Need your advice on computer

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobbo
  • Start date Start date
B

bobbo

New member
Hi,
I will be having a computer made by someone locally in town. He doesn't have a lot of experience with audio recording and computers, so I thought I would see if anyone has any thoughts on the system he recommended.
1)AMD athlon K7 500, 550 or 600MHz

2)FIC SD11 (ATX) (PC100/200)ATA66-5PCI-1ISA-1AGP-3DIMM motherboard

3)(PC100 8NS) 256 SDRAM

4) Western Dig. 27.3GB HDD (seems like overkill, but maybe not)

5) Modem, 4MB/AGP 2D video card, (D-Zone)45x CD-ROM

6) Mitsumi 4x4x24 CDRW

7)Windows 98

I asked the computer guy about the modem and internet explorer getting in the way of audio recording, and he said that if I'm not using it at the time I am doing recording, that it shouldn't be a problem. I will also want to partition the HD. Do you have OS on one part of the drive alone, then recording software and files on another, then my wifes homework on another?
This computer will be used by my wife for internet and wordprocessing for school, and then by me for internet and recording. We probably won't play any games or need 3D stuff, she barely uses the computer. We would some day use the computer for digital photo editting and that sort of thing, storing them on CD maybe.
I asked the computer maker about windows NT and he says it wouldn't be a good idea because it isn't compatible with a lot of software and hardware. Should I be worried about this? If I had him install windows 98, is it difficult for someone who is a novice to install Windows NT and get it working. I can get windows NT workstation 4.0 from "a friend". Is NT workstation version 4.0 different from a more powerful Windows NT normal version? I don't know how many versions there are or if there are more than one version.
Then the fellow at the local music store says to get only Pentium computer, because thats what the soundcard manufacturers test their cards on. I am waiting on replies from aarvark and midiman about compatibility with Athlon and motherboard, so I should get that question answered from them.
Thanks.
Signed,
Your good old friend Bobbo
By the way, one more edit here, I thought of building one myself, thanks Slackmaster2K for your ideas and all, but now I'm leaning towards someone else doing it. I'm a cat who is scared.
[This message has been edited by bobbo (edited 11-07-1999).]

[This message has been edited by bobbo (edited 11-07-1999).]

[This message has been edited by bobbo (edited 11-07-1999).]
 
I also am going to build or have built a PC recording system in the next few weeks. Here's what I have determined so far. For
those of you who are a little more hip to whats up please give your comments e.g. slackmaster etc. So far I have come to the conclusion that the opinion on Pentium, Celeron, or AMD is "personal" Any of these processors will work however there may be more fine tuning with the AMD. One engineer told me that the pro vs.con of Pentium or Celeron is that Pentiums have a higher "floating point" thus they are more trouble free. The Celeron can be faster but this floating point issue is important (Or so I am told) One thing for certain is whatever you do don't scrimp on Ram a minimum of 128 mgs. Another important thing is get 2 hard drives. This is a very inexpensive and efficient way to operate a PC based recording studio. One for the OS andthe other one designated strictly for recording. Make sure they are the latest, fastest hard drives you can buy. One thing I found out yesterday and correct me if I'm wrong almighty recording Guru's but in the end when it's time to burn that CD it is impossible to burn it at any higher sample rate than 16 bits.The 24 bit arena is only for the recording and editing area and the idea is to keep it in 24 bit for as long as possible before final mixdown.Then its just a choice of recording software, A/D-D/A converters, mixers, mics, CD burners etc. The choices are endless and confusing as shit but hard work and diligence will get you there. Good luck!

[This message has been edited by TAE (edited 11-07-1999).]
 
The Athlon is indeed a great processor. But at the moment, I would be scared to use any of the mainboards available. FIC I wouldn't go near. The ASUS board looks promising.

Yes, memory is important, the 128MB min. is a good recommendation. 2 seperate drives is also a good thing to have, better yet, have your primary drive partitioned into 2 seperate bootable operating systems.

I doubt there is a measurable difference in FPU between the Celeron and the PII/PIII. But depending on your budget, the PIII may be the better option.

