Setting Up Your First 64-Bit Digital Audio Workstation

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kentlowt: You can't call Cubase good and solid, they always have showstopper bugs at every initial release, and then spend the next 6-12 months fixing it. It's unbelievable just how bad their bugs really are... How many times have they had a different bug that corrupts project files? I vowed "never again" after SX3...

Reaper, on the other hand, is way more solid, even when I was testing the 3.0 alpha releases, I never had a crash, never had a corrupt project file. They have like a 1 week development cycle, if they break something, it's easy to regress. Steinberg is disorganized, their SDKs are full of spaghetti code, and with their much longer development cycle, it's virtually impossible to pinpoint when/where something was broken...
 
It is odd that the author uses "Monster instrument, microphone, and speaker cables". Though the stuff does work, it is quite expensive compared to its 'quality'. I wonder if anyone with conventional speakers can hear or measure any difference between Monster speaker cables and generic radio shack 12 gauge stranded wire.

I also question "This is a critical component, because a 64-bit audio workstation handles memory processing faster than a 32-bit machine, which in turn helps reduce latency."

I am quite familiar with 32 and 64 bit hardware and software, and if anything, 64 bit systems will tend to be a tiny percent slower than 32 bit systems, though the difference is likely to be insignificant. If the author has measured less latency with a 64 bit system, then I suspect something is seriously broken.

Also I question the significance of low latency memory.
"Next, make sure you choose low-latency RAM. Usually, you have to inspect the parts listing or ask the vendor to make sure it is fast enough for audio recordings."

The difference between fast and slow memory is measured in nanoseconds. I could imagine a hard drive with slow seek times possibly causing a problem, but I really question if 50 or 100 nanoseconds can make any measurable difference in a DAW.

Though I use my general computer for DAW, I have designed hard real time software for several applications. I never worried about my RAM latency.
 
Since I have been using Cubase I have never had a crash or a corrupt file. I try not to be a guinea pig though I wait till patches are a few weeks old before I apply them. Most issues I have dealt with have been minor like changing the project file formats with patches without the ability to go back. It’s really more of an annoyance than a show stopper. I am sure there are many capable programs out there. It was just the one I ended up choosing. It really wasn't a religious choice for me, I could use any of them.
 
jeffunit: I agree about RAM, I always buy the stuff that's rated for lower CAS, under the assumption that it was binned as higher performing, but I always used it at it's SPD timings and JEDEC voltage.

My DAW:
Phenom II 940 BE @ stock 3.0ghz
4gb Corsair XMS2 800mhz CAS4 @ CAS5
Gigabyte MA790X-UDP4
Antec Earthwatts 500w
Radeon 4650
M-Audio Audiophile 192

Under extreme load in Reaper, it never goes higher than the 1.8ghz speed step@50% CPU load, every sensor on the CPU, GPU and motherboard never go higher than 45c, I'd even go as far to speculate that the CPU draws less than 45w at that frequency/load. The advantage to having such overkill is that I can set the latency to < 1ms if I wanted, and still have no dropouts...

If I set the latency to 64 or even 32 samples(even in Linux), the CPU may occasionally even ratchet itself up to 3.0ghz, but I won't get dropouts. Any DAW, CPU and soundcard in the whole world can play an empty project back at 32 samples, but only a powerful CPU can handle a large project at low latency, making that 3 generations old Athlon X2 a poor choice.
 
This is an interesting article but it's riddled with mistakes and odd recommendations.

For example, plenty of DAWs support a 64bit environment. I have two installed on my system right now - Cakewalk Sonar and Reaper.
 
Also, Emu (Creative Professional) has had 64 bit drivers available for literally years.

C'mon, do 2 seconds of research. www.emu.com > drivers and you'll see 64bit listed right there.
 
Sorry for the stream of posts. You don't even have to click Drivers on emu's site. "64 bit drivers" is actually listed right on the front page.
 
Well, I wanted to introduce myself to audio recording since I am a musician... and I wanted to know what to get, what kind of sound card or what kind of hardware... should I go with an internal sound card recording or should I go with the usb M-Audio hardware...

None of this actually answered any of my questions and it was a uterly waste of time to read. Seriously, first it was the Cyber Power Gamer Dragon review and now this...?!
 
The Good - Nice to see something other than how to build a zinger of a gamers/oc'ers wet dream. I like the PC slant since any machine designed for audio will inevitably get supercilious comments from Mac users (q.v. above comments). Also, not a bad idea showing how to save on the pc (try doing that with Mac) so you can afford the preamps, mics, audio interface, etc.

