Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50398 > unrolled thread

MacPro: no audio input ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  MacPro: no audio input ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-23 02:28 -0400
    Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-10-23 11:29 -0400
    Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-10-23 20:27 -0700
      Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-24 08:19 -0700
        Re: MacPro: no audio input ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-24 14:59 -0400
          Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-24 16:03 -0700
            Re: MacPro: no audio input ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-24 19:19 -0400
              Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-24 19:42 -0400
                Re: MacPro: no audio input ? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-24 20:15 -0400
                  Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-24 18:34 -0700
                  Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-25 16:54 -0400
                    Re: MacPro: no audio input ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-10-25 22:44 +0000
                      Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-25 19:13 -0400
                Re: MacPro: no audio input ? billy@MIX.COM - 2013-10-25 20:03 +0000
      Re: MacPro: no audio input ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-24 17:09 -0400

#50398 — MacPro: no audio input ?

Looking at the tech specs, there is no analogue or TOSlink/digital audio
input. Only output.

Curious on why a Pro machine aimed at audio/video entertainment business
(as per the keynote) would lack audio input ?

Does Apple sell some USB/Thunderbolt adaptor for audio input ?  Add that
to the cost of upgrading an existing MacPro.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#50416

In article <52676c7d$0$46296$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Looking at the tech specs, there is no analogue or TOSlink/digital audio
> input. Only output.
> 
> Curious on why a Pro machine aimed at audio/video entertainment business
> (as per the keynote) would lack audio input ?
> 
> Does Apple sell some USB/Thunderbolt adaptor for audio input ?  Add that
> to the cost of upgrading an existing MacPro.

Perhaps they're handling this the way they did in some previous units. 
The audio-out socket could be changed to audio-in using the Sound prefs 
pane.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50491

In article <52676c7d$0$46296$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Looking at the tech specs, there is no analogue or TOSlink/digital audio
> input. Only output.
> 
> Curious on why a Pro machine aimed at audio/video entertainment business
> (as per the keynote) would lack audio input ?
> 
> Does Apple sell some USB/Thunderbolt adaptor for audio input ?  Add that
> to the cost of upgrading an existing MacPro.

Wow, I checked the pictures too.  It's not there.  Add a digitizer to 
the clutter of peripherals that will surround it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50542

In article 
<mcmurtrie-84AE83.20274723102013@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

> In article <52676c7d$0$46296$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Looking at the tech specs, there is no analogue or TOSlink/digital audio
> > input. Only output.
> > 
> > Curious on why a Pro machine aimed at audio/video entertainment business
> > (as per the keynote) would lack audio input ?
> > 
> > Does Apple sell some USB/Thunderbolt adaptor for audio input ?  Add that
> > to the cost of upgrading an existing MacPro.
> 
> Wow, I checked the pictures too.  It's not there.  Add a digitizer to 
> the clutter of peripherals that will surround it.

I seriously doubt that will be required.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50556

On 13-10-24 11:19, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Wow, I checked the pictures too.  It's not there.  Add a digitizer to 
>> the clutter of peripherals that will surround it.
> 
> I seriously doubt that will be required.

Check the tech specs for the MacPro. No audio *input*.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50594

In article <52696dfd$0$9670$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-10-24 11:19, Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> >> Wow, I checked the pictures too.  It's not there.  Add a digitizer to 
> >> the clutter of peripherals that will surround it.
> > 
> > I seriously doubt that will be required.
> 
> Check the tech specs for the MacPro. No audio *input*.

Sounds like it's not the machine for you then.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50598

On 13-10-24 19:03, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Check the tech specs for the MacPro. No audio *input*.
> 
> Sounds like it's not the machine for you then.


I am very curious on why Apple chose to not include audio input on this
high end machine that has the physical real-estate to have that extra plug.

And while I am at it: the real MacPro has analogue/fibre sound in/out on
the back AND headphone jack in front AND internal speaker.

I can watch a movie with dolby surround going to the stereo, while
listening to aa podcast with sound going to the earphones.

the new cute cylinder can't seem to do that. Function before form please.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50605

On 2013.10.24, 19:19 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-10-24 19:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Check the tech specs for the MacPro. No audio *input*.
>>
>> Sounds like it's not the machine for you then.
>
>
> I am very curious on why Apple chose to not include audio input on this
> high end machine that has the physical real-estate to have that extra plug.

Pros in the audio business will be using more advanced multi-channel 
samplers with balanced analog inputs.  It would be foolish to have the 
audio as part of the Mac.

For that matter my 2012 iMac doesn't have audio inputs (other than the 
microphone) - I may buy a little sampler from Creative Labs though.

-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50608

On 13-10-24 19:42, Alan Browne wrote:

> Pros in the audio business will be using more advanced multi-channel 
> samplers with balanced analog inputs.  It would be foolish to have the 
> audio as part of the Mac.

But wouldn't those samplers come in as TOSlink fibre ? How do they
interface to a computer and do they need specific drivers ?

How much do they cost ?

So in the end, you end up requiring a big box next to the shiny new
MacPro to handle all the missing bits that used to be part of the
MacPro. All this so Jony Ive can have one more piece displayed at a museum.

It used to be that the MacPro was more expensive because it came fully
loaded (except for extra hard drives and extra graphics card(s).

But the new MacPro appears to be far more bare bones requiring far more
external equipment.

What is most disapointing is that the previous MacPro had been designed
to be upgradeable. But Apple never leveraged the potential to provide
CPU/memory upgrades (they are on the same large daughtercard).

And now, we have a glorified MacMini for a targetted audience, and no
MacPro.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50619

In article <5269b840$0$12546$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-10-24 19:42, Alan Browne wrote:
> 
> > Pros in the audio business will be using more advanced multi-channel 
> > samplers with balanced analog inputs.  It would be foolish to have the 
> > audio as part of the Mac.
> 
> But wouldn't those samplers come in as TOSlink fibre ? How do they
> interface to a computer and do they need specific drivers ?
> 
> How much do they cost ?
> 
> So in the end, you end up requiring a big box next to the shiny new
> MacPro to handle all the missing bits that used to be part of the
> MacPro. All this so Jony Ive can have one more piece displayed at a museum.
> 
> It used to be that the MacPro was more expensive because it came fully
> loaded (except for extra hard drives and extra graphics card(s).
> 
> But the new MacPro appears to be far more bare bones requiring far more
> external equipment.
> 
> What is most disapointing is that the previous MacPro had been designed
> to be upgradeable. But Apple never leveraged the potential to provide
> CPU/memory upgrades (they are on the same large daughtercard).
> 
> And now, we have a glorified MacMini for a targetted audience, and no
> MacPro.

So don't buy one then. Problem solved.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50707

On 2013.10.24, 20:15 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-10-24 19:42, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Pros in the audio business will be using more advanced multi-channel
>> samplers with balanced analog inputs.  It would be foolish to have the
>> audio as part of the Mac.
>
> But wouldn't those samplers come in as TOSlink fibre ? How do they
> interface to a computer and do they need specific drivers ?

The makers will provide whatever drivers are needed.  USB 2.0 (with 
compression) will handle stereo.  USB 3.0 will go a lot further.

Simple sampling (40,100 * 16 bits) = 641,600 bits per second.  (TOSLINK 
uses 20 bits/sample as does ADAT, however).

TB (1) could handle several hundreds of such channels without a blink - 
even if each channel was oversampled 10X higher than 40,100 Hz.

TOSLINK modulates at a respectable 10 MHz - but that would limit 
oversampling and number of channels.  Definitely not the future-path.

ADAT is better for such uses - but the bandwidth is only marginally 
higher than TOSLINK.

I don't know where pro audio is leaning - but I'd bet it would be easier 
for them to go to TB over the next few years than any other direction.

Let's take a peek:
http://apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-64-thunderbridge.php
Even has Darth Vader Macs on the 2nd page.



-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50717

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:

> I don't know where pro audio is leaning - but I'd bet it would be easier 
> for them to go to TB over the next few years than any other direction.

Dante (audio via ethernet) is gaining in popularity...

http://www.audinate.com/

> Let's take a peek:
> http://apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-64-thunderbridge.php

...but something like this is a bit more to my taste.

> Even has Darth Vader Macs on the 2nd page.

They probably have ethernet connectors, too.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50720

On 2013.10.25, 18:44 , billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> I don't know where pro audio is leaning - but I'd bet it would be easier
>> for them to go to TB over the next few years than any other direction.
>
> Dante (audio via ethernet) is gaining in popularity...
>
> http://www.audinate.com/
>
>> Let's take a peek:
>> http://apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-64-thunderbridge.php
>
> ...but something like this is a bit more to my taste.
>
>> Even has Darth Vader Macs on the 2nd page.
>
> They probably have ethernet connectors, too.

The device in question doesn't (Thunderbridge).  Other stuff, maybe.

The main point with what was there however was that their audio 
equipment (samplers/mixers, etc) could interface via their 
"Thunderbridge" to the Mac on the other side.

-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50694

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes, quoting
JF Mezei:

> > I am very curious on why Apple chose to not include audio input on this
> > high end machine that has the physical real-estate to have that extra plug.

Why anyone would ask/speculate/whinge about stuff they would _never_
need let alone actually use is a complete mystery to me.

> Pros in the audio business will be using more advanced multi-channel 
> samplers with balanced analog inputs.  It would be foolish to have the 
> audio as part of the Mac.

We like to keep the audio, especially the analog stuff, somewhat away
from computers and other noise sources.  Not to mention the value of the
Mac Pro is in editing - I can easily (and do) record a bunch of channels
on my now ten year old iBook (which also has no audio input, but it does
have a microphone).  Other than Protools, which has become such a bloated
pig that yea, running it on a Mac Pro even to just record stuff is
probably now a necessary thing.....

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50577

On 2013.10.23, 23:27 , Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <52676c7d$0$46296$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>,
>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the tech specs, there is no analogue or TOSlink/digital audio
>> input. Only output.
>>
>> Curious on why a Pro machine aimed at audio/video entertainment business
>> (as per the keynote) would lack audio input ?
>>
>> Does Apple sell some USB/Thunderbolt adaptor for audio input ?  Add that
>> to the cost of upgrading an existing MacPro.
>
> Wow, I checked the pictures too.  It's not there.  Add a digitizer to
> the clutter of peripherals that will surround it.

I was looking at an audio digitizer the other day that was of the form 
and the size of a USB key.  (Creative Labs).  That would be about the 
same audio quality as any built-in port.

Professionals can get all sorts of expensive external sampling systems.


-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web