Smart design, I like the simple lines of the enclosure.
When I read the title, though, I imagined something with glass sides. Ain't never going to happen, but I thought I'd post it.
I imagined the front to be covered in holes for ventilation, but becoming gradually larger towards the top, giving the darker tint to the aluminium. As for access to the insides - prop it up on bricks to take off a glass side?! I'd leave that for Mr Ive to solve
good design, but I agree that it wouldn't be terribly practical to have glass plating. But forget that! You're the thinker, let the engineers who get paid to do this sort of thing fix the practical flaws.
For a quiet system you want cross-air flow. The glass would work if it was CNC milled with very tiny pin holes. That wouldn't raise the cost or nothing!
But seriously, if they could create a sheath that was designed to capture all the particles in the air on the front side and then be removable and cleanable, then slid back into place, I'd be much appreciated. Consider it HEPA-friendly.
Yes! Even basic dust filtration would be great. As it stands, the insides can accumulate dust pretty easily, which brings temperatures up.
I'd also like to see, just for kicks, the Mac Pro getting short enough to fit on a rack (19 inches). That'd probably involve losing the handles (or detachable handles), but would be well worth it.
It'd be an easy way to move it, and it'd be a massive boon to audio and/or video production. Put a few Firewire audio units in the rack with a UPS or some sort of battery, and you've got yourself a mobile command center for anything from concerts to a film shoot.
I'm actually a grip/PA/tech in a feature-length film shoot (yeah, it's a college film, but it's still pretty high-quality, and the director's 4th feature-length), and we use an $800 Firewire audio unit with 8 inputs (quarter-inch or XLR) and 2 outputs that runs over FW 400 (one of my best friends is sound designer). The camera we use is 3ccd 1080i 24fps, and it also has flash memory and a FW400 output, but we're using HDV. There are also plenty of cameras with hard drives. In theory, you could go from the camera to the computer during break between takes, or (if you had a few active FW cables) you could run it straight into computer. This would work great for our set-up, as we already monitor via component, which could be easily switched to using VGA from the computer. You could take the same computer and do the editing on it (we'll be using Mac Pros in our school's Digital Media Lab, or maybe mine, if someone buys the software).
On the sound end, when I do live sound, it's always analog (it's mostly small to mid-range, and that's all we can afford), but a Mac Pro would be a massive asset to a digital workflow there. I can't comment on this in detail, except to say that it'd save a lot of rackspace that would otherwise go into EQ and effects. The idea that you can seamless add effects to channels without much limitation (except processor speed) is exciting to someone who has to otherwise contend with a limited number of effects units or EQs in a rack. Obviously it doesn't make much of a difference in the studio, where space is less of an issue.
In short, a rack-mounted Mac Pro would be awesome for audio and video production.
I'd also like to see, just for kicks, the Mac Pro getting short enough to fit on a rack (19 inches). That'd probably involve losing the handles (or detachable handles), but would be well worth it.
It'd be an easy way to move it, and it'd be a massive boon to audio and/or video production. Put a few Firewire audio units in the rack with a UPS or some sort of battery, and you've got yourself a mobile command center for anything from concerts to a film shoot.
...In short, a rack-mounted Mac Pro would be awesome for audio and video production.
Actually, there are several rack-mounted Mac Pro options already out there.
Some get pretty radical, including one that permanently saws off the handles to make it fit.
Of the various options out there for rackmounting a Mac Pro, my favorite is by Sound Construction (used by a lot of pro audio and video facilities):
That's a proprietary solution (looking at the pictures, it works because the case can be made wider by removing protective foam) that takes up 7U and only works in that company's boxes (by all accounts they're good boxes though).
The current Mac Pro is 20.1 inches by 8.1 inches, while standardized 1U is 19 inches by 1.75 inches. If Apple made the Mac Pro just a 1.5 inches shorter, I guarantee we'd have a standardizable solution within weeks that takes up only 5 or 6 U.
Thanks for the link though . If I was in the market (it's not my film, and the budget is only like $10k for the whole project anyhow*), I'd definitely check that out, but I'm not at the moment.
* = yes, there's a lot of off-budget use of contacts and borrowing and using student resources. Not remotely implying the total cost is $10,000 including those resources, but that's what the producers put up.
That's a proprietary solution (looking at the pictures, it works because the case can be made wider by removing protective foam) that takes up 7U and only works in that company's boxes (by all accounts they're good boxes though).
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
The current Mac Pro is 20.1 inches by 8.1 inches, while standardized 1U is 19 inches by 1.75 inches. If Apple made the Mac Pro just a 1.5 inches shorter, I guarantee we'd have a standardizable solution within weeks that takes up only 5 or 6 U.
Well, as I indicated, there is a company that offers a solution, albeit one so heinous I have banished their contact information from my brain. They send you a kit which includes a saw that you use to remove those handles that loop from the top and bottom. What's left of the Mac Pro is small enough to fit into their rack kit. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Beyond that though, the question is why rackmount a mac in the first place? For servers, Apple already makes the rackmountable xserve. For mobility in production which is what you're talking about, laptops are now sufficiently powerful that you can use one on location without the need to lug a desktop machine around with you. Short of production trucks - essentially audio or video studios on wheels - I think that most location work is better served by a laptop these days. What can't you do on a laptop that can't wait for you to return to your editing suite (I.E. are you really going to do heavy-duty editing while having a latte at Starbucks during a break)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
Thanks for the link though . If I was in the market (it's not my film, and the budget is only like $10k for the whole project anyhow*), I'd definitely check that out, but I'm not at the moment.
It's good to know about Sound Construction generally since they make great stuff which is why you see it in a lot of good studios. One of the main purposes of that box with the rackmountable kit for the Mac Pro is that it is sound proof so it keeps your equipment sound from polluting your work environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
* = yes, there's a lot of off-budget use of contacts and borrowing and using student resources. Not remotely implying the total cost is $10,000 including those resources, but that's what the producers put up.
Hey, some of the best movies and recordings were made with the smallest budgets. There's almost an argument to be made that a small budget forces you to be scrappy and creative and therefore better. "Open Water," for example, was made with a couple of cheesy camcorders and cost around $80 to make and was a great film. OK, it cost 130k, but still, by Hollywood standards, that's less than the cost of an opening night after-party. Same with Blair Witch (25k budget, grossed 250 million). Anyway, good luck with your film!
I expect, and I've just decided this, a modest update to the Mac Pro, similar to the one they gave the iMac. Better specs and an only slightly changed body. A bit smaller, with a bit more.
I expect, and I've just decided this, a modest update to the Mac Pro, similar to the one they gave the iMac. Better specs and an only slightly changed body. A bit smaller, with a bit more.
Well, as I indicated, there is a company that offers a solution, albeit one so heinous I have banished their contact information from my brain. They send you a kit which includes a saw that you use to remove those handles that loop from the top and bottom. What's left of the Mac Pro is small enough to fit into their rack kit. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Yeah, that's pretty heinous. Feels sort of evil, taking a saw to a thing of beauty like that. It's also a consideration that that's not reversible, so one can't say "borrow" or rent someone's computer for that purpose for a few shooting days, and the aftermarket value if you want to sell it after you're done drops considerably.
Actually, by my measuring, you could get away with only dropping one of the sets of handles. For extra insulation, you might need to lose both, but the point is that it's close to fitting right now, and any form factor change could easily accommodate losing that extra inch or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
Beyond that though, the question is why rackmount a mac in the first place? For servers, Apple already makes the rackmountable xserve. For mobility in production which is what you're talking about, laptops are now sufficiently powerful that you can use one on location without the need to lug a desktop machine around with you. Short of production trucks - essentially audio or video studios on wheels - I think that most location work is better served by a laptop these days. What can't you do on a laptop that can't wait for you to return to your editing suite (I.E. are you really going to do heavy-duty editing while having a latte at Starbucks during a break)?
You certainly can use a laptop (we currently use the Sound Designer's 12 inch PB G4) for sound, and in a lot of circumstances, one might want to. But if you're doing more than a few channels of sound (and thus need more than one FW400 port), or want to get video onto the computer directly, you may want more.
A Mac Pro (or any desktop) has the advantage of RAID 1 (extra security on the recordings), more storage capacity, and more inputs. The director or DP can also more easily review cuts during break if necessary. It's also going to be much more flexible in terms of suddenly needing to do something (like use a second monitor)
The other factor is that most of the perceived disadvantages are negated. If you're spending $1000 on each camera, $150+ on each mic, $500-800 on audio input, and $2000+ on software, then $2500 for an entry-level Mac Pro (or less for a refurb) isn't a huge concern, and a similar price to a professional portable. When you've already got a rack with wheels for your other stuff (we just carry around our like 3-4 U of stuff), portability isn't much of a factor. You already need to plug-into power of some sort, as most audio stuff I've worked with draws phantom power from the unit, which in turn draws bus power, which simply beats the crap out of most batteries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
One of the main purposes of that box with the rackmountable kit for the Mac Pro is that it is sound proof so it keeps your equipment sound from polluting your work environment.
Always an important consideration, but a Mac Pro with 7300GT isn't that hot/loud (fans can be really low) until you hit high processor utilization. My first-gen 2.66 w/ x1900xt isn't much louder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
Hey, some of the best movies and recordings were made with the smallest budgets. There's almost an argument to be made that a small budget forces you to be scrappy and creative and therefore better.
I agree whole-heartedly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
Anyway, good luck with your film!
It's far from my film, as I'm just a grip, but thanks.
Well, again, ventilation would be a huge obstacle, keep in mind the design of the first Mac Pro. Aluminum and glass does not leave a lot of breathing room for the juicy hard drive.
Guys, the next Mac Pro will likely feature cosmetic changes (colour and port placement) along with upgraded internals, including an eSATA port.
However, the cheese grater style itself is not going anywhere. Even with lower wattage chips, the Mac Pro needs that kind of airflow to remain a fairly silent machine.
Guys, the next Mac Pro will likely feature cosmetic changes (colour and port placement) along with upgraded internals, including an eSATA port.
However, the cheese grater style itself is not going anywhere. Even with lower wattage chips, the Mac Pro needs that kind of airflow to remain a fairly silent machine.
Draw your mockups accordingly.
I agree. I stated earlier, possibly in another thread, that it was likely that there will be few cosmetic changes, i.e. change of color, material etc., and a reasonable upgrade to the pre-installed specifications of the machine.
You certainly can use a laptop (we currently use the Sound Designer's 12 inch PB G4) for sound, and in a lot of circumstances, one might want to. But if you're doing more than a few channels of sound (and thus need more than one FW400 port), or want to get video onto the computer directly, you may want more.
In practice, the number of sound channels is not limited by firewire, and to get more channels you don't really use an extra firewire port (with the exception of aggregate devices which is not what most people do).
The firewire implementation on the laptop offers the same bandwidth as on the desktop - FW400 or 800 - and standard firewire audio interfaces are computer agnostic. So, for instance, an RME Firewire 800 with approximately 60 inputs will work as a 60 input device on a desktop or laptop. It doesn't care.
The weak link is usually the drive, not the firewire. A slow low-performance laptop drive will stall out before you've filled up the firewire bandwidth, and by far.
Of course, while you can get more power and performance out of a desktop, again "in practice," I doubt you'd ever max out your available tracks on a new mac laptop for on-location film work, and you can always beef up the drive if you need more. In fact, most industry standard audio field recorders used in film production do not provide as many simultaneous tracks as you can get with a laptop. Which isn't to say the laptop is better than a Nagra, Sound Devices, Fostex, Zoom, or whatever, but you wouldn't eschew the laptop (and use a desktop instead as you are suggesting) because the laptop cannot accomodate enough audio inputs. Honestly, how many do you need for field work? More than 24?
Beyond firewire, many (non ProTools-using) pros are using Apogee's "symphony" system which has a direct connection to the bus and is faster and more reliable than firewire anyway. Using an Apogee symphony PCMCIA card with a laptop can provide 32 tracks of 192k i/o with latency less than 2 milliseconds which is superior performance to any firewire solution available for any desktop mac.
(FYI - the firewire implementation in mac laptops AND mac desktops is not the best chipset for audio and the $75 or so it will cost you to buy a better one (e.g. Texas Instruments by way of Siig), is money well spent).
However, if you just like having a computer in a rack because it's a nice neat solution and packs up well with your other equipment... well... that's something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
A Mac Pro (or any desktop) has the advantage of RAID 1 (extra security on the recordings), more storage capacity, and more inputs. The director or DP can also more easily review cuts during break if necessary. It's also going to be much more flexible in terms of suddenly needing to do something (like use a second monitor)
Yes, desktops are more powerful than laptops, but you're seriously under-estimating what laptops are now capable of and not aware of how prevalent they have become in on-location audio and video production, hooked up to extra monitors, extra directors, and in some cases, extraterrestrials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
The other factor is that most of the perceived disadvantages are negated. If you're spending $1000 on each camera, $150+ on each mic, $500-800 on audio input, and $2000+ on software, then $2500 for an entry-level Mac Pro (or less for a refurb) isn't a huge concern, and a similar price to a professional portable. When you've already got a rack with wheels for your other stuff (we just carry around our like 3-4 U of stuff), portability isn't much of a factor. You already need to plug-into power of some sort, as most audio stuff I've worked with draws phantom power from the unit, which in turn draws bus power, which simply beats the crap out of most batteries.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you're making a terrible mistake if you rely on a bus-powered audio device for phantom power. At best, power retrieved from a computer can operate basic controls, but is too anemic to reliably provide phantom power to most condensor microphones. Some mics are more forgiving than others, but most will not perform as well as they can without enough juice, and for that you need a better source than what dribbles out of a computer orifice. The issue is further complicated by the rampant misuse of the phantom power spec. When a mic asks for phantom power, it expects 48V. However, not all interfaces deliver all 48V, and some only around 30V. The ones that lie the most are the ones that claim that all you have to do is plug them into your computer and they supply all the power you could ever want. A good rule of thumb is to just use preamps (/interfaces) that have their own independent power sources.
Wouldn't it be more convenient to have your rack equipment in your rack, and a laptop in a backpack or something? Having a computer as part of the rack just seems like a big and bulky rack hog, and cumbersome to have to hook up to a monitor and keyboard. During production, sound can be recorded to a dedicated audio field recorder, laptop, or both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
Always an important consideration, but a Mac Pro with 7300GT isn't that hot/loud (fans can be really low) until you hit high processor utilization. My first-gen 2.66 w/ x1900xt isn't much louder.
You never know for sure when your CPU is going to ramp up, and so if you are making a critical recording and the fan on your mac truck of a mac suddenly goes into overdrive, you're screwed unless you've 1) put the computer in a soundproof box, 2) banished the computer into another room with all peripherals connected through long distance cables or 3) are using a computer that is so quiet even when excited that it's invisible to your microphone. Every Mac desktop I've ever met needs a box or banishment during recording.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
I agree whole-heartedly.
I forgot what we're agreeing about but just want to say that I doubly agree, whatever it is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
It's far from my film, as I'm just a grip, but thanks.
There's an ancient Nordic phrase that goes back thousands of years: "today's grip is tomorrow's director." Or something like that.
In practice, the number of sound channels is not limited by firewire, and to get more channels you don't really use an extra firewire port (with the exception of aggregate devices which is not what most people do).
...
The weak link is usually the drive, not the firewire. A slow low-performance laptop drive will stall out before you've filled up the firewire bandwidth, and by far.
My goal in having multiple Firewire ports is that if I have two devices, I don't really want to chain them or use a hub (as both can sometimes be less than error-free).
And if hard drives are the weak-spot (and they are if they're slower than 40 MB/s), having a desktop helps, as you've got enough bays for an internal RAID 0 or RAID 10, and you can also more easily have 7200 rpm drives or 10k rpm drives. On a laptop, you're using Firewire or USB2 (blech) or an eSATA express card to get a faster drive. This can add issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
Which isn't to say the laptop is better than a Nagra, Sound Devices, Fostex, Zoom, or whatever, but you wouldn't eschew the laptop (and use a desktop instead as you are suggesting) because the laptop cannot accomodate enough audio inputs. Honestly, how many do you need for field work? More than 24?
Sorry, I'm sort of skipping between live audio production and film production here (as I dabble in both) - in a "more than 24" instance, I'd be doing live sound. More than 24 channels in a major concert is normal, and many bands will have upwards of 36 in the $60,000+ performance fee range. When you factor in switching guitars, about 8 mics on the drums, 3 vocal mics, keyboards in stereo, etc, it gets up there. Currently, I usually only mix sound on the low-end (sub $2000 performance fees) where I have between 8 (no micing drums, it's a tiny venue) and 24 channels (any higher artist fees and we hire someone to do the mixing or we wind up renting equipment)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
(FYI - the firewire implementation in mac laptops AND mac desktops is not the best chipset for audio and the $75 or so it will cost you to buy a better one (e.g. Texas Instruments by way of Siig), is money well spent).
Hurray for PCIe slots! :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you're making a terrible mistake if you rely on a bus-powered audio device for phantom power. At best, power retrieved from a computer can operate basic controls, but is too anemic to reliably provide phantom power to most condensor microphones ... A good rule of thumb is to just use preamps (/interfaces) that have their own independent power sources.
That's my point - you have to plug stuff in anyways, so you either need external batteries (lead-acid batteries in our case, with distro set up by our EE-majoring sound guy) or a receptacle anyhow, so the laptop battery is useless in this instance (or at least less useful).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
Wouldn't it be more convenient to have your rack equipment in your rack, and a laptop in a backpack or something? Having a computer as part of the rack just seems like a big and bulky rack hog, and cumbersome to have to hook up to a monitor and keyboard. During production, sound can be recorded to a dedicated audio field recorder, laptop, or both.
I'm not denying this is a viable option (it's the one we're using, after all), I'm just saying that having a rack-mountable desktop Mac would be a nice alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits
You never know for sure when your CPU is going to ramp up, and so if you are making a critical recording and the fan on your mac truck of a mac suddenly goes into overdrive, you're screwed unless you've 1) put the computer in a soundproof box, 2) banished the computer into another room with all peripherals connected through long distance cables or 3) are using a computer that is so quiet even when excited that it's invisible to your microphone. Every Mac desktop I've ever met needs a box or banishment during recording.
Given the length of boom mic cables (50 feet of decent XLR is cheap) and the amount of other stuff in a film shoot, your computer won't be within 20 feet of the microphone either way, and programs like SMC fan control can temporarily stop or seriously slow fans during a take.
You're right that a Mac Pro is sort of overkill for the job, but there are some situations where there are legit uses for an extra HDD bay or a PCIe slot. I hate to Godwin the thread, but this is a situation where a Mac Pro lite or an xMac would be great, if Apple made one.
Getting back to the actual thread's topic - I can't really see Glass in a Pro machine. Aluminum certainly, but glass just seems sort of "fragile" and not at all in line with the Mac Pro. I think that in addition to their being a unifying Apple theme to the models, the models also have their own personalities. While the iMac is the "computer of the future" look, the MacBook means "simple is beautiful", and both the MBP and the Mac Pro aim to convey "serious professionalism".
With the current Mac Pro and with the G5, this is conveyed by the dominance of the size of the tower, the metal, and the shape. In the G4, we saw something similar, with the main body remaining blocky and sort of gray drab. The mirrored drive doors added to this, I think. Even the G3, with it's color scheme seemed far more serious than the rainbow-colored iMacs of its day.
My goal in having multiple Firewire ports is that if I have two devices, I don't really want to chain them or use a hub (as both can sometimes be less than error-free).
There are three themes emerging from our little convo, and I will do my best to advance them, giving the limitations of my current circumstances (I am a cat, I need to eat some food, take a nap, visit the litter box, take a nap, nap some more, eat some food, and then take a nap).
Theme 1: You are mistaken about some of the differences between a desktop and a laptop
Theme 2: A laptop offers more than enough power and is better suited for the application you describe
Theme 3: Your natural instinct to gravitate towards a lumbering desktop over a svelte laptop (for field recording no less) is an unfortunate but understandable side effect of your having been raised in a Soviet era gulag as part of an early computer science user interface experiment (think The Hatch from "Lost"), but help is on the way.
However, in order to proceed, I must reluctantly shed you of one of your deepest and most misinformed beliefs, that multiple firewire ports on a desktop mac are anything more than an elaborate hub. Sorry, Zach, all those desktop FW ports share the same bus, which is why many audio manufacturers either recommend or require that you install an additional and truly independent firewire port in order to use their swag. While on a desktop that means PCIe and on a laptop that means PCMCIA, the sad truth is the same for both with no advantage given to the big fat desktop: a 3rd party card is the only way to provide an independent firewire conduit for all your audio goodness. Also, just between you and I, half of all the complaints launched on the interwebs about problems with firewire audio interfaces on a mac could be easily solved by the use of one of these cards, which cost next to nothing.
Reality sandwiches, Zach, are bitter but filling. Have another bite.
Your contention that using multiple firewire ports is a reasonable way to increase audio inputs into the mac has brought shame upon you and your entire team in Kitchen Stadium. A single firewire port has more than twice enough bandwidth for applications you have described above for your own use. Instead of aggregate devices, the best way to increase inputs (through firewrie) would be to establish one reliable firewire port with a 3rd party card, and simply use a firewire interface with sufficient innies - and there's many of them out there.
(Unless, of course, you are working with a TDM system and multiple PCIe cards and have a budget the size of a house. But that's not the scenario you describe)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
And if hard drives are the weak-spot (and they are if they're slower than 40 MB/s), having a desktop helps, as you've got enough bays for an internal RAID 0 or RAID 10, and you can also more easily have 7200 rpm drives or 10k rpm drives. On a laptop, you're using Firewire or USB2 (blech) or an eSATA express card to get a faster drive. This can add issues.
Issues are when your sound guy is banging your assistant director's wife. Plugging in an extra drive is not an issue and as easy as swapping out a roll of tape.
7200 rpm is adequate, anything slower, not so much. For recording, forget about USB completely. Also, if rackmounting your gear continues to flood your brain with endorphins, there are numerous rackmounted drive solutions "optimized" for audio and video (i.e. overpriced); however, like your sound guy, they go both ways and can mate equally well with either a laptop or desktop.
While there are benefits for stuffing a hard drive in a desktop in a studio and loading it with a library of sounds, I'm not sure there's a benefit for internal vs. external drives on the road. The nod goes to portability, and so a light computer you can throw into your knapsack or the grippy pouch of a marsupial intern wins that battle every time. As for the external drive - it is as agnostic as Christopher Hitchens, and doesn't discriminate between laptops vs. desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
Sorry, I'm sort of skipping between live audio production and film production here (as I dabble in both) - in a "more than 24" instance, I'd be doing live sound. More than 24 channels in a major concert is normal, and many bands will have upwards of 36 in the $60,000+ performance fee range. When you factor in switching guitars, about 8 mics on the drums, 3 vocal mics, keyboards in stereo, etc, it gets up there. Currently, I usually only mix sound on the low-end (sub $2000 performance fees) where I have between 8 (no micing drums, it's a tiny venue) and 24 channels (any higher artist fees and we hire someone to do the mixing or we wind up renting equipment)
ProTools systems are fairly standard in the wild for big concerts, as are dedicated drive-based recording systems (computers that do one thing and one thing only) like the Tascam DA-98HR or the sweeter-sounding RADAR:
Note: they are all rackmountable, reliable, and used all the time for what you desribe. Again, unless you're investing in a ProTools TDM system, there's no benefit for a desktop over a laptop; these standalone devices are the best middle solution between either a laptop and desktop not running Protools TDM and ProTools TDM. However, as native solutions improve, more engineers are relying on laptops for field recording (and desktops for permanent installations) to fill the middle space, since the idea of spending even $1500 on a computer that does only 1 thing is so 1990s. However, given your descript, this may be your sweet spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
I'm not denying this is a viable option (it's the one we're using, after all), I'm just saying that having a rack-mountable desktop Mac would be a nice alternative.
A nice alternative for what?
When the iphone was released did you contemplate how nice it would be to have a rackmountable version of the iPhone?
I have used and continue to use desktops for audio recording. But I have been progressively persuaded by the utiliity of laptops in the field as have many industry pros. It's odd that you cling to a nostalgic view of recording technology as though nothing will satisfy you short of bringing a Neumann AM-131 disk recording lathe from the 1960s to your set in order to back up a stereo master at the end of the day onto vinyl in order to proof with a gramophone.
As for Xmacs, I get that the whining of gamers is contagious. The whining of gamers is, in its own way, a game. And if I had a crystal ball (I don't, I'm a cat), I would say that all desktop machines will become Xmacs eventually anyway, but not for the sake of the mewling whining gamers, but because everything gets smaller and faster anyway. But even if you woke up tomorrow in a room full of xmacs, I still think you'd be better served by selling them on eBay and using the money to buy one of the fancy new laptops that will be out in a month or so, and a kickass audio interface to use with it that will give you audio production capabilities far beyond anything the Beetles ever used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
Given the length of boom mic cables (50 feet of decent XLR is cheap) and the amount of other stuff in a film shoot, your computer won't be within 20 feet of the microphone either way, and programs like SMC fan control can temporarily stop or seriously slow fans during a take.
Do you really want to assign personnel to babysit a computer? Perhaps set up a remote computer lab on set with temperature controls, housing, an IT staff, and a vending machine? How convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
You're right that a Mac Pro is sort of overkill for the job, but there are some situations where there are legit uses for an extra HDD bay or a PCIe slot. I hate to Godwin the thread, but this is a situation where a Mac Pro lite or an xMac would be great, if Apple made one.
They do. It's called a MacBook Pro, it has a PCMICIA slot and a FW port that can be used in tandem for multitrack hard drive recording, and world class conversion and interfacing.
Or, would you be more comfortable using the laptop if you could house it in a 7 space rackmountable metal box with lead weights? Alternatively, if you want that extra hardware to actually do something, there's always magma:
Or, would you be more comfortable using the laptop if you could house it in a 7 space rackmountable metal box with lead weights? Alternatively, if you want that extra hardware to actually do something, there's always magma:
Funny you should mention the Magma. One of my sound guys on the last film I was shooting had a setup just as you're describing (with a trial racked Magma). I did so want one... but had absolutely no need (since I just write and direct and produce), but darn did it expand his MBP in wonderful and beautiful ways.
I have to agree with most of your post for any film under 20 mill. It's just easier, cheaper, and very effective. And, in a very, very statistically minor way, the less lugging at smaller budgets, the more shooting time you have. But every second counts sometimes.
Comments
When I read the title, though, I imagined something with glass sides. Ain't never going to happen, but I thought I'd post it.
I imagined the front to be covered in holes for ventilation, but becoming gradually larger towards the top, giving the darker tint to the aluminium. As for access to the insides - prop it up on bricks to take off a glass side?! I'd leave that for Mr Ive to solve
I think it's pretty, but I feel like.. I don't know, I imagine it even more beautiful. I've come to expect that from Apple. I do like the design.
For a quiet system you want cross-air flow. The glass would work if it was CNC milled with very tiny pin holes. That wouldn't raise the cost or nothing!
But seriously, if they could create a sheath that was designed to capture all the particles in the air on the front side and then be removable and cleanable, then slid back into place, I'd be much appreciated. Consider it HEPA-friendly.
Yes! Even basic dust filtration would be great. As it stands, the insides can accumulate dust pretty easily, which brings temperatures up.
I'd also like to see, just for kicks, the Mac Pro getting short enough to fit on a rack (19 inches). That'd probably involve losing the handles (or detachable handles), but would be well worth it.
It'd be an easy way to move it, and it'd be a massive boon to audio and/or video production. Put a few Firewire audio units in the rack with a UPS or some sort of battery, and you've got yourself a mobile command center for anything from concerts to a film shoot.
I'm actually a grip/PA/tech in a feature-length film shoot (yeah, it's a college film, but it's still pretty high-quality, and the director's 4th feature-length), and we use an $800 Firewire audio unit with 8 inputs (quarter-inch or XLR) and 2 outputs that runs over FW 400 (one of my best friends is sound designer). The camera we use is 3ccd 1080i 24fps, and it also has flash memory and a FW400 output, but we're using HDV. There are also plenty of cameras with hard drives. In theory, you could go from the camera to the computer during break between takes, or (if you had a few active FW cables) you could run it straight into computer. This would work great for our set-up, as we already monitor via component, which could be easily switched to using VGA from the computer. You could take the same computer and do the editing on it (we'll be using Mac Pros in our school's Digital Media Lab, or maybe mine, if someone buys the software).
On the sound end, when I do live sound, it's always analog (it's mostly small to mid-range, and that's all we can afford), but a Mac Pro would be a massive asset to a digital workflow there. I can't comment on this in detail, except to say that it'd save a lot of rackspace that would otherwise go into EQ and effects. The idea that you can seamless add effects to channels without much limitation (except processor speed) is exciting to someone who has to otherwise contend with a limited number of effects units or EQs in a rack. Obviously it doesn't make much of a difference in the studio, where space is less of an issue.
In short, a rack-mounted Mac Pro would be awesome for audio and video production.
I'd also like to see, just for kicks, the Mac Pro getting short enough to fit on a rack (19 inches). That'd probably involve losing the handles (or detachable handles), but would be well worth it.
It'd be an easy way to move it, and it'd be a massive boon to audio and/or video production. Put a few Firewire audio units in the rack with a UPS or some sort of battery, and you've got yourself a mobile command center for anything from concerts to a film shoot.
...In short, a rack-mounted Mac Pro would be awesome for audio and video production.
Actually, there are several rack-mounted Mac Pro options already out there.
Some get pretty radical, including one that permanently saws off the handles to make it fit.
Of the various options out there for rackmounting a Mac Pro, my favorite is by Sound Construction (used by a lot of pro audio and video facilities):
http://custom-consoles.com/index.htm
Actually, there are several rack-mounted Mac Pro options already out there.
Some get pretty radical, including one that permanently saws off the handles to make it fit.
Of the various options out there for rackmounting a Mac Pro, my favorite is by Sound Construction (used by a lot of pro audio and video facilities):
http://custom-consoles.com/index.htm
That's a proprietary solution (looking at the pictures, it works because the case can be made wider by removing protective foam) that takes up 7U and only works in that company's boxes (by all accounts they're good boxes though).
The current Mac Pro is 20.1 inches by 8.1 inches, while standardized 1U is 19 inches by 1.75 inches. If Apple made the Mac Pro just a 1.5 inches shorter, I guarantee we'd have a standardizable solution within weeks that takes up only 5 or 6 U.
Thanks for the link though
* = yes, there's a lot of off-budget use of contacts and borrowing and using student resources. Not remotely implying the total cost is $10,000 including those resources, but that's what the producers put up.
That's a proprietary solution (looking at the pictures, it works because the case can be made wider by removing protective foam) that takes up 7U and only works in that company's boxes (by all accounts they're good boxes though).
Agreed.
The current Mac Pro is 20.1 inches by 8.1 inches, while standardized 1U is 19 inches by 1.75 inches. If Apple made the Mac Pro just a 1.5 inches shorter, I guarantee we'd have a standardizable solution within weeks that takes up only 5 or 6 U.
Well, as I indicated, there is a company that offers a solution, albeit one so heinous I have banished their contact information from my brain. They send you a kit which includes a saw that you use to remove those handles that loop from the top and bottom. What's left of the Mac Pro is small enough to fit into their rack kit. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Beyond that though, the question is why rackmount a mac in the first place? For servers, Apple already makes the rackmountable xserve. For mobility in production which is what you're talking about, laptops are now sufficiently powerful that you can use one on location without the need to lug a desktop machine around with you. Short of production trucks - essentially audio or video studios on wheels - I think that most location work is better served by a laptop these days. What can't you do on a laptop that can't wait for you to return to your editing suite (I.E. are you really going to do heavy-duty editing while having a latte at Starbucks during a break)?
Thanks for the link though
It's good to know about Sound Construction generally since they make great stuff which is why you see it in a lot of good studios. One of the main purposes of that box with the rackmountable kit for the Mac Pro is that it is sound proof so it keeps your equipment sound from polluting your work environment.
* = yes, there's a lot of off-budget use of contacts and borrowing and using student resources. Not remotely implying the total cost is $10,000 including those resources, but that's what the producers put up.
Hey, some of the best movies and recordings were made with the smallest budgets. There's almost an argument to be made that a small budget forces you to be scrappy and creative and therefore better. "Open Water," for example, was made with a couple of cheesy camcorders and cost around $80 to make and was a great film. OK, it cost 130k, but still, by Hollywood standards, that's less than the cost of an opening night after-party. Same with Blair Witch (25k budget, grossed 250 million). Anyway, good luck with your film!
I expect, and I've just decided this, a modest update to the Mac Pro, similar to the one they gave the iMac. Better specs and an only slightly changed body. A bit smaller, with a bit more.
And when might we expect to see this?
Agreed.
Well, as I indicated, there is a company that offers a solution, albeit one so heinous I have banished their contact information from my brain. They send you a kit which includes a saw that you use to remove those handles that loop from the top and bottom. What's left of the Mac Pro is small enough to fit into their rack kit. Not exactly an elegant solution.
