Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Audio Optimization

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:54:29 AM

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

Hello everybody! as a professional system integrator with great
experience in audio production systems of many sorts, I can promise you
that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any serious
professional use. it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
hardware you have. you will never get the most out of your system
without understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
someone do it for you. actually, the best concept for a comuter system
that is supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual boot: two
operating systems like windows xp, each installed and running from a
different partition, or better, from a different HardDrive. one will be
ok out of the box, for general useage like internet, office and games,
and one DEDICATED for audio production or video production etc. in this
dedicated os the optimization can revolutionaly improve abilities and
performance. for example: out of windows xp's ~40 background services
you will only need about 4 or 5. this means ALOT of CPU power & time
reserved and ALOT of RAM free all added to hold more tracks of audio
recording, more realtime effects, more vst instruments running etc. you
can really get surprising results from legacy and older systems after
configuring it right (not only services). the same with other operating
systems. remember : DEDICATE YOUR SYSTEM TO MAXimize PERFORMANCE.

Max Gunn.
Music & Technology

More about : audio optimization

Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:07:50 PM

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

In article <1110452069.359584.108600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> max.vibe@gmail.com writes:

> as a professional system integrator with great
> experience in audio production systems of many sorts, I can promise you
> that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any serious
> professional use. it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
> hardware you have. you will never get the most out of your system
> without understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
> someone do it for you.

With today's systems, how important is it, really, to get THE MOST out
of our system? If I never expect to play more than 20 tracks, I can
almost certainly do that reliably out of the box with most modern
computers. It won't do that job any better if I optimize it so that I
can play 60 tracks.

I recognize the importance of certain tweaks that can interfere with
even a stereo recording. It would be good if those who offer
optimization advice explain what each tweak does, what it affects
(including how it might affect non-audio usage), and let the user
decide if it's worth doing. But the conventional advice consists of a
long shopping list, essentially shotgunning potential problem areas.

I recently had a problem getting glitch-free recording when using
a Firewire audio interface. I'd had this computer for over two years,
and never used Firewire with it before - mostly because it doesn't
have a built-in Firewire port and I had to get a PCMCIA adapter. I
looked at the usual collection of XP-audio-optimization web sites and
nowhere did I find the real solution, which was to update the network
driver. I didn't have a problem with the network so it never occurred
to me that this could be the problem. Since most optimizing advice is
to keep your computer off the Internet (but not to disconnect it from
an internal LAN), it never really came up.

> actually, the best concept for a comuter system
> that is supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual boot: two
> operating systems like windows xp, each installed and running from a
> different partition, or better, from a different HardDrive. one will be
> ok out of the box, for general useage like internet, office and games,
> and one DEDICATED for audio production or video production etc.

Acutally, the best solution is two separate computers. Dual booting
works, but it's inconvenient if you multi-task yourself. Computers are
cheap. There's no reason for a professional not to have more than one
as part of his working tools.

> DEDICATE YOUR SYSTEM TO MAXimize PERFORMANCE.

That's the best advice. But you also need to know what might stand in
the way of making a reliable audio system (and what won't).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:50:51 PM

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

"theMAXfactor" wrote

> Hello everybody! as a professional system integrator
> with great experience in audio production systems of
> many sorts,
>
Like what? How many new multichannel recording
based computer system installations have you
personally done/configured over the last three years?
What vendor do you use or do you build them? What
is your standard configuration?


> I can promise you
>
OSAF.


> ... that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any
> serious professional use.
>
May I suggest that you consider Dell Workstations then.


> ... it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
> hardware you have.
>
No.


> you will never get the most out of your system without
> understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
> someone do it for you.
>
True.


> actually, the best concept for a comuter system that is
> supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual
> boot: two operating systems like windows xp, each
> installed and running from a different partition, or better,
> from a different HardDrive.
>
Gack!


> one will be ok out of the box, for general useage like internet,
> office and games, and one DEDICATED for audio production
> or video production etc... you can really get surprising results
> from legacy and older systems after configuring it right (not
> only services). the same with other operating systems.
>
A better configuration, using your example, is to run the
new computer alongside the legacy using a KVM.


> remember : DEDICATE YOUR SYSTEM TO MAXimize
> PERFORMANCE.
>
> Max Gunn.
> Music & Technology
>
That's one solution, however simplistic in thinking.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:50:00 PM

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

"theMAXfactor" <max.vibe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everybody! as a professional system integrator with great
> experience in audio production systems of many sorts, I can promise
> you that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any serious
> professional use. it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
> hardware you have. you will never get the most out of your system
> without understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
> someone do it for you.



OH NO! You mean my XP Pro Tools system that I never bothered to tweak
(aside from shutting off file indexing), that runs with no problems at
all and has never exhibited any signs of being resource-starved and has
only ever crashed when a plug-in misbehaves is actually NOT OPTIMAL FOR
PROFESSIONAL USE? Sonofabitch! I gotta go refund all the money I made
with it... <g>

I have no doubt that extensive tweaks offer some measurable benefit,
just like 192K sampling offers *some* measurable benefit. I just don't
think it's really "necessary" to get professional work done (assuming,
of course, suitably capable hardware).

--
"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 10, 2005 5:23:00 PM

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

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:50:00 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
<Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote:

>"theMAXfactor" <max.vibe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everybody! as a professional system integrator with great
>> experience in audio production systems of many sorts, I can promise
>> you that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any serious
>> professional use. it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
>> hardware you have. you will never get the most out of your system
>> without understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
>> someone do it for you.
>
>
>
>OH NO! You mean my XP Pro Tools system that I never bothered to tweak
>(aside from shutting off file indexing), that runs with no problems at
>all and has never exhibited any signs of being resource-starved and has
>only ever crashed when a plug-in misbehaves is actually NOT OPTIMAL FOR
>PROFESSIONAL USE? Sonofabitch! I gotta go refund all the money I made
>with it... <g>
>
>I have no doubt that extensive tweaks offer some measurable benefit,
>just like 192K sampling offers *some* measurable benefit. I just don't
>think it's really "necessary" to get professional work done (assuming,
>of course, suitably capable hardware).

In my own experience, if you are running an audio system that comes
close to running out of processing power when you are doing a mix with
lots of effects and plugins, the tweaks definitely can squeeze out
more performance. If you have a mega-fast up-to-date system with tons
of memory and processing power, that is not being taxed very much, of
course the tweaks won't make much difference. The tweaking is easy to
do and it's free, so why not?

Al
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:09:50 PM

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

theMAXfactor wrote:
> Hello everybody! as a professional system integrator with great
> experience in audio production systems of many sorts, I can promise
you
> that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any serious
> professional use. it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
> hardware you have. you will never get the most out of your system
> without understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
> someone do it for you. actually, the best concept for a comuter
system
> that is supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual boot: two
> operating systems like windows xp, each installed and running from a
> different partition, or better, from a different HardDrive. one will
be
> ok out of the box, for general useage like internet, office and
games,
> and one DEDICATED for audio production or video production etc. in
this
> dedicated os the optimization can revolutionaly improve abilities and
> performance. for example: out of windows xp's ~40 background services
> you will only need about 4 or 5. this means ALOT of CPU power & time
> reserved and ALOT of RAM free all added to hold more tracks of audio
> recording, more realtime effects, more vst instruments running etc.
you
> can really get surprising results from legacy and older systems after
> configuring it right (not only services). the same with other
operating
> systems. remember : DEDICATE YOUR SYSTEM TO MAXimize PERFORMANCE.
>
> Max Gunn.
> Music & Technology

I have this cool new system for sound recording. No problems with
platforms, hard drives, partitions, plug ins, RAM, any of that.

It's called tape.
March 10, 2005 7:04:01 PM

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

On 3/10/05 9:50 AM, in article %9ZXd.19731$kJ.1268@fe04.lga, "Powell"
<nospam@noquacking.com> wrote:


>> actually, the best concept for a comuter system that is
>> supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual
>> boot: two operating systems like windows xp, each
>> installed and running from a different partition, or better,
>> from a different HardDrive.
>>
> Gack!

Actualy I set this up on my original Mac LONG ago since it had to run an old
editing program under OS7.x and then do Regular Stuff under OS8.X
I did this myself and didn;t manage to screw it up in my ignorance. It
hasn;t had a problem I didin;t cause and fix my own ignorant self.
WHY do I need this guy again?
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:04:02 PM

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

John wrote:
> On 3/10/05 9:50 AM, in article %9ZXd.19731$kJ.1268@fe04.lga, "Powell"
> <nospam@noquacking.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>actually, the best concept for a comuter system that is
>>>supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual
>>>boot: two operating systems like windows xp, each
>>>installed and running from a different partition, or better,
>>>from a different HardDrive.
>>>
>>
>>Gack!
>
>
> Actualy I set this up on my original Mac LONG ago since it had to run an old
> editing program under OS7.x and then do Regular Stuff under OS8.X
> I did this myself and didn;t manage to screw it up in my ignorance. It
> hasn;t had a problem I didin;t cause and fix my own ignorant self.
> WHY do I need this guy again?



He has something to sell that you desperately need to buy.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:38:45 PM

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

On 10 Mar 2005 09:07:50 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>With today's systems, how important is it, really, to get THE MOST out
>of our system? If I never expect to play more than 20 tracks, I can
>almost certainly do that reliably out of the box with most modern
>computers. It won't do that job any better if I optimize it so that I
>can play 60 tracks.

I hear you on that. I agree that the tweaks may allow you to squeeze
a few more tracks out of an out of the box system that plays back 30
or 40 with no problem, but if you're doing that regularly at the pro
level, you're probably on Pro Tools on a Mac.

Mark
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:38:46 PM

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

In article <a3u0311mgmlvmpluthcpl4qcgvldp36v01@4ax.com> nospam@nospam.org writes:

> I hear you on that. I agree that the tweaks may allow you to squeeze
> a few more tracks out of an out of the box system that plays back 30
> or 40 with no problem, but if you're doing that regularly at the pro
> level, you're probably on Pro Tools on a Mac.

I'm not doing it on any level, actually. I use my PC for 2-track
editing.

One thing where getting rid of extraneous processes would intuitively
make a difference is when you start piling on the native plug-ins. It
seems that it would help to get rid of things that are using memory
and CPU power, but in reality, most of the "services" don't really
take up much in the way of resources. At least that's what the Windows
resource-o-meter tells me when I turn off various things. It could be
lying, of course. After all, it's Windows.

What's important is turning off things that interrupt the workflow
to check to see if there's anyting to do. Is there a CD in the drive?
Should I play it? (CD Auto-run) Is the monitor on? Should I turn it
off? (Power management) Should we check for e-mail? Is it time to run
the virus check?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 7:38:46 PM

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

The number of tracks is not a good place to measure CPU performance.
It's the plugins that eat up the CPU's processing power... even an 8
track mix can start to get heavy if you are using high quality room
impulse respones, reverbs, delays, etc.

For me, being able to tweak the system makes sense... I can put off
buying new components for a little while longer, and things seem to
work more smoothly in generally when things are optimized.

Al

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:38:45 GMT, Mark Stebbeds <nospam@nospam.org>
wrote:

>On 10 Mar 2005 09:07:50 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
>wrote:
>
>>With today's systems, how important is it, really, to get THE MOST out
>>of our system? If I never expect to play more than 20 tracks, I can
>>almost certainly do that reliably out of the box with most modern
>>computers. It won't do that job any better if I optimize it so that I
>>can play 60 tracks.
>
>I hear you on that. I agree that the tweaks may allow you to squeeze
>a few more tracks out of an out of the box system that plays back 30
>or 40 with no problem, but if you're doing that regularly at the pro
>level, you're probably on Pro Tools on a Mac.
>
>Mark
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 8:04:48 PM

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

On 10 Mar 2005 15:09:50 -0800, "blackburst@aol.com"
<blackburst@aol.com> wrote:

>
>theMAXfactor wrote:
>> Hello everybody! as a professional system integrator with great
>> experience in audio production systems of many sorts, I can promise
>you
>> that windows xp out of the box is NOT optimal for any serious
>> professional use. it has to be tweaked and configured. no matter what
>> hardware you have. you will never get the most out of your system
>> without understanding a little about how it works, tune it, or have
>> someone do it for you. actually, the best concept for a comuter
>system
>> that is supposed to be used for several purposes is a dual boot: two
>> operating systems like windows xp, each installed and running from a
>> different partition, or better, from a different HardDrive. one will
>be
>> ok out of the box, for general useage like internet, office and
>games,
>> and one DEDICATED for audio production or video production etc. in
>this
>> dedicated os the optimization can revolutionaly improve abilities and
>> performance. for example: out of windows xp's ~40 background services
>> you will only need about 4 or 5. this means ALOT of CPU power & time
>> reserved and ALOT of RAM free all added to hold more tracks of audio
>> recording, more realtime effects, more vst instruments running etc.
>you
>> can really get surprising results from legacy and older systems after
>> configuring it right (not only services). the same with other
>operating
>> systems. remember : DEDICATE YOUR SYSTEM TO MAXimize PERFORMANCE.
>>
>> Max Gunn.
>> Music & Technology
>
>I have this cool new system for sound recording. No problems with
>platforms, hard drives, partitions, plug ins, RAM, any of that.
>
>It's called tape.

