Advice on Building a Computer for Recording/Production?

I've never heard of that being an issue unless you're trying to overclock, or shave your latency times down lower, stuff like that. IME if you leave bios timings, clock speed, voltages etc at the defaults, RAM with the right specs works fine. Ie if it posts it'll work. If you try to improve performance beyond specs, it sometimes looks like it works, but then gives you unexplained non-reproduceable problems. In that case, back off on the aggressive settings a little til it's stable. If you have sufficient cooling, you can overclock the hell out of a pc.
 
PRHunt said:
Pacman454:

When you have made your decision regarding your CPU and motherboard, do a little research for RAM incompatibilities when choosing RAM modules.

Every so often, a given motherboard will not play nicely with a given set of RAM modules - even if the motherboard manufacturer's compatibility chart states otherwise.

System stability is, to my mind, paramount for AV work, so my advice is to not mess with overclocking.

Hope that helps.

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks For the Advice Paul. I'm going to Do a little research tonight. I'm gonna post up the motherboard and RAM just in case anyone on here has advice.

Here is the Motherboard I'm gonna use:

Asus AM3+ AMD 760G DDR3 uATX

Processor:

AMD FX8-8350 Black Edition Vishera 8 Core AM3+ 4.0GHz 16MB 125W

RAM:
Crucial 8GB (2x4GB) 240Pin DIMM DDR3 PC3-10600

PS: Is 8 Gig Ram Enough? .. Was hoping for 16GB but its a bit pricey. And can always upgrade to 16Gb in time. (16 GB is the max the motherboard can take)


I dont plan on Overclocking. Hopefully an 8 core 4GHz is fast enough Already. If anyone has specs of there systems that they have built or are happy with please post em up. Would love to see em
 
Last edited:
jimmys69 said:
Oh my, there is a bunch of 'not clear' advice going on in this thread, regarding firewire being better than USB for recording.

Let me just make a statement:

I run 24 tracks, via 1-USB2.0 connection seamlessly now. Main interface (Steinberg UR824) handles 8 tracks on it's own, and the other 16 via ADAT connections. All runs through one single USB2.0 cable.

Anyone who says firewire is better, is just speaking from what they have heard. I still hear people say that USB2.0 can only do 8 tracks. A $200 Tascam 1641, 4 years ago, did 16.

Silly, silly, silly...
Click to expand...

I think the information about Firewire and USB 2 has been put in context.
 
I never said usb 2.0 is incapable of a typical HR setup, i said fw is better. There's a point in the track count, be it 24, 48, 128 or more, whatever, where fw can keep up and usb can't. "my camaro can beat a prius." "my porsche can beat it better." If fw cost double usb it might make sense.... If a camaro costs the same as a porsche why wouldnt you get the porsche instead? Not trying to be an ass but I feel youre missing my point.
 
suprstar said:
I never said usb 2.0 is incapable of a typical HR setup, i said fw is better. There's a point in the track count, be it 24, 48, 128 or more, whatever, where fw can keep up and usb can't. "my camaro can beat a prius." "my porsche can beat it better." If fw cost double usb it might make sense.... If a camaro costs the same as a porsche why wouldnt you get the porsche instead? Not trying to be an ass but I feel youre missing my point.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I had misread your first post about FW/USB. And, I also agree that FW would be a better format overall. The problem I think I shouted at, is that there is a shiz ton of misrepresentation about USB2.0 not being able to handle more than 8 tracks. Granted it is from a while back, but things like that still come up, when someone looking to setup a home recording studio does a Google search.

I apologize, if I sounded like I was arguing with you.


I will say however, that I always record to an external USB 2.0 drive. My USB 2.0 interfaces run on a separate USB 3.0 port. I have projects with 60 + audio tracks, and have never had a bottleneck or dropout, because of the connection. If I try to run my interface on the same USB controller as the interface, everything goes to the crapper. That is something that should be made clear, to anyone that has only one set of USB ports on their computer. It cannot handle 'both ways' at the same time. Firewire can.

By the way, I would love to race you with my 1970 Stingray. :) If I hadn't cheated on that one girl 10 years ago, I would have had a BB512 at my disposal. Damn bad decisions!......
 
To give you some concept of how hard your machine will be working, I have 16GB RAM a Xenon processors, 1 x SSD for OS and stuff, 1 x 1TB 7200 hard drive. An RME Fireface UCX USB interface.

My largest song includes Addictive drums, which splits out to 16 separate tracks, plus 30 or more audio tracks, most of which have some form of VST on them and many of which have 3 or 4 - compressor, EQ, effects etc., not much effects bussing apart from reverb so far, so they're all running at one. No track freezing.

The most I've seen my "system usage" hit to date is 6%.

If you're setting it up, I'd go the whole hog on the 16GB RAM and enjoy many years of carefree (touch wood) recording. Capacity won't really be an issue for you.
 
First, determine the kind of work you will be doing...Is this just for your own home use, or do you want to sell your music commercially? If it is the latter, your budget requirements will be greater. From your post it seems that you are in the latter category of artist/user. The more computing power you have, the longer the system will be useful before having to upgrade/replace it. You can't legally build a Mac so you will have to build a WinTel machine. 1. I suggest a mother board manufacturer with a good track record (like Asus). 2. Avoid the 'bargain' memories (ram). 3. Get at least a quad-core processor 3GHz+ I7 or even a hex-core to keep latency from midi and plugins to a minimum. 4. If you will be using lots of plugins, then I suggest an SSD for your system drive. 5. If you will be working with lots of tracks, I suggest a pair of 1 TB data HDs in a Raid-0 configuration, to avoid any disk bottlenecks while tracking & mixing. 6. Do not skimp on an interface!
The cheap ones may be hard to configure and prove to be unreliable (this is very subjective, but my favorites for compatibility, reliability and mic preamp/converter sound quality vs. price are from RME). I have built 2 machines like this-one for a Pro Tools 24 track recording studio, and one in my mixing studio with Pro Tools, Cubase and Reaper installed. This may be a bit much for home recording, but your needs should drive your budget. If you have questions, we can arrange to communicate outside the forum. Best of luck.
 
cplaza said:
First, determine the kind of work you will be doing...Is this just for your own home use, or do you want to sell your music commercially? If it is the latter, your budget requirements will be greater. From your post it seems that you are in the latter category of artist/user. The more computing power you have, the longer the system will be useful before having to upgrade/replace it. You can't legally build a Mac so you will have to build a WinTel machine. 1. I suggest a mother board manufacturer with a good track record (like Asus). 2. Avoid the 'bargain' memories (ram). 3. Get at least a quad-core processor 3GHz+ I7 or even a hex-core to keep latency from midi and plugins to a minimum. 4. If you will be using lots of plugins, then I suggest an SSD for your system drive. 5. If you will be working with lots of tracks, I suggest a pair of 1 TB data HDs in a Raid-0 configuration, to avoid any disk bottlenecks while tracking & mixing. 6. Do not skimp on an interface!
The cheap ones may be hard to configure and prove to be unreliable (this is very subjective, but my favorites for compatibility, reliability and mic preamp/converter sound quality vs. price are from RME). I have built 2 machines like this-one for a Pro Tools 24 track recording studio, and one in my mixing studio with Pro Tools, Cubase and Reaper installed. This may be a bit much for home recording, but your needs should drive your budget. If you have questions, we can arrange to communicate outside the forum. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

I agree with point 1, this is not place to go cheap. Point 2, there are enough good RAM manufacturers you can get high grade RAM for a decent price. 3, goes without saying. 4. SSDs are still a risky business. Better to get (IMO) a 10,000 RPM hard drive. That is fast enough.
5. Raid 0 is not going to gain you much for this purpose and it is a pain to setup. Plus, if you loose one HD, you loose everything.

Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_0 RAID 0 was intended for Databases and smaller chunks of Read/Write. What most people here do is larger data sets.
"While the block size can technically be as small as a byte, it is almost always a multiple of the hard disk sector size of 512 bytes. This lets each drive seek independently when randomly reading or writing data on the disk. How much the drives act independently depends on the access pattern from the file system level. For reads and writes that are larger than the stripe size, such as copying files or video playback, the disks will be seeking to the same position on each disk, so the seek time of the array will be the same as that of a single drive."

So, as you can tell, your performance gain isn't really worth the hassle. Unless you are just a computer guy who likes to tinker. Which I doubt you are or you wouldn't be asking on this board.

On the SSD, it is not a bad decision, I would just be reluctant to recommend at this time as the reliability is still not as good as the traditional HDs. My first HD was in 1989, so they have a long history. SSDs are still new in comparison. Maybe as a scratch disk or project work.
 
Rusrtsurfer

Seidy said:
I wouldn't record to external drive - somebody accidentally pulls the connection wire or power out, drive connection could just drop off, whatever... just seems unreliable.

Now I'm right now in the middle of building my workstation and there are going to be 5 drives: one for system, programs and plugins (2TB black caviar), one SDD for system cache and programs temporary stuff (120GB?) and 3x2TB black caviars in raid for speed and safety (these are the drives that carry audio files, sound libarys,...).
Click to expand...

Hello Seidy,Last year I had a new computer built using an Asrok mother board and a Corsair 120 GIG SSD drive for programs, however I wish I had gone for a 160 GIG or larger SSD as when you load such things as Cubase and Halion 4 , they come with extra plug ins and samples that quickly fill a 120 GIG drive. Also not much space to add new programs with huge libraries such as Abelton Live. I use Cubase 6.5 and record files to 2 1TB internal 72,000 rpm drives. This system runs an RME UFX interface on USB without any issues. The PC runs Windows 7 and with the SSD boots up and shuts down very quickly. Also do not forget to run a PC and all other gear on a surge protected filtered power supply board, this cleans up the power meaning more stability and less noise from the mains, and less chance of blowups due to surges on the mains. Another point that a friend of mine had problems with on his PC when installing more than 2 spinning drives was heat build-up from multiple drives that melted his mother board. Make sure they are mounted away from the MB or extra fans are required. My own system with the 1 SSD and 2 spinning drives actually blows cold air from the case all the time, something my son, an avid gamer, couldn't believe!
I know you mentioned that you will have enough space on your spinning drives for sound libraries and samples, and it should work a treat, however I was told samples are accessed faster if all on the SSD drive?
 
Thanks a lot cplaza. I'm still looking into a few things myself. Decided to put a little more money into it and go for 16GB Ram and possibly. Can you private message or something. I wouldnt mind sending you on the Components I'm going with. Have a few questions.

I would have a similar setup or tracks. Using Addictive or Superior, spilt to 16 or more tracks. Roughly another 10 audio tracks for instruments. another 3 -5 for vocals. Then up to 7 - 10 VST Instruments .. Strings, Synths, Piano Choirs, Effects etc.

My Main Question at the min ... Would the Higher Spec AMD Processors do the job. Am looking at a 4 Ghz 8 Core Processor

CPU/ 8 core 4.0 ghz
€182

AMD-fx8-8350-black-edition-vishera-8-core-am3--4-0ghz-16mb-125w
 
There's a certain amount of apples and oranges confusion here, I think. The number of simultaneous tracks in a DAW is not the same as the number of simultaneous inputs. The number of simultaneous tracks is determined by a few factors:

- The amount of available RAM. You always want to avoid forcing the DAW to use paging, i.e. swapping memory to disk because an insufficient amount of RAM is available.
- The amount of VSTs versus audio tracks or MIDI tracks that control external devices. VSTs can take up a significant amount of memory and can tax CPU resources.
- Where in the chain effects are applied, and what the effects are. Applying reverb to 10 tracks individually demands more from the CPU than directing the 10 tracks to a single bus and applying reverb to the bus. Some effects are more CPU-intensive than others.
- The speed of the CPU, the number of cores, whether the CPU is hyperthreaded, how hyperthreading is implemented by the operating system and how hyperthreading is implemented by the DAW. This is a much longer topic than can be addressed in summary fashion. Suffice to say that faster CPUs are better, multi-core processors are better, but only if the DAW supports them, and hyperthreading may be better, but can also degrade performance, depending on how it's implemented by the OS and the DAW.

I have projects that include over 100 tracks. I find that available memory, CPU speed and ASIO buffering have the most effect on these projects. I have two computers that I use for music -- one for composing and creating, the other for mixing and mastering. Both run the same DAWs (Sonar X2, and, though not truly DAWs, Audition 3.0 and CS6). The composition computer has a 4-core AMD CPU, an SSD drive (used only for program, project storage and as a scratch disk) and is now equipped with 8 gig of RAM. I had to bump it up from 4 gig of RAM because Sonar was choking on too many instances of a specific VST I needed for a specific project. I rarely exceed 20 or 25 tracks on this machine. The mixing and mastering computer has a 4-core Intel chip, an SSD drive (used only for program storage and as a scratch disk), a 3-TB RAID 5 array (used for audio storage) and 8 gig of RAM. I've had no need yet to bump up RAM. This is the machine that mixes my 100+ track projects, which are also long works -- between 7 and 8 minutes. Note, however, that, by the time I'm working with these projects on this computer, I am dealing solely with audio clips, to which I apply EQ, reverb, pitch correction, etc.

I also have a laptop that I use primarily for location recording and as a backup to my primary systems. It has a 4-core, hyperthreaded Intel CPU, an SSD and 16 gig of RAM. It can handle absolutely anything that I throw at it.

An 8 core 4 GHz CPU sounds like far more than you would ever need, though the price is certainly good. 16 gig of RAM is almost certainly more than you need, but RAM is relatively cheap and it never hurts to have more RAM than you need. The kind of recording that you've described is, more or less, what I do -- I've been using Addictive drums, split to 16 tracks, a dozen or so VSTs and around 8 tracks for vocals, though I find it easier to transfer those tracks from Sonar to Audition for mixing, where I will frequently split clips either for mixing purposes or for correction.
 
Thanks for Clearing some things up there! Really appreciate it. I'm getting it hard to get good up to date info! I plan on ordering parts in the next few days

I have checked out the specs used by a few companies who build computers designed for audio, And I am trying to at least match them.

Also there is another post on this forum which deals with Optimizing your pc for Audio recording. (I would advise all who havent seen it to check it out). Is this something you have implemented?

I realise some of the specs are slighly overkill, but I have the money now so I want to invest in something good, and that wont become outdated in 2 or 3 years. I only seen a post today from 2011 about a guy spending 2k on a pc for audio .. I think it was 2Ghz and 1 or 2 GB Ram.

Alot of people are dissing SSDs? ... Have you had any problems with them? ...
 
Pacman454 said:
Thanks for Clearing some things up there! Really appreciate it. I'm getting it hard to get good up to date info! I plan on ordering parts in the next few days

I have checked out the specs used by a few companies who build computers designed for audio, And I am trying to at least match them.

Also there is another post on this forum which deals with Optimizing your pc for Audio recording. (I would advise all who havent seen it to check it out). Is this something you have implemented?

I realise some of the specs are slighly overkill, but I have the money now so I want to invest in something good, and that wont become outdated in 2 or 3 years. I only seen a post today from 2011 about a guy spending 2k on a pc for audio .. I think it was 2Ghz and 1 or 2 GB Ram.

Alot of people are dissing SSDs? ... Have you had any problems with them? ...
Click to expand...

Not dissing, just saying understand it is they are new and reliability is still an issue (plus, and you can confirm this, they have a finite read/write life. I mean it is a lot, but it is there).
 
A few things on hard drives people have missed

Running multiple drives (and different types) have many different reasons. Running in RAID (depending on which raid) can improve speed and backup. Using normal hard drives (7200 rpm) you're talking about using a hard drive that can transfer at much higher speeds than the drive can read and write. Using striping your machine writes one piece of data to one drive, then the next, then the next to make it go faster.

Also you can use SSD (solid state which has no moving parts so the read write speeds are faster).

Using multiple drives not in raid like others said above does help with the drive not doing other things while you're writing to it. But also if you end up with windows failing on you some how, you can wipe your primary drive and not lose any of your projects. Just reinstall windows and your programs and you're back up and going.

My recording machine right now is

Quad Core i-5
12gb ram
180gb SSD
2tb 7200rpm data drive.
win 7

I would love to setup a large SSD storage instead of the 2tb drive but it's not in the budget yet. This was typed in about 10 stages because co-workers keep bothering me, sorry if it's disjointed.
 
Just saw the post about failing SSD. I've installed about 20 SSD over the last 3 years. So far I've only had 1 failure. In the same amount of time I've probably installed 100 regular hard drives and had at least 20 failures. Both have failure rates, and he is right about having a limited number of reads. Just build that into your plan.
 
About SSDs: I wouldn't use them for permanent storage, e.g. on the RAID5 NASs on my LAN. They are perfect for scratch disks, and for storage of the OS and programs, as these will load faster than from hard drives by several orders of magnitude. I've got 3 SSDs, two in my music computers and 1 in my laptop, and have had no problems with them at all, despite heavy use.

And, yes, SSDs have limited write cycles, though this concern is mitigated dramatically through the use of TRIM. According to the monitoring utilities that I use, my SSDs have an expected total life of 8 years, meaning they will die long after the computers in which they reside are obsolete.
 
polarity said:
Just saw the post about failing SSD. I've installed about 20 SSD over the last 3 years. So far I've only had 1 failure. In the same amount of time I've probably installed 100 regular hard drives and had at least 20 failures. Both have failure rates, and he is right about having a limited number of reads. Just build that into your plan.
Click to expand...

Are you using a particular brand of SSD? On normal HD failures, your ratio is much different than the SSDs, and this to depends on the manufacturer. There are some companies out there I won;t use their HDs. But your point is well taken. I have been waiting for reliability and cost to come inline before using them. Having worked with HDs for 25+ years, it is the devil you know verses the devil you don't know syndrome.

But if you have experience with a certain brand of SSD, would love to know.
 
I'll never go back to normal drives. My computer boots in 7 seconds. Big projects load up in a quarter the time they used to take. FWIW, I'm using an Asus P9X79 with the 3820 i7 chip and 32GB of RAM. I have had ZERO issues running Windows 7 and Cubase 7 for about 5 months. No overclocking, no optimization, no tweaks. Just turned it on and it ran flawlessly. Couldn't be happier.
 
JohnWatkins said:
I'll never go back to normal drives. My computer boots in 7 seconds. Big projects load up in a quarter the time they used to take. FWIW, I'm using an Asus P9X79 with the 3820 i7 chip and 32GB of RAM. I have had ZERO issues running Windows 7 and Cubase 7 for about 5 months. No overclocking, no optimization, no tweaks. Just turned it on and it ran flawlessly. Couldn't be happier.
Click to expand...

Hi John, Just to Clarify; Am I right in saying you are using SSDs for Sytem hd, AND another 1 or 2 SSD for Project, Samples etc?

As opposed to Others I have seen using one SSD for system and then anoter one or two standard HDS for projects and samples etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top