Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Advice for Adobe Audition PC configuration?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:01:15 PM

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

Hi, a total Mac-user here who needs to get, and set-up, a Windows
machine to run Adobe Audition. Application, radio/TV audio production,
typically only up to 8-track projects.

I am entirely out-of-the-loop on PCs vs. Macs. I could use some
specific advice on a reasonable PC configuration... soundcard
option(s), to accomodate running Audition in the latest version of
Windows. Sorry for duplication of any previous posts on this, but
I've decided Audition will best serve my needs as far as learning-curve
and simplicity of its interface... I just don't "Do" Windows at all so
I
need to start with the right hardware and a decent card configuration
that's as cost-efficient as possible.

I realize the subjective nature of the question but it's mostly about
the
PC requirements in this scenario.

Many THanks

Mike E
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 8:10:29 PM

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

<mike44455@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110819296.781800.59090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> I just don't "Do"
> Windows at all so I
> need to start with the right hardware and a decent card configuration
> that's as cost-efficient as possible.

If you're into cost-effiency you can probabaly do quite well with an
off-the-shelf lower end Dell PC, and an audio interface by M-Audio. The most
popular better audio interface around is probably the M-Audio Audiophile
24/96. The recently upgraded M-Audio Audiophile 24/192 with balanced inputs
and outputs looks very nice.

One major performance boost for running Audition is adding a second hard
drive for a work space drive. This allows you to split the I/Os for most I/O
intensive operations across 2 drives for a major speed-up at minimal cost.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 10:44:48 PM

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

Recently, mike44455@aol.com <mike44455@aol.com> posted:

> Hi, a total Mac-user here who needs to get, and set-up, a Windows
> machine to run Adobe Audition. Application, radio/TV audio
> production, typically only up to 8-track projects.
>
[...]
>
> I realize the subjective nature of the question but it's mostly about
> the PC requirements in this scenario.
>
It would be difficult to buy a current-day PC incapable of running
Audition well. I suspect that may have influenced Adobe's decision to buy
Syntrillium, the creator of the program (then called CoolEdit Pro). IMO,
the larger consideration is the "sound card", as you need to get one that
has good drivers *other* than ASIO. I'd recommend that you look over the
RME product line, as their cards are top-notch and their support is second
to none. I have been using one of their cards for over a year without a
single problem.

www.rme-audio.de

Best regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Related resources
March 14, 2005 10:44:49 PM

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

A total PC user here that has used every version of Cooledit through current
Audition in most every way it could be done.
Have played with the others too.

Audio is narrow. It is not video. You got room for 8 track with any newer
machine.

The biggest question is, "Do you want ot play back some multiple channels
while recording new ones at the same time?".
If not, then soundblaster generic is fine.
If so, then look at the RME.

Rich

Hi, a total Mac-user here who needs to get, and set-up, a Windows
>> machine to run Adobe Audition. Application, radio/TV audio
>> production, typically only up to 8-track projects.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> I realize the subjective nature of the question but it's mostly about
>> the PC requirements in this scenario.
>>
> It would be difficult to buy a current-day PC incapable of running
> Audition well. I suspect that may have influenced Adobe's decision to buy
> Syntrillium, the creator of the program (then called CoolEdit Pro). IMO,
> the larger consideration is the "sound card", as you need to get one that
> has good drivers *other* than ASIO. I'd recommend that you look over the
> RME product line, as their cards are top-notch and their support is second
> to none. I have been using one of their cards for over a year without a
> single problem.
>
> www.rme-audio.de
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Neil Gould
> --------------------------------------
> Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
> Technical Graphics & Media
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:13:12 AM

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

On 14 Mar 2005 09:01:15 -0800, mike44455@aol.com wrote:

>I am entirely out-of-the-loop on PCs vs. Macs. I could use some
>specific advice on a reasonable PC configuration... soundcard
>option(s), to accomodate running Audition in the latest version of
>Windows.

I'll ditto what Neal says. It doesn't require a whole lot of
horsepower to run 8 tracks of Adobe Audition. Just about any PC will
do, including laptops.

Ditto Neal's thoughts on RME products. Very reliable and good sound
quality. Good support, and a great user forum.

Mark
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:22:56 AM

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

Appreciate the input - If i go shopping for a local custom-configured
PC that
meets the base criteria, any particular price advantage one way or the
other
over say a firewire or USB- external soundcard (say, a multichannel
interface
with breakout.... Otherwise, are most current PCs pretty much
universally
capable of installing a pro sound card (have an expansion slot to do
that) or
is that a special stipulation i have to make.
Again, pardon my PC ignorance but i am totally in the realm of the PCI
slot
Mac era with everything i've used to date.. Guess i actually need to
know what
to specify if i want to go with an internal soundcard vs an external...
mainly
whatever's price-efficient and still pro level for broadcast quality
D/A conversion

Thanks again for any further elaboration,
Mike
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:31:15 AM

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

mike44455@aol.com wrote:
> Appreciate the input - If i go shopping for a local custom-configured
> PC that
> meets the base criteria, any particular price advantage one way or
the
> other

Any reason why you are moving away from the Mac ?
or have to use Audition ?
There's lot's of great software for Mac like
ProTools, Logic, Nuendo, Digital Perfromer ...

> over say a firewire or USB- external soundcard (say, a multichannel
> interface
> with breakout....

Firewire.
I am still leary of USB for anything audio,
and certainly for more than stereo.

> Otherwise, are most current PCs pretty much
> universally
> capable of installing a pro sound card (have an expansion slot to
do
> that) or
> is that a special stipulation i have to make.
> Again, pardon my PC ignorance but i am totally in the realm of the
PCI
> slot
> Mac era with everything i've used to date.. Guess i actually need
to
> know what
> to specify if i want to go with an internal soundcard vs an
external...
> mainly
> whatever's price-efficient and still pro level for broadcast quality
> D/A conversion

PCI is still the common standard for both PC and Mac.
I normally like to have as many available slots as
possible but having Firewire I/O reduces the demand
for open slots somewhat.

> Thanks again for any further elaboration,
> Mike

If you need to meet a spec for PC (rather than a
Mac) or Audition (vs whatever on a Mac) go with
the enrty level Dell SERVER with XP PRO, and they
have the Plextor burner option, Firewire and add
something like the RME firewire audio interface.

good luck
rd
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:01:07 AM

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

Neil,

What i'm moving from is a legacy line-up of standalone DAW's...

I'm still content with my Mackie 24 analog mixer. It's currently
configured
for a D/A conversion thru a Lynx L22 card into a dual 1.25M G4 with
the 8-track outputs either a Fostex Foundation or, Audicy, routed into
the board, and the board's stereo out entering the Mac via the Lynx
analog ins, wherein I mixdown in Bias Peak.

I would prefer the same "hardwired" sort of arrangement, i.e., 8-in
channels, 'dedicated' to an 8 track audio computer app, to essentially
'replicate the function of what the standalone DAW was doing, i.e.,
8 analog in from the mixer to the DAW.... Not really seeking 'cheap'
per se, just cost-efficient and not more than i realistically need, and
something that has good specs for bc.quality stuff of course. Thanx!

Mike

Neil Gould wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Recently, mike44455@aol.com <mike44455@aol.com> posted:
>
> > Appreciate the input - If i go shopping for a local
custom-configured
> > PC that
> > meets the base criteria, any particular price advantage one way or
the
> > other
> > over say a firewire or USB- external soundcard (say, a multichannel
> > interface
> > with breakout.... Otherwise, are most current PCs pretty much
> > universally
> > capable of installing a pro sound card (have an expansion slot to
do
> > that) or
> > is that a special stipulation i have to make.
> >
> You don't say what kind of configuration you are seeking; what kind
of
> I/O, analog, digital...? The main recommendation that I would make
here is
> not to "cheap out". If you are in an industrial setting (e.g. you'll
be
> using the computer 8+ hours/day), get a computer that is designed for
that
> kind of use. I also prefer to use specialized components that are
designed
> to be quiet (a place to browse for ideas is quietpc.com). You can
also get
> custom-built audio computers from several sources, and leave those
details
> up to the builders.
>
> > Again, pardon my PC ignorance but i am totally in the realm of the
PCI
> > slot
> > Mac era with everything i've used to date..
> >
> Almost every desktop PC has at least one PCI slot, and most have at 3
or
> more available slots. The question is what else do you need to
install?
> Even though you only need "8 tracks or so" of recording, how many
> interconnects do you need? I prefer to set up my systems so that I
need
> minimal patching, with everything hard-wired. This makes routing
> software-controllable and simple.
>
> > Guess i actually need to
> > know what
> > to specify if i want to go with an internal soundcard vs an
> > external... mainly
> > whatever's price-efficient and still pro level for broadcast
quality
> > D/A conversion
> >
> The salient point, for me, is "pro level". That implies several
things
> other than just specs. What happens when you need assistance, for
example?
> Again, if you're in an industrial setting, don't cheap out.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Neil Gould
> --------------------------------------
> Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
> Technical Graphics & Media
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:08:58 AM

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

RD Jones wrote:
> mike44455@aol.com wrote:
> >
>
> Any reason why you are moving away from the Mac ?
> or have to use Audition ?
> There's lot's of great software for Mac like
> ProTools, Logic, Nuendo, Digital Perfromer ...
>
RD, i'll just say, it is with high reluctance that I am going to
Audition
over the simplicity and preference of Mac.... I find Audition a bit
less
daunting, and more preferential, from an interface and user-friendly
design standpoint.. than other apps for broadcast production...(and
they of course didn't do a Mac version since Apple went into
'competition'
with Adobe on several products - or at least that's my
perception...otherwise i'd definitely stay with Mac for this particular

application..

Elsewise, I will certainly remain Mac-based for all other
projects - and probably keep my standalone DAW's up and running as long
as I can til i HAVE to move to Audition but need to get the wheels
rolling on a back-up system in the meantime...

I will happily run ProToolsLE/Free or whatever if i can simplify a
template
to the scaled down level that i can work with it without all the
needless
features for my purposes. I may still take that route if i can find
time to
work on it... but i find Audition to be more 'basic' in alot of Good
ways
for my purposes...hence the notion to just buy it and try it.

Regards,

Mike

> > over say a firewire or USB- external soundcard (say, a multichannel
> > interface
> > with breakout....
>
> Firewire.
> I am still leary of USB for anything audio,
> and certainly for more than stereo.
>
> > Otherwise, are most current PCs pretty much
> > universally
> > capable of installing a pro sound card (have an expansion slot to
> do
> > that) or
> > is that a special stipulation i have to make.
> > Again, pardon my PC ignorance but i am totally in the realm of the
> PCI
> > slot
> > Mac era with everything i've used to date.. Guess i actually need
> to
> > know what
> > to specify if i want to go with an internal soundcard vs an
> external...
> > mainly
> > whatever's price-efficient and still pro level for broadcast
quality
> > D/A conversion
>
> PCI is still the common standard for both PC and Mac.
> I normally like to have as many available slots as
> possible but having Firewire I/O reduces the demand
> for open slots somewhat.
>
> > Thanks again for any further elaboration,
> > Mike
>
> If you need to meet a spec for PC (rather than a
> Mac) or Audition (vs whatever on a Mac) go with
> the enrty level Dell SERVER with XP PRO, and they
> have the Plextor burner option, Firewire and add
> something like the RME firewire audio interface.
> > good luck
> rd
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:33:51 PM

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

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> <mike44455@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, a total Mac-user here who needs to get, and set-up, a Windows
> > machine to run Adobe Audition. Application, radio/TV audio
> > production, typically only up to 8-track projects.
>
>
> What are you going to be doing with this rig?
>
Maintaining my schedule of primarily V.O. but a fairly steady amount of
fully mixed spots (radio, TV audio) and soundtracks for multimedia


> i.e. How is audio getting into the machine? How many channels at a
> time?
>
Preferably would like to have 8 discrete channels...have been running a
Mackie 24 mixer for years preceded by a big Ramsa... Mackie is quiet
enough... haven't seen the need to go to a digital mixer...or the
desire
to learn the complexities of same... Currently as per additional notes
elsewhere in this string, using a Lynx L22 analog in for D/A conversion
(from a Finalizer for straight-in record of voice-only tracks) and
otherwise,
my mixer stereo outs are feeding the Lynx by way of a Waves L2
(hardware version) Ultramaximizer.

> How will audio leave the machine? Analog? Digital? Files? Stereo
or
> multiple channels?

Well, anymore it's often just created into .wav/aif or mp3 and
transmitted
via internet to clients... otherwise, CD burn. I have a monitor feed
out of
the Lynx now, just going back into the mixer for playback.

Typically

>
> What's it connecting to (if anything)?
>


> What kind of projects will you be doing?
>


> I'm willing to help (I'm a TV sound guy) but there are too many
> variables to offer you anything useful or meaningful without knowing
> more about the application.

That'd be great... If you have a chance to drop me a direct email for
more
specifics, i'd love to chat. I'm at -- mike44455@aol.com

Thanks!

Mike
>
> --
> "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 15, 2005 3:50:32 PM

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

Hi again,

Recently, mike44455@aol.com <mike44455@aol.com> posted:

> Appreciate the input - If i go shopping for a local custom-configured
> PC that
> meets the base criteria, any particular price advantage one way or the
> other
> over say a firewire or USB- external soundcard (say, a multichannel
> interface
> with breakout.... Otherwise, are most current PCs pretty much
> universally
> capable of installing a pro sound card (have an expansion slot to do
> that) or
> is that a special stipulation i have to make.
>
You don't say what kind of configuration you are seeking; what kind of
I/O, analog, digital...? The main recommendation that I would make here is
not to "cheap out". If you are in an industrial setting (e.g. you'll be
using the computer 8+ hours/day), get a computer that is designed for that
kind of use. I also prefer to use specialized components that are designed
to be quiet (a place to browse for ideas is quietpc.com). You can also get
custom-built audio computers from several sources, and leave those details
up to the builders.

> Again, pardon my PC ignorance but i am totally in the realm of the PCI
> slot
> Mac era with everything i've used to date..
>
Almost every desktop PC has at least one PCI slot, and most have at 3 or
more available slots. The question is what else do you need to install?
Even though you only need "8 tracks or so" of recording, how many
interconnects do you need? I prefer to set up my systems so that I need
minimal patching, with everything hard-wired. This makes routing
software-controllable and simple.

> Guess i actually need to
> know what
> to specify if i want to go with an internal soundcard vs an
> external... mainly
> whatever's price-efficient and still pro level for broadcast quality
> D/A conversion
>
The salient point, for me, is "pro level". That implies several things
other than just specs. What happens when you need assistance, for example?
Again, if you're in an industrial setting, don't cheap out.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:41:40 PM

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

In article <1110871376.534201.99920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> mike44455@aol.com writes:

> Appreciate the input - If i go shopping for a local custom-configured
> PC that
> meets the base criteria, any particular price advantage one way or the
> other
> over say a firewire or USB- external soundcard (say, a multichannel
> interface
> with breakout....

A modern motherboard should accommodate both Firewire 400 (at least)
and USB 2.0. Forget the audio hardware built on to the motherboard.
It's OK for PC sounds and phone-over-the-net but not for serious music
recording. And if a computer dealer has a sound card for sale, chances
are it will be a SoundBlaster. You can (and should) do better. There's
nothing wrong with a decent audio card that's inside the computer but
there are also plenty of outboard USB or Firewire audio interfaces.

Unless you go to someone who specializes in building audio computers
and has accounts with distributors that sell real audio hardware, you
won't get those devices from the place that builds your computer. You
could certainly buy a Lynx, RME, Echo, M-Audio, etc. card, give it to
the builder, and tell him to install it. Or you could install it
yourself (most modern computer cases are easy to open) or choose an
external interface that connects to the computer via Firewire or USB.

--
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 4:56:22 PM

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

On 14 Mar 2005 09:01:15 -0800, mike44455@aol.com wrote:

>Hi, a total Mac-user here who needs to get, and set-up, a Windows
>machine to run Adobe Audition. Application, radio/TV audio production,
>typically only up to 8-track projects.
>
>I am entirely out-of-the-loop on PCs vs. Macs. I could use some
>specific advice on a reasonable PC configuration... soundcard
>option(s), to accomodate running Audition in the latest version of
>Windows. Sorry for duplication of any previous posts on this, but
>I've decided Audition will best serve my needs as far as learning-curve
>and simplicity of its interface... I just don't "Do" Windows at all so
>I
>need to start with the right hardware and a decent card configuration
>that's as cost-efficient as possible.

Any modern PC will do the job with ease. As a Mac user, you may find
the choice available rather daunting! But you'll like the prices :-)

You wouldn't choose one of Mac's "fashion" machines for this job.
Equally, don't choose a PC with maximum "features" for minimum cost.
PCs are so cheap nowadays, I don't know why anyone bothers to make
cheap-and-nasty machines. But there are still some around.
Dell are usually reliable. Or just get your local 14-year-old
enthusiast to slot something together from standard parts. You'll be
very pleasantly surprised how little it will cost.

