The Great Debate!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter rushfan33
  • Start date Start date
rushfan33

rushfan33

New member
Here's the fact.... I've been using an HP Pavilion with a Pentium III 900Mhz processor. I have 128megs of ram running Windows ME. The recording software I've been using is Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 with a Delta 44 Soundcard. This isn't my main recording setup but as I'm not a "computer type" person. For the 3 years I've had the computer, not once have I had a single problem with the music portion. Although problems galore with Windows Me! :mad:

As I read these posts about what is needed to run a recording setup, I read many posts that say you need at least 512 RAM and don't use Celeron bla bla bla.

What am I missing here? I have half of what people say I need but I've NEVER had a problem running audio. It was all audio except for a few midi parts.

Anyone want to defend their position regarding having to have at LEAST 256 or 512 RAM?

Please.... make up my mind!
RF
 
rushfan33 said:
Anyone want to defend their position regarding having to have at LEAST 256 or 512 RAM?
Click to expand...

If you're not having dropouts you're fine with what you have. Must not be going crazy on the tracks.

I started with a 933MHz Pentium III and 128MHz of PC100 RAM and got dropouts galore. I upgraded to a gig of RAM and got far fewer dropouts.

I now have an Athlon XP 1800 and 512MHz of DDR RAM. No dropouts.

Also, editing stuff is MUCH faster with a faster machine.
 
If you are using any VST instruments, they use RAM. Samples, including drum samples, get loaded into RAM so they do not have to be streamed from the hard drive. Good quality samples require room. If you're loading up a single drum kit, you might have a dozen samples right there. Also, AFAIK, your buffers also utilize RAM, so if you have limited room, you have limited room for buffering, which means limited performance from your computer.

Chris
 
As far as track count goes, I don't think RAM has squat to do with it. The buffers that may be set up in RAM to shuffle the ADC output(s) from the soundcard to disc are quite small in comparison with even the RAM space (128MB) mentioned in the initial post.

The 512MB number you hear bandied about is in reference to the use of Windows XP which is a memory hog. My 98 system runs fine with 128MB. But whatever system you use- be sure that it is, in the words of our esteemed Israeli contributor Shailat, "Clean as a baby's butt". Don't be afraid of the 3-finger salute just to check what else is running before you hit the "record" button.
If you don't need it- disable it!

And as Chris pointed out- some programs will use it to leverage the usefulness of soft instruments.

OK- I like having a lot of RAM. It comes in handy when editing large images. And I like the nice round sound of "a FREEKIN' GIGABYTE". Yeah, baby!
 
drstawl said:
As far as track count goes, I don't think RAM has squat to do with it. The buffers that may be set up in RAM to shuffle the ADC output(s) from the soundcard to disc are quite small in comparison with even the RAM space (128MB) mentioned in the initial post.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I think that's true.
Really, I meant "going crazy on the tracks" as a general term, including VST instruments, effects, etc.

BUT...I DID get huge dropout on non-VST and non-effect tracks when I tried to go through and remove the silences for noise reduction (where it chops your track up into little bites instead of a continuous stream). Even worse when I let the software do that for me. I'd play about three seconds of a song before it'd drop.
 
xp pro, browser with 3 web pages open, 1 scratch txt file for odd info gathering, 82mb, open nuendo2, 160mb, load 16 track mix contest file, 270mb... task manager reading... no vst or adjustments set yet...
 
VSTi, The Grand.... need 512 ram for himself.

Waves plugins need a lot. Amplitube need a lot, there is a lot that needs a lot!


When you just record the audio, you usualy don need a lot of ram and cpu.

Now lets say the people who you work with/for want to use The Grand while the vocal tracks are at recording step, just this can use a lot of ram and cpu, depending of everything.

In fact, you will never have enouph of cpu, ram, hd, usb ports, etc. :)

You get a new PC with everything you think you need, and 6 month later, something will miss :)
 
I'm not one of the GHz and memoryhunters, been using computers too long to be in that race. So I'm not defending myself (using a 1GHz /256 MB)

1)
I also run Pro Audio - and that one is gentle on your memory. It's a great piece of software any way you look at it. Actually I don't want to upgrade because it's running so great - never had a problem.

2)
I've read that different chipsets has an impact on your need of memory. You have to compensate for the bad chipset. All 1 GHz / 128 MB is not created equal.
:)
 
This is primarily why I started this thread! Almost EVERY time someone asks "what's the bare minimum I need to get started to record with my computer", they get responses like "you need at least 512 megs of RAM". So for someone who wants to do the eqivelent of what they do on say a Tascam Porta01, what's the bare minimum? This isn't for me really, it's for all the people who are confused about what they really need ,......shit! I guess that IS me! :D
RF
 
If I remember correctly I used to be able to record 4-8 mono tracks on a 486/33 with 16MB. I later upgraded to a Pentium 75Mhz or something like that - could get around 12-16 tracks. After I went above 133 MHz I can't recall ever running out of tracks as such. But some nonprinted reverbs might get me.

Echo used to have a program that measured possible trackrate.
 
given the price of hardware these days and an open ended statement of "what should I get" that doesn't specify hardware or planned use, 1+ ghz and 512 MB is a decent suggestion.
 
rushfan33 said:
This is primarily why I started this thread! Almost EVERY time someone asks "what's the bare minimum I need to get started to record with my computer", they get responses like "you need at least 512 megs of RAM". So for someone who wants to do the eqivelent of what they do on say a Tascam Porta01, what's the bare minimum? This isn't for me really, it's for all the people who are confused about what they really need ,......shit! I guess that IS me! :D
RF
Click to expand...

RAM is cheap. If you know the more you have the better, whats to debate?
 
brzilian said:
RAM is cheap. If you know the more you have the better, whats to debate?
Click to expand...

I think I understand where rushfan33 is coming from. I've talked to people that thought it was pointless trying to record on their sub 1.5 GHz machine because they've read or heard that you need a really fast and big computer to be worth the effort, because that's the common knowledge. And it's really no good telling them that they can upgrade, that route starts with memory, then cpu, then harddisk, then..
Well - you know - and they know. Most people really just want that stupid box to work. They don't know which memory they need, which kind of harddisk they have and wtf Intel and AMD are. They don't even know where to find the answers. When you're into it it seems easy and cheap, but it really isn't, and it takes time to reach that level.

And it's a pity, they're missing out. And they don't have to. There's lot's you can do if you just get >133MHz.

Some people love messing with cars, I don't even change tires on mine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top