2011 Mac Mini or iMac for Audio/recording

[talmy]

Hey, we are all different in our needs and tastes!

FCP X will use the GPU for processing, so a better GPU should be an advantage, otherwise I agree that in general unless you do games or other 3D animations the GPU doesn't matter much.

I've got a 20" 1600x1200 pixel display next to my 27" iMac. I can't have too many pixels! 2 27" displays would be fantastic.

 

[AppleDApp]

(I was already concerned with having those two as being overkill...having two 27's would be even more haha )

Two 27" is not overkill at all I was thinking of getting the 27" iMac with 2 thunderbolt ACD

 

[sam2428]

Two 27" is not overkill at all I was thinking of getting the 27" iMac with 2 thunderbolt ACD

I'm still on the fence between the Mini Server and the highest end 21.5" iMac...


but after reading the posts I started wanting a 27" iMac now too lol. I guess a third option for me would be a 2010 27" iMac 2.93 GHz quad core from macmall at $1499.


Anyone have thoughts on that? I'm not really sure if i would miss having a TB port or not....

 

[cperry2]

I'm in exactly the same boat as you right now - in the market for an imac for audio recording, sample-based work, etc.

You can actually get a 2011 27" imac for less than the 2010/macmall:

http://store.apple.com/ca/product/FC813LL/A?mco=MjMxMjQ0NDQ

For me, the 27" presents the best value proposition because you'd be getting a $800-$1000 display, and when you look at the specs with the remainder of the price, it is competitive or bests any other similarly spec'd all-in-one. Plus you can get 16Gbs of RAM at $130, which I think is the best price/GB ratio right now. To get more at a reasonable price you would need a mac pro, but THAT entails throwing down a ton more money in itself...

I figure you can install an SSD later if you wish - but Thunderbolt will also future-proof your storage needs. I think having the tbolt port is essential unless you wanted to hook up other things, like an xbox, to the display (which you can't do with thunderbolt, at least now as of this moment).

I'm actually pretty interested in what you have to say about this, because as mentioned, I'm in exactly the same dilemma.

Cheers

----------

So the only real trade off when you get an imac instead of a mac pro is the ability to upgrade, and the sheer amount of horsepower. But few applications and uses honestly take full advantage of 6+ cores or over 16GB ram, unless you're some kind of engineer, architect, or seriously committed gamer (in the latter case... get Windows).

I can imagine myself wanting to buy a new rig in five years anyway - and when that happens, I can still use the 27" as an extra monitor and/ or server.

 

[sam2428]

I'm in exactly the same boat as you right now - in the market for an imac for audio recording, sample-based work, etc.

You can actually get a 2011 27" imac for less than the 2010/macmall:

http://store.apple.com/ca/product/FC813LL/A?mco=MjMxMjQ0NDQ

For me, the 27" presents the best value proposition because you'd be getting a $800-$1000 display, and when you look at the specs with the remainder of the price, it is competitive or bests any other similarly spec'd all-in-one. Plus you can get 16Gbs of RAM at $130, which I think is the best price/GB ratio right now. To get more at a reasonable price you would need a mac pro, but THAT entails throwing down a ton more money in itself...

I figure you can install an SSD later if you wish - but Thunderbolt will also future-proof your storage needs. I think having the tbolt port is essential unless you wanted to hook up other things, like an xbox, to the display (which you can't do with thunderbolt, at least now as of this moment).

I'm actually pretty interested in what you have to say about this, because as mentioned, I'm in exactly the same dilemma.

Cheers

----------

So the only real trade off when you get an imac instead of a mac pro is the ability to upgrade, and the sheer amount of horsepower. But few applications and uses honestly take full advantage of 6+ cores or over 16GB ram, unless you're some kind of engineer, architect, or seriously committed gamer (in the latter case... get Windows).

I can imagine myself wanting to buy a new rig in five years anyway - and when that happens, I can still use the 27" as an extra monitor and/ or server.

Thanks for the response, I personally would rather buy a new 2010 than a refurb 2011 (which will be more expensive than the macmall after tax btw), but i totally agree with having a TB port and somewhat future proofing your rig (assuming TB doesnt fade out). Also, with the 2010 model you get a quad i7 vs an i5. I'm sure the i5 would be sufficient for our needs, but might as well go with i7 for any intensive processing work that might happen later. Also, I dont know about you, but since I will probably do some video editing as well...the i7 will also be beneficial then.

With all that said...i'm leaning more toward the highest end 2011 21.5" iMac. 2.8 GHz quad i7, comes with TB, pretty good GPU, etc. Ordering from Macmall would be $1695. I would buy this right away, but i think whats holding me back is the price of the Mini Server.

For almost half the cost I get the quad i7, dual HDDs, & TB....but im giving up the GPU and the ability to upgrade to 16GB of ram (at a low cost). What I gain is the ability to use an external monitor (which i already own), upgrading my computer later down the line and not having to invest in a display again, much easier DIY SSD upgrade, $$$ in my wallet (which would be nice, since i am looking at new studio monitors and a new interface as well).

 

[Jduncan0392]

based on everything you said you'd be doing, get the imac not the mac mini. Mac minis are not built for that kind of ****, they're built for people to get on facebook and play laggy flash games. you could get away with the cheapest imac. also, 8 gigs of ram for lion? lmao you have to be kidding me, windows 7 has never used more than 2.5 gigs of ram on my pc. you could get away with 4 gigs on lion easily. just go with the base imac model and save yourself the trouble of returning the slow mac mini.

 

[cperry2]

Good points. I'm personally not enticed by the mini just because one of my primary uses will be loading orchestral sample libraries, and even 16GB ram might be a little short of ideal - but I'll take it because it hits the power/affordability sweet spot right now. I also like the idea of having a high resolution a monitor as possible because I'll be spending a lot of time working with/ writing sheet music in Finale/ Sibelius.... but that's just me.

I actually think the Server Mini will be best for your needs, besides the GPU and maybe the RAM. A couple of questions would be: Are you going to be happy with 8GB RAM? And secondly: Will the video editing you're doing be feasible with integrated graphics?

That being said, Village Instruments will be making a Thunderbolt eGPU in the near future - but as you might imagine, it'll be expensive:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...graphics-card-for-macs-will-not-blow-you-away

But it's nice to know you're not SOL if you really want/ need it.

Anyway, since you're happy with your current monitor etc., I would go with the Server Mini, barring any reservations about RAM/Graphics limitations. As you say, the ~$700 would go a LONG way towards other studio essentials or upgrades

For example - you could put in a great 240GB SSD and still have a couple hundred left over; I think a good mid-capacity SSD paired with a high capacity HDD is a killer app for any pro media rig.

Cheers

 

[rock15478]

I recently upgraded my recording studio from a Power Mac to the Mac Mini Server. Hands down, best decision made in a long long time. The iMac is extremely difficult to upgrade, it's expensive as crap to get dual displays, etc... Having dual HD's IS a plus when it comes to audio recording. I got the server version and couldn't be happier. Bang for buck wise, the mini kills the iMac as far as I'm concerned.