Hi, this is a kind of thinking out loud topic. But I'm also looking for advice

As the title says I'm considering buying a macbook pro, but struggling with 13" vs. 15", here's what I'll be using it for:

- Recording/mixing on Logic at home (Projects won't be huge 24 tracks at the most)
- Travelling around London recording podcasts/interviews
- And it will be my daily user as well, web browsing, emails, word processing etc

Here are my questions:

- I've got a firewire interface, that can go into thunderbolt right?
- Is it worth having the built in CD drive?
- The SSD is too small, so I should stick to the HDD right?
- Is it worth the extra just so I can get Retina Display, will I be missing out on anything but just a fantastic screen?
- And a practical one, does the 15" fit in your standard rucksack/bag?

That's all I can think of right now, and your answers/views will be very helpful!


Thanks.

Quote Adamski123:

---

- Travelling around London recording podcasts/interviews

---

How often ?

Don't suppose you're able to use a pocket stereo flash recorder for this ?

Quote chris...:

---

Quote Adamski123:

---

- Travelling around London recording podcasts/interviews

---

How often ?

Don't suppose you're able to use a pocket stereo flash recorder for this ?

---

At the moment it's once maybe twice a month, but it could become more depends on the success of my podcast show! I'm using my iphone at the moment just with voice memos, maybe I'm a bit of a perfectionist and wanting to use my condenser mic...

Quote Adamski123:

---

- I've got a firewire interface, that can go into thunderbolt right?

---

Yep, with an adaptor.

Quote Adamski123:

---

- Is it worth having the built in CD drive?

---

Depends whether you need to read/burn CD's/DVD's or back up to them. I do occasionally, but far less these days than I used to, it's slow and tedious and I've had a long history with Apple DVD writers...

Quote Adamski123:

---

- The SSD is too small, so I should stick to the HDD right?

---

Sure.

Quote Adamski123:

---

- Is it worth the extra just so I can get Retina Display, will I be missing out on anything but just a fantastic screen?

---

It's nice, but not that many apps support a Retina display at the moment, though it's growing. So it's good for the future, but no really essential imo. So it depends if you want it, really...

Quote Adamski123:

---

- And a practical one, does the 15" fit in your standard rucksack/bag?

---

Yep, no problems. The 15 is the ideal workhorse size for me, and I take mine everywhere. I would find the 13 too small - ok for bits and pieces out on the road, but not as my main machine. You could always get an external monitor for the home though.

Quote Adamski123:

---

I'm using my iphone at the moment just with voice memos, maybe I'm a bit of a perfectionist and wanting to use my condenser mic...

---

The flash recorders on the market have built-in mics way way better than an iPhone mic. Also, many will let you plug in your external mic, if preferred. Could get one e.g off eBay for £not-a-lot. Then less need to lug the laptop about.

Oh, and there are now interfaces to connect external mics to an iPhone...

As you may have guessed, I like to travel light

Quote Adamski123:

---

And a practical one, does the 15" fit in your standard rucksack/bag?

---

I have to carry my laptop with me every day for work and am very glad that I went with a 13" model. I'm sure a 15" would fit in a normal rucksack, but it's amazing how annoyingly heavy they start to feel on your 3rd week of lugging them around.

That said, it does sound as though your requirements for a computer could be separated from your requirements for location recording, which might mean that you can dispense with worrying about such things.

Quote Adamski123:

---

The SSD is too small, so I should stick to the HDD right?

---

I've got the 15" MBP with 256gb ssd. I record directly onto a SDXC card plugged into the side. Just make sure it's formatted in the Mac OS format. I haven't tested it by recording lots of tracks at once, but for stereo recording it works really well for me. You can get 64gb for just over £35 from Amazon.

The thunderbolt to firewire 800 adapter works well, but my MOTU UltraLite can't receive bus power when using it.

Dan

Switched to 15 from 13` wanting more power, past June and hate everyday, every moment of using it. As soon as next release comes will sell it and get 13`. It is not just too heavy and bulky to carry outside , even in studio or at home it is pain to use (compared to 13`). I`d choose FW and upgrade flexibility over retina

I have a 15" MBP which I use live and in the studio. For me, a 13" just wouldn't be big enough. I use Logic.

I hardly ever use the DVD drive and am considering removing it and replacing with a HDD. I intend to mount the DVD drive in an external USB enclosure so I can still use it if required. I have a 256Gb SSD as my main drive and it is fantastic. When playing live, it's never let me down.

I wouldn't pay extra for the Retina display.

--------------------
And Bagpuss, once he was asleep, was just a saggy old cloth cat.

15" if you want the screen size. If you're not bothered then 13". I have a 15" because I need the space on screen. I've carried it around touring all over the world and never been bothered by the weight of it.

--------------------
www.exaviormusic.com
www.manninmusic.com Music Teacher, Isle of Man

I've seen HD mounting kits which come with a DVD enclosure for the removed drive. Having looked at the procedure on the net though, I decided against it for the moment!

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Quote Richie Royale:

---

I've seen HD mounting kits which come with a DVD enclosure for the removed drive. Having looked at the procedure on the net though, I decided against it for the moment!

---

I've recently done it. I was rather brave and started the whole process without even working out how to do it, just following the youtube video, but with a bit of patience it came together perfectly. Now I have a 256 SSD and 1TG Hard drive in here (17" MBP). Even though I got a 5400rpm model it still destroys the perfect silence which I suppose is inevitable, but overall well worth the upgrade.

I have been puzzling the same question recently, I think the non retina 13 is a good buy, the one with faster processor and 8 gig ram. I can get it for just over £1k with educational discount, add another £150 for logic and you are done. It's small enough to be portable and for home use a second monitor would work really well. I am not convinced with ssd's yet and although the retina screen is nice(I have one on the ipad) it's not a deal breaker.

Quote johnny h:

---

I've recently done it. I was rather brave and started the whole process without even working out how to do it, just following the youtube video, but with a bit of patience it came together perfectly. Now I have a 256 SSD and 1TG Hard drive in here (17" MBP). Even though I got a 5400rpm model it still destroys the perfect silence which I suppose is inevitable, but overall well worth the upgrade.

---

Ditto with mine.. great upgrade!



--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

Thanks to everyone for their views, but I think I'll go for the 13" top spec one. I don't need the CD/DVD drive or the extra screen space.

But to also anyone that's buying or planning to buy a mac pro it's not a good idea right now according to mac rumours http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Pro

Nobody's mentioned that the 15 inch models are quad cores vs dual core 13 inch.

Power-wise always go for the quad, if it's in your budget.



--------------------
G-Dub
Studio G-fx 15inch quad-core i7 Macbook Pro Logic913

yeah.. get the quad core and steer well clear of the retina displays.. Bad manufacturing processes




--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

Quote G-Doubleyou:

---

Nobody's mentioned that the 15 inch models are quad cores vs dual core 13 inch.

Power-wise always go for the quad, if it's in your budget.

---

Also the retina is lighter than the 13 inch standard ... with a much better screen and much better performance (quad core, i7, discrete graphics, ssd). Comes at a cost, but its an outstanding machine if you can afford it.

wait for the touchscreen model

--------------------
www.soundcloud.com/skerrick

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote G-Doubleyou:

---

Nobody's mentioned that the 15 inch models are quad cores vs dual core 13 inch.

Power-wise always go for the quad, if it's in your budget.

---

Also the retina is lighter than the 13 inch standard ... with a much better screen and much better performance (quad core, i7, discrete graphics, ssd). Comes at a cost, but its an outstanding machine if you can afford it.

---

ive actually heard that a dual core is better if you can get a really decent one, something to do with the information signal being split in two directions (when being processed) rather than four, making it faster to allocate and re-evaluate information as it runs in and out of the cpu..
ergo, some dual core systems are better than some quad core systems and vice versa.

--------------------
www.soundcloud.com/skerrick

Quote Skerrick:

---

ive actually heard that a dual core is better if you can get a really decent one, something to do with the information signal being split in two directions (when being processed) rather than four, making it faster to allocate and re-evaluate information as it runs in and out of the cpu.. ergo, some dual core systems are better than some quad core systems and vice versa.

---

You should talk to better informed people, really.
That's complete rubbish, based on zero understanding of what's actually happening, technically...

Sorry...

Quote desmond:

---

Quote Skerrick:

---

ive actually heard that a dual core is better if you can get a really decent one, something to do with the information signal being split in two directions (when being processed) rather than four, making it faster to allocate and re-evaluate information as it runs in and out of the cpu.. ergo, some dual core systems are better than some quad core systems and vice versa.

---

You should talk to better informed people, really.
That's complete rubbish, based on zero understanding of what's actually happening, technically...

