how much computer power do i realy need?

[djburnone]

was wondering me being a hardware guy, i have a korg m3, purchasing a roland fantom g6 and soon a yamaha xs rack, how much computer power do i need just for mixing, editing, and vocals? set up example please

[Lagerfeldt]

Apple - Mac Pro

Tower of power.

Or
Apple - iMac

[Throttler]

the more the better and in a couple of years it's not gonna be enough no matter what

[minus-sounds.com]

A single dual or quad core PC or Mac is more than enough for elaborate productions. For insane productions you need a dual quad.

[djburnone]

so what if i did all my instrument tracks on my workstation and trasfered it to the computer in a smaller amount of tracks that would save lots of space right or wrong please explain the process

[waltermusik]

If all you want to do with your computer is send MIDI to your external hardware and record their sound, simply ANY computer in today's market is capable of doing so.

First thing, make a decision which software you want to use.

Second thing, make a decision which OS, usually Mac vs. Windows: get the OS that supports your software best, and if both support your software, get a Mac if you have enough money, or get Windows if you can live with (usually slightly) less stablilty.

Third thing, study the system requirements of your software and buy your hardware accordingly. Spare power may be desirable if you are not sure what you will fall in love with in the near future (important point for us Gear slutz BTW). Spare power also costs you extra money which may be a good idea to save for a future when hardware is cheaper or/and better.

Just my thoughts. Good luck, Thomas

[aman74]

Here's some good perspective about how to spend your money wisely:

Win the Depreciation Game by Buying on the Low End

Check the part where he makes the point that you could throw away the computer every 18 months and still be ahead compared with buying the high end model. That's not including what you can get if you sell the old one either.

[crufty]

I disagree with low end. I advocate buying the high end with the most value. for computers that you use for work, spend as much money as you have a budget for--like audio interfaces etc. Not saying pay a premium and throw money away, but go for the value when you can. Watermusic offered good advice. Mac vs Windows is really the first decision point.

In terms of computing power, you want as many cores as possible. Ram consistently goes down in price, and you can expand long after your buy your cpu, but forget about trying to swap out cpu chips--that will almost never happen (almost).

The difference between 2.5 / 2.66 / 3.0 / 3.2 ghz are all fairly neglible. but the difference between two cores, four cores, 8 cores etc are huge. All those cores need bus bandwidth too.

I feel the number of cores you really need is dependent on the recording bit depth / sample rate. My quad core intel mac pro handles 16 bit / 44khz without breaking a sweat--seemed like I could have a million tracks, unlimited plugins etc. If you are planning on recording occasionally, at low bit rates etc then the cores don't come into play as much. When I jump to 24 bit / 96khz, w/plugins all over the place, there was a huge spike in cpu processing requirements. now, I have to be a little more careful and judicious. A 8x core would really help I think.

Also, you will want to have a really really fast hard drive for recording audio, and then a larger (but possibly slower) hard drive to store audio long term. Some folks like to have a third device for dedicated sample storage.

If you are going to be using a lot of sample based virtual instruments, you will want a lot of RAM. If not, 2GB is plenty. Again, it's a lot easier to upgrade ram and hard drive space, so if you have to make a choice, try to get as much cpu power as your budget will allow. The hd options / ram can come later, sometimes years after the initial cpu...but my experience is whatever cpu / motherboard I use, that's what I'm locked into for the lifespan of the machine. Your mileage may very! Good luck!


ps. you could just by a macpro and call it a day...but not saying that is right for you by any stretch.

[waltermusik]

Originally Posted by crufty

I disagree with low end. I advocate buying the high end with the most value.

Sounds like you have a decent day time job. Congratulations

for computers that you use for work, spend as much money as you have a budget for--like audio interfaces etc.

I have to agree on the audio interface. Don't buy more channels than you need, rather focus on the quality.

I feel the number of cores you really need is dependent on the recording bit depth / sample rate.

Agree. I typically record only 1 stereo track at a time (24/44) and play back 10 stereo tracks. My E6600 (dual core, rather low end nowadays, and I am not even sure whether my software supports dual core) is pretty bored by that.

Also, you will want to have a really really fast hard drive for recording audio, and then a larger (but possibly slower) hard drive to store audio long term. Some folks like to have a third device for dedicated sample storage.

Disagree. It highly depends on what you want to do. I have only 1 disk, which is very slow by GearSlutz standards (2.5", 5400rpm, IDE), for all, OS+Software+audio, and it is bored by me as well. If you want to use a sampler software that supports streaming (i.e., it loads the samples from the disk while you play), or record many tracks at good resolution, get a fast disk.

If you are going to be using a lot of sample based virtual instruments, you will want a lot of RAM. If not, 2GB is plenty. Again, it's a lot easier to upgrade ram and hard drive space, so if you have to make a choice, try to get as much cpu power as your budget will allow. The hd options / ram can come later, sometimes years after the initial cpu...but my experience is whatever cpu / motherboard I use, that's what I'm locked into for the lifespan of the machine.

Good point, this is my experience as well.

djburnone, what exactly are your plans?

[crufty]

haha, no, not at all...a working stiff (still).

Low end to me is $100-$200 USD, either barebones DIY or craigslist....

The expense priorities I would say are:
audio interface
cpu
powersupply
motherboard
ram
hdrive

Expenses are driven by:
Number of internal cards (UAD / SSL / et)
Audio interface (firewire vs PCIe)
Recording bit depth / sample rate
Number of record tracks / playback tracks
Expected plugin usage
Virtual Synth Usage

decision:
mac vs windows
DAW
44 vs 88/96 etc
Number of expected songs to record

Again, after mac vs windows, the jump from 44 to 96 is major. *everything* is cheaper @ 44khz. And if only recording tunes on the weekends (nothing wrong with that), you could very easily snag an extremely inexpensive computer, run your external hw through a mixer, run mixer to audio in on cpu, record, burn to disc and bob's your uncle. I used to do so on an el cheapo lappy found at a gargage sale, and while the mixes where noisy as hell, they are still listenable (quality of tune aside ).

[SONICA]

Originally Posted by djburnone

was wondering me being a hardware guy, i have a korg m3, purchasing a roland fantom g6 and soon a yamaha xs rack, how much computer power do i need just for mixing, editing, and vocals? set up example please

It depends on your software.

1. When using software that scales well across four cores, then go with a quad. The sweet spot is @ Q6600 or Q9450. My choice for $100.00 more is the Q9450. Faster, FSB, clock rate and more cache memory.

2. When using software which can only scale to one core or two, then go dual core at a higher clock rate, 3 GHz +.

[Mege]

Originally Posted by djburnone

was wondering me being a hardware guy, i have a korg m3, purchasing a roland fantom g6 and soon a yamaha xs rack, how much computer power do i need just for mixing, editing, and vocals? set up example please

You won't need much horsepower for that, unless you get into using software effects. If you're doing everything on the hardware workstations (including effects). A cheap dual core will do. Your audio/midi interface may very well cost as much if not more than the computer in this case. How much are you thinking about spending on a computer. If you're really thinking about saving money, You can look into getting a Linux (Ubuntu Studio) setup and using Ardour as your DAW.

[aman74]

Originally Posted by crufty

I disagree with low end. I advocate buying the high end with the most value. for computers that you use for work, spend as much money as you have a budget for--like audio interfaces etc. Not saying pay a premium and throw money away, but go for the value when you can.

That's the problem, the high end is not value.

Do the math.

If you buy a higher end machine, usually the best value would be a notch or 2 below top of the line, that's usually the way that works. So, if you buy that machine and are saying it's best to buy a bit more now so you don't have to upgrade as often that's where that strategy falls apart.

Like the article said, you could throw away the MB in 18 months and still be ahead fiscally. Then add in the resale value and you are further ahead. A cheaper machine depreciates less as well. And when you get that new machine in 18 months it may be equal or even better than the higher end machine in terms of speed and possible functionality and other niceties, not to mention what happens in the next 18 months while you are having to hold on to the old dinosaur to get your money out of it.

With the MB vs. MBP, there's not much difference in speed at all unless you need it for graphics work, which we don't for audio.

You can disagree with low end, but your argument won't hold up against the facts.

[aman74]

Originally Posted by waltermusik

I have to agree on the audio interface. Don't buy more channels than you need, rather focus on the quality.

I favor this approach, but the problem is there usually isn't usually a way to do this in the real world. I find this true with most of my hobbies. I'd usually rather have quality over quantity, but companies don't offer that option.

Say you want a mixer and you only need 2 pre's and 4 channels. Well, if you want better pre's and eq you'd have to get a bigger board.

Same with interfaces. The only one I see that stands out in this regard is the Duet.

[aman74]

Original posts restored.

[aman74]

Original posts restored.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by aman74

Do the math.

If you buy a higher end machine, usually the best value would be a notch or 2 below top of the line, that's usually the way that works. So, if you buy that machine and are saying it's best to buy a bit more now so you don't have to upgrade as often that's where that strategy falls apart.

Like the article said, you could throw away the MB in 18 months and still be ahead fiscally. Then add in the resale value and you are further ahead. A cheaper machine depreciates less as well. And when you get that new machine in 18 months it may be equal or even better than the higher end machine in terms of speed and possible functionality and other niceties, not to mention what happens in the next 18 months while you are having to hold on to the old dinosaur to get your money out of it.

With the MB vs. MBP, there's not much difference in speed at all unless you need it for graphics work, which we don't for audio.

You can disagree with low end, but your argument won't hold up against the facts.

;)


You make some valid points--if we're talking about general computing. Audio recording may have specific demands, which, if you are the kind of user, tend to cost more.

I would avoid linux to be honest--and I'm a linux advocate--unless you want a real adventure, one that doesn't involve a lot of recording. Still can be a fun path, but it can be real tough getting everything working, eg its not always simple.

For me, I used to build my own pcs, like I'm sure a lot of others on this forum have. So I have built some pretty decent pcs with very inexpensive equipment. And, for me, I have ran into limitations as a result. It all comes down to 96 vs 44 & track count. Using a pc as a 2 track tape deck, get the cheapest possible--a used pentium m, for example. Want 32 channels, w/realtime plugins? a p4 isn't going to do the trick.

To some degree, you are right--if you go ultra low end you can upgade annually / 18 months and be ok. But those constant transitions carry with it its own cost in terms of time, resources etc. Sometimes its worth spending a little extra scratch so that your computer will last 3 years instead of 1.5. Not saying spend the dough on a 8 core 3.2 ghz over an 8 core 2.66, but might be worth looking at least at a quad or 8 core system vs a single/dual core. Also, audio interface / daw dictate everything. Logic / duet? Mac.

[aman74]

Yes, there are many considerations to...well, consider :)

Changing to new unit often could be pain, but I don't think you would need to do it quite that often.

The OP didn't mention PC or Mac. We started talking Mac and then that got into the Mac vs. MBP thing which was on my brain because I'm considering that right now. People are always talking up the speed of the MBP, and it's just not there unless you need graphics. I thought the Low End article pointed out some things much better than I could ever say it and I think it could be helpful and illumintating to a lot of people.

If you are really pushing the envelope with what you run then your strategy would fit better. I don't think that's as common though since so many people are doing so much on very modest machines these days.

"Audio recording may have specific demands, which, if you are the kind of user, tend to cost more. "

Like what? I'm finding out that even all the talk about fast drives is in many cases false. The faster drive gives you better quick reads, but for uses we usually use more of steady throughput and for that even the 5400rpm drives are often times plenty.

Maybe you had another example in mind.

Anyways, I think this is a good friendly discussion and I hope it helps others.

[crufty]

Regarding specific demands...it all comes down to cost vs workflow. One of the beautiful things about computers, is if you don't spend $XYZ, you still aren't prevented from making good tunes. You can bounce, freeze, downsample etc. But, you might have to do more work. For folks who workflow is paramount, then spending the money might be a requirement.

-- theatrical scoring w/large sample libs: from what I've read, it seems like more is spent on fast disk arrays, high ram requirements, network interfaces
-- 96khz recording, loop based composition, pcie dsp cards, itb mixing: more spent on pcie bus bandwith, medium to fast disk speeds, cpu, ram

I myself was layering a synth riff w/16 different tunings (artificial unison on a strict 1-osc mono / future-retro revolution), including additional layers for chords, all at 24-bit / 96khz. composing via these audio clips, and applying only basic plugins, in logic on a mac pro resulted in frequent audio overloads. I didn't put the wavs on a faster drive, due to laziness--and I should have. Instead, I bounced down the lines and composed off the rendered outputs, since I wasn't going to be doing any realtime manipulations--in theory. Later, I wanted to change some settings, and going back to rebounce is a real pia at this point. At this point I wish I had everything on a drive where I could get faster seeks.

I guess what I'm saying is...if it cost $1.00 for a 5400 rpm hd, $5.00 for a 7200 rpm hd, and $100 for a 10000 rpm hd, it's worth getting the 7200 rpm hd. while its certainly possible to cheap out on an audio cpu, eventually there will be significant impact to workflow to get around cpu shortcomings. At same time, more then likely the most expensive equipment isn't necessary either...

[waltermusik]

Originally Posted by aman74

I favor this approach, but the problem is there usually isn't usually a way to do this in the real world. I find this true with most of my hobbies. I'd usually rather have quality over quantity, but companies don't offer that option.

Say you want a mixer and you only need 2 pre's and 4 channels. Well, if you want better pre's and eq you'd have to get a bigger board.

Same with interfaces. The only one I see that stands out in this regard is the Duet.

Generally I agree. Audio mixers and interfaces exist, though:

Mackie started making decent small mixers (802 VLZ3 and 602 VLZ3).

I have an MAudio AP 2496 soundcard with an external preamp/converter connected via spdif. This gives me 2in+out at a quality not limited by the soundcard, which is all I need.