G5 Imac?, How will it cope? Options

[bloodychoir]

Does anyone have any idea how the new imac might measure up speed and track capacity wise, using say Logic Express? Would it be a good or a bad decision to buy a g5 imac loaded up to the gills with ram and a 1.8, or a powermac g5? That's considering the fact you then have to buy display etc. with the PM.

[shaneblyth]

I believe the front side bus speed on the G5 Imacs will be alot slower than any of the current tower G5's alot slower than the 3.5ghz and of course it will be a single processor rather than a dual still i am happy with my G4 1.5ghz laptop just depends on what your doing I suppose

[artistjory]

Wow there was absolutely no punctuation in that last response.

I think it will be pretty decent. My 1Ghz powerbook handles Logic pretty well.. so I'm assuming the G5 iMac has got to be better than my powerbook.

[tunepoet]

I would suggest you consider the upgradeability of what you seek to purchase. I bought an eMac and would rather upgrade the processor than buy a new computer, but the eMac is not yet supported for processor upgrades. So, keep in mind that a computer that you CAN upgrade, may keep it in the game longer, and much cheaper than having to replace the whole thing. This is the problem that I have currently run into. An upgradable Mac may save you big bucks in the long run.

Blessings,
Damon

[bloodychoir]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I just wanted someone to tell me I don't need to knock off a jeweller for a pmac. It is an expansion issue, however appealing the imac appears.
Cheers.

[aptmunich]

I would suggest you consider the upgradeability of what you seek to purchase. I bought an eMac and would rather upgrade the processor than buy a new computer, but the eMac is not yet supported for processor upgrades. So, keep in mind that a computer that you CAN upgrade, may keep it in the game longer, and much cheaper than having to replace the whole thing. This is the problem that I have currently run into. An upgradable Mac may save you big bucks in the long run.

Blessings,
Damon

Hi damon:

Just wanted to point out that the emac is usually capable of producing a lot more performance than they do in standard configuration.

A guy on mac-forums.com managed to overclock his emac 800Mhz to 1,25 ghz.
and that's without using changing the fan or any cooling components.

I know it voids your warranty, but from what he said it's not that difficult and the peroformance seems rock solid.

Just thought i'd point it out.

[Shredhed]

$0.02:

I have a 3.5 year-old 733 MHz G4 tower w/768 MB RAM, and two 7200 RPM ATA drives.

This was a nicely loaded pro machine when new, and used for two years as a corporate software development box. For the last year and a half it's been my DAW at home.

It can handle 8 concurrent audio and/or software instruments tracks in GarageBand (which is a pig - elegant, productive, and functional, but a pig). I've done 12 audio tracks with Cubase SX, including a number of VST effects and instruments like GrooveAgent. Oh, there's a midrange 20" Dell (don't ask) CRT attached to it too.

The new top-of-the-line G5 iMac represents an order of magnitude better performance than that G4 at a comparitively much lower price (in real dollars vs 2001). Not only does it have far more horsepower, but it comes with a kick-ass 20" widescreen LCD - and wide-aspect is a good thing if you're working with anything (like audio...) in a timeline view.

Now, I could stick a ~1.5 GHz G4 CPU upgrade, new vid card, and faster disks in the G4, but it still wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as these new iMacs.

I understand the theoretical appeal of the upgradeable towers, but the reality is that a new 20" G5 iMac brings a hell of a lot of power to the table, at a reasonable price, regardless of nitpicking over issues like FSB speed, nVidia vs. ATI, all that stuff.

[Presto]

Bloodychoir, It depends what you want to do with it. Do you already have all the other stuff you need? Remember that can cost much more than the computer. Depends where you don't mind weak links in the chain. Some people don't mind paying for top end computers and are quite happy with crappy nearfield monitors

If I didn't already have 3 working macs (that each do what I need) I'd love a sexy wide-eyed G5 imac. Mmm

My way of upgrading is buying a new bottom of the line mac when it becomes necessary. Unfortunately for the sexiness, that's not going to be soon. I need a portable 6 mic interface and more mics first

[bloodychoir]

Well, I come from a Nuendo/PC background, and for my band which has just built a studio in the country, that's how it'll stay for a variety of reasons too boring to go into. What I have already are all the externals I need - ie. mic, interface, controller, ideas etc. What I want is a mac system running Logic for my own projects where I live, raring to go first thing in the morning, be it purely audio, or video/image manipulation, that isn't going to freeze if I've got thirty plus tracks of Logic running, and a touch of reverb on each for example. What I can't seem to find is an appraisal of the imac g5 which might include a reference to such a situation. I know it's terribly vague, but I'd sooner not go all out on a pro machine if I needn't. As another tickler, I've split my ibook g4 with a patch for an external non-mirror display, what are the thoughts on whether this might be a possibility for the imac? 20" is large, but for christ's sake, why not open 'em up for two?

Cheers

[enygma]

20" is large, but for christ's sake, why not open 'em up for two?

I don't know if it is an option or not, but I do notice on the back of the iMac there is a video out connection just above the USBs and just under the mic and speaker ports. Maybe it can be used for using a second monitor along side the built in TFT display? Couldn't tell you personally if this is possible or not as I haven't played around with macs much and I am still waiting for my iMac G5 1.8GHz 17" system to arrive. On order at the moment.

[tunepoet]

oops, i confussed forums.

God Bless,
Damon

Ce message a été modifié par tunepoet - lun. 4 oct. 2004, 01:45.

[Riverdog]

Just to add a comment...

I've been a proponent of using low cost horse power for quite some time - I've used a lot of machines that people say are no good for audio and managed to make some amazing music with them...

Granted my situation may be unique: ( Riverdog Productions ) But, I do a lot of professional work... I've used anything from a Grape iMac (in the beginning), to my current workhorse which is a 1Ghz PowerBook... I'm regularly using 16 to 20 tracks for audio with effects, no less than 12 hardware MIDI instruments and then the smattering of internal synths offered by Logic Pro6...

I'd say if you're interested in using the new iMac (I certainly will be) you are correct: the iMac video out port will support a separate monitor... I use this setup with my 12" PowerBook as well... (Dual Monitor)...

And I think if your working in a similar environment as mine - the iMac G5 will be a perfect fit... Small footprint - Good horspower - reasonable cost...

If you're going to record a live band with drums, multiple mics at the same time - 64 or more tracks of audio along with internal synths and effects at 192Khz - I'd certainly opt for a more powerful machine...

If you're a small project studio like me - and you make reasonable money with your gear - And you're working with jingles, single artists, maybe 4 mics at a time with under 64 tracks??? - The iMac G5 will do nicely...

Hope this helps...

[tunepoet]

I would simply offer this advice. Because it is advice I myself took, and have been very pleased. I would say, get the most powerful Mac you can afford, be is used, or 2 smaller Macs linked together.

Right now the lesser powerful Macs can get by, but software is getting more powerful by the month, and your next software upgrade may demand a more powerful computer than you currently have. Even the Panther OS is very processor hungry, and the Tiger promises to be more so. Getting just exactly what you need now may very well leave you wishing you had accounted for the future, and purchased a faster computer.

My first Mac was the eMac 700 chip. At the time is worked so so. But then all my favorite programs upgraded to a requirement that my eMac simply could not handle. And I finally realized I had a collection of tools that could no longer fit in my garage. And also, folks who have been making music on Macs for years, know all the tricks about reserving CPU, and are much more efficient in making a lesser powered Mac work for them. I, on the other hand, had very little computer music experience, and was not nearly as efficient as the long term pro’s.

So, getting a more powerful computer better guarantees that you will not be left out in the dust as your favorite programs upgrade to higher power requirements, and also helps the beginner to not get tangled up in the frustration of CPU moderation, when they should be and best be using that time to learn to make music.

I am a motorcycle nut, and I love my cheap Suzuki. And I am still rather beginner as a rider. But most beginner motorcycles come with really bad suspension that is rather unstable. Ideally, bikes for beginners should have THE VERY BEST suspension; cause great suspension equals a safer bike for a beginner. And that is the same logic I apply to a beginning computer music person. The pros can get away with using very slow systems, cause they are experienced, but the beginners really do better with a computer that lets the music come before the limitations of the computer.

And unfortunately, the difference between a really fast computer and a slower one is money. But I would really advise that one get as much power as he or she can afford, and then some. I decided that I would avoid any problems for the next 10 years. I bought a dual processor G5, 2.5. And I absolutely am so happy I did. And that may be more than many can afford, but buy what you can manage to swing.

Also, computer that cram lots of features into 1 small box, like the eMacs, tend to give you less power for the money, because making technology smaller is more expensive. You may get more computer for you money if you get an ungainly tower and a big ugly tube monitor, or something of that nature. Not as pretty, but more power for the dough.

In summation: Think ahead and don't leave yourself stuck with a system that cannot move with the software times.

God Bless,
Damon

<- this guy bought exactly what he needed today
<-- same guy 6 months later after finding he can't upgrade his great software to the new and improved versions

<--- this guy bought a computer that will work for years
<--- same guy 2 years later, very happy he planned ahead...

Ps.
Sorry for the silly visual aids. But that is what happens.

[Riverdog]

Excellent analogy, tunepoet!!

I agree totally...

The key is to buy what works for your situation...
I guess what I'm saying is - Don't be intimitdated by people who have massive studios telling you that you "CAN'T make music unless you have Whizbang X"...

I've been making music with a very modest setup for a long time and have come up with fantastic results... However, If I COULD afford a more expensive machine, I would certainly be the first to plunk the cash for one...

Good Luck!

[prrcomm]

I've been following this thread for some time now, and others like it in other forums (fori?). I'd like to add a few comments of my own. Let me preface them by saying that I'm not breaking anyone else's balls regarding their opinions. That being said...

I'm not a big proponent of having the latest, greatest software or hardware. What matters is what comes out of the speakers. Doesn't matter how you made it. I worked in radio for over 30 years with the crappiest equipment you could imagine (cart machines, turntables, old RCA boards, EV 635A mics, etc.), and turned out award-winning productions. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't have the best you can afford, but if you CAN'T afford the best, you can be very happy with something lesser. Remember, that the software and hardware companies are in business to make money; so you know there's built-in obsolescence and marketing strategies involved in upgrades. Look at the latest fiasco with Logic. Think that wasn't planned? You don't have to have the latest and best to make a great product.

I have a voice-over and advertising studio, and do some small demos, too. I bought a used B&W G3/400 from Penn State for $100, maxed out the memory, added a couple of 120 gb ATA drives, and use Pro Tools LE 5.1.3 with an mBox using OS 9.2...and it works great! I have it networked with a desktop beige G3 which I use for internet, graphics, etc., and for burning CDs, since my burner is SCSI. I have a friend who owns a studio in West Virginia, who is doing prjects for ABC and CBS, among others. He has a big Pro Tools rig, and uses DP...with a G4 using OS 9.2. Another friend, a professional musician who travels all over the world, has a G3 like mine, and turns out remarkable productions in DP4 using OS 9.2.

So, as you can see, it's not what you have, it's what you make. Think about that next time someone asks you to pay a coupla hundred bucks to update something you just paid a grand for three months ago.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[tunepoet]

Yes, everyone has a point, and we all defend what has worked for us, and that is fair. Unfortunately, each person has their ideal personal process, and can offer the advice of their process, and it will work great for some, and not so well for others. This is why trial and error tends to be the final judge of what works best for you.

