daw roundup. yeeehaw.
Last response: in Home Audio
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
your biggest concern what would you choose? please only respond based
on your first hand knowledge IE, you've heard the goods and you feel
you know your stuff.
here is a summary of where i am. i spent 3 years on a digi001 and a
dual 1.25 gig mac G4 and finished an album. i think the 001 sounds bad.
i also don't think macs are a very good value, or faster then their PC
counterparts. nor have i found any conclusive evidence that they are
better for digital audio work. i could go into a lengthy explanation of
these conclusions but i want to keep this short.
i have come here after doing quite a bit of research, reading, and
hands on work. i even know what my finalists are already. but much of
this knowledge is from reviews i've read and i do not trust them.
needless to say i bought digidesign stuff based on reviews. haha.
i really really really wish there was a place to go and listen to
different pres, converters, summing etc in a controlled and telling
way. you know, the only component that would change in the whole chain
would be what you are making a decision on. as far as i can tell there
is nothing like this. oh well, i can dream.
much thanks
btw, the album ended up sounding ok. i took it to a real studio with
great gear and some of protools good sounding pro gear and did the
mixdown.
if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
your biggest concern what would you choose? please only respond based
on your first hand knowledge IE, you've heard the goods and you feel
you know your stuff.
here is a summary of where i am. i spent 3 years on a digi001 and a
dual 1.25 gig mac G4 and finished an album. i think the 001 sounds bad.
i also don't think macs are a very good value, or faster then their PC
counterparts. nor have i found any conclusive evidence that they are
better for digital audio work. i could go into a lengthy explanation of
these conclusions but i want to keep this short.
i have come here after doing quite a bit of research, reading, and
hands on work. i even know what my finalists are already. but much of
this knowledge is from reviews i've read and i do not trust them.
needless to say i bought digidesign stuff based on reviews. haha.
i really really really wish there was a place to go and listen to
different pres, converters, summing etc in a controlled and telling
way. you know, the only component that would change in the whole chain
would be what you are making a decision on. as far as i can tell there
is nothing like this. oh well, i can dream.
much thanks
btw, the album ended up sounding ok. i took it to a real studio with
great gear and some of protools good sounding pro gear and did the
mixdown.
More about : daw roundup yeeehaw
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
cporro wrote:
> if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
> pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
> your biggest concern what would you choose? please only respond based
> on your first hand knowledge IE, you've heard the goods and you feel
> you know your stuff
*mondo snip*
Well this post is sure to fire up another mac versus PC flame fest, so
instead of adding to the fuel i'll just tell ya my specs seeing you're
looking for something similar to what i use.
I use a PC that speced out myself about 2 years ago. The thing still
outperforms a lot of newer comps that i've worked on simply because i
know how to maintain computer systems properly. This is a key point with
MAC's OR PC's.
My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
3ghz. 1 gig of DDR400 ram, two seperate 80 gig IDE drives, and a Lacie
Firewire card. That's the system.
The interfaces are two MOTU 896's. For the price they can't really be
beat. They're designed great, they work great, and they sound great for
the price. I've used lots of nice NEVE, API, etc pres, but i'm never
dismayed about having to use the onboard pre's. They don't have
character like a 1073 would, but they don't screw anything up.
The software is Cubase SX2. For music production, its capabilities are
99% identical to Nuendo, but at a much lower cost. It's fast to work
with, easy to use, easy to learn, and has never limited me. And yes i'm
very familiar with working on Logic and PT systems as well.
This is 16-tracks of AD/DA/Pres, a computer, and software for about 4
grand. Maybe a little over, but ditch one of the 896's and you're well
under your budget.
Roach
cporro wrote:
> if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
> pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
> your biggest concern what would you choose? please only respond based
> on your first hand knowledge IE, you've heard the goods and you feel
> you know your stuff
*mondo snip*
Well this post is sure to fire up another mac versus PC flame fest, so
instead of adding to the fuel i'll just tell ya my specs seeing you're
looking for something similar to what i use.
I use a PC that speced out myself about 2 years ago. The thing still
outperforms a lot of newer comps that i've worked on simply because i
know how to maintain computer systems properly. This is a key point with
MAC's OR PC's.
My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
3ghz. 1 gig of DDR400 ram, two seperate 80 gig IDE drives, and a Lacie
Firewire card. That's the system.
The interfaces are two MOTU 896's. For the price they can't really be
beat. They're designed great, they work great, and they sound great for
the price. I've used lots of nice NEVE, API, etc pres, but i'm never
dismayed about having to use the onboard pre's. They don't have
character like a 1073 would, but they don't screw anything up.
The software is Cubase SX2. For music production, its capabilities are
99% identical to Nuendo, but at a much lower cost. It's fast to work
with, easy to use, easy to learn, and has never limited me. And yes i'm
very familiar with working on Logic and PT systems as well.
This is 16-tracks of AD/DA/Pres, a computer, and software for about 4
grand. Maybe a little over, but ditch one of the 896's and you're well
under your budget.
Roach
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
On 19 Jul 2005 15:49:03 -0700, "cporro" <cporro@gmail.com> wrote:
>if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
>pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
>your biggest concern what would you choose? please only respond based
>on your first hand knowledge IE, you've heard the goods and you feel
>you know your stuff.
The RME equipment is pretty nice stuff, good bang for the buck.
jtougas
listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go
e.e. cummings
On 19 Jul 2005 15:49:03 -0700, "cporro" <cporro@gmail.com> wrote:
>if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
>pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
>your biggest concern what would you choose? please only respond based
>on your first hand knowledge IE, you've heard the goods and you feel
>you know your stuff.
The RME equipment is pretty nice stuff, good bang for the buck.
jtougas
listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go
e.e. cummings
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
In article <1121813343.024082.178330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> cporro@gmail.com writes:
> if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
> pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
> your biggest concern what would you choose?
That isn't enough money. But I'd start with a PC, a Lynx AES-16 card,
and Aurora interface (there really isn't all that much difference in
price between the 8- and 16-channel versions) and probably Samplitude,
since Sequoia costs about $3.000.
> i really really really wish there was a place to go and listen to
> different pres, converters, summing etc in a controlled and telling
> way.
Oh, you want 8 channels of mic preamps for your $4,000? Don't give up
your day job.
For $4,000 there's a whole lot of pretty good stuff that you can get.
The biggest difference isn't going to be sound quality, it's going to
be in the user interface - how big of a pain it'll be to use it.
Fortunately, most programs have demo versions that are either
unlimited functionally, but only work for 30 days or so, or are
limited in the number of tracks or that you can't save your projects,
but at least you can look at the user interface and make sure that it
runs smoothly on the platform of your choice.
--
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
In article <1121813343.024082.178330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> cporro@gmail.com writes:
> if you had around 4 grand and wanted to build a daw (8 channels of
> pre/converters, sequencing software, and a PC) with SONIC QUALITY being
> your biggest concern what would you choose?
That isn't enough money. But I'd start with a PC, a Lynx AES-16 card,
and Aurora interface (there really isn't all that much difference in
price between the 8- and 16-channel versions) and probably Samplitude,
since Sequoia costs about $3.000.
> i really really really wish there was a place to go and listen to
> different pres, converters, summing etc in a controlled and telling
> way.
Oh, you want 8 channels of mic preamps for your $4,000? Don't give up
your day job.
For $4,000 there's a whole lot of pretty good stuff that you can get.
The biggest difference isn't going to be sound quality, it's going to
be in the user interface - how big of a pain it'll be to use it.
Fortunately, most programs have demo versions that are either
unlimited functionally, but only work for 30 days or so, or are
limited in the number of tracks or that you can't save your projects,
but at least you can look at the user interface and make sure that it
runs smoothly on the platform of your choice.
--
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
Related ressources
- High-End personal Workstation Guidance - Forum
- LoL! Hyper 212+ back down to $49 on egg.usa - Forum
- Center Channel distortion when watching recorded TV - Forum
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:05:58 -0400, Mike Rocha
<therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
>hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
>horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
>3ghz.
That's interesting. I know a few applications dislike hyper
threading. But given applications that are compatible, you have found
it REDUCES performance?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:05:58 -0400, Mike Rocha
<therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
>hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
>horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
>3ghz.
That's interesting. I know a few applications dislike hyper
threading. But given applications that are compatible, you have found
it REDUCES performance?
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:05:58 -0400, Mike Rocha
> <therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
>>hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
>>horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
>>3ghz.
>
>
> That's interesting. I know a few applications dislike hyper
> threading. But given applications that are compatible, you have found
> it REDUCES performance?
absolutly. In every benchmark test i've performed on my system, i
induced crackles at about 60% CPU usage (as 128 buffer size). Rebooting
the system and loading up the same benchmark i was able to push my
system to just about 90% usage with stable performance. Very big
difference on my system.
The trade-off is in multitasking. If you are performing a mixdown or
stereo bounce which requires constant CPU access, don't expect to be
able to do anything else while this is happening. Essentially by having
hyperthreading off, you are pulling out all the stops and saying,
"Application, you have full access to the CPU, don't save any headroom
for some other application."
So from my tests:
Hyperthreading On: Better multi-tasking between multiple applications,
but less peak CPU capability and stability per application, which is
fine for Word, Excel, Internet Browsers, and low CPU intensive progs.
Hyperthreading Off: Extremely high CPU horsepower per program, (as well
as about 10 degrees C higher CPU temp), but very poor multi-tasking
ability.
For audio applications though, you only need your main application open
though so who needs HT?
By the way the test was conducted in Cubase 2.2, Kontakt 2 loaded up
with sample instruments, real audio, Eletrik Piano running. My variable
was the Waves RVerb Plug-in.
Roach
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:05:58 -0400, Mike Rocha
> <therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
>>hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
>>horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
>>3ghz.
>
>
> That's interesting. I know a few applications dislike hyper
> threading. But given applications that are compatible, you have found
> it REDUCES performance?
absolutly. In every benchmark test i've performed on my system, i
induced crackles at about 60% CPU usage (as 128 buffer size). Rebooting
the system and loading up the same benchmark i was able to push my
system to just about 90% usage with stable performance. Very big
difference on my system.
The trade-off is in multitasking. If you are performing a mixdown or
stereo bounce which requires constant CPU access, don't expect to be
able to do anything else while this is happening. Essentially by having
hyperthreading off, you are pulling out all the stops and saying,
"Application, you have full access to the CPU, don't save any headroom
for some other application."
So from my tests:
Hyperthreading On: Better multi-tasking between multiple applications,
but less peak CPU capability and stability per application, which is
fine for Word, Excel, Internet Browsers, and low CPU intensive progs.
Hyperthreading Off: Extremely high CPU horsepower per program, (as well
as about 10 degrees C higher CPU temp), but very poor multi-tasking
ability.
For audio applications though, you only need your main application open
though so who needs HT?
By the way the test was conducted in Cubase 2.2, Kontakt 2 loaded up
with sample instruments, real audio, Eletrik Piano running. My variable
was the Waves RVerb Plug-in.
Roach
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:05:58 -0400, Mike Rocha
> <therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>>My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
>>hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
>>horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
>>3ghz.
> That's interesting. I know a few applications dislike hyper
> threading. But given applications that are compatible, you have found
> it REDUCES performance?
It's totally possible. Hyperthreading lets two threads run on
the same processor so that when one of them is blocked waiting
for memory (or some other such resource), the other can instantly
pop in and start executing, thus preventing the processor from
sitting idle. It thus makes more efficient use of the silicon
(and you get some "free" processing, because the processor really
would be idle at the time).
HOWEVER, most software that is multithreaded (which is what's
needed, at a minimum to take advantage of hyperthreading) goes
on the assumption that executing code on one processor will not
slow down other processors any significant amount. But with
hyperthreading, you have two virtual processors that actually
are the same processor, so that assumption is no longer true:
activity of one thread can slow down another running thread,
which is something that could never happen with truly separate
multiple processors. If your software is multithreaded but
isn't specifically engineered to handle this, it could be a
performance penalty instead of a benefit.
This even applies to the operating system. Let's suppose there
are two threads that are runnable: a high-priority one (say,
recording digital audio) and a low-priority one (say, scanning
memory to free pages that haven't been accessed in a while).
An operating system that isn't aware of hyperthreading would
see the two virtual processors as separate, and it would schedule
the high-priority thread one and the low-priority on the other.
On a traditional multiprocessing system, this would be perfectly
fine. On a hyperthreading processor, this will cause the
low-priority thread to take processing power away from the
high-priority one. Which is bad.
- Logan
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:05:58 -0400, Mike Rocha
> <therealroach@rogers.com> wrote:
>>My system is based on an Asus P4C800 deluxe board. An intel
>>hyperthreading (with the hyperthreading disabled... gives you more
>>horsepower by turning it off) P4 processor overclocked to just about
>>3ghz.
> That's interesting. I know a few applications dislike hyper
> threading. But given applications that are compatible, you have found
> it REDUCES performance?
It's totally possible. Hyperthreading lets two threads run on
the same processor so that when one of them is blocked waiting
for memory (or some other such resource), the other can instantly
pop in and start executing, thus preventing the processor from
sitting idle. It thus makes more efficient use of the silicon
(and you get some "free" processing, because the processor really
would be idle at the time).
HOWEVER, most software that is multithreaded (which is what's
needed, at a minimum to take advantage of hyperthreading) goes
on the assumption that executing code on one processor will not
slow down other processors any significant amount. But with
hyperthreading, you have two virtual processors that actually
are the same processor, so that assumption is no longer true:
activity of one thread can slow down another running thread,
which is something that could never happen with truly separate
multiple processors. If your software is multithreaded but
isn't specifically engineered to handle this, it could be a
performance penalty instead of a benefit.
This even applies to the operating system. Let's suppose there
are two threads that are runnable: a high-priority one (say,
recording digital audio) and a low-priority one (say, scanning
memory to free pages that haven't been accessed in a while).
An operating system that isn't aware of hyperthreading would
see the two virtual processors as separate, and it would schedule
the high-priority thread one and the low-priority on the other.
On a traditional multiprocessing system, this would be perfectly
fine. On a hyperthreading processor, this will cause the
low-priority thread to take processing power away from the
high-priority one. Which is bad.
- Logan
Read discussions in other Home Audio categories
!
