On 30/05/2011 10:31 AM, Brian wrote:
>
>
> Since plenty of people will advise you to get a second monitor to make workflow in Logic go easier, let me make a point. I'm running a Mac Pro, which I got last year and two 19" monitors. I have no problems running Logic 9 with just a single 19" monitor. I can toggle between the arrange and mixer view without a hassle.
>
> The only time that I think I could use a wider screen is if I'm editing MIDI data in the piano roll, but it's no big deal enlarging things there. My second monitor is really just a luxury. I just put a long cable on it, plugged it in and let it mirror the first. If I'm standing up playing, I use it to see things, but I don't really need it.
>
> As far as hardware goes, I spent less than $150 on a JL Cooper Fader Port. It's just a simple device, which has tape machine style transport buttons and a single fader with a pan knob. Before shelling out more cash for a second monitor, that might be the thing to get to make life go smoother verses buying another monitor. When I'm recording, since I use the arrange window for tracking, I don't have to go into the mixer view at all, because I can just grab the fader on the Fader Port if I want whatever I'm recording quieter or louder.
>
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Irfon-Kim Ahmad<irfon@...> wrote:
>> Thanks for all the input, everyone.
>>
>> On the monitors issue, because there seemed to be some debate, you can
>> actually run up to three monitors (the built-in one plus two others) on
>> the 2011 iMac. Each of the Thunderbolt connectors can support an
>> additional monitor. To be honest, though, until we move to a new house,
>> I don't have room for that many monitors in my studio anyway. But in
>> case anybody else is following the discussion with the thought of
>> monitors, that's the scoop with it.
>>
>> In terms of benchmarks, which was suggested, the only benchmark that
>> covers both that I've found thus far was the geekbench scores at
>> everymac.com. Unfortunately, you do have to sift them by hand, because
>> when you click through you discover that a lot of the scores going in to
>> the average are actually from the wrong machine or different
>> configurations. But after sifting through them, I found that the iMac
>> 27" quad-core 3.4GHz i7 configuration gets about 12,000 on the geekbench
>> test in Mac OS X 64-bit mode, whereas the Mac Pro eight-core 2.8GHz
>> Nehalem Xeon gets about 8,000 on that same geekbench test. So on that
>> test, the iMac is about 50% faster. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of
>> information about exactly what the geekbench benchmark tests and how
>> well it maps onto real-world performance for a given application. :/
>>
>> I have to admit that I'm still waffling. It does seem like the iMac
>> will be the faster machine. I think what's mostly under my skin about
>> it still is that it's $3500 (after taxes) vs. $2000 (after monitor and
>> taxes), and that's enough of a difference that I could take that money
>> and put it toward getting everything up to the current version (I'm
>> still on Logic 8, Peak 5, Komplete 6, etc.). But there seems to be a
>> strong feeling here that the iMac is more likely to not become
>> disappointing in a very short time down the line, which is certainly
>> something to consider.
>>
>> On 11-05-29 9:07 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:
>>> Some of the imacs did not allow a 2nd monitor at all except in mirror
>>> mode. They really hobble the performance of the imacs in various subtle
>>> ways. With a mac pro you can use multiple monitors. You can install
>>> four internal disks which are high speed and in a RAID configuration
>>> and get a lot more track count. You can install more ram. My 2006 Imac
>>> is limited to 2gb max ram, and only mirrors monitors, and only allows
>>> one hard disk.
>>>
>>> If I were you, I would get a refurbished mac pro.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian<brianmc7@...>
>>> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 5:42 pm
>>> Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Mac Pro 2008 vs. iMac 2011
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you've gotten into the habit of using a lot of plugins per track,
>>> I wouldn't go with a Mac Pro that old, because you're already behind
>>> the mark as far as processing speed goes. After all, you really don't
>>> know what impact that might have with future software.
>>>
>>> I'll run compression and EQ on individual tracks, but when it comes to
>>> delay or reverb, I'll run those effects on a dedicated buss.
>>>
>>> Although you can avoid taxing your CPU speed by freezing tracks, if you
>>> call up a song file with a lot of frozen tracks, since the CPU can get
>>> overloaded, because it freezes all of the data at once, you can
>>> sometimes wind up with a lot of problem loading a song file. One way
>>> around that is to call up a song file and freeze each track on an
>>> individual basis by hitting play before freezing another track.
>>>
>>> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Thorpe<shawnogordo@> wrote:
>>>> I have no experience running Logic on either of those types of
>>> machines.
>>>> Though, I'd imagine they'd both handle it just fine. Regardless, I'd
>>> be
>>>> hesitant to invest that kinda money in 3-year old hardware. If it
>>> were me,
>>>> I'd go with the iMac.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Irfon-Kim Ahmad<irfon@>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently running Logic Pro (8, but will be upgrading to 9 with
>>> the
>>>>> new system) on a 2006 MacBook Pro with 2GB of RAM and a 350GB hybrid
>>>>> disk. I run into the dreaded system overload with some regularity. I
>>>>> don't run very high track counts and do very little recording, but I
>>>>> tend to use a lot of softsynths (mostly from the NI Komplete suite)
>>> and
>>>>> use a very large array of effect plugins per track.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been saving up to replace this machine, and was targeting the
>>>>> newly-released 2011 iMac 27" with the 3.4GHz quad-core i7 Sandy
>>> Bridge
>>>>> processor, 4GB of RAM (that I was going to upgrade to 12GB after the
>>>>> fact -- the system maxes out at 16GB), the 256GB SSD + 1TB HD disk
>>>>> configuration and the 2GB GDDR5 Radeon HD 6970M. With the AppleCare,
>>>>> this clocks in at $3098 + tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it's recently come to my attention that a local shop is
>>> selling
>>>>> a gently used 2008 Mac Pro. It has two 2.8GHz quad-core Nehalem Xeon
>>>>> processors (8 cores total), 4GB of RAM (maxes at 32GB), a 320GB hard
>>>>> disk, and an NVidia 8800GT with 512GB RAM. They'll warranty it for
>>> 90
>>>>> days and you can pay extra to extend the warranty if you like,
>>> although
>>>>> it'll be their warranty rather than AppleCare. They want $1699 +
>>> tax.
>>>>> Among my geekier-than-me friends, there's been a big debate about
>>> the
>>>>> CPUs in these two machines. The iMac's Sandy Bridge architecture
>>>>> supports SVX instead of SSE, which apparently will, once apps are
>>>>> updated to support it, allow it to process eight instructions per
>>> cycle
>>>>> rather than four, according to them. Given that it's already clocked
>>>>> faster than the Xeons in the Mac Pro, that would make it noticeably
>>>>> faster CPU-wise. The rest of the Mac Pro's architecture is slower as
>>>>> well -- the memory bus isn't as fast, the 8800GT is about half the
>>>>> performance of the 6970M, etc. However, the Mac Pro offers more
>>>>> expandability -- I could add a RAID card, I could have several
>>> internal
>>>>> disks, I can upgrade the video card, etc. And if Logic Pro doesn't
>>>>> support SVX, then I expect that having twice as many cores at a
>>> slightly
>>>>> slower speed might be a CPU win.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the difference in price is also a big factor -- with that much
>>> less
>>>>> money I could perform a lot of ugprades (note that I'd have to eat
>>> away
>>>>> some of that buying a monitor, but you can get a 27" LCD of good
>>> enough
>>>>> quality for me for $300, and getting a disk system comparable to
>>> the one
>>>>> I was speccing for the iMac would take away more of that, but I
>>> could do
>>>>> this flexibly over time). I mean, at $1699, I wouldn't be
>>> particularly
>>>>> upset if I had to upgrade it after only say three years, whereas at
>>>>> $3100, I'd want the iMac to last me a good five years, much as my
>>>>> MacBook Pro did.
>>>>>
>>>>> My only real bottleneck is Logic Pro, though. This is going to be my
>>>>> studio machine. I mostly game on the Playstation 3, and I have an
>>> iPad
>>>>> that is fine for my needs for travel and surfing. So I'm wondering
>>> if
>>>>> any of you have any thoughts or real-world experience between these
>>> two
>>>>> machines as they specifically pertain to Logic Pro, and if anyone
>>> knows
>>>>> what the status of this SVX issue is with Logic Pro -- if it's
>>> something
>>>>> that I should expect to see coming down or that's even already
>>> there, or
>>>>> if it's even relevant to Logic Pro's architecture, or if having
>>> twice as
>>>>> many cores will still be better when running a ton of plugins.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Shawn Thorpe
>>>> http://shawn.mx/
>>>> http://geminidragon.tv/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