I often hear the advice to fully practice and understand the software you have, because if you have talent, you will be able to make great music on whatever system you have or can afford. And this is good advice. But again, others don’t fit into that process as naturally. Which is why, you really have to experiment for yourself, cause what works for someone else, or many other people, may not work for you.

I find I can do really quick work of producing good sounds using the Reason Program, but I wanted to challenge myself to learn the more advanced processes, of using a separate sequencer to run some powerful plug ins. I did not need to go that route, cause I could do most to all of it with Reason, which can do great acrobatics on a very slow computer, but I wanted to expand my horizons.

One can advise someone to pick a program and a process and work it to the bone, and this will work wonders for many, while others, like myself, tend to do better with lots of tools for inspiration and creative diversity. I am sure there are many folks out there who have sold 10 thousand dollars worth of equipment, because they can do it all with 3 hundred dollars worth of software, but then there are the persons who seem to be more creative when they have a large and powerful studio of tools. But no one can truly tell you what works best for you.

That is why I advise getting the best computer you can afford, in case you wind up in the category of people who do better with a large collection of tools. Because if that turns out to be your ideal process, you will be equipped to facilitate that. And if it turns out that you feel really comfortable with 1 program and a modestly fast computer, you can always sell the big stuff and go that route.

It is easier to build a large system, only to find you can reduce it to a small system and do very well, than it is to start out with a small system, only to find that you have stymied your creative process, for you were one of those persons, like myself, who is best inspired by a multitude of tools and equipment.

A person who sculpts in clay, is better off with too much clay, that he can remove much of it to expose his sculpture, than to try and create a sculpture without enough clay. Because too much clay can always be converted into the exactly correct amount of clay, but not enough clay is always not enough clay. That is the statement I am making about one’s music set up.

Starting out with more equipment than you need, will quicker help you to define and uncover your ideal personal creative process, than starting out too conservative, only to find you have been mired in a process that is not best for you. And that is the goal, to as quickly as possible, find what works best for you.

Blessings,
Damon

[enygma]

I don't know if starting out with more equipment than you need is best. Processing power, sure. But equipment, doubtful. You can always get new equipment in the future, but constantly upgrading is a waste of money depending on the industry you are in.

Personally, I work more in 3D animation on a Linux based PC, and having top of te line seems to be the name of the game in alot of cases. I found that I had a dual AthlonMP 2000+ rig before, which was soon changed to a P4 3.2GHz system to make use of 8x AGP. The next upgrade is up in the air, but I have a feeling it may be within the next 5 or 6 months. With 3D animation and stuff like that, you never have enough processing power.

However, with music, it really depends. What application are you using, and how proficient are you with it. How much of a factor does the operating system play in your upgrade decision. Maybe the workability of OSX is worth upgrading from your G3. Does the way you work require all the processing power you can get? I guess if you are big on plugins and audio filters and such, processing power may be an issue to continue with real-time filtered audio.

Personally, I wouldn't mind knowing the history of audio processing considering I am pretty new to this whole area, so I am not to proficient on knowing what processes require what kind of resources, and how much. But at the moment, I don't see why you would require top of the line if the tools you are using today work, and work efficiently.

[tunetwister]

You have to decide how much you want to invest and get the best bang for the buck. Do you plan just to do it as a hobby and perhaps help pay for itself. I am at about $30k into my music and video gear. Some of it I wish I did not buy, but got something else.
On another note I want to put together a pc for 3d as I have some 3d shoftware that needs a faster computer. enygma what do you think is importent for me to include. Maya is one of my programs. Ps I have 2 Mac..s and 1 Pc. I definately like Mac. better but XP-pro is good.