Sorry...

---

Yep, complete madness.

We have to get our entertainment someplace.

I guess, the confusion "someone said,read somewhere" could be about Turbo Mode - top specs 13` - 3.6 vs. lowest 15` 3.2 (if I remember right), so it can be faster though in not so many situations.

Given say a dual 3.0GHz and quad 2.5GHz, then a specific task that's CPU-bound but cannot spread over multiple cores may run a little faster on the 3.0GHz machine, which happens to be dual.

But in the real world, many things do use multiple cores. A blanket statement of "dual is faster than quad" is b0ll0x.

Quote chris...:

---

Given say a dual 3.0GHz and quad 2.5GHz, then a specific task that's CPU-bound but cannot spread over multiple cores may run a little faster on the 3.0GHz machine, which happens to be dual.

But in the real world, many things do use multiple cores. A blanket statement of "dual is faster than quad" is b0ll0x.

---

Yep!


--------------------
G-Dub
Studio G-fx 15inch quad-core i7 Macbook Pro Logic913

What are the suspected improvements to the new mac book pro coming out? I've read improved processer but is that it? I wouldn't mind waiting for just that, also mac rumours tends to suggest they will all be retina display (IIRC).

Quote Adamski123:

---

What are the suspected improvements to the new mac book pro coming out? I've read improved processer but is that it? I wouldn't mind waiting for just that, also mac rumours tends to suggest they will all be retina display (IIRC).

---

I hope they wont, have zero interests in retina- no FW, no upgrades (RAM; HDD instead of DVD) and the Intel graphics cannot power it properly- thanks but no thanks. I hope for new top spec 13`CPU to at least match power of my late 2011 15`, have screen resolution updated for 2013 and not 2001 (1280x800) or 2016 (that retina is). If not will get 2012 refurb. or keep 15`in the studio and get Air for mobile use.

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote desmond:

---

Quote Skerrick:

---

ive actually heard that a dual core is better if you can get a really decent one, something to do with the information signal being split in two directions (when being processed) rather than four, making it faster to allocate and re-evaluate information as it runs in and out of the cpu.. ergo, some dual core systems are better than some quad core systems and vice versa.

---

You should talk to better informed people, really.
That's complete rubbish, based on zero understanding of what's actually happening, technically...

Sorry...

---

Yep, complete madness.

---

okay... well i recall reading it in a 2008 edition of futuremusic magazine im pretty sure...
i did a quick google search as well...

"More Cores or Faster Clock Speed?
On the whole, a system with a faster dual-core will feel faster in day-to-day work, but the quad core will reward you when you multitask or the more esoteric/scientific your work. This is of course, a generality, but it generally fits. For example: The 3.1GHz Intel Core i3-2100 (dual-core) in the Gateway ZX6961-UB20P got a very good 2,639 point score at PCMark7 (a test of day-to-day use), but only a 2.99 point score at CineBench R11.5 (a 3D rendering test). Around the same time we tested a "slower" Intel Core 2.7GHz Core i5-2500S (quad-core) in a HP Compaq 8200 Elite USDT which got a much lower 2,190 score on PCMark7, but a much higher 4.45 point score on CineBench. The extra cache and cores in the i5-2500S helped the HP get a much higher score on the CineBench R11.5 test, where such enhancements benefit performance. In day-to-day tasks, both will seem similar, or at worse the HP will seem slower than the Gateway at an earlier stage in its useful life. We could present you a large table of comparison scores going back several years, but that would add even more variables to the mix and bore most of you to tears."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406293,00.asp

but thats just one instance of what ive read and it obviously doesnt apply to all cpus.. i guess its technically correct, it just relates to different tasks and loads being put on the cpu and which is better at handling what...
plus yeah its an old piece of information so i had a bit of a hazy memory about it hah but yeah... theres the info i was referring to.


Edited by Skerrick (08/02/13 01:34 AM)

Quote Skerrick:

---

okay... well i recall reading it in a 2008 edition of futuremusic magazine im pretty sure...

---

Hmmmm... that wonderful tome of reliable information

--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

dude, futuremusic is a great publication.
AND, i posted the relevant info relating to what i was talking about, this was back in 08 when quad core processors were a lot newer and they basically took the quad vs dual core workload argument and applied it to a music production discussion. wish i could find the article but id have to dig through some old magazines when i get home and it doesnt mean that much to me to go to that length/amount of effort.
but yeah, i mentioned above via that quote what i was talking about.

--------------------
www.soundcloud.com/skerrick

Well, to Skerick's credit, he did quote the original article he was referring to. A rather rare occasion in this day and age, however dubious that source may be to some.

In 2008 the story was quite different than it is today for multi-threaded processes and multicore CPUs, at least on Mac. While the higher clocked speed can be gratifying on a day to day basis with 'casual' apps, I'll take quads over duals, octos over quads and dodeca over octos any time of the week for those power apps that can use it. Eg, ever since Logic started supporting all available cores and threads, it has made a difference for the work environment and productivity.

--------------------
I love technology; it complicates my life...

Quote Skerrick:

---

dude, futuremusic is a great publication.

---

Sorry, but it just isn't.. it's a comic of pretty pictures written by hack journalists with dubious connections/qualifications to the music industry and is frequently littered with bad and incorrect information..

a far cry from SOS..


just saying..

--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

Quote Skerrick:

---

dude, futuremusic is a great publication.
AND, i posted the relevant info relating to what i was talking about, this was back in 08 when quad core processors were a lot newer and they basically took the quad vs dual core workload argument and applied it to a music production discussion. wish i could find the article but id have to dig through some old magazines when i get home and it doesnt mean that much to me to go to that length/amount of effort.
but yeah, i mentioned above via that quote what i was talking about.

---

Future music was caught copying reviews from other sources! Its a total waste of paper.

As for the dual core / quad core thing. Basically you have no idea how computers work. The high clock speed vs multicore argument is only relevant to old, single threaded applications (such as old games). Every DAW is multithreaded and has been for many years.

Trying to help is great, but sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Quote Chevytraveller:

---

Quote Skerrick:

---

dude, futuremusic is a great publication.

---

Sorry, but it just isn't.. it's a comic of pretty pictures written by hack journalists with dubious connections/qualifications to the music industry and is frequently littered with bad and incorrect information..

a far cry from SOS..


just saying..

---

woah, only just saw this, i can TASTE the spite. jeez.

--------------------
www.soundcloud.com/skerrick

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Skerrick:

---

dude, futuremusic is a great publication.
AND, i posted the relevant info relating to what i was talking about, this was back in 08 when quad core processors were a lot newer and they basically took the quad vs dual core workload argument and applied it to a music production discussion. wish i could find the article but id have to dig through some old magazines when i get home and it doesnt mean that much to me to go to that length/amount of effort.
but yeah, i mentioned above via that quote what i was talking about.

---

Future music was caught copying reviews from other sources! Its a total waste of paper.

As for the dual core / quad core thing. Basically you have no idea how computers work. The high clock speed vs multicore argument is only relevant to old, single threaded applications (such as old games). Every DAW is multithreaded and has been for many years.

Trying to help is great, but sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

---

yep, i have NO idea how computers work.

--------------------
www.soundcloud.com/skerrick

Quote Skerrick:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Skerrick:

---

dude, futuremusic is a great publication.
AND, i posted the relevant info relating to what i was talking about, this was back in 08 when quad core processors were a lot newer and they basically took the quad vs dual core workload argument and applied it to a music production discussion. wish i could find the article but id have to dig through some old magazines when i get home and it doesnt mean that much to me to go to that length/amount of effort.
but yeah, i mentioned above via that quote what i was talking about.

---

Future music was caught copying reviews from other sources! Its a total waste of paper.

As for the dual core / quad core thing. Basically you have no idea how computers work. The high clock speed vs multicore argument is only relevant to old, single threaded applications (such as old games). Every DAW is multithreaded and has been for many years.

Trying to help is great, but sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

---

yep, i have NO idea how computers work.

---

Well, you have a little bit of knowledge, but its obviously extremely fuzzy if you think a dual core chip will be faster than a quad core one for audio usage. Its the exact opposite of the truth.

And if you are getting your "knowledge" from future music, you have some serious relearning to do

Quote Skerrick:

---

woah, only just saw this

---

Ah - so you didn't read peoples' answers to your questions at the time (a couple of weeks ago).

Here is a thread from gearslutz that compares the performance of the various Macs using Logic as a stress test.

Results for newer models are in the recent threads.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore- benchmarktest.html



--------------------
G-Dub
Studio G-fx 15inch quad-core i7 Macbook Pro Logic913