1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Most Powerful Components

Discussion in 'Recording' started by Audiol0gic, Aug 1, 2009.

  1. Audiol0gic

    Audiol0gic Guest

    Building a DAW. What are the most powerful, valued components to each? I have an M-audio delta 1010 LT, it does what I want. I run Protools 7.4 I've trained on 8. it's okay.. im not looking to spend money to upgrade yet. But computer wise, would processor speed make it valuable as a DAW? the only conspriacy revolving around that are the myths of these multicore processors...

    they aren't that much more powerful. to some extent yes. but combining a four core system to around 900mhz a core to add up to one core max 3.6 Ghz. Then turning to a dual core with two individual per core 1.8 Ghz processors actually performs better because its two faster CPU's. instead of four 900mhz CPU's. My only concern is I have a dual core.. Im pretty certain I can hold onto it because it does infact perform pretty ^#$%ing awesome. I have a Dual core AMD X2 2.8 GHz Processor, and I record at 96kHz 24 bit, as long as I want with about 16 plug-ins on the whole song before chop.

    And considering thats around a compressor a track for 16 tracks, or 8 compressors and 8 EQ's (yeah I can do math haha) but anyway, its not bad for what I need it to do, BUT I need MORE!!!()_#_(@!!!!..

    But what about Memory? I run on about 3 Gb of super fast ram.. Do you think an upgrade would give me some more room? if not, What is the most important thing I could look into buying on a budget, just to expand this thing. I run windows, Mac's are ehh. I'm a New England School of Communications student... and i'd rather do cheaper than a tricked out mac..
     
  2. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    First, unless you are running a 64bit operating system then stick with either 3gig of ram or 2 matched sticks of 2 gig. A 32 bit system can only address 3 gig at a time.

    Second, for tracking purposes you probably shouldn't run any plugins at all. That saves a lot of horse power. Use your plugins during editing.

    Add on DSP cards are perhaps another option for you as far as adding audio engine power. That might be more bang for the buck than CPU/ram upgrade. Also, stick with PT 7.4 as 8 sucks down more resources seemingly. Digi will work the kinks (or maybe the Ramones) out of PT 8 eventually.
     
  3. hueseph

    hueseph Well-Known Member

    Where did you find a quad core system @ 900mhz? That would have to be archaic and an anomaly at best. Most of the quad core systems are better than 2.4GHz PER CORE. That is NOT a myth. That is how they work. The rating is not a sum of the cores. It is a rating per core. So, yeah a quad core is more powerful.

    If you check on the DUC you will see that the popular chip now is the new i7. If you have to go budget, there are Phenom II triple cores at 3Ghz. If you EVER want to run PTMP8 at the same level that you are now, you will want to get the fastest chip you can afford. I use an x2 7750 BBE at 3.2GHz and it is just sufficient but not for higher track counts.
     
  4. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    There really has never been a 900mhz quad core available on the open market of which I am aware.
     
  5. Audiol0gic

    Audiol0gic Guest

    so if i have a dual core 2.8 ghz, each core is 2.8? correct?

    it is 64 bit, so i could go with more ram, ehh?

    its an AMD Athlon™ X2 Dual-Core 64 bit processor, rated at 2.80 GHz, so thats per-"core" rated?
     
  6. Audiol0gic

    Audiol0gic Guest

    so if i have a dual core 2.8 ghz, each core is 2.8? correct?

    it is 64 bit, so i could go with more ram, ehh?

    its an AMD Athlon™ X2 Dual-Core 64 bit processor, rated at 2.80 GHz, so thats per-"core" rated?
     
  7. djmukilteo

    djmukilteo Well-Known Member

    1.) Yes
    Look in your System Information and you should see both cores listed at the same speed
    2.) Depends on what Operating System (OS) are you running?
    WinXP?
    Vista?
    Other?
     
  8. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    The OS is irrelevant. If the OS is 64 bit you can address more than 3 gig of ram.

    [edit] whether it is Vista or XP or Win7 is irrelevant.
     
  9. djmukilteo

    djmukilteo Well-Known Member

    Ok the OS he's using isnt relevant so how much RAM should he get Jack?
     
  10. Codemonkey

    Codemonkey Well-Known Member

    How much can you afford and how much can you add to the motherboard?
     
  11. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    I get by on 4 gigs but I don't use a ton of plugins and I'm on a 32 bit OS. I run XP Pro, Vista Ult, and Win7 all 32 bit and all at 4 gigs (2 x 2gig matched sticks).

    If the CPU is 64 bit but the OS is 32 bit then he can only address 3 gig of ram. If the CPU is 64 bit AND the OS is 64 bit then he can address as much ram as he can afford and the motherboard/bios will support.
     
  12. djmukilteo

    djmukilteo Well-Known Member

    Why in the world would you run Vista Ultimate or Win7 in 32bit mode?
     
  13. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    How 'bout because nearly every program I own is a 32 bit program and the three or four that I own that claim to be 64 bit are not actually true 64 bit engines. Just like 99% of people out there. Additionally, not all programs work equally in a 64 bit environment vs a 32 bit environment.

    I could just as well ask, why on earth you would run a 64 bit audio engine when it may or may not truly BE 64 bit? Logic 8 is the only true 64 bit DAW out there if I recall. All others just fake it.
     
  14. djmukilteo

    djmukilteo Well-Known Member

    I thought Sonar and Cubase 5 both had 64 bit audio engines?.....or are these who you speak of as being fake 64's?
    Besides, I thought this was a discussion of Most Powerful Components...which was why I wondered why you would not want to build to 64bit like the new Rain DAW's.
    I would also think that when Win7 does actually release (I'd wait until SP2) that this would be the direction to go for a new PC DAW using quad or maybe even octo core processing in 64bit.
    If applications take time to catch up (and they always will) in order to utilize that power, there are still plenty of reasons for using it....like moving or reading files, executing routines, graphic all will be faster......moving two 32bit blocks at a time is still twice as fast as moving one 32bit block.
    IMHO 64bit is the future and lots of RAM!
     
  15. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Most 64 bit audio engines just paste together to 32 bit chunks and then send it down the pipe as opposed to truly utilizing all of a 64 bit width. Moving two pasted 32bit chunks is not by definition faster than a 32 bit environment. I have not seen any data proving it anyway and believe I read an article stating the contrary. What 64 bit does allow is of course for greatly expanded ram and possible better utilization of the newest processors.

    Win 7 has worked pretty much flawlessly for me since it's first beta in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions so I have no problem recommending it when it is released this August. It is really quite superior to Vista (or Vista SP1/SP2).

    We are in agreement that 64 bit programs are indeed the way of the future. For those that desire rock solid stability and reliability however, living on the bleeding edge of technology is not advisable. Unless you are a rapacious techie or have such a person to provide you support. In the case you mentioned (Rain) they do provide the support and extensive testing of their systems.

    Therefore, I'll happily utilize my 32 bit environment with my 32 bit DSP cards for stability and experiment with the bleeding bits on an auxiliary machine so I can be prepared for the future.

    YMMV.
     
  16. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    As a reference: I have no problems recording 16 tracks at 88.2/24 for two or three hour chunks of time. My two main laptops are an Inspiron 9400 and a Latitude D820. Both run 1394b SiiG Express Cards. Both are in love with the Fireface 800. I always utilize external hard drives. (T7500/4gig DDR2).

    I haven't done much at 192k simply because I don't see the point. That said, I did record a chamber concert last season for experiment-4 tracks @ 176.4/24 without any real issues. I now have a second FF800 so perhaps I'll play with it once at 8 tracks of 176 but I doubt it.
     
  17. djmukilteo

    djmukilteo Well-Known Member

    I totally agree if your currently using a 32bit system, then thats what you use...I don't think the topic was about what your system was or if you should change to 64bit....I was only remarking about the "power of the components" in a DAW and why 64bit wouldn't be the preferred methodology....
    but 64 bit registers are 64 bit registers....the 64bit processor instruction set moves 64bit wide words in a given amount of machine cycles. Memory (RAM) in a 64bit system is mapped in 64 bit words. If an application (this includes the OS which is nothing more than a shell/core application) is written and executes in 64bit the processor moves those words around directly from register's to memory locations and vice versa in one instruction step. If the application is written in 32bit the processor inserts wait states until two 32 bit words of data are loaded into a register before moving them.
    So it seems like the more effecient use of 64bit machines will inevitably be using 64bit applications and operating systems. If you buy a 64bit processor and 64bit OS why wouldn't you want to use them....even if certain applications remain 32bit?.....
    I would also think that in the audio world 64bit creates a resolution greater than 32bit can and therefore provide better fidelity S/N dynamic range etc etc....
     
  18. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    I think that your points are valid and this is where the DAW world is heading. I just don't think it is there yet.

    I merely brought my systems to the table to show that 32 bit systems are not inherently inferior for most folks. In fact for just raw tracking, an Alesis HD24XR is terribly hard to beat for efficiency.

    Regarding 64 bit resolution, Is there a DAW that utilizes 64 bit mixing? I don't know. I'm just not familiar enough with all the DAWs. For recording purposes it is all 24 bit or less in any case. 24 bit is already greater dynamic range than an instrument or voice can produce.

    Also, I feel there is an inherent difference between purchasing a 64 bit machine that has been vetted by an audio company w/tech support as opposed to "creating" ones own version of that same machine. For the most part I do not believe that these companies utilize the newest of the new technology. Not that it's necessarily old either.

    I have seen lots of folks buy the "best" individual components and put them together at home and end up with too many problems and not enough reliability. Research is definitely the key.

    djmukilteo-this has been a good discussion. It's nice to have an opportunity to reevaluate my thoughts on the matter. I really have nothing against 64 bit machines especially as the programmers give in and start actually writing code that utilizes those bits instead of scabbing the old versions. My goal is stability and power. In my case I'll take the former over the latter.

    Peace.
     
  19. djmukilteo

    djmukilteo Well-Known Member

    Jack:
    I also have a FF800....love it....the sound is really amazing....I also use 32bit WinXp with 4G, Cubase 4.5.2, 1Tb of space...
    So with two FF800's connected are they on separate FW connections or linked?
    I have only tried recording at 192khz on some short piano part's and I thought it sounded really clean, light, bright, airy....I don't know...was it better than 44.....ya maybe?! LOL....
    I know this is getting off topic...but do you think making recordings at those rates really sounds better or do you think it is a perceived brain thing?
     
  20. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Others more experienced will probably have other ideas but here is my take.

    When I am in the right studio listening environment the higher sampling rates allow me to hear the mix better. I do personally prefer 88.2 to 44.1 without any doubt. I'm not as certain about the next bump up. Sometimes I think FX applied at this level render better but I wonder if I'm just fooling myself. At any rate, if I can mix and edit better then the final product will sound better even after it is bounced to 16/44.1. Right now, here in West Yellowstone at the summer job/digs, high sampling rates would be useless just because of the room(s) itself sucks.

    I'm told that there is an audible difference between DSD 1 bit tracking to any of the PCM versions but alas, as of today I have no DSD recorder to develop my own opinions.

    really OT: I just had my first experience with RME tech support and was completely astonished at the lack of BS. I'm an even more loyal customer now.
     

Share This Page