flexiblemile
Registered User
Join date: Oct 2012
2,094 IQ
#1
The other day I was explaining to someone why they put RAM in video cards and it struck me that they could use pretty much the same approach in higher end audio interfaces (or even in lower ones)

We don't always have the money to get a super high end PC but more often than not, people will put a decent chunk of change in a relatively decent audio interface.

I know that RAM is less important for audio than video but there are still some people out there with bargain bin computers and they would really benefit from this

Maybe there's something I'm not understanding but it seems that putting even 1G of ram in a sound card would be super helpful to people with low end PCs or laptops.

So yeah, what am I misunderstanding here?
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#2
What you're missing is the transfer rate of a USB port (or Firewire port). USB2.0 (which is just starting to become common in interfaces) has a maximum transfer rate of 480MB/s and if you've ever used a flash drive, you'll know that realistically you'll get about 30MB/s. A decent hard drive should get about 100MB/s, which means that it is faster to use the hard drive as virtual memory than it is to use some form of USB memory.
Cavalcade
razor sharp
Join date: Jul 2011
1,942 IQ
#3
Easy. The connection between the interface and the CPU is hella slower than the CPU and the on-board system RAM. The CPU has a whole instruction set just for using system RAM directly. To use external USB devices like an interface, on the other hand, it has to rely on slower software, namely the BIOS and USB drivers. There are more layers between the CPU and interface anyway; the USB driver has its own chip (or even card) on the motherboard, and yeah it would just generally be a pain in the ass and wouldn't be worth it performance-wise. Plus, like chatterbox272 said, there's a bottleneck in the connection itself.

Now, in most cases, interfaces do have their own processor, which can handle basic audio-related tasks instead of the CPU. It has its own RAM that's separate from the system RAM (this is also how graphics cards work). But it can't handle things like virtual instruments, since they run in the system, and need access to the operating system (which is in the system RAM) and hard disk (which needs drivers, which are in the system RAM). And those are what takes up the most memory in digital audio.
Last edited by Cavalcade at Apr 25, 2013,
flexiblemile
Registered User
Join date: Oct 2012
2,094 IQ
#4
Hum, all of this makes sense. Could this become more feasible when USB3 becomes more generalized?


Quote by Cavalcade

Now, in most cases, interfaces do have their own processor, which can handle basic audio-related tasks instead of the CPU. It has its own RAM that's separate from the system RAM


Could you show me an example of this? I never saw processor speed or ram mentionned in interface descriptions
MatrixClaw
UG God
Join date: Nov 2006
10,723 IQ
#5
They do, its called DSP and Pro Tools HD, Metric Halo and UAD systems utilize it to run plugins.
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.





www.SanctityStudios.com
flexiblemile
Registered User
Join date: Oct 2012
2,094 IQ
#6
Quote by MatrixClaw
They do, its called DSP and Pro Tools HD, Metric Halo and UAD systems utilize it to run plugins.



copied from wikipedia:

Digital signal processing (DSP) is the mathematical manipulation of an information signal to modify or improve it in some way. It is characterized by the representation of discrete time, discrete frequency, or other discrete domain signals by a sequence of numbers or symbols and the processing of these signals. Digital signal processing and analog signal processing are subfields of signal processing. DSP includes subfields like: audio and speech signal processing, sonar and radar signal processing, sensor array processing, spectral estimation, statistical signal processing, digital image processing, signal processing for communications, control of systems, biomedical signal processing, seismic data processing, etc.


I hope I don't sound sarcastic, but how is this anything like RAM?
Cavalcade
razor sharp
Join date: Jul 2011
1,942 IQ
#7
Quote by flexiblemile
copied from wikipedia:



I hope I don't sound sarcastic, but how is this anything like RAM?

Well, what do you use RAM for in digital audio?
DisarmGoliath
Disarms Goliaths
Join date: Dec 2008
1,391 IQ
#8
Quote by flexiblemile
copied from wikipedia:



I hope I don't sound sarcastic, but how is this anything like RAM?

You're misunderstanding him.

DSP itself refers to the act of carrying out 'processing' on 'digital signals', but Matrix is talking about DSP chips which act as a form of external processing power (or RAM) to take some of the heat off the computer.

The problem with what you're suggesting is that it would increase the cost of audio interfaces and there isn't really a need for it for most people - Pro Tools HD has had to adapt and include native versions now, because computer technology is evolving far faster than Avid would be able to convince users to keep upgrading to new versions of their hardware to continue running Pro Tools HD.

Basically, it is far easier to put the onus on the consumer to upgrade their PC/get a new one to keep up with technology and have a machine of a high enough spec. to carry out audio production at the desired level. This works well because most off-the-shelf PC's of today are more than capable of hobby/bedroom-level audio production, and most people have a fairly recent (last few years) computer at home, or can get one for relatively cheap.

Audio technology is driven as much by innovation and necessity as it is by marketability.
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
flexiblemile
Registered User
Join date: Oct 2012
2,094 IQ
#9
Quote by Cavalcade
Well, what do you use RAM for in digital audio?



well I figured it was to load VSTs, plugins, the audio files themselves etc... I would have figured that the manipulation and processing of the sound would have gone to the processor instead?

Quote by DisarmGoliath
You're misunderstanding him.

DSP itself refers to the act of carrying out 'processing' on 'digital signals', but Matrix is talking about DSP chips which act as a form of external processing power (or RAM) to take some of the heat off the computer.



gotcha!


I understand what you're saying and it makes sense to keep it that way. I suppose if you're going to start packaging things into your audio interface, you'd just be transforming it into a multitrack recorder
Last edited by flexiblemile at Apr 25, 2013,
Aralingh
Intelligent person
Join date: Mar 2012
301 IQ
#10
Quote by flexiblemile
well I figured it was to load VSTs, plugins, the audio files themselves etc... I would have figured that the manipulation and processing of the sound would have gone to the processor instead?


gotcha!


I understand what you're saying and it makes sense to keep it that way. I suppose if you're going to start packaging things into your audio interface, you'd just be transforming it into a multitrack recorder


You need a lot of ram to do that. In the tracks I write I use up to 6GB of RAM for just the VSTi, and I haven't even attempted to write really big scores.
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#11
Also another thing to point out is that the added cost wouldn't really be worth it. Even if they did put lets say 1GB of ram in an interface, that would probably push the price up lets say $50 (I actually think it would be more, but $50 will serve my explanation). If I went to my local computer store with $50 I could easily get 4GB of desktop DDR3 RAM.

Also in response to your USB3.0 comment, remember I was talking about using a Hard Drive as RAM, like when your system runs out of memory. RAM is way faster than Hard Drives ever will be. So even if it was somehow cost effective, it would only be beneficial when you run out of RAM anyway, so maybe it'll let you render at 0.6x realtime instead of 0.5x realtime.
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#12
Now, I may be off on this but wouldn't it be better to have a faster CPU versus more RAM? Outside of Sample Libraries, aren't most plugins more CPU intensive than RAM intensive?
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
Aralingh
Intelligent person
Join date: Mar 2012
301 IQ
#13
Quote by lockwolf
Now, I may be off on this but wouldn't it be better to have a faster CPU versus more RAM? Outside of Sample Libraries, aren't most plugins more CPU intensive than RAM intensive?


They're both, really.

Getting a faster CPU is a much more complicated task than getting more RAM though.
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#14
Quote by Aralingh
They're both, really.

Getting a faster CPU is a much more complicated task than getting more RAM though.


If you're talking desktop, yeah its way easier. If you're talking Laptop, its a pain in the ass either way (Yes, you can buy Mobile CPUs).

Even looking at my sessions, I'd opt for a more powerful CPU than RAM. With Steven Slate Drums bypassed, on one of my 40 track sessions (Comp + EQ on most plus a few delay & reverb channels) I'm only running 1gb of my 14gb of RAM (Pro Tools 9 which usually takes 1/2 a gig with nothing open) but I'm using about 25% of my CPU (Core i5 3570k) on it. If I had a choice, I'd probably want a faster CPU than RAM.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
Aralingh
Intelligent person
Join date: Mar 2012
301 IQ
#15
Quote by lockwolf
If you're talking desktop, yeah its way easier. If you're talking Laptop, its a pain in the ass either way (Yes, you can buy Mobile CPUs).

Even looking at my sessions, I'd opt for a more powerful CPU than RAM. With Steven Slate Drums bypassed, on one of my 40 track sessions (Comp + EQ on most plus a few delay & reverb channels) I'm only running 1gb of my 14gb of RAM (Pro Tools 9 which usually takes 1/2 a gig with nothing open) but I'm using about 25% of my CPU (Core i5 3570k) on it. If I had a choice, I'd probably want a faster CPU than RAM.


Depends on what you use.

In writing scores as I do, a single track, if it's a high-end library with a lot of variation and control, can take up to a GB of ram, and that's just one instrument. I do consider CPU to be more important, but you need both really.
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#16
Quote by Aralingh
Depends on what you use.

In writing scores as I do, a single track, if it's a high-end library with a lot of variation and control, can take up to a GB of ram, and that's just one instrument. I do consider CPU to be more important, but you need both really.


Oh definitely. If I had Steven Slate Drums active, I'd be running close to 3gb of RAM in my session. I've just found for typical rock/metal sessions that don't have a ton on virtual instruments, my sessions need my CPU more than my RAM.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
TwoPlusTwo
Tab Contributor
Join date: Feb 2013
168 IQ
#17
Don't worry, I'm sure the future will bring forth some awesome gear for home recorders.
It's pretty good now, but it can only get better.
MatrixClaw
UG God
Join date: Nov 2006
10,723 IQ
#18
Quote by chatterbox272
Also another thing to point out is that the added cost wouldn't really be worth it. Even if they did put lets say 1GB of ram in an interface, that would probably push the price up lets say $50 (I actually think it would be more, but $50 will serve my explanation). If I went to my local computer store with $50 I could easily get 8GB of desktop DDR3 RAM.

Fixed

Seriously though, Pro Tools HD was the first to really do something like this effectively, but as computers have become more powerful, they've had to adapt and release HD Native. Taking the load off the computer doesn't hold as much merit anymore with as cheap, and powerful, as computers have become. I built my current PC for a little over $800 and it's got the top of the line Z77 Intel Core i7 with 32 GB of RAM, an nVidia GTX 660 Ti, a 120 GB SSD and a 1 TB HDD. Complete overkill for most audio applications, and more than enough to mix 100+ tracks, with plenty of plugins. The cost of a basic Pro Tools HDX system? $11,000.
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.





www.SanctityStudios.com
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#19
Quote by MatrixClaw
Fixed

Not down here I'm afraid. Even at MSY (the closest we get to fair international pricing, but at the cost of they never honor warranty) I can't get 8GB below $60
MatrixClaw
UG God
Join date: Nov 2006
10,723 IQ
#20
Quote by chatterbox272
Not down here I'm afraid. Even at MSY (the closest we get to fair international pricing, but at the cost of they never honor warranty) I can't get 8GB below $60

Lame

I bought 8 GB of Corsair Vengeance for like $52 the other day. Put it in my old computer and then sold it for like $150 more than I paid for all the parts and software, like a boss.
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.





www.SanctityStudios.com
ElliottJeffries
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2013
223 IQ
#21
I just got Pro Tools for the first time and found most of it's processing is through the cpu. In fact, I was having audio issues until I could find which processes were interfering with my Pro Tools audio performance. This meant optimizing my computer performance settings and disabling everything I wasn't using.
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#22
^That's why most DAW's recomend you use a dedicated audio machine... especially for something like ProTools
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
T4D
30 guitars and counting..
Join date: Apr 2005
368 IQ
#23
Quote by ElliottJeffries
I just got Pro Tools for the first time and found most of it's processing is through the cpu. In fact, I was having audio issues until I could find which processes were interfering with my Pro Tools audio performance. This meant optimizing my computer performance settings and disabling everything I wasn't using.


hmm.. you must have a older type Computer I have a i7 and I don't think I've seen PT10 working over 40% usage . the only time I have seen it over 40% is when i have a plugin error ( most of the time it's amp farm) but I only work with about 30 or 40 tracks on a song and I don't have many virtual instruments only 3 or 4 max so maybe if your working with alot more then that, it may get to higher ??

Ram issues are another thing, I have 16 gigs but since PT 10 is only 32 bit it's limited is 3.5 gigs before Mem messages start coming up.. come on version 11 !!
Last edited by T4D at May 3, 2013,
Arch1119
UG's Wii
Join date: Jul 2007
348 IQ
#24
DSP


Learn about it...


'nuff said
ESP Eclipse Standard Series W/ PRS Santana II Pickups
PRS SE Soapbar II
Peavey 5150 120w Head
Avatar 412 Traditional Cab(v30's+G12H30's)
Malekko, Rocktron, T-Rex and MXR/Dunlop pedals
ElliottJeffries
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2013
223 IQ
#25
Quote by Arch1119
DSP


Learn about it...


'nuff said

Quite a useless comment. It sounds like you're trying to prove something without making any real effort to engage. All you're doing is pointing out limitations in your communication skills.
Arch1119
UG's Wii
Join date: Jul 2007
348 IQ
#26
Quote by ElliottJeffries
Quite a useless comment. It sounds like you're trying to prove something without making any real effort to engage. All you're doing is pointing out limitations in your communication skills.


an obvious troll is obvious...
ESP Eclipse Standard Series W/ PRS Santana II Pickups
PRS SE Soapbar II
Peavey 5150 120w Head
Avatar 412 Traditional Cab(v30's+G12H30's)
Malekko, Rocktron, T-Rex and MXR/Dunlop pedals
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#27
Quote by Arch1119
an obvious troll is obvious...

Why yes you are. You haven't provided any useful additions to the thread (which should really be dead by now anyway, I don't know why it keeps coming back up).
ElliottJeffries
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2013
223 IQ
#28
OK, if this thread is dead, thanks for reminding us. Now go away.

DSP digital signal processing. I'm assuming the poster who said "nuff said" is talking about adding sound cards with plugins to your computer. I've never done this (yet) but right away I'm thinking "how much is this going to cost?" Well, I saw one on Sweetwater for $299 to $1899 on the low end, then Avid's cards start at $6999.

I'm wondering how the plugins compare to Pro Tools on the Universal Audio UAD-2, the least expensive. Otherwise it may be better to upgrade the processor. If your motherboard can handle it. Or make the best of what you have.