Of the issues in Pro Audio that provoke debate, the question of Mac ‘versus’ PC continues to be divisive to many. We look at the differences beyond personal preference. While this guide cannot cover the huge number of permutations across systems, if you’re thinking of making the leap from one platform to another, or are perhaps working across both, read on…

All Computers Do The Same Thing

Whether comparing cars, computers, houses, or any other commodity, all the options on the table must have one thing in common, and that is their overall function. When it comes to the long-running debates surrounding Macs’ or PCs’ ability to outrun the other, both have one basic function at their heart: crunching data. Once the debate is seen from above in this way, the differences start to seem less significant and choices between the two easier to consider.

Specialism

Any notions of ‘better’ have roots in the development of these two computing camps, from the days when most work happened in the hardware domain. As such, earlier machines were indeed developed with a particular task in mind, explaining the PC’s strong association with business and commerce under the International Business Machines (IBM) moniker. In parallel to this, the Apple Macintosh was establishing roots among the creative industries; perhaps in part owing to its early lead in using a GUI and mouse as opposed to its rival’s text based leanings and an emphasis on networking.

Considering Cost

Computing illustrates as well as any other product that you generally get what you pay for. While this could be taken as the more expensive machine being objectively better, those familiar will know that the two platforms have traditionally had differing approaches to what a computer should have. While tech specs can be still be objectively compared, premium materials and design cost extra; some may conclude that if the performance is up to scratch then the other things can wait. Modern machines’ attributes have converged in recent years, with the price to performance ratio especially becoming more comparable. For those inclined, the Hackintosh route was an option for affordable and configurable MacOS computing until changes from Apple made these unviable in the long term.

Flexibility And Longevity

For some, the PC’s strength continues to be its configurability, with a whole industry of services providing custom builds, or the components for self-builders to bring forth their creations. While the demise of the Mac Pro “Cheesegrater”, seemed to indicate a shift away from aftermarket tweaks, Apple has more recently initiated a swing back towards configurability with their latest pro machines. Smaller offerings continue to lock the user into specs burnt into the newer M1 and M2 ‘System-On-A-Chip” equipped devices.

Mac And PCs For Audio

It’s often suggested that the Mac audio experience for pros is superior to that of PC. Certainly, Apple’s Core Audio driver offers a single, reliable consideration for users that affords simplicity in use over its Windows counterparts. Over on the Windows side, greater choice brings a wider ecosystem of drivers as well, with the ASIO driver being the common choice for pro use.

Core Audio And Core MIDI

Core Audio is Apple’s set of frameworks that integrate application audio with the OS itself. Sitting as an intermediary between Core Audio and the OS is the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL). Upon record, audio hardware addresses the HAL before hitting the OS, with the reverse true on playback. The often quoted advantage of using Core Audio is devices’ ability to address multiple applications simultaneously, as well as tight integration with MacOS aiding low latency. At present, ‘zero’ latency monitoring comes courtesy of the interface mixer for native DAW users.

When it comes to hardware electronic instruments and VI’s, Core MIDI handles data using the same MO as Core Audio, where data is processed within the OS. As with audio tasks on MacOS, both frameworks can be considered as affording ‘driverless’ operation, with manufacturers’ driver downloads containing any necessary components to work alongside these frameworks.

ASIO

Developed to provide superior audio performance in professional settings, the ASIO driver has uses a different approach to Core Audio by carrying out fundamental tasks separately from the OS. By taking Windows audio drivers out of the equation, this driver allows direct data transfer between the hardware and software. ASIO’s advantage lies in its direct monitoring (ADM) functionality. Assuming an ADM compatible interface using the ASIO 2.0 driver, users can control direct monitoring off the interface using their DAW’s mixer. As well as the Sound Suite edition of SADiE, perhaps the most ubiquitous DAW supporting this feature is Steinberg Cubase.

WDM, MME, DIRECTX, And WASPI

These drivers were, and continue to be developed for Windows to allow the use of audio peripherals for consumers and professionals using a PC. Of these, WDM (Windows Driver Model) shares a reminiscence with Core Audio in that it is a protocol that allows integration with the OS, as opposed to being an audio driver. MME (Microsoft Multimedia Environment) is a legacy Windows-based driver supported by the majority of consumer audio hardware. WASPI uses an “Exclusive Mode” whose aim is to improve performance. As the name implies, other applications cannot address an WASPI device that’s already in use. According to the REAPER user guide, in terms of performance, “ASIO drivers generally offer better latency than others. As a rule, the preferred order is ASIO, WDM, DirectX and MME, in that order”.

Windows MIDI Drivers

At present, users with hardware MIDI devices usually have to download the manufacturer’s driver that is specific both to that device and the version of Windows the user is running.

The Big Question, Answered

So, when it comes to the crunch, which is the most suitable platform for Pro Audio? Anyone reading this expecting a partisan conclusion will be disappointed. Speaking as one who uses both platforms almost daily, I find there to be very little difference in use. That doesn’t mean to say that others won’t, owing to very specific questions such as “will this thing run the software I need to use?”. Economic factors mean that some developers will bring new products to market that only run on one OS or the other. Sometimes, your favourite DAW gets bought out by a company that wants to sell you their computer. Things happen. For most, the question comes back to functionality, on the understanding that performance considerations mean nothing without context.

My PC affords me reassurance. It can move with the times and is upgradable and fixable in an age where consuming less is paramount. It’s every bit as stable in use as my Mac, in case you’re wondering. My Mac affords me ease. Does “It Just Work”? 99.9% of the time yes it does, just like my PC. I personally prefer the MacOS GUI over the Windows one. One thing to consider for those working between systems is remapping keyboard modifiers to conserve brain power!

As we approach the mid 2020s, performance is a given. That leaves function. As operating systems and hardware design converge, the question of which is better is becoming increasingly redundant. Whichever tool lets you get the job done well is the one to go for, and most will agree that when it comes to computers, most of that lies in the application.

What do you think? Which platform do you work on and why? Are you using both, and if so, why? Let us know in the comments.