Hello Group!! Novice Question here. I'm Building a new PC and will use Cubase Studio 4 mainly as recording software . What you guys recommend spec-wise CPU (which RAM SOUNDCARD MOTHERBOARD OS ( I have XPsp2 at the moment but will upgrade to Vista home 32 bit) Any Peripheral that will shoulder CPU usage (VST-wise) Thanks for all the Inputs!
On Apr 1, 3:04 pm, DM <> wrote: > Hello Group!! Novice Question here. > > I'm Building a new PC and will use Cubase Studio 4 mainly as recording > software . > What you guys recommend spec-wise > > CPU Fastest Quad you can afford > RAM The most you can afford > SOUNDCARD This depends on what you are recording, how portable you want the recording interface to be and how many ins and outs you will need. For an actual PCI soundcard look into the Delta 10-10 as a good start. However, there are a number of Firewire and USB2 audio interfaces that are more feature filled (some even including DSP effects), some built into analog mixing boards. > MOTHERBOARD Intel > OS ( I have XPsp2 at the moment but will upgrade to Vista home 32 bit) I'm still running XPsp2...but then, I still run SX3 > Any Peripheral that will shoulder CPU usage (VST-wise) UAD-2 Quad...a pricey PCI-E DSP card but worth every penny (you can pick and choose any extra effects, beyond the eight classics offered). But really if you have a good pair of processors and lots of memory, you shouldn't run into too many problems even with higher track counts...use sends. > > Thanks for all the Inputs! HTH, CS
"DM" <> wrote in message news:... > Hello Group!! Novice Question here. > > I'm Building a new PC and will use Cubase Studio 4 mainly as recording > software . > What you guys recommend spec-wise > > CPU (which > RAM > SOUNDCARD > MOTHERBOARD > OS ( I have XPsp2 at the moment but will upgrade to Vista home 32 bit) > Any Peripheral that will shoulder CPU usage (VST-wise) > > > Thanks for all the Inputs! > > For any new PC based DAW system, you should at least consider a system built around the Intel Core i7 920 or better CPU. These are currently offering very good performance over and above the standard Core 2 dual and quad core ranges, but there is a price premium. Whatever, I would certainly always go with an Intel Core 2 dual core or quad core at the very least. the E6600 dual core or Q6600 quad core chips were very good value for money and overclockable too. The Q6600 is still available at around £176 GBP inc VAT and I'd probably opt for one of these if on a tight budget. I nearly always use either Gigabyte or Asus motherboards with an appropriate Intel chipset and have found both manufacturer's products to be well made and reliable. For an i7 based system you'd want to make use of the triple channel memory bus it offers, so you'd need 3GB in the form of 3 x 1GB DDR3 modules (be ultra aware of the voltage limitation of 1.5v for RAM when selecting modules for use in an i7 system) for any 32 bit OS, or preferably 6GB (or more) in the form of 3 x 2GB for Vista 64 bit. Your system can't access more than 4GB of RAM inclusive of graphics RAM if you select Windows XP or Vista 32 bit OS's. For me Vista 64bit is the only logical choice for a DAW at the moment, with the caveat that not all hardware is Vista 64 compliant and not all software is Vista 64 aware, although it simply works as a 32bit application via Windows on Windows 32 bit support in Vista 64 in most cases. Why? Because to access more system RAM than about 3.2GB max you really have to go 64 bit. If you need to stick to XP as your OS because of budgetary restrictions, that's fine, but I'd recommend you go for the best intel based system that you can afford and if you can stretch to an i7 based system I don't think you'd regret it. You could opt for an AMD based system too. I've built plenty in the past, and there's nothing wrong with AMD at all, however, I found that where an Intel based system would pretty much always work reliably straight away, AMD systems generally took a little longer to tweak before becoming totally stable, so when it comes to a DAW I now always follow the Intel route. In terms of an audio interface, there are loads to choose from. It depends what you need the audio interface to do for you. Are you ever likely to need to record more than two audio sources simultaneously? Are you likely to need your system to be portable - i.e. use a multi-channel audio interface with a different PC or laptop? What sort of audio latency do you need to achieve? I would not recommend using any Creative Labs product for serious audio recording because their products have never been great with regard to audio/MIDI timing and latency, and although they may now offer something better, I haven't looked into it recently. I would recommend that you consider suitable products by any of the bigger name manufacturers. E.g: M-Audio, MOTU, Tascam, RME, Alesis, Edirol, Yamaha, Echo Audio. If you're never going to need to use the audio interface with another system, you could look at PCI or PCI-e based cards that mount internally, but otherwise you have the choice of either external Firewire 400, Firewire 800, USB 1.1 or USB 2.0 devices. Whilst USB 2.0 technically provides a higher bandwidth of 480Mb/s than Firewire 400's 400Mb/s, in practice Firewire is generally the better performer - often because USB 2.0 is subject to on board hubs splitting the available bandwidth between USB devices. Firewire 800 devices are not so plentiful as Firewire 400 devices. Personally I would start by looking at firewire 400 multi-channel devices as I like to be able to record a whole band in one pass, but that's niot necessarily the way everyone likes to work. You could look at the MOTU Traveler (latest incarnation is the Mk 3) which provides Firewire 400 connectivity and 64 bit Vista support as well as ADAT support, which will increase the available number of inputs from the standard 8 to 16 with a suitable interface such as the Behringer Ultragain ADA8000 Mic Pre-amp, or the similarly specified M-Audio FW1814. Tascam offer what was a reasonably priced (last year) USB 2.0 multi-channel interface ain the form of the Tascam US1641 . The problem is that a lot of prices have shot up due to the current economic climate. You may only want something with two audio channels in and out in which case maybe look at M-Audio, Edirol. Tascam. Essentially, it's all about getting the best you can afford for the money you have available, and there is a fair amount of choice out there.
