What should i look for in my new Studio PC?

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:17 am

Heres the specs im looking at:

Pentium 4 3.2ghz
2gig DDRRAM
40gig & 80 gig HDDs
Dual DVDRW

What else do i want to consider for music and or expansion possibilities? eg. What am i best buying/looking for when looking for a top performing Audio PC? How do i go about using Firewire? Any other things i should consider for an audio pc? Motherboard Specs?

I currently run Cubase SX, Reason 2.5 and a fair number of Software Synths. I am also looking to buy a few hardware synths too.

Id be very grateful for any help at all

Many Thanks

Spit

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:11 am

What else do have other than what you just listed? How about an audio interface for starters. You can also fine tune Cubase for recording by increasing the memory (samples) per channel in the audio engine. That should help avoid any stuttering problems in that area. And using the firewire buss or adding a card should not be an issue these days, it's pretty much the norm. Do you have a dedicated midi interface with this setup? You'll need that too for your hardware as well as software synths. Other than that, you're cool.

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:32 am

I went to great lengths to make mine QUIET as well.

Seasonic Super Tornado power supply
Zalman or Scythe CPU fan
silent 120mm fans - both on fan controllers

my machine is whisper quiet - and runs exceptionally cool...
"-)

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:02 am

I would simply and straight look for a G5 or a G4

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:41 pm

Macs are slow for twice the price of a PC.
How much is a 3 Ghz G5??? F*uckin expensive and they don't even seem as fast as PCs....Do not go Mac, you had a good start there. Consider an audio interface and midi controller for your synths.

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:32 pm

radioliver,
A Windows computer tuned for audio will cost more than a Mac tuned for Audio with the same power, more stability, more fun and more options.
Anyway i don't want to transform this thread into a platform war. So this was my last word.
(just one suggestion: before choosing, try it! Smile

)

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:37 pm

radioliver wrote:

Macs are slow for twice the price of a PC.
How much is a 3 Ghz G5??? F*uckin expensive and they don't even seem as fast as PCs....Do not go Mac, you had a good start there. Consider an audio interface and midi controller for your synths.

That is because Mac G5 are 64 bit with dual processors and have a superior architecture to windows/linux/PC/blah. Mac G5's perform more tasks per clock cycle; more efficiently than PC based. I wish I had one, but all I can afford is crappy PC. Don't even talk shit about Mac!

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:47 pm

Quote:

A Windows computer tuned for audio will cost more than a Mac tuned for Audio with the same power, more stability, more fun and more options.
Anyway i don't want to transform this thread into a platform war. So this was my last word.
(just one suggestion: before choosing, try it! )

You must be joking, a P4 3.2, Asus Mobo w/ 1gb RAM, 80GB & 200GB HDD's, DVD/CDRW and Case w/ 450 watt PS and seven fans with speed control is under $1500. Show me a MAC that get's anywhere near that performance for that price. The STABILITY argument just doesn't hold water since the release of 2K & XP.
The fact that entertainment and game software is virtually nonexistent sort of limits your FUN don't you think? OPTIONS? lol, PC's have way more options than MAC and the few that MAC does have are way overpriced.

Quote:

That is because Mac G5 are 64 bit with dual processors and have a superior architecture to windows/linux/PC/blah. Mac G5's perform more tasks per clock cycle; more efficiently than PC based. I wish I had one, but all I can afford is crappy PC. Don't even talk shit about Mac!

AMD Athlon's are 64 bit also but until software developers catch up we are all only running true 32 bit, Mac's included. MAC's and PC's both can run dual processors but unless you are running software that can take advantage of it (and their is very little out there)you're only using 1 processor. I know of no music production software that can run dual processors. Your argument of "more tasks per clock cycle" is old like the stability issue. This comes from the RISC vs. CISC arguments during the 80's and early 90's. While the Reduced Instruction Set Code theoretically allowed for more tasks to be performed, the data must be processed many times in order to accomplish the same result as Complex Instructon Set Code does (simple version). The point is moot however as both Intel and Motorola have been using a marriage of the two technologies for many years. By the way Windows and Linux are not architectures. Linux was created by Linus Torvalds as part of his thesis as a graduate student. This same Linux you are bashing is based largley on Unix as is the MAC OS you tout as being superior. Perhaps you could sell your "crappy PC" and shop where the other guy is getting MAC's for less than a PC.

