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 Pro Tools 7.4 I've trained on 8. it's okay.. I'm 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 f**king 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 plugins 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..
Comments
Where did you find a quad core system @ 900mhz? That would have
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.
I get by on 4 gigs but I don't use a ton of plugins and I'm on a
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.
How 'bout because nearly every program I own is a 32 bit program
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.
I thought Sonar and Cubase 5 both had 64 bit audio engines?.....
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!
Most 64 bit audio engines just paste together to 32 bit chunks a
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.
As a reference: I have no problems recording 16 tracks at 88.2/
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.
I totally agree if your currently using a 32bit system, then tha
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....
I think that your points are valid and this is where the DAW wor
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.
Jack: I also have a FF800....love it....the sound is really amaz
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?
Others more experienced will probably have other ideas but here
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.
To my knowledge from everything so far.. it seems, there is no "
To my knowledge from everything so far.. it seems, there is no "Key" player in DAW power and capability. Although, yes there may be cleaner ways to run a 64 bit, and will expand my memory output, But what about those 32 Bit environments? it leaves the question.. Would memory be the only worry for plug in's? in 32 you can only address 3 gigs, and as it seems, are running fine with just that. But is that for editing? what about recording?
Most of my power is consumed from recording.
Most of my power is lost from using plug ins: guitar rig, amplitube, battery 3, xpand, and structure all the time live with my recordings. (Depending on songs, each used individually) Also, What about like other live plug-in’s, EQ’s and more..
I have a decent processor (I think so at least) and I can certainly check the core running speeds in my prefs.. which by the way probably will come out equal.. (i had no idea) I used to be a computer nerd back when it was all single cores, before 64 bit So… I’m slightly out of the loop when it comes to understanding how fast everything is moving now. I think even standard Mobo's can handle past 8 gig's of ram. 32 was last I heard or maybe that was just for a mac? I'm not sure, but thats off the hook, and awesome.
I had a demo from the guys at Pyramix in the UK come in once to my school with their systems. Totally blew protool's out of the fucking system, and it was all PC. Their consoles were even cooler than digidesign. it costs so much to import those damn mac's, and that was all they had practical. I’m really glad to see PC's moving in that direction, it totally took a second bite out of the apple logo.
But computer wise..
I doubt memory is the only thing holding me back. But those damn live plug-ins (guitar rig, amplitube, battery 3, xpand, and structure) all use so much power, its unbelievable. I suppose that is why most people go fetch an 8 core Mac pro because of the monstrous options and expandability, because for no matter what your are doing the most important factor is flexibility, not stationary to one specific task. It has to do everything if you want to be in this business :)
Pyramix is one the main big boys-especially in the DSD world. I
Pyramix is one the main big boys-especially in the DSD world. I have nothing but respect for them. I can't afford them.
If you are requiring yourself to use plugins while recording (I go the analog route if I need fx when recording) then you probably do need the 64 bit DAW with a 64 bit OS and a good chunk of ram. If you purchase the machine already packaged then you have reasonable expectations of complete compatibility. If you build it then read everything you can about interaction of your selected components.
I ain't a programmer. I'll just state that now. I'm a hardware guy. I just try to make things work.
There's some good, bad and ugly about Pyramix. The good - The
There's some good, bad and ugly about Pyramix.
The good -
The DSD/DXD mix engine is pretty damned nice.
The Mykerinos cards ensure a rock solid performance
The sound of the AD conversion on those daughter cards ain't bad at all!
The bad -
The editing is a bit clunky
The price tag is steep for a fully-configured system
The proprietary nature is a b*tch
The 3rd party plug-in support is dodgy in some cases
The ugly -
I don't like how it handles DSD fades/splices
The control surfaces are out of this world expensive (but cool as hell! Although, have you seen the one for the Genex?! Beam me up Scotty!)
FWIW - I've started moving away from DSD. I do have a handful of DSD recorders now and even went down the path of having a DSD editor made from the ground up (didn't work too great...) However, no matter how good the sound is, the complete and total lack of support from any of the industries that should support DSD has turned me off.
For my money, it's high-resolution PCM for the foreseeable future. Oh, and 24/176.4 does indeed sound great, but very few people that I know of have the ability to hear that and even less have an environment condusive to hearing it. Don't even get me started on Bose Acoustimass POS's...
Sorry to divert...please return to your regularly scheduled topic.
Cheers-
J.
More memory usually means faster response but be careful. More m
More memory usually means faster response but be careful. More memory means also more swapping to disk. Make sure it is a fast one.
If you want a really fast dedicated machine then install only what is really necessary. Have another machine for other purposes (web browsing, etc.)
First, unless you are running a 64bit operating system then stic
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.