That's cool. You just have a different set of problems which require
just as much attention and quite a bit more expense.

Al
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:41:52 PM

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

play on wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2005 15:09:50 -0800, "blackburst@aol.com"
> <blackburst@aol.com> wrote:
>>I have this cool new system for sound recording. No problems with
>>platforms, hard drives, partitions, plug ins, RAM, any of that.
>>
>>It's called tape.
>
>
> That's cool. You just have a different set of problems which require
> just as much attention and quite a bit more expense.


Not if it's digital tape :) 

at least not right away....
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:35:29 PM

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

In article <01i1319bf4oivk7l5o6tb4amkr13lgv15d@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> The tweaking is easy to
> do and it's free, so why not?

It's not always easy to do, it's not free (time) and unless you
carefully document what you do, you may not be able to undo something.
Often we make a change in our computers (not even a tweak) that
affects something that we don't recognize immediately. When we have
another problem down the road, perhaps with a program that we run for
the first time a month after twewaking, or installing a new driver, or
even another program, we don't know what caused it to "break."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:46:23 PM

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

On 10 Mar 2005 20:35:29 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <01i1319bf4oivk7l5o6tb4amkr13lgv15d@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> The tweaking is easy to
>> do and it's free, so why not?
>
>It's not always easy to do, it's not free (time) and unless you
>carefully document what you do, you may not be able to undo something.
>Often we make a change in our computers (not even a tweak) that
>affects something that we don't recognize immediately. When we have
>another problem down the road, perhaps with a program that we run for
>the first time a month after twewaking, or installing a new driver, or
>even another program, we don't know what caused it to "break."

I haven't had many problems tweaking my computers... it's easy enough
to back things up first. But hey, whatever floats your boat. I like
knowing that my system is not doing anything other than what I want or
need it do be doing.

Al
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 12:40:56 AM

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

"Lorin David Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message
news:cgYXd.25203$fc4.20255@edtnps89...
>
> OH NO! You mean my XP Pro Tools system that I never bothered to tweak
> (aside from shutting off file indexing), that runs with no problems at all
> and has never exhibited any signs of being resource-starved and has only
> ever crashed when a plug-in misbehaves is actually NOT OPTIMAL FOR
> PROFESSIONAL USE? Sonofabitch! I gotta go refund all the money I made
> with it... <g>
>

I have to agree with Lorin. If you don't have to do it (read: you're not
having any problems) or you don't know EXACTLY what you're doing, LEAVE IT
ALONE. (I did turn off file indexing BTW). I made a few tweaks (and I've
been programming since 1979) and you usually don't gain THAT much from and
lot of times system stability goes down because of it. Of course if you have
the experience and flexibility (read: time to reinstall if you screw it up -
don't do this before any big projects) knock yourself out.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:38:55 AM

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

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:38:45 GMT, Mark Stebbeds <nospam@nospam.org>
wrote:

>>With today's systems, how important is it, really, to get THE MOST out
>>of our system? If I never expect to play more than 20 tracks, I can
>>almost certainly do that reliably out of the box with most modern
>>computers. It won't do that job any better if I optimize it so that I
>>can play 60 tracks.
>
>I hear you on that. I agree that the tweaks may allow you to squeeze
>a few more tracks out of an out of the box system that plays back 30
>or 40 with no problem, but if you're doing that regularly at the pro
>level, you're probably on Pro Tools on a Mac.

Last time I bothered to count, I played 60+ stereo tracks (44.1KHz,
16-bit) on a thoroughly un-optimised Windows box. I've moved to a
more powerful machine since then. Maybe I could get even more?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:55:30 AM

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message...

> If you have a mega-fast up-to-date system with tons
> of memory and processing power, that is not being taxed very much, of
> course the tweaks won't make much difference. The tweaking is easy to
> do and it's free, so why not?
>
> Al


I still wonder why I'm afraid of dedicating XP to a single stereo editor....

I just don't trust over 4 gigabytes of bloated OS not to screw me.

Still reading for content.... ;-)
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:57:33 AM

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

<blackburst@aol.com> wrote in message news:1110496190.197643.327440@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> It's called tape.


Me too... I'm just having this one little problem at the moment...


DM
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 5:23:07 AM

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:S75Yd.87385$wc.32368@trnddc07...
>
>
> I still wonder why I'm afraid of dedicating XP to a single stereo
> editor....
>
> I just don't trust over 4 gigabytes of bloated OS not to screw me.
>
> Still reading for content.... ;-)

I'm pretty darn impressed with XP (and that's saying something). Definitely
the most stable thing they've put out. It's not that I'm totally against all
tweaks it's just you can make it unstable very easily by doing this and why
fix it if it ain't broke?
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:04:56 AM

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

In article <S75Yd.87385$wc.32368@trnddc07> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> I still wonder why I'm afraid of dedicating XP to a single stereo editor....
> I just don't trust over 4 gigabytes of bloated OS not to screw me.

Well, if you hunt around at thrift stores or yard sales, you might be
able to find a nice 66 MHz 486 with 64 MB of RAM. I believe XP will
run on that.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:04:57 AM

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

In article <9hr131lsc8kukvjum84g9a27ege8u2mhuk@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> >It's called tape.
>
> That's cool. You just have a different set of problems which require
> just as much attention and quite a bit more expense.

Yes, but the solutions are so much more absolute. When you adjust
bias, you know you've adjusted something. When you load a new driver,
all you know is that you have a different file on your computer. You
don't have any idea what it's actually doing.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:43:14 AM

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:S75Yd.87385$wc.32368@trnddc07
> "play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message...
>
>> If you have a mega-fast up-to-date system with tons
>> of memory and processing power, that is not being taxed very much, of
>> course the tweaks won't make much difference. The tweaking is easy
>> to do and it's free, so why not?
>>
>> Al
>
>
> I still wonder why I'm afraid of dedicating XP to a single stereo
> editor...

I do too. David, this seems to be chink in your usual reputation for
confidence and competence.

> I just don't trust over 4 gigabytes of bloated OS not to screw me.

I don't trust over 4,000 pounds of SUV not to screw me.

> Still reading for content.... ;-)

XP can get the job done. All this whining about hardware resources has me
scratching my head when a brand new high performance PC costs about half the
price of a good CD recorder.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:44:05 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110505075k@trad
> In article <S75Yd.87385$wc.32368@trnddc07> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> writes:
>
>> I still wonder why I'm afraid of dedicating XP to a single stereo
>> editor.... I just don't trust over 4 gigabytes of bloated OS not to
>> screw me.
>
> Well, if you hunt around at thrift stores or yard sales, you might be
> able to find a nice 66 MHz 486 with 64 MB of RAM. I believe XP will
> run on that.

Only if you seek canonization as the new saint of patience. ;-)
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 12:39:15 PM

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

In article <qi82315q5jkdnesnulek6l7mt6uj667oso@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> I haven't had many problems tweaking my computers... it's easy enough
> to back things up first.

So what's your fee, and what's your guarantee? Oh, I know, you don't
do this for others, you just give advice. <g>

> I like
> knowing that my system is not doing anything other than what I want or
> need it do be doing.

I would, too. Unofortunately I don't have the knowledge, intuition, or
troubleshooting tools. I can hook an oscilloscope up to the output of
a console and see if it's oscillating at 100 kHz, something I can't
hear but which cause problems when other conditions are present - it's
something that should be fixed for sure. But the closest thing to
hooking a scope up to a computer is setting up a debugger and either
guessing what you're going to find or searching through piles of
results.

It's a lot more difficult to actually troubleshoot a computer than a
piece of straightforward hardware. The tradeoff is that it's much
easier to replace it (or a major component, even a software component)
and hope the problem goes away.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 3:58:34 PM

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

On 11 Mar 2005 09:39:15 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <qi82315q5jkdnesnulek6l7mt6uj667oso@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I haven't had many problems tweaking my computers... it's easy enough
>> to back things up first.
>
>So what's your fee, and what's your guarantee? Oh, I know, you don't
>do this for others, you just give advice. <g>

Send it over, you pay the freight, I'll tweak it.

>
>> I like
>> knowing that my system is not doing anything other than what I want or
>> need it do be doing.
>
>I would, too. Unofortunately I don't have the knowledge, intuition, or
>troubleshooting tools. I can hook an oscilloscope up to the output of
>a console and see if it's oscillating at 100 kHz, something I can't
>hear but which cause problems when other conditions are present - it's
>something that should be fixed for sure. But the closest thing to
>hooking a scope up to a computer is setting up a debugger and either
>guessing what you're going to find or searching through piles of
>results.

Hire a local geek to help you, it's really not at all difficult to
tweak WinXP. And there are tons of resources on the net to do it
yourself. If you are really worried about screwing something up,
learn how to use a drive image program such as Norton Ghost, etc so
that you can restore everything in about 5 minutes if you mess
something up. Having said that, since the advent of XP I haven't had
to use a drive image app to restore my system yet. Used it plenty of
times with Win2K though...

Al

>It's a lot more difficult to actually troubleshoot a computer than a
>piece of straightforward hardware. The tradeoff is that it's much
>easier to replace it (or a major component, even a software component)
>and hope the problem goes away.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:41:22 PM

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

In article <hd1431h25ks2t1u70sj0ljueb6cqkkusua@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> Send it over, you pay the freight, I'll tweak it.

Not unless you completely document it, including instructions on how
to un-do everything.

In other words, no thanks. This is one of those things that I would
want to do myself, and I'm smart enough not to try it until I get
smart enough.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 1:02:38 AM

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The tweaking is easy to do and it's free, so why not?



Sometimes the "why not" is because disabling one thing also affects
something else, so the results are not always completely predictable.

Also because sometimes the downside outweighs the benefit. I can gain a
small performance improvement by disabling autoplay for the CD drive,
but then it's a pain to get the system to recognize the CD when I go to
import a sound effect.

Tweaks aren't inherently bad or anything, they're just not essential, as
the OP suggested.

--
"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 12, 2005 1:23:07 AM

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

Go here for advice on how to tweak WinXP for audio. I've been running it
for 2 years and recently finished a CD with no problems:

http://www.musicxp.net/


Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com







"Lorin David Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message
news:2AoYd.20154$i6.6531@edtnps90...
> "play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > The tweaking is easy to do and it's free, so why not?
>
>
>
> Sometimes the "why not" is because disabling one thing also affects
> something else, so the results are not always completely predictable.
>
> Also because sometimes the downside outweighs the benefit. I can gain a
> small performance improvement by disabling autoplay for the CD drive,
> but then it's a pain to get the system to recognize the CD when I go to
> import a sound effect.
>
> Tweaks aren't inherently bad or anything, they're just not essential, as
> the OP suggested.
>
> --
> "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 14, 2005 11:11:45 PM

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

"Lorin David Schultz" <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message news:2AoYd.20154$i6.6531@edtnps90...
> "play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > The tweaking is easy to do and it's free, so why not?
>
>
>
> Sometimes the "why not" is because disabling one thing also affects
> something else, so the results are not always completely predictable.
>
> Also because sometimes the downside outweighs the benefit. I can gain a
> small performance improvement by disabling autoplay for the CD drive,
> but then it's a pain to get the system to recognize the CD when I go to
> import a sound effect.
>
> Tweaks aren't inherently bad or anything, they're just not essential, as
> the OP suggested.


That's one of the reasons that all of my editors are still running 98SE...
I have enough experience with the OS to recognize (predict, if you will)
and follow what's happening, and an ease of understanding how to
restore a 'tweak'. XP won't even let me touch (or even see) some
areas that I regularly tweaked on 98.

The tweak you specifically mention was always a no-brainer for me
back in those days as I always ran two drives, a reader and a burner...
the burner was always autoplay disabled. However, it's also not that big
of an issue just to 'explore' a single drive which you might have inserted
a CD of some samples or sfx.

You may be right Lorin... 'just trust the beast' because systems are so
fast these days that tweaks are not essential... but it's tough to want to
lay off on to the OS, things that I used to carve in stone by myself - which
gave me certain levels of *confidence* moreso than increased efficiency.

--
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 14, 2005 11:46:33 PM

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

In article <5emZd.5405$mq2.3986@trnddc08> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> back in those days as I always ran two drives, a reader and a burner...
> the burner was always autoplay disabled. However, it's also not that big
> of an issue just to 'explore' a single drive which you might have inserted
> a CD of some samples or sfx.

I thought that the reason to turn CD auto-play off was so you wouldn't
have a constantly running task that you didn't need. I would hope that
it's smart enough so that when burning a CD, it wasn't also checking
to see if there was a CD in the drive that needed playing.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:57:18 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110845392k@trad
> In article <5emZd.5405$mq2.3986@trnddc08> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com
> writes:
>
>> back in those days as I always ran two drives, a reader and a
>> burner... the burner was always autoplay disabled. However, it's
>> also not that big of an issue just to 'explore' a single drive which
>> you might have inserted a CD of some samples or sfx.
>
> I thought that the reason to turn CD auto-play off was so you wouldn't
> have a constantly running task that you didn't need. I would hope that
> it's smart enough so that when burning a CD, it wasn't also checking
> to see if there was a CD in the drive that needed playing.

The processes are basically interrupt-driven. No interrupt, no program
running.
!