Good, fast hard drive. For sure, The Quantum drives I can vouch for, very good. The IBM drives are decent as well. 7200 RPM min. for your second, dedicated audio data drive.

As long as you get quality, name brand components, you really cant go wrong.

Emeric


[This message has been edited by Emeric (edited 11-07-1999).]
 
Investigate substitution of the 6x4x16 Yamaha
CDR-RW in place of the Mitsumi. Dirt Cheap's got it for $189. Since you have a much faster CD-ROM only included, the read speed of the CDR isn't that important.
 
Thank you all for the helpful....help.
Is it better to have 2 hard drives, than one that is bigger and then partition it? I don't really know what the difference would be since I've never done either of them. Is it best to have the OS, just that and nothing else, on one part of a partitioned drive, so you can install it when it goes bad on you?
Thank you drstawl for the substitution for the CDR-RW! Is it because the Mitsumi's aren't very good quality?
Also, what motherboard would be recommended for a Pentium III 500, 550 or 600MHz, and which to stay away from? Thanks for the FIC advice!
bobbo


[This message has been edited by bobbo (edited 11-07-1999).]
 
The CDR tip was more focused on price and performance than quality issues. Either one should be be fine in the quality department.
 
Thanks drstawl, I haven't been able find many reviews of a Mitsumi CDR-RW but thats the one that the computer store sells, yes only one. A few months ago it was a Ricoh one.
I also haven't found much on any other motherboards for the Athlon processor. The only one I have found on the internet is that FIC slot A board. So I wonder, if a P-III would be best. I guess there just hasn't been enough time for people to use the new Athlons.
Thanks for the help.
bobbo
 
See if they'll drop >2 bills off of the price if you leave out the CDR. Then install it yourself. Maybe they'll get on the stick and install what you want. It's just a couple of screws and two plugs after you set the jumpers on the new drive to whatever they were on the old drive. Piece of cake. I'm sorely tempted to replace my 4x4x16 Yamaha with this 6x4x16 Yamaha. I paid >3 bills for the 4x4x16. And I love it!
 
i would go with the abit be-6 motherboard and a pentium III or higher processor.. the board retails at about $110 , and a 500 mhz PIII is about $215.. the abit board also supports udma/66 hard drives , which is faster than the old dma/33 ( although some people might argue about it ).. but if your getting a newer hard drive over 10 gigs , most likely its udma/66 .. my system suggestion is as follows :

abit be-6 motherboard $110

500 mhz PII cpu $215

256 megs memory.. ( i think around 300 bucks , but the price is coming down daily )

20 something gig 7200 rpm udma/66 hard drive ( strictly audio ) about $200 bucks

10 gig 5400 rpm udma/66 hard drive ( OS and other software ) about 150 bucks

cd-rw drive .. a good one will cost ya 200 bucks..

any ole cd-rom drive 50 bucks for a good one

floppy drive 20 bucks

any old video card 50 bucks..

so for about 1400 bucks , youll have a computer that will swallow any amount of tracks you can throw at it... and you can burn your own cds..

i know i neglected modem choice , but thats up to you...if your gonna have a great computer like that though , i would go with a cable modem... i aslo neglected the windows 98 price , but knowing most computer builders just boot the computer with the same disc , you probably wont get charged for it...

i would recomend the maxtor diamondmax plus hard drives... fast and dependable.. and on the cheap..

that was my dream recording system until memory prices doubled , so i decided to hold off and look for studio space instead..

i know im forgetting something... im sure someone will point it out..

ps.. those prices are a not too conservative , so if you shop around , you might find better deals...

anyone have any opinions ? slack boy , i know you have a post or 2 worth of your opinion...hehe :D .. hes the pro though , im just giving a little friendly advice...

am i still typing ? sheesh...i need to stop working 70 hour weeks to help pay for my studio..im over tired...

- eddie -
 
This is getting really cool. I'm feeling better and less confused about this new computer purchase. Even though you all might have your personal dream computer and they may vary with person to person, its getting me closer to mine. So thanks for all the support and ideas. I've been saving money for 5 years now, and actually have something that I want to spend it on. Its kind of hard to really trust what the sales people out there are telling me what I should have, when they haven't done computer recording. So I sure do appreciate the help I get here!!
I sure do like this site.
Sincerely,
Mr. Bobbo
 
I might be able to clear a few things up.

First of all the AMD, Intel, Cyrix debate is not one of personal preference...unless you consider speed to be a matter of taste. We beat this to death long ago. Go with a PIII 450Mhz or better. Don't screw around.

The Celeron vs. the PII. The Celeron has the same core as the PII but runs at 66Mhz FSB vs. 100Mhz FSB. Plus the PII has more cache. The Celeron craze is OVER. Don't screw with em when PII prices are so low.

Next...DO NOT BUY A WESTERN DIGITAL HARD DRIVE. No time to get into it. I recommend Quantum...GREAT value.

About the 2 hard drive thing. Whether this is really going to make a substantial difference in recording efficiency isn't well known around here. It's a good solution in terms of safety however...hard to say whether it's worth the extra money.

About NT Workstation. There is NT Server and NT workstation. That's it. There is no "regular NT". Windows 2000 is NT5 and should be out soon and should be really great. Setting up NT is not a task for the novice user. BTW, never "upgrade" an operating system and always be prepared for headaches..

128MB RAM is a great idea. Though I'm still seeing that viking memory is over $250 for 64MB...OUCH...course that's name brand.

I can also vouch for the Abit BE6 motherboard as I am using one right now. Setup is a breeze and overclocking is easy...if yer into it. Not to overlook the built-in ATA/66 controller in addition to a standard UDMA/33 controller allowing for up to 8 devices total. DO NOT GET A MOTHERBOARD WITH INTEGRATED SOUND, VIDEO, OR MODEM!!! It's like buying a guitar with permanant pickups.

Finally, if you have some "extra" money and are looking for some extra goodies. Get some sort of fast and large removable storage. In fact this might be a better way to go than buying a massive hard drive. (stay away from Syquest of course)

Sorry to be blunt but I'm trying to keep my posts down to "a dull roar." :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
Just to throw my two cents in...

Concerning the two hard drives...do it if you can. It saved me a ton of heart ache this past summer when my computer went down. Long story, but the short and sweet is: get seperate drives and use one ONLY for recording, and ALWAYS back up your files to CD, Zip Drive, Jazz drive, CDRW, whatever you can! Don't screw yourself over by leaving these things to chance, especially when it comes to backing things up.
 
Alrighty then. Slackmaster2000, I was waaaaaaiiiittting for youuuu. Thanks man. I had seen many posts for this topic when searching, but still needed some people to bash it into my slow brain I guess. My coffee maker broke, so I'm going crazy making little cups at a time. I need my coffee.
I've got what I need to know, and thanks to all of you who wrote in with your ideas.
As Gomer Pyle would say, "Thank you, thank you thank you."
bobbo
 
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but none of the platforms mentioned are the "best" answer. Don't get me wrong, all will work to a degree. But if you want a stable recording environment, the only way to go is with a Mac.

Before you judge that comment, let me state that I am a lifetime PC user (DOS and WIN based). I make my living designing enterprise level software solutions around the PC and Unix environments.

I own two Pentium II machines.

So I am not one of the psyco-Mac people that think Mac is the answer to everything.

However, PC systems are, by their nature, unstable due to the completely open architecture and lack of standards. This doesn't matter if you are processing spreadsheets or printing documents.

But start stacking up the peripherals and other devices and the problems will become quickly apparent.

I could go on for hours but the bottom line is this: Apple has one set of standards for everything. In order to work on an Apple, something must comply (to the letter) with the standards. Also, the only reason Macs have survived is that they are built from the ground up to process multimedia information. It started in the print and design world and has moved to today where large motion picture production houses process edits for feature films on Mac.

The Mac is the only PC on the market that has a stable enough environment to give me security when entering into a recording session.

Oh...one other thing. I am a musician. When I sit down to record, that is what I want to do. I don't want to jerk around with reboots, and downloading drivers and CMOS setup, and yada yada yada. I want to record.

I'd be happy to answer specific questions.

Much Success.
 
Look, I am totally unbiased in the Mac VS PC debate, for I own and love both. But when it comes to something as intensive as multi-track recording (which beats photo-editing any day of the week) you do NOT want to be in MacOS. Besides the fact that you'll have a hard time finding good software and good hardware for the Mac, MacOS is NOT geared to that sort of work. The way MacOS divides its free memory among applications does not lend itself nicely to audio editing ... it ends up not being a very stable environment at all. Unless you feel like purchasing the price of your computer in RAM, don't do it. Unless ...

You feel like trying something new.

BeOS.

I won't go into details on either the Mac Memory Issue or BeOS unless provoked, but don't provoke me unless you want to be successfully shot down.. ;) I've been-there-dunnit-all, believe me... and SM2K is 100% correct concerning the Intel/AMD dispute.
 
And that's what it really boils down to. Choice. Macintosh is getting to be a LOT better than they were in the past...prices are coming down to reasonable levels and there are a lot more hardware vendors.

But really, you're going to be hard pressed to find HALF the software and hardware available on the PC for Macintosh. Blah blah, we all know this.

As far as multimedia applications...I'm not convinced that the Macintosh will really perform that much better by real-life standards (scrap the benchmarks). Most mulitmedia innovation today is coming from Intel, and MS will always be the first to take advantage of it. Just for fun, check this out: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/16/super.idg/
A cluster of 17 Xeon PII machines (36 processors total) running off-the-shelf RedHat Linux matched a Cray supercomputer in Povray graphics benchmarks. And at $5 MILLION less cost. Cool.

Which brings us to another OS that is being overlooked. Linux. I would imagine Linux to beat the stability and match the performance of MacOS for recording applications. The problem still being lack of hardware and software choices.

Back to Windoze. You want stability? Try NT. Regardless of what you may have heard, NT is stable. Harder to use...maybe. It doesn't have a cute little smiley-faced computer guy beeping at you when you boot up, but it's not all that different from Win95 as far as the UI. You want support for games and more hardware? Wait for Windows 2000. It will make just about everybody happy.

Anyway, I'm completely biased so don't trust me. I will say that if you have limited computer knowledge and treat your computer purchase as you would the purchase of a stand-alone digital multitracker, then I would actually recommend a Macintosh. If you like to keep up with the rest of us (be it good or bad), then get a PC running Windoze.

What I find to be kind of funny is this sad misconception that PC users are either constantly downloading drivers or constantly rebooting. On my Win98 machine at home I do reboot every now and then...usually due to n-Track's memory leakage. But on my NT machine at work where I run everything from various compilers to office applications to graphics applications to client/server applications...I've rebooted maybe once or twice since NT4 SP1. And drivers? If you don't pay attention then in the VERY worst case you'll have to find drivers for each piece of hardware once. If you do pay attention, you'll download new drivers as soon as they become available. I think it's great that vendors continue to improve a product at no cost to the customer throughout its lifetime, instead of pretending that they got it right the first time.

Anyway, I have a feeling that this could turn ugly. Pretty soon we'll be spewing technical jargon and using horrendeous acronyms. I appologize in advance. :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
I know we don't really need another opinion on this, but oh well.

Having two hard drives IS more effectient: while your recording your 2 or 4 or whatever tracks at 16 or 24 bit or 44.1 or 96 (or whatever) khz, your working with constant disk access at a rate of anywhere from 10 mgs a minute, to 240 (8 tracks, 24bit/96khz). I don't care how fast your hard drive is, having to stop writing for .00001 seconds while the system writes something to a temporary file to update the screen or whatever. Whereas, having two drives, the second, audio only drive, doesn't have this problem: it's buffer has enough information stored in it to continue writing while the cpu diverts it attention to the first for an instant. At best, all that will happen is the interface may lag slightly. At worst, the hard drive misses some data, or the computer just stops recording (i.e. Cakewalk's failsafe, wonderful thing compared to the alternative :), or crashing.

(By the way, 2k's absolutely right on the 'imitation' processors, especially when in comes to working with audio: they are inferior, slower, generally less unstable

Listen to that guy, I think he know's what he's talking about :) )

Good luck with your purchase!

William Underwood
 
This reply is to Dondello:

Whatever fantasy world you are living in is o.k. by me, but don't come out with flaming inacuracies that will mislead the people on this board.

The bottom line is this: More than 90% of professional recording environments that use a PC, use Mac.

Teddy Riley uses a Mac. Brian Eno uses a Mac. Daniel Lanois uses a Mac. Mark Saunders and Bryan New use Macs.

I could give you a list of the best producers in the world and they all use Macs.

I think they know what they are doing.

And by the way: print media, although a Mac stronghold, has been old news for a long time. Steve Jobs has been engineering his PCs for the Multimedia revolution. His strategy is to position Macs to do for multimedia in the 21st century, what they did for print media in the eighties.

I'll stop here. Don't get me started on even more complex editing such as video and varied media.

Your title says "moderator." If you're going to be the guy to run this thing, get your facts right.
 
Before actually doing the research on this next computer purchase for our home (I thought of having one for my wife and one for me, but we can't do that right now, I can actually sell my emachine to a guy that I am renting to upstairs and I HAVE to take advantage of that) thanks to Slackmaster2K's advice from an earlier post), I gave my wife the option of either mac or pc (she had a mac as a previous computer before), and she said that she wants the pc. Thats what we have to get, no questions asked, just a thank you for helping me with the next computer purchase and a kiss maybe (it could have been a handshake though depending on the mood).
I want to thank everyone for their opinions, G4, maybe another day for the mac, its good that you brought that question into the message, I also think its great for the moderator to jump in too (they have good ideas and also are doing the same thing we all are doing, and have done a very good job with this site, they are good folks!!!) and the rest of you folks who replied have helped me.
I'll be getting a P-III 500, abit board, pretty much what Eddie recommended, except I'll wait a few months for more memory upgrading. Man! if memory cost that much in terms of body parts I wouldn't have a cent!!
I'll get the two drives, one with OS and software and other little ditties, the other biggie for storage of the audio.
So thanks again very much. We'll see how it goes and I'm looking forward to doing some recording finally with some new purchases.
Best to you all.
bobbo
 
cwillu:

Nobody's denying the fact that 2 hard drives on seperate ports is more efficient. The question is really whether it's more efficient for what we do. One thing that I've noticed in my limited experience with recording is that the hard drive is only accessed in very small bursts every 5 to 10 seconds while recording. When I start pushing the limits of the machine, the lag is primarily CPU-based. Believe me, I've tried all the cool tricks to boost efficiency over the years. A very few make a considerable difference. It is more expensive to purchase one small drive and one large drive, or two large drives, than it is to buy one massive disk. It would be a great thing if someone with the resources would start doing some real-life benchmarking with recording applications.

G4:

In defense of Dondello, he's the moderator of the n-Track group, not this group.

And just to add a little more fuel to the flame... :) Macintosh is always claiming great innovations for the future, but they're just not quick enough. They DO have a superior product however. It's just that people like me want the cool shit NOW...if it's buggy I'll work around it. I am of course talking at the home consumer level, not the professional level. I do not argue that professional recording studios would prefer machintosh.

Truely great innovation comes from competition. The (Wintel) PC hardware market is probably the most competitive market in the world. Unfortunately that means that things are going to come out before they are truely ready...a good rule of thumb is to wait to purchase the latest greatest gizmo until it has been out for at least 3-4 months...and then let USENET be your god.

Unfortunately Macintosh prices are starting to come down to real-world levels and they're not pushing nearly as much garbage as they used to (by garbage I mean 'yesterday's technology at tomorrow's prices'). Except for these candy-wrapper iMac things...I can't IMAGINE buying a disposable machine...but then I'm not your every-day user. Anyway, each year I'm finding less and less excuses to hate Macintosh...and now I simply "dislike" them :)

Sorry that this thread had to get to the semi-ugly level. I realize that you were simply informing bobbo of an alternative and not intentionally bashing.

Bobbo:

Good deal! I was on abit's site last night and noticed that there is now a BE6-II. If you were going to get the BE6, then look into it. Typically the second generation of a board is far superior.

Slackmaster 2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top