New computer purchase help

[findog3103]

Okay, looking for some insights. My family is in the market for a new computer. The primary function will be the home computer for my wife for work-related stuff, social networking, no heavy programs, and 9 year old son who is good on computers: games, iMovie, GarageBand, etc. it will be used as music server mainly to hold music files and wireless playing. So, should I invest in:

 

21.5 iMac with 256gb solid state drive, or

 

15 inch MacBook Pro with 500gb drive, or

 

13 inch Mac air with 256gb drive?

 

Thoughts?

 

[Akapod]

My first thought was to go with the iMac, as I feel like a multi-user laptop wouldn't always be available as a music server.

 

But my second thought is to suggest you forget about the SSD and put the money towards a Mac Mini instead. That would allow you to have a dedicated server, but also allow your family to use a very nice computer freely. SSDs are great -- I have a Mini with one, as well as a MacBook Air -- but they're really expensive compared to traditonal hard drives.

 

[findog3103]

"That would allow you to have a dedicated server, but also allow your family to use a very nice computer freely"

 

How would they use the Mac mini differently than any of the others or is the Mac mini a better transport for music?

 

[James1776]

is far less important than the size of the ram allowed..the more the merrier. The most modern USB ports also matter as does the quality of the graphics card.

 

[esimms86]

Assuming that it causes you no problem as to it's proximity(or lack of proximity) to your listening room, I would recommend the iMac. This, of course, depends on your particular home layout, where the listening room is, and where you might find it convenient to place a desktop computer. The pricing and expandability of the iMac are pluses and you will likely, of course, put it in one location and leave it there. No searching around or asking "where's the laptop." Your son and your wife will enjoy the large screen size, and you and your wife will appreciate being able to supervise the amount of screentime your son is spending. You can spend money on a solid state drive if you'd like but you don't have to. On the other hand, having a solid state drive and a standard hard drive in the same machine has its definite advantages, all depending on your budget, of course.

 

I would think first of maxing out the RAM, available cheaper from a third party than you could buy it from Apple. The two drive scenario, if you have the money and the interest, allows you to have your system on one drive(the solid state drive) and your music on the other drive. With this approach, you won't need a separate NAS drive for storing your music, plus many folks believe that the music sounds better when the system is on one drive and the music is on another. Another potentially cool thing you could do is get Windows 7 loaded onto your iMac(or any of the other Macs, for that matter) to run in boot camp mode. You could then also use Windows-based software, such as JRiver Media Center, on the same machine. Lastly(for now), you could then keep your music server software on the Windows partition and avoid having your wife or son tinker with and possibly upset your music server software. Okay, really lastly, you could also run comparisons between Windows and Mac server software and then choose whichever you prefer from sound and ergonomic standpoints. Just my two cents.

 

Esau

 

[Akapod]

There are three big reasons.

 

It's generally best to run only your your music player and/or iTunes. While the computer has enough power to handle multiple programs, there can be an issue around priority -- and you always want the music player to have priority. Many programs, like Pure Music, have a Hog Mode which can address this issue.

 

Another reason involves USB ports and DACs. The DAC should be the only thing on that port, and that includes internal things like Bluetooth. A desktop computer typically has a slew of things attached to its ports, and maybe even a hub or two.

 

Finally, the third reason is that the Mini is pretty cheap. The base Mini is $600, which is $100 more than the upgrade to the SSD on the iMac. (I'd upgrade the RAM to 4 GB, but you can do that yourself for about $50.)

 

With the dedicated server, it doesn't matter what anyone else in your family is doing with the other computer (or where they're doing it), you'll always be able to play music.

 

 

[findog3103]

Thanks for the insights. I am leaning towards purchasing an iMac for the family, where it would be stationed on the second floor. There we can still stream music if needed to wireless speakers throughout the house. I am also thinking of purchasing a basic Mac Mini and upgrading the RAM myself to use with my primary system on the third floor.

 

[realhifi]

I find that if you are thinking of a dedicated music server (streaming in addition to organization, new online purchases, etc.)it is better to have a PC for those duties and let the iMac be your all around house piece.

