Building a PC...for recording....

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:19 am

Hey everyone,

I am going to build a PC for recording. The type of recording i want to do is multitracking with a maximum of 24 tracks with not too many plug ins (whats "too many" anyways"?) going out of an interface or two.

I'm thinking of either MOTU 24i/o (running Sonar) or the echo interfaces that have 12 i/o each (also with Sonar)...whichever is best.

If anyone could give me some specs on motherboards, RAM, video cards, and all that mumbo jumbo that'd be great.

I'm confused as to if i should get a Dual Core Processor motherboard or Single. I've read that it doesn't run with windows XP (or at least doesn't run right) and windows vista has lots of problems since it's so new.

Just some suggetions/specs would really be appreciated (i'm lost here)

I do know that 2 Hard drives (7200rpm are best).

Thanks

cyantologist · Post by **cyantologist** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:55 am

I'm about to build myself a new computer.

I'm going with a pentium core 2 duo and a decent asus board. I'd recommend asus for a motherboard as they have a great reputation among the geekiest of computer geeks. Newegg.com is also a great site and the reviews on there are invaluable. I haven't heard anything against dual core processors for audio stuff so I'd like to see if anyone else here can shed some light on that.

Go with two 10,000 rpm drives if your budget allows. Use one for a system drive (only needs to be about 40 gigs) and have windows, your daw software, and all other huge programs like photoshop and stuff installed on that drive.

The other drive should be used for all your general storage and recording stuff.

I am also planning on skipping over vista and just buying an oem copy of windows xp. There's not really a huge difference except for the graphics and visual processing.

Also check out some sites like tweakxp.com and poke around google, you'll find tons of useful articles to optimize your computer for doing audio stuff.

Alex Netick · Post by **Alex Netick** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:43 am

It's been a while since I built a computer, but here goes. As I recall, there used to be people on the Sonar board who'd post the parts for their computers; you might want to check those specs out. If things haven't changed, you're either going to go AMD or Intel. Amd used to be cheaper, and ran hotter; Intel was usually 100 percent compatible with windows apps. There used to be a problem with chipsets on the motherboard -- Intel being the most compatible, Via as I recall having problems (that may have changed). The easiest thing would be to pick an Intel Motherboard, and an Intel CPU. Even a fairly rinky dink PC can handle 24 tracks without plugins. I've built 3 computers, and honestly, it's fun, but it doesn't really save you that much money, and it can be sort of a hassle.

Perranfulo wrote:Hey everyone,

I am going to build a PC for recording. The type of recording i want to do is multitracking with a maximum of 24 tracks with not too many plug ins (whats "too many" anyways"?) going out of an interface or two.

I'm thinking of either MOTU 24i/o (running Sonar) or the echo interfaces that have 12 i/o each (also with Sonar)...whichever is best.

If anyone could give me some specs on motherboards, RAM, video cards, and all that mumbo jumbo that'd be great.

I'm confused as to if i should get a Dual Core Processor motherboard or Single. I've read that it doesn't run with windows XP (or at least doesn't run right) and windows vista has lots of problems since it's so new.

Just some suggetions/specs would really be appreciated (i'm lost here)

I do know that 2 Hard drives (7200rpm are best).

Thanks

JASIII · Post by **JASIII** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:19 pm

I run Sonar and I would really recommend getting a video card that supports 2 monitors. Having the Track view and the Console view on two different screens is a godsend. I know you CAN do everything from the track view, but why if you don't have to? Having both screens right up there all the time can save a ton of time and mouse clicks.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:53 pm

Thanks for the replies everyone,

Alex, you were saying that it's not worth the hassle to build a computer? If anything I'd rather not build it. Do you know or recommend any computers? Places to buy?

Alex Netick · Post by **Alex Netick** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:11 pm

Back in the day, I remember my music computer vendors (who are now out of business due to the massive overhead in San Francisco), recommended Dells -- not the budget ones, but the Dimensions. I'd go on some of the Cubase/Sonar/whaver forums and see if anybody's using/recommending a particular model or brand. I remember some people even using servers, but it's been a long time.
Personally, I might build a computer just for the fun of it, though, but you're not really going to save that much money, or get any better of a computer. Most computer builders are operating on paper thin profit margins in order to compete, and they get parts alot cheaper than you or me, so you generally get a pretty good value. Back in the day, there were alot of problems with via chipsets on the motherboard (generally on budget pcs), but that may have changed.

Perranfulo wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone,

Alex, you were saying that it's not worth the hassle to build a computer? If anything I'd rather not build it. Do you know or recommend any computers? Places to buy?

GarryJ · Post by **GarryJ** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:42 am

I ordered parts to build a new Windows-based DAW last week, and after doing a lot of research, I'd suggest that, if you can afford it, you go for an Intel Q6600 quad-core CPU. It's not much more expensive than the better dual-core processors (I got it for ?160 delivered in the UK, I've seen it advertised for US$300) and it'll leave you in very good stead for the years to come, when multi-threaded software (which can take advantage of multiple-core CPUs) becomes more and more the norm. It really is an excellent price for what is a near bleeding-edge CPU. (Good article: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/ ... age41.html)

Avoid Vista for now, without a doubt. There's an excellent article here, which was written in January but is still relevant. XP can most definitely use all 4 cores in a quad-core processor, and so can Sonar, so if you do down the multi-core route XP will do everything you want it to.

It all depends on your budget. Originally I planned to spend ?250, but given the price of the quad-core and RAM at the moment, I ended up spending ?500 ($1000) in the hope that I won't have to upgrade again for several years, and that when I do upgrade it won't have to be the entire system.

JWL · Post by **JWL** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:45 am

Good advice here.

If you're going to build, I definitely second the recommendation to head over to the sonar forum. Good people and support there.

If you want to buy a machine, I'd personally go with a company that specializes in building DAWs.... one of the Sweetwater machines, or the other companies (don't remember any names just now.... there are a bunch).

8th_note · Post by **8th_note** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:50 am

I'm currently buying the parts for a new DAW computer. I'm trying to get the best price/performance ratio and here's what I've come up with:

Processor: I'm going with an AMD X2 6000 dual core. These are pretty darn fast and quite reasonable in price.

Motherboard: ASUS M2NPV-VM. This board has the NVidea chipset which has had good compatibility with audio applications. It also has a built in video card and 1394 which will save money.

Harddrives: I don't think that 10,000 rpm harddrives are beneficial for audio applications. Your harddrive is coasting when it's recording and playing audio tracks unless you're doing something like 24 tracks at 192khz. The modern 7200 drives will do just fine.

I'm a fan of building a computer from scratch because you know exactly what's in it and there's nothing on the harddrive except what you put there. It's actually more expensive to build your own these days but I guess I'll pay the premium to have exactly the parts I want in a DAW. I'm moving up from an Athlon 2200/ASUS/NVidea chipset combo that has performed flawlessly.

If this computer will be used for other things besides audio you might also consider getting a third harddrive and putting two operating systems on the computer. Use one drive/operating system for DAW only and use the other one for everything else. That way you don't contaminate your DAW drive with junk that has nothing to do with recording.

b3groover · Post by **b3groover** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:06 am

There's is no reason to use an expensive 10k RPM harddrive as a system drive. There is barely any reason to use one as an audio drive considering the bandwidth of SATA these days. Save your money, buy a really reliable 7200rpm drive (or better yet two in a RAID array) and don't worry about it.

I agree with the recommendation of ASUS. Epox is another very good manufacturer. I am extremely happy with my Epox board. I also have a computer built in 2000 around an Asus that is still going strong. You can't go wrong with Asus or Epox.

Windows XP has no problems with dual-core that I know of. My machine is a dual-core AMD. When I built it the dual-core Intels were too expensive. But it would be a toss-up as to what I would use now. AMD just came out with some very very reasonably priced quad-core chips (Phenom?)

Stay one generation behind the curve and save money and headaches. Spend money on a really good power supply, like a Seasonic. Not only are they rock solid stable and reliable, but they are also extremely quiet.

Video card: Dual output is a must and fanless is a must. No need for anything crazy. I spent $50 on my video card and it has 256mb on onboard DDR RAM. Plenty to run audio programs and not mess with the CPU.

Spend money on a good case. Antec makes some cases specifically for building quiet(er) computers. Mine is an Antec Solo and it is very very quiet. It is better than my laptop.

Don't skimp on the RAM. Cheap RAM will be unreliable and will cause you a lot of headaches. Get the best you can and the most you can afford. 1GB of great RAM is far better than 4GB of cheap shit.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:04 pm

Thanks for the tips!

Well, i'm still not certain as to go the dual core or single core route. Because i think i might have read (maybe misinterpreted) that DAW software isn't designed or doesn't support multiple core processing. I think i read somewhere that cakewalk is barely the first to design software to run on dual core crap..AH! i don't know!

Here is a list i'm making and feel free to suggest and change it up:

Motherboard: Intel-D965GFEKR
Processor: Intel-631 Pentium 4 3.0Hhz 800FSB
Hard Drives: SATA 160GB 8MB and SATA 250GB 16MB (both 7200rpm)
Video Card: Radeon X1550 256MB (thats what Sweetwater uses in all their Creation Stations)
Memory: Kingston(?) DDR400-1GB(just 1GB for now)
Software: Windows XP Home Edition (tweaked by me?)

Let me know...please...

b3groover · Post by **b3groover** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:09 pm

Perranfulo wrote:Thanks for the tips!

Well, i'm still not certain as to go the dual core or single core route. Because i think i might have read (maybe misinterpreted) that DAW software isn't designed or doesn't support multiple core processing. I think i read somewhere that cakewalk is barely the first to design software to run on dual core crap..AH! i don't know!

I know for a fact that Cubase supports multiple processors. I am 99.9% sure that Sonar does, too. And if you're using any plugins at all, having more processing power is always a good thing. And dual cores are so ridiculously cheap that it would be silly not to get one.

I'm looking to upgrade my machine to a 3.0gHz AMD dual-core (it's currently 2gHz) and the RAM to 4gb.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:55 pm

I have an Older Version of Sonar (Sonar 3 Producer Edition). But DAW software isn't too expensive i guess...

b3groover · Post by **b3groover** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:14 am

Upgrades are inexpensive and you'll probably upgrade the software in the future, right? Why not have a machine that can take advantage of that?

getreel · Post by **getreel** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:03 pm

Tracktion 3 supports dual core. I think most of the major DAWs do now.

Message Board

Building a PC...for recording....

Building a PC...for recording....

Re: Building a PC...for recording....

Who is online