HeavyMusic3000
Member
Last edited:
Does this look like a machine that could handle recording and mixing at 192/24? Any issues that you may know of with IRQ's, etc.?
HeavyMusic3000 custom build - PCPartPicker.com
Thank you
WTF do you want to do THAT!
Dave.
There have been questions in the past, but with the current state of SSDs and RAID controllers I'm very comfortable, i.e., I sleep well at night, with a RAID 1 configuration for my projects. I suspect these kinds of concerns may have more relevance in a high-performance, 100% uptime environment, though, and not for your [even avid] home recordist. (I may be too comfortable since I practically never back it up, and I did have one failure early on using older HDDs, but in that case I lost no data because of the mirrored drive.)Did I not read somewhere that raid arrays were a bad idea with SSDs?
Did I not read somewhere that raid arrays were a bad idea with SSDs?
Dave.
Nothing in particular, but I wouldn't bother for performance purposes. SSDs can saturate a SATA connection on their own. I've not once in several years using SSDs had them hold up my work flow. It would seem reasonable that for most of us we would never actually see the benefit from RAID0 (striping) SSDs.
One SSD for OS and software, a large platter drive for project/general data storage, and one USB drive for backups of both of the computer's drives (using something like Acronis) still seems like a reasonable solution for most. Also happens to be exactly what I've been doing for a few years now.
Agreed. Plus, SATA is soooo yesterday when it comes to SSDs. NVMe is where its at now Out of pure geekery, I put an NVMe M.2 drive in my Ryzen system and it's insane. Before I made it my system drive and put the OS on it, it was actually reading and writing at 3500 MB/s. That's just ludicrous speed. I think that now it's more in the 2500 MB/s read/write range, which is still stupid fast.
Very cool! My nearly 4 year old PC (using a 4770 just like you were) has no such option. But I have to tell you - for an older machine I have no problem keeping up with the kids and their fanciest VSTs.
A gamer friend told me about those probably close to a year ago (?), but when I looked the prices were really stiff. They've come down some, but boy, that's a lot of $ for the OS and loading an app. It might pay off if you're bottlenecked on the system drive with big sample files and stuff, I suppose. Still, I'm going to wait a while. Can't hurt to make sure the mb supports it though!Agreed. Plus, SATA is soooo yesterday when it comes to SSDs. NVMe is where its at now Out of pure geekery, I put an NVMe M.2 drive in my Ryzen system and it's insane. Before I made it my system drive and put the OS on it, it was actually reading and writing at 3500 MB/s. That's just ludicrous speed. I think that now it's more in the 2500 MB/s read/write range, which is still stupid fast.
...
Audio playback/recording alone requires VERY little processing power or bandwidth. One track at 24 bits/48 kHz needs 192 kilobytes a second. If you want to use a higher samplerate the number is a little higher but it's still next to nothing. For example 16 simultaneous tracks would be in the low megabytes/s bandwidth-wise. It would be very difficult to find new desktop PC's that could not handle that even if you tried.
In the past, I used a PC with a 733 MHz Pentium III, 256 MEGAbytes of RAM and an PATA/IDE hard drive to record 8 simultaneous tracks at 24/48, then play them back and do overdubs. No problems. Using simple plugins, like compressors, EQ's and even MIDI instruments? No problems.
One concern these days is that operating systems have become much more bloated than they were, unfortunately. You're going to want a reasonably powerful (and above all, reliable) machine but unless you need it for something else besides audio, don't waste your money on something where the CPU alone costs $1000.
Applying virtual instruments/effects is where processing power comes into play; not raw tracking, playing uneffected, or minimally effected tracks.
Everything I said still stands, and my main point was the last sentence of my post. The computers of today are more than an order of magnitude faster compared to anything from let's say april of 2002. You won't need to worry about processing power one bit if you're getting a NEW computer for "home recording".
As long as it has the processing power.... There are cheap models only good for email...
spitzer said:You're going to want a reasonably powerful (and above all, reliable) machine but unless you need it for something else besides audio, don't waste your money on something where the CPU alone costs $1000.
Everything I said still stands, and my main point was the last sentence of my post. The computers of today are more than an order of magnitude faster compared to anything from let's say april of 2002. You won't need to worry about processing power one bit if you're getting a NEW computer for "home recording".
I'm going to quote myself here, just for claritys sake:
The recording PC (probably from 2004 or 2005) in my studio is quite close in processing speed to a super crappy laptop I got for free recently. The laptop is "only good for emailing" if even that, but it's over 4 years old. I doubt you'd find anything that slow now, in late 2017. Still, I wouldn't recommend going for the absolute cheapest thing.
Basicaly, I agree with you jimmys69.