Last summer I built a PC with vista that works very well, up to now at least, costing 615 Euro. I use it with a MAudio1010 which I already had. It is a Asus p5qpro with an intel quad 6600 complete with vista 64 ultimate and 4 Gb, to be upsized to 8 soon. I run Cubase 4.5.2 and mainly NI instruments. Everythings runs fine, except NI Kontakt 3 ui and B4II freezes in VST mode in C4.5 after a while, and Battery 3 doesn't run at all as VST. S o I restart C4.5 every time I have to change settings in K3, and I use the BAttery 3 sets in Kontakt3 which is not very convenient. The drivers for the 1010 are beta drivers, already since September but function without any problem for me. I can run a Cubase piece with at least 3 Guitarrigs 3 64 bit, 16 kontakt instruments with convolution reverbs and still be at less than 20% CPU load. The PC is also used for "general" household purposes (no games other than music however). Gerard The drivers for the MAudiocard "nickm" <> wrote in message news:49d61801$0$19210$... > > "DM" <> wrote in message > news:... >> Hello Group!! Novice Question here. >> >> I'm Building a new PC and will use Cubase Studio 4 mainly as recording >> software . >> What you guys recommend spec-wise >> >> CPU (which >> RAM >> SOUNDCARD >> MOTHERBOARD >> OS ( I have XPsp2 at the moment but will upgrade to Vista home 32 bit) >> Any Peripheral that will shoulder CPU usage (VST-wise) >> >> >> Thanks for all the Inputs! >> >> > > For any new PC based DAW system, you should at least consider a system > built around the Intel Core i7 920 or better CPU. These are currently > offering very good performance over and above the standard Core 2 dual and > quad core ranges, but there is a price premium. Whatever, I would > certainly always go with an Intel Core 2 dual core or quad core at the > very least. the E6600 dual core or Q6600 quad core chips were very good > value for money and overclockable too. The Q6600 is still available at > around £176 GBP inc VAT and I'd probably opt for one of these if on a > tight budget. I nearly always use either Gigabyte or Asus motherboards > with an appropriate Intel chipset and have found both manufacturer's > products to be well made and reliable. > > For an i7 based system you'd want to make use of the triple channel memory > bus it offers, so you'd need 3GB in the form of 3 x 1GB DDR3 modules (be > ultra aware of the voltage limitation of 1.5v for RAM when selecting > modules for use in an i7 system) for any 32 bit OS, or preferably 6GB (or > more) in the form of 3 x 2GB for Vista 64 bit. Your system can't access > more than 4GB of RAM inclusive of graphics RAM if you select Windows XP or > Vista 32 bit OS's. > > For me Vista 64bit is the only logical choice for a DAW at the moment, > with the caveat that not all hardware is Vista 64 compliant and not all > software is Vista 64 aware, although it simply works as a 32bit > application via Windows on Windows 32 bit support in Vista 64 in most > cases. Why? Because to access more system RAM than about 3.2GB max you > really have to go 64 bit. > > If you need to stick to XP as your OS because of budgetary restrictions, > that's fine, but I'd recommend you go for the best intel based system that > you can afford and if you can stretch to an i7 based system I don't think > you'd regret it. > > You could opt for an AMD based system too. I've built plenty in the past, > and there's nothing wrong with AMD at all, however, I found that where an > Intel based system would pretty much always work reliably straight away, > AMD systems generally took a little longer to tweak before becoming > totally stable, so when it comes to a DAW I now always follow the Intel > route. > > In terms of an audio interface, there are loads to choose from. It > depends what you need the audio interface to do for you. Are you ever > likely to need to record more than two audio sources simultaneously? Are > you likely to need your system to be portable - i.e. use a multi-channel > audio interface with a different PC or laptop? What sort of audio latency > do you need to achieve? > > I would not recommend using any Creative Labs product for serious audio > recording because their products have never been great with regard to > audio/MIDI timing and latency, and although they may now offer something > better, I haven't looked into it recently. > > I would recommend that you consider suitable products by any of the bigger > name manufacturers. E.g: M-Audio, MOTU, Tascam, RME, Alesis, Edirol, > Yamaha, Echo Audio. If you're never going to need to use the audio > interface with another system, you could look at PCI or PCI-e based cards > that mount internally, but otherwise you have the choice of either > external Firewire 400, Firewire 800, USB 1.1 or USB 2.0 devices. Whilst > USB 2.0 technically provides a higher bandwidth of 