Budget PC for home recording - HELP!

[julien]

Hi,

I'm a student at the moment and really keen on spending the little money I have on a budget PC system for home recording to record my gems (?!) to make me rich.

I've a few ideas myself and I hope to get a basic system (eg. no dvd, a cheap graphics card, monitor, cheap CDRW etc) to keep costs down, and spend most of it on the sound card, midi controller and anything else sound related. I've got a Shure Mic, and an acoustic, electric and marshall amp. Hopefully I'd like to mix vocals/guitars with synths/samples/drum loops etc. I've had a play about before and liked Cool Edit Pro, Fruity loops, and Cubase.

I need some expert opinions on it though!!!!!

Will a pentium 3 or equivalent be suitable or should I go higher?
Would an AMD processor be suitable?
What size of hard disk (20 or 40 gigs ???) and memory ( is 128 mb enough?)?
Is it ok to get a good midi soundcard with synth modules and buy a budget midi controller?
What budget soundcard is the best for price and quality?
I've heard its good to have two hard drives - will one be ok for me?

Are there any other important bits for sound recording/midi I've forgotten about?

I know these are very common questions in this forum and I'll appreciate any replies!!!

Thanks very much,
Julien

 

[Gidge]

It really comes down to how much you wanna spend.....

you can get a $399 E-machines package and throw in a Audiophile and SB Live and you are in business for under $600.....

of course you could build your own and have a killer machine....it depends on how much $$$ u want to spend...

 

[SPINSTERWUN]

Yeah. I'm with Gidge on that one.... How much money can you spend?

spin

 

[c9-2001]

go out to ubid.com and look at some pc's you'll get a great pc for a cheap price.

 

[julien]

Thanks guys..

Probably around £500 (dont know what that is is US dollars!).
I think I'll build my own maybe, so I can pick what I need and dont need.

Julien

 

[Milkman]

500 pounds...that is about 1200 Canadian...yea, you could probably build an alright system for that...

If your gonna get an Audiophile and be recording at 24/96, you may want 256 mgs of RAM...a PIII should do for you.

 

[julien]

yeah I was thinking along the lines of a P3 and an audiophile.
I'm not sure what model but! I'm not too bothered going for a "perfectly recorded" sound,obviously cause I'm on a budget, just enough to make some half decent demos with vocals, drum loops, samples, guitar and synth (the usual!) to burn to CD.

As a beginner I'm not too aware of audiophile cards, do they have built in synths that I could use with a midi controller? I've read about problems with latency - I'll have a look around their website....

Do people here recommend Sound Blaster Platinum 5.1's soundcards or are they not so good?

Apart from a sound card with midi inputs, are there any other hardware devices needed like pre-amps/modules required for my intentions?? (Apart from the usual speakers,mics etc!)

Thanks for everyones help!
Julien

 

[Gidge]

The audiophile2496 doesnt have an onboard synth...most just get a second card to handle that...a cheapo SoundBlasterLiveValue will do fine.....soundblaster cards are great for midi, but for audio, very limited...for just starting out learning recording, it is very workable...since you need one for midi/synth, you should be able to get your feet wet with audio also using it.....still, get the cheapo Value card if you plan on getting a better audio card later....

if you will be using mics, you will need a preamp....anything from inexpensive (yet good) units like the AudioBuddy ($79) and Art Tube MP ($89) on up.....

thats about it....

 

[Eurythmic]

If you're really on a budget, a Pentium III or Celeron will do just fine. Really, a PIII is as fast as pretty much anyone will need for recording - especially if you are running a less resource-hungry OS, like Win98. I can't really vouch for XP, but it looks like a very slow OS to me.

Please don't buy an eMachines computer, unless you enjoy seeing smoke come out of your power supply.

A Sound Blaster will be just fine for you, as you're starting out. You might consider getting an OEM SB Audigy. I got mine for $62 from newegg.com. It has very good digital audio capabilities, and you can get professional results with the synth. When you find that you're feeling limited by what it can do as far as digital audio, you can always buy a second sound card and keep the Sound Blaster for its synth.

I wouldn't skimp on the hard drive, though. Here's an example of a budget system that you could do very well with, without spending much money. And you'd even have some room for future upgrades.

I personally would get a high quality case and power supply (Enermax, for example). You CAN go el-cheapo and spend half as much, but I wouldn't. So let's say you set aside $80-$100 (sorry, I'm American ) for that.

For the CPU, we'll say you go with a Celeron. They're dirt cheap. A 1000MHz Celeron sells for $60. That's a LOT of speed, trust me. I record with a 466MHz Celeron.

Here's an example of a motherboard that might work for you:
http://www.tcwo.com/cgi-bin/webc.cgi/st_prod.html?p_prodid=517&sid=1gi2Ty0HZ2jo243
It has a solid list of features, it's only $59, it can address up to 1.5GB of RAM, and even supports the Pentium III Tualatin. I'll get into that in a second.

For video, you have a million options if you don't demand top-quality 3D performance. You could always just grab a Voodoo3, used, for $10-15. It has wonderful 2D performance, and it's still good enough to play games on once in a while.

For RAM, you can expect to pay around $40 for 256MB, or $75 for 512MB.

You can probably get away with recording on the same hard drive that you use for your OS and programs, but I wouldn't. In terms of performance, the hard drive may be the most important part of your recording system. A 20 GB 7200RPM hard drive will cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $80-90. For your system drive, you could get a 5400RPM drive for less, but the price difference is only about $10. So I don't see much point in doing that.

As far as the CDRW drive, I don't really know a lot about budget drives. I do know that I've heard bad things about LiteOn, though. I personally use a TDK VeloCD writer, at 24x/10x/40x. I purchased it from buy.com - the regular price was something like $138, but they were having a no shipping fee special - and TDK was also running a $10 rebate. So, I got a really nice deal. This was only a month or two ago - you might want to see if the deal is still going on.

Mouse/keyboard/monitor, you pretty much get whatever is to your liking. I was lucky when I was building my computer - A local university was unloading 15" Sony Trinitron monitors for $5 apiece. You'd be even happier with a 17" or bigger monitor, but it certainly isn't necessary.

So there you have a system that's very speedy, should run very cool and quiet, and won't break the bank.

By my math, we've got a total outlay of around $600 US, not counting the monitor, keyboard, mouse (or modem, or whatever other extras you may want). And that's going with high performance hard drives and a brand new modern CDRW drive.

And in the future, if you decide that you aren't getting enough speed, rip that Celeron out and drop in a Pentium III Tualatin. The PIII 1.2GHz is a beast of a performer, while running very cool. It's rather expensive, because Intel doesn't really want it to be widely known that it's a better chip than the P4 (The PIII 1.2GHz is roughly the equivalent of a P4 1.8GHz, which will run hotter, require more cooling, and be more expensive in the RAM and motherboard departments). The PIII Tualatin at 1.13 GHz, however, is currently priced at an attractive $159 US. If you buy your computer now, and you're looking to upgrade a year from now, the Tualatin may cost half as much. A speed boost you can feel, for $80? Sounds good to me!

Good luck.

 

[Folksinger]

hmmm

my system is a couple years old and still works great for what I do, which is no more than you are talking about. I did write up a complete report of what I bought and more important why, and also where and how much... which doesn't matter much anymore. But reading it might give you a better idea of what to go for and why. its in the archive section of my website.

anyway, computer stuff is so much cheaper now that you can definitely get all the computer you need for not much, and upgrade later as if needed.

My suggestion... spend more money on the studio/sound card and less on the computer. The studio card/system is going to be a lot more critical than the rest of it. I have an athlon K7 550 and it works great. I reccommend at least that for the floating point processing. Anyway... It is a lot esier to upgrade the computer bit by piece than the studiocard, and while pc component prices have dropped, and especially if you don't get the latest gear, while studio cards are about the same, though better probably, maybe, maybe not.

also (and I just went through this setting up a system in montana) choose a soundcard and then get a motherboard and chipset etc that is reccommended or at least on the manufacturer's compatability list. Then make sure every component is compatable with the MB/proccessor set up. And get a serious power supply, digitzers eat juice, and weird problems result from a lack of power. And finally, consider whisper fans, the PC really does make a lot of noise, and if you get them from the start, they are more expensive, but you aren't also buying standard fans you throw away after you get better ones.
peace
Folksinger
www.pan.com/folksinger

 

[nikster]

I just wanted to post about what Eurythmic said....
I'm just curious as to what bad things you have heard about the LiteOn Cd-rw's? My friend has one and has no problems from what I hear, and was thinking about upgrading to one. I've looked at a couple of Cd-rw related sites and alow rated the burner pretty good.

Also, you mentioned that the pentium 3 1.2ghz i believe performed as well as the 1.8ghz p4? I was wondering in what ways? In overall performance, or what? I'm not trying to throw blows or anything, but it would be really helpful if you can clear up a few things for me. I plan on upgrading my old CD-r to a CD-RW soon and further down the line I was thinking of getting a new processor as well, which if a 1.2ghz p3 does the job of a p4 1.8ghz, then I might consider that. Thanks.

 

[Eurythmic]

I just wanted to post about what Eurythmic said....
I'm just curious as to what bad things you have heard about the LiteOn Cd-rw's? My friend has one and has no problems from what I hear, and was thinking about upgrading to one. I've looked at a couple of Cd-rw related sites and alow rated the burner pretty good.

Also, you mentioned that the pentium 3 1.2ghz i believe performed as well as the 1.8ghz p4? I was wondering in what ways? In overall performance, or what? I'm not trying to throw blows or anything, but it would be really helpful if you can clear up a few things for me. I plan on upgrading my old CD-r to a CD-RW soon and further down the line I was thinking of getting a new processor as well, which if a 1.2ghz p3 does the job of a p4 1.8ghz, then I might consider that. Thanks.

Hey Nixter. Thanks for catching me on those - I really should have expanded a bit on my points.

My remark about LiteOn was basically based on the fact that they seem to have a reputation for being an el-cheapo hardware manufacturer that's geared toward OEMs, because their prices are low. But I didn't really have any anecdotal evidence to back this up, so I did a little hunting. Keep in mind that you can find a complaint for every piece of hardware ever released, so take this for what it's worth. Here's what I came up with - you should be able to access these links, even without being a member.

http://www.community.tomshardware.c...earchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=232173

http://www.community.tomshardware.c...earchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=229579

http://www.community.tomshardware.c...earchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=209403

http://www.community.tomshardware.c...earchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=206035

http://www.community.tomshardware.c...=comp_cdrw&Number=175602&page=&view=&sb=&vc=1

So, there seem to be bad and good things to say about the subject. Plextor's reputation seems to be immaculate though, and I'm very happy with my TDK. I bought it because of it's amazing benchmark results (it doesn't skip and hiccup when reading the end of a data or audio CD - it sustains its speed, which is only something you see in the highest quality drives).

Now, the Tualatin. I got much of my information for this here, by the way:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010919/index.html

The Tualatin is something of an oddity. Go to your local computer store and ask about it, and they probably won't have a clue what you're talking about. Intel doesn't want you to know about it - nobody even really knows why they made it. The best guess I have is this: Intel wanted it to be the next Celeron. By shrinking the .18 micron Coppermine core to .13 microns, you've got a chip that can be ramped up to even higher clock speeds, breathing new life into what was already one of the best PC microprocessors ever made - if not the best. (The Celeron is currently based on a crippled version of the Coppermine core.)

But there was a bit of a surprise - the Tualatin could outperform many flavors of the Pentium 4. Well, a "budget" chip outperforming the flagship just wouldn't do, because Intel wants a Pentium 4 in every computer. Keep in mind, the Pentium 4 is a chip that can't do nearly as much work per clock cycle as the Pentium III. Intel has made up for that by making P4s that run at amazingly high clock speeds. And if we ever see SSE2 optimized software, the P4's lead will be even greater. But to date, the only SSE2 optimized program I know if a version of an MPEG-4 video encoder - pretty specialized stuff, used mainly by DVD pirates.

In terms of brute power, the Pentium III Tualatin at 1266MHz with 512K of cache (I believe that there are also 256K versions) isn't the fastest CPU out there. But I wholeheartedly believe that if you can afford it, it's the single best recording CPU you can own. Think of it, I guess, as a Porche inline-6 engine, as compared to a Chevy big-block v8 (the P4 or AthlonXP). The Corvette will probably get you there faster, but the Porche should be able to do it more smoothly, and with more class. Not only does it run very fast, but it is also extremely cool. This may not be a consideration for home recordists who operate in well controlled environments, but I simply record right next to my computer. I don't think I'm alone there. I don't have a recording studio. I just happen to use my computer as my vehicle for creativity. So, it's important that my computer run quietly. Pentium 4 and Athlon-based computers need a lot of cooling. They are VERY hot CPUs. Intel chips have always had thermal protection, and AMD CPUs are supposed to now as well - but not too long ago, if you had an Athlon and the heat sink by some chance fell of, the CPU would catch fire. That's hot. An average high-performance computer of this type will have a large 400+ watt power supply with a big fan or two, an oversized CPU fan, a fan and heatsink on the motherboard's northbridge chip, a fan and heatsink on the video card, a front case fan, and a rear case fan. That's a lot of noise. In contrast, the PIII Tualatin consumes only 1.45V of power (the 1GHz Coppermine needed 1.75, and I don't know about the P4 and Athlon offhand). A "whisper" CPU fan, a "whisper" power supply, and possibly a "whisper" case fan should be more than enough cooling. You can even go the extra mile and buy an acoustic enclosure for your recording hard drive (www.quietpc.com), and you should have a computer that's almost completely silent. I even have a theory, which I haven't been able to test as I'm hoping the price on the Tualatin will drop just a little more - but I think that if you used a heat sink with a lot of large fins, such as the Zalman flower-style cooler, you might be able to get away with just a single case fan, blowing over the CPU. (In addition to the power supply fan, of course.)

Also, if you're into overclocking, I think that the Tualatin is the next Celeron 300A. I'm not into overclocking myself, and the extra cooling required would pretty much defeat the purpose of getting this chip. And for some reason, in reviewing this CPU, Tom's Hardware didn't attempt an overclock. Maybe they couldn't get it to work, but that seems unlikely, considering the fact that the Tualatin's die size is smaller than the Coppermine, and it's core voltage requirement is reduced. But if that's what you're into, and you can provide some extreme cooling, I bet that the Tualatin could me made into the fastest CPU currently on the market.


But I don't know, and I'm not going to try with mine.

Now, a few benchmark pictures. All of these can be obtained from the link I mentioned above. The maximum speed of the Pentium 4 has increased since then, and the Athlon XP has been released, but I believe that these statistics are still valid.

The P4 has always been known as the Quake 3 CPU, so it smokes on those benchmarks... at 640x480, it has a huge lead, but at 1024x768, all the CPUs tested are about even.

And finally, the conclusion, quoted direct from Tom's.

In a direct clock rate comparison (clock-by-clock), the Tualatin 512 KB has on its plus side considerable performance advantages in many categories over 256-KB CPUs like the Pentium III Coppermine, the Tualatin 256 KB or the Athlon. Except in floating point performance, where no one can hold a candle to the Athlon, the architecture of the PIII Tualatin would be quite attractive to the standard user. Moreover, the switch in the manufacturing process from 0.18 to 0.13 microns would enable significantly higher clock speeds than the feeble 1266 MHz.

But Intel's priority is to avoid leaving its self-declared favorite, the "Pentium 4", high and dry. In the face of policy-bound price distortions, many home users are keeping away from the Pentium III-S 1266 (512 KB). All other candidates, whether the Athlon or the "lesser" Pentium IIIs, offer definitively better cost effectiveness. And there's more: Intel wants to stop at 1266 MHz! With the Tualatin's 0.13 microns, Intel would not have had any problem instigating a fresh clock rate war with the Athlon (0.18 microns). But Intel won't saw off the branch it is sitting on. The Pentium 4, whose architecture is designed for clock rates that are well under the 3-GHz brand, is the declared flagship for the future.

In the short run, Intel still makes upgrading a farce: because of altered pins and a new bus protocol, a new "Tualatin-compatible" motherboard must still be purchased despite having the same socket 370. The current situation makes the PIII Tualatin with 512 KB attractive only for certain server applications, especially if the procurement costs are less important.

One last thing to consider: only slight changes from the Coppermine were made to the architecture. Research and development costs have long since been recovered with the Pentium III. The return on investment was therefore realized a long time ago. Only the cache memory was increased. But you can do that simply by clicking into the right software library in the design department. The miniaturization to 0.13 microns even enables a higher yield rate. Although these would be good conditions for lower prices, Intel is playing the martyr with its Pentium III-S 1.26 GHz. It's still a mystery to us why Intel even put this CPU on the market.

 

[nikster]

Thanks for the reply. I'm a bit sleepy, but I'll definitely give these links a look over tomorrow. Thanks for your information