Advice on IMAC upgrades

M

moosicman

New Member
So my present computer is crashing and burning. I think, like or not, its time to buy a new one. I'm going IMac this time and I want some advice. Here are the specs I'm looking at and some of what I'll be doing. I'm looking at the 21.5 inch screen model (I'm gonna go dual monitor so I don't care if its a small monitor). There are three areas I need advice on upgrading it based on the fact that I'm gonna use it to record some of my music. These won't be extravagant studio type albums with tons of tracks but I DO want them to be of excellent quality (where processing power is concerned). So here they are.

1. Should I upgrade to the 3.33 ghz for 200 more bucks vs. the standard 3.06 ghz? If the standard will be acceptable and I can save the cash obviously I would rather, but if it really will make a huge difference then that is what I need to know.

2. Upgrade the 4GB RAMM to the 8GB RAMM for another 200 bucks? The prior is a 2x2 GB and the latter is a 4X2GB. I kinda know what that means but here again, if for my purposes the 4 will be acceptable then I don't wanna buy the 8 just to have a super-power system.

3. Again, should I upgrade the 1 TB hard drive to the 2 TB for $250? Same deal, if I'll use the space, great. If I would probably never know the difference then I would rather save the cash.

I'm gonna be purchasing Logic Studio to do the recording. That's gonna run me $500 and another reason I don't want to upgrade these things unless it really would be noticed and necessary. I want the system to be powerful enough but I don't need to "flex my muscles". I don't want to buy power and space that I could really get by without and won't use. Thanks for the advice!
 
It is all going to depend on the load you put on your system when you record and master digital music. From a consulting standpoint I can only say more "horse power," is always better, but in your personal case, it will be impossible for me to tell as I am not an audio engineer.

I guess you could try it out stock and see where it goes, RAM is cheap. I'd go ahead and do the processor upgrade.
 
Well, I'm no expert at audio recording and etc, but this is my advice (Again not knowing much about the specifics of audio recording, so if a more knowledgable person corrects me, then go with them please):

Stick with 4GB of RAM and the 1TB drive. Why? Because you can always grab more later with very little problem installing them.

The processor I don't really want to comment on because that would require knowledge of the audio processing specifics, but a more powerful CPU is always welcome if you have the cash to spare.
 
RAM - may be. 2 x 2GB at $110, 2 x 4GB at $350. How many ram slot have you got?
HDD - no. You can always stick an external harddrive for storage
 
I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but I'd like to point out that the iMac really isn't a very cost-effective option for a studio engineer. The main cost of it comes from its all-in-one form factor and IPS screen, not from processing power. In raw computing performance, it really isn't that great for a $1k+ machine. You can absolutely use it for what you want, but honestly that's about $1000 including Logic that you don't have to pay to get not-quite-studio-quality albums. In almost everything music-related, the correlation between price and sound quality is very poor.

For example, these guys recorded "electric wasteland" using the free version of Kristal, an old Dell Inspiron laptop with a 2GHz core 2 duo, a Line 6 UX2, and the free modeling software that came with it. They used no amps, and off-brand SM58 copies for the drums and vox. It was mixed by a 16 year old.

As far as the upgrades go, the 3.33GHz on the iMac not only has more clock speed, but twice the cache, which should help out quite a bit, though IMO it isn't worth $200. Other than that, none of those upgrades are worth it. The RAM and hard drive would cost maybe $220 if you bought them separately. For $500 total, you might as well pay the extra $200 and upgrade to the 27" model with the i5 quad core. It's MUCH more powerful, and you also get a better graphics card and screen.
 
Last edited:
Drenlin has some pretty good points there. What's your total budgest for a computer? (pc or mac) and we'll go from there.
 