All this said I like both platforms. I have owned both and use both in my job. Mac's are intuitive, stable, have great software and are sometimes ahead of the competition with new technology. On the downside they are expensive, limited software selections, new technologies often require a new MAC and MAC doesn't stand behind their products like they once did (check the MAC forums). Also if you intend to play games DON"T buy a MAC (their the bottom of the barrel for gaming) On the other side PC's are now stable (with XP or 2K), very versatile, expandable and offer huge software selections. The real downside is store bought PC's. It may be a P4 or Athlon processor but the Mobo is crap as well as the memory, video card, sound card, network card etc. If you want a quality PC you have to build it yourself or have someone build it for you. Like I said I think both platforms are great and if money is not an issue and you don't need the machine for other uses like gaming the MAC is a great choice (It's best to have a dedicated audio machine anyway). But if your on a budget like most of us and want great performance for a lot less money you can't go wrong with a PC, plus you can spend what you save on a great mic or pre.

Spit, That's a great starting point for your PC. Other things to consider are a good power supply (450 watts is good), a video card with support for 2 monitors (you can always add a second monitor later), SATA drives are a bonus (I would look at a larger drive than 80GB for storing your music), the Intel 875 chipset on the MOBO (you probably don't need PCI express) and a good case to put it all in (don't go cheap here) Good Luck!

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:39 pm

D, that was beautiful.

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:12 pm

i still like macs better. i didnt really go into the speed-contest, since i think thats just not the most important issue here.
my main reason for buying a mac:
i love spending my money once (thus; not buying all kinds of different hardware over and over again to make m match)
i love the design, not only the appearance, but also the user-friendliness, which is, to me, as a daily computer-user, a great issue.
i just like things smooth and looking great
i love great support and fixing things myself. macos x just lets me do everything on my own, and when it doesnt, its already automated.

all this has just never let me down, i am a proud Dual G4 owner for over 2,5 years now, and, can you imagine, it has NEVER EVER crashed on me!! NEVER. and i use this computer for my audio-work, but i have also always used it for internet, banking, messenging, downloading, playing&d/l games, everything!
i've never met anyone who told me similar things about his/her PC, unless he/she had a separate non-audio pc.

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:11 pm

Thomaster wrote:

it has NEVER EVER crashed on me!! NEVER.

Wow. Then you are doing well. At a lecture I attended on the all software studio at the most recent AES conference, the 6 panelists agreed that a 20 hour mean time between failure is quite good.

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:33 pm

One thing you should consider is have the hard drives on something other than the IDE bus.

I run a Hard drive on a SCSI chain for recordings.

The Studio I'm at has switched off SCSI to firewire because the IDE drives they use are cheaper.

Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:55 pm

Build yourself a Shuttle XPC SB-83G5 for about $800 plus soundcard (versus $1600 for a pre-built slower "Music XPC" unit) and you will have a quiet, small, extremely powerful little box. It is a fantastic logical design using cutting edge Intel 915 + ICH6R chipsets, and the cooling is really advanced. Even uses the LGA775 P4, and has PCI-Express capability! Only one PCI slot, one PCI-Express slot, but 2 FireWire and 8 USB ports!

That's what I did, and I'm diggin it bigtime Very Happy

. It even outperforms my year-old $1500 DIY full-size Tower PC!!! (very simular to the one Big_D mentioned). I added a RME 96/36 PCI card I got off eBay for $239, and I have a killer music production optimized PC (nothing is running that doesn't need to be - and I mean nothing!) I built for about $1000. Could "Mac daddy" touch that? NOT! Wink

Here is a link to the barebones case/MoBo/PowerSupply (add Processor and RAM, and Video Card if on-baord graphics are not desired). (Isn't it cute Wink

)

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=56-101-456&depa=0

Firewire and SATA drives should be PLENTY fast for all but the most extreme track counts (or 192KHz hi-rez requirements - whatever that's for Rolling Eyes

). But a seperate OS drive is always a good idea. I prefer external FW drives for the portability (the empty FW enclosures are only about $40, add an OEM hard drive, and you will save a good amount over a pre-mounted HD/Enclosure, and save TONS over a Glyph!)

Cool

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:00 am

David French wrote:

Thomaster wrote:

it has NEVER EVER crashed on me!! NEVER.

Wow. Then you are doing well. At a lecture I attended on the all software studio at the most recent AES conference, the 6 panelists agreed that a 20 hour mean time between failure is quite good.

to me thats 'NOT quite good'.. i dunno, but ive never ever really heard anyone tell me they're happy that their stuff keeps running for 20 hours and then breaks down.

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:04 pm

No one said they were happy about it, they just said it seems for many to be a fact of life.

This topic sponsored by: