Mac Model And Sound Quality

[Larry Mal]

Can you show me this thread? I'm pretty skeptical.

Also, without knowing how you plan to work, or with what, it's going to be really hard to help you. What is your audio interface, Firewire, USB or PCIe? This can make a bit of difference (and don't say USB).

Of all the factors, the one I'd worry about the least is the sound quality of the computer- I mean, a computer doesn't have a "sound quality" per se, it just records what it is told to record from whatever interface is telling it.

On the other hand, there are huge differences in workflow between all of those models, but without knowing what you plan to do I can't make any kind of suggestion.

If you can afford it, get a Mac Pro- they're the flagship of the Apple line for a reason.

[djanthonyw]

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by djanthonyw

ROTFL.........damned, you were faster......

[Larry Mal]

Come on, there's no need for that... it's a legitimate question.

Here's a simple way of how audio is recorded digitally: 1) a microphone or a direct in is used to send audio signal into a preamp, 2) the preamp amplifies the signal, 3) the signal is sent to an analog to digital converter, 4) your computer writes down the information coming from the converter.

The computer doesn't color the sound at that point. All it does is process and write what your performance and other machines tell it to process and write.

But there are worlds of difference between preamps, microphones, the room in which you record, the A/D converters, and everything else. The last thing to consider is the "sound quality" of the computer. If it can do the job, then it will do it as best it can.

Get the best computer you can afford for audio.

[djanthonyw]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

ROTFL.........damned, you were faster......

That's what she said.

[octatonic]

[Karloff70]

Ok, so I went to have a look at computeraudiophile.com, and uncannily they DO actually chat about different macs sounding better than others....apparently a single G5 is the best sounding..........now that calls for a definite:

[andsonic]

I too took a peak over there. I feel as if I've fallen down the rabbit hole.
They're nutz

[octatonic]

Just checked it out as well.
It is a bit of a car-crash.

Had an idea though: we could "virtually flashmob" them.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by octatonic

Just checked it out as well.
It is a bit of a car-crash.

Had an idea though: we could "virtually flashmob" them.

lol. Stir it up a bit. Go in and propose that in your tests done in white lab coats the Mac mini is much cleaner sounding than the macbook, but not quite as clean as the Mac pro........LOL Get them testing busy

[Hardtoe]

Well, my iPod touch sounds significantly better than my old Mini - I assume it's a better headphone amp....

Do all mac models have the same basic soundcard? I doubt it.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Hardtoe

Well, my iPod touch sounds significantly better than my old Mini - I assume it's a better headphone amp....

Do all mac models have the same basic soundcard? I doubt it.

Yes, but that lot is talking about in conjunction with Lynx cards and stuff.....not the internal minijack....lol

[Hardtoe]

Well

I guess it was even more of an issue when all the multicoloured iMacs first dropped.

"Blueberry sounds so much warmer than Strawberry - but Snow has a high end sheen"

Totally cool beans.

[Firechild]

Now it is waterproof. Steve Jobs confirmed it tonight.
I will post a youtube link soon.
The iPad has the best audio quality. Hands up.
The mac Pro sounds like a Bontempi toy keyboard and the iPad is even better than the Prism even though no analog conversion took place in the test.
The MacPro sounded like a 4 track cassette portastudio from 1983. Very much fluttering and noise compared to the iPad. The iPad even said " I am too perfect, bring me some distortion" during the test. Despite that minor error, the iPad was the superior device with Apple Lisa and Apple II europlus coming up very close behind.

[gdoubleyou]

All of the MacIntels contain the same internal hardware.

Some Late G4's also contain the hardware with optical SPDIF.

Don't think different cpus would make the same interface sound different.
Audio performance may be different (track and plug counts), but sound?

[Firechild]

Originally Posted by gdoubleyou

All of the MacIntels contain the same internal hardware.

Some Late G4's also contain the hardware with optical SPDIF.

Don't think different cpus would make the same interface sound different.
Audio performance may be different (track and plug counts), but sound?

You are wrong, Different CPU´s are affecting the sound a lot. Look at my post above. The iPad A4 CPU is the best for audio, all categories.
Digidesign has ordered 1.450.000 units to use in the next Pro Tool HD mark II interfaces next summer. Every DSP HDmII will include 200 A4 CPU´s giving you the ability to run 400 000 instances of the Lexicon PCM native reverb. even Hans Zimmer said the A4 cpu is the best audio CPU he has heard. He ordered 5.000.000 units to build a special build DAW for Gladiator III release autumn 2013.

[spasm_dtc]

....ok, as far as DAWs with an outboard soundcard are concerned:

CPU'S DON'T HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON SOUND QUALITY - WHOEVER TOLD YOU THE CONTRARY WAS TRYING TO MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOU!!!

seriously, that's the biggest, most senseless bullshit i've EVER read/heard/seen concerning digital audio - in fact, besides the AD/DA , preamps, transformers and physical plugs of your onboard mac audio device (or chip or whatever), no physical part of your mac/pc has any influence on the sound.
Don't tell me you really believe that a Core i7 sounds better than a PPC G5 ????? And how in god's name could one explain that ?

i can't believe i'm even replying to that nonsense (and that's really really just to stay polite)!

As far as the built-in in/outputs of the macs are concerned, they mostly sound like crap and are definitely not suitable for pro-audio use. This said, you always have the choice of using the digital i/o's (optical) and wire that into any good soundcard. And don't come tell me that the sound will suck unless you use the cowdung-iodine-fumes optimised, mushroom soup extract enhanced optic fiber cable.

[miro]

what about this?

SRC Comparisons

on top select apple core audio - tiger
on bottom select apple core audio - leopard

[psycho_monkey]

I wonder how many people at this lunatic asylum of a website get paid for their abilites to use their single g5s to actually make any music?

[Firechild]

Originally Posted by spasm_dtc

....ok, as far as DAWs with an outboard soundcard are concerned:

CPU'S DON'T HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON SOUND QUALITY - WHOEVER TOLD YOU THE CONTRARY WAS TRYING TO MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOU!!!

seriously, that's the biggest, most senseless bullshit i've EVER read/heard/seen concerning digital audio - in fact, besides the AD/DA , preamps, transformers and physical plugs of your onboard mac audio device (or chip or whatever), no physical part of your mac/pc has any influence on the sound.
Don't tell me you really believe that a Core i7 sounds better than a PPC G5 ????? And how in god's name could one explain that ?

i can't believe i'm even replying to that nonsense (and that's really really just to stay polite)!

As far as the built-in in/outputs of the macs are concerned, they mostly sound like crap and are definitely not suitable for pro-audio use. This said, you always have the choice of using the digital i/o's (optical) and wire that into any good soundcard. And don't come tell me that the sound will suck unless you use the cowdung-iodine-fumes optimised, mushroom soup extract enhanced optic fiber cable.

so, take it easy... I guess the whole thread is kind of gearslutz humor?
If someone take this thread seriously, my apologies if If my irony doesn´t come up clear. And if someone really believes CPU:s affect soundquality. Please feel free to contact a doctor.

[spasm_dtc]

@Firechild: ooops..then i'm very very sorry - i must say that i read this kind of statement about a thousand times here and elsewhere and i just could't take it one more time i guess. I know kids who firmly believe in that crap and it's just unbearable to be forced to explain the same thig over and over again.
no offence intended really! i'll read better next time

@psychomonkey:

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I wonder how many people at this lunatic asylum of a website get paid for their abilites to use their single g5s to actually make any music?

i actually know a lot of people who still run G5's in their studio (along with uad's and/or other dsp's) with great success and without any real wil or need to change right away - never be too eager to change a working workstation. In fact i always go through a phase of regrets when i can't help upgrading (wat can i say, i love machines), because everytime i have to say goodbye to some useful plugins or hardware. In a way that's part of what makes you evolve, constantly trying out new tools, but it's still a pain everytime.

[psycho_monkey]

@psychomonkey:
i actually know a lot of people who still run G5's in their studio (along with uad's and/or other dsp's) with great success and without any real wil or need to change right away - never be too eager to change a working workstation. In fact i always go through a phase of regrets when i can't help upgrading (wat can i say, i love machines), because everytime i have to say goodbye to some useful plugins or hardware. In a way that's part of what makes you evolve, constantly trying out new tools, but it's still a pain everytime.[/QUOTE]

you totally missed my point.

I wasn't having a dig at those using g5s, I was pointing out that none of the superstitious, unscientific idiots on these forums actually has a career making music, or in anything audio except possibly selling snake oil to other idiots.

You can bet the vast majority of them don't have a proper listening room. I don't know any pro engineer in the uk who would support this view (and I've worked for an awful lot of them over here - Grammy winners, specialist mixers etc).

As with the audiophiles a little bit of experience combined with a total lack of scientific background is a dangerous thing

[Tui]

Originally Posted by andsonic

They're nutz

gearnutz.

[AlexK]

Originally Posted by miro

what about this?

SRC Comparisons

on top select apple core audio - tiger
on bottom select apple core audio - leopard

That's to do with sample rate conversion, and differences are a result of differences in conversion algorithms (software).

My G3 iMac with an optical output would sound exactly the same as my 20" Intel iMac, despite X years difference.

A 1 is still a 1, and a 0 still a 0, regardless of whether it's coming out of a brand new iMac, a G4 PowerMac or a digital watch.

[area51recording]

Well, I've got a Mac Pro I bought last year. Sounds pretty good, but I still keep and old Beige G3 around for when I want that "vintage" vibe....

[Larry Mal]

Well, say what you will, but my tube computer has a sound that you just can't get otherwise.

Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Cm_tube_computer.gif

Still PCI, though.

[spasm_dtc]

+1, but i have to say my germanium-coated french-fries sound better than any other full-class-A dishwasher, especially in Cubase.

[msl]

Yeah my mac sounded like ass, but I got me some Brilliant Pebbles and now it like, rocks!

[gdoubleyou]

Originally Posted by Firechild

You are wrong, Different CPU´s are affecting the sound a lot. Look at my post above. The iPad A4 CPU is the best for audio, all categories.
Digidesign has ordered 1.450.000 units to use in the next Pro Tool HD mark II interfaces next summer. Every DSP HDmII will include 200 A4 CPU´s giving you the ability to run 400 000 instances of the Lexicon PCM native reverb. even Hans Zimmer said the A4 cpu is the best audio CPU he has heard. He ordered 5.000.000 units to build a special build DAW for Gladiator III release autumn 2013.