480Mb/s than Firewire > 400's 400Mb/s, in practice Firewire is generally the better performer - > often because USB 2.0 is subject to on board hubs splitting the available > bandwidth between USB devices. Firewire 800 devices are not so plentiful > as Firewire 400 devices. Personally I would start by looking at firewire > 400 multi-channel devices as I like to be able to record a whole band in > one pass, but that's niot necessarily the way everyone likes to work. > > You could look at the MOTU Traveler (latest incarnation is the Mk 3) > which provides Firewire 400 connectivity and 64 bit Vista support as well > as ADAT support, which will increase the available number of inputs from > the standard 8 to 16 with a suitable interface such as the Behringer > Ultragain ADA8000 Mic Pre-amp, or the similarly specified M-Audio FW1814. > Tascam offer what was a reasonably priced (last year) USB 2.0 > multi-channel interface ain the form of the Tascam US1641 . The problem > is that a lot of prices have shot up due to the current economic climate. > You may only want something with two audio channels in and out in which > case maybe look at M-Audio, Edirol. Tascam. > > Essentially, it's all about getting the best you can afford for the money > you have available, and there is a fair amount of choice out there.
> Last summer I built a PC with vista that works very well, up to now at > least, costing 615 Euro. I use it with a MAudio1010 which I already had. > It is a Asus p5qpro with an intel quad 6600 complete with vista 64 > ultimate and 4 Gb, to be upsized to 8 soon. > I run Cubase 4.5.2 and mainly NI instruments. Everythings runs fine, > except NI Kontakt 3 ui and B4II freezes in VST mode in C4.5 after a while, > and Battery 3 doesn't run at all as VST. S o I restart C4.5 every time I > have to change settings in K3, and I use the BAttery 3 sets in Kontakt3 > which is not very convenient. > The drivers for the 1010 are beta drivers, already since September but > function without any problem for me. > > I can run a Cubase piece with at least 3 Guitarrigs 3 64 bit, 16 kontakt > instruments with convolution reverbs and still be at less than 20% CPU > load. > > The PC is also used for "general" household purposes (no games other than > music however). > Yes, that's a pretty decent spec. I built something very similar back in January 2007 based at that time on Vista Ultimate 64bit with a Core 2 E6600 on an Asus P5B Plus board which I upgraded to a quad core Q6600 in about November 2007. 4GB RAM and because at that time M-Audio were dragging their heels with Vista 64 bit support, I bought a MOTU Traveler. It has to be said that that particular system is ultra stable and given it has run mostly 24/7 for over two years that's pretty good. I was initially using Cubase 4, then 4.52 and it coped/copes very well. The issue was that the machine became my main general workhorse, and has gradually got loaded down with 'normal' stuff, so at the end of January this year, I decided to build a new PC based on the i7 920. In terms of performance I have to say it knocks spots off the older system. I have also upgraded to Cubase 5 in January which apart from G.A.S. (Gear Acquisitioin Syndrome) was one deciding factor . The performance meter hardly twitches and only seems to move off zero if using a few instances of the convolution reverb plugin. I work in IT support and management so I quite often put different machines together for different purposes, and I have a few decent spec machines here that get pressed into use as DAW's from time to time The Vista 64 drivers for my M-audio FW1814 were released in beta form last year, but have now been released properly. I'm not sure about the 1010 drivers but it may be worth checking back at www.m-audio.com to see if the full release version is out. I know the beta drivers for the M-Audio FW1814 worked fine for me on the desktop system outlined above but caused problems on a Toshiba Core 2 Duo based laptop with Vista 64 Ultimate installed - despite the Toshiba having a TI chipset for firewire. Most 32bit applications run well in Vista 64, but there are one or two exceptions, and some drivers and applications occasionally get confused by a system with more memory than they know what to do with. I found WaveLab was a bit troublesome until I updated to ver 6.1.
"Cyberserf" <> wrote in message news:... On Apr 1, 3:04 pm, DM <> wrote: > Hello Group!! Novice Question here. > > I'm Building a new PC and will use Cubase Studio 4 mainly as recording > software . > What you guys recommend spec-wise > > CPU Fastest Quad you can afford > Agreed, but I would qualify that by saying the fastest quad with the largest amount of Level 2 cache that you can afford. Some have 8MB, whilst some of the newer ones have 6MB or better still 12MB of L2 cache. As for the rest - all good advice.