Drenlin said:
I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but I'd like to point out that the iMac really isn't a very cost-effective option for a studio engineer. The main cost of it comes from its all-in-one form factor and IPS screen, not from processing power. In raw computing performance, it really isn't that great for a $1k+ machine. You can absolutely use it for what you want, but honestly that's about $1000 including Logic that you don't have to pay to get not-quite-studio-quality albums. In almost everything music-related, the correlation between price and sound quality is very poor.

For example, these guys recorded "electric wasteland" using the free version of Kristal, an old Dell Inspiron laptop with a 2GHz core 2 duo, a Line 6 UX2, and the free modeling software that came with it. They used no amps, and off-brand SM58 copies for the drums and vox. It was mixed by a 16 year old.

As far as the upgrades go, the 3.33GHz on the iMac not only has more clock speed, but twice the cache, which should help out quite a bit, though IMO it isn't worth $200. Other than that, none of those upgrades are worth it. The RAM and hard drive would cost maybe $220 if you bought them separately. For $500 total, you might as well pay the extra $200 and upgrade to the 27" model with the i5 quad core. It's MUCH more powerful, and you also get a better graphics card and screen.
Click to expand...

You can't run Logic audio on a PC
 
tlarkin said:
You can't run Logic audio on a PC
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of this. I said that it was about $1k including logic that he didn't need to spend. If Apple had anything with a i5/i7 in his price range, he might be OK with apple. As-is, the best option is a C2D, which isn't good since the application aparently calls for Horsepower.

Logic is a powerful tool for sure, but its strength lies in its MIDI features. Reaper would be a much more attractive option for me, as the actual process of recording and processing the music is much faster and smoother. YMMV of course.

That, plus a decent PC for $800-$900 + accessories, would net you similar results to what you'd get with the iMac, while having many more configuration options.
 
Drenlin said:
I'm well aware of this. I said that it was about $1k including logic that he didn't need to spend. If Apple had anything with a i5/i7 in his price range, he might be OK with apple. As-is, the best option is a C2D, which isn't good since the application aparently calls for Horsepower.

Logic is a powerful tool for sure, but its strength lies in its MIDI features. Reaper would be a much more attractive option for me, as the actual process of recording and processing the music is much faster and smoother. YMMV of course.

That, plus a decent PC for $800-$900 + accessories, would net you similar results to what you'd get with the iMac, while having many more configuration options.
Click to expand...

Really? How many Core 2 Duo rigs have you done recording on? What are you basing your assertions off of? You, yourself, are an advocate of low spec audio recording as you have boasted about recording on older PCs all the time.

This user wants a Mac, they want logic, and they stated they aren't doing super high end studio work. So, why do you even bother with what you post? Most high end audio hardware is done over FireWire anyway. It is not like they need PCI-E slots and if they aren't pushing their machine to the limit to begin with, then why spend more on an i5 or an i7?

Total cost of ownership the iMac is a great buy for this user. If they want to use Logic, then they are pretty much locked into the Mac platform.

I get what you are saying, but it goes beyond what the OP was even asking or needs.
 
I'm just trying to help. :(

I'm well aware that he could do the recording just fine on the iMac. It would work perfectly. My point is just that the iMac is really not a sensible option for what he's doing, and really the only other alternative in the price range is a PC.

If he hadn't said that he wanted lots of horsepower, I'd say just get a Mac mini, which is again a more attractive option, since you aren't paying for the screen. It would work perfectly fine for this application. The 4GB model plus an external hard drive or two would be more than enough.
 
Last edited:
Drenlin said:
I'm well aware that he could do the recording just fine on the iMac. It would work perfectly. My point is just that the iMac is really not a sensible option for what he's doing, and really the only other alternative in the price range is a PC.
Click to expand...

I know you are trying to help, and I am saying how can you justify this? Do you work in the recording industry? I sure don't, but I have a ton of friends that do work in the recording industry, some of them own and operate record labels, others are audio engineers and most of them are musicians. They all for the most part swear by Macs. What qualifies their professional opinion? It is just that, their professionals and get paid for their job, everyday.

I am most of these people's in-house IT guy. As no audio company or record label actually has any IT guys on pay roll.

The overall ownership of a Mac is way more cost effective than any custom built PC, and when it comes time to sell your old Mac and upgrade, guess what? The Mac actually retains it's resell value, where PCs are pretty much worthless at resell value. Another thing you always over look is total cost of ownership. Zero down time is very nice, and if you build it yourself, you support it yourself. My PSU blew up 4 days ago, still waiting on my RMA form Antec. If my Mac had broke under warranty take to an AASP and Apple over nights the part. Pretty nice.
 
tlarkin said:
I know you are trying to help, and I am saying how can you justify this? Do you work in the recording industry? I sure don't, but I have a ton of friends that do work in the recording industry, some of them own and operate record labels, others are audio engineers and most of them are musicians. They all for the most part swear by Macs. What qualifies their professional opinion? It is just that, their professionals and get paid for their job, everyday.
Click to expand...

I am actually considering a career in the recording industry. I'm good friends with several long time recording engineers. I AM associated with the industry as a musician.

My argument here is very justifiable. Look at what the cost of the iMac comes from. Most of it isn't anything that will be useful to TS. For this application, the Mac mini will perform nearly as well.
 
Last edited:
Drenlin said:
I am actually considering a career in the recording industry. I'm good friends with several long time recording engineers. I AM associated with the industry as a musician.

My argument here is very justifiable. Look at what the cost of the iMac comes from. Most of it isn't anything that will be useful to TS. For this application, the Mac mini will perform nearly as well.
Click to expand...

Then be prepared to work on a lot of Macs. Every studio I have worked for, has always been mostly Mac. They may have a PC or two in the studio but everything else is Mac based. Most people prefer them in the audio/video industry, and the main reason is, they have less down time. What happens when you have 10 hours put in on a project and your computer crashes?

Of course that is mostly due to user error than it really relates to what platform you are running. Most applications have auto save features, but for the most part OS X is a bit more stable than Windows. Especially since Windows has that ridiculous driver signing crap, and not every developer pays for it, which means that a driver update could kill your whole system.

Apple is not the greatest when it comes to updates and Microsoft is way better than anyone out there period. There is a known bug or issue? MS patches it almost immediately and they are awesome at that, the down side is there are more patches and fixes to Windows than there is any other OS. That is because you sacrifice stability with so many third parties developing with no quality control. It is give and take.

If I were you, I would at least learn the Mac platform before you so boldly judge it and I would use it in your field for at least a year and then compare it to a PC and come back and talk to me. I am willing to be your opinion will differ.

Trust me I hated Macs for years, and only in the last 5 years or so really started to like them.
 
How am I judging macs here? The iMac has its place...graphic designers would find plenty of use for it. It just isn't optimized for audio engineering, and I didn't want TS to have to pay so much for features he won't use.
 
tlarkin said:
Then be prepared to work on a lot of Macs. Every studio I have worked for, has always been mostly Mac. They may have a PC or two in the studio but everything else is Mac based. Most people prefer them in the audio/video industry, and the main reason is, they have less down time. What happens when you have 10 hours put in on a project and your computer crashes?

Of course that is mostly due to user error than it really relates to what platform you are running. Most applications have auto save features, but for the most part OS X is a bit more stable than Windows. Especially since Windows has that ridiculous driver signing crap, and not every developer pays for it, which means that a driver update could kill your whole system.

Apple is not the greatest when it comes to updates and Microsoft is way better than anyone out there period. There is a known bug or issue? MS patches it almost immediately and they are awesome at that, the down side is there are more patches and fixes to Windows than there is any other OS. That is because you sacrifice stability with so many third parties developing with no quality control. It is give and take.

If I were you, I would at least learn the Mac platform before you so boldly judge it and I would use it in your field for at least a year and then compare it to a PC and come back and talk to me. I am willing to be your opinion will differ.

