Mac Pro for Music Production - Upgrade CPU, RAM, HD? Overclock??!

hughythomas

hughythomas

hughythomas

Associate
Joined
11 Oct 2006
Posts
1,404
Location
Reigate
Hi guys!

I have the early 2006 Mac Pro which I use exclusively for audio production work (on Logic Pro 7, Pro Tools 8 and Cubase 5 but mostly Logic as this is my preferred DAW). I was wondering if anyone wise knew if you could upgrade the CPU on these things? Or do you have to buy a completely new mac?

I use this computer purely for DAWs. Here are the specs:

2006 Mac Pro running:
2X Dual-Core Intel Xeons @ 2.66Ghz
4GB FB-DIMM DDR2 RAM (@667Mhz)
Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB (for Music)
Default 250GB mac drive for system disk (don't know what it is)
X1900XT Radeon
2X MOTU 828MKIIs in series on Firewire
UAD-2 Nevana 32 DSP suite

What makes the most difference to DAW performance at low buffer sizes hardware wise? CPU? RAM? HD? I don't want to have to fork out for an entirely new system and am quite happy to upgrade the CPUs myself if it can be done?

Many thanks!

Tom
 
Great cheers for the replies guys.

To the last poster, do you use Logic in a professional environment? I run Logic 7 @ 96kHz on all my projects and the lowest buffer size I can get for tracking is 64. For mixing, UAD-2 needs a high buffer size so I set 1024 but even the Logic plugins kill the DAW's playback engine if I am doing a rough mix of something at 64.

What was the name of the overclocking program for the Mac?

I'm in desperate need of squeezing as much performance out of this thing before even considering selling it...

Thanks again!

Tom
 
Well, from a technical standpoint 96kHz produces less aliasing and is a truer representation of the original soundwaves. To my ears, it sounds 'fuller' and has an inherent amount of clarity which simply is not present at anything lower. It is difficult to describe in words.

I appreciate that 88.2kHz would be a better choice due to it being a multiple of 44.1kHz. Bearing in mind we have to downsample to this samplerate anyways at mastering it would seem the obvious choice. However, if the mastering suite employs good converters this isn't such a problem and again, to my ears 96kHz just has this 'sound' about it which I can't seem to obtain if I use anything less. I even once tried 192kHz and although I personally couldn't notice any difference the engineer I was working with could - so it really comes down to personal opinion.

P.S The mac died though @ 192kHz lol even just a stereo recording of an acoustic guitar!!!
 
Yer we blind tested them all not to sound up myself here but I got them all right!!! I've been working in music for a while, the ability to be pitch perfect and hear finite details like sample rates, mp3 compression algorithms all come with time and doing lots of it!!!
 
You got to remember the most important part of recording (in my opinion) is capturing the original source sound as accurately as possible. Assuming of course you are not using Fisher Price microphones and Tomy instruments, 96kHz can make a shed load of difference as it is a truer digital representation of the analogue source.
 
I can't hear above 15-16kHz myself in terms of frequency range which sucks. I'm sure had I not done all the gigging/live performances in the past I would be OK but working in music inevitably destroys your hearing. I myself suffer from tinnitus 24/7 even now that I use proper moulded ear protection :( :(
 
I'm sorry Lowe I disagree - I CAN hear the difference. When we did our blind tests a year or two ago in our main control room I admitt that getting 44.1/48kHz was guesswork but the leap to 96kHz was definitely there I don't care what anybody says...I heard it!

As far as I am concerned the higher the sample rate at tracking stage the more accurate the sound will be the original. Granted we master to 44.1 but thats mastering! Recordings have so much processing these days that I think it's important to maximise the digital accuracy at every stage to ensure a superior sounding mix/master.

+1 to Ozzie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom