S
Shakuan
New member
Havoc said:
The guy who's not a doctor nor a hockey player. U320 is pricey!
The guy who's not a doctor nor a hockey player. U320 is pricey!
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
Re: track counts
There are lots of legitimate reasons why my track load is so heavy. For example, I'm double and triple mic'ing a lot of the amped guitar parts. Also, my songs have several parts, one of which may be dramatically different than the others and require completely different instrumentation, which, obviously increases the number of tracks needed. Also, a lot of my songs require choir like vocals, but my band only has two vocalists, therefore I have to pile 10-12 vocal tracks on top of one another. I think it's kind of cocky for you to presume that I'm "overproducing" my music when you don't know anything about it. I'm not going to apologize for making dense, heavily-orchestrated pop music.
I don't understand your second sentence.
I'm not overproducing, any more than Brian Wilson was overproducing when he made Pet Sounds. He may have only had a 4 or 8 track for his recordings, but I'm sure there were more than 24 parts on "God Only Knows."manning1 said:
There are lots of legitimate reasons why my track load is so heavy. For example, I'm double and triple mic'ing a lot of the amped guitar parts. Also, my songs have several parts, one of which may be dramatically different than the others and require completely different instrumentation, which, obviously increases the number of tracks needed. Also, a lot of my songs require choir like vocals, but my band only has two vocalists, therefore I have to pile 10-12 vocal tracks on top of one another. I think it's kind of cocky for you to presume that I'm "overproducing" my music when you don't know anything about it. I'm not going to apologize for making dense, heavily-orchestrated pop music.
I don't understand your second sentence.
cominginsecond
Decentralized Media Mogul
Re: track counts
My midi tracks are all going to soft synths (another reason why my computer has a hard time keeping up) so this idea wouldn't work. Plus, what's more expensive, getting a used computer and the gear necessary to sync two computers, or buying a faster processor and more RAM for your existing computer? I sincerely doubt it is the latter.
manning1 said:
My midi tracks are all going to soft synths (another reason why my computer has a hard time keeping up) so this idea wouldn't work. Plus, what's more expensive, getting a used computer and the gear necessary to sync two computers, or buying a faster processor and more RAM for your existing computer? I sincerely doubt it is the latter.
U
umair
New member
camn said:
I am using 4 X 512MB PC2700 333Mhz DDR Ram to give me a total of 2 Gigs. Its not matched or anythng like that.
Now do you run your Front Siude bus at 400? or the memory? I'm not sure how to clock my memory at 400? I thought 333Mhz is the max. Remember I'm no computer building expert but I do know how to make a good system.
And about buying used computer... I don't know man.. they are so cheap nowadays that you can get yourself an emachines for $350. I used to build a lot of computers for people, now I don't even bother since they are so cheap.
I can see how soft synth can really soak up computing power so that is a special instance. I currently do not use any softsnth but I really think that Halion looks cool. If they have a decent string sound that doesn't cost a bucket load I might look into that.
wheelema
Boner-obo
I had a client where I found a virus on their box, courtesy of her brother. It was eating all of the CPU and starving the other programs.
S
Shakuan
New member
umair, your 800MHz FSB isnt really 800MHZ, it's quad 200MHz.
And the memory you have to use with it is the DDR (DOUBLE data rate) 400MHz. Which means the memory is clocked at 200MHz, exactly like your FSB.
If you use DDR333 (which is clocked at 166MHz) with a FSB of 200MHz, your setup suffers from asynchronous memory operation, in some cases severely.
Clear enough? I think you only *thought* you knew enough to make the right choices... asking ppl that actually make a living out of those things sometimes help. If you don't know any that you can trust, then put in some more time and find the information by yourself on internet, it's pretty much all there. Be carefull with computer shop salesmen though like I said before. Because they sell the things doesnt mean they know how they work. Sorry if I sound cocky, it's just my french accent I guess. I just wanted to point out that you kinda thought u knew but you missed something important : Which happens to everyone, so don't take it the wrong way.
And the memory you have to use with it is the DDR (DOUBLE data rate) 400MHz. Which means the memory is clocked at 200MHz, exactly like your FSB.
If you use DDR333 (which is clocked at 166MHz) with a FSB of 200MHz, your setup suffers from asynchronous memory operation, in some cases severely.
Clear enough? I think you only *thought* you knew enough to make the right choices... asking ppl that actually make a living out of those things sometimes help. If you don't know any that you can trust, then put in some more time and find the information by yourself on internet, it's pretty much all there. Be carefull with computer shop salesmen though like I said before. Because they sell the things doesnt mean they know how they work. Sorry if I sound cocky, it's just my french accent I guess. I just wanted to point out that you kinda thought u knew but you missed something important : Which happens to everyone, so don't take it the wrong way.
Last edited:
U
umair
New member
Shakuan said:
Dude. I have the manual for my Intel mother board right in front of me. It says to use 333Mhz DDR PC2700 RAM when using the 800 FSB.
I understand that it will be clocked down to 320 Mhz to avoid latency issues.
I may not do it for a living but its not really all that hard to read an instruction book and put a computer together.
There is absolutely no problem with using DDR333Mhz RAM with an 800 Mhz FSB using my motherboard. So don't talk to me like I don't know what I'm doing just because you want to sound smart.
When I bought the motherboard, PC2700 was latest thing available and I'd rather have my RAM at 320 than 266.
Like I said before, I have no problems with my setup and its blazing fast.
U
umair
New member
For more information you can go to Intels website:
http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/d865gbf/bf_membus.htm
http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/d865gbf/bf_membus.htm
B
Bulls Hit
Well-known member
umair said:
You can certainly use 333MHz ram on an 800Mhz FSB and it will get underclocked to 320MHZ to reduce latencies, but you're not getting the most out of your MB's potential. You paid for an 800Mhz FSB so why not get the most out of it and use 400MHz ram which won't need to be underclocked
P
Pahtcub
New member
Damn that's anice computer, suprised you ain't runnin SCSI drives with that mamoth.
Pat
Pat
R
RAPD
New member
I don't know if you fixed your problem, but it sound too me that its the old Pentium IV cpu spike "denormal" [very low numbers] problem.... I'm no expert but apparently some plugins are not coded to deal with this hardware issue:
“Algorithms with decaying feedback, such as IIR filters and feedback-based reverbs will typically feed data through in an exponentially decreasing series, which will eventually reach the point of tinyness where the numbers are denormal, and your algorithm will suddenly start gobbling up all available CPU.”
"The P2, P3, and P4 (step c1 and above) processors all are ALL able to handle “denormals” with equal capacity (this being in a similar manner to Athlon as well because Athlon is not impervious to the problem either). P4 processors (including Xeon) stepped earlier than C1 (i.e. C0 and below) are more susceptable to the problem of shrinking number values due to changes made in LATER steppings. Intel also stated that the problem, a product of errant coding for the FPU, is totally preventable when using the SSE or SSE2 (newer) instruction set as opposed to the X87 (older) instruction set. There is no planned “fix” for the hardware at this point because Intel believes that this issue is a manifestation of software architecture, and will be taking steps to educate software developers about the issue."
So basically one of your plugins probably is affected for more info see:
http://phonophunk.phreakin.com/p4denormal.php?pg=3#descsol
“Algorithms with decaying feedback, such as IIR filters and feedback-based reverbs will typically feed data through in an exponentially decreasing series, which will eventually reach the point of tinyness where the numbers are denormal, and your algorithm will suddenly start gobbling up all available CPU.”
"The P2, P3, and P4 (step c1 and above) processors all are ALL able to handle “denormals” with equal capacity (this being in a similar manner to Athlon as well because Athlon is not impervious to the problem either). P4 processors (including Xeon) stepped earlier than C1 (i.e. C0 and below) are more susceptable to the problem of shrinking number values due to changes made in LATER steppings. Intel also stated that the problem, a product of errant coding for the FPU, is totally preventable when using the SSE or SSE2 (newer) instruction set as opposed to the X87 (older) instruction set. There is no planned “fix” for the hardware at this point because Intel believes that this issue is a manifestation of software architecture, and will be taking steps to educate software developers about the issue."
So basically one of your plugins probably is affected for more info see:
http://phonophunk.phreakin.com/p4denormal.php?pg=3#descsol
VesuviusJay
Poser Roaster
!!!Very Simple!!!
I struggled with a few of those issues. (p42.6C, tascam us-122, nuendo 1.6) I found a very easy and perfect solution that fixed all my problems in one fail swoop.....
Upgrade to Nuendo 2.01...
I struggled with a few of those issues. (p42.6C, tascam us-122, nuendo 1.6) I found a very easy and perfect solution that fixed all my problems in one fail swoop.....
Upgrade to Nuendo 2.01...