Your main choice concerns the sound card.

How are you getting audio INTO the project? If you're recording live
material, you'll need a quality soundcard.

How are you getting audio OUT of the project? If you're playing
analogue audio to an external device you'll need a quality soundcard.

If you're importing wave (or other format) files and exporting a wav
file of the result, the sound card is only needed for monitoring.
You don't need to be so fussy.

If you're recording live, how many channels will you want to record
simultaneously? More than one stereo pair? Will you be synching
to previously-recorded material?




CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 5:00:01 PM

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

Two further thoughts.

This sounds like a professional project. Choose Adobe Audition if it
is the best tool for the job. Not because you think it will be easy
to learn

And, for goodness sake, don't go into this with an anti-PC attitude!
These machines can smell your fear, you know :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:50:14 PM

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

<mike44455@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, a total Mac-user here who needs to get, and set-up, a Windows
> machine to run Adobe Audition. Application, radio/TV audio
> production, typically only up to 8-track projects.


What are you going to be doing with this rig?

i.e. How is audio getting into the machine? How many channels at a
time?

How will audio leave the machine? Analog? Digital? Files? Stereo or
multiple channels?

What's it connecting to (if anything)?

What kind of projects will you be doing?

I'm willing to help (I'm a TV sound guy) but there are too many
variables to offer you anything useful or meaningful without knowing
more about the application.

--
"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 15, 2005 8:46:11 PM

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

Recently, mike44455@aol.com <mike44455@aol.com> posted:

> Neil,
>
> What i'm moving from is a legacy line-up of standalone DAW's...
>
> I'm still content with my Mackie 24 analog mixer. It's currently
> configured
> for a D/A conversion thru a Lynx L22 card into a dual 1.25M G4 with
> the 8-track outputs either a Fostex Foundation or, Audicy, routed into
> the board, and the board's stereo out entering the Mac via the Lynx
> analog ins, wherein I mixdown in Bias Peak.
>
> I would prefer the same "hardwired" sort of arrangement, i.e., 8-in
> channels, 'dedicated' to an 8 track audio computer app, to essentially
> 'replicate the function of what the standalone DAW was doing, i.e.,
> 8 analog in from the mixer to the DAW.... Not really seeking
> 'cheap' per se, just cost-efficient and not more than i realistically
> need, and something that has good specs for bc.quality stuff of
> course. Thanx!
>
You could pop that Lynx L22 card into the PC for use with Audition. Or,
buy another one if you want to keep your existing DAW in service.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:26:07 AM

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

Hi Mike.

I'd prefer to keep this discussion on the group, as it allows others to
ingest it and add their own input and/or alternative viewpoints.

Your requirements don't seem all that daunting. I'll tell you how *I*
would handle it, but with this important disclaimer:

Personal bias alert! Some of my preferences are based on having had
success with something once or twice so I refuse to mess with a working
formula. Some are based on something not working once or twice, and my
refusing to delve into a solution when using something else solved the
problem. Scientific method and defendable conclusions may present from
time to time, but don't assume that's always how I made a choice. That
said...

I recommend building your own machine. It's stupidly simple to do and
you'll get a system that offers the best of everything for the same
price as a box that compromises many of your preferences.

I prefer Intel processors with Intel chipsets. AMD processors work just
fine, and both SiS and Via make fine chipsets. I've just found
occasional conflicts with non-Intel chips so I don't use 'em.

I do NOT recommend Intel motherboards though. I've twice found things
they just won't do, and have had device conflicts with them. I've never
had such a problem with an Asus board. Others may be great too, but I
can vouch for Asus personally. I recently built a machine around an
Asus P4P800-E Deluxe and have had no problems.

ATI video cards seem to work reliably. Don't spend a pile of money on
an exotic card -- you don't need it. Get something with a decent amount
of RAM and a reasonably fast GPU. I used a 9200.

I haven't found a lot of difference between hard-drive brands. You want
an 8MB cache, 7200RPM rotation, and 8ms or better seek time. You need
two: One for the OS and application(s), and another, separate drive for
audio. The Asus motherboard mentioned above will let you use SATA
drives so you won't run into problems with program access or optical
drive activity bogging down your audio drive.

Get as much RAM as you can, at least 1GB, 2GB would be better. Nothing
will make more difference to perceived speed or do more to reduce
crashes than lots of RAM. I've recently heard two stories of problems
caused by defective RAM, so buy a name brand. Don't cheap out here.

For a CPU choose any Intel P4. There's a point up to which performance
increases equal or exceed price increases from model to model. After
that point the price increases become disproportional to the performance
increase. Try to buy right at that "line." 3.0GHz with a 800MHz front
side bus (FSB) was the point of diminishing returns last time I checked,
but see if that's still true.

Plextor is a good choice for an optical drive.

Antec makes good cases that are easy to work on, that include
high-quality, reliable power supplies that also happen to be fairly
quiet.

Windows XP Home Edition is fine. The Pro Edition includes features that
I don't think you need for audio (mostly networking stuff -- someone
correct me if I've overlooked something). Buying an OEM version of the
software when and where you buy your computer components will save you a
c-note or two.

Audio interfaces are much too broad a subject to cover here. Suffice to
say that Firewire I/Os are plentiful. Check the archives on this group
for loads of discussions. Consider M-Audio, Echo, MOTU, Metric-Halo,
RME and Frontier Designs (the last being one of my all-time favourite
companies). All make devices that are perfect for 8ch broadcast
production. I'd avoid USB2 if you're going to do eight channels at
once. Peak transfer rates are similar to Firewire, but Firewire has
better *sustained* data transfer, and that's what matters to you.



NOW...

after saying all that, and being one with absolutely NO preference
between XP and OSX (six of one, half-a-dozen of the other as far as I'm
concerned), I gotta wonder why you're doing this to yourself?

Your approach is correct: choose the software you want to use and let
that dictate your choice of hardware. It's your "choice" I question!
<g>

It is now so cheap to get into a native Pro Tools system that I have to
wonder why you wouldn't? It's the de facto "standard" for broadcast
*and* music production, so you'll have complete compatibility with other
facilities. You can open OMF files (a serious consideration when doing
post or any kind of audio-for-video). You can take your sessions to any
stage for surround work. As you get comfortable and want to do more,
Pro Tools will be more capable and less restrictive. Pro Tools is much
faster (built-in file management utilities and better file system that
doesn't require lengthy "save" cycles). By learning to use it you'll be
developing a marketable skill. Finally, you can run Pro Tools on a Mac.
Or Windows XP. Or both.

A Digi 002R system is what, a grand? Add another grand for the DV
Toolkit software and you're good to go.

I know simpler software looks less intimidating, but ultimately it's
more restricting. Besides, Pro Tools really is simple to operate. It
just *seems* daunting out of the gate. The beauty of it is that "basic"
operation is available immediately without knowing very much. You don't
have to understand what all the fancy features are or what they do. You
can ignore them and get right to work. When I got started with it I
just paid an instructor from one of the Pro Tools schools to spend a
couple hours walking me through the basics, and that was enough. I took
another newbie with me, so we split the cost of the instructor!

I hope some of this helps. Let me know if I've missed anything or if
you have any questions.

--
"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 16, 2005 1:25:43 PM

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

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> Hi Mike.
>
>(major edit)
>
> after saying all that, and being one with absolutely NO preference
> between XP and OSX (six of one, half-a-dozen of the other as far as
I'm
> concerned), I gotta wonder why you're doing this to yourself?
>
> Your approach is correct: choose the software you want to use and let

> that dictate your choice of hardware. It's your "choice" I question!

> <g>
>
Lorin, first thanks for a great primer on the PC setup, well reasoned
and logical indeed. To address your question, my answer firstly is,
it is a GREAT question, and my ultimate desire to remain in the Mac
realm has not by any means been ruled out, only stifled by the
industry's failure to give me a simple to work with interface which, in
my experience (as expressed on other threads on here much to the
disdain of Windows devotees) has never rivaled the simplicity of my
Fostex FOundation standalone in terms of just straight-forward,
just-like-analogue-but-on-a-computer, user-friendliness and ease of
interaction.

I have waited for years for something akin to, like, the 360 systems
short-cut editor, only with 8 tracks... or for another analogy, Peak
2.6
with 8 channel I/O instead of two....

I simply do not want/need all of the extaneous,
music-production-oriented
features and additives that Pro Tools requires me to essentially scale
back to simplify the layout and show me eight waveform-edit channel
display, a simple record transport and mixer display. I would honestly
prefer to pursue some earlier offers from users who said they would
provide me with tutorial help and templates to accomplish this level
of basic-ness in ProTools so I don't have to switch from my preferred
platform, Mac - to the (IMHO) cumbersome and needlessly complex
EMULATION-of same (Windows) to simply use what seems a simpler
app like Audition (only because they will not provide a Mac version of
course).

I know Mr. Payne will summarily dismiss my dislike for WIndows by
suggesting i'm approaching this OS with a predisposed 'bad attitude'
and will get a bad experience as a result. I have used both and by far
find MAC SUPERIOR...Particularly pre OSX. Call me a traditionalist.
That's
okay. It goes to each person's individual work style and i even have
been exploring reverting to Session 8 to find the degree of unlayered
b.s. that i prefer on my "palate" of tools. I pretty much won out a
thread
arguing against the over-featured digital mixers versus a simple
version that didn't require tweezers and a magnifying glass to operate
with all of the dual-function switchable faders et.al that go along
with those, but
that's another discussion, albeit related.. Hence i stick with my
analog
board and use a good A/D card.

"But I digress"

Thanks again for the input

Mike



> It is now so cheap to get into a native Pro Tools system that I have
to
> wonder why you wouldn't? It's the de facto "standard" for broadcast
> *and* music production, so you'll have complete compatibility with
other
> facilities. You can open OMF files (a serious consideration when
doing
> post or any kind of audio-for-video). You can take your sessions to
any
> stage for surround work. As you get comfortable and want to do more,

> Pro Tools will be more capable and less restrictive. Pro Tools is
much
> faster (built-in file management utilities and better file system
that
> doesn't require lengthy "save" cycles). By learning to use it you'll
be
> developing a marketable skill. Finally, you can run Pro Tools on a
Mac.
> Or Windows XP. Or both.
> (edit)
>
> I know simpler software looks less intimidating, but ultimately it's
> more restricting. Besides, Pro Tools really is simple to operate.
It
> just *seems* daunting out of the gate. The beauty of it is that
"basic"
> operation is available immediately without knowing very much. You
don't
> have to understand what all the fancy features are or what they do.
You
> can ignore them and get right to work. When I got started with it I
> just paid an instructor from one of the Pro Tools schools to spend a
> couple hours walking me through the basics, and that was enough. I
took
> another newbie with me, so we split the cost of the instructor!
>
> I hope some of this helps. Let me know if I've missed anything or if

> you have any questions.
>
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:30:51 PM

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

Recently, Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> posted:

> Hi Mike.
>
> I'd prefer to keep this discussion on the group, as it allows others
> to ingest it and add their own input and/or alternative viewpoints.
>
Good idea. ;-)

So, for some alternative viewpoints...! ;-)

> I recommend building your own machine. It's stupidly simple to do and
> you'll get a system that offers the best of everything for the same
> price as a box that compromises many of your preferences.
>
This is true only for a certain level of machine. If you want a system
that is reliable and essentially silent, you need to know a bit more about
the components, and that can get into some details that may be beyond the
amatuer.

> I prefer Intel processors with Intel chipsets. AMD processors work
> just fine, and both SiS and Via make fine chipsets. I've just found
> occasional conflicts with non-Intel chips so I don't use 'em.
>
I agree.

> I do NOT recommend Intel motherboards though. I've twice found things
> they just won't do, and have had device conflicts with them.
>
I'm not sure which "things" you are referring to, but my current DAW is
happily running on an Intel mobo with nary a glitch of any kind. I have
had problems using ATI video cards with Intel chipsets, but those turned
out to be with ATI's drivers. I much prefer Matrox for the quality of
their drivers. So, I'd say that if one is set on using an ATI video card,
it may be better to avoid certain motherboards/chipsets, but, I can't say
which ones. More reading to do before jumping in!

> ATI video cards seem to work reliably. Don't spend a pile of money on
> an exotic card -- you don't need it.
>
I agree that you don't need an exotic card. Also, many of the current
motherboards have built-in video that would be more than adequate for a
DAW. If silence is important, then it's important to avoid any video card
with a fan on it.

> I haven't found a lot of difference between hard-drive brands.
>
I have, as well as differences between different models of the same brand.
Some drives require that you install their software to get their full
rated disc space. Avoid those like the plague. These kinds of details can
make the difference in stability and performance in a media production
system.

> Get as much RAM as you can, at least 1GB, 2GB would be better.
>
For Audition? 1GB would be *more* than enough.

> Plextor is a good choice for an optical drive.
>
Agreed.

> Antec makes good cases that are easy to work on, that include
> high-quality, reliable power supplies that also happen to be fairly
> quiet.
>
Somewhat agree. There are quieter power supplies available. I also don't
care for plastic or aluminum cases, as it can be difficult to eliminate
structural rattles and buzzes.

> Windows XP Home Edition is fine.
>
And, be sure to read up on XP tweaks that improve performance for
audio/media work.

In short, I don't agree that it is "stupidly simple" to build a *good*
DAW. One becomes responsible for making many decisions that, for example,
Apple takes care of; one merely chooses a suitable model, and the details
are worked out for them, even if not optimally compared to a well-designed
Intel/AMD DAW. I think it's risky to suggest otherwise given the plethora
of options available in the Intel world.

[...]
> Your approach is correct: choose the software you want to use and let
> that dictate your choice of hardware. It's your "choice" I question!
> <g>
>
> It is now so cheap to get into a native Pro Tools system that I have
> to wonder why you wouldn't?
>
Perhaps because one prefers the Audition/CoolEdit paradigm to the ProTools
paradigm? I know *I* do. ;-)

Also, if one is working with Premiere, the integration of using an Adobe
solution is better than cobbling together two different systems.

> [...] As you get comfortable and want to do more, Pro Tools
> will be more capable and less restrictive.
>
[...]
> I know simpler software looks less intimidating, but ultimately it's
> more restricting.
>
I find the Audition tool set to be far more capable than those that
ProTools employs. Audition is by no means restrictive, and only appears to
be simple on its surface. Its more sophisticated filters and processing
tools will take a bit of time to learn, and until then, the simpler tools
can suffice. The point is, one needn't buy "add-ons" to be up and running
or to go as far into audio processing as one wishes.

These preferences are pretty subjective. I presumed that the decision of
which application to use was legitimate, since this is not Mike's first
DAW implementation, and a decision to jump from one platform to another is
not something one does casually. If so, then IMO the "best help" is to
help avoid the pitfalls in making the jump.

Best regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:33:37 PM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:30:51 GMT, Neil Gould <neil@myplaceofwork.com>
wrote:


>
>> ATI video cards seem to work reliably. Don't spend a pile of money on
>> an exotic card -- you don't need it.
>>
> I agree that you don't need an exotic card. Also, many of the current
> motherboards have built-in video that would be more than adequate for a
> DAW. If silence is important, then it's important to avoid any video card
> with a fan on it.
>

One other thought - I'd suggest a dual monitor configuration, especially
if you are using Audition's multitrack view. That way you can have the
track display and the transport controls on one monitor with the mixer and
effects windows on another. You don't need an expensive graphics card to
do this - I'm using a cheap n-Vidia dual head card which works fine.

>
>> Get as much RAM as you can, at least 1GB, 2GB would be better.
>>
> For Audition? 1GB would be *more* than enough.
>

Audition isn't memory hungry - it will work happily with 128MB although it
will be smoother with more.

>> Plextor is a good choice for an optical drive.
>>
> Agreed.
>

Yes - go for a Plextor Premium, PX712 or PX716 with Plextools software so
that you can be sure that any discs you send out are checked for errors.


>>
> Perhaps because one prefers the Audition/CoolEdit paradigm to the
> ProTools
> paradigm? I know *I* do. ;-)
>
> Also, if one is working with Premiere, the integration of using an Adobe
> solution is better than cobbling together two different systems.
>

One hint - even if you aren't working with Premiere you should install the
Premier demo because it adds some useful VST effects that can be used in
Audition (but not in other manufacturer's software).


> I find the Audition tool set to be far more capable than those that
> ProTools employs. Audition is by no means restrictive, and only appears
> to
> be simple on its surface. Its more sophisticated filters and processing
> tools will take a bit of time to learn, and until then, the simpler tools
> can suffice. The point is, one needn't buy "add-ons" to be up and running
> or to go as far into audio processing as one wishes.
>

Adobe aren't always good at showing off what Audition can do. For example,
they've had convolution based reverbs for ages which can accept impulses
from other software but it isn't obvious how to do this.

I've been using Cool Edit Pro and Audition for years now and I'm still
finding new ways of working.

Cheers.

James.
!