[enygma]

Well, Maya is what I use Mainly. It is suggested these days that you look at an Athlon64 system for use with Maya. If you can afford it, go dual Opterons. They just seem to perform better than the Intel processors when it comes to rendering in Mental Ray, and when they release a 64 bit bersion of Mental Ray, you will be smokin. If you are dealing with high resolution textures, or just large ammounts of textures, then it wouldn't hurt to have a couple gigs of RAM sitting in the machine. Keep in mind that if you go with dual Opterons, the RAM will be more expensive as you will need ECC registered buffered memory. For a video card, I highly suggest something from nVidia for Maya. Either the best QuadroFX card you can afford (the FX 1100 is nice) or, because those are very expensive, the best GeForce you can afford. The GeForce 6800 is a very nice card to look at. As for an operating system, the best one I would suggeest is a Redhat based operating system. Maya just runs much more snappy on a Linux based operating system. Either Redhat 9 (Which is unsupported now) or Fedora Core 1. SuSe 9.1 is also nice, but it has some stability issues... at least it did for me with Maya 4.5. Maya 6 is supposed to be much better under Suse, which is also my favorite distribution of Linux.

Hope that helps. If you have any other questions regarding it, don't hesitate to email me at chris (at) enygma (dot) tv, or you can spot me around the www.3dbuzz.com hardware forums and such. Great site for learning 3D.

[fastlanephil]

Well, getting back to the original question that was posted before The iMac G5 was released. Check out the iMac G5 benchmarks at Macintouch. They tested a iMac G5 1.8 against a first generation PowerMac G5 1.8 Single Processor and with highest performance settings it was real close. You could also swap out the hard drive for a Western Digital 73.4 GB 10,000 rpm Raptor and buy an external FW case for the iMac G5 hard drive. I would think that many users with moderate power needs would find it quite usable for a couple of years or more.

I also see the iMac G5 form factor as a big plus for many users that use their Macs for something besides a music studio setup with the portability and home entertainment value.

I'm not certain if the iMac G5 is going to be quieter than a G5 Tower because it right in your face but probably no worse.

[enygma]

The iMac G5 is a very quiet machine. One of the local Mac dealers here had set one up to replace the eMac they use for their point of sale system. There is very little sound output coming from the system that I recalled. I should have my 17" iMac G5 sometime next week. I'll probably confirm what the sound is like on it afterwards. I guarantee that it will be much quieter than the system I am using right now...

[tunepoet]

Hello,

I was just reading a review on the dual 2.5 G5 in “Recording” magazine. And I thought I would just copy the concluding statement from the review. My point is not to suggest that you can’t make great music on a lesser-powered Mac, but only to agree with this review that you DO get what you pay for, and the dual G5 does offer greater flexibility. And to me, that represents always having a computer that will keep up with your progress as a computer focused musician. Or to put it more simply, you don’t NEED a dual G5, but if you can swing it, you will be happy you did.

Blessings,
Damon H

Ps.
The Mac they compared the dual G5 to was, coincidently, the eMac 700, which just so happens to be the Mac I replaced with the G5. Of course, the difference between a more powerful Mac (than the eMac 700) and the dual G5 should be considered as well.

---------

***Regarding the dual G5***

“Is the dual G5 for you? That question hinges primarily on another: are you or aren’t you already a Mac user? If you aren’t, then you’ll need to consider all the reasons to start working with a Mac vs. staying with a PC. But if you are, then the significant investment embodied in the dual G5 represents an equal return in power and flexibility. Anything that a Mac could do to date can now be done more quickly, better, and more silently than ever before.”

“Recording” Magazine Review
Mike Metlay with Devon Brent

Ce message a été modifié par tunepoet - mer. 13 oct. 2004, 03:50.

[dangt]

So what your saying is if possible get a good computer rather than a shit one. Cool! thanks

Hopefully for most of us its about the music we create, otherwise its just collecting gear to impress yourself with. Great results can be achived on very simple gear or big $$ gear with the right preperation and performances. also saying that poor results are also possible on both ends of the gear list spectrum.

Ive recently lost (was damaged through water ingress into my studio) my G3 powerbook 500mhz, that was a great machine for tracking, mixing and arranging songs in PT LE, reason, live.. as well as basic mastering through peak and t-racks. Im thinking the G5 imac will be suitable for me to continue to write and publish quality songs.

