Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

optimizing pc for audio

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:09:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?

More about : optimizing audio

March 5, 2005 4:20:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<peakester@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1110024588.842834.102060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
> your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
> is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
> a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?
>

Google's search gives (among many others):
http://www.pcmus.com/TweakXP.htm

Regards,

Laurent.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:15:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<peakester@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1110024588.842834.102060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
> your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
> is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
> a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?
>

XP works great right out of the box and doesn't really require much
tweaking. I would install my recording and do a few recordings before you go
messing with stuff that you don't need to (which can cause your computer to
be unstable).
Related resources
March 5, 2005 8:36:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
DWkWd.94509$tl3.43663@attbi_s02...
> XP works great right out of the box and doesn't really require much
> tweaking. I would install my recording and do a few recordings before you
> go messing with stuff that you don't need to (which can cause your
> computer to be unstable).
>

I agree.
If your computer works right as it is, don't change anything.
Sometimes best is the enemy of the good.

Regards,

Laurent.
March 5, 2005 11:53:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

tweaking and messing with You pc
http://www.cgoff.fsnet.co.uk/popsclicks/

Regards

emil

"lm" <laurent.marc3enlever@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:4229e012$0$1242$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
>
> "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> DWkWd.94509$tl3.43663@attbi_s02...
> > XP works great right out of the box and doesn't really require much
> > tweaking. I would install my recording and do a few recordings before
you
> > go messing with stuff that you don't need to (which can cause your
> > computer to be unstable).
> >
>
> I agree.
> If your computer works right as it is, don't change anything.
> Sometimes best is the enemy of the good.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laurent.
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:45:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ricky Hunt wrote:
> <peakester@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1110024588.842834.102060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about
tweaking
> > your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but
is
> > is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for
optimizing
> > a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?
> >
>
> XP works great right out of the box and doesn't really require much
> tweaking. I would install my recording and do a few recordings before
you go
> messing with stuff that you don't need to (which can cause your
computer to
> be unstable).

I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the box or I
wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like disabling
auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did with
98SE.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:04:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:

>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the box or I
>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like disabling
>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did with
>98SE.

What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP suggests
that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This is the list I usually use :
http://www.musicxp.net/tuning_tips.php

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

<peakester@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1110024588.842834.102060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
> your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
> is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
> a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:32:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:57:35 -0800, "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com>
wrote:

>This is the list I usually use :
>http://www.musicxp.net/tuning_tips.php

Yeah that one is good.

Al
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:09:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1nol211khhtqerpvrs228ep0t0s4ukc8bl@4ax.com...
> On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the box or I
>>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like disabling
>>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
>>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did with
>>98SE.
>
> What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP suggests
> that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.

What is the exact problem? Applying tweaks at random isn't very wise.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:36:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:09:53 GMT, "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1nol211khhtqerpvrs228ep0t0s4ukc8bl@4ax.com...
>> On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the box or I
>>>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like disabling
>>>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
>>>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did with
>>>98SE.
>>
>> What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP suggests
>> that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.
>
>What is the exact problem? Applying tweaks at random isn't very wise.
>


There's an echo in here!

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 5:17:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

i recently built a very similar system (albeit somewhat slower 1.4Ghz)
and although i have little to compare with - the advice on
http://www.musicxp.net/tuning_tips.php was excellent and the setup has
been running as well i feel it could given the hardware im using.

cheers

Luke
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 7:36:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:ksmm21p8r1r51fnvtumpn7cnujekrrccpe@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:09:53 GMT, "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1nol211khhtqerpvrs228ep0t0s4ukc8bl@4ax.com...
> >> On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the box or I
> >>>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like disabling
> >>>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
> >>>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did with
> >>>98SE.
> >>
> >> What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP suggests
> >> that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.
> >
> >What is the exact problem? Applying tweaks at random isn't very wise.
> >
>
>
> There's an echo in here!


Let it reverberate... I still don't trust XP, so I watch these questions.

DM
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ksmm21p8r1r51fnvtumpn7cnujekrrccpe@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:09:53 GMT, "Ricky Hunt"
<rhunt22@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > >news:1nol211khhtqerpvrs228ep0t0s4ukc8bl@4ax.com...
> > >> On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the
box or I
> > >>>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like
disabling
> > >>>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
> > >>>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did
with
> > >>>98SE.
> > >>
> > >> What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP
suggests
> > >> that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.
> > >
> > >What is the exact problem? Applying tweaks at random isn't very
wise.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There's an echo in here!
>
>
> Let it reverberate... I still don't trust XP, so I watch these
questions.
>
> DM

My general comment is that some of the tweaking needed
is with the user. Don't expect to be able to do anything
at any time with a system that is 'optimized' for a
particular use. When you've eliminated you're own
expectation that the machine be ready to connect to
the net with one click you're most of the way there.
More to the point, I have found that AV running
in the realtime or Auto-Protect mode just seems
like it wants to interupt just about anything.
McAffee tends to be more of a resource hog than
Norton but both are 'in charge' when fully enabled.
My 1.33 Athlon was slower than the previous 500mHz
K6-III until it was 'optimized'.

good luck
rd
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:23:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in message news:1110198600.174438.165960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:ksmm21p8r1r51fnvtumpn7cnujekrrccpe@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:09:53 GMT, "Ricky Hunt"
> <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> > > >news:1nol211khhtqerpvrs228ep0t0s4ukc8bl@4ax.com...
> > > >> On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the
> box or I
> > > >>>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like
> disabling
> > > >>>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
> > > >>>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did
> with
> > > >>>98SE.
> > > >>
> > > >> What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP
> suggests
> > > >> that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.
> > > >
> > > >What is the exact problem? Applying tweaks at random isn't very
> wise.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's an echo in here!
> >
> >
> > Let it reverberate... I still don't trust XP, so I watch these
> questions.
> >
> > DM
>
> My general comment is that some of the tweaking needed
> is with the user. Don't expect to be able to do anything
> at any time with a system that is 'optimized' for a
> particular use. When you've eliminated you're own
> expectation that the machine be ready to connect to
> the net with one click you're most of the way there.
> More to the point, I have found that AV running
> in the realtime or Auto-Protect mode just seems
> like it wants to interupt just about anything.
> McAffee tends to be more of a resource hog than
> Norton but both are 'in charge' when fully enabled.
> My 1.33 Athlon was slower than the previous 500mHz
> K6-III until it was 'optimized'.
>
> good luck
> rd


Thanks for the starter... but I can assure you that I'd be considering
XP as an OS for a dedicated workstation - it would in no way ever see
the light of the internet and no A/V software of any shape, form or
fashion, would even be in the same building.

DM
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:34:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3R7Xd.28253$QQ3.21442@trnddc02>, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

> Once a PC workstation was functioning properly,

Well, that's just it, I have been at it for a week trying to get a
stable xp system running...

So once you've done all the necessary updates to the OS you plan to
remove and disable all the network stuff? I'm just saying good luck and
let us know how it goes. I'm about ready to buy a Mac at this point.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:26:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

> As an example: My first and most reliable PC stereo editor (thus far)
> was on a basic Win98 system and the original discs for SoundForge
> 4.0 and Architect 4.0. The upgrades to 4.01f and 4.01d (respectively)
> came on subsequent Sonic software (Acoustic Modeler, batch convertor,
> and others). I stripped the raw install of basic 98 down to the essentials
> and added the software. It still runs remarkably smooth to this day.
>
> Never upgraded the OS or the Sonic Foundry stuff any further than that
> on a P-III 450 with 256meg ram and a couple of 4 gig drives. It's become
> limited in what it will do (no extractions, very few file format conversions,
> max 4x CD burning, etc.) but it still does it well with the only peripherals
> being a DAL DigiOnly audio card and a Video card.

We have almost identical setups for stereo editing.

MS states that XP should ideally have 128 meg RAM - that is all I have
in my Win 98 audio system. I'm sure XP would dictate adding more memory
above my 128. (You can actually run Win 98 on a 16 or 32 meg RAM system,
and right now I am running only 64 meg RAM on my Win 98 Internet computer.)

I have not used XP on any of my computers yet, and may not do so for
some time. I'll hold out until they force me to switch (and they *will*
find a way).

I recently read on a tech page (lost the link) that XP is sluggish on
anything less than a PIII 1 GHz processor. I find that slightly
ridiculous. No wonder people keep buying new computers.

-Naren
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"jackfish" <jackfish@north.org> wrote in message news:jackfish-BAEC16.21345207032005@news.mts.net...
> In article <3R7Xd.28253$QQ3.21442@trnddc02>, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> > Once a PC workstation was functioning properly,
>
> Well, that's just it, I have been at it for a week trying to get a
> stable xp system running...

And that's why I'm watching these threads. I'd like to try XP, but I'm
running some hefty software now on 98SE (which *can* be tweaked)
and all those boxes are incredibly stable having NEVER been updated
in any way. They aren't office boxes, they aren't net boxes, they're OSes
running a piece or two of audio software.

> So once you've done all the necessary updates to the OS you plan to
> remove and disable all the network stuff?

Are you kidding? <g> I wouldn't plan on updating *anything* at first.
As a dedicated editing box, someone would have to prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that there be something malfunctioning in the way
the OS handles the audio software, which is a direct result of a missing
OS update. I don't think OS updates are based on OEM audio needs.

> I'm just saying good luck and let us know how it goes.

