Okay Brian thanks for the info. I knew the multiple harddrives would increase performance for daw's like Sonar on pc, wasn't' sure if it applied to the Mac too. Now I know it works the same. Ronald
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bryan Smart Verzonden: dinsdag 22 juni 2010 15:56 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: RE: Texas Instruments firewire iMac The multiple hard drive thing applies to all DAWs. It is to improve performance. With mechanical hard drives, when you ask them to load a file, there is a short delay while the hard drive locates the data. Inside the hard drive, of course, there is a magnetic head that must be moved to a specific position, and the spinning platter that the head reads must rotate around to the right position. The delay is very short (measured in milliseconds). For a single file, this isn't that bad. If the computer must rapidly skip back and forth between many files, over and over, though, a lot of time is wasted with the hard drive repeatedly trying to move between files. When using DAW software, a lot of data is streaming off of the hard drive, anyway. Each track of audio is stored in one or more files, and so, as you are recording/playing more tracks, the hard drive has to waste a lot more time seaking around for files. Meanwile, the computer is also commanding the hard drive to seak to other locations in order to locate and stream files for your software instruments, to load/unload operating system files, and more. When you use two hard drives (1 for your OS/programs and 1 for your audio data), you split this work up a bit. So, using two drives can dramatically increase performance. However, it doesn't always increase performance. Someone that uses a lot of software instruments will notice a big gain. Someone that is just recording audio won't notice as big of a difference. Of course, solid state drives don't have any delays associated with seaking. If you're using an SSD, you can usually get away with a single hard drive. However, this only applies if you're using SLC type SSDs, as the cheaper MLC drives have very slow write speeds. SLC drives are way too expensive right now for most people to use for everything. I use a MLC type SSD in my DAW for the OS/software drive, as it significantly speeds up boot time, loading programs, and loading plug ins. Faster plug in times, in particular, mean that Sonar and PT projects load more quickly. So, you could still get pretty good performance with a single drive if you intended to mostly record audio, with only an occasional software instrument. You could still use software instruments, even with a single drive, but the performance of the system would be affected. It is best to have two drives. A hard drive is such a cheap thing, that it makes a really good upgrade for a DAW to have two instead of one. I'd be concerned about buying a computer for use as a DAW where I couldn't use two at full speed. If you can't on the iMac, for example, you might be fine for a while, but you might not even have the option to upgrade later. Of course, it might turn out that, with an FW800 hub, you could run an external Firewire drive and a Firewire audio interface at the same time. Thing is, I just don't have access to an iMac to test. I didn't want to experiment, so I went with the Mac Pro. I know that the Mac Pro works, and I have bad memories from years back when I wasted time trying to build my own PC DAWs, and trying to work out all of the subtle conflicts between chipsets and other components. I just wanted something stable. If one of you on the list is willing to go for it, get an iMac. Get a Firewire 800 hub. Connect an external Firewire drive and your M-Audio Firewire interface. If it doesn't work, you have 30 days to return the iMac. You might waste some time, but you might save some money. Others on the list need your research, though. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RvR Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Texas Instruments firewire iMac Is it necessary also to have more harddrives when using a Mac with Pro Tools only? Like it is for Sonar I mean. Ronald -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bryan Smart Verzonden: maandag 21 juni 2010 21:23 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: RE: Texas Instruments firewire iMac No, that is very good. If it simply said OHCI compliant, that would be bad, as that would be a way of saying "generic Firewire." Generic usually isn't stable enough. OK. Well, then. Let's hear it for the iMac. Of course, any Mac will run both OS X and Windows, but, now we know, that Firewire interfaces will work in Sonar, too. I haven't seen a system yet with TI Firewire that didn't. The only obstacle that I can think of now regarding the iMac is the single internal hard drive. You can attach an external drive, either USB or Firewire. USB isn't a good option, since USB data transfers can't use DMA, and thus will drain processor resources, and will transfer more slowly than Firewire. The iMac has only one Firewire port/channel, though, so it would be necessary to chain an interface and a hard drive, in order to use both at once. The iMac's Firewire bus supports Firewire 800, which is more than enough for an interface and hard drive. However, most interfaces, the ProjectMix included, will only run in Firewire 400 mode. Firewire 400 only has enough bandwidth to run a single high quality 7200 RPM drive at full tilt. Not sure if, when a Firewire device runs at FW400, it slows all other Firewire devices down to FW400, also. Might be possible to get around those limitations with an FW800 hub. In some cases, though, the limitations wouldn't make a difference. For example, if you're mixing, then you're only monitoring one stereo stream of audio via the ProjectMix, so it doesn't need much bandwidth, leaving the rest of it for the drive. However, if you try to track 16 inputs at once, then 16 inputs come in from the ProjectMix, and then must go out to the drive, plus the playback for any tracks already on the drive. That could get rough. So, for now, it seems that someone can use an iMac with a M-Audio USB interface and a Firewire hard drive, in order to get good performance from both PT and Sonar. The issue isn't as clear if a Firewire interface is used. It should be fairly good, no matter what, but it would be good if we could figure out the bandwidth limitations. A 27 inch iMac would be the best deal for most people planning to use MPowered or LE. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RvR Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Texas Instruments firewire iMac Hi, My brother checked the firewire controller in his current model iMac with i7. He dit it under Windows and said the following is mentioned for the firewire controller: "Texas Instruments OHCI compatible". So TI as well as the OHCI compatible are stated there. Is this good or bad? Since Brian wrote the OHCI compatible isn't good. Don't know if Apple has different configurations for different countries, but this iMac is bought in The Netherlands Europe. Perhaps if there will be new models later this year they will have other hardware again. Hth, Ronald Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bryan Smart Verzonden: vrijdag 18 juni 2010 18:22 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable TI Firewire means that the Firewire controller in the computer is made by Texas Instruments, or TI for short. When running in Mac OS X, I don't know of a way to find out the specifics about the type of controllers and such that are in your computer. Apple doesn't try to show people that information. The only way that I know of to find out is if he is running Windows inside BootCamp. If so, on Windows, he can go in to Device Manager. Under IEEE1394 Controllers, the Firewire controller will be listed. TI controllers say something like Texas Instruments Firewire. If you see something else, like OHCI compatible Firewire, VIA Firewire, etc, then we probably won't be able to use it. Those controllers never seem to work right with audio interfaces in Windows. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RvR Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable Hi, What is "TI Firewire"? My sighted brother has a current i7 iMac but isn't into music creation and I think doesn't use Firewire. Is there some way I can check with him anyway? Like to help if I can. Cheers, Ronald -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Cameron Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 5:35 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable Hi. Speaking of Imacs, do we know if Apple plans to put TI firewire in any of the Imacs when the line is refreshed? Thanks, Cameron. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bryan Smart Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable Yeh. It is particularly confusing to blind people when I tell them that the 27 inch iMac is probably the best value for high performance. I know that they all think "but I don't need a 27 inch monitor." The thing is, though, they will need some sort of monitor , if not because a Mac won't run right without one, there is the benefit of making it possible for others in your session to see what you're doing. 27 inches seems a bit excessive, but, since Apple sells many of the exact same panels, rather than many different monitor options, they get the panels at a good price. The LED panels in the iMacs are extremely good quality. I wouldn't suggest that a blind person buy such a display separately, but, when included with an iMac, you're getting a really good deal. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RvR Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable Hi Brian, Also came to the conclusion that an iMac would be a better choice. I always refused to pay for a monitor thats attached to the iMac which I don't even use, but it's the best option I think now for all the reasons you have mentioned too. The new Mac Minis are more expensive than before. The cheapest is now 800 euro and the server even more than 1100 euro. That is even more dollars. Pretty hefty prices. Regards, Ronald -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bryan Smart Verzonden: woensdag 16 juni 2010 21:18 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable Hi. I anticipate that many people will have this thought, wanting to use the Mini, since it seems like the most inexpensive Mac. It isn't a good idea, in most cases. Mostly, the cases where it is a good idea involve you already owning one. I wouldn't buy one new for the purpose of running Pro Tools. The Mini can be an inexpensive computer. You can get one for about $700. Just add your own keyboard, monitor, and, optionally, speakers, and you're ready to go with an inexpensive Mac. That's particularly a great deal if you already have an extra monitor, keyboard, and set of speakers. However, as has been pointed out, this is only the base model. It has limitations, such as only 2GB of memory, and a single laptop-type hard drive running at 5400 RPM. As has also been pointed out, you can upgrade the Mini. Apple has a second model, intended for use as a small server, that includes 2 7200 RPM hard drives. That would help a lot for our purposes. However, that model starts at $1,000. You'll need to buy your own copy of OS X, s adds about $30. In order to provide the second hard drive in this model, the optical drive has been removed. So, you'll need to purchase an external optical drive $50 to $100, depending on what you get. This Mini comes with 4GB of memory, which will be fine for tracking/mixing. If you plan to sequence a lot with softsynths, though, you'll want 8GB, which adds another $400 to the price. You still need a monitor, keyboard, and speakers. So, a Mini, with dual 7200 RPM drives, your own copy of OS X, external optical drive, a basic LCD monitor, full Apple keyboard (you won't want to use a PC keyboard with Pro Tools), and basic multimedia speakers will cost about $1,300. If you upgraded the memory to 8GB, that increases the price to about $1,700. What happened to that $700 computer? Upgrades. So, if you'd need to spend $1,700, to pimp your Mini, what else could you get for that price? For $1,700, you can get a 21 inch iMac. It still will use a Core Duo processor, but will run at 3Ghz, compared to 2.6Ghz in the Mini. It has 8GB of memory. It only has a single internal drive, but it is a full desktop hd running at 7200 RPM, and is 1TB, twice the size of the Mini's largest laptop drives. The monitor is built-in to every iMac, and you're getting an extremely high quality 21 inch LED display, not a cheesy $100 craptastic LCD from the local computer store. An Apple keyboard comes standard with the iMac, as does the built-in optical drive that you'd be purchasing separately for your Mini. If you want a semi-portable solution, an iMac is fairly good for that: computer guts and screen are built in to a single frame, so that cuts down on the components and cables to transport. If you want more from the Mini, you're out of luck. That $1,700 package is as far as you can upgrade your Mini. The iMac still has room, though. You can upgrade the 3Ghz processor to 3.3Ghz for another $200. You can upgrade the 1TB hard drive to 2TB for $250. So, the $700 Mini is a good deal, but only if you're planning to use the basic Mini as-is. The upgrades cost too much. If you plan to need an extremely high-end Mini, you'll get a better deal getting a lower end iMac. Since the basic Mini is not enough for any serious Pro Tools work, I'd suggest that people get iMacs, instead, and don't waste time upgrading the Mini. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RvR Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable Is the Mini Server usable as normal Mini? What are besides the missing dvd drive the other differences between the server and normal one? The two 500gb 7200rpm sound good. Need to get an external usb or firewire dvd-drive though. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Frank Carmickle Verzonden: woensdag 16 juni 2010 17:14 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: Another stupid question...new Mac Mini capable On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Scott Chesworth wrote: > Hi Ronald, > > I've mixed 32 track sessions with a minimum of one plugin per track on > a Mac mini with worse specs than those, so yeah, it should serve you > well enough unless your needs are intensive. You'll want to work with > an HDD faster than 5400rpm though for multitracking, so either go for > a smaller capacity internal disk that runs at 7200rpm if Apple offer > such a package, or pick up an external drive to use during sessions. The mini server has two 7200 rpm disks and no dvd drive. I was disappointed that they didn't go to the i5 like the did in the MBP. I think having two 500 gb 7200 rpm disks would work out well for audio productions. > It's also worth keeping in mind that lately, there have been a lot of > reports of Mac minis not running well without a physical monitor > connected at all times, so if you're aiming for the mini as a > screenless ultra portable system that could be a snag in the plan. > Yeah. That was quite a hassle for me. I ended up getting a free monitor from a friend because it had a busted back light. Take care --FC > Hth > Scott > > On 6/16/10, RvR <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello again, >> There is a new Mac Mini released, but doesn't seem to be much more >> powerful than last batch. The fastest model has an Intel Core 2 Duo >> at 2.66ghz, 4 or >> 8 gb of ram and a harddisk of max 500gb at 5400rpm. Firewire 800 is >> present though. Do you think such machine is capable of running PT properly? >> Thanks! >> Ronald >>
