What kind of computer do you need for recording music?

  • Thread starter Thread starter acoustielectric
  • Start date Start date
A

acoustielectric

New member
I am a musician and I have been recording on a separate hard disk recorder for a while but now I want to get on the computer. I've been trying to find out what kind of software would be best for me and what kind of computer, and pretty much everything. I still need to find out about all the MIDI controllers and audio interfaces and different types of software for drum programming and for recording, but for now could someone help me out with the computer situation? I'm not trying to start a Mac v. PC debate but I heard that a modded PC can be cheaper than a Mac and just as good. What is it specifically that you need in a computer for making music? I know you need a good bit of RAM, but how much? I don't know a whole lot about computers but any help is appreciated. Thank you.
 
Like everything, it depends. Playing tracks is not all that burdensome on a PC until you start using loads of effects, virtual instruments etc, and then things get interesting.

I don't actually record on a computer so take this with a grain of salt but:
4GB RAM minimum, more if you can get it
500 GB hard drive and a separate external drive for back ups
i5 chip or better
no internet connection and Windoze stripped back as far as possible so it doesn't interfere with recording.

I use a PC for assembling drum software tracks and generating WAV files and I have a crappy HP i3 laptop and will play back up to 20 tracks without it breaking into a sweat - but I'm not doing much by way of processing, effects etc.... that's what makes the difference by my understanding.
 
Armistice said:
Like everything, it depends. Playing tracks is not all that burdensome on a PC until you start using loads of effects, virtual instruments etc, and then things get interesting.

I don't actually record on a computer so take this with a grain of salt but:
4GB RAM minimum, more if you can get it
500 GB hard drive and a separate external drive for back ups
i5 chip or better
no internet connection and Windoze stripped back as far as possible so it doesn't interfere with recording.

I use a PC for assembling drum software tracks and generating WAV files and I have a crappy HP i3 laptop and will play back up to 20 tracks without it breaking into a sweat - but I'm not doing much by way of processing, effects etc.... that's what makes the difference by my understanding.
Click to expand...

Uh... yeah... that's a wee bit of overkill. It'll do the job without question but you don't need to spend that kind of money if you don't have it.

For all intents and purposes you can record to any computer commercially available including an iPad. As Armistice pointed out plugins can get a little memory hungry so more memory is usually a good thing. Best advice I can give is to get the most computer you can afford but don't stress out if it's not the fastest box... it'll be adequate regardless for audio recording.
 
You can get started with any fairly-current computer. You do not need to buy one especially for recording until you want to 'step up'. I'm running Reaper with a 3-4 year old Vista machine, 2G Ram, 500G hard drive, Athlon X2 dual core processor. Internet is connected all the time, I use the computer for all normal PC functions.
Yes, if I get plug-in heavy, or use multiple VSTi's (virtual MIDI instruments) the processor bogs down, then I need to start turning background stuff off.
Of course, I only record a maximum of 2 tracks at a time, but I've had projects going with 20 or more tracks with no issues. YMMV.
 
wheelema said:
Uh... yeah... that's a wee bit of overkill. It'll do the job without question but you don't need to spend that kind of money if you don't have it.

For all intents and purposes you can record to any computer commercially available including an iPad. As Armistice pointed out plugins can get a little memory hungry so more memory is usually a good thing. Best advice I can give is to get the most computer you can afford but don't stress out if it's not the fastest box... it'll be adequate regardless for audio recording.
Click to expand...

You missed the "take this with a grain of salt" thing there wheels... and that PC spec is what I'd find in the lower range of any PC shop these days if buying a new computer... at least where I am.
 
most people say that the Mac is the best... I would vote for the Mac... it is a little expensive.
 
Most people are idiots that listen to what other people say. lol!

If you have the money, and no PC setup skills, then probably safe to go with MAC. If you know your way around a PC, then you have more versatility with a PC. And more cash for important things......

Though I heard this from some guy who told me. :)
 
lol, yes pc is cheaper and you can be up and running with little cash..

lol
 
wheelema said:
Uh... yeah... that's a wee bit of overkill. It'll do the job without question but you don't need to spend that kind of money if you don't have it.

For all intents and purposes you can record to any computer commercially available including an iPad. As Armistice pointed out plugins can get a little memory hungry so more memory is usually a good thing. Best advice I can give is to get the most computer you can afford but don't stress out if it's not the fastest box... it'll be adequate regardless for audio recording.
Click to expand...


Agree with the above: Grain of Salt taken. I record on an HP computer with 2 gig of Ram. It has a quad core processor and does fine. I do have a 1.5 terrabyte external hard drive that I record to. Music takes up a lot of space so you want as much hard drive memory as you can afford. I have lots of room left on the drive. If you get a computer that's recent you should have no problems with recording. There are lots of recording programs out there and most people will tell you the best is Pro-Tools which may be true but unless you are a sound engineer you won't be able to make it do what you want it to do. That's like trying to fly an SR 71 after taking lessons for a piper cub. I use Mixcraft 5. Real easy to use and very intuitive. This is the first progam I have had that I feel comfortable with. I have tried 3 others.
 
