Your exact prior statement was “no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine” and I disagreed with that. I didn’t say the words, “major soundtrack composer in LA” which you added in your reply to me. I am not trying to prove that any specific “major soundtrack composer in LA” is using “nothing but a laptop.”
Talk about a subset of a subset of a subset!
Let’s stay specifically on target on what has been stated. Again, your prior statement was “no serious soundtrack composer would use a laptop as his master machine” – I’m just quoting you – and to that I said that it was your opinion, and that I disagree. What’s the problem with that? I am happy for you that you know “pretty much all of them and all of their studios” in LA, but that does not include the rest of the world, and certainly not all people who consider themselves “serious composers.”
At best, you speak for a small segment of a small segment of a small segment of the market that uses DAW apps.
My larger point (and I will simply quote my prior statement, which you did not disprove) was that they “would or could use a laptop as their master machine if they wanted to. But more to the point and in a larger context, a modern high-end laptop – for example, a high-end DAW laptop from the likes of ADK (I own one and can vouch for them) and a high end laptop from Apple (I also own one) are both more than capable of being a primary front-end for a “serious” soundtrack composer, not to mention for many other pro audio purposes, such as post production, sound design, mixing, mastering, composing in general, and any number of other pro audio applications. And I should add that not everyone in this forum or who uses Cubase in general is interested in being a soundtrack composer – there are plenty of people here that are pros or have pro aspirations who do plenty of professional work on laptops and on computers far less powerful than current-gen high-end laptops.”
Impossible for you to say – you have excluded a vast number of people who consider themselves “serious” composers, not to mention many thousands of pros who do pro audio work on laptops in general.
And I might add, that even in my own quote, I stated clearly that you could use a laptop AS THE MASTER, of course implying that a “serious” composer might also avail himself of slaved machines.
Additionally, I refer you back to the larger point I was making about pro audio tasks in general – not just “serious composing” – as being suitable for a high-end laptop.
Re: a “SERIOUS DAW machine has at least three internal large-capacity drives” is only applicable to situations where you need three internal large-capacity drives. There are plenty of pro audio scenarios where even a single, large SSD is plenty. Again, we’re not talking exclusively “serious” composers here who need access to large sample libraries. We’re talking pro audio in general.
As far as mobile CPUs not being as powerful as desktop CPUs, of course they’re not, I never said they were. However, the current generation of mobile CPUs are incredibly powerful, more than enough for serious pro audio applications of great complexity. If you use DAWbench – the current defacto benchmark series for DAWs, which I’m sure you’ve tested, right? – to compare a current generation Intel Core i7-4960HQ (4 cores, 2.6 GHz), you will get performance that is not too far off from a current Core i7-4770K. That’s real-world performance, Papi, and that’s pretty incredible for a mobile chip. The desktop CPU will still beat the mobile chip, but not by that much. Now, if we take a current generation Intel Core i7-4960HQ and compare it to a prior generation Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge desktop chip, that new shiny Intel Core i7-4960HQ will actually beat out the prior gen desktop CPUs unless you overclock those older, but still powerful desktop CPUs. Think about it for a second. How many scores were composed on a Sandy Bridge, let alone Nehalem-based machine? That shiny new Intel Core i7-4960HQ can actually perform pretty close to a 6-core Xeon Westmere CPU that has powered many big pro rigs. Not to mention, it will even hold its own against 8 cores of Xeon E5520 CPUs, which is extraordinary. Mobile CPUs have come a long, long way, and they can absolutely suffice for very complex pro audio needs. For your “major LA” composers that you know, perhaps not. But that’s not what I said.
I gave a list of reasons, starting with the most obvious, as I said, “Some people simply prefer to use a Mac, some people simply prefer to use Windows, and there is nothing wrong with that either way.”
Just because you can’t understand why someone might have a personal preference, doesn’t make those people cultists. I also listed several other reasons, which I’ll address below –
Again, you seem to be very caught up on the whole “major soundtrack composers” argument, as I’ve repeatedly indicated that not everyone here is interested in being a major soundtrack composer, not to mention the legion of other pro audio uses for computers, from post production, sound design, etc.
As for people who use macs “generally don’t have high requirements,” that may very well be true compared to your “major soundtrack composers” which represent a small percentage of users, and not just a small subset of overall pro audio users. In any case, as I have mentioned in this and many other threads, I too use VE Pro when needed, and highly recommend it.
No, it doesn’t just go back to using Logic. I use both Windows and Macs, and there is no more simple session transfer than one that is done on the same platform with the same plugin library. Yes, sessions are generally cross-compatible to a large degree these days, but I have personally encountered numerous occasions where having the same platform was helpful and time-saving. You may feel otherwise, and that’s fine. It’s entirely possible that your Mac-based clients are more compatible with your Windows rig than mine. My situation is clearly different than yours, and I expect there are many people here with different situations that either of ours. My clients have benefited from me just having a Mac around, even before I started using it more and more for Pro Tools and now for Cubase. But to say DAWs are “perfectly cross-compatible” is incorrect, not to mention that it only has to do with Logic. It’s not “perfect” by a long shot.
b) yeah, that’s the typical fanboy argument who believes that Apple machines actually cost less. It makes absolutely no sense.
You utterly missed my point. I said, specifically, “there are many other “valid” reasons why one person might choose one platform or the other” – this could apply to EITHER Windows on Mac users. I did not single out Mac users as using the reasons I listed. I also never said that Apple machines cost less. Please re-read my original comments.
c) such as?
d) such as?
Applies to c and d – Some pro audio users have specifications clauses in their contracts for what software and hardware they must use. Granted, this is not common, but it does happen, and has happened to me. If you’ve ever dealt with corporate IT departments for companies that have media departments, this is actually more common than you may realize.
e) another fanboy myth. If you buy a BUSINESS windows machine, it likely comes with an EVEN BETTER WARRANTY than what Apple gives you. My HP laptop came with a 3-year on site warranty. It’s an extra $350 if you want that with a MBP.
I’m referring to something else – some corporate video production departments, for example, have IT support contracts that specify certain hardware/software, so this becomes a built-in bias for the company to use or NOT use specific hardware. I work with one such company, for which I do post production, where their IT department favors a specific hardware platform, so they keep buying that platform. You may think that’s insane, and it may well be, but some businesses are run that way. Again, a rare occurrence, but it is still a valid reason why someone chooses one platform over another.
re: on-site warranties, I’m not debating that. Yes, enterprise-class laptops from Dell, HP, etc., will have 3-year warranties. I have several machines myself, and those warranties have come in handy. In the case of the Dell workstations I’ve purchased over the years, they have on-site warranties, but, I had to pay for those too. They are, in fact, not free, even though they may say that on the website. If you talk to the folks at Dell Business, for example, at least as of the last time I asked, you can actually get them to remove the 3-year on-site warranties in some cases and knock off a few hundred bucks. I have done that with a Dell Precision laptop.
Again, I am referring to a statement that you made which was, “macbook is a consumer-grade machine that would never ever pass military standard testing, like most business laptops do.”
First, you are factually incorrect that “most” business laptops have “military standard testing”.
As for you having the option of buying a Windows machine with “military standard testing,” that’s fine… go for it. Those ruggedized machines are indeed great to have for those that need that type of specification. However, my point was that MacBook Pros and many high-quality but NON-MILITARY grade computers can easily stand up to the task of professional day-in day-out professional rigor. The fact that you have a “military” grade machine is great, and I’m sure yours can take more abuse than mine. But my machines’ lack of military certification hasn’t prevented me from doing professional work.
I will contend that “military standard testing” is simply not needed for the vast majority of users. However, the fact that no Macs are military tested is a good point though, and certainly, if someone needs that level of testing, they should buy a suitable machine for the job.
As I mentioned, I own both and can compare them side-by-side. As I mentioned, I’m happy using either one, and both are well built, but I can guarantee that the MacBook Pro is physically superior in materials and workmanship, including screen, keyboard, case, fit and finish, to the ADK laptop I own. Granted, I don’t have the latest ADK model, and it’s possible they have changed OEM suppliers, but from their website, they look like they have the same suppliers. Nothing bad though. Having said that, again, both are professional and I would trust them (and have trusted them) for heavy use. I think if you handle both of these laptops, it would be hard for you disagree with me.
While you may choose to be dismissive, you are incorrect with your assessment of how tweakable Macs are. Having said that, I also clearly said, “you can tweak and customize Windows computers far more than Macs”, but you may want to review your own actual statement, which was, “There’s nothing you can do to improve a mac…You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won’t let you.” Which is simply incorrect. Your dismissal of what I wrote does not nullify the facts.
What point of yours did I just prove, that “There’s nothing you can do to improve a mac…You cannot tweak a mac because Apple won’t let you.”? Again, that’s factually incorrect.
I never said you can tweak Macs as MUCH as a Windows machine, but to state that there’s nothing you can do is just incorrect. And yes, it’s nice to be able to run Windows natively on Apple hardware. Sure, why not, when needed? That’s not a criticism. That’s a feature. Some might even call that a benefit. While you may view that as the only tweak that matters on a Mac, it’s just one of many benefits. Again, I’m not saying that Macs are more tweakable than Windows. On the other hand, if someone wants to go the Hackintosh route, I know of many people that overclock their Hackintoshes and get some amazing performance for a great price. So if you look at it that way, OSX will run on all sorts of very “tweakable” hardware if you want to.
I agreed with your prior statement on this topic, and also agree that it depends entirely on the project requirements… and yes, if you are doing large orchestral mockups, plugin count is indeed quite important. I don’t think we need to argue on that one.
Knowing someone is not the same thing as being able to speak for them. And so what if you know them? I’m happy you know them, but it doesn’t nullify the point that they (and many other professionals – not just big LA composers that you may or may not know), are using Macs for professional purposes.
That’s perfectly fine. I haven’t once said not to run PC slaves. I myself have used VE Pro on Windows with two Windows slaves and I was happy with it. If your point is that people use Windows computers professionally, I am not arguing that point. If your point is that people get great performance from their Windows machines, I’m also not arguing against that. Your point is made. I simply made the point that “the platform is irrelevant to the level of work produced. Users of both platforms are limited only by their own skills and talents.”
So what if studios don’t change computers that often? In this point I’m making here, I’m simply stating that the majority of US post houses DO use Pro Tools on Macs. And that there are many pros in the broader entertainment industry that do use them – for whatever reason. The point is that Macs are currently being used professionally, and a lot of them. Of course, Windows computers are also being used professionally. The platform does not dictate the quality of output.
I also didn’t even bother bringing up the new Mac Pro. The times I have in other threads I have strictly indicated that its use is for GPU bound needs. So of course that machine is not designed specifically for Pro Audio, since DSP for plugins on GPUs is still a long way off, so I’m also not recommending DAW users jump on the new Mac Pros unless they need the video capabilities. Please don’t lump other people’s comments in this thread on my point of view.
I certainly respect that using Windows machines “makes sense” to you. I am not criticizing you for making that choice. Other people look at this differently than you, and that doesn’t make them better or worse than you. Things simply “make sense” differently to them. Personally, I prefer to work on Macs now, after many years working mainly on Windows. But what “makes sense” to me is not something I feel the need to “impose” on anyone else. Each person should use what works best for them.
Obviously, I disagree with your reply. I ran the numbers for my own studio, and the difference is minimal in my case, and the benefits I have are worth the minor difference of budget for the clients I have. I didn’t need someone else to tell me what I should or should not run in my studio, as I wouldn’t tell you what you should or shouldn’t run in your studio. Only you know the types of projects you run, and you have calculated what works best for you. Go for it, of course. For the types of projects I do and the paying clients I have, this setup appears to be working well for me, and keep in mind I still have Windows machines and VE Pro as needed, so I’m not an all-Mac shop. I also have a few Linux machines as file servers, and I’ll use whatever the best tools I can to get the job done.
Sure it makes sense for some people to use Macs – even if you personally consider them overpriced and under-performing. To suggest that the only reason why it “makes sense” to them is because they like Apple’s icons better is simply missing all the other points I have made. If the other statements I’ve made simply boil down to preference for Apple icons, then we have a communication problem that may not be able to be solved any time soon, which is, sadly, what I suspect will be the result of this exercise. 
Not sure what you are referring to. I am not familiar with “cult of mac,” if you are referring to some website or article. I have not stated that Macs perform BETTER than Windows machines, and I have not stated that you can’t select your own components when building a quality Windows DAW. On the contrary. I’ve built plenty of Windows DAWs myself and they worked great.
What I’m referring to is DAWBench, which is a suite of DAW-related benchmarks that you can run on various DAW apps that give you a great yardstick to measure performance of your DAW, be it Pro Tools on Macs or Cubase on Windows, etc… Just google TAFKAT and DAWbench and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Those benchmarks, which I have run myself on current machines with current versions of DAW apps, are what I look at and trust, along with my own test projects – so I don’t rely on someone else’s numbers, speculations or opinions. And I have tested a variety of DAWs and both OSX and Windows, not to mention all my computers, which are many and varied. And as I stated, Windows performance is indeed better than Mac performance on a similar speced machine – and Windows does indeed give you more bang for the buck. I’ve said that over and over. I’m not debating that. However, the delta between Windows and Mac performance is actually smaller than ever now, and with a decent Mac, there is more than enough headroom for very complex pro audio projects at very good latencies.
In my view, the platform war is over, since the delta is reasonable, and within the margin of current gen CPU differences. Yes, you can get more mileage out of a similar-speced Windows machine… but not that much. The delta used to be 50% or more, sometimes 100% difference in the past, even worse. But in my tests on recent machines and the latest DAW apps, I’m seeing about 20%-30% max or so Windows improvement compared to Macs at average latencies for the applications and plugins I use on similar hardware. That’s not earth-shaking, and well within CPU generation margins. When you couple that with other workflow and preference issues in a studio, there is no longer a major cost/performance benefit to Windows. Yes, it’s still there, but if you make a living doing this, you’ll be spending a heck of a lot more money on plugins, libraries, other studio hardware, general business expenses, etc., than the difference between a decent Mac and a decent Windows machine for pro audio.