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

PC Upgrade Advice for Nuendo

Discussion in 'Nuendo' started by jaybird240z, Feb 10, 2003.

  1. jaybird240z

    jaybird240z Guest

    Hello Gary,

    I Use Nuendo and a Prodif 88 soundcard. I have this on a:

    -ASUS UV4X PC133
    -PIII 800Mhz
    -512 SD RAM
    -Maxtor IDE 15Gb HHD containing my OS and programs
    -Maxtor IDE 20Gb HHD containing my .wav and other Nuendo files.

    I have been recording at 96/24. I have been using few plugins and a modest amount of eq. My CPU meter never even registers anything but my hard disks have a hard time keeping up with about 22 tracks playing.

    Can you recomend system settings I should try and/or new hardware to consider.

    I've been wondering about getting a Motherboard with faster busing and new Western digital HHDs on a Raid array. I've been told the newer IDEs are close to as fast as the SCSIs and that running a couple of them simultaneously on a RAid array will make access twice as fast. I've also been told bigger HDDs will make access faster when they are used closer to empty.

  2. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Distinguished Member

    Apr 7, 2001
    Well...first off why is it you choose to record at 24/96? What are you recording as well? I see no reason to record at that sample rate for home project recordings or rock and roll. All you are doing is recording more data than you need.
    Second, yes, faster hard drives with the 8MB cache but not on a RAID config. No need for that. You'll most likely lose performance due to a RAID config more so than just using two of them on the secondary IDE. If you're not using many plugins the CPU will be fine but once you start using the, depending on which ones you use, they might not even truly operate properly at those sampling rates.
    Remember, you are recording for humans, and not dogs!
  3. jaybird240z

    jaybird240z Guest


    Thanks for the reply. The stuff I'm recording is very acoustic instrument oriented. It can be sparse and I want the best fidelity I can get. It isn't rock and roll and my client will be selling the CDs. This is why I'm recording at 24/96. :) Do you still think this is too much?

    I haven't really experimented with different sample rates yet, so far I just assumed the higher resolution would give me better fidelity. I've been recording for a few years, but I'm new to computer recording.

    My motherboard supports Ultra DMA/66 and the manual says, "Comes with an onboard PCI Bus Master IDE controller with two connectors that support four IDE devices on two channels" Forgive my ignorance. Does this mean I could plug in 4 Hard drives and they would act as 2? Would this make them faster than what I have now? Is DMA/66 fast enough for me?

  4. Michael Scott

    Michael Scott Active Member

    Aug 1, 2002
    Ontario Canada
    Home Page:
    Actually Opus has a point here. If your final media was DVD, then by all means 24/96kHz is what you would have to record at. But your final product is CD which you have to sample rate convert down to 16/44.1kHz from 24/96kHz. Acually I would try 88.2kHz. Down converting 88.2 to 44.1 is not really sample converting. It's a simple mathematical process so you end up gaining more than you lose with sample rate converting.

    I personally do most recording at 44.1 if its going to cd direct. But it depends if I'm mixing down to say 1" 8 track, I might use 96kHz(depending on type of music/sound I'm looking for) then from 1" a/d to 44.1 for final mix. There's many options depending on what sound your going for, but recording at 96kHz only to sample convert to 44.1kHz to cd, you'll end up losing more than if you just recorded at 44.1kHz in the first place. Try a quick test track at 96, then dither to 44.1. Then try 88.2, dither to 44.1, then try recording at 44.1. Listen to the sound your getting and you'll see what I mean.

    Hope this helps.
  5. jaybird240z

    jaybird240z Guest

    Thanks Dezert Dawg,

    I will try a test when I get a chance.

    I am planning, however to go to out tape and back in so I will try this too.

  6. p0rk

    p0rk Guest

    If you want more power, I would recommend two things:

    1) New Motherboard and CPU (Intel P4 or AMD Athlon XP) with at least an ultraATA/100 controller built in. If you can find a 'Serial ATA' board, that would also rock.

    2) New Hard drive - at least 7200 RPM, 2+MB cache (the more the better) and an UltraATA/100 or Serial ATA interface.

    Also, as per the question about the two drives and channels, that just means you can have up to 4 drives total, but they still act as seperate drives.

    The new motherboard, CPU, and Hard drive shouldn't cost too much. An Athlon XP 2000 and motherboard should cost around $110 - $130, and an UltraATA/100 80Gig drive should be less than $100 - $120. All in all you should be able to get by with about $250. Just be sure your existing RAM will work on the new MB!

Share This Page