The Bad - While it is true that DAWs don't need to bleeding edge, this DAW is definitely not gonna impress anyone. Instead, it feels like something the neighborhood punk cooked up to record him and his friends.

The Ugly - Should've been titled "How to impress your Garage Band mates with your old AMD gaming machine"
 
http://www.silentpcreview.com/

Are you kidding me? 25dB from thermaltake means 25 dB peak! The broadband signature of EVERY one of their fans is tonal and cheap.

You want recording? Call up SPCR and order yourself an Antec case and some Nexus case fans...you're welcome.
 
If you are so picky about making the least fan and disk noise etc.., and the least latency, then why the hell did you use Vista????

Vista is known for lots of latency bugs and issues!
Back in the old days I recorded sound via my Cubase VST on my Win 98 computer (P3, 333Mhz,256MB RAM),and it worked perfectly fine!

For sure, your videocard is a low power card, and probably the best performance/power card that does not need a fan.
But even a $50 old S3 card with 128MB VRAM could work.
Even a lower clocked Celeron mobile processor could work.
If you're so serious about performance, Windows Vista should be last on your list!
then Ubuntu would make more sense to install!
XP in my eyes is very much superior!

Also, a single 7200 or even a modern 5200rpm HD is fast enough for recording several tracks at a time!
I use a seagate HD, which is very silent, has 1TB of diskspace, and can read/write upto around 20MB/s (which is the fastest my old computer can handle). That's good enough for about 10 tracks recording in 48Khz 16 bit, or 6 tracks recording in 48khz 24bit, while you can have an additional 20 or so midi tracks playback rythms or other things.
If that's not fast enough, I'm sure 2 of these in RAID will give you more than enough!

I'd say you're right on with most of the article. The most important thing is getting a good audio card. From there, a good power supply, fast HD, fanless system, SSD or Raid HD if necessary; this all next to the professional external studio gear you need like soft and hardware.
 
ow,and the latencies you measured where those of output AND input.
Usually for recordings latencies of input only are recorded,and for playback latencies for output.
Usually latencies for input are higher than latencies for output; but even if they where the same, on the creative EMU those latencies would translate around 13ms which is pretty good; and 17ms for the presonus.
Anything above 20ms might feel a bit laggy, but nothing should be so laggy that you can not play.
Usually instruments recording are recording via Midi in, where I'd expect latencies around 5ms. Midi does not have the delay of playing a tone on an electric piano, that gets converted internally in the piano; so that before the actual tone is recorded you have to pass through the latencies of the electric piano itself, the audio card, and the computer.
Going midi to recording is often better in timing, but does not always result in better sound samples.
 
Disappointing article! There is no direct 32-64 bit comparison for each sound card, so how are we supposed to compare performance? Plus you could have tested so many more things such as total loadable plugins, offline processing times for processes such as normalisation and dithering, input latency for multitrack recording and maximum track count to name a few. Could be a good article with more technical exploration! Plus the interface's used are cheap at best. What about pro hardware such as a Digi 192?

Mac is king for audio though, just go to any professional recording studio around the world and you will see a Mac Pro & Pro Tools rig. I have both an uber gaming desktop [i7 920 + GTX 295] and a Mac Pro [Octo core 2.26 12GB RAM] and both aren't without their issues. The main reason I stick with the mac for music is epic software support [Logic 😀], solid drivers and industry standard software/hardware. Every single audio professional in the world chooses them for a reason, not just because they are pretty. that_was_a_fail is talking nonsense! Show me any PC that can handle 16 threads simultaneously and I'll eat my hat. If anything they were inferior as G4's I've had a G3, G4, G5 and Mac Pro and the relative performance jump is insane now they have switched from crappy IBM to Intel chips. Rant over 😀
 
[citation][nom]one-shot[/nom]There are large HSFs designed for to be passively cooled. Have you thought of that as an option? You are running a CPU which doesn't draw much current and it could help to even lower the noise even more as that is your main concern, it seems. No fan should make less noise than A fan, even if that one fan is very quiet.[/citation]

The HSF I used worked remarkably well without any noise at all in the sound room. The tests I conducted for noise were right next to the CPU, and the meter picked up slight noise. Themicrophones I used for testing picked up zero audio from the PC itself.
 
[citation][nom]Biomortis[/nom]Wow, this guy really doesn't know much about high end audio recording. Most of this article just isn't worth commenting on however I cannot believe you have never heard of REAPER which yes, has a 64-bit version and handles 2-4ms latency no problem with ASIO drivers.[/citation]

As a writer, you sometimes work with what you have and what you have access to. I can't afford ProTools, and they sent me a demo kit to test for a few days. Reaper never responded, and I already own and use Cubase. If I had used Reaper, then the Cubase loyalists would be questioning why as well, so you can't win. But I also stand by the assertion that the PC design, room design, and audio hardware are the first concerns.
 
[citation][nom]laboitenoire[/nom]Wow. As an amateur recording engineer, let me just say that this article is completely crap.

Thanks for the feedback!

>> Cubase 5 being the first 64-bit DAW? Cakewalk moved to 64-bit in Sonar back around version 6 I think.

I have not had good success with Sonar. Also, remember that I was testing in Vista 64-bit, I did not see Sonar drivers for Vista during my testing.

>> Also, Reaper has been 64-bit since its inception a few years back. I'm currently using Reaper with my Vista x64-based laptop and it works great.

I mentioned to another poster, I contacted most of the audio companies and only a few responded. I would say that Cubase it much more well known.

>> As for hardware, RME and M-Audio have had 64-bit drivers for months now, and even M-Audio (which does have its downfalls) makes better hardware than that Roland interface used in the article.

That may be true, but the Roland set up worked well in my test environment with other Roland gear. I disagree that there is an M-Audio component that is obviously better than the one I used.

>> For the hardware, that low-end dual core may be fine for light recording, but quads are so cheap these days that there's no point in going lower. Could have also gone with a lower-end GPU, as there's not much needed for a DAW...Good intention, bad execution.[/citation]

The piece was intended to guide readers through my experience setting up a DAW. Once you get into quad-core, you will also be dealing with noise issues from the PC. Maybe they are easy for you to solve, but the CPU I chose makes it easier.
 
[citation][nom]kentlowt[/nom]Even though 64 bit has been around for a while there are still too many drivers lacking and that are a work in progress.

I agree, but the goal was to find gear that does work well with 64-bit. The caution is a good idea, because there are a lot of gotchas that come up -- esp. with that one drum machine you just have to use that only works with 32-bit.

>> One thing that was not taken into account is that you should have a secondary audio interface to run all the windows noises through so they are not happening through your audio interface. There is nothing worse than a dialog box going "BING" through your $2k plus studio monitors at a loud level.[/citation]

That is a good point. We should all be familiar with back-up strategies, too.
 
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]>> what I find strange though, is the use of a non-real time OS for audio recording...So, while your hardware choices are excellent, you cripple your system by using an inappropriate system. [/citation]

Isn't it interesting though how you can use really top-end hardware like the Great River pre and it is plain to the average user? Someone figured out in the audio hardware business that really good doesn't need to be really complex. And, once the PC is built and loaded with Windows, people know how to use it. I think in the complexity of setting up a DAW for the first time, introducing a foreign OS is a bad idea.

Also, if there are gotchas with Vista 64-bit, look out if you use Linux. I want to be able to mix and match components easily -- add a new drum machine, a mixer, new software, etc. that comes out. In Linux, that *usually means waiting for a Linux driver or adding overhead and complexity. You might say, just do this or just do this. But, anytime you add more steps than - open the box, use the included CD, etc. it gets complex.

I will also be the first to admit I am not an audio engineer. I'm a musician first, then a writer, then someone who built a DAW. I wanted a setup that works for creating music first. If Linux gets in the way of creating the music, it is not as good a tool. It is like -- yes, an electric car is technically better, but crap if it doesn't pose a lot of problems on a long road trip.
 
[citation][nom]L337_DAW_enthusiast[/nom]>> This is actually my area of expertise, I don't feel that alot of these choices are very good....

I am not saying this sarcastically -- than k you for posting because I want to hear from the people who do this for a living.

>> That CPU is a tad underpowered, my last 2 DAWs have been quads, any quad ever made is sufficient for audio, they're not power hungry or loud if they're running less than 50% load... That CPU is decent, but you could actually max it out in a big project with lots of plugins.

I didn't want to go with quad or anything that would create heat headaches. Yes, you can counterbalance them, but only by adding more steps to the process.

>> Much less, why do you need the uber-overclocking heatsink for a 45w CPU?

This was the one TT recommend for the case. May be overkill, but the truth is the HSF runs whisper quiet and was easy to install

>> Besides, 64bit DAWs aren't ready for primetime yet, 64bit still gotten very little support from plugin vendors... It only makes sense if you have a crap-load of RAM installed, and will actually use it for stuff like massively layered multisampled pianos, etc... I run ridiculously large projects, and barely exceed 1gb of RAM useage for my DAW's process in task manager, not even enough to justify using the /3G boot switch... Any quad ever made, 4gb of ram and 32bit is more than good enough for 99.9% of the audio world....

