Macbook Pro Retina 13 and Logic Pro X

Discussion in 'Digital Audio' started by andreyush, Oct 5, 2016.

  1. andreyush macrumors 6502

    andreyush

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    #1
    Hello!

    Is a rMBP mid-2014 with i5 2.8ghz and 8GB ram enough for Logic Pro X?
    I am a begginer on this and I will not use so many tracks and many plug-ins.

    Another question: is 13" screen enough to work on Logic Pro X ?

    I am a guitarist and I just want to do some basic recording and mixing but I want to know if the rMBP 13" is able to do this and more because maybe someday I will need more power and I want to be sure that the CPU is powerfull enough :D .
     
  2. xb2003 macrumors 6502

    xb2003

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Location:
    MO
    #2
    It's plenty capable. Is the screen big enough? I mean that's debateable. If I'm working on a small project on just messing around with with ideas, my 15" is fine and I could use a 13". But larger projects need a bigger or multiple monitors.

    Seriously though, just get Logic and start learning and creating, your Mac is fine. Most of the Macs around my university's music tech program are running Core 2s and 4GB of ram, and even those are plenty capable.
     
  3. andreyush thread starter macrumors 6502

    andreyush

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    #3

    Nice to hear this (or read) ! Mac ftw. Thanks !
     
  4. djippy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca.
    #4
    Depending on what you do and which sample rate you record, this is a fast enough computer for sure.

    I do record on my macbook air 2014, 4GB ram, and if I record/mix at 44k 24bits, I have plenty of power to do 16 audio tracks projects with decent amount of plugins.

    I bust out my CPU if I do the same at 96K. But it is a macbook air... with only 4gb of ram...
     
  5. xb2003 macrumors 6502

    xb2003

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Location:
    MO
    #5
    He is right. Higher sample rates tax everything harder. Unless you specifically know why you need a different sample rate, you should keep it at 48kHz.
     
  6. djippy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca.
    #6
    I personally was never able to ear the difference between 44k and 96k

    I do ear the difference between 16bits and 24bits for recording, especially for low volume sources, but not after a ''squashed compressed'' mix.

    I do not own crazy reference monitors, neither amps or fancy stuff, but a decent audio interface, decent powered monitor and decent headphones.

    Some people with trained ear might be able to ear the difference, but this is not the average joe...
     
  7. xb2003 macrumors 6502

    xb2003

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Location:
    MO
    #7
    Maybe you know this, but what the sample rate affects is the highest frequency capable of being recorded. This frequency is Sample Rate/2. So a sample rate of 48k can record a frequency as high as 24kHz, and a sample rate of 96k can do twice that. As you probably know, perfect human hearing only makes it up to about 20kHz. 44.1k in theory should be more than plenty, and usually is.

    A lot people with trained ears and many people without can (in a good environment with good monitors) distinguish between 44.1k and 48k when they are A/B'd, but few (if any) can without comparing between the two. Almost nobody can distinguish between 48k and 96k with consistent results, and, oddly enough, many tests have shown that test subjects are wrong more than they are right. This has led some to conclude that the presence of all those high frequencies that are beyond human hearing actually have a detrimental effect on recorded music.
     
  8. Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Fishrrman

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #8
  9. djippy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca.
    #9
    Bah, Lots of pixels always help, but I do manage to mix on a 1366 by 768 screen.
     

Share This Page