![]() |
![]()
Message
#1
|
|
![]() Rookie ![]() Groupe : Members Messages : 30 Inscrit : 27 juil. 02 Lieu : New York - US Membre no 6,291 ![]() |
Are the improvements worth the money for audio?
Specifically: It seems that there are very good graphics improvements (from what were already exceptional), but budgetwise I don't need better graphics, but rather optimal audio functionality. Also, a couple of questions... 1) The Xserve technology that I think all of the new G4's come with seems to be a server based advantage. I am somewhat of a novice. ...Was Apple trying to design a superpower machine for creative people (like me who wants to dedicate my machine to recording music) and therefore assumed that when you are recording that your machine is functioning as a server as opposed to a home computer? 2) Is the Mac® OS X version 10.2 “Jaguar” designed for tasks such as audio recording? Have there been some good reviews on this yet? ![]() |
|
|
![]() |
Réponse(s)
![]() ![]()
Message
#2
|
|
![]() Advanced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Groupe : Members Messages : 393 Inscrit : 11 juin 02 Lieu : London - UK Membre no 5,044 ![]() |
extra power is always useful for audio.
![]() dual processing particularly. under osx, certainly. they have "optimal audio functionality" built in. ![]() xserve is indeed a "server based advantage", but watch this space for a few months. cubase and nuendo. o.k, steinberg, already implement the networking/clustering of computers for audio purposes. it's not even platform specific! apple have always tried, at least, to design "superpower machines for creative people". ![]() jaguar represents apple's most serious commitment to audio/midi recording etc to date, to the point that they have taken over responsibility for this from their third party developers. ![]() i think i answered your queries, other than to say that software support for audio/midi in 10.2 is where the only (temporary) problem actually exists. -------------------- one for all and all for one...
|
|
|
Les messages de ce sujet

















































![]() ![]() |
1 utilisateur(s) sur ce sujet (1 invité(s) et 0 utilisateur(s) anonyme(s))
0 membre(s) :