One that has a parallel port so you can control the transport on your TSR-8 or MSR-16...:D

What do you want the computer to do that your current setup won't? If you are just using it for tracking or sequencing, you could get by w/ fairly modest hardware, the big thing there is optimizing hte O/S. (Turn off everything in windows.)

You could also get 64Studio or UbuntuStudio which are free and pretty full featured linux distributions designed specifically for multimedia. http://ardour.org/ is apparenlty pay waht you think is fair now.

Heck, I use an old AMD K-6 with Windows 98 just for sequencing, and a Pentium III with 64Studio (actually Demudi an earlier version) for a Delta 66.
 
Last edited:
This thread is pretty full of offerings but I thought I would throw my spare change in as well.

If you are going to build a computer (read: get one made to order) you will want two physical hard drives. 500GB each is fine but for audio work, you need one for the operating system and recording software and the other for storing the audio work files. DON'T just get one hard drive partitioned, that is not the same thing. It would still be one drive and audio work is disk-intensive and CAN destroy hard drives by overworking them. This does happen. The dual-drive idea relieves the pressure somewhat.

You need as much RAM as you can get but for a minimum, try to get 4GB. I know 2GB has been mentioned and with some software it is enough. Other programs won't even look at less than 4GB. The cost difference isn't a major deal, the performance IS.

I have run Sonar X1 on an i3 laptop with 4GB RAM and 250GB hard drive with very little trouble but I wouldn't recommend it. I am just saying that it works.

A usb audio interface is pretty much essential but for some gear you may want to make sure that your mainboard has an IEEE1394 (Firewire) interface. A reasonably good graphics card is required but you don't need a high-end gamers dream. There is just a lot of graphics on the DAW and there are user-guide videos that you might want to run so at least a reasonably game-capable graphics card is useful.

Make sure you have enough power supply to handle the addons. At least 500-600W

Get a BIG screen, even a 22" wide screen gets cramped with the information the DAW puts out. I know I am pushing it here but if possible, get TWO screens, then 22" is not so much of a squeeze. That means a graphics card capable of driving two displays

That should be a reasonable start but it can be trimmed here and there
 
wheelema said:
Best advice I can give is to get the most computer you can afford but don't stress out if it's not the fastest box... it'll be adequate regardless for audio recording.
Click to expand...

Uh.......yeah.........but that's a wee bit of understatement.

Technically, yes, for "audio recording" it is fine......IF......IF.......you are talking about recording a simple stereo input and playing it back.

If you are talking about multi track recording and mixing, say 8 or 12 or 20 tracks in a mix, with fx and plugins, then no the machine described above is not overkill, it is the bare minimum.

I think the one thing that is most often overlooked and not mentioned with this question is the motherboard and memory. Sure, it's nice to have a dual or quad core, and it's nice to have more memory. But more is not better if the motherboard and memory SPEED is not up to the task. You can have a quad core and 32 GB ram, but if your board is running it all at 800mhz, and you are using a phat hog app like Sonar, then that 20 track mix with plugins on every track is going to stutter and click and pop and give you a lot of grief. The sellers make those machines sound really screamin when they pitch it to the prospective buyer, but they are plugging the machine for people who are going to bog it down with internet browsing, email, and maybe a word doc now and then........Big Freakin Deal.

The first spec you should look at is getting a board and memory that is as fast as you can get, IF you are going to be doing multi track heavily processed mixes. If you ignore the board and memory speed specs, then all the dazzling glamour ware you plug into it won't give you what you want if the machine chokes on all the data streams you throw at it.
 
soundchaser59 said:
Uh.......yeah.........but that's a wee bit of understatement.

Technically, yes, for "audio recording" it is fine......IF......IF.......you are talking about recording a simple stereo input and playing it back.

If you are talking about multi track recording and mixing, say 8 or 12 or 20 tracks in a mix, with fx and plugins, then no the machine described above is not overkill, it is the bare minimum.

I think the one thing that is most often overlooked and not mentioned with this question is the motherboard and memory. Sure, it's nice to have a dual or quad core, and it's nice to have more memory. But more is not better if the motherboard and memory SPEED is not up to the task. You can have a quad core and 32 GB ram, but if your board is running it all at 800mhz, and you are using a phat hog app like Sonar, then that 20 track mix with plugins on every track is going to stutter and click and pop and give you a lot of grief. The sellers make those machines sound really screamin when they pitch it to the prospective buyer, but they are plugging the machine for people who are going to bog it down with internet browsing, email, and maybe a word doc now and then........Big Freakin Deal.

The first spec you should look at is getting a board and memory that is as fast as you can get, IF you are going to be doing multi track heavily processed mixes. If you ignore the board and memory speed specs, then all the dazzling glamour ware you plug into it won't give you what you want if the machine chokes on all the data streams you throw at it.
Click to expand...

Lol. Not to get into a pissing contest (well maybe just a little) but some of the old timers were recording 12 and 16 tracks on PC-ATs (Intel 80386) running Windows 3.3. When I first came on board there was one guy doing just fine with a PC-XT!

Admittedly bloatware seems to be the order of the day and n00bies get all gushy over audio manipulation features (which are then rarely if ever used) but IMO all mainstream processors are kickass for audio tasks.

Your observation that your throughput is only as fast as your slowest bottleneck is totally accurate... if you're rolling your own and are a little clueless. But reputable system builders don't mismatch processors and memory.

Now having said that let me point out that if you buy a box with a display adapter integrated on the motherboard you're going to be dealing with shared RAM and from time to time that can kind of suck.
 
Ah yes, the classic and inevitable Mac vs PC debate... :)



It would help if we knew if portability is going to be an issue for you, but I'll include these options.

If your looking for fast, cheap, and no frills: The newest Mac Mini for $599 (or an older used or refurbished one for less) and a monitor for $70-120.

Alternatively you could get a nice iMac for around $400-500 and upgrade the ram for a few bucks if it needs it. And an external hard drive if it needs one.

If you need portability: An older Macbook or Macbook Pro and spend a few bucks to upgrade the RAM to 4-8 gigs and a cheap external drive if the need arises. Total cost? $470-670.

Most likely you would have less issues with software and a bunch of other problems that may arise.


As far as PC's, I can't help you. I'm not going to diss them, but I will say I don't like them. To me it seems you just don't get the bang for your buck, and your bound to have to go out and get antivirus, spyware, and malware, etc.. protection.
BUT they are used and they do get the job done. But if you get Mac, you may never want to go back. ;)

Let us know what you decide. :D
 
wheelema said:
Lol. Not to get into a pissing contest (well maybe just a little) but some of the old timers were recording 12 and 16 tracks on PC-ATs (Intel 80386) running Windows 3.3. When I first came on board there was one guy doing just fine with a PC-XT!

Admittedly bloatware seems to be the order of the day and n00bies get all gushy over audio manipulation features (which are then rarely if ever used) but IMO all mainstream processors are kickass for audio tasks.

Your observation that your throughput is only as fast as your slowest bottleneck is totally accurate... if you're rolling your own and are a little clueless. But reputable system builders don't mismatch processors and memory.

Now having said that let me point out that if you buy a box with a display adapter integrated on the motherboard you're going to be dealing with shared RAM and from time to time that can kind of suck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not knowledgeable enough to piss all over anybody else's opinions when it comes to computer hardware, but I have my doubts about whether the PC-AT/XT people were really doing the ton of "audio processing" that we are asking our machines to do today. Maybe they were recording raw audio just fine, but I did stipulate that my claims were aimed at "heavily processed multi track." The PC-AT/XT crowd did not have all these processor heavy plugins running. And I would guess (maybe even bet) that a lot of the "audio" those guys were recording might have actually been midi. (not saying you don't know the difference, I'm just skeptical about what those other guys were actually doing on those machines) Back then there were a lot of people who still didn't understand the difference. (Not saying they were the people you know!) Back then (can't believe I'm old enough to say that! LOL!) one man's "doing just fine with it" was another man's "this sux." I never got involved in that because my Atari recorded only midi, no audio. Most of the actual mixing and "heavy processing" was still going out to racks and black boxes, with SMPTE synched reel to reel, which is how I was set up at the time AT's and XT's were still selling. At the time, the only truly "pro" studio in my town was set up the same way, except they were running all Macs. (and the Macs are now becoming more and more tempting every time I start reading about the topic)

One of the biggest ways a new DAW convert can help himself or herself is simply to dedicate the computer to doing nothing but recording.......no email, no microcrotch office, no video editing suites, etc.......which then also negates the need for antivirus and anti malware bloatware. You don't need antivirus if the only thing you ever do on the web is go to your DAW and plugin manufacturers and download updates. I've been running a Win7 Pro machine this way for 2 years now, no issues, but Reaper and my sound plugins are the only warez installed on it, no automatic updates needed, none of that crap.

That intergrated display and audio adapter stuff you say is spot on. Don't use that stuff. If you roll your own you will obviously be adding your own audio interface and disabling the integrated audio controller. Same goes for the video adapter. Disable it and install your own, preferably one that allows you to have two monitors. I have an EMU 1616M-PCI card that has its own audio plugins built in, they run on the adapter and do not consume any processor at all, has it's own software mixer, etc. Nothing dazzling, but it sure allows me to do a lot more inside Reaper (or Sonar or whatever marbled heiffer ware is running) before I ever have to think about latency or clicks and pops. Haven't had that at all since I walked away from Sonar. Yup, these are small but impoartant points that the RYO crowd may not be aware of right away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top