Yeah, that's pretty heinous. Feels sort of evil, taking a saw to a thing of beauty like that. It's also a consideration that that's not reversible, so one can't say "borrow" or rent someone's computer for that purpose for a few shooting days, and the aftermarket value if you want to sell it after you're done drops considerably.
Actually, by my measuring, you could get away with only dropping one of the sets of handles. For extra insulation, you might need to lose both, but the point is that it's close to fitting right now, and any form factor change could easily accommodate losing that extra inch or so.
Beyond that though, the question is why rackmount a mac in the first place? For servers, Apple already makes the rackmountable xserve. For mobility in production which is what you're talking about, laptops are now sufficiently powerful that you can use one on location without the need to lug a desktop machine around with you. Short of production trucks - essentially audio or video studios on wheels - I think that most location work is better served by a laptop these days. What can't you do on a laptop that can't wait for you to return to your editing suite (I.E. are you really going to do heavy-duty editing while having a latte at Starbucks during a break)?
You certainly can use a laptop (we currently use the Sound Designer's 12 inch PB G4) for sound, and in a lot of circumstances, one might want to. But if you're doing more than a few channels of sound (and thus need more than one FW400 port), or want to get video onto the computer directly, you may want more.
A Mac Pro (or any desktop) has the advantage of RAID 1 (extra security on the recordings), more storage capacity, and more inputs. The director or DP can also more easily review cuts during break if necessary. It's also going to be much more flexible in terms of suddenly needing to do something (like use a second monitor)
The other factor is that most of the perceived disadvantages are negated. If you're spending $1000 on each camera, $150+ on each mic, $500-800 on audio input, and $2000+ on software, then $2500 for an entry-level Mac Pro (or less for a refurb) isn't a huge concern, and a similar price to a professional portable. When you've already got a rack with wheels for your other stuff (we just carry around our like 3-4 U of stuff), portability isn't much of a factor. You already need to plug-into power of some sort, as most audio stuff I've worked with draws phantom power from the unit, which in turn draws bus power, which simply beats the crap out of most batteries.
One of the main purposes of that box with the rackmountable kit for the Mac Pro is that it is sound proof so it keeps your equipment sound from polluting your work environment.
Always an important consideration, but a Mac Pro with 7300GT isn't that hot/loud (fans can be really low) until you hit high processor utilization. My first-gen 2.66 w/ x1900xt isn't much louder.
Hey, some of the best movies and recordings were made with the smallest budgets. There's almost an argument to be made that a small budget forces you to be scrappy and creative and therefore better.
I agree whole-heartedly.
Anyway, good luck with your film!
It's far from my film, as I'm just a grip, but thanks.
Yes. That COULD work.
Lemon Bon Bon.
However, the cheese grater style itself is not going anywhere. Even with lower wattage chips, the Mac Pro needs that kind of airflow to remain a fairly silent machine.
Draw your mockups accordingly.
Guys, the next Mac Pro will likely feature cosmetic changes (colour and port placement) along with upgraded internals, including an eSATA port.
However, the cheese grater style itself is not going anywhere. Even with lower wattage chips, the Mac Pro needs that kind of airflow to remain a fairly silent machine.
Draw your mockups accordingly.
I agree. I stated earlier, possibly in another thread, that it was likely that there will be few cosmetic changes, i.e. change of color, material etc., and a reasonable upgrade to the pre-installed specifications of the machine.
You certainly can use a laptop (we currently use the Sound Designer's 12 inch PB G4) for sound, and in a lot of circumstances, one might want to. But if you're doing more than a few channels of sound (and thus need more than one FW400 port), or want to get video onto the computer directly, you may want more.
In practice, the number of sound channels is not limited by firewire, and to get more channels you don't really use an extra firewire port (with the exception of aggregate devices which is not what most people do).
The firewire implementation on the laptop offers the same bandwidth as on the desktop - FW400 or 800 - and standard firewire audio interfaces are computer agnostic. So, for instance, an RME Firewire 800 with approximately 60 inputs will work as a 60 input device on a desktop or laptop. It doesn't care.
The weak link is usually the drive, not the firewire. A slow low-performance laptop drive will stall out before you've filled up the firewire bandwidth, and by far.
Of course, while you can get more power and performance out of a desktop, again "in practice," I doubt you'd ever max out your available tracks on a new mac laptop for on-location film work, and you can always beef up the drive if you need more. In fact, most industry standard audio field recorders used in film production do not provide as many simultaneous tracks as you can get with a laptop. Which isn't to say the laptop is better than a Nagra, Sound Devices, Fostex, Zoom, or whatever, but you wouldn't eschew the laptop (and use a desktop instead as you are suggesting) because the laptop cannot accomodate enough audio inputs. Honestly, how many do you need for field work? More than 24?
Beyond firewire, many (non ProTools-using) pros are using Apogee's "symphony" system which has a direct connection to the bus and is faster and more reliable than firewire anyway. Using an Apogee symphony PCMCIA card with a laptop can provide 32 tracks of 192k i/o with latency less than 2 milliseconds which is superior performance to any firewire solution available for any desktop mac.
(FYI - the firewire implementation in mac laptops AND mac desktops is not the best chipset for audio and the $75 or so it will cost you to buy a better one (e.g. Texas Instruments by way of Siig), is money well spent).
However, if you just like having a computer in a rack because it's a nice neat solution and packs up well with your other equipment... well... that's something else.
A Mac Pro (or any desktop) has the advantage of RAID 1 (extra security on the recordings), more storage capacity, and more inputs. The director or DP can also more easily review cuts during break if necessary. It's also going to be much more flexible in terms of suddenly needing to do something (like use a second monitor)
Yes, desktops are more powerful than laptops, but you're seriously under-estimating what laptops are now capable of and not aware of how prevalent they have become in on-location audio and video production, hooked up to extra monitors, extra directors, and in some cases, extraterrestrials.
The other factor is that most of the perceived disadvantages are negated. If you're spending $1000 on each camera, $150+ on each mic, $500-800 on audio input, and $2000+ on software, then $2500 for an entry-level Mac Pro (or less for a refurb) isn't a huge concern, and a similar price to a professional portable. When you've already got a rack with wheels for your other stuff (we just carry around our like 3-4 U of stuff), portability isn't much of a factor. You already need to plug-into power of some sort, as most audio stuff I've worked with draws phantom power from the unit, which in turn draws bus power, which simply beats the crap out of most batteries.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you're making a terrible mistake if you rely on a bus-powered audio device for phantom power. At best, power retrieved from a computer can operate basic controls, but is too anemic to reliably provide phantom power to most condensor microphones. Some mics are more forgiving than others, but most will not perform as well as they can without enough juice, and for that you need a better source than what dribbles out of a computer orifice. The issue is further complicated by the rampant misuse of the phantom power spec. When a mic asks for phantom power, it expects 48V. However, not all interfaces deliver all 48V, and some only around 30V. The ones that lie the most are the ones that claim that all you have to do is plug them into your computer and they supply all the power you could ever want. A good rule of thumb is to just use preamps (/interfaces) that have their own independent power sources.
Wouldn't it be more convenient to have your rack equipment in your rack, and a laptop in a backpack or something? Having a computer as part of the rack just seems like a big and bulky rack hog, and cumbersome to have to hook up to a monitor and keyboard. During production, sound can be recorded to a dedicated audio field recorder, laptop, or both.
Always an important consideration, but a Mac Pro with 7300GT isn't that hot/loud (fans can be really low) until you hit high processor utilization. My first-gen 2.66 w/ x1900xt isn't much louder.
You never know for sure when your CPU is going to ramp up, and so if you are making a critical recording and the fan on your mac truck of a mac suddenly goes into overdrive, you're screwed unless you've 1) put the computer in a soundproof box, 2) banished the computer into another room with all peripherals connected through long distance cables or 3) are using a computer that is so quiet even when excited that it's invisible to your microphone. Every Mac desktop I've ever met needs a box or banishment during recording.
I agree whole-heartedly.
I forgot what we're agreeing about but just want to say that I doubly agree, whatever it is!
It's far from my film, as I'm just a grip, but thanks.
There's an ancient Nordic phrase that goes back thousands of years: "today's grip is tomorrow's director." Or something like that.
In practice, the number of sound channels is not limited by firewire, and to get more channels you don't really use an extra firewire port (with the exception of aggregate devices which is not what most people do).
...
The weak link is usually the drive, not the firewire. A slow low-performance laptop drive will stall out before you've filled up the firewire bandwidth, and by far.
My goal in having multiple Firewire ports is that if I have two devices, I don't really want to chain them or use a hub (as both can sometimes be less than error-free).
And if hard drives are the weak-spot (and they are if they're slower than 40 MB/s), having a desktop helps, as you've got enough bays for an internal RAID 0 or RAID 10, and you can also more easily have 7200 rpm drives or 10k rpm drives. On a laptop, you're using Firewire or USB2 (blech) or an eSATA express card to get a faster drive. This can add issues.
Which isn't to say the laptop is better than a Nagra, Sound Devices, Fostex, Zoom, or whatever, but you wouldn't eschew the laptop (and use a desktop instead as you are suggesting) because the laptop cannot accomodate enough audio inputs. Honestly, how many do you need for field work? More than 24?
Sorry, I'm sort of skipping between live audio production and film production here (as I dabble in both) - in a "more than 24" instance, I'd be doing live sound. More than 24 channels in a major concert is normal, and many bands will have upwards of 36 in the $60,000+ performance fee range. When you factor in switching guitars, about 8 mics on the drums, 3 vocal mics, keyboards in stereo, etc, it gets up there. Currently, I usually only mix sound on the low-end (sub $2000 performance fees) where I have between 8 (no micing drums, it's a tiny venue) and 24 channels (any higher artist fees and we hire someone to do the mixing or we wind up renting equipment)
(FYI - the firewire implementation in mac laptops AND mac desktops is not the best chipset for audio and the $75 or so it will cost you to buy a better one (e.g. Texas Instruments by way of Siig), is money well spent).
Hurray for PCIe slots! :-)
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you're making a terrible mistake if you rely on a bus-powered audio device for phantom power. At best, power retrieved from a computer can operate basic controls, but is too anemic to reliably provide phantom power to most condensor microphones ... A good rule of thumb is to just use preamps (/interfaces) that have their own independent power sources.
That's my point - you have to plug stuff in anyways, so you either need external batteries (lead-acid batteries in our case, with distro set up by our EE-majoring sound guy) or a receptacle anyhow, so the laptop battery is useless in this instance (or at least less useful).
Wouldn't it be more convenient to have your rack equipment in your rack, and a laptop in a backpack or something? Having a computer as part of the rack just seems like a big and bulky rack hog, and cumbersome to have to hook up to a monitor and keyboard. During production, sound can be recorded to a dedicated audio field recorder, laptop, or both.
I'm not denying this is a viable option (it's the one we're using, after all), I'm just saying that having a rack-mountable desktop Mac would be a nice alternative.
You never know for sure when your CPU is going to ramp up, and so if you are making a critical recording and the fan on your mac truck of a mac suddenly goes into overdrive, you're screwed unless you've 1) put the computer in a soundproof box, 2) banished the computer into another room with all peripherals connected through long distance cables or 3) are using a computer that is so quiet even when excited that it's invisible to your microphone. Every Mac desktop I've ever met needs a box or banishment during recording.
Given the length of boom mic cables (50 feet of decent XLR is cheap) and the amount of other stuff in a film shoot, your computer won't be within 20 feet of the microphone either way, and programs like SMC fan control can temporarily stop or seriously slow fans during a take.
You're right that a Mac Pro is sort of overkill for the job, but there are some situations where there are legit uses for an extra HDD bay or a PCIe slot. I hate to Godwin the thread, but this is a situation where a Mac Pro lite or an xMac would be great, if Apple made one.
Getting back to the actual thread's topic - I can't really see Glass in a Pro machine. Aluminum certainly, but glass just seems sort of "fragile" and not at all in line with the Mac Pro. I think that in addition to their being a unifying Apple theme to the models, the models also have their own personalities. While the iMac is the "computer of the future" look, the MacBook means "simple is beautiful", and both the MBP and the Mac Pro aim to convey "serious professionalism".
With the current Mac Pro and with the G5, this is conveyed by the dominance of the size of the tower, the metal, and the shape. In the G4, we saw something similar, with the main body remaining blocky and sort of gray drab. The mirrored drive doors added to this, I think. Even the G3, with it's color scheme seemed far more serious than the rainbow-colored iMacs of its day.
My goal in having multiple Firewire ports is that if I have two devices, I don't really want to chain them or use a hub (as both can sometimes be less than error-free).
There are three themes emerging from our little convo, and I will do my best to advance them, giving the limitations of my current circumstances (I am a cat, I need to eat some food, take a nap, visit the litter box, take a nap, nap some more, eat some food, and then take a nap).
Theme 1: You are mistaken about some of the differences between a desktop and a laptop
Theme 2: A laptop offers more than enough power and is better suited for the application you describe
Theme 3: Your natural instinct to gravitate towards a lumbering desktop over a svelte laptop (for field recording no less) is an unfortunate but understandable side effect of your having been raised in a Soviet era gulag as part of an early computer science user interface experiment (think The Hatch from "Lost"), but help is on the way.
However, in order to proceed, I must reluctantly shed you of one of your deepest and most misinformed beliefs, that multiple firewire ports on a desktop mac are anything more than an elaborate hub. Sorry, Zach, all those desktop FW ports share the same bus, which is why many audio manufacturers either recommend or require that you install an additional and truly independent firewire port in order to use their swag. While on a desktop that means PCIe and on a laptop that means PCMCIA, the sad truth is the same for both with no advantage given to the big fat desktop: a 3rd party card is the only way to provide an independent firewire conduit for all your audio goodness. Also, just between you and I, half of all the complaints launched on the interwebs about problems with firewire audio interfaces on a mac could be easily solved by the use of one of these cards, which cost next to nothing.
Reality sandwiches, Zach, are bitter but filling. Have another bite.
Your contention that using multiple firewire ports is a reasonable way to increase audio inputs into the mac has brought shame upon you and your entire team in Kitchen Stadium. A single firewire port has more than twice enough bandwidth for applications you have described above for your own use. Instead of aggregate devices, the best way to increase inputs (through firewrie) would be to establish one reliable firewire port with a 3rd party card, and simply use a firewire interface with sufficient innies - and there's many of them out there.
(Unless, of course, you are working with a TDM system and multiple PCIe cards and have a budget the size of a house. But that's not the scenario you describe)
And if hard drives are the weak-spot (and they are if they're slower than 40 MB/s), having a desktop helps, as you've got enough bays for an internal RAID 0 or RAID 10, and you can also more easily have 7200 rpm drives or 10k rpm drives. On a laptop, you're using Firewire or USB2 (blech) or an eSATA express card to get a faster drive. This can add issues.
Issues are when your sound guy is banging your assistant director's wife. Plugging in an extra drive is not an issue and as easy as swapping out a roll of tape.
7200 rpm is adequate, anything slower, not so much. For recording, forget about USB completely. Also, if rackmounting your gear continues to flood your brain with endorphins, there are numerous rackmounted drive solutions "optimized" for audio and video (i.e. overpriced); however, like your sound guy, they go both ways and can mate equally well with either a laptop or desktop.
While there are benefits for stuffing a hard drive in a desktop in a studio and loading it with a library of sounds, I'm not sure there's a benefit for internal vs. external drives on the road. The nod goes to portability, and so a light computer you can throw into your knapsack or the grippy pouch of a marsupial intern wins that battle every time. As for the external drive - it is as agnostic as Christopher Hitchens, and doesn't discriminate between laptops vs. desktops.
Sorry, I'm sort of skipping between live audio production and film production here (as I dabble in both) - in a "more than 24" instance, I'd be doing live sound. More than 24 channels in a major concert is normal, and many bands will have upwards of 36 in the $60,000+ performance fee range. When you factor in switching guitars, about 8 mics on the drums, 3 vocal mics, keyboards in stereo, etc, it gets up there. Currently, I usually only mix sound on the low-end (sub $2000 performance fees) where I have between 8 (no micing drums, it's a tiny venue) and 24 channels (any higher artist fees and we hire someone to do the mixing or we wind up renting equipment)
ProTools systems are fairly standard in the wild for big concerts, as are dedicated drive-based recording systems (computers that do one thing and one thing only) like the Tascam DA-98HR or the sweeter-sounding RADAR:
http://www.tascam.com/details;9,10,32,14.html
http://www.izcorp.com/hightrack-48.php
A similar and at $1500 more affordable alternative is the Alesis HD-24
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=1
Note: they are all rackmountable, reliable, and used all the time for what you desribe. Again, unless you're investing in a ProTools TDM system, there's no benefit for a desktop over a laptop; these standalone devices are the best middle solution between either a laptop and desktop not running Protools TDM and ProTools TDM. However, as native solutions improve, more engineers are relying on laptops for field recording (and desktops for permanent installations) to fill the middle space, since the idea of spending even $1500 on a computer that does only 1 thing is so 1990s. However, given your descript, this may be your sweet spot.
I'm not denying this is a viable option (it's the one we're using, after all), I'm just saying that having a rack-mountable desktop Mac would be a nice alternative.
A nice alternative for what?
When the iphone was released did you contemplate how nice it would be to have a rackmountable version of the iPhone?
I have used and continue to use desktops for audio recording. But I have been progressively persuaded by the utiliity of laptops in the field as have many industry pros. It's odd that you cling to a nostalgic view of recording technology as though nothing will satisfy you short of bringing a Neumann AM-131 disk recording lathe from the 1960s to your set in order to back up a stereo master at the end of the day onto vinyl in order to proof with a gramophone.
As for Xmacs, I get that the whining of gamers is contagious. The whining of gamers is, in its own way, a game. And if I had a crystal ball (I don't, I'm a cat), I would say that all desktop machines will become Xmacs eventually anyway, but not for the sake of the mewling whining gamers, but because everything gets smaller and faster anyway. But even if you woke up tomorrow in a room full of xmacs, I still think you'd be better served by selling them on eBay and using the money to buy one of the fancy new laptops that will be out in a month or so, and a kickass audio interface to use with it that will give you audio production capabilities far beyond anything the Beetles ever used.
Given the length of boom mic cables (50 feet of decent XLR is cheap) and the amount of other stuff in a film shoot, your computer won't be within 20 feet of the microphone either way, and programs like SMC fan control can temporarily stop or seriously slow fans during a take.
Do you really want to assign personnel to babysit a computer? Perhaps set up a remote computer lab on set with temperature controls, housing, an IT staff, and a vending machine? How convenient.
You're right that a Mac Pro is sort of overkill for the job, but there are some situations where there are legit uses for an extra HDD bay or a PCIe slot. I hate to Godwin the thread, but this is a situation where a Mac Pro lite or an xMac would be great, if Apple made one.
They do. It's called a MacBook Pro, it has a PCMICIA slot and a FW port that can be used in tandem for multitrack hard drive recording, and world class conversion and interfacing.
Or, would you be more comfortable using the laptop if you could house it in a 7 space rackmountable metal box with lead weights? Alternatively, if you want that extra hardware to actually do something, there's always magma:
http://www.magma.com/index.html
Or, would you be more comfortable using the laptop if you could house it in a 7 space rackmountable metal box with lead weights? Alternatively, if you want that extra hardware to actually do something, there's always magma:
http://www.magma.com/index.html
Funny you should mention the Magma. One of my sound guys on the last film I was shooting had a setup just as you're describing (with a trial racked Magma). I did so want one... but had absolutely no need (since I just write and direct and produce), but darn did it expand his MBP in wonderful and beautiful ways.
I have to agree with most of your post for any film under 20 mill. It's just easier, cheaper, and very effective. And, in a very, very statistically minor way, the less lugging at smaller budgets, the more shooting time you have. But every second counts sometimes.