Trust me I hated Macs for years, and only in the last 5 years or so really started to like them.
Click to expand...

If I were you I would at least learn the Windows platform before you so boldly judge it. You talk as if windows is absolute garbage and only runs for a year before dying. My gaming rig has been running for the past 4 years with only one problem with it (which was my fault anyways).

Using the total-cost-of-ownership argument is moot because there are too many variables to even consider it. No OS is idiot proof therefore a system can run for a long time or a very short time.

Btw you two scared off the op.Good job
 
I read these posts, but didn't have time to respond. Then I got busy and forgot (amid some other computer issues). Funny thing is, I worked in the recording industry for a little time. Managed a studio and did some engineering. But we were FAR from computer based. We recorded to two 24-track Studor analog machines (on a Neve board with 24 channels of 1064's--yeah, it was an AWESOME studio). But of the folks that ever came through that used computers, I gotta say, MAC's ruled. This was because they were made for the arts (not just music, but graphic design and such too), or so I've been told. Obviously I have no first hand experience. Thanks SO MUCH for all of your advice. I haven't purchased yet, because I'm trying to patch this piece of crap Dell along. But when I do I'll be referring to this post again for you input.
 
The CPU might be worth it even if you don't use its full potential. The RAM and hard drive upgrades are not worth it because as others have stated you could easily add RAM or storage later for lower cost. I don't think the CPU could be upgraded on these systems and the faster CPU does offer a significant boost in performance.
 
ROFLcopter said:
If I were you I would at least learn the Windows platform before you so boldly judge it. You talk as if windows is absolute garbage and only runs for a year before dying. My gaming rig has been running for the past 4 years with only one problem with it (which was my fault anyways).

Using the total-cost-of-ownership argument is moot because there are too many variables to even consider it. No OS is idiot proof therefore a system can run for a long time or a very short time.

Btw you two scared off the op.Good job
Click to expand...

no offense but I have probably been using windows since before you ever even touched a computer. You also need to learn what total cost of ownership is and yes it is way lower with the Mac platform. Especially when you consider resell value of a Mac.
 
tlarkin said:
no offense but I have probably been using windows since before you ever even touched a computer. You also need to learn what total cost of ownership is and yes it is way lower with the Mac platform. Especially when you consider resell value of a Mac.
Click to expand...

Talk about making assumptions. He could be twice as old as you, and yet you talk down to him as if he's an ignorant child.

I don't want to get in a Mac vs PC debate with you, because frankly you tend to reiterate the same points over and over again. And yeah, you have some fantastic points, but you're completely unwilling to make any sort of concessions on them even when presented with perfectly valid counterpoints. From what I've seen it seems that you think that you're right about everything 100% of the time, and it's simply impossible to have any sort of productive debate with a person like that.
 
PohTayToez said:
Talk about making assumptions. He could be twice as old as you, and yet you talk down to him as if he's an ignorant child.
Click to expand...

Hence why I said no offense, in case I was mistaken. Given his screen name I can only assume, and I think it is a valid assumption, that he is of the younger sort. Also, he assumed I was an elitist.

I don't want to get in a Mac vs PC debate with you, because frankly you tend to reiterate the same points over and over again. And yeah, you have some fantastic points, but you're completely unwilling to make any sort of concessions on them even when presented with perfectly valid counterpoints. From what I've seen it seems that you think that you're right about everything 100% of the time, and it's simply impossible to have any sort of productive debate with a person like that.
Click to expand...

If you don't like what I post you can always hit the ignore button. However, debating on Mac Vs PC is much like debating politics. I often find myself defending Obama to conservatives and berating Obama with liberals. That is because I try to use common sense and facts to look at an issue at hand. Most people here say outlandish things about Macs, and I ask them to prove it. Just like when people make ridiculous claims about politics. Why do I defend the Mac so much on this forum? Simply, because most people are giving out misinformation on the platform the whole time. Politically I am a centrist but don't buy into much wharrgarbl people spew out on the Internets so I am usually defending whomever is being attacked because those people making such claims are usually way falsified.

I have already stated numerous times that a Mac is a tool, a PC is a tool, and it really comes down to personal preferences because at the end of the day most users don't understand how an OS works. Nor should they, and nor should they care. They just need it to do whatever it is they are using it for, hence the comment how a Mac and a PC are both just tools.

I never get personal, nor do I really talk down to anyone like you claim. I simply just tell it like it is, with the occasional assumption like I did with that poster. Most people always draw back into an elitist argument with this platform versus another. Same thing goes for Linux. Heck, go look up uber geek arguments on GPL versus GNU. That can get pretty ridiculous.

I have also made note of valid points when given to me. The problem is most people think the Mac VS PC is about winning. At the end of the day I could care less what you spend your money on and use. I don't work for Microsoft, Apple, or any PC hardware manufacturer, so it is not like their sales reflect my yearly bonus or anything. It is always the same people that make absurd assumptions too, and by same I mean people that have never touched a Mac; or people that maybe used one for 6 months or less. Some people refuse to even see facts when I have laid them out in front of people. You say I refuse to acknowledge facts? That statement can go every which way.

The Internet is not really serious business man. I am not here to offend anyone or piss anyone off or make anyone feel stupid. The sole reason I am even on these forums really is just to have some fun and try to give out factual information. If you get pissed off at my posts, sorry but I am probably not going to change, and I am not breaking any rules. If you feel the need to call me out so much that it annoys you, you can just hit the ignore button and you can never view any of my posts again. That is what the ignore button is for.

You have seen the ridiculous claims people make when trying to bash macs right? There are certain people who I just agree with now, like Speedy Ink for one. I know he doesn't really like Apple, and I know that he makes valid points. He has proved to me to use facts in the debate and I haven't really debated him in a long time. Bomberboy has also made very valid points and I don't try to debate him any more. Drenlin, well, he makes mediocre points and I acknowledge them but I still call him on them. However, I know Drenlin doesn't know a lot about the Mac platform. This is not a personal attack either by the way, Drenlin if you read this.

if you are going to engage in debate you are asking for someone to call what you say false, that is how it works.

People actually PM me links to mac threads, so some people must like my input. Sorry you feel the need to be the white knight and call me out, because honestly I am not trying to do anything other than put out non biased information. Remember when the users of this forum made homosexual comments by tagging my Mac thread with derogatory gay terms? Then you want to come over and play white Knight? Come on man, seriously?

The truth of the matter is, people have this archaic monolithic idea that Microsoft has to fail for Apple to succeed and that Macs are only good with graphic design and video production. These stereotypes are utterly false. The more and more I hear that the more it just screams ignorance to me. A mac and PC are both tools, and they can both do all of the same stuff. Apple does not appeal to the hardcore gamer market, and most people on this forum are making inferences based on that fact alone. To give Microsoft credit, they have had a good 15 years ahead of any other computer/OS company in gaming. Direct X came out I think in 1995 and set the standard. In due time gaming will flow over to OS X and become equal and eventually Linux. The market share just isn't there yet, because hard core gaming is still considered a niche market. Steam is already developing games for the Mac platform and slowly and surely developers are porting their games. Once it gets to the point where Mac gamers make up a good percentage of the gaming market, I bet Apple will drop out a mid sized "prosumer" tower with a video card upgrade option. Apple is good at marketing and they probably already have the computer built, but are just waiting until the market is right to cash in. Which they have proved to do, time and time again with their technology.

Macs are really only as good as the end user to be honest and so is a PC. There is no limit what it can do, and an iMac isn't only good for graphic design or video editing. These old and busted monolithic ideas really just need to go away. People also need to realize Microsoft and Apple can both be successful at the same time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top