[sam]

I'm building a home studio and plan on spending about $4000 on a
computer. It will be used for recording and only recording. swee****er
makes these cool "creation stations" that are rack mountable and built
for recording but people seem to think macs just run better. I'm a
p.c. user at home.
so should I go with one of these?:

http://www.swee****er.com/creation_s.../csrackpro.php

with a 23+ size monitor or should I go with a mac pro desk-top with 2
gigs of Ram, and a 23 inch monitor?

please help, I have no knowledge of computers.

[[email protected]]

Mac has a beautiful computer called an iMac. It is the monitor and
computer all built into one. They make a 24" model. It is quite
powerful, outstanding display, and you can run Windows on it using
bootcamp. Try one out at the Apple store. They cost $1999 with a
2.0ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Increasing the ram to 2 gig is a
good idea, but if you do that they might not let you return it, since
they then call it a custom-configured computer. So you might want to
get the one gig of ram, and if you really like it, add 2 gigs on your
own. If you return it, you will likely still have to pay the 10%
restock fee no matter what. But if you hate it, it's not the end of
the world losing $200. I know this sounds crazy. But there is no
other computer like it, so if you love it, it's killer. If you tried
to get a 24" monitor of similar quality it would cost you $700 or
more. Add $1000 for the computer, and you are at $1700, and a lot of
extra bulk, wires and fan noise. The 24" iMac is about as quiet as
you can expect for a modern machine. It's solid without being heavy
or bulky. It's the greatest all-in-one computer ever made.

You can get a 256 meg graphics card. But the standard 128meg card (as
far as my research can see) does not have a fan, but the 256 meg card
does. 128 megs of video ram is more than enough for audio work. I
used to run 32 meg Matrox cards all day long with no problems at all.
And this was recently. Not much has changed in DAW visuals. I'd go
for the quiet over the ego trip.

It's worth a trip to the Apple store to try one. They will let you
play around forever if you want. They typically have at least one
computer in the store setup with Bootcamp. So have them show you the
computer with Windows on it.

[Here In Oregon]

I just don't understand why more people don't use dual monitors. Three
workstations here with dual monitors with screen real estate just under 40
inches. Good 19 inch widescreen flat panels are cheap now.
If your watching movies that is one thing but dual monitors are perfect for
a DAW.


wrote in message
ups.com...
Mac has a beautiful computer called an iMac. It is the monitor and
computer all built into one. They make a 24" model. It is quite
powerful, outstanding display, and you can run Windows on it using
bootcamp. Try one out at the Apple store. They cost $1999 with a
2.0ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Increasing the ram to 2 gig is a
good idea, but if you do that they might not let you return it, since
they then call it a custom-configured computer. So you might want to
get the one gig of ram, and if you really like it, add 2 gigs on your
own. If you return it, you will likely still have to pay the 10%
restock fee no matter what. But if you hate it, it's not the end of
the world losing $200. I know this sounds crazy. But there is no
other computer like it, so if you love it, it's killer. If you tried
to get a 24" monitor of similar quality it would cost you $700 or
more. Add $1000 for the computer, and you are at $1700, and a lot of
extra bulk, wires and fan noise. The 24" iMac is about as quiet as
you can expect for a modern machine. It's solid without being heavy
or bulky. It's the greatest all-in-one computer ever made.

You can get a 256 meg graphics card. But the standard 128meg card (as
far as my research can see) does not have a fan, but the 256 meg card
does. 128 megs of video ram is more than enough for audio work. I
used to run 32 meg Matrox cards all day long with no problems at all.
And this was recently. Not much has changed in DAW visuals. I'd go
for the quiet over the ego trip.

It's worth a trip to the Apple store to try one. They will let you
play around forever if you want. They typically have at least one
computer in the store setup with Bootcamp. So have them show you the
computer with Windows on it.

[Laurence Payne]

On 7 May 2007 19:51:21 -0700, sam
wrote:

I'm building a home studio and plan on spending about $4000 on a
computer. It will be used for recording and only recording. swee****er
makes these cool "creation stations" that are rack mountable and built
for recording but people seem to think macs just run better. I'm a
p.c. user at home.
so should I go with one of these?:

http://www.swee****er.com/creation_s.../csrackpro.php

with a 23+ size monitor or should I go with a mac pro desk-top with 2
gigs of Ram, and a 23 inch monitor?

please help, I have no knowledge of computers.


That's a LOT of money! Perhaps you're including a quality audio
interface in that price?

No need to go for designer gear. I think you'd find dual 20" monitors
more useful than one giant monitor.

Macs have pretty cases :-)

[sam]

That's a LOT of money! Perhaps you're including a quality audio
interface in that price?

Yes it is, I'm spending about $22,000 on everything. it's more a pro-
project studio then it is a home studio.

[John Albert]

I just don't understand why more people don't use dual monitors. Three
workstations here with dual monitors with screen real estate just under 40
inches.

It's worth noting that the current Intel-based Apple iMacs have a mini-DVI
port into which you can plug a standalone LCD monitor, and have an extended desktop....

- John

[sam]

On May 7, 8:13 pm, wrote:
Mac has a beautiful computer called an iMac. It is the monitor and
computer all built into one. They make a 24" model. It is quite
powerful, outstanding display, and you can run Windows on it using
bootcamp. Try one out at the Apple store. They cost $1999 with a
2.0ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Increasing the ram to 2 gig is a
good idea, but if you do that they might not let you return it, since
they then call it a custom-configured computer. So you might want to
get the one gig of ram, and if you really like it, add 2 gigs on your
own. If you return it, you will likely still have to pay the 10%
restock fee no matter what. But if you hate it, it's not the end of
the world losing $200. I know this sounds crazy. But there is no
other computer like it, so if you love it, it's killer. If you tried
to get a 24" monitor of similar quality it would cost you $700 or
more. Add $1000 for the computer, and you are at $1700, and a lot of
extra bulk, wires and fan noise. The 24" iMac is about as quiet as
you can expect for a modern machine. It's solid without being heavy
or bulky. It's the greatest all-in-one computer ever made.

You can get a 256 meg graphics card. But the standard 128meg card (as
far as my research can see) does not have a fan, but the 256 meg card
does. 128 megs of video ram is more than enough for audio work. I
used to run 32 meg Matrox cards all day long with no problems at all.
And this was recently. Not much has changed in DAW visuals. I'd go
for the quiet over the ego trip.

It's worth a trip to the Apple store to try one. They will let you
play around forever if you want. They typically have at least one
computer in the store setup with Bootcamp. So have them show you the
computer with Windows on it.

yea I use those all day long at school, and I love them, but it's just
not really what I'm looking for, The monitor is going to sitting a few
feet away from me and It just seems like it would suck to have the
whole computer that far away. Also, for some odd reason, my partner in
this deal has a strong disliking for the imac, he is a mac user, but
he just hates the imac. I don't know why. I will make him try one out
at a store because I'm down to experiment.

[vas]

On May 7, 9:51 pm, sam wrote:
I'm building a home studio and plan on spending about $4000 on a
computer. It will be used for recording and only recording. swee****er
makes these cool "creation stations" that are rack mountable and built
for recording but people seem to think macs just run better. I'm a
p.c. user at home.
so should I go with one of these?:

http://www.swee****er.com/creation_s.../csrackpro.php

with a 23+ size monitor or should I go with a mac pro desk-top with 2
gigs of Ram, and a 23 inch monitor?

please help, I have no knowledge of computers.


Which software package do you want to run? Performer, Logic, Pro
Tools HD -- Mac (and if you get a Mac, you might as well get the best
they have to offer, so forget the iMac). Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar,
Audition, Vegas --PC. Pro Tools LE seems to run pretty well on
either platform. Since you know nothing about computers by your own
admission, and if you decide to get a PC, get someone to build you a
box. Swee****er is ok, but you'll get more bang for your money with a
dedicated place like ADK: http://www.adkproaudio.com/.

I hope you've allocated some of that $22K for room treatment/isolation
solutions.

Peace,
--Vas

ps: Intel Macs are nothing more than custom PCs that can boot OS X,
but Apple's support for their own hardware under windows is iffy, and
you can't really blame them for it. It's a noble endeavor though, to
try to use the machine with both operating systems - if you want to
blaze trails that is.

[Meindert Sprang]

"vas" wrote in message
oups.com...
Since you know nothing about computers by your own
admission, and if you decide to get a PC, get someone to build you a
box.

I think that statement automatically excludes the use of a PC. I believe a
Mac is the only way to go if you want to use a computer without having to be
a computer techie....

Meindert

[HKC]

It totally depends on your choice of software. If you're going to use
Steinberg products buy a PC, Logic or Performer a Mac. Pro Tools used to be
Mac only but I think it works well on both platforms now (but I'm not sure,
it does work on Mac).
Personally I used to be on PC and Logic but when Logic was taken over by
Apple I tried most of the competition of which I was quite familiar with
Cubase which I used for a long time (13 years actually). Eventually I
decided that I liked Logic better than Windows so I changed to Logic on Mac
which has been great for me.
Anyway, when I was on PC it was stable and now on Mac it's also stable which
means no breakdowns, pops, crackles etc. To many people this question (PC vs
Mac) is a matter of religion, to me it's just a tool to record music.
You should also be aware that your soundcard must be one of the great ones,
otherwise you will not get any of the advantages of a specially built
computer. It's absolute imperative that you are able to run with a
buffersetting of 128 while multitracking. Also be aware that many firewire
cards have a hidden safetybuffer so while it may say 128 on the setting it
could be far more in reality. I have a client with a M-Audio firewire-card
where he can run with a 32 buffersetting, the only problem is that it's
significantly slower than my Hammerfall at the 128 setting so look out.

[Mogens V.]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
"vas" wrote in message
oups.com...

Since you know nothing about computers by your own
admission, and if you decide to get a PC, get someone to build you a
box.


I think that statement automatically excludes the use of a PC. I believe a
Mac is the only way to go if you want to use a computer without having to be
a computer techie....

Meindert

You may have a point there. Using a PC for demanding applications tends
to require in-depth knowledge at some point, no matter what dedicated PC
users say (who often forget the time to aquire that knowledge).

I've been into PC with M$ software, Unix and in the latter few years,
Mac's, which I got into because most all tedious things simply worked of
the bat, so I could concentrate on actually using the stuff.

Anyways, the OP may want to get into all the tech stuff anyways,
building a serious studio (judging from the investments), but having to
work out PC issues at the same time may not be cost effective.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Laurence Payne]

On 7 May 2007 22:19:44 -0700, sam
wrote:


That's a LOT of money! Perhaps you're including a quality audio
interface in that price?

Yes it is, I'm spending about $22,000 on everything. it's more a pro-
project studio then it is a home studio.

Well, I think you could get an excellent computer for half that. No
need for overkill. Whatever you buy will be superceded for half the
price in 6 months anyway, computers are like that :-)

[Geoff]

sam wrote:
I'm building a home studio and plan on spending about $4000 on a
computer. It will be used for recording and only recording. swee****er
makes these cool "creation stations" that are rack mountable and built
for recording but people seem to think macs just run better. I'm a
p.c. user at home.
so should I go with one of these?:

http://www.swee****er.com/creation_s.../csrackpro.php

with a 23+ size monitor or should I go with a mac pro desk-top with 2
gigs of Ram, and a 23 inch monitor?

please help, I have no knowledge of computers.

Decide what application you want to use, and get the appropriate computer.
$4k sounds too much to spend, including a quality audio i/o interface !

PC gives you more choice of everything (including the chance to cock things
up), but Macs make you *feel* more creative.

Whatever you do, don't get a big screen - get two smaller ones.


geoff

[Ken Winokur]

The $4000 you have to spend on the computer isn't totally out of
line. The basic Mac Pro (dual 2.6 gig) desktop costs $2500. You'll
need to add at least 1 gig of ram and you're close to $3000. If you
do lots of virtual instruments, you probably want more ram.

If you go up a notch to the faster (dual 3 gig processors) you'll go
up a few more hundred dollars. Probably only necessary if you are
planning many tracks and lots of processing.

Then there's the hardrives. Whether you put them in the computer or
outboard, they'll cost some more.

So - you're close to $4000 (without soundcard or monitor).

Mac or PC? Do you have friends with other studios? For me there's
no choice. My wife uses Mac (in her video editing studio) and all my
musician friends use Mac. I can swap files, software etc with them
without problems. We often record stuff in my studio (I have better
rooms) and then move the tracks to my friends studio (he's got a
faster computer and better processing). Here in Boston almost all
musicians seem to use Mac. I have the sense that that's not true in
other parts of the country. For me it's all about compatibility with
others.

Ken

[Scott Dorsey]

sam wrote:
I'm building a home studio and plan on spending about $4000 on a
computer. It will be used for recording and only recording. swee****er
makes these cool "creation stations" that are rack mountable and built
for recording but people seem to think macs just run better. I'm a
p.c. user at home.
so should I go with one of these?:

http://www.swee****er.com/creation_s.../csrackpro.php

with a 23+ size monitor or should I go with a mac pro desk-top with 2
gigs of Ram, and a 23 inch monitor?

please help, I have no knowledge of computers.

Pick an audio application that you like. Get a feel for it.
Then buy whatever computer it will run on.

Personally, I will tend to recommend the Mac as a better-designed platform,
but it really doesn't matter at all if you happen to like an application
that doesn't run on the Mac. Other folks will tell you the PC is cheaper
and has a larger installed base, but that doesn't matter at all if you
happen to like an application that doesn't run on the PC. Get whatever
runs the application you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On 8 May 2007 05:14:53 -0700, Ken Winokur wrote:

The $4000 you have to spend on the computer isn't totally out of
line. The basic Mac Pro (dual 2.6 gig) desktop costs $2500. You'll
need to add at least 1 gig of ram and you're close to $3000. If you
do lots of virtual instruments, you probably want more ram.

$500 for a GB of RAM? Where on Earth are you buying?

[HKC]

"Here in Boston almost all musicians seem to use Mac."

It's true that in pro world Mac is bigger but if your clients aren't pros
then PC is way bigger. Same thing if you're doing techno/electronica so
nothing is black and white but it's a good thing to check what your
potential clients are using.
One thing that is greatly exagerated is the price difference between the 2
choices. While it's true that you can buy very cheap PCs then it's also true
that you can't do professional recordings on these so you will have to build
a super PC which is very close to a Mac in price.
So like a wrote earlier the tough decision lies in which program you want to
use.

[drichard]

On May 8, 1:51 am, vas wrote:
On May 7, 9:51 pm, sam wrote:

That's the best advice yet. For $4K you get almost anything you want
in a computer. But the real decision is which DAW package to build it
around. Some good choices for PC are Samplitude, Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar.
Others can recommend Mac products. Pro Tools is common.

Dean

I'm building a home studio and plan on spending about $4000 on a
computer. It will be used for recording and only recording. swee****er
makes these cool "creation stations" that are rack mountable and built
for recording but people seem to think macs just run better. I'm a
p.c. user at home.
so should I go with one of these?:

http://www.swee****er.com/creation_s.../csrackpro.php

with a 23+ size monitor or should I go with a mac pro desk-top with 2
gigs of Ram, and a 23 inch monitor?

please help, I have no knowledge of computers.

Which software package do you want to run? Performer, Logic, Pro
Tools HD -- Mac (and if you get a Mac, you might as well get the best
they have to offer, so forget the iMac). Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar,
Audition, Vegas --PC. Pro Tools LE seems to run pretty well on
either platform. Since you know nothing about computers by your own
admission, and if you decide to get a PC, get someone to build you a
box. Swee****er is ok, but you'll get more bang for your money with a
dedicated place like ADK:http://www.adkproaudio.com/.

I hope you've allocated some of that $22K for room treatment/isolation
solutions.

Peace,
--Vas

ps: Intel Macs are nothing more than custom PCs that can boot OS X,
but Apple's support for their own hardware under windows is iffy, and
you can't really blame them for it. It's a noble endeavor though, to
try to use the machine with both operating systems - if you want to
blaze trails that is.

[drichard]

Can't do pro work on a cheap PC??? I can't agree with that.

You can build a computer that will do 24 tracks with ease for a few
hundred dollars. The sound quality will depend on the I/O interface,
not the computer. And even a cheap computer these days can do a fair
number of FX.

Dean

On May 8, 8:48 am, "HKC" wrote:
"Here in Boston almost all musicians seem to use Mac."

It's true that in pro world Mac is bigger but if your clients aren't pros
then PC is way bigger. Same thing if you're doing techno/electronica so
nothing is black and white but it's a good thing to check what your
potential clients are using.
One thing that is greatly exagerated is the price difference between the 2
choices. While it's true that you can buy very cheap PCs then it's also true
that you can't do professional recordings on these so you will have to build
a super PC which is very close to a Mac in price.
So like a wrote earlier the tough decision lies in which program you want to
use.

[Ken Winokur]

On May 8, 9:39 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 8 May 2007 05:14:53 -0700, Ken Winokur wrote:

The $4000 you have to spend on the computer isn't totally out of
line. The basic Mac Pro (dual 2.6 gig) desktop costs $2500. You'll
need to add at least 1 gig of ram and you're close to $3000. If you
do lots of virtual instruments, you probably want more ram.

$500 for a GB of RAM? Where on Earth are you buying?

$300 at the Apple store. I was ballparking and thinking about tax.
That makes it almost exactly $3000 in a state with 5% sales tax.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:48:55 +0200, "HKC" wrote:

One thing that is greatly exagerated is the price difference between the 2
choices. While it's true that you can buy very cheap PCs then it's also true
that you can't do professional recordings on these so you will have to build
a super PC which is very close to a Mac in price.
So like a wrote earlier the tough decision lies in which program you want to
use.

You don't want cheap-and-nasty. But a PC built from quality parts and
perfectly capable of running a powerful DAW setup is amazingly cheap
these days. The actual PC is very close to being a commodity item
now. A full-featured DAW application may well cost more than the
hardware.

There are still people who will put you together a "specialist" PC at
a premium price. Look very closely at what you're getting. You may
be paying very dearly for last years hardware, and support which has a
habit of evaporating the minute you depart even slightly from the
setup as delivered.

[Laurence Payne]

On 8 May 2007 07:09:28 -0700, Ken Winokur wrote:

The $4000 you have to spend on the computer isn't totally out of
line. The basic Mac Pro (dual 2.6 gig) desktop costs $2500. You'll
need to add at least 1 gig of ram and you're close to $3000. If you
do lots of virtual instruments, you probably want more ram.

$500 for a GB of RAM? Where on Earth are you buying?

$300 at the Apple store.

So doubtless rather less for exactly the same thing elsewhere.

I was ballparking and thinking about tax.
That makes it almost exactly $3000 in a state with 5% sales tax.

Nice wriggle, though :-)

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 7 May 2007 23:41:41 -0400, Here In Oregon wrote
(in article ):

I just don't understand why more people don't use dual monitors.

because they are too easily put between the primary listening position and
the monitors; thereby screwing up the stereo imaging, among other things.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[HKC]

"drichard"
ups.com...
Can't do pro work on a cheap PC??? I can't agree with that.

You can build a computer that will do 24 tracks with ease for a few
hundred dollars. The sound quality will depend on the I/O interface,
not the computer. And even a cheap computer these days can do a fair
number of FX.


There's always room for good luck but I do quite a bit of setting up PCs and
some work, some don´t. The ones with carefully selected parts always work.
What I mean here is absolute stability, no crashes ever, no sudden glitches
etc. This is the only really big advantage that Mac has, if there is a
hardware issue all users have it so unlike PCs where 2 PCs can be (and often
are) without one single common part.
Like I stated in my first mail, I would happily have stayed with PCs if
Logic hadn't been taken over by Apple and I can find plenty of areas where
Macs aren't so great but, again, the software is more important than the
hardware if it's music you're in it for. The point is still, find the
program you like the best and buy the right computer to run it. If you're
running anything near a pro studio the price of the computer is not your
biggest expense and computers are so fast now that you don't have to upgrade
them at the pace you used to.

[Jon]

Using a PC for demanding applications tends
to require in-depth knowledge at some point, no matter what dedicated PC
users say (who often forget the time to aquire that knowledge).

Friend of mine, who actually works for IBM, contends that problems on
PCs using Windows crop up three times more often than problems with
Macs, and take three times longer to fix. He claims this is why many MIS
departments standardize on PCs -- so they'll always have troubleshooting
to do and keep themselves in a job.

I don't know if it's that severe a problem ... but there's a lot of
less-than-enthusiastic commentary about on Windows Vista, and many
things which just don't work yet with that OS.