Well, thanks. But I'm not leaving 98SE (well, maybe another shot at
2K) until more people like you tell me that they can install good audio
peripheral hardware and challenging software and not have to fight
the XP OS in the process.

An OS dedicated to a piece or two of audio software should work
right out of the box... no updating required. (MHO, of course)
I still don't think I like the shared IRQ thing. I was talkiong to a friend
tonight who put XP on his PC and now everything is slow and he claims
half the basic functions hang up.... not freeze up, just hang up until he
cancels out. He can't even see his system info because it hangs up.

At least I have a few boxes to toy around with, but I'd rather spend the
money needed for XP on paying another bill if it's just going to end up
being a headache.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 9:50:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in message ...

> I personally found the upgrade chase to be a hassle.
> Since the last version of SF that runs on 98SE is
> v6 that's where that machine will stay unless the XP
> bug really bites down hard. And when that happens it
> will mean a new machine gets built, not an upgrade.
> I will state for the record that there was a big
> performance jump from ver 5 to 6 with Forge.


I'll add to that too.... I have SF-6.0 and Architect 5.0 installed on
a P-IV, 2-ghz with 528 meg of ram, 2 40-gig drives, an M-Audio 2448
soundcard running at 16 / 44.1, an NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 100/200 video
card, on a raw install of Microsoft Windows 98 SE and it's running as
perfectly and glitchless as one could hope for.

Just because a program claims that it's been "optimized for XP" has
no bearing at all on whether it runs and runs *well* on other OSes.
Even motherboards that claim to be optimized for XP will definitely
run 98SE and 2K without revealing any limitations.

The next time I make a move to add another box to the collection, I plan
on putting my unopened version of Sony SF-7 on another Windows 98SE
install before I try anything else, just to see if that's really the case. My
bet is that it will run fine on 98SE

Early experience with trying to follow a regular upgrade path on both
Macs and PCs taught me that it simply wasn't worth the resulting
troubles... although I haven't been on a Mac in ages (other than to push
some Protools buttons in the studio).

Now as to my internet machine, which has the same components as the
box running SF-6, but with the added networking stuff and some other
non-audio related software.... I keep that one as updated as possible,
because I still do not run and will not run any sort of anti-virus. The
updates have yet to alienate any of the installed software, some of
which I was running on my early Win95 and 95B-OSR2 systems.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
March 8, 2005 10:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:23:49 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in message news:1110198600.174438.165960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> > "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:ksmm21p8r1r51fnvtumpn7cnujekrrccpe@4ax.com...
>> > > On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:09:53 GMT, "Ricky Hunt"
>> <rhunt22@hotmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> message
>> > > >news:1nol211khhtqerpvrs228ep0t0s4ukc8bl@4ax.com...
>> > > >> On 6 Mar 2005 02:45:20 -0800, peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>I'm running XP Pro and it's not running great right out of the
>> box or I
>> > > >>>wouldn't have brought it up. There are things you can do like
>> disabling
>> > > >>>auto run for your CD player and adjusting other processor hungry
>> > > >>>programs but I don't know how to get to some of them like I did
>> with
>> > > >>>98SE.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What specifically are your problems? My experience with XP
>> suggests
>> > > >> that system tweaks are rarely showstoppers.
>> > > >
>> > > >What is the exact problem? Applying tweaks at random isn't very
>> wise.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There's an echo in here!
>> >
>> >
>> > Let it reverberate... I still don't trust XP, so I watch these
>> questions.
>> >
>> > DM
>>
>> My general comment is that some of the tweaking needed
>> is with the user. Don't expect to be able to do anything
>> at any time with a system that is 'optimized' for a
>> particular use. When you've eliminated you're own
>> expectation that the machine be ready to connect to
>> the net with one click you're most of the way there.
>> More to the point, I have found that AV running
>> in the realtime or Auto-Protect mode just seems
>> like it wants to interupt just about anything.
>> McAffee tends to be more of a resource hog than
>> Norton but both are 'in charge' when fully enabled.
>> My 1.33 Athlon was slower than the previous 500mHz
>> K6-III until it was 'optimized'.
>>
>> good luck
>> rd
>
>
>Thanks for the starter... but I can assure you that I'd be considering
>XP as an OS for a dedicated workstation - it would in no way ever see
>the light of the internet and no A/V software of any shape, form or
>fashion, would even be in the same building.
>
>DM

.... so it's going to be an audio workstation, but with no A/V
software. Let us know how that turns out.


Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 10:44:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:loip21pmmi9f2tk0s99lqt24hv2a2isbqk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:23:49 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
> >
> >Thanks for the starter... but I can assure you that I'd be considering
> >XP as an OS for a dedicated workstation - it would in no way ever see
> >the light of the internet and no A/V software of any shape, form or
> >fashion, would even be in the same building.
> >
> >DM
>
> ... so it's going to be an audio workstation, but with no A/V
> software. Let us know how that turns out.


Just in case you're not kidding.... A/V = Anti Virus.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:48:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I agree with Rick. I used to tweak but on my current custom, quiet
DAWs, I don't do much tweaking. I do use 32K or 64K cluster size on my
audio drives, which could be considered a tweak.

Check out my custom DAWs at http://www.MusicIsLove.com.

Mr Soul
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:19:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110024588.842834.102060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
peakester@earthlink.net wrote:

> A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
> your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
> is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
> a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?

Go to the PC Audio Labs site (http://pcaudiolabs.com) and look around.
They have some nice setup tips.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
March 9, 2005 10:35:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:51:40 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:

>
>"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:loip21pmmi9f2tk0s99lqt24hv2a2isbqk@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:23:49 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Thanks for the starter... but I can assure you that I'd be considering
>> >XP as an OS for a dedicated workstation - it would in no way ever see
>> >the light of the internet and no A/V software of any shape, form or
>> >fashion, would even be in the same building.
>> >
>> >DM
>>
>> ... so it's going to be an audio workstation, but with no A/V
>> software. Let us know how that turns out.
>
>Just in case you're not kidding.... A/V = Anti Virus.

Thanks - and no, I wasn't kidding. It was you unconventional use of
"A/V" (vs "AV") that threw me.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:26:20 -0800, Naren <naren99@aol.com> wrote:

>MS states that XP should ideally have 128 meg RAM

I think that's a minimum, not an ideal :-)

Fortunately memory is cheap. We have machines today which are
comfortably over-powered, not ones with limited resources requiring
tweaks to achieve adequate audio performance.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:36:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:hi6s2190t1m3apqvc2rhcsba5784024n1m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:51:40 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tony" <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:loip21pmmi9f2tk0s99lqt24hv2a2isbqk@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:23:49 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> >> <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the starter... but I can assure you that I'd be considering
> >> >XP as an OS for a dedicated workstation - it would in no way ever see
> >> >the light of the internet and no A/V software of any shape, form or
> >> >fashion, would even be in the same building.
> >> >
> >> >DM
> >>
> >> ... so it's going to be an audio workstation, but with no A/V
> >> software. Let us know how that turns out.
> >
> >Just in case you're not kidding.... A/V = Anti Virus.
>
> Thanks - and no, I wasn't kidding. It was you unconventional use of
> "A/V" (vs "AV") that threw me.


Sorry.... I don't know where I could have developed that habit. ;-)
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"jackfish" <jackfish@north.org> wrote:
>
> Well, that's just it, I have been at it for a week trying to get a
> stable xp system running...

What are you trying to run that's giving you trouble? I have two XP
machines running Pro Tools with the "adapted" add-ons they both work
nifty keen with no noodling required. I'm even breaking all the rules
and leaving 'em networked and interneted and MSOfficed and iTuned.

Maybe the problem ain't XP but the app (or combination of apps) you're
trying to run.



> I'm about ready to buy a Mac at this point.

If only the solution were that simple. We've actually had *more*
configuration headaches with Mac than we have with XP. All were
resolved, but it sure weren't "plug in and go."

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:56:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

peakester@earthlink.net wrote:

> A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
> your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
> is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
> a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?

A good page to start is: www.blackviper.com
He describes in detail XP Services you can stop safely.
I have found that what he suggests for barebones XP is
very good for a DAW. A warning: Only turn off
services one at a time so you can see how it affects your computer. That
way you can
turn the service back on if you find your software needs it.

After that XP doesn't need much else. There are some software specific
tweaks that help, but I can't suggest any since I don't know what you are
running.

PapaNate
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:56:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I remember that article... I have it somewhere. Cool stuff!
I will try blackviper -- thanks!


"PapaNate" <nospamagain@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:422EF274.9DE3FFDA@nc.rr.com...
>
>
> peakester@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> A few years ago Tascam ran an article on their webpage about tweaking
>> your PC for best operation for audio. I still have the article but is
>> is for older OS's. Anyone know where I can find a guide for optimizing
>> a modern PC (XP Pro), 2.4G, 712ram for audio and midi recording?
>
> A good page to start is: www.blackviper.com
> He describes in detail XP Services you can stop safely.
> I have found that what he suggests for barebones XP is
> very good for a DAW. A warning: Only turn off
> services one at a time so you can see how it affects your computer. That
> way you can
> turn the service back on if you find your software needs it.
>
> After that XP doesn't need much else. There are some software specific
> tweaks that help, but I can't suggest any since I don't know what you are
> running.
>
> PapaNate
>
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:55:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:


MS products "out of the box" are configured to serve MS's various evolving
goals. The user is often the victim of these goals. OS tweaks are needed
more than ever.
!