Should I get ( 2 ) hard drives to record guitar to a PC ?

[poedua]

This is a follow-up to an earlier thread asking about setting up specs for a new PC to allow my son to record his guitar on a PC.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166280&highlight=guitar

I've noticed that on many music sites , it's suggests that having 2 hard drives is better than one.
One physical hard drive for the operating system, recording and all other software and the second hard drive for the audio files only.

I'm not a 'techie' at all, and I'd have to get someone to build this PC. Althought I've done some research on my own , the technical terms are beyond me. So, I could use some some opinions to help me understand and decide.

1. Does the support for (2 ) drives make sense ?

I've seen some music sites supporting this idea for 2 drives based on;

- faster performance in SEEK time ( I don't know what this is ) - could someone explain this ?
- decreased head movement will prolong hard drive life
- prevents degree of fragmentation
- allows for lower LATENCY ( again, i don't know what this means ) - could someone explain this ?
- it's better than partitioning due to decreased head movement - could someone explain this ?



2. How do you set up the 2 drives for best performance ?

I have no clue about this . I'll pass along a suggestion from a site I don't understand - I hope someone can explain it to me.

Suggestion from a site i saw;:

a.. Put the 2 hard drives on the same IDE cable and any CD-/DVD ROM on another cable.

OR

b. Put both the Operating System on the IDE cable with the CD-/DVD ROM or burner and have the recording drive on it's own unshared cable.



Could use some input whether to go with 2 hard drives, and if so , how to set it up.

[chdude3]

You don't have to, but it's not a bad idea. I've done it both ways before, and only started to get limited when I had a lot of 24/44.1 tracks trying to play back at the same time when not using a separate hard drive. If you're not doing much that's complex, you may not run into it.

Try doing it with a single drive, and if you find yourself getting limited, you can always add another drive later.

[poedua]

You don't have to, but it's not a bad idea. I've done it both ways before, and only started to get limited when I had a lot of 24/44.1 tracks trying to play back at the same time when not using a separate hard drive. If you're not doing much that's complex, you may not run into it.

Try doing it with a single drive, and if you find yourself getting limited, you can always add another drive later.

My son will be a rookie at recording his guitar on the PC, so i don't anticipate anything complex.

Likely go with a M - Audio 24 96 sound card and Behringer's V -Amp 2.

Think a 160 MB hard drive to be more than enough ?

Suppose for the small bump in price a 200 MB might be the way to go

[djpharoah]

Think a 160 MB hard drive to be more than enough ?

Suppose for the small bump in price a 200 MB might be the way to go

pretty sure you mean 160Gb or 200Gb. Btw just curious to know how skilled/talented is your son to be layin down tracks on the pc?

[ephemera]

My son will be a rookie at recording his guitar on the PC, so i don't anticipate anything complex.

Likely go with a M - Audio 24 96 sound card and Behringer's V -Amp 2.

Think a 160 MB hard drive to be more than enough ?

Suppose for the small bump in price a 200 MB might be the way to go

I have the audiophile 2496 as well. Its one of the best cards around, and its been around for years now. And the Vamp 2 is good as well. Because you need the plug the guitar into it to boost the signal of the guitar to line level before going intot the sound card.

You will not need two harddrives, tho its always a good thing. I have had great success with my external 80gig iomega harddrive I got from the dell days deals.

The most importand for the harddrive, is that its at least 7200 rpm and hopefully it will have 8meg cache ram as a buffer. 160gig HD is MORE than enough. One HD will beable to handle alot, infact, I have yet to tax mine, I have had countless audio tracks playing while recording and having vst instruments playing all at the same time without any glitches and thats one 80 gig HD.

Also have him try recording the guitar Dry but monitor it using the computers effects in real time that way you can change the sound/reverb delays etc.

Good luck, its great fun!!

[poedua]

pretty sure you mean 160Gb or 200Gb. Btw just curious to know how skilled/talented is your son to be layin down tracks on the pc?

Sorry.... meant GB.

My son is 15 and been taking lessons for just under 2 years for electric guitar. He hasn't got a PC to record with , but is keen to learn as soon as we get one. So, as far as recording goes , he's a rookie/ newbie - " 0 " experience.

I can tell you that he loads sheet music from the internet to practice with - tends to like Zeppelin, balck Sabbath, Ramones, AC/ DC , Aerosmith etc. so he seems pretty committed. He's also pretty computer savvy so I'm guessing he'll really get ' in to ' to recording his gutiar. He'd also like to somehow record when he and a couple of his buddies jam in the basement - but we'll worry about the PC first.

His brother ( 11 ) plays guitar too and his sister (13) also plays drums. So, I'm thinking I'll have to have someone build me a PC with upgradability and expandablility in mind ( for the 11 year old ).

- do you ( or anyone else ) know if it's be better to go with an AMD or Intel platform for this PC ?

I been following this ' rule of thumb ' argument that Pentiums are better at audio / video encoding BUT, the dual - core profile now and down the road for Athlons seems to be a more bang for the buck and ' future - proof ' approach. I'm leaning to AMD .

[poedua]

I have the audiophile 2496 as well. Its one of the best cards around, and its been around for years now. And the Vamp 2 is good as well. Because you need the plug the guitar into it to boost the signal of the guitar to line level before going intot the sound card.

You will not need two harddrives, tho its always a good thing. I have had great success with my external 80gig iomega harddrive I got from the dell days deals.

The most importand for the harddrive, is that its at least 7200 rpm and hopefully it will have 8meg cache ram as a buffer. 160gig HD is MORE than enough. One HD will beable to handle alot, infact, I have yet to tax mine, I have had countless audio tracks playing while recording and having vst instruments playing all at the same time without any glitches and thats one 80 gig HD.


Also have him try recording the guitar Dry but monitor it using the computers effects in real time that way you can change the sound/reverb delays etc.

Good luck, its great fun!!

Thks - appreciate the feedback.

On a previous thread , I was alerted to the M - Audio card and it sounds like the way to go - but, it's always better to hear from more people that have got direct experience with it and can endorse it - such as yourself - ditto for the V- Amp 2.

Seems that going with one drive is the way to go alright, in light of your additional commentary - I'll likely go with 160 GB.

Also could you elaborate a bit more on your last suggestion , not sure if I understand it - what is DRY recording ? and not sure what real time montoring involves ? be curious for a couple of more details.

[synaptech]

Although the sound card is crucial, and definately you need a fast hard disk, I don't see why you would need an 8M/16M cache for recording data onto a disk. The cache is primarly for reading data from the disk.

The reason they suggest 2 drives (1 OS, 1 Application) is to permit one drive to do the OS duties (like memory swapping) and one to record your data. It is also recommended you place the OS drive on one IDE channel and the App drive on the second IDE channel. If you're using SATA drive (relatively new) then someone else will ahve to comment on the best scheme for them, but I would imag seperate channels are required there too.

To minimize the OS from swapping memory, and perhaps permit using a single disk, you will need lots of RAM. 1G+ The Samsung sticks can be bought for about $50/512M

[erikm5150]

a dedicated hard drive for audio is *highly Recommended*.
You could get by with just one drive if your needs are very basic... but eventually it's better to have a dedicated drive for audio tracks.
if using IDE, place the 2 drives on separate channels. (make sure the drives are masters in their channel)
if using SATA, each drive is already in an independent channel. (no more worrying about master-slave issues)

[peterbrowne]

I'd actually get 3 HDD's

All SEAGATE.

1 - ATA/100 Seagate 60 GB
2 - SATA Seagate 120 GB
3 - SATA Seagate 120 GB

1 - http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=6470&vpn=ST380011A&manufacture=Seagate
2 and 3 - http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=13398&vpn=ST3120827AS&manufacture=Seagate (x2 of course)

Put 2 and 3 on Hardware RAID-0 to prevent any loss of his files if either 2 or 3 goes kaput. Also, each drive would have a 5 Year Warranty directly from SEAGATE.

[poedua]

Although the sound card is crucial, and definately you need a fast hard disk, I don't see why you would need an 8M/16M cache for recording data onto a disk. The cache is primarly for reading data from the disk.

The reason they suggest 2 drives (1 OS, 1 Application) is to permit one drive to do the OS duties (like memory swapping) and one to record your data. It is also recommended you place the OS drive on one IDE channel and the App drive on the second IDE channel. If you're using SATA drive (relatively new) then someone else will ahve to comment on the best scheme for them, but I would imag seperate channels are required there too.

To minimize the OS from swapping memory, and perhaps permit using a single disk, you will need lots of RAM. 1G+ The Samsung sticks can be bought for about $50/512M

Thanks

I haven't finalized all the specs of the PC but I was going to go with I GB DDR Dual Channel RAM already - just as you suggested. But , I suspect that'd be more than enough - the " 1 G + " you noted above - are you suggesting that more than 1 GB RAM might not be a bad idea ? Just wondering, because I've seldom seen any specs with more than 1 GB RAM.

I was thinking of going with the 160 GB Seagate Barracuda Hard Drive which I think is SATA 8M 7200. I suspect that getting a " quiet " hard drive is a plus when recording, and heard Seagate was pretty quiet and of good quality

On best SATA schemes , i have no idea, but, in trying to figure it out, i stumbled on an article that made an overal recommendation when it came to motherboards, SATA drives for recording audio as follows....

"............Some of the better boards have SATA controllers off the pci bus on their own dedicated bus, these are the boards to use............. "

I have no clue ( perhaps some RFDers could 'translate' this for me ) what this means , but i suspect the choice of mtherbaord is a key issue as well

Is there an good AMD ( 939 ) m/b that reflects these points ?

That said , generally speaking , do you think 2 hard drives is a bit of 'overkill ' right now ? Or, as someone else suggested, go with 1 hard drive now and if needed, add another one later - i suppose the extra $100 or so for a second hard drive might be spent of on getting a better motherboard ( above ) or video card.

Thoughts ?

[chdude3]

a dedicated hard drive for audio is *highly Recommended*.I think you guys are getting overzealous, especially since the intended users are new and their needs are low.

I used a single PATA drive initially, and that was sufficient to record up to 4 simultaneous channels of 24/44.1 audio, and would play back as I recall in the area of 10-12 (some with effects). That was initially more than enough to suit my needs. Now that drives are much cheaper, I've added a second drive to help out a little bit, but it wasn't really necessary.

The comment about SATA is valid. Many boards don't have SATA support integrated into the chipset (although this is changing). My board, an aging Abit NF7-S, is one such example. It has SATA, but the support is from a Silicon Images 3112 chip. This interfaces to the PCI bus, and it interferes horribly if I try to record or play back audio via my M-Audio Delta 66 on that SATA drive. This type of conflict is especially prevalent with M-Audio cards and SATA controllers that hang off of the PCI bus. This thread (http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=45491&mpage=1&key=) on the Cakewalk forums can provide more information, if you're interested in reading it.

[poedua]

I think you guys are getting overzealous, especially since the intended users are new and their needs are low.

I used a single PATA drive initially, and that was sufficient to record up to 4 simultaneous channels of 24/44.1 audio, and would play back as I recall in the area of 10-12 (some with effects). That was initially more than enough to suit my needs. Now that drives are much cheaper, I've added a second drive to help out a little bit, but it wasn't really necessary.

The comment about SATA is valid. Many boards don't have SATA support integrated into the chipset (although this is changing). My board, an aging Abit NF7-S, is one such example. It has SATA, but the support is from a Silicon Images 3112 chip. This interfaces to the PCI bus, and it interferes horribly if I try to record or play back audio via my M-Audio Delta 66 on that SATA drive. This type of conflict is especially prevalent with M-Audio cards and SATA controllers that hang off of the PCI bus. This thread (http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=45491&mpage=1&key=) on the Cakewalk forums can provide more information, if you're interested in reading it.

Thanks ...I think.

I went to the Cakewalk forum - wow ...over 450 posts.

I'm afraid most of the technical dialogue found there is beyond me, and after spending 20 minutes + skimming over some of the Cakewalk posts , I'm more confused than before I started reading them.

Not sure if i've got this right, but I get the sense that if I'm going to use

- SATA hard drive
- M-Audio sound card

as i planned, I could be screwed ( poor performance, audio quality ) if I don't choose the right 939 motherboard / chipset/ SATA support ??

I assume, as you suggested, that the mobo I end up choosing has to have SATA support integrated into the chipset ?

If i want to go with an AMD / 939 platform is there a mobo you or other RFDers would recommend that has this chipset integration ?

And, is there a RAM manufacturer/ part # that each mobo maufufacturer suggests for a given mobo - could my choice of RAM company possibly be at odds with the mobo somehow ?

Could use some help, have no clue how to narrow down the mobo choice now, given I'd like to go with a SATA hard drive and a M - Audio sound card

[rilhouse]

don't bother with SATA, there is not much diff between SATA and IDE. a good idea would be to get 1 hard drive and partition it into 2. that way you have 1 partition for the OS/programs and another for recording.

[synaptech]

There is a difference between making it work and doing it right. For anyone posting that one drive will suffice is making it work - if you wish to do it right you need two decent drives on seperate channels and as someone pointed out they should both be the master drive (PATA).

As for memory, 1G should be enough, but with the cost it would not hurt to have 1.5G, but that money could be better spent on a decent motherboard. Don't waste your money on a dual channel memory "kit".

If you want a quieter hard drive, apparently the Seagate PATA are quieter than their SATA. It may also be a wise investment to pick up a DVD writter to back up their work because eventually not matter how big your drives are you'll need more space.

[chdude3]

There is a difference between making it work and doing it right. For anyone posting that one drive will suffice is making it work - if you wish to do it right you need two decent drives on seperate channels and as someone pointed out they should both be the master drive (PATA).I completely disagree. That's like saying to play any PC games, you have to go out and get the GeForce 7800 GTX. In this situation, multiple drives could very well be overkill. In the interest of getting them started for a reasonable price and the fact that they can *easily* add more drives if they find themselves limited in the future, I strongly recommend a single PATA drive to start.

[poedua]

There is a difference between making it work and doing it right. For anyone posting that one drive will suffice is making it work - if you wish to do it right you need two decent drives on seperate channels and as someone pointed out they should both be the master drive (PATA).

As for memory, 1G should be enough, but with the cost it would not hurt to have 1.5G, but that money could be better spent on a decent motherboard. Don't waste your money on a dual channel memory "kit".

If you want a quieter hard drive, apparently the Seagate PATA are quieter than their SATA. It may also be a wise investment to pick up a DVD writter to back up their work because eventually not matter how big your drives are you'll need more space.

Thanks for the info

I'm generally familiar with the SATA drives I've seen included among many rig specs, but not PATA - is there a retail link you could provide for a Seagate PATA drive so that i could see a bit more info on them ?

I am a bit confused on the motherboard too, but, I agree with you, I'd like to get a quality motherboard. Thing is, I have no clue how to determine which brand / model of motherboard best meets my needs.

I mentioned I thought of going with the M- Audio 2496 sound card on a 939 platform , but I'm getting the sense from checking other sites that not all motherbaord chipsets ' get along ' with all sound cards. In addition, I've read that nForce 3 boards are somehow better then nForce 4 boards for audio purposes.

Have you got any suggestions how to figure out the best ( compatable ) motherboard /chipset/ soundcard set up ?

Not sure how to determine if the M - Audio sound card is " chipset friendly' to certain Asus, MSI , or Gigabyte 939 mobo's - or is there some way of checking this compatability issue ahead of time amng spec profiles - not sure how to do this ?

For example, I've seen these mobo mentioned quite a bit ;

- Gigabyte K8NSS Ultra 939 NF3....( not F4 ? )
- Asus A8Ve Deluxe Rev. 2
- MSI K8T Neo4 Palt NF4

and don't know it the M-Audio will be a problem with any of them or not.

Any tips ( from RFDers' too ) ?

[poedua]

I completely disagree. That's like saying to play any PC games, you have to go out and get the GeForce 7800 GTX. In this situation, multiple drives could very well be overkill. In the interest of getting them started for a reasonable price and the fact that they can *easily* add more drives if they find themselves limited in the future, I strongly recommend a single PATA drive to start.

Could you suggest a specific drive PATA model that might be a good bet ?

[ZenOps]

Multiple drives is likely not going to do anything for you, unless you have a miniscule amount of ram.

I consistently record video on a single 120GB drive (OS/files/everything) at uncompressed 640x480 AVI with uncompressed stereo 44.1 audio.

After about 1 hour, 60GB will be filled up and I will have lost maybe a maximum of 4 frames in the whole thing. If I record using Divx6 with uncompressed audio, it can go a couple of days without losing any data.

[ephemera]

Go for AMD its cheaper. Stick with one drive for now... less of a hassle.
Get a DVD burner to burn cd's/dvd's of the mixdowns.

If you want your kids to be able to jam and record you will need to get a mixer. I would suggest long&mcquade for that. Don't go all out and get big $$ ones. Just a smallish one will do. You can even rent stuff there to test it out. THats a good option to see what works.

If you have the option, get a pc or MOBO that has FIREWIRE, because there are alot of external audiocards that interface by firewire. If your kids get more serious, you can then upgrade and get a good firewire external soundcard with tons of inputs and outputs.

The reason why audiophile 2496 is great is because of the low latency.
I can plug my guitar in thru my line6 pod (like the vamp) then into the pc, and listen (monitor) it with guitar effects in the computer in almost real time.

There are two options, recording his guitar amp with a mic or recording direct thru the vamp. recording clean means no effects or reverbs delays. The reverb you get in cakewalk or whatever while be higher quality.

But its all a fun learning experience. And it will make your son a much better player sooner.

[chdude3]

Could you suggest a specific drive PATA model that might be a good bet ?PATA is actually a "retroynm" that only came about after Serial ATA was introduced. You'll also see PATA drives referred to as normal IDE, or ATA/100 (or ATA/133). I would recommend Seagate drives. They have an industry leading 5 year warranty on their drives, and usually run significantly quieter than other drives. I'd previously been using a Barracuda 7200.7 drive, and have moved to the 7200.8 family now.

[poedua]

PATA is actually a "retroynm" that only came about after Serial ATA was introduced. You'll also see PATA drives referred to as normal IDE, or ATA/100 (or ATA/133). I would recommend Seagate drives. They have an industry leading 5 year warranty on their drives, and usually run significantly quieter than other drives. I'd previously been using a Barracuda 7200.7 drive, and have moved to the 7200.8 family now.

does it make any difference if I went with Seagate 7200.7 or 7200.8

are the differences ( ? ) significant ?

which would you suggest ?

[erikm5150]

For the mobo, here is my recommendation:

Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra

it's a socket 939 mobo using Nforce3 chipset. solid, stable, has sata, firewire, and supports a64...
early tests show that Nforce4 with PCI-e is "not optimal" for audio purposes. so if you're going with amd (which is a good idea), stay away from Nforce4 chipset based mobos with PCI-e

And yes, you CAN get by with using a single drive... when your needs grow you can always add another one.

Also someone posted something about RAID:
FYI: Raid-0 is NOT fault tolerant, meaning if you lose 1 drive you lose ALL your data in the array. Maybe he meant Raid-1 which is mirroring, but the performance hit is not recommended for audio purposes. for backups, just burn your files to dvds regularly.

[ephemera]

For the mobo, here is my recommendation:

Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra

it's a socket 939 mobo using Nforce3 chipset. solid, stable, has sata, firewire, and supports a64...
early tests show that Nforce4 with PCI-e is "not optimal" for audio purposes. so if you're going with amd (which is a good idea), stay away from Nforce4 chipset based mobos with PCI-e

And yes, you CAN get by with using a single drive... when your needs grow you can always add another one.

Also someone posted something about RAID:
FYI: Raid-0 is NOT fault tolerant, meaning if you lose 1 drive you lose ALL your data in the array. Maybe he meant Raid-1 which is mirroring, but the performance hit is not recommended for audio purposes. for backups, just burn your files to dvds regularly.


Can you explain more why the pci-e is not optimal? What about pci-x? Is agp dead now in new mobo's? I will probably have to upgrade my pc by the end of the year but I am not up on all the newest stuff.

[erikm5150]

This just applies to PCs built for DAW (digital audio workstation) purposes.
The main thing with DAWs is that it has to be rock-solid, stable and reliable. usually, the trend is to stick with proven technologies. AGP has been good for DAWs because AGP dedicates a bus to Video, so it does not interfere with the Audio data path. Yes, AGP is dead (in terms of cutting edge tech), but for DAWs AGP is still good.

Are you asking about PCI-X (pci extended) ? -- this is an enhanced 64-bit (i think) PCI bus used mostly in servers for raid cards, clusters, fibre channel and such.

i will assume you are asking about pci-express (pci-e)

i haven't been following pci-express much because it seems to be geared towards 3d performance and gamers...
i just read about it somewhere in the recording.org forums... a few DAW pros tested nforce4-based mobos, some are even manufacturers of audio equipment.
they used standard audio benchmarks and found that nforce4 with pci-e doesn't perform well.
also note that this ONLY applies to nforce4/AMD based pci-e mobos.
the results also showed that Intel based pci-e mobos had no problems as long as a "not-so-powerful" video card was used.
more info here:
http://www.recording.org/ftopict-26210.html
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/techinfo/nforce4_tests.htm


Keep in mind, this is just the current situation... as pci-e matures i'm sure everything will get better.

As For your upgrade, it's always a tough decision. if you choose to go AMD, get a S939 nf3-based mobo with agp, or you could go with an intel-based pci-e system and use a 'modest' video card. (the new pentium D's are excellent for audio!)... it's all good.... the thing to remember is that DAWs are not meant to be upgraded every year like gamer machines.

Can you explain more why the pci-e is not optimal? What about pci-x? Is agp dead now in new mobo's? I will probably have to upgrade my pc by the end of the year but I am not up on all the newest stuff.

[poedua]

For the mobo, here is my recommendation:



it's a socket 939 mobo using Nforce3 chipset. solid, stable, has sata, firewire, and supports a64...
early tests show that Nforce4 with PCI-e is "not optimal" for audio purposes. so if you're going with amd (which is a good idea), stay away from Nforce4 chipset based mobos with PCI-e

And yes, you CAN get by with using a single drive... when your needs grow you can always add another one.

Also someone posted something about RAID:
FYI: Raid-0 is NOT fault tolerant, meaning if you lose 1 drive you lose ALL your data in the array. Maybe he meant Raid-1 which is mirroring, but the performance hit is not recommended for audio purposes. for backups, just burn your files to dvds regularly.

Thanks for the mobo suggestion - it's very much in line with what I've been reading on the internet as a 'go to' mobo for audio.

In an effort to provide a bit more of a perspective on the appropriatness of a mobo selection, I'll elaborate on what I'm thinking of getting based on what my reads in the forums - again, the aim is to get a PC with some very modest DAW capability, but it's probably important to keep in mind that in addition to wanting to record his guitar;

- he's not a hard core gamer
- ' overclocking ' isn't an issue for him
- he'll do lots and lots of music downloading
- he'll be doing a lot of tons of internet surfing ....msn , Google etc.

I'm thinking of going with the Athlon 64 3200 +, IGB of RAM ( something like Crucial - it it's mobo suitable ) and likely 1 Seagate 160GB Hard Drive for starters - perhaps add a second down the road if he's really in to recording, and the LG combo DVD/ CD drive.

But, if possible, I'd definately like to stay with the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 soundcard if at all possible.

And there-in lies my dilemma - I very confused on what mobo/chipset to get that is not going to cause any problems with the M-Audio card.

Problems such as clicking and popping sounds. I'd read that it was due to the fact that some mobo's with PCI-e may be contributing to the problem. If i understand it right, the entire PCI slot must communciate with the CPU, and this can cause bottlenecks for high demand PCI devices like the SATA drive, which tend to choke the PCI bus from other devices - particulalry the sound card leading to all these sound problems.


The fact that it seems to be a PCI bus problem , seems to support recommendations to go with a AGP based mobo - such as the Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra.

It seems that VIA chipsets and nForce4 boards ALSO weren't recommended if sound problems were to be avoided. But, i did see some audio/pc sites that suggest these mobos could support the M-Audio 2496 like ..

- Asus A8V E Deluxe
- Asus A8n -E nForce 4
- MSI K8N Neo4-F
- MSI K8N Neo2 NForce 3

So, in a nutshell, I'm totally lost as to which mobo/chipset will 'get along' with the M-Audio 2496 and still provide me the long term performance ( i.e AGP vs PCIe ) I'd need from the PC.

Do you think remaining with AGP vs PCIe mobo's is an issue given it seems the PCIe technology will drive future hardware ?

How does MSI stack up against Gigabyte and Asus ( Via chiip ?? ) ?

[poedua]

This just applies to PCs built for DAW (digital audio workstation) purposes.
The main thing with DAWs is that it has to be rock-solid, stable and reliable. usually, the trend is to stick with proven technologies. AGP has been good for DAWs because AGP dedicates a bus to Video, so it does not interfere with the Audio data path. Yes, AGP is dead (in terms of cutting edge tech), but for DAWs AGP is still good.

Are you asking about PCI-X (pci extended) ? -- this is an enhanced 64-bit (i think) PCI bus used mostly in servers for raid cards, clusters, fibre channel and such.

i will assume you are asking about pci-express (pci-e)

i haven't been following pci-express much because it seems to be geared towards 3d performance and gamers...
i just read about it somewhere in the recording.org forums... a few DAW pros tested nforce4-based mobos, some are even manufacturers of audio equipment.
they used standard audio benchmarks and found that nforce4 with pci-e doesn't perform well.
also note that this ONLY applies to nforce4/AMD based pci-e mobos.
the results also showed that Intel based pci-e mobos had no problems as long as a "not-so-powerful" video card was used.
more info here:
http://www.recording.org/ftopict-26210.html
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/techinfo/nforce4_tests.htm


Keep in mind, this is just the current situation... as pci-e matures i'm sure everything will get better.

As For your upgrade, it's always a tough decision. if you choose to go AMD, get a S939 nf3-based mobo with agp, or you could go with an intel-based pci-e system and use a 'modest' video card. (the new pentium D's are excellent for audio!)... it's all good.... the thing to remember is that DAWs are not meant to be upgraded every year like gamer machines.

Good feedback - thanks.

Appreciate the links - both seem to a nice job of elaborating on the pci- express / nforce4 debate in more detail , although , not being a 'techie' muself most of the 'specs talk' is over my head.

I am wondering though, whether in the RME link, the type of testing they do ( in concluding NOT to go to nforce4 for audio ) is reflective of 'day to day' video / cpu usage, or whether the deficiencies they cite reflect extreme performance levels. So, I begin to wonder that if there wasn't a high-end video card included on the PC build ( as you mentioned ) whether this wouldbe less of a strain on the bus - I will likely go AMD by the way when I get it built.

Also, I'm not sure how old the actual tests were ( 2004 ? ) and whether there are more recent releases of AMD nforce4 mobos that have pci-express tweaks includdd regarding audio glitches.

I'm not adverse going with an AMD nforce4 mobo with pci-express at all, so long as i could feel 95% sure he's not going to run in to ' pops and crackling' when he tried to record - wish there were a few more reviews that could provide some greater assurance nforce4 is O.K. I'd hate to build it with an nforce4 mobo , then immediatley have audio glitches and have to then buy an nforce3.

But, I may look at this from a strategic perspective. I could build an AMD based PC NOW with a nforce3 mobo with AGP. In 3 years he'll likely be off to college and the PC will be handed down to his brother. At that time, we can decide whether to upgrade to a new mobo and CPU, perhaps to take advantage of dual-core that'll be availaable at reasaonable price levels by then - I can only assume that this nforce 4 ( 5/6 ? ) pci-express / audio glitch issue will be ironed out by 2007 !

I don't know much about AGP. I guess I'd have to ask the gamers in the RFD forum to commnet as to whther riding an AGP video card for the next 2/3 years will be a huge issue for new games ( majority targeted to pci-express ? ) that may be introduced over the next 2 years.

If the video lag of AGP to pci-express is not significant or it's not an issue at all, I guess then I'm not sure what the real advantage would be to go with nforce4 right now given the adio issue is still a bit of a wild card.

[chdude3]

I'm not adverse going with an AMD nforce4 mobo with pci-express at all, so long as i could feel 95% sure he's not going to run in to ' pops and crackling' when he tried to record - wish there were a few more reviews that could provide some greater assurance nforce4 is O.K. I'd hate to build it with an nforce4 mobo , then immediatley have audio glitches and have to then buy an nforce3.I haven't run into any reports of nForce4 boards causing this, but I haven't researched much into that (sticking with my nForce2 as I am). Most of what I've seen has been fairly successful using nForce4, especially since the audio card itself will be PCI and not PCIe. Only problem I've found was the non-native SATA controllers, which you can eliminate by getting a PATA drive.

If the video lag of AGP to pci-express is not significant or it's not an issue at allIt's not an issue. You won't see much of a difference between identical cards in either form factor.

[Cafe_333]

hello poedua, sorry for my late posting. If you've read my pm you'll know that I have been busy lol...

[Cafe_333]

Anyway, here it comes. It's a long post, so I decided to post this 'filler' so that my really long post can go on a new page. It'll be easier to read.... :D

[Cafe_333]

To answer your question in post #1: Partitioning means to 'map' a harddrive. Typically beginners will take a 80GB harddrive and 'map' the entire thing as one 80GB C:\ drive. Advanced users however have the option to 'custom map' it any way they like. Meaning I can take an 80GB and make it into a 20gb C:\ and a 60GB D:\. OR into a 10gb C:\, a 20gb D:\ and a 50gb E:\. Advanced users can map it any way they like to suit their individual needs up to the maximum available physical capacity of the harddrive.

One Physical Harddrive with two partitions:
When it comes down to it, you are still using the same head to read the entire harddrive. This means more head movements having to jump back and forth from the c:\ drive (with the operating system on it), to the d:\ drive (with data/recordings on it). Basically this means you have to simultaneously run the operating system while recording to another part of the harddrive. Imagine a record player having to jump back and forth from the 1st half of the record to the 2nd half constantly. It's never a good thing for any harddrive to have so many head movements especially when it comes to audio recordings. This is not recommended.

Two Physical Drives versus one:
For the most part, one drive would 'just suffice' the job and people have experienced great success off of one harddrive. This is especially true when it is for basic and non complex use. However you will still experience the same problems as described above - only not as severe (provided it only has one partition). The above problems of course is only a major concern when doing complex recordings. The reason why many music sites prefer having 2 harddrives is simple: it is all about the system overhead. Any computer guru will tell you the drive with the operating system on it does indeed have overhead. Just how much this will affect your recordings is another question; it completely depends on the end user. For some users, it does not affect them at all. To other complex users, it does. The overhead is undeniably there. Having said that, two physical harddrives for load balancing will unquestionably give you faster I/O performance (input/output = write/read). It's only a question if you really need it or not.

To answer your questions: Seek time is the time it takes to actually find the location of data on a harddrive and read from it. With a seperate harddrive:
1) there is no jumping back and forth that would have been required using one harddrive = less head movements.
2) and with less head movements, there is shorter distances the heads on both drives needs to cover; therefore you can find data faster = faster seek time.
3) so, less head movements plus faster seek times = lower latency (latency is lag time, or lost time due to external factors).
4) and finally since you are not confined to dealing with all your data and files on one harddrive, this prevents a degree of fragmentation - especially when such file sizes can become rather large with audio recording.

Ram compatibility with the Motherboard:
With the explosion of available ram varieties, more and more motherboards (but not all) are becoming picky with what ram it can use. The most important thing in buying ram is to check and see if the motherboard has a QVL (Qualified Vendors List) for compatible DDR memory. This is typically found on the motherboard's website. It should also be noted that just because a memory module you bought is not listed on there, it does not mean it will not work. The listed ram only means these have been tested and verified (but not limited to) to work with your mobo.

Chipsets for Audio Recording:
Alot of AMD mobos have VIA chipsets; while they have improved greatly they typically use a seperate VIA firewire chip which is a big no no for most firewire audio cards. This is why the VIA chipset is generally not recommended. However if you find a motherboard with the TI chipset firewire, all should be good.

And as erikm5150 has pointed out from the RME link, nforce4/AMD based pci-e mobos are not recommended. The RME tests I would assume are recent considering the date at the bottom: March 9, 2005. I would also say the deficiencies they cited reflect extreme performance levels. But this is a fair guideline to benchmark hardware setups even if your audio uses will never become that extreme. It is a good idea to see what hardware can work well even in extreme conditions to determine the best reliability. It's like buying a car and you are told the suspension is good even for offroad driving doesn't mean you will take it on offroad conditions - but it's definately a buying point knowing that kind of reliability is there and under normal driving conditions will even likely do a better job over the competition.

PATA versus SATA:
Many of the older motherboard chipsets (meaning the northbridge & southbridge) did not natively support SATA harddrives. Instead these mobos used a seperate controller chip for SATA harddrives. This was fine when SATA was still a new technology and harddrives using this interface were not widely available. This made going SATA as an optional feature on motherboards and it kept the costs of chipsets down. However using a seperate SATA controller was not attractive to AWDers. Having a seperate controller presented a bottleneck when trying to communicate between the actual SATA harddrives to the rest of the system - which can potentially become a problem in audio recording. Staying with the tried and true PATA (parallel ATA, aka regular IDE) harddrives avoided this. If you choose to use stick with the now aging PATA harddrives, putting them on seperate IDE cables will help a bit, however keeping in mind that everything off of the same IDE cable ends up sharing the same communication channel to the IDE controller - which is why it is called parallel ATA. You can play it safe sticking with PATA, however today's motherboard chipsets are now natively supporting SATA; so only now it seems more viable to go with the SATA interface. One of the clear advantages of SATA (Serial ATA) is that each harddrive has its own independant communication with the controller via its own fast point to point connection whereas PATA does not. SATA also uses less CPU resources which can help in the recording/playback process.

Motherbord Recommendation: Asus A8V-E Deluxe.
1) Socket 939 for the Athlon64 (which with this socket has the option to go dual core in the future);
2) Native SATA support (VIA K8T890);
3) Texas Instruments (TI TSB43AB22A) firewire.
4) This mobo is recommended by audio/pc sites to support the M-Audio 2496, so you already know it's a safe bet.

This mobo also supports AMD's Cool'n'Quiet (CnQ) technology - which generally is a great feature, however it's probably a good idea to keep this turned off for audio recording since it's not a good idea to have hardware settings change on the fly. For more specifications on the motherboard and more info on what CnQ does, check out the following link. If you plan on going with this motherboard, be sure to check the QVL at the bottom of the link!
http://usa.asus.com/products/mb/socket939/a8v-e-d/overview.htm

Alternative: Otherwise you can choose an nForce3 mobo, and/or perhaps something with AGP, provided the chipset natively supports SATA and does not use a VIA firewire chipset. Considering the current drawbacks of nForce4 in audio recording, I would probably stay away from these chipsets for now as well. Unfortunately none of the other suggested motherboards in Post#26 (that support the M-Audio 2496) meet all of these requirements, which is why I opted for the Asus A8V-E Deluxe.

Other Recommendations:
1) SATA harddrive(s). One or two is up to you. If you go with one, stick to one partition. If you go with two harddrives, it will undoubtedly give you better performance - it's just a question if you need that kind of performance. Or just go with one untill you feel you need a second when starting to feel limited. As for harddrive speeds - 7200rpm and 8mb cache. 7200rpm is the standard and should be enough. The price difference between 2mb cache and 8mb is a few dollars, so may as well go 8mb. It will help in the buffering and I/O speeds.
2) At least 1.0 GB of ram. Having more ram will minimize the OS from memory swapping. Any more than that depends on your budget, but it can be overkill. Since it is cheaper buying 2x512mb, go dual channel since you can. As for speeds, no more and no less than ddr400. A64's can only make use of 400Mhz max anyways. To be well informed in what to look for in your RAM purchases, you may want to read posts #5 and #6 in this link: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1752279#post1752279
3) Purchasing a DVD burner (they are pretty affordable now) to backup his final recordings is a good idea.
4) As for doing any kind of RAID with your harddrives, I wouldn't bother with any of it. RAID-1 (mirroring) gives a performance hit which can affect audio recording while RAID-0 (striped) is not fault tolerant (meaning there is a risk of data loss). RAID-0 is probably only worth while for the odd audio extremist in which you need 3 harddrives (one for OS, two striped for recording/playback which = incredibly high I/O). Even then, RAID-5 is better for that.... but let's not go there. :D

[poedua]

Thanks Cafe - that's an EXCELLENT reply !

I'll touch base on a few of your topics as i've got a couple of questions about some things i'm still fuzzy on.


Two Physical Drives versus one:

For the most part, one drive would 'just suffice' the job and people have experienced great success off of one harddrive.....just go with one untill you feel you need a second when starting to feel limited.

I agree. I think I'll go with one 160 GB SATA drive for now. If he ends up getting in to recording his guitar in a "heavy duty" way, I'll opt for a second drive later on. I'm leaning toward a Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 160G SATAII W/NCQ 8MB & 8.5MS seek time - not quite as quiet as a Samsung , but I've seen them used on a quite a few DAW systems before.

I noticed Seagate has some 200GB + drives, but they're 7200.8 as opposed to the 7200.7 as in the 160 GB I noted - any benefit to 7200.8 , not sure what the difference is ?


Ram compatibility with the Motherboard:

The most important thing in buying ram is to check and see if the motherboard has a QVL (Qualified Vendors List) .... It should also be noted that just because a memory module you bought is not listed on there, it does not mean it will not work.

On the assumption the Asus A8V -E Deluxe mobo is a good option, In was wondering if any other RFDers could suggest a RAM brand they've had success with in conjunction with this mobo ? Haven't checked the ASUS QVL as yet - actually, not sure how else one can see if a non-QVL listed RAM will work, other than forum feedback - is ther some other way ?

I'm not sure who I'll get to build this PC for me, but the one shop I'm thinking of, carries a lot of Kingston and OCZ brands and only a couple of Corsair.

Any suggestions which of these 3 ( OCZ, Kingston, Corsair ) is a better way to go ?


Chipsets for Audio Recording:

Alot of AMD mobos have VIA chipsets; while they have improved greatly they typically use a seperate VIA firewire chip which is a big no no for most firewire audio cards. This is why the VIA chipset is generally not recommended. However if you find a motherboard with the TI chipset firewire, all should be good.

" which is a big no no for most firewire audio cards. " - I'm not technically literate , can you quickly explian why this is so ? And why TI is OK ?


Motherbord Recommendation: Asus A8V-E Deluxe.


Alternative: Otherwise you can choose an nForce3 mobo, ...... Considering the current drawbacks of nForce4 in audio recording, I would probably stay away from these chipsets for now as well.

Could you quickly identifiy exactly what the difference is between nforce3 and nforce4 ? Wondering what it is about nforce4 that causes so many audio concerns.


Unfortunately none of the other suggested motherboards in Post#26 (that support the M-Audio 2496) meet all of these requirements, which is why I opted for the Asus A8V-E Deluxe.

Continuing on the topic of giving the edge to nforce3 based boards, wasn't clear how you found the nforce3 Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra ( as compared to the Aus A8V you suggested ) that someone esle mentioned and that i've seen mentioned quite a few times on other audio forums - it wasn't part of the mobo's on Post #26.

Is the Gigabyte Ultra at par or better than the Asus A8V in your opinion ?


Other Recommendations:

At least 1.0 GB of ram. Having more ram will minimize the OS from memory swapping. Any more than that depends on your budget, but it can be overkill.

Perhaps it's stating the obvious , but the question would be going with only one of 2 alternatives - whether to go with 1GB or 2 GB RAM . I can only assume that 95% of people ( including those with DAW oriented systems ) only need 1 GB, and I'm not sure why adding any more was relevant here ( even if I could fit in in my budget ) , because as you say, 2GB would be 'overkill '.

Put another way, when is 2GB RAM ever worth the 'bang for the buck' these days ? Is it only for multimedia oriented systems ?

PCI Excpress not the focus when wanting to maximize audio performace ?

I was a bit surprised that your reply didn't spend more time on the specific issue of PCI Express video being the main culprit at inhibiting audio performance - i say this because most of the ranting and raving I read about audio glitches came back to PCI Express issue time and time again.

Would i be correct in saying then that, based on your comments , this PCI Express / poor audio association is a bit off the mark( red herring ? ) , and the more relevant issue here is one of the appropriate chipset /ATA / firewire configuration ?

Is saying one should avoid all mobos with PCI Express when wanting to optimize audio a bit too simplistic ? After all, the Asus a8V you suggested had PCI Express .

[7-Endless]

Great thread here guys...very informative! :)

Just wondering if there have been tests with the newer nForce 4 Ultra boards that have the full 1000 Mhz(5x) Hypertransport support? The article from RME-Audio seems to hint that the issue with the nForce 4 boards may be due to the fact HT is limited to 800Mhz...

[poedua]

Alternative: Otherwise you can choose an nForce3 mobo, and/or perhaps something with AGP, provided the chipset natively supports SATA and does not use a VIA firewire chipset. Considering the current drawbacks of nForce4 in audio recording, I would probably stay away from these chipsets for now as well. Unfortunately none of the other suggested motherboards in Post#26 (that support the M-Audio 2496) meet all of these requirements, which is why I opted for the Asus A8V-E Deluxe.

:D

Hey Cafe-333

Just wanted to run 2 more points by you regarding the Asus A8V-E Deluxe motherboard ( VIA K8T890 chipset ) you'd suggested and to get your thoughts.

The VIA K8T890 chipset is NOT compatible with the AMD X2 dual processor.

Was doing some background reading on the Asus A8V-E Deluxe motherboard and stumbled on an a June '05 article ( see link below ) that says VIA acknowledges that the K8T890 chipset won't run the X2 processor and that corrected chipsets are ready to ship

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20050603042038.html

AMD's leadership in Dual Processing technology is obviously one of the big reasons to opt for the AMD 939 platform. If dual processing capability isn't possible with the K8T890, I'm wondering whether it's still a solid choice.

On the other hand, my son isn't a power user, so perhaps dual processing won't be an immediate concern for 3 or 4 years, and the ASUS A8V E Deluxe still makes sense until the dual processing price /performance point is more affordable.

Again, my rationale for keeping the ASUS A8V E Deluxe is because I want to make sure the M-Audio 2496 card works without hiccups.

So, ( if I still went for the ASUS A8V - E Deluxe / K8T890 chipset ), is there a 'rule of thumb' when it's prudent to upgrade to a new mobo to leverage advances in technology ? After 3 years, 5 years ?

Wondering if it makes sense for he and his brother use the ASUS A8V E Deluxe for 3-5 years maxing out with an Athlon FX CPU, and then switch to a new mobo and dual core X2 cpu ?

Or, opt for a solid nforce3 board now that will be dual core ready instead of the ASUS A8V E Deluxe ?


VIA K8T890 chipset Serial ATA Connectivity

In trying to decide the merit of staying with the Asus A8V-E Deluxe for the next 3-5 years, was wondering if available Serial ATA ports is even worth a concern.

The VIA K8T890 chipset has 2 SATA / 150 ports RAID-0,1.

By contrast, nvidia nForce4 has 4 SATA - II / 300 ports RAID -0,1,0+1.

I know Nforce4 should be avoided in the context of audio cards, but not sure if related nvidia ( nForce3) mobo's provide greater conncectivity options as well.

Will additional SATA drives be of any use within 3-5 years for things like optical drives and will the nvidia enhanced RAID configurations also be of any value or is it 'overkill' - best for power users ?

I realize I'm asking you to do a bit of ' crystal ball ' forcasting, but i have no idea how to properly assess this nforce3 vs VIA K8T890 ( non X2 ready ) comparison.

[Cafe_333]

I'm curious too :)
The RME article did mention that it was not clear if the audio stress tests were using the older or newer nF4 boards. Even if it were not an issue, there's still the problem of how PCIe videocards do affect audio performance. I hope newer revisions of the chipset fixes that. nF4 chipsets are still one to stay away from for DAWers.

Great thread here guys...very informative! :)

Just wondering if there have been tests with the newer nForce 4 Ultra boards that have the full 1000 Mhz(5x) Hypertransport support? The article from RME-Audio seems to hint that the issue with the nForce 4 boards may be due to the fact HT is limited to 800Mhz...

[Cafe_333]

7200.7 versus 7200.8:
There is very little difference between the two drives. Disk Acess times are the same. The only notable differences in the 7200.8 are faster transfer rates and a little less noise than its predecessor. 7200.8 drives will all natively be SATAII and support NCQ (Native Command Queuing) whereas not all 7200.7 do. NCQ is a technology borrowed from SCSI that sorts harddrive commands more efficiently. The head does not execute commands in order, rather instead executes commands in a logical sequence based on head positioning thus reducing the distance the head needs to travel overall. (NCQ in action: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/nforce4-ultra/ncq-diagram.gif) Anyway, either a 7200.7 (w/NCQ) or a 7200.8 drive will do the job for you just fine. It's just a question if you need to move large amounts of files where 7200.8 will benefit a little more with the faster transfer speeds.

Ram Compatibility:
From what I've read, most ram (including those not in the QVL) will work with Asus. It's only the odd few bars where users have actually reported problems. Strangely enough, Asus owners have reported flawless operation for months and only a problem occured when new hardware is installed. Anyway, the problem is not as widespread as I may have made it seem, but it is very existent nonetheless and common enough for many users to have taken notice. Brand names in particular, I have come across Asus owners having sucess with are Kingmax, OCZ and some Corsairs. This isn't something I would worry too much about - tell the vendor your concerns and make sure you are able to exchange or return the ram in case you need to. And make sure they are willing to waive the 15% restocking fee that most local dealers have if you do a return.

Ram Quantity:
I would say 1GB of ram should be enough for now. As for using 2GB of ram, it is more geared for multimedia oriented systems if you are refering to the design aspect of it - then yes that is correct. The quantity of ram is where it'll help developers working with large projects such as large scale design or animation, poster sized graphics, compiling large 3d models, landscaping, civil engineering, and so on.

TI versus VIA firewire chipset:
From the forums I've read, Texas Instruments (TI) is the way to go. VIA's offering has been known as a source of driver conflicts and incompatibility issues. TI has proved to be the most successful and stable chipset and the market trend has reflected on this as well - the latest motherboards from every manufacturer has since dropped VIA's firewire and adopted TI's. If you like you can search some DAW forums for more information. I've mainly scoped out the cakewalk and soundonsound forum. (Here's one sample from a quick search: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=255350)

PCIe Videocards affecting Audio:
Yes, I did not focus in on the issues of PCIe having an affect on audio performance because from the forums I have read, it was an issue that was only inherent in the nForce4 chipset. Since I have dismissed the nF4 in my last post, I did not address these concerns.

Motherboards Compatible with M-Audio from Post#26:
- Asus A8V E Deluxe
- Asus A8n -E nForce 4
- MSI K8N Neo4-F
- MSI K8N Neo2 NForce 3
Well my remarks was based on your mentioning of these four motherboards that are compatible with the M-Audio 2496. Thus my recommendations were based against these four. Someone did mention the Gigabyte GA-K8NS Ultra, but I didn't know if that is compatible with the M-Audio card, and therefore I did not make any comparisons against the four listed here.

Serial ATA Connectivity:
nForce4 would be a definate consideration if a typical user required more than two Sata harddrives in their system. nF4 natively supports up to 4 Sata drives, but with the availability of large capacity harddrives on the market, being able to plug in more Sata drives becomes less important. I also do not see optical drives turning to Sata in the near future. Its current speeds are not demanding nor saturated enough to resort to the interface just yet - but I think it will happen, just not for a long time. And when it does, it will be a slow death for IDE. Nothing to worry about for now. One advantage the nF4 does have however is native SataII support. As for the Raid configurations on either chipset, it's all overkill for any DAWers. Raid levels 0, 1, and 0+1 are not recommended for DAW as there will be a performance hit when having to perform raid functions which will affect audio recording.

VIA K8T890 chipset Compatibility:
In light of your new findings, it does add hesitation to my recommendation of the Asus A8V-E Deluxe. This was *very* surprising considering how even the older K8T800 chipset that the K8T890 succeeded is already X2 compatible. It was general knowledge that anything s939 is already compatible for X2 with a bios update, but clearly this has shown that it is dependant on the chipset. Anyway, I would not be happy knowing that I am not futureproof and it does pose some second thought with this kind of knowledge; in spite of the fact that your son may not be a power user now - he may just as well be in the near future.

Motherboard Recommendation:
I would have to say it's now an even toss up between the Asus A8V-E Deluxe and the Gigabyte GA-K8Ns Ultra. On the Asus camp, we know it will not hiccup with the M-Audio, hoewever it is not futureproof. As a rule of thumb, you may also be limited to using a modest or low end PCIe video card to be safe, although this problem has only been reported with nF4 setups. It has native Sata support and a TI firewire chipset. On the Gigabyte camp it's the ol' tried and true nForce 3 with native Sata support and TI firewire as well. I am actually going to lean a little to the Gigabyte side simply because you can keep existing hardware and *likely* go dual core in the future when it becomes more affordable. It remains to be seen (according to the gigabyte's cpu support list) if the nForce3 can actually support the forthcoming X2 cpu's, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest otherwise.

Anyways, i apologize that initial recommendation was not as clear cut of a decision in light of your new findings, but I hope that I have at least helped address some of the many concerns in the thread. Good Luck!

[Shiifty]

My 2 cents, with experience recording video to a hard drive. Recording audio is *MUCH* easier than video. I was recording 480x480 30 fps on a P2-350 MHZ, you can easily record only audio with an ancient PENTIUM.

You don't need to spend top dollar on anything except the audio card, which obviously is the single most important piece of equipment, most audio fanatics would choke on the audio quality of built-in mobo sound cards.

Before you go out to buy, try an experiment on your current computer, using just the line-in to record something (anything). See how it sounds, and see if you dropped frames. You don't need a SATA (although they are nice), you don't need a 3.6 Ghz P4, you don't need two hard drives, even 5400 rpm drives record audio just fine. Once you get to the point of recording multiple tracks simultaneously you'll need more than basic computer equipment.

A uncompressed CD of ~80 minutes is only 700 MB, so 1.5 hours is only a GB. You can compress this using a lossless codec such as FLAC to reduce the file sizes by about 50% without modifying the audio. Lossy codecs such as mp3 compress greater amounts, but do so by removing audio bits that you don't hear.

edit: just read your previous post, I guess my point was that you don't need to buy anything out of an ordinary "new" computer, except for an upgraded audio card. Current PC's have no issues with video recording/editing, nevermind audio ... :D

[poedua]

My 2 cents, with experience recording video to a hard drive. Recording audio is *MUCH* easier than video. I was recording 480x480 30 fps on a P2-350 MHZ, you can easily record only audio with an ancient PENTIUM.

You don't need to spend top dollar on anything except the audio card, which obviously is the single most important piece of equipment, most audio fanatics would choke on the audio quality of built-in mobo sound cards.

Before you go out to buy, try an experiment on your current computer, using just the line-in to record something (anything). See how it sounds, and see if you dropped frames. You don't need a SATA (although they are nice), you don't need a 3.6 Ghz P4, you don't need two hard drives, even 5400 rpm drives record audio just fine. Once you get to the point of recording multiple tracks simultaneously you'll need more than basic computer equipment.

A uncompressed CD of ~80 minutes is only 700 MB, so 1.5 hours is only a GB. You can compress this using a lossless codec such as FLAC to reduce the file sizes by about 50% without modifying the audio. Lossy codecs such as mp3 compress greater amounts, but do so by removing audio bits that you don't hear.

edit: just read your previous post, I guess my point was that you don't need to buy anything out of an ordinary "new" computer, except for an upgraded audio card. Current PC's have no issues with video recording/editing, nevermind audio ... :D

Thanks ...good points.

I tend to agree with you that i needn't go 'high-end' when it comes to the CPU and hard drives etc. Nonetheless, it seemed the 939 platfrom provided the most value for the $ both for now and the future - with the Athon 64 3200 being a good mid-level cpu to cover off a variety of performance needs.
And, as you suggested, it also seems that going with only one hard drive is the way to go for now.

I'm in complete agreement on the need for a quality sound card. Actually, if you took a look at the link I provided at the start of this thread , post #1, there was some great feedback on sound cards and general hardware setups needed to record guitar on a PC.

Based on the feedback from that thread, i thought that the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 was a good card for my son to start on, combined with a Behringer V Amp 2.

I wasn't until i realized that certain mobo/chipsets ( i.e nforce4, pci-e ) cause crackling and popping noises with certain soundcards that the need to pick the right mobo/chipset combo became equally as ( if not more )important as picking the right sound card.

If you've had any experience with M-Audio or mobo/chipsets with regards to recording and sound quality, I'd be interested to hear more.

[ephemera]

have you considered maybe a MAC?

When they built the mac like the g5, they actually take audio into consideration.

[poedua]

have you considered maybe a MAC?

When they built the mac like the g5, they actually take audio into consideration.

Actually I hadn't thought of a MAC till you just brought it up.

I felt sticking with the AMD/ 939 was best given it needed to be versatile beyond it being a ' low-end' DAW - the PC will be handed down to his 11 year old brother in 3 years and there are 2 other Pentuim PC 'sin the house.

But, if my son decides to go into DAW 100% it certainly something worth considering for down the road

[poedua]

.

[U][B]Motherboard Recommendation:
I would have to say it's now an even toss up between the Asus A8V-E Deluxe and the Gigabyte GA-K8Ns Ultra. On the Asus camp, we know it will not hiccup with the M-Audio, hoewever it is not futureproof. As a rule of thumb, you may also be limited to using a modest or low end PCIe video card to be safe, although this problem has only been reported with nF4 setups. It has native Sata support and a TI firewire chipset. On the Gigabyte camp it's the ol' tried and true nForce 3 with native Sata support and TI firewire as well. I am actually going to lean a little to the Gigabyte side simply because you can keep existing hardware and *likely* go dual core in the future when it becomes more affordable. It remains to be seen (according to the gigabyte's cpu support list) if the nForce3 can actually support the forthcoming X2 cpu's, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest otherwise.

Anyways, i apologize that initial recommendation was not as clear cut of a decision in light of your new findings, but I hope that I have at least helped address some of the many concerns in the thread. Good Luck!


Cafe

Thanks again for another very 'robust ' reply.

It, like the others you've sent along have been a great wealth of information and of tremendous help - it's much appreciated.



It seems to me it's getting down to one of 3 mobos...


- MSI K8N NEO2 Platinum [ NVIDIA NForce3 ULTRA ]

- GIGABYTE GA-K8N Ultra [ NVIDIA NForce3 ULTRA ]

- ASUS A8V DELUXE [ VIA K8T800 PRO ]



I snooped around the internet to see if one mobo stood out from the others in any way.

- Tom's Hardware Guide seemed to compare them ( Asus vs MSI ) and called it ' about even '

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040901/socket939-16.html

- Anandtech, on the other hand, gives the nod to the MSI K8N NEO2 Platinum over Asus, Abit , Gigabyte & ECS

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128&p=19




So, I'm not sure what to think.

My son's not a big gamer, overclocking isn't relevant - so a mobo proficient at that is meaningless.

The overall goal is a stable, reliable and versatile system with a 'fair' shelf life (i.e dual core ) and works with M-Audio.

- I suppose it gets down to which manufacturer has had the superior build quality these past few years - is it Asus ?

- Beyond that, should the superoirity of firewire technology and sata technology tip the scales for one over another ?

- That said, how important is it to go with a TI firewire controller ( Gigabyte ) vs VIA controllers ( Asus/ MSI ) - or does it make any ' significant' difference at all ?

- I noticed that Gigabyte has Silicon Image SATA and MSI has JBOD/Southbridge and Asus has Promise - do these differences carry any weight ?



Weighing those points above , and given my son's needs and user profile, which mobo would you think has the edge ?




//

[goldenegg]

I recently started getting back in to audio recording. My system is an AMD64 3000+ on a motherboard using the nForce4 chipset. My main input device is the M-Audio Black Box, but I've also used my Audigy 2 ZX. I've had no trouble with any of my recordings.

[poedua]

I recently started getting back in to audio recording. My system is an AMD64 3000+ on a motherboard using the nForce4 chipset. My main input device is the M-Audio Black Box, but I've also used my Audigy 2 ZX. I've had no trouble with any of my recordings.

That's interesting - as you may have read on an earlier post, the jury may still be out on whether nforce4 chipsets are associated with audio problems ( according to some reviews ), but there may also be some other issues at play.

Curious ......which brand / model of mobo do you have ?

I'm not too familiar with M-Audio's full product line - where does the Black Box stack up against the 2496 ?

[goldenegg]

My motherboard is the Gigabyte K8NF-9.

The Black Box is a USB audio inferface for guitar recording, with full effect and amp modeling. It's a fantastic unit. I'm having a ball playing around with it.

[Cafe_333]

I did find it surprising that Anandtech gave a clear nod to MSI while the more highly respected THG said they are about even. And then I found out why - the MSI appears to be slightly overclocked by default. To provide an apples to apples comparison of the chipsets, THG had to slightly overclock the competing boards and that is when the results were neck and neck. Anandtech on the other hand ran all benchmark tests at stock speeds, thus giving a clear nod to MSI. As you know for audio recording, it's best to stick with a rock solid and stable system. I would probably stay away from anything that's overclocked even by a little.

As for build quality, all of these manufacturers are quite good and noteable for their quality. They're pretty much the big3 of motherboard manufacturers. My only quarrel with MSI is that I have always questioned their component layout - it just doesn't seem to be as logical as Asus or Gigabyte's.

If you consider these motherboards 'about the same' as THG does, then the Gigabyte would 'tip the scales' being the only one with a TI firewire chipset, making it the best choice.

As for the SATA controllers you've mentioned, it's nothing to worry about. The K8T800 and nForce3 chipsets all natively support 2 SATA interfaces. In addition, they added a second external SATA controller (Silicon, Promise) for an *additional* 2 SATA interfaces for a total of up to 4 SATA drives. This second Sata controller is what you actually saw on each mobo's specs. Basically two are native on the chipset, and two more are external. For Audio Recording purposes, it is recommended that you use *only* the native Sata interfaces - refer to the manual to identify which ones are native.

All things considered, the mobo to go with remains to be the Gigabyte GA-K8Ns Ultra.

[chdude3]

I did find it surprising that Anandtech gave a clear nod to MSI while the more highly respected THG said they are about even.I have to take exception to that. While there are few decent hardware sites out there, I do not count THG among them. The site has gone down the toilet since its inception; the megalomaniacal Tom has given way to horrible hack writers.

[poedua]

I have to take exception to that. While there are few decent hardware sites out there, I do not count THG among them. The site has gone down the toilet since its inception; the megalomaniacal Tom has given way to horrible hack writers.

I'm a complete rookie on all things IT, but I must say, Tom's, along with a couple other sites is one of the sites most often recommended to visit when reserarching hardware.

I can't comment on Tom's either way, but it might be helpful to others in RFD'ers if you could elaborate on your opinion as to why you think Tom's has " gone down the toilet " - perhaps some examples of why you think Tom's lacks credibility - for example, were there certain writers you described as " horrible hack writers " that you had in mind ?

Beyond that , i'd be interested in knowing what those other decent sites you said were out there, better than Tom's - I need all the help I can get !

[poedua]

My motherboard is the Gigabyte K8NF-9.

The Black Box is a USB audio inferface for guitar recording, with full effect and amp modeling. It's a fantastic unit. I'm having a ball playing around with it.


What kind / brand of RAM did you get for the Gigabyte mobo ?

I understand some RAM may or not be compatible to all mobo's.

[goldenegg]

What kind / brand of RAM did you get for the Gigabyte mobo ?

I have one 1G Kingston and one 1G Samsung.

[poedua]

I did find it surprising that Anandtech gave a clear nod to MSI while the more highly respected THG said they are about even. And then I found out why - the MSI appears to be slightly overclocked by default. To provide an apples to apples comparison of the chipsets, THG had to slightly overclock the competing boards and that is when the results were neck and neck. Anandtech on the other hand ran all benchmark tests at stock speeds, thus giving a clear nod to MSI. As you know for audio recording, it's best to stick with a rock solid and stable system. I would probably stay away from anything that's overclocked even by a little.

As for build quality, all of these manufacturers are quite good and noteable for their quality. They're pretty much the big3 of motherboard manufacturers. My only quarrel with MSI is that I have always questioned their component layout - it just doesn't seem to be as logical as Asus or Gigabyte's.

If you consider these motherboards 'about the same' as THG does, then the Gigabyte would 'tip the scales' being the only one with a TI firewire chipset, making it the best choice.

As for the SATA controllers you've mentioned, it's nothing to worry about. The K8T800 and nForce3 chipsets all natively support 2 SATA interfaces. In addition, they added a second external SATA controller (Silicon, Promise) for an *additional* 2 SATA interfaces for a total of up to 4 SATA drives. This second Sata controller is what you actually saw on each mobo's specs. Basically two are native on the chipset, and two more are external. For Audio Recording purposes, it is recommended that you use *only* the native Sata interfaces - refer to the manual to identify which ones are native.

All things considered, the mobo to go with remains to be the Gigabyte GA-K8Ns Ultra.

Thanks again CAFE - appreciate getting your opinion - as always.

I agree, I think the Gigabyte mobo might be the way to go.

Now I'm just going to try and see if i can come up with some RAM ( 1GB ) to go with it ( 1GB ), PC 3200, Dual Channel . By the way, I read your earlier thread on RAM and how to evaluate it etc. - it helped a great deal.

Where I may have been tempted to go with RAM latencies of CAS 2.0, which I found from OCZ, your advice to carefully evaluate CAS 2.5 latencies paid off.

It seems that some Value RAM from Corsair is being widely used by gamers and audiophiles alike, based on rigs I've seen on a variety of forums. Although the Corsair is a CAS 2.5 latency, someone in a forum benchmarked it against a CAS 2.0 OCZ line and the OCZ specs were only better by about 4% - 6% across the board. A better value considering the Corsair is about 40% cheaper than the OCZ.

Once i nail down a modest ( $100 - $125 ) AGP video card, I'm pretty much set to start finalizing the system for my son.

[chdude3]

Where I may have been tempted to go with RAM latencies of CAS 2.0, which I found from OCZ, your advice to carefully evaluate CAS 2.5 latencies paid off.Especially for your needs, I wouldn't worry too much about CAS latency. Even 3.0 won't be a giant deal - think of how long one clock cycle is when you're talking 200MHz. Don't scrimp on quality of course, but quantity will do you better. If it's between 512meg of CAS2.0 and 1gig of CAS3.0, I'd be all over the gig.

Hardware sites - few and far between. I always respect the opinion of Daniel Rutter. Anandtech generally knows what it's talking about - I believe even J DeGelas defected there. Tom's is just pretty painful to read, and not overly informative. Omid doesn't appear to be writing as much there anymore, but that was one guy whose writing was terribly sloppy and uninformed.

[Cafe_333]

The choice of review site one prefers is to each their own. I am quite aware of how some readers now regard THG and no longer follow the site; but nontheless THG is still the more widely respected site by the masses. Very few other websites, if any, can offer the same scope of reviews spanning the many areas that Tom's cover. They have the reputation, the resources, and the consumer market following it. I can even argue that THG has more hardware readers than any other hardware review site. In recent years arguably better and more specific hardware sites have since sprung up, but Tom's remains the one to be beat. Let's not forget the objective of THG - Tom's Hardware *Guide*. Their reviews are meant to serve as guides rather than as conclusive facts or decision makers. They are meant to show what the end user should be expecting in particular hardware and the shortcomings of it. I find THG does a more comparative look while other sites tend to use a more competitive approach. Those who are looking to Tom's with that in mind is clearly having the wrong expectations. When it comes down to it, THG is not a *bad* review site - it's just a question of what you are expecting to get from it. Some can subjectively argue that it is not up to the standards some of the newer sites may have since set. Others can argue that as a guide, THG is completely valid. Any way anyone wants to look at it, THG is subjectively a *good* review site or else it would have died like many starter up sites have. With that said, the mass technological consumer market will never be instilled with the thought of 'stay away from Tom's Hardware' -- it just won't happen.

[Cafe_333]

Especially for your needs, I wouldn't worry too much about CAS latency. Even 3.0 won't be a giant deal - think of how long one clock cycle is when you're talking 200MHz. Don't scrimp on quality of course, but quantity will do you better. If it's between 512meg of CAS2.0 and 1gig of CAS3.0, I'd be all over the gig.Well, that's not really a fair comparison of latency when you have two different sized modules. :D

Your example is only really saying that quantity should be the first consideration before latency. But that's a moot point since everyone knows that already. Otherwise saying latency for his needs doesn't matter that much can be translated as "for your needs it doesn't matter if you go 1gb CAS2.0 or 1gb CAS3.0".... If you do an apples to apples comparison, latency will matter alot. The performance hit alone is as bad as underclocking your CPU down one or two steps.

[Cafe_333]

You're Welcome Poedua, always a pleasure to help someone I have garnered respect for! As for choosing a modest AGP card, do I smell another thread coming? :D

[chdude3]

The performance hit alone is as bad as underclocking your CPU down one or two steps.And that'll make a huge difference? I underclock my recording PC in order to drop the voltage and use an extremely quiet fan; even though the PC itself is kept fairly distance from any mics, I'm more concerned about the fildelity of the recording than a few percentage points of performance from RAM with a marginally lower column address strobe rating.

[Cafe_333]

You misunderstood me. I said the performance *hit* is as bad as... so yes, there is a huge difference. And it's not as marginal as you think. You cannot possibly tell me that one or two cpu clock speeds is marginal considering the huge performance hit. The indisputable fact is, ram speed matters. I'll illustrate why.

Setup 1:
cpu running at stock speed
1gb CL2.0 ram

Setup 2:
cpu running at stock speed
1gb CL3.0 ram

- Noise levels between the two are exactly the same.
- Total System Performance of Setup 1 is far superior.

And if you want to throw actual physical underclocking into the argument, that's just a moot point.

Setup 1:
cpu underclocked with quiet fan
1gb CL2.0 ram

Setup 2:
cpu underclocked with quiet fan
1gb CL3.0 ram

- Noise levels between the two are exactly the same.
- Total System Performance of Setup 1 is far superior.

So what are you trying to prove about underclocking with your Setup2 when I can do the same thing in my Setup1, and the performance in mine will shame yours by a huge margin. And you were trying to convince him that ram speed didn't matter? You were basically advising him to 'unnecessarily sacrifice total system performance' by going with slower ram which I am in disagreement with.

Conclusion: ram speed matters. :cool:

[poedua]

You misunderstood me. I said the performance *hit* is as bad as... so yes, there is a huge difference. And it's not as marginal as you think. You cannot possibly tell me that one or two cpu clock speeds is marginal considering the huge performance hit. The indisputable fact is, ram speed matters. I'll illustrate why.

Setup 1:
cpu running at stock speed
1gb CL2.0 ram

Setup 2:
cpu running at stock speed
1gb CL3.0 ram

- Noise levels between the two are exactly the same.
- Total System Performance of Setup 1 is far superior.

And if you want to throw actual physical underclocking into the argument, that's just a moot point.

Setup 1:
cpu underclocked with quiet fan
1gb CL2.0 ram

Setup 2:
cpu underclocked with quiet fan
1gb CL3.0 ram

- Noise levels between the two are exactly the same.
- Total System Performance of Setup 1 is far superior.

So what are you trying to prove about underclocking with your Setup2 when I can do the same thing in my Setup1, and the performance in mine will shame yours by a huge margin. And you were trying to convince him that ram speed didn't matter? You were basically advising him to 'unnecessarily sacrifice total system performance' by going with slower ram which I am in disagreement with.

Conclusion: ram speed matters. :cool:

Hey Cafe / chdude3

Though I have no technical knowledge at all, I'm afraid I'm still a bit confused on this whole RAM speed debate - primarlily because some of the info I've seen on forums elsewhere seem to suggest that RAM speed, 'apples to apples', actually DOESN'T matter at all ( which is chude3's stance I believe ) ...... but CAFE's last commnet was that " RAM Speed Matters "

I also thought CAS didn't matter - that's why I metioned in an earlier post that given Corsair CAS 2.5 vs OCZ 2.0 were virtually the same in performance ( 4% - 6 % variance max ) Corsair was much cheaper and , in my mind , a much better value.

I'll cite 2 forums I read that made me think this RAM speed was a ' non issue ' - i.e it doesn't matter . Perhaps you could give them a quick look and let me know if i'm interpreting their conclusions correctly or not.

Extremesystems Forum

This contributor concluded as follows....

" Well, when it comes to CAS only, I think it's clear that for real world performance, CAS doesn't mean a thing. For benching, of course it does. And for synthetic benchmarks, you will see a performance decrease, but it's extremely minimal (well under 100mb/s from CAS2 to CAS3). Scroll down for more benchmark results regarding other timings. But as a final answer for CAS only, it has no real world performance decrease when changing from CAS2 to CAS3 (keeping all other timings equal) "

In the link, you only need look at his Post #1 ( his test methodology ) and Post # 2 ( his conclusions - quote above )

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=48634

Actually , after reading it , i was wondering if perhaps even CAS 3.0 instead of the 2.5 I was looking at with Corsair was more than enough performance.

Techware Labs

http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/memory/memory_timings/index_3.shtml

This was a memory analysis I stumbled on, and again, I'm not sure if I'm reading the report correctly, but it seems to show that CAS 2.0 to CAS 3.0 performance variance ( in this case it's bandwith - is this a correct measure ? ) is insignificant as well ( a quote below )

CAS Latency: Performance Gain: % Increase:
3.0 to 2.5 ~0-2MB/sec 0%-0.001%
2.5 to 2.0 ~0-3MB/sec 0%-0.002%
2.0 to 1.5 ~0-3MB/sec 0%-0.002%
3.0 to 2.0
(166 MHz mem clock) ~0-4MB/sec 0%-0.002%
3.0 to 1.5
(100 MHz mem clock) ~0-4MB/sec 0%-0.002%

The differences in memory bandwidth concerning CAS latency were non-existent (and it is just as likely that any recorded performance gains are attributed to random events, as performance gains were not at all consistent). There was no significant gain in memory bandwidth from adjusting CAS latencies.

I'm wondering CAFE whether your ' ram speed matters ' is correct if seen form a ' benchmarking ' perpspectvie ...but, just wondering if it still holds up when speaking for a ' joe average' non- gamer user like my son, that it doesn't matter ' - which I think is the angle chdude3 was coming from.

CAFE, let me know if I mis-understood your last comments, because as i mentioned at the outset, I'm now confused as to whether a CAS 3.0 vs CAS 2.0 RAM perform significantly different from one another or not .

[7-Endless]

I see what Cafe 333 is saying but will the CAS difference actually be noticeable to the end user? From everything I've read and from personal experience of switching between RAM that was CL 3.0 to RAM that is CL2.0 or CL 2.5 I've never ever been able to tell any type of performance improvement without software such as SiSoft or Memtest telling me so.

I also came across the following article that seems to explain CAS latencies very well and it also seems to say that the end user will not be able to really see any difference:

http://www.dewassoc.com/performance/memory/cas_latency.htm


Now, since I've never really setup a PC for recording (but am seriously considering doing so), I'm very curious to hear how noticeable of a performance increase all of you have had with lower CAS latency RAM or any at all?

[chdude3]

The indisputable fact is, ram speed matters.I think you'll find I never said it wasn't. I'm talking latency, not speed.


- Total System Performance of Setup 1 is far superior.Uh, what kind of conclusion is that? I could write up the exact same thing and say "Performance of System 2 is superior".

Conclusion: ram speed matters. :cool:Of course it does. LATENCY, however, will impact performance significantly less.

The CAS latency tells you how many clock cycles it takes for the memory to start a read operation. It doesn't have anything to do with how fast the read operation itself proceeds; that'll be the same, for a given RAM clock speed, regardless of the CAS latency. Now, lots and lots of read operations happen every second, but at 400MHz the difference between CL2 and CL2.5 is only 1.25 billionths of a second, and the impact that'll have on performance for all but the weirdest of PC tasks will be well under 5%.

This is why I'll never pay a premium for CL2 RAM. It's not worth it. Poedua, I think you've found some numbers that actually back this up. As you said, while there will be mild performance enhancements from lower latency RAM, they are not significant. The basis of my point was that you shouldn't pay an arm and a leg just for CL2 RAM; if you can save $100 by going with CL2.5, then you've almost paid for your videocard with the savings.

[poedua]

I think you'll find I never said it wasn't. I'm talking latency, not speed.

Uh, what kind of conclusion is that? I could write up the exact same thing and say "Performance of System 2 is superior".

Of course it does. LATENCY, however, will impact performance significantly less.

The CAS latency tells you how many clock cycles it takes for the memory to start a read operation. It doesn't have anything to do with how fast the read operation itself proceeds; that'll be the same, for a given RAM clock speed, regardless of the CAS latency. Now, lots and lots of read operations happen every second, but at 400MHz the difference between CL2 and CL2.5 is only 1.25 billionths of a second, and the impact that'll have on performance for all but the weirdest of PC tasks will be well under 5%.

This is why I'll never pay a premium for CL2 RAM. It's not worth it. Poedua, I think you've found some numbers that actually back this up. As you said, while there will be mild performance enhancements from lower latency RAM, they are not significant. The basis of my point was that you shouldn't pay an arm and a leg just for CL2 RAM; if you can save $100 by going with CL2.5, then you've almost paid for your videocard with the savings.

here's what i find puzzling.

Presumably these RAM manufacturers understand that their target market of consumers for RAM are generally pretty savvy and technically astute when it comes to specs for RAM - particulary for the positioning their " fast " CAS 2.0 RAM . Surely, anyone who's in the market for fast " Quality CAS Ram " and not " Value CAS RAM " has the technical knowledge to realize they're almost exactly the same re CAS performance - or am I being to simplistic in assessing CAS 2.0 vs 3.0. A budget consumer buys 3.0 - but who buys 2.0 ?

if CAS 2.0 mand CAS 3.0 are so damn close, I'm wondering why they even bother with 2.5 , or is this whole CAS spec thing entirely driven by marketing concern & ' hype ' to line up against other RAM manufacturers.

I mean the significance of the CAS performance difference b/n 2.0 and 3.0 is quite different from, lets' say, having to choose between an Athlon 64 3200 or a Athlon 64 3000 - the difference b/n the 2 being about 10% ( ? ) or so in performance - hmmm...perhaps I should rethink my choice of the Athlon 64 3200 for my son, maybe the 3000 will do.

[mpc2323]

Thks - appreciate the feedback.

On a previous thread , I was alerted to the M - Audio card and it sounds like the way to go - but, it's always better to hear from more people that have got direct experience with it and can endorse it - such as yourself - ditto for the V- Amp 2.

Seems that going with one drive is the way to go alright, in light of your additional commentary - I'll likely go with 160 GB.

Also could you elaborate a bit more on your last suggestion , not sure if I understand it - what is DRY recording ? and not sure what real time montoring involves ? be curious for a couple of more details.

I would go with a better and more high range soundcard like the motu mk3 or some protools hd. I am curruntly using m audio 2496 and it is not bad but your son would upgrade sooner if he gets really into it. Im buying the mk3s portable soon.

[poedua]

I would go with a better and more high range soundcard like the motu mk3 or some protools hd. I am curruntly using m audio 2496 and it is not bad but your son would upgrade sooner if he gets really into it. Im buying the mk3s portable soon.

but given he's just statring out on guitar / recording ...is the 2496 a good stating point ? I agree...I think he can move up and upgrade if it looks like he'll stick with it..but i'll wait and see first.

by the way, i've only seen one PC shop in the GTA so far that sells the M- Audio 2496 - $155 I think - anywhere else i might look to get one. ?

[mpc2323]

long and mcquade or steves music carry audio cards. 155 seems to be a good price but check with long mcquade, maybe they sell it cheaper. I got mine for 250 3 years ago

[poedua]

long and mcquade or steves music carry audio cards. 155 seems to be a good price but check with long mcquade, maybe they sell it cheaper. I got mine for 250 3 years ago

I was also thinking about the Behringer V Amp 2 or someone even mentioned the V Amp Pro - assume both shops would carry this as well ?

[chdude3]

is this whole CAS spec thing entirely driven by marketing concern & ' hype ' to line up against other RAM manufacturers.You have hit the nail on the head, my friend.

[Cafe_333]

To begin, I will reilliterate post #53:
Otherwise saying latency for his needs doesn't matter that much can be translated as "for your needs it doesn't matter if you go 1gb CAS2.0 or 1gb CAS3.0".... If you do an apples to apples comparison, latency will matter alot.What does it mean to be a fair apples to apples comparison? We must compare based on the Manufacturer, and not by specs. Why? Because if we compared based on specs, then in theory, brand name 1gb CAS2.0 should perform as well as generic 1gb CAS2.0 modules. But we all know this is not the case. Why? Because when we see CAS 2.0, it means it can theoretically perform up to CAS2.0.

So, we need to compare against offerings from the same Manufacturer. Why? Because each ram manufacturer has different design and manufacturing processes. In an apples to apples comparison, Corsair 2.0 is clearly faster than Corsair 3.0 ram. Comparing Corsair 2.5 to OCZ 2.5 is not a fair comparison in latency. Neither is comparing Corsair 2.5 to Generic 2.5.

**********

When people refer to "ram speed", it depends to the context it was refered to. Ram speed covers three things: bandwidth, CAS Latency, and Memory Timings. These are the three considerations in purchasing ram, with the first two being the most important.

Most people already know about the bandwidth. The higher it is, the faster it is. As for Latency and Memory Timings, the lower the numbers, the faster the ram is. And this is *completely* true in an apples to apples comparison. CAS latency matters. Latency is part of Ram speed. Ram speed matters.

[Cafe_333]

And what do you think latency *is*? Latency is one of the most important factors in ram speed. the lower the latency, the faster the ram. But as I have stated, this is true in an apples to apples comparison. You cannot tell me that latency does not affect performance in these modules.

Your first arguement: was stating latency did not matter because you'd rather go for 1gb CAS3.0 over 512mb CAS2.0.

My rebuttal: it's not a fair comparison of latency when you compare two different sized modules. Otherwise translated, "for your needs it doesn't matter if you go 1gb CAS2.0 or 1gb CAS3.0".... If you do an apples to apples comparison, latency will matter alot. The performance hit alone is as bad as underclocking your CPU down one or two steps.

Your Response: underclocking won't make a huge difference because you underclock your cpu all the time to get better fidelity in recordings.

My rebuttal: You were basically advising him to go with slower ram which will unnecessarily sacrifice total system performance because he might have believed your point that latency didn't matter.

CAS Latency, or CL value, stands for Column Access Strobe Latency. This is the number of memory cycles that elapse between the time a memory column request is made to the time actual data is sent out to the memory bus. Basically it means the delayed reaction from the time of request to physical action. So the lower the CAS latency the better. This is true when comparing ram from the within the same manufacturer. However note that a well built CL2.5 high end memory module can keep pace, and at times out perform, CL2.0 generics as shown in benchmark tests."Latency is the delayed reaction from the time of request to physical action." The fact is, Latency *matters*. How else can you explain the different prices in CAS2.0 to CAS3.0 ram from the same manufacturer??? You cannot possibly believe that CAS3.0 is just as good as CAS2.0 in an apples to apples comparison.

My entire point is that latency is and should be a definate consideration. How much depends on him and his budget. *However*, telling him latency doesn't matter at all is incorrect. You cannot say Latency doesn't affect performance because it does. Latency is part of ram speed. And ram speed is important. How much speed he wants is up to him.

Your position untill the end of your last post has been saying that Latency does not matter from a performance standpoint. I'm saying it does. Now you are trying to change your argument around by saying it's a money saving issue? rofl. 'Uh, go with slower performing ram cuz it's cheaper and u save money...' Well duh, that's a moot point.

[poedua]

[QUOTE=Cafe_333]

So, we need to compare against offerings from the same Manufacturer. Why? Because each ram manufacturer has different design and manufacturing processes. In an apples to apples comparison, Corsair 2.0 is clearly faster than Corsair 3.0 ram. Comparing Corsair 2.5 to OCZ 2.5 is not a fair comparison in latency. Neither is comparing Corsair 2.5 to Generic 2.5.

QUOTE]


Hey Cafe

I'm afraid I'm getting more confused on this RAM selection debate.

On Corsair.

I've been noticing that this Corsair ( 2 x512 ) ValueSelect CAS 2.5 keeps coming up as a very good RAM to go with in a number of other forums i've visited - and , in fact, I thought it was a good option for me when I decide to pull the triggger on getting a system built for my son.

I've put up another RFD thread asking for tips on getting a PC built by a PC shop. It seems not many shops carry 100% of the specs I'd like and Corsair , for one , doesn't pop up very often among memory options.

I should add that one shop that has almost everything is Canada Computers - but I'm seeing mixed reviews on them - the shops that I'm speaking of seem to have good reviews, but less of a selection and are a bit more expensive.

So, to address your assertion that a RAM comparison should be ' apples to apples ' among the same manufacturer - say Corsair.

If the shop I choose says they can't get Corsair but they can get OCZ, Western Digital, Samsung memory etc. how would I be able to make an informed choice for a substitutte CAS 2.5 RAM to Corsair ? I'd then be forced to do a CAS 2.5 to CAS 2.5 comparison across many manufacturers, which you think is not a valid approach.

Like I said, for some reason, Corsair is mentioned a lot as the Value RAM to get in other forums - I'm not sure if you know much about Corsair, but would you be able to hazard a guess as to why i.e overclocking ? Suppose if i knew, it might make comaring Corsair to oether brands a bit easier.

Welcome your thoughts ..as always

[Cafe_333]

Just stick with the Corsair ValueSelect CAS 2.5 ram. I've read lots of good reviews for it and it performs very well for the money. That would be my recommendation.

As for the ram speed/latency debate, don't worry about it too much. But if you really want to understand why ram speed matters, it can be summed up like this:
1) Corsair CAS2.0 > Corsair CAS2.5 > Corsair CAS3.0
2) OCZ CAS2.0 > OCZ CAS2.5 > OCZ CAS3.0

In statements 1 and 2, latency matters if you were deciding between ram from the same Manufacturer. Clearly the lower the latency, the faster the performance. I just didn't want you thinking that going CAS3.0 would be fine when there are definate performance differences between each latency. But once you start comparing ram to other manufacturers, you can no longer compare based on the 'speed rating'. Why? Because not all CAS 2.0 ram will perform the same, and not all 2.5 ram are equal and so on.

We have seen this too in the CPU industry:
1) Pentium 1.7 > Pentium 1.6 > Pentium 1.5 > Pentium 1.4 GHz
2) AMD 1.7 > AMD 1.6 > AMD 1.5 > AMD 1.4 GHz

Compared from within the same manufacturer, the speed matters. Statement 1 is a valid apples to apples comparison and so is Statement 2. However, the AMD 1.4GHz does *not* perform equal to the Pentium 1.4GHz because of different design and manufacturing process. In fact, the AMD 1.4Ghz performs on par with a Pentium 1.7GHz!! This is why you cannot compare across manufacturers fairly based on the speed.

So likewise for RAM, to determine how ram from one manufacturer stacks up against other manufacturers, we can compare based on actual performance through benchmarks. And this is how it was found that Corsair CAS2.5 is just about as good as OCZ CAS2.0, but this does not prove latency is a moot point. Statements 1 and 2 at top show that latency does matter, because each have definate performance differences if you compare within the same manufacturer. So with that said, one cannot compare a CAS2.5 module from one brand against another brand CAS2.5 module. The performance is not the same, and neither is the price. Just like how Corsair 2.5 will perform better than a Generic No-Name brand 2.5 ram, and the price difference coincides with it too.

As for where to buy Corsair ram, CanadaComputers is just fine and I have even bought stuff from there with no problems. They just have bad service, that's all. But if you go in there and you know what you want, you should be fine. As to why Corsair is well mentioned, it's because Corsair has long been the favoured premier brand (by consumers and review sites) over OCZ and many others for its build quality, stability, performance, and excellant overclocking capabilities.

[poedua]

Just stick with the Corsair ValueSelect CAS 2.5 ram. I've read lots of good reviews for it and it performs very well for the money. That would be my recommendation.

.


Thanks again Cafe.

I'm pretty comfortable with Corsair now, and as i said before , it's pretty surpiring how often it came up as tha RAM of choice for a budget purchase.

Actually, it was the 2 x 512 kit that was most often cited - these 2 sticks.... are actually tested as a pair in a dual channel platform like the TwinX Corsair - is this the point of a kit or marketing hype only ?

Reason I ask, is because I've seen 1 ( 2 stick ) kit of 1gb Corsair ValuSelect priced about the same as 2 individual packages of the 512 MB Corsair ValueSelelct RAM - so is it always better to go with a ' kit ' of 1 GB RAM ?

Thanks for the benchmarking discussion - does clarify a lot of things.

As for Canada Computers , I think having a shopping list of parts and knowing exactly what i want should ease some of my concerns - although the thought of having a $1000 + system handed over to any shop to build is still a bit unsettling - I confess i'd never know if used or subsitute parts were used to build it or not.

[chdude3]

Why? Because not all CAS 2.0 ram will perform the same, and not all 2.5 ram are equal and so on.That's because there are other latency timings (such as the RAS to CAS delay), and even minute differences such as the value of decoupling caps and even trace length/routing of the PCB. Those differences, however, will be relatively minor, just like the difference between CAS2.0 and CAS2.5.

At least we agree on the Corsair ValueRAM 2.5. :)

By the way, you don't even really get into why there's the difference between P4 and equivalent AMD processors. Such as the P4 architecture being superscalar and deeper pipelined versus the more efficient AMD CPUs (and even that's a fairly general statement). Either way, that's a flawed analogy - the underlying CPU architecture is different, while the DRAM chips used on the dual inline memory modules all follow the same JEDEC specs.

[Cafe_333]

The differences are against other manufacturers, but not from within the same manufacturer. I stand by my original point that there is a difference in CAS values if in an apples to apples comparison. I don't believe the differences between a Corsair3.0 to Corsair2.5, or a Corsair 2.5 to Corsair2.0 is very little. (see following post)

And yes the Corsair ValueRAM 2.5 is the best choice for him to go. :)

I didn't bother getting into the actual differences between P4 and equivalent AMD processors because it would only confuse the OP more. If i was directly comparing the manufacturing processes of ram to cpu, then it could make for a flawed analogy - but that was not the context I was going on. The analogy's purpose was only to demonstrate why he shouldn't base his decisions on the numbers alone - which to that context, the analogy was not flawed and served its purpose well.

[Cafe_333]

"Looking at the benchmark results, you can clearly see the potential of RAM. In terms of percentage, the differences don't play a very important role, but when you consider the usual performance differences in motherboard comparisons or the small performance increases within an individual processor series, CL2 memory is a must."
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20020507/timing-06.html#conclusion

Only with CL2 can the chipset perform to its full potential.
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20020220/kt333-20.html

DDR333 CL2.5 is about equal to DDR266 CL2.0. However a distinct increase in speed is offered with DDR333 CL2.0.
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20020501/ddr400vsrambus-10.html

"no matter which type of memory you want to use, do not accept anything other than CL2 mode DIMMs! The performance gap to CL2.5 is as big as if you exchanged your Athlon XP 2200+ for the 2100+ model!"
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20021111/nforce2-16.html

The performance gap is as big as underclocking the cpu down a step - that's huge. From 2.0 to 3.0 would be about two steps. So I would say that ram speed matters. How much you are willing to pay for that kind of performance is another question.

[Cafe_333]

will the CAS difference actually be noticeable to the end user? From everything I've read and from personal experience of switching between RAM that was CL 3.0 to RAM that is CL2.0 or CL 2.5 I've never ever been able to tell any type of performance improvement without software such as SiSoft or Memtest telling me so.Well the performance increase is there, wether or not you will 'feel' the difference depends on the application you use. For things like games you would notice some increase in the frame rate. For encoding, it will be a little faster and not take as long. Basically, everything gets done a little faster as though you have overclocked your CPU up one or two steps. The distinction I have been trying to make is that there are performance differences - it's just a question of how much performance you are willing to pay for that is within your budget.

[Cafe_333]

Thanks again Cafe.
Actually, it was the 2 x 512 kit that was most often cited - these 2 sticks.... are actually tested as a pair in a dual channel platform like the TwinX Corsair - is this the point of a kit or marketing hype only ?

Reason I ask, is because I've seen 1 ( 2 stick ) kit of 1gb Corsair ValuSelect priced about the same as 2 individual packages of the 512 MB Corsair ValueSelelct RAM - so is it always better to go with a ' kit ' of 1 GB RAM ?No problem! You're Welcome :)

Dual Channel Kits being marketing hype is a yes and no. As you can see, there is no price difference between the Corsair ValuSelect in buying two individual sticks or one dual kit. Dual channel kits just means you are getting two identical sticks of ram and that they have been tested to work in dual channel configuration. And there are no performance advantages buying two single sticks or one dual channel kit. These kits are really for the ram newbies.

However, high end performance ram modules are only typically available as dual channel kits, and not available as single sticks of ram available for purchase. These are probably the only real justifcation for Dual Channel kits as performance options.

The facts for Dual Channel are:
-You do not need two identical sticks of ram.
-You do not need two sticks of the same speed. (this means bandwidth, CAS latency, & memory timings)
-You do not even need two sticks of the same size.
However the opposite of each point above is highly recommended because dual channel will run at the lowest denominators of each configuration.

************

As for CanadaComputers, I should clarify that I have only bought individual hardware components there but never had them (or anybody) build anything for me. If you are concerned with trusting CanadaComputers, you can simply just buy the Corsair RAM from them, and buy everything else from a dealer you can trust/recommended from a friend and have them build it. If you are worried about parts being substituted, you can inspect everything phsyically before leaving the store. CPU/Mobo you can easily check through the BIOS when you start up the computer. VideoCard you can check in Windows "Display Properties" Settings, and the RAM you can see with the case open.