A few people have commented about 64-bit. This was the goal of the article. It is not "everyone should always use 64-bit" because you are right, there is lack of plug-in support. However, 64-bit has more advantages than just access to more memory. It does run a little faster (maybe 10%, not the twice as fast that some people think) and can handle larger chunks of data. In my experience, with a 32-bit and 64-bit literally running side by side, the 64-bit processed audio more smoothly.


[/citation]
 
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]>> Tom is really going out on a limb this time. If you want reviews that you can trust, you'll need to go to a site that is more qualified for the job. "I'm not sure if there's any benefit" is not something I want to hear if I'm building a DAW.

Not sure where I said that phrase, can you post it in context?

>> First of all, much of this information is either inaccurate or just plain irrelevant. Let me see a show of hands from the Audio Engineers in here that actually use a Roland SonicCell for their recordings.... anyone?

The point of the article was to use 64-bit drivers. If you know of a lot of audio interfaces that use 64-bit drivers for Vista, please post the links here.

>> On another note, you can take advantage of the 64-bit audio mix engine in Sonar 8 with a 32-bit system. Unless you have stupid amounts of RAM and you know how to really tweak windows vista (barf), then you're only making problems worse for yourself by using a 64-bit OS.

There are more benefits to 64-bit than just access to a lot of RAM. There is a wider memory window for data throughput, and 64-bit is a hair faster.


 
[citation][nom]wotan56[/nom]>> Audio recording on a PC? Fail. a Mac has far better software support for Pro Audio applications. Far better. Plus it's already fully 64 bit - no guessing game as to whether or not a piece of hardware will work, or if the drivers are 64 bit or not.Further, they are whisper quiet from the factory, have all the necessary firewire ports already, and OS X has a far better audio driver stack implementation than Windows could ever dream of.Heck, even Linux is a better choice than Windows for pro audio applications lol!! Several pro audio vendors have released their apps on Linux now, and even sell Linux-based recording stations.[/citation]

One of the main issues with a Mac is just cost. I'd probably use one if I could afford it. Total cost on a homebuilt PC like this is going to be roughly half the Mac you would likely need.
 
[citation][nom]gufz[/nom]this is all wrong you guys. i've been waiting a long time for toms's to take a little care of systems built for pro audio and recording studios and this isn't that at all.please, use some REAL audio interfaces, you can't play a rig whit 13ms of lag and you can get 2 ms whitout any glitches. It's not about windows audio subsystem, is abuot the ASIO drivers of the audio interface. you can use a little information there.you could also give some benchs related for example, to do an audio mixdown in cubase, and how much time it takes in a phenom, c2d, i7, etc.please take it seriously. use people who really work whit DAWsthanks for everythingAugustowww.mclrecords.com[/citation]

Sorry, did not have time to do everything related to audio -- those benchmarks do sound like a good idea, but the primary benchmark is measuring latency because it tells you if there is a hardware or software glitch.
 
[citation][nom]jeffunit[/nom]It is odd that the author uses "Monster instrument, microphone, and speaker cables". Though the stuff does work, it is quite expensive compared to its 'quality'.[/citation]

It is what I had access to, but you're right there are other options.


[citation][nom]jeffunit[/nom]I am quite familiar with 32 and 64 bit hardware and software, and if anything, 64 bit systems will tend to be a tiny percent slower than 32 bit systems, though the difference is likely to be insignificant. If the author has measured less latency with a 64 bit system, then I suspect something is seriously broken.[/citation]

Every expert I have talked to has said 64-bit has a wider path for memory, runs a bit faster, and can access a lot more RAM. So in the world of audio recording, starting out by choosing gear that does 64-bit is wise because it means more and more plug-ins and software will support it. Many of the latest notebooks I have seen run 64-bit Vista.



 
[citation][nom]Corporate_goon[/nom]This is an interesting article but it's riddled with mistakes and odd recommendations.For example, plenty of DAWs support a 64bit environment. I have two installed on my system right now - Cakewalk Sonar and Reaper.[/citation]

Sorry, that is just not true. There are a small handful of audio apps that support 64-bit. Maybe you mean 64-bit XP? Presonus started shipping 64-bit just recently but not in time for this piece.
 
[citation][nom]Corporate_goon[/nom]Sorry for the stream of posts. You don't even have to click Drivers on emu's site. "64 bit drivers" is actually listed right on the front page.[/citation]

Have you tested that interface? Because I tested it quite a bit and it definitely does not work very well with Vista 64-bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom