#1
k i want to turn my current pc into a daw. what do i need to do to optimize it.
its a compaq presario
756 mb ram
80 gb hard drive
external 500bg usb drive
intel celeron proccesor 2.4 ghz
OS. Windows Xp

thats all i can remember of the top of my head

i want to run for now my toneport ux2 with pod farm
sonar 4
ez drummer with DFH
Finale 2008


i want to record at least 3 simultanoues tracks
and do the drumming with ezdrummer.

ok. the max the ram that my comp can handle is 1gb.
besides that and a new comp is there anything else i can do? keep only the neccesary software and erase all the other stuff? i cant buy a new comp at this moment.
Last edited by metalrhoads at Mar 14, 2009,
#3
way better CPU, at least a dual core
and max out your RAM
Warning: The above post may contain lethal levels of radiation, sharp objects and sexiness.
Proceed with extreme caution!
#4
Quote by justinb904
way better CPU, at least a dual core
and max out your RAM


You don't need a dual core (although that's pretty much all you can get for desktops now) I've recorded 6 simulatanious tracks on my old 3 GHz P4.


to the TS, I would suggest getting a better computer TBH. At least max out the RAM.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#5
I agree with Kid_Thorazine, you don't need a Dual Core. The processor speed on this particular computer isn't the best but it'll do, RAM is a lot more important (in most cases). If you're planning to run EZ Drummer with any kind of effects, meaning multiple outputs from EZ Drummer, then RAM is definitely essential; 2 Gb minimum. Might want to consider a second, larger hard drive dedicated to audio (the external USB one you have probably isn't fast enough for simultaneous playback and recording of multiple tracks).

In the end it is usually better to buy a new computer that's completely dedicated to audio recording even though you have XP on this machine which, overall, is a more stable OS than Vista for recording apps.
#6
I would like to bring the "mhz myth" up (again) at this point.
Although its a celeron, so it's pretty much fail in all aspects..


My advice? Take a **** in the floppy disc drive! (I'm assuming it has a floppy drive seeing as it's a celeron!)
Epiphone Elitist SG (Serious)
Tokai Silver Star
Epiphone Dot
Epiphone Les Paul
Washburn J28SCEDL
Washburn J12S

G.A.S List

JCM600 (Yes a 600..)
#7


Your computer is fine for what you want to do, and don't let anyone tell you different.

We did our album with a CELERON-based PC running Windows XP. Guess what.... at 1.7Ghz!!

We recorded TEN tracks *simultaneously* for the bed tracks.

We had upwards to 36 tracks of 24-bit audio at 44.1 khz for most songs.

We had enough processor power left for all the effects and EQ we needed. (though we didn't go crazy with it... we didn't need to.)

The key, really, is to dedicate your computer as much to audio as you can, and avoid as much crap as possible otherwise.

At the time, I set mine up as a dual-boot... one for studio and one for other stuff. I have since gone, just as an experiment, to a single OS, and it was a mistake.

For your audio system, have only very basic internet (enough for basic things like looking something up, or registering software, etc.), and only audio and audio-related apps.

Also, get a separate physical drive for your audio. Don't just partition to get that second drive, and for goodness sake, don't try to stream your audio files to and from the same drive as the OS.

Here is a great article:
http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/11_nov/features/11_04/optimize_pcaudio.htm

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#8
Quote by axemanchris


We had upwards to 36 tracks of 24-bit audio at 44.1 khz for most songs.


CT


That is IMO not acceptable by modern standards, even with good anti-aliasing. and jumping 44.1 to 48 (or 96 which is fast becoming standard) will require a better processor. Other than that I agree with your comments on optimizing the computer systems.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#9
You should get an Intel Quad core... I should get one! That'd be so ****ing fast!
..I was watching my death.
#10
I dunno....

Rec.pro.audio - http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_thread/thread/cb26a5491c6f201e/5bb320c5a6811118?hl=en&q=sample+rate+44.1+96&lnk=ol&

I figure that my gear and my knowlege/experience is a *much* more limiting factor.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#11
Get a Solid State hard-drive just for recording and max out your RAM (4GB for 32bit systems). A dual or quad core isn't neccesary, my P4 3.60 GHz works great.
#12
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#13
God there's a lot of conflicting views here.

For starters, recording at 44.1khz is absolutely fine for doing basic demos or a simple homebrew album - and the chances are, half your audience are going to be listening to your tracks through the appalling low-bitrate compression of Myspace/Youtube anyway.

Also, you can do a hell of a lot with a basic rig - I'm using an ancient computer (1.8Ghz Athlon XP, 512MB SDRAM) for a lot of my recording and mixing, and although multiple inputs will bring it to its knees, I can still do tons. I've programmed tracks with EZDrummer and Addictive Drums plenty of times - Sonar's 'Freeze Synth' button will become your new best friend, believe me.
If you put as much time as possible into getting the mic'ing right while recording, you shouldn't have to strain your processor by 'fixing' everything with tons of effects plugins.


What you now need to do is get XP stripped down to the basics and running as smoothly as possible.
For example, try typing 'msconfig' on your computer's 'run' menu and look at the startup tab. Disable everything there (except possibly your antivirus if you're using the net) and next time you boot up it'll probably feel noticeably faster.
If you don't want to go the whole hog and format/reinstall windows, there's tons of other ways to speed that comp up. Here's a few links:

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htm
http://www.tweakxp.com/performance_tweaks.aspx
http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html
#14
Quote by kyle62
God there's a lot of conflicting views here.

For starters, recording at 44.1khz is absolutely fine for doing basic demos or a simple homebrew album - and the chances are, half your audience are going to be listening to your tracks through the appalling low-bitrate compression of Myspace/Youtube anyway...


I agree - most people can't tell the difference anyways as they're using MP3's on their Ipod... I've heard plenty of Pro sounding stuff done @ 44.1khz.
Now running an Eleven Rack with Pro Tools 10.3.3 - it's amazing and I'm having ball with it - worth every penny. PT 10 is tops IMO and the Eleven Rack is a work of art!
#15
Quote by axemanchris


Yeah here's my thoughts on this, for playback and whatnot, you're right it doesn't make that much of a difference. However, when using VSTis or any sort of DI amp simulation (or various other effects) it tends to make a very noticeable difference (to me, and most of the other people I've talked to that work a lot with VSTis and whatnot, for example a lot of people at a place like KVR Audio consider using anything below 48 KHz to be completely unacceptable)
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#16
44.1 to 48 is **** all difference.

44.1 to 96 is noticeable though. But not enough to warrant spending loads more cash to get it
I only use 96khz because I have the hardware for it, so I may aswell.
192khz though, is a completely different ball game. Proper Pro Tools HD rigs sound insanely good.


The difference between quality and "alright" D/A and A/D convertors makes HUGE amounts more difference at the same sample rate.
Epiphone Elitist SG (Serious)
Tokai Silver Star
Epiphone Dot
Epiphone Les Paul
Washburn J28SCEDL
Washburn J12S

G.A.S List

JCM600 (Yes a 600..)
#17
Quote by willieturnip

The difference between quality and "alright" D/A and A/D convertors makes HUGE amounts more difference at the same sample rate.


Absolutely. There are lots of forum discussions on 192khz, and the difference between that and 96khz amounts to a pissing contest. Okay, so you can record at 192khz.... big deal. What do you get out of it? It's like saying you have a microphone with a frequency response from 4hz to 45000 hz... yeah.... so??

My Delta 1010 goes up to 96khz. One advantage is that you get lower latency. Seeing as latency isn't an issue for me, and storage and processing can potentially be issues, I have tried, and can't justify the differences, of going to 96.

Maybe I'd notice it more if I was running Apogee or Lynx converters/interfaces with Avalon or SSL mic pres and stuff... but I'm not..... so I can't see going to 96khz.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#18
Quote by willieturnip
44.1 to 48 is **** all difference.

44.1 to 96 is noticeable though. But not enough to warrant spending loads more cash to get it


I actually notice a bigger difference between 44.1 and 48 than I do between 48 and 96 , and considering that 96 is is pretty much standard for most interfaces now (even some of the cheap ones) the price variation isn't that significant.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#19
Quote by Kid_Thorazine
I actually notice a bigger difference between 44.1 and 48 than I do between 48 and 96 , and considering that 96 is is pretty much standard for most interfaces now (even some of the cheap ones) the price variation isn't that significant.


Most people cannot even hear a damn difference from 48 to 96..alls your doing at that point is stressing your PC and making your file sizes a hell of alot larger.

I also recorded back in the day onto an athlon 2800+ chip,which was like 1.7 ghz with 768mb of ram onto the same harddrive as my OS...i had absolutly NO PROBLEMS. If you can get it sounding good on the way in...you wont need much on the PC side.

Sh*t in, equals sh*t out ! You can only polish a turd so much!.
Last edited by PsychomanZ at Mar 16, 2009,
#20
Quote by PsychomanZ
Most people cannot even hear a damn difference from 48 to 96..alls your doing at that point is stressing your PC and making your file sizes a hell of alot larger.



I can when I'm mixing, and that's pretty damn important, more so than what "most people" can hear.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm