PC recording, what is good enough
Home > Home Recording Forum > Computers & Software > PC recording, what is good enough
Posted on Apr 11, 2004 01:33 pm
kivi
Member Since: Feb 25, 2004
I am about to have a pretty nice setup, but wondering if I should build a new PC too.
The old PC I was considering using is a
AMD t-bird 800mhz, with 1 gig SDram, 40 gig HD. Got a new soundcard coming.
Anyway, with the Sonar 3 will this PC be fast enough? Or should I consider getting a faster processor, and/or going with something that uses DDR ram instead of the SDram.
Also, will win98SE be ok? Or would I be much better off going with Win XP.
Thanks guys.
[ Back to Top ]
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Apr 11, 2004 02:35 pm Ok, I'm going to be brutally honest, I'm sure someone else will come along and be a bit more sympathetic - listen to them instead.
No.
Get at least a 2.4Ghz Processor (intel that is, not sure what the AMD equiv is, suffice to say intel is better at number crunching with the SSE2 features enabled)
1 Gig of Ram is fine, but, it's the wrong type - SD-Ram is slow - sell it and get 1 Gig of DDR Ram (preferably PC3200 / 36000). Get 2 x 512Mb stick so you can run them dual channel.
You'll need a new motherboard, get one with an 800Mhz FSB (again, that's intel, I don't know what the fastest AMD equiv is.) and Dual channel memory.
40 Gig isn't much storage, upgrade to a 160Gb Drive, maybe a SATA150 would be a good choice.
win98SE will be fine.
Regards
jues.
kiviMember
Since: Feb 25, 2004
Apr 11, 2004 02:36 pm Thanks for the info, I am looking at stuff as we speak.
And I do appreciate folks who are brutally honest 8)
Whoa, everything seems quite attainable except for that 800mhz FSB part. fastest I am finding at a reasonable price is 533FSB. Is it that important?
DanMember
Since: Nov 21, 2002
Apr 11, 2004 02:50 pm jues is right, but in my opinion it is possible to get by with much less.
my computer is a gateway from 1998, 128mb ram, win98, a 20 gig HD, 2 CD drives, sb live soundcard, Sonar 2, intel celery processator :-D
Im sure what you have can get the job done, but there maybe some little inconveniences that could be avoided by upgrading your computer.
Apr 11, 2004 07:25 pm You will be perfectly able to get by with less. I run a touch under 2gHz AMD Athlon with one GB of RAM and it runs Sonar3 very well, I could use less...
Apr 12, 2004 03:05 pm I suppose it ultimatly depends on exactly what you need. I am running Dual AMD AthlonMP 2200+ with 1GB of the slower DDR and older 5400RPM IDE drives. Hard disk space is really just a matter of what you can live with. Hell, I ran my old 486 with about 3megs free on a daily basis just by backing up stuff.
I have had almost no problems running Cubase SX 1.01 with an Aarkvark Q10. I can play back upwards of 30 tracks and lay down 8 new tracks from the Q10 like nothing. Once I start moving over to mixing and start layering the compressors and effects (mostly Waves VST stuff) I run into issues with large track counts.
Before this I was running an AMD 1.2gHz 512mb/DDR with the Q10 and it performed surpsingly well. 20-30 tracks seemed to be where it started to choke but the system was still usable.
Now I don't know too much about the internals of most of the audio software or plugins but I do program/build computers by trade. I would have to agree with Jues statement that Intel chips are indeed superior when it comes to number crunching. That is a known fact. My original dualie was 2 PIII/866 with the 266FSB and it screamed - comparable AMD's where not available at the time. However when money comes into play, you can get a viable alternative from AMD now for a good chunk less. DDR memory is a must, and there are different speed ratings there as well, oviously something go higher, i think 2300 or maybe even 3300 might be available. Don't quote me on that, havn't bought DDR memory for a while. Also a huge consideration or bottle kneck is always the hard disk. Go at least 7200RPM if you need to go IDE (I have old 5400's that do okay, but sometimes I think they are ready to just burst into flames) if you can afford it go SCSI. The mainboard (specifically chipset) you have also makes a huge difference. You will want to make sure that your chipset is supported by all/any hardware software you wish to use.
In short, there are a million awnsers for this question - it all depends on your needs.
Hope some of this helps.
kiviMember
Since: Feb 25, 2004
Apr 12, 2004 03:47 pm Thanks for the info.
