|
New Production PC help (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| closedcircle |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
What's cute is that you're talking down to people, many of whom run circles around you, pretty much telling them what they already know. |
No, I'm telling things I know, actually helping hopefully someone that doesn't know that stuff and in the process, getting out of "experimenting phase" and "actually linking my PC and Mac together, running Cubase and Logic together," which I've never done before. So I'm excited, so hopefully someone else can earn from some of the stuff I know, if they don't know already.
Also, I kinda explain stuff in clear terms, or I try too, to help others. A karma thing, teaching / helping others really helps you a bunch. Sorry if I was rude before on this forum, wow everyone remembers. Sorry to anyone I previously made upset or if I come off like that, I only mean to help people. Sorry if I feel spiffy telling others stuff, you might already know? Others sure don't.
No one ever told me to bounce to audio tracks. I learned it, myself. I wish someone explained the info I stated above to me when I was 16, starting off producing. Hey I'm 30 now, just celebrated my bday ;) Have a good day man. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by closedcircle
No, I'm telling things I know, actually helping hopefully someone that doesn't know that stuff and in the process, getting out of "experimenting phase" and "actually linking my PC and Mac together, running Cubase and Logic together," which I've never done before. So I'm excited, so hopefully someone else can earn from some of the stuff I know, if they don't know already.
Also, I kinda explain stuff in clear terms, or I try too, to help others. A karma thing, teaching / helping others really helps you a bunch. Sorry if I was rude before on this forum, wow everyone remembers. Sorry to anyone I previously made upset or if I come off like that, I only mean to help people. Sorry if I feel spiffy telling others stuff, you might already know? Others sure don't.
No one ever told me to bounce to audio tracks. I learned it, myself. I wish someone explained the info I stated above to me when I was 16, starting off producing. Hey I'm 30 now, just celebrated my bday ;) Have a good day man. |
You'd do well to check out the OP's sound-cloud page. That said, you weren't just a little rude. Bad Karma's a bit of an understatement.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forum/s...60&referrerid=2
Hilarity, from the word go. PM'ing me a little death threat was cute, too. That's why it's so funny to find you so patronizing. There's no commensurate achievement to back up your words. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| I love when people act all nice and innocent but post nasty PMs :stongue: |
|
|
| Storyteller |
I've been making electronic music for 17+ yrs. Need moar street cred plz. Never maxed out my 4yr old pc producing music. I must be doing something wrong :(.
What Constantin said is pretty much bang on from my point of view. :) |
|
|
| jayxthekoolest |
| quote: | Originally posted by closedcircle
The funny thing is, no matter the machine, you can always find a way to max it. Most computers today, seems even with tons of memory, the processor is only so good. Also, they are working on the storage component, disks have memory in them for faster performance but, it's only so good, just like the memory, just like the processor. Every machine has a limit, and it's easy to reach the limit, very easy without bouncing files to audio. Even if you are building the tracks from raw synthesis, reactor or Kyma
http://www.symbolicsound.com/cgi-bi...Company/WebHome
Which is better then Reaktor, but it's $$$. What is Kyma? It's custom software, a tracker, and the ability to generate sounds, any sound, all custom. Pretty dope and the interface is fast. I'd recommend it if you need something else then Windows / Mac PC's or if you use things like a power core, etc. I'd rather have a Windows PC, a MAC and Kyma, killer combo for producing anything. Ridiculous, but that would be one sick ass DAW.
but it proves the point, Processors are used to generate waveforms, their machines have no RAM, ram is for sample loading, not for effects, real soft synths are all #'s, hence all CPU.
Memory helps with loading and running multiple programs, loading WAV's or AIFF's. Hence bouncing to disk is the best method of building tracks, period, end of story, since Memory is the strongest asset of a computer today, and even 8 GB of memory is enough to load 100 tracks, or even 200 each with a different sound.
I'd go for a decent build on a machine, and using 2 machines or using the single machine you have to max efficiency.
I've just produced for 15+ years, and "beating the machine" is easy, unless you are using a super computer or something. 2 cores, 4 cores, 8 cores, bah, maybe with 1,000 cores, 1,000 processors then you could be sloppy, but not really. Most software has memory leaks it in, or processing leaks.
Or some stuff, like complex routing for delay loops or something, really eat a CPU sometimes. Then soft synths, they can use a lot of processing power. Bounce to disk often, kill the soft synth, but keep the Midi. Cubase had a decent "Phreeze" thing in it, but on others you can just save the present, unload the synth, and take a note at the setting.
It's a good habit to "bounce to disk."
#1 you don't run out of CPU
#2 if you focus on the audio mix, earlier the better
#3 you can even "bounce individual tracks, after heavy compression, eq'ing, effects."
#4 focusing on the mix, focusing on the audio, helps build better tracks
Even if I was using a super computer, composing without bouncing to audio, all you are doing when making a track is mixing, sorta, since the mix = the track. After a certain amount of time producing, you might get what I'm saying. |
 |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Storyteller
I've been making electronic music for 17+ yrs. Need moar street cred plz. Never maxed out my 4yr old pc producing music. I must be doing something wrong :(.
What Constantin said is pretty much bang on from my point of view. :) |
I've not maxed out my 5 year old PC
Noob |
|
|
| Constantin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Anakratis
I'll have you know, I'm very picky. So the ugly color scheme of the motherboard just won't do. |
You gonna fail if you will pick components by the esthetic criteria. You won't get laid with them. Anyway I will share a link where you can see the difference between chipsets http://motherboardnews.com/2011/04/...1155-chipsets/. I strongly advice you to go for a mobo with a H67 chipset, unless you wanna have a dual video card setup. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by closedcircle
The funny thing is, no matter the machine, you can always find a way to max it. Most computers today, seems even with tons of memory, the processor is only so good. Also, they are working on the storage component, disks have memory in them for faster performance but, it's only so good, just like the memory, just like the processor. Every machine has a limit, and it's easy to reach the limit, very easy without bouncing files to audio. Even if you are building the tracks from raw synthesis, reactor or Kyma
http://www.symbolicsound.com/cgi-bi...Company/WebHome
Which is better then Reaktor, but it's $$$. What is Kyma? It's custom software, a tracker, and the ability to generate sounds, any sound, all custom. Pretty dope and the interface is fast. I'd recommend it if you need something else then Windows / Mac PC's or if you use things like a power core, etc. I'd rather have a Windows PC, a MAC and Kyma, killer combo for producing anything. Ridiculous, but that would be one sick ass DAW.
but it proves the point, Processors are used to generate waveforms, their machines have no RAM, ram is for sample loading, not for effects, real soft synths are all #'s, hence all CPU.
Memory helps with loading and running multiple programs, loading WAV's or AIFF's. Hence bouncing to disk is the best method of building tracks, period, end of story, since Memory is the strongest asset of a computer today, and even 8 GB of memory is enough to load 100 tracks, or even 200 each with a different sound.
I'd go for a decent build on a machine, and using 2 machines or using the single machine you have to max efficiency.
I've just produced for 15+ years, and "beating the machine" is easy, unless you are using a super computer or something. 2 cores, 4 cores, 8 cores, bah, maybe with 1,000 cores, 1,000 processors then you could be sloppy, but not really. Most software has memory leaks it in, or processing leaks.
Or some stuff, like complex routing for delay loops or something, really eat a CPU sometimes. Then soft synths, they can use a lot of processing power. Bounce to disk often, kill the soft synth, but keep the Midi. Cubase had a decent "Phreeze" thing in it, but on others you can just save the present, unload the synth, and take a note at the setting.
It's a good habit to "bounce to disk."
#1 you don't run out of CPU
#2 if you focus on the audio mix, earlier the better
#3 you can even "bounce individual tracks, after heavy compression, eq'ing, effects."
#4 focusing on the mix, focusing on the audio, helps build better tracks
Even if I was using a super computer, composing without bouncing to audio, all you are doing when making a track is mixing, sorta, since the mix = the track. After a certain amount of time producing, you might get what I'm saying. |
What soundcard do you have? |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| anyone have those videos of him singing opera ? lol. Welcome back circlejerk. Didn't he also have like a blog talking about how meth was helping him compose ? Delighted. |
|
|
| Anakratis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Constantin
You gonna fail if you will pick components by the esthetic criteria. You won't get laid with them. Anyway I will share a link where you can see the difference between chipsets http://motherboardnews.com/2011/04/...1155-chipsets/. I strongly advice you to go for a mobo with a H67 chipset, unless you wanna have a dual video card setup. |
I'm highly knowledgeable on system pieces, so I doubt I'm going to fail. The Z68 chipsets do have positives over H67. The price difference between them is quite miniscule as well. If I'm going for an i7 processor, might as well get the Z68 chipset. Or, I can simply wait for the new Ivy Bridge CPUs and see what people have to say about those. Then again, those Ivy Bridge CPUS will be more expensive than the current Sandy Bridge CPUs. I shall wait and see what I come up with. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| Maybe I missed it, but what are you considering for a case? |
|
|
| Anakratis |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
Maybe I missed it, but what are you considering for a case? |
Well, I have narrowed down my options to these:
- NZXT Phantom (for airflow and looks)
- HAF 932/X (for airflow)
- Corsair 600T (for simple CPU water cooling / airflow and looks)
or maybe any Lian-Li case. I have one right now (PC-K62), and its great, but I'm definitely going for both performance and looks this time around, and the sleek aluminum/steel cases they have are quite expensive. I'm also a huge fan of all Corsair products, so the 600T, 650D, or 800D would be nice. |
|
|
|
|
