm drives available), but are probably not necessary for most audio. I know people who regularly get 60 tracks of audio at 44.1K/24 bits on 7200 rpm drives. If you are recording at 96K, a 10K rpm drive might give you more tracks, but your CPU will also be working twice as hard.

Trying to get lots of different software all playing nicely with one another on a PC can be very frustrating. It is MUCH better to dedicate a computer for audio recording and keep it very clean (minimal software installed). Every time you add software, it makes changes to the registry and adds new areas of potential incompatibily and/or instability. The people who have the machines that crash the least are the ones who don't run 25 different pieces of software on them, but tune the pc for a couple of primary pieces of software and get rid of everything else.

Just some food for thought...

To revive an old thread, I've been messing around with a few of the computer-based programs lately...this after years of tape recording.

The most important element I've learned about recording tracks directly to computer seems to be the speed of your processor. I have a Pentium 4, which is now considered about the minimum recommendation for multi-track recordings with plenty of editing and effects.

I do have Cubase SX, and like Big Jim says, it is one of the top of the line offerings, by a trailblazing company, Steinberg. Yes, ProTools is ALWAYS referred to as "the industry standard"...and I've been hearing this like a pre-recorded message from anyone who mentions it, especially those who don't really understand what that means. But for little folk like us, even the very serious little folk, there are several excellent options: ProTools, Cubase, Sonar, Logic...all top notch once you learn them.

That said, I think Cubase is one of the most difficult to learn...drives me nuts. I have heard Sonar (about $140) is probably the easiest to learn and use (I haven't used it). Audacity is an excellent freeware program, but lacks the ASIO drivers for overdubbing in real time---so when you play along to an existing track, you hear it doubled up with a half second delay...the dreaded Latency. Maybe this has been resolved by now, but I don't believe it has. But Audacity is an excellent free way to digitize your old tapes into MP3s or WAV files, and also edit, enhance, add effects...really a useful program.

I'm an old school, Beatles-influenced songwriter and recorder, and I really like to throw down a track as immediately as the spirit moves me...that's a Right Brain thing. Computer recording is still a very Left Brain activity. I have a real hard time doing both simultaneously. As a result, I'm STILL recording originally on eight track analog tape... But that will change eventually.

Here is a really amazing interview with Pete Townshend of The Who, one of the original pioneers of home studio recording. I was stunned at how much he knows about all the new computer-based stuff...he's like an encyclopedia, very deep hands-on knowledge of all the trends and all the new programs...and yet he still incorporates tape in the process. It's the only way he will START a recording, before going through several other computerized processes.

http://www.eqmag.com/article/tracking-townshend/Aug-07/30620

Lyle,
Just a note. A couple of very good, inexpensive, easy to use recording programs are Reaper and nTrack Studio
For my Windows recording I use an early version of nTrack Studio. It's about as simple as can be to start recording. No tracks to arm & etc. You just hit the record button and you're recording. If you want to lay down additional tracks you just back the existing track/s to the starting point and hit record again. Your existing tracks will play as you're laying down an additional track, or tracks if you have multiple inputs on your sound card.
As you mentioned, Audacity works pretty well for digitizing your old cassettes or lps though the other programs will work as well.

Thanks for the tips, Dak. I'll check them out! -Lyle

Lyle I can see what you are saying about Cubase it is full of bells and whistles and at first all the controls and options are bewildering. A lot of these you will never need or want to use. Concentrate on the basics first. These are really quite simple to use. It might be an idea to get some tutorials available online. Find your way around Audacity as a lot of the controls and principals are similar for Cubase. It is a good simple to use learning tool. Reaper is very similar to Cubase too but obviously has a lot less functions and options. As it is free it might be worthwhile giving it a try. For what it is worth we have been using Cubase for some time. We are still learning and still struggle sometimes.

Reaper is not free though it has a non-restricted demo period. They rely on people liking the program, being honest and paying for it. Reaper is a full function recording program.

Hi Raymond, I'm new to this site, but I've been using cubase for many years. I started with cubase le and now use cubase 4. If you already own cubase ( any version ) all you need is an audio interface. There are many different types and price ranges. I started with a simple Behringer bc2000 interface with two channells and direct monitoring capabilities. It hooked up to the computer using a single usb line and cost about $200.00. I then moved on to a firepod 8 channell interface which was even better, and hooked up to the computer with a fire wire line, this cost $700.00 and came with cubase se. I now have a tascam DM4800 digital mixer with 48 inputs,24 busses,etc, and this connects to my computer with a fire wire line. When you purchase an interface it is also used as a sound card. Your interface will have a monitor section to hook up studio monitors. Most interfaces will come with an ASIO driver, which is easy to install and then all your sounds from computer games, media players, and your recordings can be heard thru the interface. So there are tons of options out there to meet your needs. If you just want to record a couple of tracks at a time then a small interface will do. Get one decent mic, plug it in to your interface, and your on your way to recording. There are some great products out ther Tascam,M-Audio, MOTU, Presonus, Digidesign, Behringer, etc....If you have any questions about cubase, I'd be more than happy to help..........

Thanks Big Jim, I'm sure I'll get it down...but it's all probably going to wait until I get myself a proper interface, probably the Presonus Firebox, to end these latency issues for good, and a faster computer...which ain't happening soon. My processor is a Pentium 4, and it's going to have a hard time handling all the tracks and effects I want to do. The minimum recommendation I'm noticing lately has bumped up to a 1ghz or higher processor.

It's always money.

Hey Raymond, i posted a response...err...well I'm new to this forum stuff and...anyway If you scroll down you'll see what I mean. Quick answer: get an audio interface that connects to your computer via USB, or Firewire, and use the cubase program you have for recording , mixing, and editing. If you need any help with set up let me know, I've been using cubase for years and have also connected many different interfaces to PC, and Mac computers...good luck.

Anybody interested in buying interfaces check out this from Mackie. They also do a great range of speakers and mixers etc etc. I have used Mackie for years and it is probably the best system I have ever owned. I know lots of people who use Mackie and all agree.


http://www.mackie.com/products/satellite/index.html

Just like with tapes, some software programs seem to slow down the recordings.
And how it sounds on this thread, paying for it does'nt seem to be a factor.

I have checked out some of the brands listed on here.
Great tips.

What one considers pro quality I guess would matter to what one does with that.
But I guess flexibility in what I can do is the most important and what I would look for before putting down the $$$.

I have been taking mp3 players and recording to .wav in my computer to avoid the sound problems.
Like that dreaded fan in my PC.
Works okay for what I am doing now.
But the fan did'nt seem like a big deal to me before either next to analog recordings.

It is definately a stage for me with recordings.

Many of us are probably going to end up trying many several different brands and methods, if not already.

Matt just one thought. Most software/hardware nowadays is more than up to the job. We are only debating the finer smaller points. The main problems in my opinion are folks inability to use these tools properly.
Give a monkey a beat up old fiddle or a Stradivarius he cannot tell the difference or play a tune.
I have heard great productions from old crappy equipment and very poor productions from state of the art equipment. It all depends on skill and knowledge and being able to use the gear properly.

I think Jim is right on the money myself. I've seen many debates (and participated in my share) on the sound quality of "x" vs "y" hardware and/or software.

Personally, I think the final impact of your recorded song is based roughly on this order of importance:

1. 60% - Quality of the musicianship (songwriting, vocal chops, etc)
2. 25% - Quality of the arrangement (instrumentation, parts working together, etc)
3. 10% - Quality of the engineering (recorded and mixed well?)
4. 5% - Quality of the equipment (software/hardware)

Feel free to debate the sequence and percentage of some of those items, but I think that if Chuck Ainley was using Protools or Logic instead of Nuendo, the artists on the CDs he's mixed would still have their Grammys.

Basically, if you don't have #1 and 2 above, then you're fighting an uphill battle. #3 and 4 will only make a bad song sound good. Some people put #1 at a much higher percentage...

Side Note: If you're experiencing speed changes in the digital realm, then you probably have a mis-match in sampling frequencies. The most common mis-match is recording something at 48K but playing it back at 44.1K (or vice versa if it's faster).

Here's a simple solution:

Purchase a Mac Pro 8-Core with Logic Audio.
[that was sarcasm]

I'm totally diggin my setup which includes the above mentioned gear.
[that was not sarcasm]

Larry. Percentages might be arguable but agree with the principals.
Jody If your Mac is that good how come the majority have PCs running Windows? Perhaps if I was sponsored by Apple I would punt their stuff the way you do.

I guess someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Hi Big Jim,

I see no reason to trash PCs though I use a Mac. Just because 99% of folks decide to use a gas-guzzling automobile, or use a PC, or go jump in a lake is not reason enough for me to do so.

I use MOTU's Digital Performer(on a Mac) and love it. I'm sure Jody is having fun with the software he has chosen. I'm sure PC users are having a blast with the software they've chosen. I honor and respect everyone's decision concerning their computer and software.

I think if someone only wants to record less than 8 tracks, the best bang for the buck might be an 8-track recorder, either analog or digital. I see second-hand 8-track cassette recorders for a little over $100(on ebay). Macs are cool because they require little or nothing to input sound into the computer. If you used an auxillary recorder, inputting the audio to the computer would be the least of your worries.

Sorry Jody it was a cheap shot. No harm intended. Now that I am finding my way around PCs I might try a MAC. I respect your opinion (do not always agree but that is life) Anyways I think you may be onto something especially the way Microsoft is going with Vista where nothing works. I cannot run xp pro forever. Am also sick of all the bugs spyware and viruses. All my pc seems to do these days is run scans and tell me how many "problems need fixing".
Just have to convince my wife that I need one. We had another little tiff this morning. well not really another one just the same one we have had for the last thirty plus years.

Jim. There is one reason, and one reason only, that Windows operated PCs have become the majority. That platform was heavily used for business applications while Apple and Commodore, though IMHO, were much better computers and had better operating systems were pushing for the game and home entertainment segment of the society. I believe, because of the business use of the Windows systems, when many people decided to opt for a PC they chose something they were familiar with and had the same OS their workplace PC had. Many of us who got into computers early started on other systems. I personally started with Commodore and it was a much better unit than any Windows PC at the time, about '83 or '84. I had 3 voice sound and 16 color graphics while the Windows units were beeping around with 4 color graphics. Sound cards and better graphics cards became available but still had to be installed and set up.
I also believe that had Commodore and Mac really pushed for the business sector things would be much different.
I do happen to personally use a Windows OS when doing recording related work but I use Linux for the rest of my computing, including this web session. Once the recording programs for Linux are a bit better, and that won't be long, I'll be switching completely.
In reality, the best computer is the one that does what you need it to do within your budget and time constraints.

Oh, I believe that a Commodore derivitive, the Amiga, became the defacto audio and video editing PC for the entertainment industry for a time.

Also, Macs have historically been MUCH more expensive for the same level of performance compared to a Windows/PC. That gap has narrowed significantly since Apple started using Intel CPUs about a year or so ago. Now there is a much smaller difference in cost for the same level of performance. The latest Macs will also boot up Windows XP so you can boot to either operating system. I don't think there will ever come a time when a Dell will be able to boot up Apple's OS X, but Apple ships the software to enable you to run Windows XP with all of their computers (You still have to buy a licensed copy of Windows XP though).

iMacs start at about $1200 for a ready-to-run system for Logic, Protools, Digital Performer, Cubase, or Traction. In fact, all Macs come with Garageband which is capable of quite a bit without buying any other software. Buy an external audio interface (firewire or usb) and you're ready to roll. You would still want to buy a separate drive (firewire is best) for your audio files, but you'd do that with a Windows PC, too.

I just priced out comparable systems (biggest difference is the HD in the Mac is bigger - there was no 320GB drive available from Dell). These two systems are capable of very professional results with the right tools and skill set:

iMac 2.4Ghz Core2 duo w/2GB RAM; 20" monitor; dvd/cd combo drive. 320GB HD; 256MB Video; Wireless LAN adapter, 1-year warranty - $1550.

Dell - 2.4Ghz Core2 duo w/2GB RAM; 20" monitor; dvd/cd combo drive. 250GB HD; 256MB Video; Wireless LAN adapter, 3-year warranty - $1301.

Dell gave me a $330 discount on their web site for some reason. I'm not sure if that will always apply. Without the discount, the Dell price was $1639. You can add a 3-yr warranty from Apple for $169.

You will probably want to purchase anti-virus software for the PC ($70). You really don't need it for the Mac.

An external Firewire hard disk will add $200 or so to the cost of either system and a decent audio interface will add another $150 or more.

So although the Mac is still a bit pricier, it's not nearly the difference it was just a year or so ago and you have one company making all the parts so there are likely be fewer compatibility issues, and all Macs can now dual boot to XP or OS X.

That ease of use factor may be worth the extra $200+ difference for a lot of people. It doesn't take very many hours of my time to equal that amount of money in saved time over the course of owning the computer.

But different strokes for different folks. If you're happy with what you have, then continue making music! That's the main thing.

Thanks a lot Larry, very interesting. Big questions now...... How different/difficult is it to use? Would someone who is used to Windows PCs be able to adapt QUICKLY to a "foreign" system wich uses different concepts jargon and controls etc. What about the many expensive programs I already have that are specifically designed for Windows? What happens when I run into problems or need advice? All of my friends use PCs. No one uses a Mac. I can obtain a variety of help from all of these folk who are experts in many different areas would that stop?. How about Repairs? What about file sharing or swapping data with folk using windows? Can I use my existing external HDs, I have a few, on a mac.
Please excuse my ignorance as I know absolutely zilch about Macs. Geez it has taken me years to just begin to understand PCs.
I had a nasty experience with my new laptop which just would not work properly running Vista. Had to dump it and install XP pro instead Kinda put me off Windows.
It seems to me that something strange is going on. The Mac owners all seem to rave about how good Mac is and how Macs
do not have the many flaws associated with PCs.
Meanwhile the PC folk still plump for an "inferior" system that still outsells Mac by a considerable margin. Are we all stupid?

American graphic artists and musicians have always understood the advantages of a Mac. But for too many years, it behooved many of us to have a PC due to all the other practical business compatibility issues. Now it will be interesting to see where the chips will fall.

It's not about being stupid or "inferior". It's about myth. Many people still believe all the old myths. I know I posted about those myths a while back.

Myths:

1. Overpriced. Larry's post showed that. But what Larry also didn't mention is that in that price you already have a reasonable sound I/O built into the Mac, plus it comes with Garageband which for most people would be very sufficient recording program. That's all included in the price and thus actually makes it cheaper.

2. Lack of software. This is no longer true and hasn't been true for years. In fact, there is no other computer than can potentially run as much software as a Mac. Macs can run Mac OS, Windows, Linux, Unix, etc...

3. No good for business. This kinda falls back on 2.

4. They're not compatible. Again, falls back on 2.

5. They're only for artists. Maybe because artists want the computer to get out of the way of creating. In business, I would want the same thing. Get the computer out of the way.

Those are the biggies.

When switching OS's there will always be a bit of a learning curve. However, the one thing one might find about OSX (the Mac OS) is that it may feel a lot less limiting in it's file handling and generally easier to use. Or maybe that might be frightening if one needs structure.

I tend to think the reason why we are happy with the purchase of a Mac is because of the ability to work without hassles. While a Mac can blow up like any other computer, from personal experience between Mac and Windows, I know I likely spend less than 1% in tech time compared to an average of PC using friends. To me that's way more valuable - my up time.

I have several friends who are PC IT guys. It's their job to fix Windows machines. When clients need new machines, they suggest Macs to their clients. Some make the change, most haven't. If IT guys are making those kinds of suggestions, what does that mean?

Thanks Jody. I must admit I spend a lot of time fixing probs most of which are down to PC operating, maintenance or malfunction issues rather than human error. Scans take up a lot of time and nothing works properly during a scan. They have a habit of kicking in and ruining what you are just working on. Much food for thought. I am also concerned about virus infections and other malwares that apparently you do not get with a Mac. Can you supply a little more info on this aspect?

Hi Jim,

I'm not Jody, but it makes sense that since fewer folks are using Macs, a proportionate number of folks write viruses for Macs. I've never had a virus problem in the last 20+ years on a Mac. Of course, I don't do dumb stuff like opening attachments from folks I don't know.

Big Jim, your scan issue makes me wonder about your processor as well. Mac or PC, my computer geek friend has been convincing me that a computer with a newer dual-core processor is going to solve a lot of those slowdowns.

I don't know what a scan issue is.

Like Steve, I've been running Macs for a while. I've yet to encounter a virus. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but I've yet to encounter one. As I've mentioned before, I like to spend my time creating. That's what I get out of the machines I purchase. Granted I tend to go for the pro level stuff that most would say is too much. Even in the Mac world the Mac Pro is a pricey machine. But it is a very good computer for the price.