Music Production PC - $2500 Budget

[adamackbeatz]

Hey:

I am new to the forums, hello all!

I am a music producer finally looking to upgrade my system. I need something that will be able to handle Reason 5.0, Cubase 6, and possibly Pro Tools very seamlessly and handle loading sounds/instrument patches as quickly as possible with my budget.


What I Need:

- I would like to base my system around this processor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115223

- I honestly do not need any incredible graphics card (I don't do any gaming), but I will take the best one I can get to fit within my $2500 budget because I may want to edit videos at some point.

- I already have an exrernal audio card (Presonus Firestudio Mobile), so I do not need anything beyond that

- I would like a case that is sturdy and cool. My room tends to get hot and I don't want any temp probs

- I would like around 6 Gigs of RAM, or however much is recommended to be able to handle my music production software seamlessly

- I would really like for professionals to build it. I built my last PC, but in dealing with a $1000 processor this time I would be really scared to do it myself

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!! If the processor I am interested in is way beyond the scope of what I need, I would appreciate some recommendations for alternatives.

Thanks,

Tim

[zburns]

I edited my post while you were posting.

The newegg link you provided for the cpu shows this message only:
Thank you for visiting Newegg.com. We apologize for your inconvenience. The page you requested is unavailable

Please post the exact cpu part # for the Intel or AMD cpu you are planning to use. In the meantime, I will take a look at the three applications you mention in your post.

Fortunately, analyzing musical notes deals solely within the frequency range of one cycle to one hundred thousand cycles per second ( 1 cps to 100,000 cps, cps meaning cycles per second). While human hearing is at best in the range of several cycles per second to about 20,000 cycles per second, equipment to analyze or play back 'audible sounds' must have a range as low as possible (below 20 cycles per second), but more importantly as high as 100,000 cps -- because to play back a 20,000 cycle note accurately, requires equipment that will operate up to 100,000 cps so that 'distortion' is not present in the play back sound.

Say it differently. To use microphones and amplifiers to record music, the truest, distortion free sound, will come from microphones and amplifiers that have the highest possible bandpass (frequency range). Equipment with an upper limit of 20,000 cps will play back music with 'distortion' you can hear. With equipment that goes to 100,000 cps, distortion virtually is non-existant. How does this relate to computers. Digital computers do not analyze information based on a 'non-stop' flow of data; computers operate with 'bursts' of data, then some delay, then another burst of data. The high gigahertz (frequency of operation) of the computer is so fast, that in the case of listening to music, delays will still be there in the computer process but because of the GHertz speed of the computer, the delays are virtually non-existant to the human ear.

The comments in the last para mean that the selection of the amount of RAM is important, but it also means that maybe a quad core with hyperthreading (8 cores) may be more than sufficient for 'audio' work. Whereas, a six core cpu with hyperthreading (12 cores), would not be needed. The RAM has to be large enough to 'more than feed the cpu requirement'. The RAM requirement has a lot to do with the System Requirements recommended by the Software Application requirements.

[adamackbeatz]

Sorry about that! It is:

Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7980X

Thanks for your help

[zburns]

Do you have any direct knowledge that a six core cpu is used in any equipment designed to analyze audio? I will look for this answer myself, but if you have heard this or seen it on the internet, I would like to see it myself! Thanks!

The audio frequency spectrum is so low or small, that it is swamped by the gigahertz frequencies of computers. Lets assume that a current quad with hyper threading is more than sufficient to run your proposed system. Given this assumption, it is reasonable, until we prove otherwise, that using a faster processor may have some negative consequenses -- it is just an assumption, but it is a valid question.

[zburns]

Here is a link to Steinberg about Cubase 6 and Win 7 32 bit and 64 bit: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/cubase/cubase6_specs_downloads.html Not sure what if means right now. For Reason and Cubase, sys requirements only mention dual core cpu -- no mention of quad. Since they have been around a few years, I find that strange. Ok, sort of same thing about Pro Tools 9.

All three applications you want to use would have to be written to work for a minimum of 8 cores, 4 actual and 4 virtual, for you to get max use out of a quad. For the 6 core extreme, cores go to 6 and 12. Again, audio frequencies are just not 'large' when it comes to comparison to operating frequencies of cpus. Without asking the Reason, Cubase and Pro Tools owners if there software is written to run on a 6 core -- I would think they would dismiss the idea as unnecessary. The new Sandy Bridge quad is probably the safest bet. Sandy Bridge is later technology than your choice. Sandy Bridge access to memory may be faster, for example.

I will try to call some of the application companies tomorrow and discuss it hopefully with one of their technical experts.

EDIT, about 4pm EST: Take a look at this link to Steinberg Compatibility: https://www.steinberg.net/en/support/knowledgebase_new/free_articles/kb_show/compatibility-steinberg-applications-and-microsoft-windows-vista7-32-bit-and-64-bit-versions.html

I assume you will run Win 7, 64 bit. This compatibility link discusses relevant issues between 32 and 64 bit. Do you presently use 32 bit versions of the three applications you mentioned?

[adamackbeatz]

I edited my post while you were posting.

The newegg link you provided for the cpu shows this message only:

Please post the exact cpu part # for the Intel or AMD cpu you are planning to use. In the meantime, I will take a look at the three applications you mention in your post.

Fortunately, analyzing musical notes deals solely within the frequency range of one cycle to one hundred thousand cycles per second ( 1 cps to 100,000 cps, cps meaning cycles per second). While human hearing is at best in the range of several cycles per second to about 20,000 cycles per second, equipment to analyze or play back 'audible sounds' must have a range as low as possible (below 20 cycles per second), but more importantly as high as 100,000 cps -- because to play back a 20,000 cycle note accurately, requires equipment that will operate up to 100,000 cps so that 'distortion' is not present in the play back sound.

Say it differently. To use microphones and amplifiers to record music, the truest, distortion free sound, will come from microphones and amplifiers that have the highest possible bandpass (frequency range). Equipment with an upper limit of 20,000 cps will play back music with 'distortion' you can hear. With equipment that goes to 100,000 cps, distortion virtually is non-existant. How does this relate to computers. Digital computers do not analyze information based on a 'non-stop' flow of data; computers operate with 'bursts' of data, then some delay, then another burst of data. The high gigahertz (frequency of operation) of the computer is so fast, that in the case of listening to music, delays will still be there in the computer process but because of the GHertz speed of the computer, the delays are virtually non-existant to the human ear.

The comments in the last para mean that the selection of the amount of RAM is important, but it also means that maybe a quad core with hyperthreading (8 cores) may be more than sufficient for 'audio' work. Whereas, a six core cpu with hyperthreading (12 cores), would not be needed. The RAM has to be large enough to 'more than feed the cpu requirement'. The RAM requirement has a lot to do with the System Requirements recommended by the Software Application requirements.

Wow, very interesting stuff. Wanted to say thank you for sharing this info with me. I figured the six core may not even be necessary, and this really helps to explain it better. I'll be looking into saving some money on the processor instead of paying over 1k for one that probably won't even be fully utilized.

Thanks again!!

[adamackbeatz]

Here is a link to Steinberg about Cubase 6 and Win 7 32 bit and 64 bit: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/cubase/cubase6_specs_downloads.html Not sure what if means right now. For Reason and Cubase, sys requirements only mention dual core cpu -- no mention of quad. Since they have been around a few years, I find that strange. Ok, sort of same thing about Pro Tools 9.

All three applications you want to use would have to be written to work for a minimum of 8 cores, 4 actual and 4 virtual, for you to get max use out of a quad. For the 6 core extreme, cores go to 6 and 12. Again, audio frequencies are just not 'large' when it comes to comparison to operating frequencies of cpus. Without asking the Reason, Cubase and Pro Tools owners if there software is written to run on a 6 core -- I would think they would dismiss the idea as unnecessary. The new Sandy Bridge quad is probably the safest bet. Sandy Bridge is later technology than your choice. Sandy Bridge access to memory may be faster, for example.

I will try to call some of the application companies tomorrow and discuss it hopefully with one of their technical experts.

EDIT, about 4pm EST: Take a look at this link to Steinberg Compatibility: https://www.steinberg.net/en/support/knowledgebase_new/free_articles/kb_show/compatibility-steinberg-applications-and-microsoft-windows-vista7-32-bit-and-64-bit-versions.html

I assume you will run Win 7, 64 bit. This compatibility link discusses relevant issues between 32 and 64 bit. Do you presently use 32 bit versions of the three applications you mentioned?

I am presently running Reason 5, and Cubase 4, both which are 32 bit. I don't think Reason has released a 64 bit version of their software yet, so I am fine with staying in the 32 bit realm. I believe Cubase 6 may be 64 bit, but I am fine with keeping Cubase 4 32 bit as well. If you get some time, could you link me to one of the new Sandy Bridge processors you recommend? Any other part recommendations would be greatly appreciated as well.

Thanks again for your time and research!

Tim

[zburns]

Here are some links that are all pertinent. The first link is about running 32 bit old software on new 64 bit Windows software. It is a well written article on this topic which directly impacts your plans. Here is that link: http://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2011/01/13/windows-7-64-bit-running-32-bit-applications/

Next are two links (both in 2011), the first for the i7-2600K Sandy Bridge: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52214 Next the link for the i7-990X and i7-980X; 980 intro in 2010; 990 intro in 2011. You can compare and also see specs on both of them at this link: http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/compare-processors.htm?select=desktop

Here is probably a year old (2010) link for i7-980X, which should be apx the same as the 980X in the previous link. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47932 (this link has the same info as the newer 2011 link, plus a little more and I do not think it matters )

All of the processors including last year's 980X extreme use 32 nm lithography which translates into more transistors for the same chip size allowing for more speed due to more transistors.

[zburns]

so I am fine with staying in the 32 bit realm

In my post just above this post, I gave you a link to a Puget Systems article written by the CEO or founder (I think). Very good article about Win 64 bit allowing Win 32 bit 'old programs' to run; however, maybe with some caveats that I am not 100% clear on right now.

My advice, regarding your quote above about staying with 32 bit, is that it would be a huge mistake. Clearly the trend in 'build it yourself' computers, and, I assume, the overall trend is 100% toward 64 bit. There is no comparison in the amount of 'complex data' that can be run on 64 bit versus 32 bit.

Whether what you want to do in a new system regarding recording music will benefit, a little or a lot, via 64 bit instead of 32 bit is not the real point. The point is that the trend, and, if you want to use the word 'future proofing', then 64 bit wins 100 % of the time. The bulk of all new software being written has to be for 64 bit apps and for multiple core operation -- better if the software is written to run on as many cores as 'the particular software' will allow or tolerate. Meaning that one of three people has a dual core, the second has a quad and the third has a hex ( 6cores). All of the three cpus are 'hyperthreaded', meaning a 'virtual' core for ever 'actual' core. If I am today, year 2011, writing (laptop or desktop) software to apply to the 'range of computers' available in the market place, then I should try to write software, that works equally well on dual core, quad core and hex core.

Just thought of this as a comparison. Say you are recording an individual saxaphone performance. The technical recording requirements are simple from a frequency spectrum point of view. Now lets record a full symphony orchestra, the frequency spectrum gets a lot tougher -- this requires a little more explanation than I want to give right now. But the single musical instrument recording will require, relatively, 'less technical performance' from the computer' than will the 'full symphony orchestra'. Whether this affects choice of dual, quad or hex cpus, I cannot say. However, I can say that 64 bit offers a 'ton' more 'instant' access to memory than does 32 bit.

I will talk to some of your Application Software companies before the day is out. Could not do it yesterday.

[zburns]

Yesterday, I spent some time trying to link up with the company that owns or produces Reason 5 -- Propellerhead - do I have it right. Anyway I spent a lot of time trying to scale the wall they have built around that company. I could not find any indication that I could email the company or the technical dept responsible for software, much less a telephone number. I will try for another company tomorrow. I also looked using Google for 'multithread music recording' and 'music recording using quad core'; I have found some comments but nothing I call useful. Here is a link to Sevenstring.org - forum. I read it quickly, its a 2010 time frame. Lots of comments on dual core and quad, but again nothing really revealing about even quad being best for recording. Here is the link: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/recording-studio/111753-duo-core-vs-quad-core-imac-best-recording.html But it is worth reading the first page. Be sure to read post # 12 by Pirate Life

Again what I was trying to find was a good discussion by an obvious expert in recording that referenced multithread music recording with a quad core cpu. Normally, if such an article (s) exist, they pop right up at the beginning of a Google page of choices. I am not in any way trying to suggest you do not use a quad core cpu; I am just trying to prove the degree of benefit it will bring to your music recording. Even if the music benefit is minimal, there are many other reasons to stick with a quad core. What I am finding so far is further proof that it would be really beneficial to communicate some way with one of the music recording software companies.

[adamackbeatz]

In my post just above this post, I gave you a link to a Puget Systems article written by the CEO or founder (I think). Very good article about Win 64 bit allowing Win 32 bit 'old programs' to run; however, maybe with some caveats that I am not 100% clear on right now.

My advice, regarding your quote above about staying with 32 bit, is that it would be a huge mistake. Clearly the trend in 'build it yourself' computers, and, I assume, the overall trend is 100% toward 64 bit. There is no comparison in the amount of 'complex data' that can be run on 64 bit versus 32 bit.

Whether what you want to do in a new system regarding recording music will benefit, a little or a lot, via 64 bit instead of 32 bit is not the real point. The point is that the trend, and, if you want to use the word 'future proofing', then 64 bit wins 100 % of the time. The bulk of all new software being written has to be for 64 bit apps and for multiple core operation -- better if the software is written to run on as many cores as 'the particular software' will allow or tolerate. Meaning that one of three people has a dual core, the second has a quad and the third has a hex ( 6cores). All of the three cpus are 'hyperthreaded', meaning a 'virtual' core for ever 'actual' core. If I am today, year 2011, writing (laptop or desktop) software to apply to the 'range of computers' available in the market place, then I should try to write software, that works equally well on dual core, quad core and hex core.

Just thought of this as a comparison. Say you are recording an individual saxaphone performance. The technical recording requirements are simple from a frequency spectrum point of view. Now lets record a full symphony orchestra, the frequency spectrum gets a lot tougher -- this requires a little more explanation than I want to give right now. But the single musical instrument recording will require, relatively, 'less technical performance' from the computer' than will the 'full symphony orchestra'. Whether this affects choice of dual, quad or hex cpus, I cannot say. However, I can say that 64 bit offers a 'ton' more 'instant' access to memory than does 32 bit.

I will talk to some of your Application Software companies before the day is out. Could not do it yesterday.

Thanks again for all of your help. It seems as if the 64-bit is definitely the way to go. I didn't know there was that big a difference between the two. I will most likely be learning new software as the years go on, much of it probably being 64 bit, as the trends tell us.

[adamackbeatz]

Yeah, if there is no huge difference between the two, I of course would highly prefer to go with the quad, since I want to leave the door open for possible video editing and some minor gaming. If the quad core would offer a distinguishable difference in overall performance with common computer tasks, it is well worth the extra money.

Last week after my PC bit the dust, I bought an iMac i7, I believe it was like 3.4 GHz quad core. I liked it, but after getting into a relatively average Reason session, it started to lag, and took 2-3 seconds previewing small WAV samples. I restarted, gave it another shot, and it was running worse than my 4 year old PC build. I returned it for my money back. I was told it would be able to handle extremely extensive Reason sessions with absolutely no problem at all...I was shocked to see it perform so poorly!

[zburns]

If you were running your existing music software applications on the imac i7 (that is a 2009 quad core cpu), I would bet your software is only written for one thread (one core). You also had 4 gig RAM, but with 32 bit, it can only use 3.5 gig; basically, the imac i7 was a poor duplicate of your existing machine. 64 bit software with more RAM, say 8 gig should show you much improved performance. Nevertheless, it would help a lot to know more about the specs of the newest versions of your software. In that forum I suggested you look at, several of the forum members were really impressed with their performance, but you cannot base any firm conclusions on opinion. You need specs and you need to know how many cores the newer versions are written around.

[zburns]

I am going out on a limb with my version of how I think music recording software for one instrument works. For multiple instruments incl a large orchestra, the basics would be the same but the details much more complicated.

Assume the playback of one instrument, for example, saxophone only. The length of time of each chord or segment of the playback (whatever you call it or however, one breaks it up) is a known time based quantity. Therefore, you can separate the 'chord' or 'music segment' into 4 segments (for quad cpu), process them thru 4 cores and recombine them, into a 'recorded single chord' or segment for 'audible output purposes' (listening) OR store the data prior to the 'recombination' point so that playback thru a multicore cpu into a audio amp, then speakers at the owner's discretion. ( a high computer operating frequency-- 4 gigahertz -- compared to the human ear 20 cycles to 20,000 cycles -- computer about, minimum 200 million times faster than 20k cycles).

Use this link to go to a UK company: http://rainrecording.co.uk/pro/hardware/intel-reloaded/ . Rain Recording is a UK company that produces music recording software. This article is their explanation of the benefits of using Intel cpus for music recording, date of article sometime in 2010. The article does not tell you how it is done, but their claim is that music recording software (at least their software) is best using the following cpus: Core i7 is the best followed by Core i5 followed by the older Core 2 Quad. What the article is saying is that more cores are better than fewer cores and they also imply that their software is written to support all versions just mentioned.

Said differently, the current i7 quad is the fastest, then the current i5 quad next, then the earlier version an Intel quad, namely Core 2 quad is the slowest of the three. All are 4 core processors, i7 quad has the best specs and the Core 2 is several years old.

By implication, the UK company is implying that in each case, 4 cores are used to speed up the recording of music compared to ‘computer recording’ of just several years ago based on dual core or single core. The important point being (again by implication) that short segments of music are separated into segments, processed in parallel thru 4 cores, stored or recombined for playback – all of this occurring at a speed greater than in earlier years ( for example 2009 going backwards ) when dual or single core processors were used.

In my searching for any article or ‘credible’ comment by a ‘audio recording expert’ , I have yet to come across any article that supports my version of how it works. Many of the google articles date from 2009 going backwards. The article above dated 2010 is authentic and proof enough for this writer of what is really happening, and it is a good result.

Interesting final observations:
1. Regardless of how one ‘Googles’ this topic, most comments are 2009 (even 2007) that show up ‘at the top of the Google page’. All of us when ‘searching’ are used to (generally) seeing ‘the latest comments show up at the top of page 1 of the Google page’. Further evidence that the music recording software writers are keeping their knowledge, closely held – nothing wrong with it – implies that some of them are ahead of the others, etc..

2. This 2010 article takes into account, at least, the first release by Intel of their 32 nm newer cpus. The Core 2 Quad being the first generation around 2009. It is the first definitive 2010 article on music recording I have seen; does not mean there are not more out there.

[zburns]

Error Correction: In the previous post, regards the link I provided for Rain Recording, I represented them in my post as a 'software company'. I was mistaken. They are a 'Computer Hardware Assembler for Dedicated Audio workstations'. From their home page, this quote or statement or heading: 'Digital Audio Workstations for music production and media creation'.

The link is an article by their CTO (Chief Technical Officer, I assume) in the UK, Robin Vincent. It is a good article and well worth reading. Mr. Vincent does emphasize in the article the improvement (speedwise) in audio recording due to the latest in quad processors, Core i7 (2010). By implication (at least this is how I read the article), he claims or states in effect that the more cores, the faster the recording process. Again, the reason I keep beating this 'By implication' horse is the lack of articles dating late 2010 or 2011 directly stating that music audio recording software, in general, (ie the trend) takes advantage of multiple cores that in effect make the recording process more 'efficient' (faster).

I would add, assuming my statements (hypothesis) are correct, that the more cores and, faster speed, allow more 'real time' features to be built in over time as compared to when music recording software was for a single core only.