 

Why? Because the windows machine will run anything you want.

iTunes, JRiver, Asset, etc. and can natively store and play flac files which seem to becoming the defato standard as far as high resolution downloads from numerous download sites. You can still have all the Apple functionality with their iOS products and iTunes sharing if you like but your options are more open on the PC side and a real powerful unit with a 1-2T hard drive and 8 GB ram will set you back about what you'd pay for a Mac Mini with a smaller hard drive, no monitor, keyboard, mouse and less ram and (in my and others opinion) less flexibilty for future use.

 

[orgel]

I sincerely don't want to go down the Mac-vs-Windows road, but I thought I'd point out that a Mac mini would objectively do a better job at running "anything you want" than a PC will. (Of course, in the context of a dedicated music server, this probably isn't all that much.) If you want to, you can easily run Windows on the mini. It's fairly difficult to get a PC to dual-boot Win 7 and OS X.

 

My base-model 2011 mini doesn't break a sweat while playing music. When playing 24/192 tracks in Fidelia Advanced (in hog mode), it's typically using less than 2GB (of 8GB total) RAM, and CPU use runs 6%-8% of total. It's true that iTunes won't play FLAC (or WAV) files, but most of the Mac audiophile players -- e.g., Amarra, Pure Music, Fidelia, Audirvana Plus -- do.

 

A Windows PC is probably a bit cheaper, though, pound for pound.

 

--David

 

[findog3103]

What are your thoughts about using just a tiny portion of what the Mac Mini can do by using it primarily as a music server? It seems so much of the product is laying dormant. Are there alternatives to that plays hi-res and can use multiple programs like Decibel?

 

[Akapod]

If you want to use Decibel, you're limited to a Mac product (or some hacking). I wouldn't worry about using so few resources on a Mini -- in fact, it's a good thing.

 

While the average resource demand for a music player is pretty low, the Mini, as with all computers, isn't specifically designed to serve as a music player. There's a whole lot of system/background stuff going on, and that can have an effect on the functioning of the music player. At 16/44.1, a sample is being delivered to the DAC at more than 44,000 times a second. If that flow is rushed, or hampered, the sound quality will be diminished. So having quite a bit of overhead acts like insurance -- it protects the quality of the music.

 

In addition, using fewer resources means that the processor isn't working as hard, and that it's generating less heat. Less heat means less fan noise, which should translate into a lower sound floor.

 

While you can be skinny, you can't be too rich or have too much processing power.

 

[esimms86]

Assuming that you want music throughout the house at "good enough" sound quality, plus audiophile sound in your main listening room, I would suggest looking at a Sonos system with an NAS drive. You could control the system with a free Sonos app downloaded on an IPad or iPod Touch(including selecting the room and the music stored on the NAS drive), and also use the same NAS drive to wirelessly stream your music to your main sound system. You could then use a dedicated headless mac mini to connect to your main sound system.

 

Esau

 

[Paul R]

Actually, I think I find the options on the Windows much more closed than on a Mac, but it may just be prejudice.

 

Mac's support all the top players - iTunes, Amarra, Pure Music, Decibel, Audirvana (sp?), Bitperfect, etc. They are also UNIX based, so they do not have the closed architecture Windows presents.

 

And Linux is more open than either Windows or Mac, with support for just about everything.

 

Vortexbox, for example, supports everything from Squeezeboxes and iTunes, to anything DLNA connected, as well as SMB, NFS, and other means of file sharing. That's just out of the box too - before you start adding in any other special stuff you want.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[tmornini]

I do agree with everyone that having a non-laptop around will improve the availability of your music.

 

HOWEVER!

 

If you're living in an Apple environment, you can now stream wirelessly from your iPhone and/or iPad in addition to streaming from your computer.

 

The time for fixed placement computers is behind us. Buy a laptop and set your family free! :-)

 

We recently switched from a home iMac to a MacBook Air for my wife and son. Never again will they feel disconnected when we're out of town.

 

[James1776]

The problem becomes speakers and the rest of your system.

 

[findog3103]

I am leaning towards the iMac for he screen size and it's easy enough to carry and plug in somewhere else if need be. With the iPhone and iPad I don't see a need to have a laptop to take on the road unless you are doing precise programs like iMovie.