MOTM

Ok, well I do not know much about digital recording.   I have never 
done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that must exist.   Apple 
today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am 
interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.  
Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there products 
out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?

I would like to do home multi-track recording of my MOTM synth, 
nothing really elaborate.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Andy

This thing is begging for a Stooge panel!

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "gooboworks" <andy@g...> wrote:

> 
> Ok, well I do not know much about digital recording.   I have never 
> done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that must exist.   Apple 
> today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am 
> interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.  
> Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there products 
> out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?
> 
> I would like to do home multi-track recording of my MOTM synth, 
> nothing really elaborate.
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts.
> 
> Andy

it would probably be fine for lightweight stuff but that 256mb thing 
worries me - if there's one thing that macos x likes lots of, it's 
memory, and paging kills audio performance.

now, if you could run macos 9 on it.... [fx: dodges flying garbage]

>Ok, well I do not know much about digital recording.   I have never
>done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that must exist.   Apple
>today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am
>interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording. 
>Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there products
>out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?
>
>I would like to do home multi-track recording of my MOTM synth,
>nothing really elaborate.
>
>Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>Andy
>

Well, you can order it with 1GB of RAM installed;
I was thinking along the same lines... that small box
would be a nice little monster to use with Logic...
it's got a firewire port and 2 USB2 ports... so one
could hookup any audio interface.
Damn... I should have bought one of those dual G4
towers when they were throwing them out last autumn
(being too cheap to buy a G5)...

Best,

Dino


--- Jason Proctor <jason@...> wrote:

> it would probably be fine for lightweight stuff but
> that 256mb thing 
> worries me - if there's one thing that macos x likes
> lots of, it's 
> memory, and paging kills audio performance.
> 
> now, if you could run macos 9 on it.... [fx: dodges
> flying garbage]
> 
> 
> 
> >Ok, well I do not know much about digital
> recording.   I have never
> >done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that
> must exist.   Apple
> >today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of
> memory.   I am
> >interested in this little thing to do multitrack
> audio recording. 
> >Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?   
> Are there products
> >out there that would work well with the new Mac
> Mini?
> >
> >I would like to do home multi-track recording of my
> MOTM synth,
> >nothing really elaborate.
> >
> >Thanks for any thoughts.
> >
> >Andy
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> 
> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own
> computers.
> At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/c9hWNA/3MnJAA/n1hLAA/VpLolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>     motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

>Well, you can order it with 1GB of RAM installed;

Wait until the *reliable* third-part sources have it and save some money.
Unless Apple's made this one impossible to upgrade. I'd stick another 256MB
in, absolute minimum.

>I was thinking along the same lines... that small box
>would be a nice little monster to use with Logic...
>it's got a firewire port and 2 USB2 ports... so one
>could hookup any audio interface.
>Damn... I should have bought one of those dual G4
>towers when they were throwing them out last autumn
>(being too cheap to buy a G5)...

Well they do have a G5 for what they were selling those G4's for now
($1500). Of course it won't boot into OS 9. Can't get to the Apple Store
right now to see what's left--apparently it's a very popular site at the
moment...

-- 

Terry Bowman, KA4HJH
"The Mac Doctor"

i stand corrected - in that case it would make a great audio machine.

>Well, you can order it with 1GB of RAM installed;
>I was thinking along the same lines... that small box
>would be a nice little monster to use with Logic...
>it's got a firewire port and 2 USB2 ports... so one
>could hookup any audio interface.
>Damn... I should have bought one of those dual G4
>towers when they were throwing them out last autumn
>(being too cheap to buy a G5)...
>
>Best,
>
>Dino

> Ok, well I do not know much about digital recording.   I have never
> done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that must exist.   Apple
> today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am
> interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.
> Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there products
> out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?

It doesn't have the ability to record.

Though there is rumor it also doubles as a pregnancy test stick. ;-)

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley             "The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of
Synthcom Systems, Inc.    our marketing combined with the stupidity of our
                           people.." -  Bill Maher

>  > Ok, well I do not know much about digital recording.   I have never
>>  done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that must exist.   Apple
>>  today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am
>>  interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.
>>  Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there products
>>  out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?
>
>It doesn't have the ability to record.

well not out of the box it doesn't, but an mbox/m-audio firewire 
audiophile/etc... will easily fix that. if you already have a 
keyboard and mouse then this is the first time a mac-based protools 
rig has been available for under a grand.

>Though there is rumor it also doubles as a pregnancy test stick. ;-)

gross :-)

Neil Bradley wrote:
>  >   Apple today announced the new Mac Mini.  
> It doesn't have the ability to record.

Of course it does, just add the appropriate software and interface. I 
was running a Protools system on a lesser computer years ago at a video 
editing facility. Add more internal memory and a honking external 
firewire hard drive and it would make a great little studio system.

I'm seriously looking at one for my "performance" system. It will run 
what I need for that - which is only about 1/4th of what I ask my studio 
system to run.

Should be no problem to load up a copy of "Live" and Absynth, hook up a 
MIDI to CV for the modular and away I go...

Apple is going to make a mint off these little things, you watch.

-- 
Les Mizzell

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "gooboworks" <andy@g...> wrote:
> Apple 
> today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am 
> interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.  
> Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there
products 
> out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?
> 
> I would like to do home multi-track recording of my MOTM synth, 
> nothing really elaborate.
> 
Andy

The mini should do it out of the box, with a suitable audio
interface. 

Garageband now has eight-channel recording capabilities, which could
make this a dirt cheap, mobile audio rig.

Aren't we all modular synth lovers, and doesn't that mean we are all
lusting for a massive 
computer of the golden age that thirty times heaver than a synth cab
and twice as wide as 
the drum riser?

Wouldn't a power book be choice then the moniter and keyboard is
right there for the gig 
also.


--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "elle_webb" <elle_webb@h...> wrote:
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "gooboworks" <andy@g...> wrote:
> > Apple 
> > today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I
am 

> > interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.
 
> > Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there
> products 
> > out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?
> > 
> > I would like to do home multi-track recording of my MOTM synth, 
> > nothing really elaborate.
> > 
> Andy
> 
> The mini should do it out of the box, with a suitable audio
> interface. 
> 
> Garageband now has eight-channel recording capabilities, which could
> make this a dirt cheap, mobile audio rig.

At 3:37 AM +0000 1/12/05, crmatt99 wrote:
>Wouldn't a power book be choice then the moniter and keyboard is
>right there for the gig

Actually, as my PowerBook was recently stolen (which I use with 
Digital Performer to record all my stuff) I've been looking at new 
portables. The Mac mini, when you add in a monitor, keyboard, mouse 
and enough memory to matter costs around $1700. An iBook with the 
same basic specs costs, surprise, around $1700. Hmmm. For an extra 
$1000, you can get a PowerBook with the light-up keyboard (actually 
very worth it), faster processor, larger monitor and the capability 
to hook up an additional monitor (the iBook can only mirror the 
built-in screen).

Executive summary: have the money, get a PowerBook, want portable for 
less get the iBook. Nothing against the Mac mini, but as it's only 
got a G4 I'd go with the iBook or the PowerBook (if you have the 
money). Once Apple starts making G5 PowerBooks, though, the equation 
changes as the extra power of the G5 over the G4 will make a big 
difference.

My humble opinions, of course. <g>


          Seth

>> >   Apple today announced the new Mac Mini.
>> It doesn't have the ability to record.
> Of course it does, just add the appropriate software and interface.

Whoops... I got it confused with the iShuffle or whatever the home 
pregnancy thing is called. ;-)

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley             "The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of
Synthcom Systems, Inc.    our marketing combined with the stupidity of our
                           people.." -  Bill Maher

At 04:41 PM 1/11/2005 -0800, Neil Bradley wrote:

>It doesn't have the ability to record.
>
>Though there is rumor it also doubles as a pregnancy test stick. ;-)

You're thinking about the new iPod.  See attached picture.  :)

JDM

> Executive summary: have the money, get a PowerBook, want portable for
> less get the iBook. Nothing against the Mac mini, but as it's only
> got a G4 I'd go with the iBook or the PowerBook (if you have the
> money). Once Apple starts making G5 PowerBooks, though, the equation
> changes as the extra power of the G5 over the G4 will make a big
> difference.

There's some information on today's Macintouch (www.macintouch.com)
comparing what it would cost to buy a complete Mac mini system (monitor,
keyboard, etc.) vs. buying an iMac. Of course anybody with older hardware
that they can press into service would have to do their own calculations,
but the Mac mini isn't quite as cheap as it first seems, it appears.

Another drawback with respect to using it for music is that it has a 2.5"
hard drive, which is not likely to have the throughput of a larger 3.5"
drive. It also apparently has a slower system bus speed than other Mac
models.

But in any case it will be interesting to see how it fares in real-world
performance situations, once people get their hands on them. Personally I
think the best uses for the thing would be as a headless server for media
and other stuff (like my CVS repository), and as part of a CPU farm for
taking advantage of Cubase's and Logic's ability to use several machines at
once.

--Adam

On Jan 12, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Adam Schabtach wrote:

>> Executive summary: have the money, get a PowerBook, want portable for
>> less get the iBook. Nothing against the Mac mini, but as it's only
>> got a G4 I'd go with the iBook or the PowerBook (if you have the
>> money). Once Apple starts making G5 PowerBooks, though, the equation
>> changes as the extra power of the G5 over the G4 will make a big
>> difference.
>
> There's some information on today's Macintouch (www.macintouch.com)
> comparing what it would cost to buy a complete Mac mini system 
> (monitor,
> keyboard, etc.) vs. buying an iMac. Of course anybody with older 
> hardware
> that they can press into service would have to do their own 
> calculations,
> but the Mac mini isn't quite as cheap as it first seems, it appears.
>
> Another drawback with respect to using it for music is that it has a 
> 2.5"
> hard drive, which is not likely to have the throughput of a larger 3.5"
> drive. It also apparently has a slower system bus speed than other Mac
> models.
>
> But in any case it will be interesting to see how it fares in 
> real-world
> performance situations, once people get their hands on them. 
> Personally I
> think the best uses for the thing would be as a headless server for 
> media
> and other stuff (like my CVS repository), and as part of a CPU farm for
> taking advantage of Cubase's and Logic's ability to use several 
> machines at
> once.
>
> --Adam

The way I look at it, the macmini is a sign of things to come.  Feature 
to feature, it's a better deal than a cheepo PC.  It's got a G4, not a 
celeron, and firewire.  In a couple years this will have a G5 with 
gigabit ethernet.  Then we can stack them on a shelf for our 
distributed processing system.

woot!

--
Chris Walcott
Chief Engineer
Fake Science
email: chris@...
website: www.fakescience.com
phone: +1.510.336.1241

On Jan 11, 2005, at 7:37 PM, crmatt99 wrote:



>
> Aren't we all modular synth lovers, and doesn't that mean we are all
> lusting for a massive
> computer of the golden age that thirty times heaver than a synth cab
> and twice as wide as
> the drum riser?
>
> Wouldn't a power book be choice then the moniter and keyboard is
> right there for the gig

I think an Atari ST would be more appropriate for that "vintage" 
sequencing experience :)

--mikes

> I would like to do home multi-track recording of my MOTM synth,
> nothing really elaborate.

IMHO, you really need to sink some serious cash into a computer rig to get a
good sound (unless you think M-Audio or MBox sounds good... but even the
MBox is pricey for what it is), while a tape-based solution (like a 4-track
reel-to-reel or a Portastudio) is much more forgiving with a smaller
investment. Is there a reason you want to go digital? There are definitely
advantages, but if you just want to record and don't need non-linear format,
maybe an analog solution would suit you better. It's easier for capturing a
moment too -- Without having benchmarked it, I have to imagine that boot
time on a Mini is slower than on a tape recorder.

Another alternative you might want to consider is picking up an old E-mu
Darwin. I use one for live backing tracks, and the converters are really
warm and musical. I just sold one (I had two) not too long ago for... I
can't remember, maybe $175? That's dirt cheap compared to a Mini plus an
audio interface (the Mini doesn't have an audio input), plus a monitor...
and depending on the audio interface you buy, it could very well sound
better too. It won't run Digital Performer though; it's a digital box, but
it's audio only (clocks to MIDI though).

More food for thought: I have to keep multiple copies of my digital
projects, because there's a rather limited life expectancy for a CDR, DVD,
or hard drive. Meanwhile, I've been careful about storing all my old tapes
(everything from 2" reels to  consumer cassettes) and they play as well
today as they did the day I recorded on them.

Fwiw & ymmv, one of the best sounding home-produced projects that any of my
friends came up with recently was done on a Portastudio. And the
worst-sounding was done in Cubase.

Anyway, maybe you're commited to a digital rig for very good reasons (I am!)
I just wanted to throw some conflicting ideas out there in case you had
simply bought into all the marketing hype that would suggest that digital is
better. It ain't -- it's just different.

> now, if you could run macos 9 on it.... [fx: dodges flying garbage]

Or 7.6.1!!!  ;-))

best,
- Scott
____________
http://www.red-noise.com
http://www.strawberryplanet.org

Scott Gibbons wrote:

> More food for thought: I have to keep multiple copies of my digital
> projects, because there's a rather limited life expectancy for a CDR, DVD,
> or hard drive.


Might I inquire where you get this information? I remember hearing something 
similiar in the late 80s that "CDs won't last longer than 10-15 years", but here 
it's over 20 years since I got my copy of Billy Joel's Nylon Curtain and it, 
along with 3 other CDs I got in 1983, still play and work flawlessly - even in 
my old Sony CDP-101 player I bought!

Also, I burned CDRs in 1996 for system backups I made when I migrated from one 
machine to another and I just plopped them in my system - lo and behold, they 
all still work. In fact, I can't remember a CDR with a successful burn that 
didn't work - of any era. What information do you base the above assertion on?

And you'll get no argument on the life expectancy of hard drives. ;-)

-->Neil

> Might I inquire where you get this information? I remember hearing
something
> similiar in the late 80s that "CDs won't last longer than 10-15 years",
but here
> it's over 20 years since I got my copy of Billy Joel's Nylon Curtain and
it,
> along with 3 other CDs I got in 1983, still play and work flawlessly -
even in
> my old Sony CDP-101 player I bought!

hello all
i think the issue here is down to the dye used - as the dye is
photo-reactive i think the early dyes were yet to be perfected. so i suspect
the early CDs survivability depends on the storage & light conditions. dyes
have gotten a lot better in recent years, in the late 90's i think there was
an article in Audio Media looking at media lifespans - a good CDR (for
example HHB CDR74 Gold) is expected to last 100 years. it's DATs i'm really
worried about - but then again i was recently forced to re-master a pile of
stuff from DAT for itunes - so the really important stuff is backed up to
CDROM now...

cheers
paul

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "gooboworks" <andy@g...> wrote:
> 
> Ok, well I do not know much about digital recording.   I have never 
> done it, and I am unaware of the "gotcha's" that must exist.  
Apple 
> today announced the new Mac Mini.  It has 256 MB of memory.   I am 
> interested in this little thing to do multitrack audio recording.  
> Any opinions on this?    Is this Mac too small?    Are there
products 
> out there that would work well with the new Mac Mini?
> 
The memory can be upgraded pretty easily, getting 512 MB is only
slightly more. 

The hard drive looks like it will be a concern, though. According to
the Macweek report, the disk is a 4200 rpm drive. I'd expect that to
cut the number of tracks of audio that you can work with at a time. 

To use this for music, it might make sense to use internal disk for
the operating system, and get a high-speed firewire drive for your
files.