• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Quad core PCs?

Visirale

Visirale

Mar 23, 2003
3,043
6
37
Orlando
#1
I'm done messing around with laptops for music production. I want something solid... and desktop prices are so cheap right now. I can get a quad core intel with 2-4 gigs of ram and a terrabyte of hard drive space for under 1000. When prices are like that, I can't justify the price of an apple... Are these PCs suitable for production work? I'm gonna put XP back on whatever I get. I'm going to use my current laptop for all my personal use. The desktop will be for music and music alone... no internet connection, no anything. I think if I do that, it should be pretty immune to viruses or screw ups.

Thoughts?
 
#2
I currently use a quad core Q6600 PC with 4G of RAM running XP SP3. I was on a macbook before, but I needed more CPU power.

I am running Cubase with a Firestudio Project (I've gone through several interfaces before this). The most intense application I run is BFD2 which I trigger from an electronic drumset. On the macbook I was getting lots of popiing and dropouts. With this new setup I do not have any issues. I get ~4ms latency in Cubase. I also use 2 separate internal HDs. 1 for the OS, and one for my music software.



Adam
 
#4
If you use pro tools Id just build one. They have a list of hardware they promise to work with pro tools. Im not sure if you dont use pro tools if any of the other DAW companies do that too. I just wouldnt leave anything up to chance. The good side I guess is since it is a desktop of something isnt compatible you can just swap it out.
 
#5
I've been doing production work on PCs since Sonar was Cakewalk Pro Audio, and they worked fine then, depending on your interface. Today's PCs are way, way better. The only reason to buy Apple for production work is that you like using Apple computers for production work.
 
#6
Thanks guys. All the music teachers at my school recommend apple, but I'm going to take your words (and my wallet's word) over them. They're just schnazzy professors trying to look chic and trendy :hiding:. You just can't argue with the prices of desktops right now.
 
#7
Macs have nice software that you can't find on Windows: GarageBand (cheap but powerful) and Logic Pro (not cheap but mega powerful) to name two.

Everybody I know who chose Windows for audio or video ended up regretting it and/or never getting anything done with it. They tell me they want to do what I do on the Mac but they don't want to pay a little extra for a Mac.

Get Mac and you never go back.
 
#8
If the college was paying for whatever hardware I wanted, I'd probably go mac too.

And really? Garage band is garbage. It's great for screwing around, but I'm talking about legit operations. Real production.

I mainly run:

Reason 4.0
Ableton Live 7.0
Kontact 3.0
and Absynth

All of which run fine on PC.
 
#9
Currently I'm running a dual core AMD X2 and 2 gigs of ram on XP. I can get about 10-12 tracks with VST instruments and 3-4 VST plugins on each channel before it starts to lag. But bear in mind in mind I'm just messing with music production too, hence why I don't own/want to own a mac either.

You could easily get a Intel Core 2 Q6600, 4 gigs of RAM, two 500g hard drives, motherboard, case etc for pretty cheap nowadays. And I'm sure that should easily handle whatever you want to run, providing you have a decent sound card/interface. I don't think an Apple of equivalent price will perform nearly as well.
 
#11
Before you throw money into a quad-core (or even a dual-core), make sure that the recording app you're using is designed for use with those processors. If it isn't, then you're wasting your money. Unfortunately the chip technology is (as usual) still way ahead of the application development for those chips. Just get a single-core with a large buffer and you'll be fine.
 
#12
MonetBass said:
Before you throw money into a quad-core (or even a dual-core), make sure that the recording app you're using is designed for use with those processors. If it isn't, then you're wasting your money. Unfortunately the chip technology is (as usual) still way ahead of the application development for those chips. Just get a single-core with a large buffer and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

While you're correct that most apps aren't built to utilize quad core tech yet, there are still benifits when using multiple apps at once. If you have Cubase open at the same time as Adobe Audition and Reason, multiple cores will be able to handle the workload more efficiently even if the individual apps are running on one core each.

Also, always think a few years ahead of time. Multiple cores are the future, and the software developers are working right now on music apps that will take advantage of that technology. And as he said, the cost for quad core and dual core processors has come down so low now that it doesn't make sense to buy a new desktop with a single core.
 
#13
vision said:
While you're correct that most apps aren't built to utilize quad core tech yet, there are still benifits when using multiple apps at once. If you have Cubase open at the same time as Adobe Audition and Reason, multiple cores will be able to handle the workload more efficiently even if the individual apps are running on one core each.

Also, always think a few years ahead of time. Multiple cores are the future, and the software developers are working right now on music apps that will take advantage of that technology. And as he said, the cost for quad core and dual core processors has come down so low now that it doesn't make sense to buy a new desktop with a single core.
Click to expand...
This has been my line of thinking.

And I at least want something better than my laptops. Both of them are duo core 2 ghz and 2 gigs of ram.

Man, XP really won't utilize more than 2 gigs? That sucks...

Will the apple OS (forgive me, I don't know the name) install on a PC based system? I know apple can boot both OS's... what's stopping a PC?
 
#16
XP can address a total of 4gigs of RAM that included both system and video RAM. If you're willing to experiment a little try Ubuntu studio 64-bit edition it will take advantage of lots of RAM and the OS at least will take advantage of 64-bit.
 
#18
Visirale said:
I mainly run:

Reason 4.0
Ableton Live 7.0
Kontact 3.0
and Absynth

All of which run fine on PC.
Click to expand...

Logic Pro on the Mac does everything these programs do for 1/4 the price and is far better supported by third parties with Apple's Audio Unit plug-in architecture. You want him to save $1000 by buying a cheap Windows PC and then shelling out an extra $1000 for four pieces of software that don't even try to work together. Then, he has to learn four applications instead of one.

There's a compelling reason why people go Mac for audio and video. The software is powerful, intuitive and well integrated. As they say, "It just works." No statement could be more true.
 
#19
warnergt said:
Logic Pro on the Mac does everything these programs do for 1/4 the price and is far better supported by third parties with Apple's Audio Unit plug-in architecture. You want him to save $1000 by buying a cheap Windows PC and then shelling out an extra $1000 for four pieces of software that don't even try to work together. Then, he has to learn four applications instead of one.

There's a compelling reason why people go Mac for audio and video. The software is powerful, intuitive and well integrated. As they say, "It just works." No statement could be more true.
Click to expand...

FYI, I already have all the software. I only paid for Reason, and I got that in the academic version which is discounted to about $200. I don't have the money at this stage in my life to buy all that expensive software. A little less than savory, yes... but I have to do what I have to do to get by.

I looked around at Logic's stuff and I SERIOUSLY doubt that its synths can stack up to Reason. I also can't think of a single studio around here that uses logic primarily. It's all protools or cubase. They all have it on hand in case a client's project was made on it, but if they're doing in house production, they use either PT or cubase.

No offense meant to you. I'm sure it's a great piece of software. I love apple even. I wish their hardware was more affordable. The only thing close to my price range it stripped down base level Imac. For the same price I can get a quadcore PC with 4 gigs of ram (as opposed to the 1 on that imac). Yes, I even have the money to afford a nicer apple, but I'm not planning on shelling out that much when I could be using the extra money on my basses. I can get a PC to do anything I want for less than a stripped down Mac.
 
#20
Ah, here we go again with the old Mac/PC debate. Anybody who thinks there's one and only right answer to this is misguided, imo. Both platforms are great ways to work with audio these days, despite what some folks appear to think in this thread. The differences don't seem to be well understood and I personally find this surprising as they seem fairly easy to grasp.

Here's my take on this from one of the many other threads on this topic:

I think people sometimes miss the obvious thing about the Windows/Mac debate. With the Mac, Apple exercise pretty tight control over their developers and the development scenarios for both hardware and software. This high level of control means everything works seamlessly and the user has a great experience. It also means they have the market sewn up as tight as a duck's backside and therefore you end up paying more money. This whole situation is at one and the same time the Mac's greatest strength and also its greatest disadvantage. The overall conclusion you draw from this depends on how much money you have and what you want to spend it on.

Windows PCs, on the other hand, are more or less the diametric opposite in these respects. They're far more ubiquitous, the market is enormous, there's a ton more third party developers out there and so you can get more or less anything you want at a very reasonable price IF you're prepared to learn how to sort out what works from what doesn't, spend time educating yourself in this manner and enjoy a bit of a challenge in the process as opposed to just "turn it on and it works". This whole situation is at one and the same time the PC's greatest strength and also its greatest disadvantage. The overall conclusion you draw from this ALSO depends on how much money you have and what you want to spend it on.

I just wish people would understand this when they mistakenly draw the conclusion that because one of these choices is the best FOR THEM, then it's the best choice for everybody else as well and so they assert that at every opportunity. There is no right or wrong in any of this - only personal preference and circumstances.
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm using XP on a music-only laptop with Cubase and a wide range of VST instruments/plugins. The whole lot works perfectly and does everything I could ever need and a lot more besides. It's the best solution FOR ME (but not, needless to say, for everyone).
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back