Alot to consider, but better to be informed then ignorant. Ignorance is bliss, but not when it screws things up 8)
Apr 12, 2004 03:53 pm I guess I have to agree with mhubbard (an apparantly new member, welcome to HRC, mhubbard) in any realistic measure, ANY current PC is capable of running most multitracking applications. The bottom line is what you need from it. If you only need to use 16 tracks with few plugin effects, most PC's will work. If you write film scores that use 64 tracks with dozens of plugins, you will need more power.
It is always best to buy the biggest machine you can afford, but if it is a hobby, don't go into debt over it.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Apr 12, 2004 10:04 pm Yup gotta go with Jues. I am runnning a very similar machine to yours Kivi with a little more ram. It is fast becoming inadaquate. I'm getting by but I am having to make more passes at things doing partial processing (effects etc.) each pass. Now what's good enough? Depends on how deep you get yourself into recording. It will become obvious when you get that "bomb" plug you've been saving for and your machine freezes. Or if your sharper than me you read the specs and note that the plug needs more machine. But generaly the machine that Jues describes will keep up to contemporary recording software....for the moment.
kiviMember
Since: Feb 25, 2004
Apr 13, 2004 01:00 pm Well. I ordered a 160 gig HD, a very nice motherboard, and am getting an AMD 2800 XP barton. The p4 setup was just way too much money for me right now.
Some info I have found out via research and talking to a studio recording instructor at my school. One of the more important aspects of a processor for recording is the cache size on the CPU. I know the processor I am getting is a little low on pure MHZ power, but it has a 512k cache, which is apparently a very good thing. My current PC has a 266k cache.
I thought maybe a Celeron would work for me at first, due to price / speed, but a 2.7 mhz Celeron only has a 128k cache, which is apparently horrible for music production.
*shrug* Yet again I am boggled, yet somehow more informed. If I confused anyone more then I helped, I am very sorry hehe.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 14, 2004 10:27 pm And Hopefully the MoBo you selected will run SATA drives. The SATA drives are now faster then the SCSI. As well the Barton core is a good choice for the AMD XP chip. If you are into overclocking a bit, they are the cats hind end. I have the 2800 Barton Core and it burned in at 3800Mhz without flinching. I wont be running it that fast in the studio but it is nice to know the chip is capable of running that fast. I will be adding a SATA drives for audio only and just send projects out to a removable drive on another PC in the studio for back up.
kiviMember
Since: Feb 25, 2004
Apr 15, 2004 12:03 pm Yep... speaking of overclocking. Where can I get some info on how to do that? I have never tried it before, but would like to.
Apr 15, 2004 12:05 pm no you wouldn't...
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Apr 15, 2004 12:08 pm is that where you put a time-telling device on top of your machine...thus over clocking it?
kiviMember
Since: Feb 25, 2004
Apr 15, 2004 12:10 pm Ok. I wouldnt then hehe
I just got it Flame.. roflmao
Apr 15, 2004 12:25 pm overclocking is sensitive stuff. I spent much of my time as a tech working with people that wrecked their gear by overclocking and doing it wrong. It's more than just upping the clock speed, you have to make sure that the slot busses are synced properly or you can burn out devices in those slots, you need to especially make sure you have it cooled properly, which often involves more fans, whichmakes more noise, which is counter productive in our situation. There are now new methods of cooling that are quieter, but sometimes more expensive as well. There is a lot to it and a lot of factors play a role, I have done it, it was kinda fun playing with when I did. But even if done correctly, your gear will burn out faster and ultimately you are better off just buying a faster PC.
I realize jues will disagree here, cuz he think everyone needs a billion gigahertz ;-), but fact is almost any modern mid to high-end PC (not including celerons and other low-end CPU based systems) is more than fast enough for most anything most of us do...
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Apr 15, 2004 12:37 pm Quote:
(not including celerons and other low-end CPU based systems)
d'oh! thats what i bought!
DanMember
Since: Nov 21, 2002
Apr 15, 2004 05:47 pm Hey Flame, Mine is a Celeron Dealy and it works alright for me, and judging by the sound of your stuff, it obviously is working for you. I guess all that really matters is that your PC works for you. I know this thing *kicks PC* is a POS, but i can work with it, and dont really know what im missing, so i cope with it.
Apr 15, 2004 06:24 pm Understand that Celerons can (and obviously do) work just fine. It depends on how much you need from it. Flame records a single track at a time and his songs are usually under 12 tracks in total and manages his effects processing very carefully, so that would require less than somebody that uses a couple dozen tracks or more and records many at once and has a lot of plugins and virtual synths running...it's all about what you need from it.
DanMember
Since: Nov 21, 2002
Apr 15, 2004 06:52 pm That was exactly what i was trying to say :)
towards the end of a project, small problems do happen, but i manage to work around them. A new PC is currently out of the question,
BUT, we do have an audition for a steady job as a jazz trio in the lobby of a nearby movie theatre for 50 bucks an hour. we are almost positive we have it, we are the only people auditioning, the owner just wants to hear us before we start playing. We are pooling the money we make together for our band's financial needs (Studio Equipment, T-Shirt Printing, other crap), so in time, we may finally purchase or build a new PC. but thats probably not for a long while, we have other fish to fry at the moment
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Apr 15, 2004 07:13 pm lol dB.
The projects I work on easily go over 50 tracks of audio at 24/44.1 (12 for drums, 2 for bass, upwards of 20 for guitar (I kid you not - different sections on different tracks, and everything is double tracked with 2 mics) then another 12 or so for electronics, and finally at least 3 for vocals. This combined with the plugins we run on top quickly maxxes out our studio pc - and that's a 3.0Ghz P4, 800fsb with 1024Mb of CAS2 PC3700 Ram - it's a beast.
I'm not saying everyone needs a l337 pc, of course they don't - it all depends on the situation, but you can never have enough processing power.
Oh and listen to the man, overcloking is for suckas, f00! :D
jues.
Apr 15, 2004 08:04 pm Yeah, I know your get heavy, I am just taking a cheap shot at you cuz you always tell everyone to get a big PC that many don't need. It's not always necessary. And yes, I as well have projects that get quite large, not my personal music, but outside projects often do...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 15, 2004 10:20 pm Yes indeed as stated previously overclocking is not something to take lightly. Teh gusy that do it are seriously into the mods that make it possible to do without major damage, but to get where they are they smoked more then one processor along with other parts as well. Ram suffers as well as the North Bridge chip.
Liquid cooling is one solution that works the best. But that said, it aint cheap to do. This site www.liquiddaw.com will give you an idea of what liquid cooling is about. I wont post the address for the overclocking site but there is one out there that is the best at what they do. They have lists of the chips that will and wont run overclocked as well as the how to and how not to overclock.
I do not personally recomend it unless you have the top gear for it and can afford to pay for new gear when you fry a chip or possibly an entire MoBo.
My new MoBo was built for oveclocking and even runs a software utilty for doing it the proper way, with all the system moniters as well as a monitering facility to shut itself down incase it is headed for a meltdown. Now this all takes system resources so I wont be laggin it up by running software to tell me Im gonna wreck my box, while it slows it down while Im trying to work.
Anyway, words of wisdom. Dont try it unless ya can afford to replace it when it fries.
May 07, 2004 11:26 am If you plan to use ASIO sound card Wndows 98 will be 100% Ok for very low latency.
Under Windows XP any ASIO driver works via WDM drivers. Under XP only wdm-driver can control hardware directly. Under XP ASIO is a wraper for WDM. It seems at this time sound card manufacturers as a rule made excelent ASIO for Windows 98 and relatively poor for XP-ASIO-WDM system, so, under XP may be problems with low latency. Usually 10 ms is limit for ASIO->wdm.
May 07, 2004 11:32 am I run Windows XP, Sonar 3 and ASIO Audiophile 2496 and get under 10ms latency. That same setup using WDM is SUBSTANTIALLY higher...though the exact numbers escape me.
Thought you may well be right about how they work, I wouldn't know on that technical of a level, all I know is ASIO still gives me vastly better performance.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
May 23, 2004 02:32 pm My latency in XP is much better using ASIO then it was with 98 or any other for that matter. And ASIO is not implemented vai a wrapper in XP/Sonar.
Jun 24, 2004 06:29 pm Hello everyone. I'm new here. Great information! Glad I found this place!
I was wondering if I could get some advice from all of you obvious experts?
First of all my current E Machine T1150 computer comes up short on the power end for home recording. It has a 5400 RPM hard drive; 128 SDRAM, and a 1.3 Celeron chip. I was using an exterior, consumer USB connected, Sound Blaster Extigy as my sound card and was running Cakewalk Pro Audio 9. The problems I had were aweful out of syncness and dropouts when I used a lot of effects. But I hated the out of syncness the most. I always had to manually move each recorded track up a little bit for it to make sense with the previously recorded tracks. Also Pro Audio 9’s midi drums had a slight out of beatness to them that drove me crazy. Pro Audio 9 was generally buggy.
So I decided to upgrade the SDRAM and my hard drive but since learning my Celeron chip does not perform at an optimum level for digital recording I figured I’d just forget the upgrade and buy a new computer dedicated solely for recording.
My digital recording needs are as follows: I will mostly be recording one track at a time (but on occasion possibly 2 or 3 at a time but maybe up to 8 drum tracks at a time). I’ll be running midi drums and keyboards and/or recording from a drum machine. I will most likely not record over 18 tracks on any given project but would like the capability to go 24 tracks if need be. I will be running plugin effects (probably Sonic Foundary). I’d like the ability, if I have a call for it, to run chorus, reverb, delay, and distortion effects simultaneously. I’ll be running XP. I already use Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 but I have Sonar and might give Cubase LE a try as it comes bundled with the Aardvark Q10 sound card that I’ll probably be getting. I will basically be recording song demos only.
Now I’ve already learned that at least 512 DDR RAM (is PC2700 good enough?) is a must (a gig is even better) and that I should have a substantial hard drive that runs at 7200 RPM. But some of the other things mentioned in this thread have me confused, for instance:
1) what chip I’ll need (an affordable AMD equivelent to a Pentium is probably the route I’ll need to take.) A motherboard with a 800Mhz FSB? The Barton core is a good thing for the AMD XP chip?
2) SATA hard drive vs. SCSI hard drive?
3) DDR RAM speed ratings (is PC3200 / 3600 a must?)
4) The main board (specifically chipset) makes a huge difference?
5) One of the more important aspects of a processor for recording is the cache size on the CPU? Is a 512 cache preferrable?
6) Do not use Celerons or other low end systems? Without exception?
7) ASIO sound cards work badly with Windows XP? Does high latency mean you’ll be out of sync?
We have a Fry’s Electronics where I live and they often have fairly decent deals. I’m no expert by any means so I’d like to list here a computer currently for sale at Fry’s that would serve as an example of my price range. Please let me know if this comp will be sufficient for my recording needs.
E Machines
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ Processor PC
512MB PC2700 DDR Memory
160GB Hard Drive (I’m sure its 7200 RPM but I’ll make sure.)
$579 after rebates. Regular price: $669.
Its my dream to just buy a computer and have it meet my needs without upgrading it more just to get things to work right. Will this computer to the trick? Do I need to research the computer more to know?
Thanks in advance for any help you folks can give me!
Gary
EdelweissOk, who moved it..??Member
Since: Apr 23, 2004
Jun 24, 2004 08:08 pm Gary...
That system your looking at sounds very good to me. It's very similar to mine , with the exception that I have a 2.8 gig celeron. (which seems to work just fine, by the way) the only thing I would suggest that you add is a good "recording grade" sound card. check the gear bag here for ideas. Personally, I like the M-audio stuff. I'm using an Audiophile 2496. IMHO it's a hard one to beat in the cost vs' quality catagory...
anyway, just something to think about. hope you find what you need...
good luck.
EdelweissOk, who moved it..??Member
Since: Apr 23, 2004
Jun 24, 2004 08:09 pm P.S.....Welcome to HRC...
Jun 24, 2004 08:39 pm Thanks for the welcome and the feedback, Edelweiss. I actually have my eye on an Aardvark Q10 for a recording grade sound card. Supposedly the 8 pro quality balanced inputs are one of its standout features. But I'll check out the Audiophile 2496 too.
Jun 25, 2004 01:03 am After looking at the Audiophile 2496 I'm thinking I might go with it for now. A good card very reasonably priced with nothing but good reviews. The Q10 looks great and is loaded with features and extras but it costs $850 where the Audiophile is about $150.
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Jun 25, 2004 12:33 pm Oddly the Q10 has been going up in price steadily sence it came out. I bought mine for $750 the month they were released. They're durable as hell and they have probably the best tech support of any computer company.
The only scary problem I had with mine whas when I reinstalled the drivers with the breakout box disconnected... all the challels shifted oever one and there was alot of crosstalk on 1&2 (then shifted to 9&10)... but tech support just told be to reinstall and it worked fine...
The worst I treated it was when I deployed last spring to go to iraq (we didn't go eventually) it sat on the back of a army truck in a field fileing cabnet in the rain next to the ocean... for three months... once it dried out you'd never tell the difference. :)
The only dilemma is that they have no linux support... whereas the Delta 1010 does.
Jun 25, 2004 02:06 pm Cool. I noticed in a user review on this site the reviewer says it sometimes sounds cheap. For a product that expensive I'd say it shouldn't sound cheap. What is your take on it? I know the Q10 is a 24/ 48 card instead of a 24/ 96 but would that even make a difference?
