my brain hurts, reading recording hardware info sucks...

[Code001]

Yes, I'm jealous. You got me.

Actually, I'm just wondering why people keep replying, but not answering the question.

But I did answer your question....

 

[OneArmedScissor]

No, you told me you run servers, which had nothing to do with it.

 

[Code001]

No, you told me you run servers, which had nothing to do with it.

Considering the computers are basically servers, it has everything to do with it.

 

[cyndicate]

I dont think anything calls for the crazy CPU processing power available today. So the reason people get it because they can Im running a QX6850 overclocked to 3.6ghz and I don't do anything with it that calls for it

 

[OneArmedScissor]

Considering the computers are basically servers, it has everything to do with it.

Airplanes are transportation. That's not what we ride on to go to the grocery store, though.

I'm not discounting that it has application there. That's just not what anyone was talking about.

I dont think anything calls for the crazy CPU processing power available today. So the reason people get it because they can Im running a QX6850 overclocked to 3.6ghz and I don't do anything with it that calls for it

That's what I was getting at, but some people seem to think that it's necessary for some reason, and they very well could be spending $1,000+ more than they need to, to no benefit.

Even if I were to go nucking futs and buy the highest end Mac, I think I'd just get the Core 2 Extreme iMac. You get a 24" monitor for $500 less than the dual processor Mac Pro by itself. I think you'd be very hard pressed to see a real difference in performance.

 

[cyndicate]

Considering the computers are basically servers, it has everything to do with it.

Airplanes are transportation. That's not what we ride on to go to the grocery store, though.

I'm not discounting that it has application there. That's just not what anyone was talking about.

I dont think anything calls for the crazy CPU processing power available today. So the reason people get it because they can Im running a QX6850 overclocked to 3.6ghz and I don't do anything with it that calls for it

That's what I was getting at, but some people seem to think that it's necessary for some reason, and they very well could be spending $1,000+ more than they need to, to no benefit.

Even if I were to go nucking futs and buy the highest end Mac, I think I'd just get the Core 2 Extreme iMac. You get a 24" monitor for $500 less than the dual processor Mac Pro by itself. I think you'd be very hard pressed to see a real difference in performance.

Well, I guess its the same reason why we buy expensive amps and guitars Its not practical to have a halfstack in your bedroom and 5 guitars but we still do it anyways because its nice It's the WHAT IF scenarios that in our mind justifies our insane purchases, like WHAT IF I do track 5000 tracks, then I will be able to Really no use debating it since most of our purchases tend to be irrational anyways

For me I just buy crap because I can, I don't work a 9-6 job just so I can settle for crappy stuff, and I sure as hell know 100% that I still suck at guitar compared to others who have shittier gear.

 

[defpearlpilot]

You guys are missing the point. Those use nothing but upper end Xeons. They cost an ass load. Having a high track and plug-in count doesn't explain the purpose of that. It's only better than what a normal desktop processor setup can do if you get one of the double quad-core ones, and I don't know wtf even calls for that, other than an actual server, as those processors were intended to be used for, but there's always stuff out there just for people who absolutely must have the best money can buy. On top of that, they use ECC memory, as if they are LITERALLY meant to be servers.

My processor was $75. I'm presently running 50 tracks and over 100 plug-ins on a project, many of them Waves compressors and reverbs that eat up CPU. You don't need a $3,000 computer in this day and age just to get a song done.

So unless there's something I'm missing, you're just getting raped. Even iMacs can come with the "extreme" processors, which already exist solely for people who just want to spend an insane amount of money on the stupid fastest thing possible to begin with. The whole Xeon/server format isn't making sense to me, even as far as the "enthusiast" department goes.

I don't know what's confusing you. We all explained that we need high track counts AND low latency. My band certainly notices when the latency is longer than 128ms. And if I lower the latency, it stresses the CPU more. And in PTLE, it doesn't drop any samples so if I'm in the middle of a good take and a sample is dropped, say goodbye to the take.

If you were right in your claim, then my mac book pro would be sufficient. But it's not. Try playing back 20+ tracks while recording another two even at low latency and tell me how it goes. If you are simply playing back, then the CPU is less relevant cause you can turn up the latency. But for simultaneous playback and recording, you need power.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

I don't have to turn up the latency. I don't know what your deal is. Track counts never hurt anything in my experience, even when I had 1GB of DDR1 and an Athlon 64 3000+.

 

[-=MYK=-]

You guys are missing the point. Those use nothing but upper end Xeons. They cost an ass load. Having a high track and plug-in count doesn't explain the purpose of that. It's only better than what a normal desktop processor setup can do if you get one of the double quad-core ones, and I don't know wtf even calls for that, other than an actual server, as those processors were intended to be used for, but there's always stuff out there just for people who absolutely must have the best money can buy. On top of that, they use ECC memory, as if they are LITERALLY meant to be servers.

My processor was $75. I'm presently running 50 tracks and over 100 plug-ins on a project, many of them Waves compressors and reverbs that eat up CPU. You don't need a $3,000 computer in this day and age just to get a song done.

So unless there's something I'm missing, you're just getting raped. Even iMacs can come with the "extreme" processors, which already exist solely for people who just want to spend an insane amount of money on the stupid fastest thing possible to begin with. The whole Xeon/server format isn't making sense to me, even as far as the "enthusiast" department goes.

I don't know what's confusing you. We all explained that we need high track counts AND low latency. My band certainly notices when the latency is longer than 128ms. And if I lower the latency, it stresses the CPU more. And in PTLE, it doesn't drop any samples so if I'm in the middle of a good take and a sample is dropped, say goodbye to the take.

If you were right in your claim, then my mac book pro would be sufficient. But it's not. Try playing back 20+ tracks while recording another two even at low latency and tell me how it goes. If you are simply playing back, then the CPU is less relevant cause you can turn up the latency. But for simultaneous playback and recording, you need power.

Mac Book Pro and PTLE. I think I see the problem...

 

[defpearlpilot]

Well, then you must be dropping samples. It's a basic part of recording. I had a computer that I built myself that was getting stressed as well. The more tracks you want at a lower latency, the faster the CPU.

 

[Bob Savage]

I don't have to turn up the latency. I don't know what your deal is. Track counts never hurt anything in my experience, even when I had 1GB of DDR1 and an Athlon 64 3000+.

RAM has little to do with latency and plugins. These both rely upon processing power.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

I was talking about the track count, which is what he claims to have an issue with. Regardless, that "ancient pos processor" that I also mentioned at the same time was fine with all the plug-ins I could have thought to use at the time.

The difference NOW is that I have the extra power "in case," instead of being stuck with just what was enough.

 

[defpearlpilot]

You guys are missing the point. Those use nothing but upper end Xeons. They cost an ass load. Having a high track and plug-in count doesn't explain the purpose of that. It's only better than what a normal desktop processor setup can do if you get one of the double quad-core ones, and I don't know wtf even calls for that, other than an actual server, as those processors were intended to be used for, but there's always stuff out there just for people who absolutely must have the best money can buy. On top of that, they use ECC memory, as if they are LITERALLY meant to be servers.

My processor was $75. I'm presently running 50 tracks and over 100 plug-ins on a project, many of them Waves compressors and reverbs that eat up CPU. You don't need a $3,000 computer in this day and age just to get a song done.

So unless there's something I'm missing, you're just getting raped. Even iMacs can come with the "extreme" processors, which already exist solely for people who just want to spend an insane amount of money on the stupid fastest thing possible to begin with. The whole Xeon/server format isn't making sense to me, even as far as the "enthusiast" department goes.

I don't know what's confusing you. We all explained that we need high track counts AND low latency. My band certainly notices when the latency is longer than 128ms. And if I lower the latency, it stresses the CPU more. And in PTLE, it doesn't drop any samples so if I'm in the middle of a good take and a sample is dropped, say goodbye to the take.

If you were right in your claim, then my mac book pro would be sufficient. But it's not. Try playing back 20+ tracks while recording another two even at low latency and tell me how it goes. If you are simply playing back, then the CPU is less relevant cause you can turn up the latency. But for simultaneous playback and recording, you need power.

Mac Book Pro and PTLE. I think I see the problem...

STFU N00b!

 

[Bob Savage]

I was talking about the track count, which is what he claims to have an issue with.

My understanding is that as the number of tracks running at low latencies increases, so does the CPU usage, even without plugins.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

Well, then you must be dropping samples. It's a basic part of recording. I had a computer that I built myself that was getting stressed as well. The more tracks you want at a lower latency, the faster the CPU.

My CPU is running at 3 gHz. I'm quite aware of that. It's not stressed. That is exactly the point.

My understanding is that as the number of tracks running at low latencies increases, so does the CPU usage, even without plugins.

I think you missed the part where I said I had an Athlon 64 3000+. That thing was a tiny fraction of what the cheapest processors today are. I still didn't have a problem.

You guys are pretty much telling me that what I see with my own eyes, and you don't, is wrong, despite my experience being the same over the years with multiple, drastically different, setups. That doesn't begin to make sense.

STFU N00b!

He potentially has a point. I know you can get Macbook Pros with 7200 RPM hard drives, but it costs a lot, and even when I've been to the Apple stores, I've never seen one sitting out advertised with anything above 5400 RPM, even if it was $3,000. So I obviously don't know that yours is 5400 RPM, but I'd have to guess that it is.

My friend's laptop is almost identical to my old 1GB RAM Athlon 64 3000+ computer, but he has a faster version of the processor, and, like almost all laptops, a 5400 RPM hard drive. It always ran MUCH worse, quickly reaching the point of becoming intolerable, when you tried to do anything complex with it. I'd have to blame the 5400 RPM hard drive. I've never used anything less than 7200 RPM with a PC, and I've never had issues with track counts and recording.

 

[Code001]

Mac Book Pro and PTLE. I think I see the problem...

Is there a reason why I'm in your sig? Last time I checked, SSL Servers and music hosting across forwarded ports where other computers could connect to were considered servers.

I know you can get Mac Pros with 7200 RPM hard drives, but it costs a lot, and even when I've been to the Apple stores, I've never seen one sitting out advertised with anything above 5400 RPM, even if it was $3,000. So I obviously don't know that yours is 5400 RPM, but I'd have to guess that it is.

Um, the smallest HD Apple allows you to select with the Mac Pro is a 320 GB 7200 RPM drive. I can't recall ANY time they ever used a 5400 RPM drive in their Mac Pros.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

I meant the Macbook Pro.

 

[Bob Savage]

You guys are pretty much telling me that what I see with my own eyes, and you don't, is wrong, despite my experience being the same over the years with multiple, drastically different, setups. That doesn't begin to make sense.

I guess you've got it all figured out.

By the way, I don't think I've heard any music from you. Don't confuse this comment with a challenge of any sort, but with your years of experience I'm interested in hearing your work.

 

[cyndicate]

You guys are pretty much telling me that what I see with my own eyes, and you don't, is wrong, despite my experience being the same over the years with multiple, drastically different, setups. That doesn't begin to make sense.

I guess you've got it all figured out.

By the way, I don't think I've heard any music from you. Don't confuse this comment with a challenge of any sort, but with your years of experience I'm interested in hearing your work.

Bob is challenging you to a duel! Beware.. Bob brings the pain

On a side note that is maybe on topic, I've been doodling around with my recent setup, how does anyone get good recorded tone at "bedroom" volumes, I tried it with my Mark IV and it sounded like complete crap, or maybe that was my playing.. any tricks to get good recorded tone at decent volumes?

 

[Bob Savage]

On a side note that is maybe on topic, I've been doodling around with my recent setup, how does anyone get good recorded tone at "bedroom" volumes, I tried it with my Mark IV and it sounded like complete crap, or maybe that was my playing.. any tricks to get good recorded tone at decent volumes?

In my opinion, you don't. Some amps are better at low volumes than others, but most speakers need a good workout to get them sounding good. I've been recording scratch guitar tracks for a project, at low volumes, and the tones are NOWHERE near the quality of turning that same amp up for tracking.

Unfortunately, there's no getting around the volume, in my opinion of course.