Same friend, BTW, one time was visiting me and I fired up Digital
Performer. He'd been working with, I think, Cakewalk, and after a few
minutes said, "Wow, the Mac really is better than the PC for this stuff."

--
"Coloured and animated, the concerts and spectacles are as many
invitations to discover the universes of musicians and artists
who tint with happiness our reality."

[Mogens V.]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:48:55 +0200, "HKC" wrote:


One thing that is greatly exagerated is the price difference between the 2
choices. While it's true that you can buy very cheap PCs then it's also true
that you can't do professional recordings on these so you will have to build
a super PC which is very close to a Mac in price.
So like a wrote earlier the tough decision lies in which program you want to
use.


You don't want cheap-and-nasty. But a PC built from quality parts and
perfectly capable of running a powerful DAW setup is amazingly cheap
these days. The actual PC is very close to being a commodity item
now. A full-featured DAW application may well cost more than the
hardware.

True, if you know about hardware... I've been into computers since mid
80's and can't shop parts to build a new PC without spending weeks
poking manufacturers sites, review sites, entusiast sites et al.. making
sure I get quite new hardware, but not too new to have silicon hardware
errata issues, late-beta firmware and drivers. Maybe that's just me...
But if so, how's the OP supposed to know he's getting the Right Stuff?

There are still people who will put you together a "specialist" PC at
a premium price. Look very closely at what you're getting. You may
be paying very dearly for last years hardware, and support which has a
habit of evaporating the minute you depart even slightly from the
setup as delivered.

True, but the OP expressed severe lack of computer knowledge. which I
guess is why some (of us) suggests either a possibly less troublesome
Mac, or paying the premium for a real good PC from a reputed builder.
I also believe it may be a good advice and a valid starting point
choosing the DAW and then the hardware platform for that.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Ken Winokur]

Nice wriggle, though :-)

I did price out the same thing myself recently. I was thinking of the
dual 3 gig computer, lots of ram, larger hard drive. I was thinking
roughly $4000 myself. So when he said $4000, it seemed pretty close
to the real price. You've always got to add something to the apparent
cost (shipping, tax, cables, software etc. Apple care is also a
reasonable idea). It's better to budget a little more and be
surprised if it comes in at less.

Ken

[Geoff]

Jon wrote:
Using a PC for demanding applications tends
to require in-depth knowledge at some point, no matter what
dedicated PC users say (who often forget the time to aquire that
knowledge).

Friend of mine, who actually works for IBM, contends that problems on
PCs using Windows crop up three times more often than problems with
Macs, and take three times longer to fix.

Well that's pretty good, considering PCs outnumber Mac by more than 10 to 1
.. Those Macs must be really flakey.

geoff

[Geoff]

Ken Winokur wrote:
On May 8, 9:39 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On 8 May 2007 05:14:53 -0700, Ken Winokur wrote:

The $4000 you have to spend on the computer isn't totally out of
line. The basic Mac Pro (dual 2.6 gig) desktop costs $2500. You'll
need to add at least 1 gig of ram and you're close to $3000. If you
do lots of virtual instruments, you probably want more ram.

$500 for a GB of RAM? Where on Earth are you buying?

$300 at the Apple store. I was ballparking and thinking about tax.
That makes it almost exactly $3000 in a state with 5% sales tax.

$300 for a gig - another reason to avoid anything Apple.


geoff

[Here In Oregon]

because they are too easily put between the primary listening position and
the monitors; thereby screwing up the stereo imaging, among other things.

With all due respect Ty,... I disagree. Two flat 19" widescreen monitors
aligned and butted up to one another gives you roughly a 1 inch break in the
center and my audio monitors are professionally set-up and what I am hearing
seems to not have any significant effect. I wouldn't go over two twenties
though but my monitors clear my dual screens by a fairly good amount.
Triangulation,... or is it called strangulation ;-)



"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 May 2007 23:41:41 -0400, Here In Oregon wrote
(in article ):

I just don't understand why more people don't use dual monitors.

because they are too easily put between the primary listening position and
the monitors; thereby screwing up the stereo imaging, among other things.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[John Albert]

$300 at the Apple store. I was ballparking and thinking about tax. That
makes it almost exactly $3000 in a state with 5% sales tax.

DON'T buy RAM from The Apple Store. They ALWAYS overcharge.

Buy the basic RAM configuration from Apple, then add additional RAM yourself,
from a reliable vendor. I like datamem.com.

The same could be said for additional hard drive capacity.

- John

[Marc Wielage]

On May 8, 2007, Geoff commented:

$300 for a gig - another reason to avoid anything Apple.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days. But
their RAM prices are known to be awful. They want $300 for 2G, and $700 for
4G, which is out of line -- and that's if you buy it with a new computer.

A better place to go for Mac RAM is Other World Computing:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory

which has 4G of high-speed RAM for the new Intel Duo's for $419. In fact,
across the board, it's roughly $100 per 1G chip, depending on configuration
(as of 5/2007)

--MFW

[Geoff]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On May 8, 2007, Geoff commented:

$300 for a gig - another reason to avoid anything Apple.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days.

Well, they are certainly pretty colours...

geoff

[DC]

Geoff wrote:

Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days.


Well, they are certainly pretty colours...



What colors? Do you mean the iMacs from the '90's?

[david correia]

Now that was a pretty good run. No Mac vs PC vitriol here in a while.

That being the case, let me add that the Yankees suck and that Clemens
def belongs with dingbat Steinbrenner ; I canna wait til Rog hits the
DL at a million buckaroo bonzais a week.

Imagine: $147,000 dollars a *DAY* and he doesn't have to travel with the
team if he's not pitching. Damn! Julia Roberts didn't even charge
Richard Gere that much in Pretty Woman!






David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 9 May 2007 18:33:46 -0700, Marc Wielage
wrote:

Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days.

Well, they're nicely styled.... :-)

I'm just uncomfortable with their marketing approach, targeting the
ignorant and obsessing on "lifestyle" issues. They're selling
computers the way Bose sell audio.

[Mogens V.]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 18:33:46 -0700, Marc Wielage
wrote:


Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days.


Well, they're nicely styled.... :-)

I'm just uncomfortable with their marketing approach, targeting the
ignorant and obsessing on "lifestyle" issues. They're selling
computers the way Bose sell audio.

So what... their stuff works. It's just smart marketing, which I won't
oppose for things that actually works.
M$ has used smart marketing for what, couple decades, on halfways crappy
software, go figure...

Totally unrelated in here, if Novell had used smart marketing, we might
not have (almost) lost a damn fine server OS.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.



You should croos my wife with a Mac.
You'd get a wife that doesn't go down.
-- from the movie "Mad Dog and Glory"

[drichard]

Hi Laurence,

I really like that comparison. Apple's marketing does seem to parallel
the Bose model. Unfortunately it works. How many times have been heard
someone brag about their stereo or sound system and mention proudly
that they have Bose speakers?

Dean

On May 10, 5:18 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 18:33:46 -0700, Marc Wielage
wrote:

Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days.

Well, they're nicely styled.... :-)

I'm just uncomfortable with their marketing approach, targeting the
ignorant and obsessing on "lifestyle" issues. They're selling
computers the way Bose sell audio.

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 18:33:46 -0700, Marc Wielage
wrote:

Apple makes mostly terrific products (IMHO), especially these days.

Well, they're nicely styled.... :-)

I'm just uncomfortable with their marketing approach, targeting the
ignorant and obsessing on "lifestyle" issues. They're selling
computers the way Bose sell audio.

It works, though, the same way it works for Bose.

However, with OS X, Apple actually has a pretty stable and reliable platform
with a bunch of nice user interfaces, including (finally) a good command
line. I never thought the day would ever come that I'd recommend Apple
products because of the command line interface. It's a weird world, and it
sure isn't the computer market I expected a decade ago.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

I'm just uncomfortable with their marketing approach, targeting the
ignorant and obsessing on "lifestyle" issues. They're selling
computers the way Bose sell audio.

Hi Laurence,

I really like that comparison. Apple's marketing does seem to parallel
the Bose model. Unfortunately it works. How many times have been heard
someone brag about their stereo or sound system and mention proudly
that they have Bose speakers?


At least with a Mac, they probably have something that works as well
as the non-designer equivalent. Or will, once software and drivers
have fully caught up with the Intel change-over. (Yes, I know
there's a parallel with Vista. It's a questionable time to buy into
either new system.)