Im thinking of changing my approach to mixing and mastering but, so to use some of my professional freinds skills to better my product instead of getting all flusted over mixing sounds and tech stuff. i would rather concentrate on the recording, sequencing and arranging. I will save heaps of time and money. As it is cheaper to release a few projects a year this way than to buy all the pro gear and spend hours locked in side mixing and mastering.

[gdoubleyou]

You should be in good shape with the iMac G5, it beats a dual 1.42 G4 in most tasks.
Check it out.
http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5.html

[enygma]

Alright. I have had a chance to play around with my 17" 1.8GHz G5 iMac for about a week now. Regarding hardware noise and such. Generally, in idle, it creates very minimal noise. You can hear the noise from the fans mainly. The hard drive is barely audible even when it is loading files from it, which can also be a problem. There is no HDD LED anywhere on the system, so I can only tell if it is reading and writing to hard disk by listening closely. So basically, if something is moving slow or I have been waiting a while, I can't tell if the system froze up, or my hard drive is going nuts without listening to see if I can hear the clicking of the hard drive. The fans inside will speed up when processor or GPU intensive tasks are going on, and the fans do get loud when under load. I did a render in Maya which took about 2 minutes to render, and the fans were slowly accelerating the whole time of the render. The render wasn't long enough for me to tell if there is a peak to the noise or not. And at the moment, I have nothing to tell me what temp the CPU is running at to see if the processor would continue rising in temp when the fans peak. However, when the fans are running quickly, I can feel the heat dissipating from the slot in the back. Air intake is at the bottom of the system.

General OS useage, this G5 was my first time using OSX, or any Mac OS for that matter. In general, I can see why professionals choose the Mac for video editing, graphics, publication and music. It is just a very nice system in general to multitask with, even within the same application. I would find it hard to go back to Photoshop for Windows if I got used to playing around with Photoshop for Mac, and Final Cut Express works very nicely with Expose. My main beef with the OS is web browsing, and windows resizing. These two things are generally sluggish. At least on my system, but I also read an article where someone had the same complaints working on a Dual 2GHz G5. Scrolling in the web browser is slow, and web page rendering is twice as slow as IE for Windows, or Konqueror or Firefox on Linux. Even Firefox seems to be slow to scroll in OSX. Most applications that scroll that I have used seem very sluggish, and Windows resizing can be very sluggish as well.

All in all, it is a very nice system, and saves A LOT of space. I'll have to get a smaller desk now that I have replaced my PC...

I haven't tried it with any music applications other than Garage Band, and that is without a MIDI keyboard. So I can't really comment on my music experiences with it. Other than the fact I need some more instruments in Garage Band...

[fastlanephil]

Go to versiontracker.com and dl midikeys. You can then use your iMac G5 keyboard as a midi controler. Also go to iCab.de and dl the free iCab Mac browser. It's pretty fast.

Ce message a été modifié par fastlanephil - mar. 26 oct. 2004, 04:14.

[rafisaar]

Since this thread has stopped until today, are there any "real-life" experiences with the iMac G5 and music apps (especially Logic Pro)?

This whole thread (and other topics in Agora) all give speculations based on other Mac platforms or point to benchmark tests, but none are giving real experiences with the iMac G5 and music.

I wish I had the fastest PowerMac DP G5 tower with a nice big LCD display, but the iMac G5 is simply way cheaper and if it will fit my needs then that's my way to go.
Can you believe I'm still stuck with a PowerMac 8600 (604 - pre G3) with Opcode Studio Vision Pro running on Mac OS 9?

The music I make is mostly MIDI music, planning to use software synths, with audio recording mostly just for vocals, normally recording a single mic at a time (but totalling around 8 or 10 audio tracks).
Logic Pro 6 and the FW Audiophile are already waiting on my desk for the next Mac. Just need to decide if that will be the iMac G5.


Thanks ,
Rafi