Microsoft Uses Intel Based Macs in its own Pro Tools studios

Trey Thomas · **Voice Talent** Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 27

Fellow VOs,

Before I fire off another round in the old PC vs Mac flame wars let me first say that I am an agnostic computer end user. I buy what I can afford and what works well for my computing needs. I grew up with Apples in the classroom and my first computer was an Apple IIc. But I have been building my own Windows-based PC's for a decade. I also very recently sunk quite a bit of money into upgrading my custom XP/Vista dual boot DAW with a Gigabyte Intel P35 chipset motherboard, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU, 2 GB of Corsair 1066 Mhz RAM and a 500GB Western Digital hard drive, which despite my modern setup is plagued with hangups and crashes. Now I wish I had spent that money on a maxed out Mac mini.

I live in Seattle, and had the pleasure of attending a Free Pro Tools event at the Redmond campus this week (see attached Adobe Reader .pdf file). Microsoft Studios is where a lot of the exclusive MS audio and video content you see on Windows Media, Zune Marketplace and Xbox Live Marketplace is recorded, filmed, edited, and mixed. Imagine my surprise when I saw Digidesign employees demoing the latest and greatest Pro Tools (v7.4) and plugins with a Mac Pro. Of course he was obligated to say (literally under his breath) that Pro Tools v7.4 now supports Windows Vista. To which the crowd of 200-plus musicians, audio engineers, producers, and post-production house professionals chuckled out loud. I was slightly stunned that all this was taking place on a Sound Stage at Microsoft Studios.

I was standing against the wall because there were no available seats. The Digidesign employee who muttered the Vista comment came and stood beside me after his presentation. I couldn't resist and had to ask him what OS Microsoft was running their Pro Tools studios on. He whispered with a twinkle in his eye ",They just changed them over to the Intel-based Macs last month. Shhhhhhhh."

I also noticed that we were all herded into this one particular soundstage via velvet ropes that cordoned us away from MS's studios. So there was no way to take a peak at their gear.

As I mentioned, I have no intention of fanning the Mac vs PC flame wars, but I gotta know what you guys think. Should we trust our precious voice over recording sessions and effectively our livelihood to operating systems made by a company that doesn't even use its own product?

Regards,

Trey

Jacob Ekstroem · **Voice Talent** Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 721

Lee Kanne · **Voice Talent** Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 129

For the Microsoft people to try to run PT 7.4 with Vista would have been suicide. Vista isn't that stable of an OS to begin with, not to mention the stability with PT 7.4.. Also, it could have been that other audio hardware was not compatible with Vista

Although I run PT LE on a PC (WIN XP) and have no issues, it took a while to get the machine tweaked enough to get it going smoothly.

It comes down to your software choice.......I think most VO folks that run Pro tools have had luck with both PC and Mac. I will say though, that bang for the buck, PC's are the way to go.

Trey Thomas · **Voice Talent** Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 27

Lee,

I agree with you that PC's are the better bang for the buck when you buy them off the shelf. But how many off the shelf PCs are ready to record, encode, edit and mix audio out of the box? Not any you can buy from your big box consumer electronics retailers. You have to, as you mentioned, take the time to tweak Windows to run pro audio apps. I just want them to work right out of the box. I am a geek and technophile, but now that I have a family and young child I don't have the time to tweak Windows religiously. I just want to buy a product and know that it will work as advertised. And as far as Windows XP SP2 being a solution--how long will that last? MS is already talking about Windows 7 being released sometime in 2010. How long do you think MS or software developers for that matter will continue to support an OS that's a generation (soon to be two) old? I just think that when the OS manufacturer of choice for business and the majority of consumers chooses to run a competitor's product for pro audio purposes it speaks volumes about its confidence in its own product. I mean Pro Tools v7.4 will run on XP SP2. So why doesn't MS use it in their own recording studios? Just my .02.

Lee Kanne · **Voice Talent** Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 129

Trey Thomas · **Voice Talent** Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 27

Lee,

I hear you loud and clear. I'm more than happy to hunt down that information at Digidesign's website (unless you want to provide us all a link here in the forums). I basically have no choice since I've already pulled the trigger on my massive DAW PC upgrade. But my point is I shouldn't have to do it. It should just work if Microsoft and Digidesign are both advertising that their products are compatible with one another.

I guess this has become the ranting of a savvy consumer who just expects things he pays for to work without a lot of headache. I have the same philosophy for most consumer products. Somehow we have just come to expect less of Microsoft. We have gotten used to tweaking their product until it works the way we want it to.

It's why I no longer play games on the PC after more than twenty-five years as a gamer. If I wanna play the latest game I buy it for my Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii because I know it will work as soon as I download it or put the disc in the drive. Why can't Windows based PCs do the same? I don't think it's too much to ask. Ironically, MS promised a gaming machine that would do just that with Vista, but didn't deliver.

I'm not some uninformed novice. I understand how computers work, how to upgrade, repair and build them. So I realize that MS accomodates thousands of hardware manufacturers specs just to get Windows to run. The problem is that it doesn't work as well as it should. All I want is a product that works right out of the box. And yes I could get a custom made DAW, but that is no guarantee that it will work flawlessly (as is the case with my own custom-built DAW). And when you factor in the cost of such a system it's sometimes cheaper to just buy a Mac, which will work right out of the box. Once again I have nothing to gain from this posting. I don't work for Apple. I don't own Apple stock. I don't even own an iPod. I even bought the new 80Gb Zune just to spite Apple and its mindless drones. But in the case of my voiceover work I don't see the value of holding onto MS loyalty just because I like to build a PC now and then. Especially when MS itself is not even loyal to its own product.

Cheers,

Trey

Chris Clementson · **Voice Seeker** Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 216

I'll bang this drum again. Jacob, cover your ears.

IMHO computers are not suitable for real-time audio recording. I don't care if you're running Windows, Linux or OS X. For real-time recording you're far better off using a dedicated recorder where, for example, Adobe Acrobat won't be vying for CPU cycles as it tries to go on line to find an updated version of itself. When recording you want the device to be doing two things: recording audio and periodically polling the "stop" button to see if it has been pressed and that's all. Hopefully there is dedicated hardware for running the meter.

Yes, you can tweak a computer here and there, disabling this and that, and hope the computer won't glitch. In voice work you can always do another take. If you're recording a live musical concert there is no such thing as another take. By the same token, if you're getting satisfactory results with XP SP2 and have dealt with the fan and HD noise from your rig then why mess with success? Just don't plan on downgrading to Vista.

There are dedicated recorders now which cost just a few hundred dollars and whose audio performance is far more than adequate for voice work. Once you finish recording you are outside the real-time domain. You can then transfer your files to a computer and can edit, process and do effects on any old audio editor.

Trey Thomas · **Voice Talent** Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 27

Chris,

I generally agree with you that solid-state recorders might be the way to go, but they do have their shortcomings. I mentioned in the XP SP3 posting that I used the Edirol R-09 as a field recorder at my last newsradio reporter gig. It peformed very well as a field recorder, but was a little too delicate for my taste. Some of the rubberized controls and buttons began to peel away after continual use in Seattle's wet weather. The battery life was very poor. The battery hatch itself was also too fragile and at times would pop open with just the slightest touch. There were no balanced mic inputs (XLR or 1/4") only mini jack (1/8") input and outputs. You also had to open the battery hatch just to install or remove the SD media card and connect the USB cable to transfer your files and use the recorder as an SD card reader. But these days lots of computers (especially laptops) have SD readers built right into them. The big downside to recording on a portable digital recorder is that unlike MiniDisc (the portable news recorder of choice in the 90's) there is no way to mark good soundbites or in our case good takes on the digital file (.wav, .mp3 or .AIFF file). The biggest drawback in a home voiceover recording studio would be the inability to playback the audio in real time to a client over an ISDN or Phone Patch. Right now I have my daw patched into my JKAudio Autohybrid so I can playback a track for a client to hear. It's going to be very difficult to do that with a solid-state recorder because you can't see or manipulate the .wav file. Most of the players do however record in real time to most formats and in up to 24-bit at 48Khz. To me it would be like going back to the days of recording on reel to reel instead it's all digital without the analog hiss or the potential for internal RF noise or external fan noise from a PC or Mac. Plus you can't beat the price at $300 to $500. Of course you will still need a computer to edit and mix.

Trey

Chris Clementson · **Voice Seeker** Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 216

Trey -

I'm thinking more along the lines of using dedicated recorders in a studio or portable studio rather than taking them to press conferences and getting sound bites. A recorder which can withstand the physical punishment of ENG is going to cost a lot more than the consumer units we see today.

Trey Thomas · **Voice Talent** Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 27

Chris,

I hear you on the whole ENG thing. However, as a former radio and tv field reporter I expect all of my gear to hold up to the ENG test. I have very high expectations of my gear. If it can't stand up to the wear and tear of daily use and abuse it shouldn't be called pro audio gear in my mind. Just my .02.

Trey

Lee Kanne · **Voice Talent** Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 129

there are a number of WIN XP tweaks that can get you up and running and fairly stable with Pro tools LE

http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=802377&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1#802377

There's also an a lot of info on the Digi site about compatibility..
chipsets, hard drives, RAM requirements, etc...

Pro Tools was originally written for Mac, so you have to remember that you are trying to run a software program, that in essence, has been completely re written to be able to run on the Win platform.

I think for most Voiceover artists, once you check your system for compatibility and perform the basic tweaks, you should be just as stable as if you were running a Mac.

there is no way a standalone recorder can compete with the overall
convenience and versatility of a computer DAW......

Chris Clementson · **Voice Seeker** Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 216

Lee Kanne · **Voice Talent** Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 129

Chris Clementson · **Voice Seeker** Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 216

Trey Thomas · **Voice Talent** Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Posts: 27

I don't wanna speak for Chris. But I believe he may be arguing that it could be worth the extra step of having to import the digital audio file from the standalone solid-state recorder if it meant a quality recording, with no digital glitches, RF or sound quality loss. In the end it might save you some time if you didn't have to check your audio, record retakes or take the time to trouble shoot a signal degradation or loss. If we knew it was gonna be a flawless recording every single time and audio quality was your first priority it might be worth it to have to record then upload to your DAW to edit and mix. My only complaint would be the inability to digitally mark good takes so you can find them quickly after a session and the inability to quickly playback takes to clients in real time over an ISDN or phone patch line. You can do both of these fairly simply in your average DAW. But if you don't need or want to accomodate clients who want to direct you offsite it's no problem.