# Computer recommendation for home recording?



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

I'm not trying to start a Mac-vs-PC thread here, but likely it will turn into one anyway.

I'm looking for a new computer (laptop) for general computing purposes, but primarily as my "music" computer. This will include playing backing tracks, recording from guitar, as well as from microphone (vocals & acoustic guitar). I'll also be plugging a Jamvox into it. I'll be plugging in through the Jamvox, and my out will be through either a pair of decent computer speakers, or through a digital amp via the Jamvox.

I used to use a desktop with Windows Vista. Jamvox and Band-in-a-box ran well on it. Audacity ran ok on it, but I had lag issues and generally could never figure out what was working and what wasn't. And recording from a microphone never really worked properly. I switched to a (desktop) iMac. I found I didn't need Audacity or Band-in-a-Box any more, since I just used GarageBand. Jamvox worked well with that, although I had to figure out some conflicts between IT and GB.

Now I've moved my playing to a part of the house where I can't really move the desktop, so I'm down to an IBM laptop running XP. The laptop is fairly powerful (it was high-end in 2007), but I can't get it to work right. Recording from a microphone is near impossible, Jamvox & iTunes don't seem to get along, and I have to use a bunch of different programs (Jamvox, Audacity, iTunes, Band-in-a-box) to do the things I want to do. And even then, I have conflicts, and things that don't always work the same way every time I turn on the computer. Overall, I spend a lot of time tinkering, and less time playing.

So.

I'm going to get myself a new laptop. What are your recommendations? I'm leaning towards a Macbook Pro 13", but I could be swayed. I want it to be relatively portable, so I can take it on planes and such, as required. That's why I like the small screen. But is that too small? I'll likely use it for photo editing and organizing as well. Also, is there a big difference between the 2.26Ghz processor and the more powerful ones, practically speaking? Are there other Mac models you would recommend as superior?

And if you were to recommend a PC, what hardware/software combinations would you recommend for the purposes I've outlined above? I'm comfortable spending about $1300.

Any advice or debate is appreciated.

--- D


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

As someone who recently bought a new PC, I can tell you that Windows 7 is a 64 bit OS. My DI came with 32 bit software. There are drivers availlable at M-Audio's web site, but I'm still having a @#$%ing hell of a time with it. The Apple stuff just seems to work a whole lot easier, if not better.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

It depends on how many tracks you need to record simultaneously, as well as how many VSTs you foresee yourself running.

I have an HP desktop with a Quad Core Intel chip and 3GB of RAM and it's more than enough for my needs, but I only ever record maybe 2 or 3 tracks at a time, not 16 or something silly like that. I do occasionally get dropout if I'm using lots of VSTs, which I'm forced to do for things like B3 sounds, etc., but you can always bounce your VST to an audio track to save processing.

As far as the Mac vs PC thing, it's fairly irrelevant unless you're starting to wade deep into the pro-quality stuff where you want to be able to record multiple tracks at once and run a million VSTs. Even then, Macs aren't necessarily the clear-cut winner. But anything of that nature won't be laptop-based anyway.

Your main concerns are CPU speed, RAM and HD space/speed. Also, get a decent interface that runs on Firewire, not USB. USB's max speed is fairly high, but the avg throughput isn't nearly as high as Firewire's. I use the M-Audio 410, which is fantastic for its size and price and super-portable. Between it and a laptop and a couple mics, you have a portable studio.

Regarding screen size, I think the laptop is kind of a step in the wrong direction. My buddy has a PC-based studio with dual widescreen monitors, so he's able to see a HUGE amount of the mix at once. I use a 22" at home and it's decent, but I think on a little 13" screen, you'd have to do an awful lot of scrolling, which can be a huge pain with laptop touchpads. And for photos? Forget it, unless you mean photo editing like just cropping and hitting auto-adjust. Those screens are way too tiny for any serious photo work.

I'd say save yourself a couple bucks on the machine and go with a PC, and spend that money you saved on a nice Firewire interface and Bob's your uncle. I personally like the Toshiba laptops.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Rugburn said:


> As someone who recently bought a new PC, I can tell you that Windows 7 is a 64 bit OS. My DI came with 32 bit software. There are drivers availlable at M-Audio's web site, but I'm still having a @#$%ing hell of a time with it. The Apple stuff just seems to work a whole lot easier, if not better.


Windows 7 is 32 and 64 bit, you have the option of installing whichever you like. Unless you have a good reason to be running the 64 bit version, you might as well just install the 32 bit and not deal with the architecture problems. I honestly don't understand the appeal of a 64 bit OS given the fairly useless support for it at the consumer level.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

simple....get a mac.....comes with garage band - "once at a time" recording - but no fuss - no 3rd party hardware to plug your guitar in...just - plug it in!...(well - I suppose you'll need a 1/4" to mini jack adapter) ...but 3rd party stuff works via USB - i.e a POD XT 

dead simple to use...tight integration with itunes (i.e. to record yourself to backing tracks) ......a LOT less hassle on the whole spyware / virus thing (for now anyway I suppose - till people start getting motivated to create these things for MAC OS)

my 2 cents.....


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> Windows 7 is 32 and 64 bit, you have the option of installing whichever you like. Unless you have a good reason to be running the 64 bit version, you might as well just install the 32 bit and not deal with the architecture problems. I honestly don't understand the appeal of a 64 bit OS given the fairly useless support for it at the consumer level.


I'm not sure I follow. We recieved one disc called "Home Premium" that was installed on the PC at the store. Does it give you the option of 64 or 32bit operation at the point of installation? Or are their two seperate discs? Thanks.

Shawn.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Rugburn said:


> I'm not sure I follow. We recieved one disc called "Home Premium" that was installed on the PC at the store. Does it give you the option of 64 or 32bit operation at the point of installation? Or are their two seperate discs? Thanks.
> 
> Shawn.


If it was pre-installed OEM software, you probably didn't get a choice, but if you buy Windows 7 from a store, it comes with two discs to install from, a 32-bit and a 64-bit. 

I'm a bit surprised, actually, that your PC came with the 64bit version pre-installed instead of the 32bit. I guess more and more chips these days are designed to handle 64bit OS's, but there certainly isn't a wide variety of software designed to take advantage of it.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> If it was pre-installed OEM software, you probably didn't get a choice, but if you buy Windows 7 from a store, it comes with two discs to install from, a 32-bit and a 64-bit.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised, actually, that your PC came with the 64bit version pre-installed instead of the 32bit. I guess more and more chips these days are designed to handle 64bit OS's, but there certainly isn't a wide variety of software designed to take advantage of it.


Surprised? Pretty much every new computer sold today comes with 64 bit Windows 7. There is no reason to go 32 bit unless for some reason you want to be limited to 3.25GB of ram. The 64bit drivers are as if not more stable than their 32 bit cousins.


Example:
Even this little Atom based Net top computer with only 2GB of ram comes with 64 bit Windows 7.

Products


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

i've been running Both Mac and PC side by side now since 1993. always High-End stuff...and not a single PC ever came close to matching anything the Mac does. Never..and i doubt it ever will. Some stuff i got to do on PC unfortunally, mainly because it's software related. Not all software are cross flatform in my feild of work.."3D animation and Visual FX"...but for stabilty, OSX is 10 years ahead of any windows out there. it's a sad fact.

I have to get my PC check at least 3 to 4 times a year..it gets clean..the OS i mean, not the actually computer...for worms, virus, etc etc. even if i run all the anti this or anti that, it still gets corruted fast. My Mac?...not once in 4 years yet. it's a Mac Pro Quad 3.0ghz with 8 gig of ram...PC is 1 year old...8 core Xeon 3.0ghz and 8 gig of ram as well. Both computers have 2 terrabyte of HD..so room is not a factore.

I'm looking into recording soon..and not even considering anything else the a Mac for that. But that's MY take on it. and it's not LAW....hehe. but seriously..Mac rules.. it's the leading choice in Pro Recording and anything visual as well..


----------

