Proposed DAW Build

[Rucker]

Already owned and planning to use, from a secondary gaming machine:

Asus M4N72-E Motherboard
OCZ Gold DDR2 2 x 2GB RAM 800MHz
AMD Phenom II x3 720
Scythe Mugen 2 Heatsink
Scythe Slipstream 1200 RPM 120mm fans
HP 22x Super Multi DVD writer
OS: Win 7 64 Ultimate (technet)
Zalman Fan Mate 1s
M-Audio Delta 1010LT

Add:

Antec Solo case
Nexus Value 430 PSU
Nexus 92mm fans x 2
WD 500GB Blue HDD
Asus EN8400GS video card
Possible upgrade to 8 GB RAM

This will be strictly a DAW – I’ve got another system for gaming and a notebook for general use.

I’ve also got a BFG gs-550 that I’m willing to sacrifice the warranty on if I can make it quiet enough. A fan replacement isn’t optimal, as it uses a 140mm fan, but I’ve got access to a competent tech who can drop the voltage on the current fan. That would save me $90 or so for the Nexus PSU. I haven’t seen too much out there on the BFG PSU, though.

Audio software would be mainly Reaper with as yet undecided add-ins.

Comments?

[croddie]

Comments?

Sell, build from scratch. mATX system using integrated graphics. This system is power-hungry, hard to silence. Make sure to use a 45nm processor.
A good system would be dual core processor, 4GB RAM, M-Audio, or better E-MU. A higher-end system would be quad-core, 8Gb RAM, RAID, RME soundcard.

[Rucker]

Comments?

Sell, build from scratch. mATX system using integrated graphics. This system is power-hungry, hard to silence. Make sure to use a 45nm processor.
A good system would be dual core processor, 4GB RAM, M-Audio, or better E-MU. A higher-end system would be quad-core, 8Gb RAM, RAID, RME soundcard.

The AMD CPU is a 45nm CPU. What would you propose in its place?

I've got 3TB of home server storage, so I'm not worried about the RAID. I've seen some research that indicates that some DAW s/w do not interact well with integrated graphics which is why I proposed a passively cooled GPU.

Why mATX over ATX? How would a quad core system be less power-hungry than the current system? I just built up a Core i7 system for gaming so I can't throw a lot of money at this one, unless someone wants to buy my Telecaster that I'm selling.

[HappyJack96]

Antec SOLO is a superb case! With exceptional multiple hard drive (soft) mounting capability; if you ever wanted to integrate your home server storage and eliminate an additional case, PSU, etc. Unless that's not ideal or feasible with a dedicated DAW(?)

If I wasn't going to mini-ITX, I'd never part with my SOLO! But alas, I must let it go

Russell

[sonic6k]

Why mATX over ATX?

What was really meant is that a Micro-ATX motherboard is better than ATX for a DAW, because Micro-ATX tends to include an integrated graphics processor. This way, even if some system RAM is sacrificed, you won't have to deal with possible problems of discrete graphic cards; was it noise, heat or something else. On the other hand, this system will be a DAW and you might want to upgrade to a dual display setup. In that case, you most likely need dual digital outputs and at that time it could be wise to upgrade to a discrete graphic card.

Well, if you didn't know, your "three-core" is a quad-core with a single core disabled The difference will be very minimal, but given that a Micro-ATX could offer you a lower power integrated graphics processor, it will even out the difference. So, for a DAW system, definitely get Micro-ATX, unless you are willing to go for a complete workstation platform with professional graphic card.

I personally do video editing and my planned configuration is not that different form yours, but I need the "extra" from a full ATX motherboard, because I'll be using more than three expansion cards (video capture, sound card, graphic card, possibly a video accelerator or RAID card).

[croddie]

Yes an important difference is integrated graphics, but also smaller form factors are tuned for lower power consumption in component choices and VRMs.

[ame]

Lower power consumption isn't everything.

I support your choice of added components. Your current of CPU+mobo combo is OK , just not spectacular in DAW standards. I guess its more than enough for Reaper + some plugins. If you had a choice or wanted to replace it go for a Q9550 (or Q9550s though the price is too high IMO)

i7s are killer but just a tad too hot for my liking, maybe wait with the upgrade for the relese of 32nm Lenfields...

The 8GB is only needed if you plan on using a lot of sample based virtual istruments. The sample load to RAM.

Keep the ATX+dedicated graphics approach as its the right way to go for a DAW.

[croddie]

I've got 3TB of home server storage, so I'm not worried about the RAID. I've seen some research that indicates that some DAW s/w do not interact well with integrated graphics which is why I proposed a passively cooled GPU.

Just saw this comment. This is just hocus pocus by people who don't understand computers. For non-graphically intensive tasks discrete GPUs don't affect performance (+/- margin of error) and certainly no bugs can be introduced by some sort of gpu/audio apps interaction: all they are doing is asking the OS to draw windows on the screen.

[ame]

There is no doubt any integrated GPU can handle audio apps' screen redraw. Yet most (the 3 major) PC DAW require a dedicated card as their users are experianceing some issues with integrated.

What issues you ask? some have to with DPC latency, others with shared memory. Some Users can make it work with integrated, others have problems, but why take a risk if a dedicated card is only ~$35 or less on a system thats ~$1000.

Regardless of the problem, a professional DAW needs to stream large amounts of audio at very low latencies and this (and possibly noise) is what should guide the hardware choices.

[Rucker]

Thanks for the input, everyone. My parts will be here Monday, and after I run my planned fan speed/temperature test on my gaming system I can start building.

Here's what I ended up with:

Antec Solo case
Nexus Value 430 PSU
Nexus 92mm fans x 2 with silicone softmounts
Asus M4N72-E Motherboard
OCZ Gold DDR2 2 x 2GB RAM 800MHz
AMD Phenom II x3 720
Scythe Mugen 2 Heatsink
Scythe Slipstream 1200 RPM 120mm fans (one on HS, one for exhaust, soft silicone mounts for exhaust)
HP 22x Super Multi DVD writer
OS: Win 7 64 Ultimate (technet)
Scythe Master Ace fan controller
M-Audio Delta 1010LT
WD 500GB Scorpio Blue HDD (with the possibity of one or two more)
WD 500GB Caviar Blue HDD
EDIT: Asus EAH4350 video card

OS and applications with be on the Scorpio, projects on the Caviar, which will get pushed down to sample storage if I can pick up some more Scorpios.

A friend who recently remodeled his house and built a sound-proof studio has some left over limp mass vinyl, and if he can find it I might add some to the case for more sound damping.

[sonic6k]

In the end however it also boils down to total cost of ownership and definitely a discrete graphic card requires more maintenance than integrated graphics. Sure there can be problems, but hey the same also applies to discrete graphic cards or any other part of your system. Don't blame it on integrated graphics. If you want out of the box everything to work, get a Mac. That's what they are for.

Most problems can be solved by Googling and it is utter bullshit that "the 3 major" PC DAW software require a dedicated graphic card. I use CUBASE myself so I know of what I am talking about. Only for video editing or hybrid DAW setup (audio+video synch) you need dedicated graphic card, but then again you are looking into product lines like MATROX or NVIDIA QUADRO. In a purely DAW system, which stands for Digital Audio Workstation, audio should be main concern so why go into the hassle of getting a dedicated graphic card?

I work in professional video industry and I am also responsible as system administrator, whenever there's talk about purely audio edit machines, integrated graphics are preferred, because it means zero maintenance for the end user. And again, don't blame it on integrated graphics, if one out of 100 experiences problem it does not mean the problem is common and if you want everything to work out of the box, go and invest in a Mac.

You should expect to run into some walls with a PC, no matter how simple the build is. Just my 0.02€

[ame]

Nobody is blaming the integrated for anything. I am just Quoting the system requirements/recomendations.

Macs are nice, but talk about cost of ownership...

[sonic6k]

Nobody is blaming the integrated for anything. I am just Quoting the system requirements/recomendations.

Macs are nice, but talk about cost of ownership...

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Macs require basically zero maintenance. We still have an old Power Mac G5 running in our lab and it's been on 24/7. Guess what? Not even a single time needed this machine maintenance, that's something that directly relates to its Total Cost of Ownership. With a PC it's a different story, since if you are not buying an OEM one, you'll have to make your homework and get all parts and assemble the system. Since drivers and the like are also produced by different manufacturers you can never guarantee 100% compatibility and it is very likely you'll run into a problem with a PC sooner or later. Finally, should the PC ever be connected to the internet then you immediately need to consider anti-virus utilities. While AVAST for example is good and in most cases excellent, you can't rely on a free AV for a production machine. Take Kaspersky or NOD32 and we'll start talking. On top of this, you need to purchase the operating system for your system and Microsoft Windows does, surprisingly, cost money. Take all these and put into one, the Mac doesn't seem so expensive anymore. Macs have basically zero viruses just like Linux, they are preloaded with Apple's operating system and since all code is written by Apple (or at least most of it) you are guaranteed to have a 100% compatible and working system out of the box. Finally, major DAWs support the Mac as do lots of audio interfaces and the like so to go for a non-Mac system is plain stupid when requiring out of the box compatibility and functionality. If you are any serious about a production machine then get a Mac.

Finally, please, link me to these "System Requirements" you are talking of. Integrated graphics are the way to go if you want less maintenance on your part.

[ame]

Here is one link

http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=54&itemid=25672

Scroll down to the third paragraph from the bottom. Visit some user forums and you will see its hit and miss for guys trying to run with integrated especially when trying to use low buffer size for low latency.

I work on Mac based DAW on a daily basis (at least twice a week on average but it used to be more bun many have switched) so I know Macs have their advantages, I also do consulting for studio owners who own Macs and trust me when I say while the quality and ease of use +security may be higher the cost is higher as well (in a significant way).

Here is the Stienberg page for Cubase and Nuendo

http://www.steinberg.net/en/support/ste ... html#c4963

They have recently changed the entire page and don't have any specifics but it still reads "Nvidia, ATI or Matrox"
I'm assuming Intel or integrated Nvidia or even ATI with turbo cache would be possible but not definite tested. Again for $35 you don't want to take chances.
Read what they say about chipsets. Again no specifics but the encourage you not to get the lowest grade possible, again for latency reasons.

[sonic6k]

I see you mostly refer to http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=54&itemid=24903, however you must also understand that these requirements were made at the time when integrated graphics weren't as good as they are now. An NVIDIA GeForce 9300 motherboard features a built-in graphics controller as powerful as a low-end 8500GT or similar and its shared RAM usage will not count much if you already have much RAM (4GB+). Current chipsets have better controlling and management of system resources and to have the integrated graphics controller be the bottleneck you really must have an antiquated system to use for modern DAWs.

Intel's G45 (X4500HD) isn't that bad either. Also to what Steinberg refer is that NVIDIA/ATI/Matrox had in the "dark ages" problematic graphics drivers, but current solutions are less likely to introduce such problems. Steinberg do not in any way recommend a graphics card from NVIDIA/ATI/Matrox, instead they are only giving you advice that should you buy a graphics card from any of these manufacturers, you have little to worry about in terms of graphics drivers.

I had contacted Steinberg some time ago about this very issue and the representative did say that for a mid-end DAW an integrated graphic controller is very fine. Mind you, he counted high-end DAWs to include audio+video synch which again requires a professional graphics card.

All you are defending right now is a sub 30 EUR investment and for no reason. In other words you are uninformed due to outdated and misinterpreted information on both Digidesign's and Steinberg's websites. Ask any representative of each company and we'll see what they tell you.

Bottom line -- if you buy a computer *now* for DAW usage then *any* offering, was it Intel/NVIDIA/ATI/Matrox will be fine even if the graphics controller was dedicated or integrated.

[croddie]

Macs require basically zero maintenance... With a PC it's a different story...If you are any serious about a production machine then get a Mac.

A little unbalanced this:
-You mean with a PC you build yourself; you can also buy PCs ready made and almost everyone does. Although if you can't build a PC probably using a DAW is too difficult.
-Drivers from good companies generally work, although it sometimes takes a few months after release for drivers to be completely bug free. It's not a question of compatibility, just whether they work or not.
-It's relatively safe to run PCs without antivirus, no less safe than Macs. (Assuming at least Vista.) Normally you should put antivirus on both but for a DAW system you have to be careful that the antivirus doesn't start doing things that affect performance. MS is coming out with free antivirus that apparently is very light on resources and won't nag you like the other free ones do eventually.

[croddie]

They have recently changed the entire page and don't have any specifics but it still reads "Nvidia, ATI or Matrox"

Also "The dark days of incompatible graphics card drivers are for the most part history". I would be very surprised if Intel G45 or even the old G35 caused any problems for DAWs.

Read what they say about chipsets. Again no specifics but the encourage you not to get the lowest grade possible, again for latency reasons.

Now that makes much more sense!

[ame]

For me, playing a virtual synth at more than 64 sample buffer is just to much latency. To check if your rig is capable of running @ low latency try this free tool

http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml