New System - Suggestions!?!

jdwhite01 · Post by **jdwhite01** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:37 am

Apparently PC-DAW participants are on vacation, so..... ;o) I'll try here, too!!

Since there are a few notables lurking about perhaps I'll give this
a shot. Give us something to "do"...

I have resolved to build a new system - based upon "current"
technology. I hope. I'll try to go it without the ISA card that
anchors my DAW app of preference, (Creamw@re tripleDAT.) I have the
version which will run on their PCI cards - of which I have two:
Pulsar I [4 DSP processors] and the SCOPE Pro(?) with 15 DSP chips.
[If I really don't care for the result I have a source for a mobo
with a single ISA - just like the one I BLEW UP by plugging in the
wrong 4-pin connector! DOH!!]

My concerns(?) at this time involve the use of multi-core processors
versus multiple processors as well as PCI-E versus AGP. All of
these concerns stem from potential disruption to the apps and
read/write busses. Can multiple processors be
arbitrarily "disabled" if a needed application objects to having to
cope with them, (a boot option, perhaps?) Realizing the likelihood
PCI-E succeeding AGP I am willing to consider going there now. The
Matrox multi-monitor extender coming in Q3 is available in AGP, PCI
and PCI-E so it seems appropriate to give weight to the "next
generation" now.

In addition to the Creamw@re tripleDAT and SCOPE applications I
also, currently, use Cubase - though I have not had a compelling
need to upgrade to SX v(X) and still have version 5, I think. I
would probably take the great leap forward with that, though. I
haven't looked into SAW, recently, though that has been a
consideration, too. But, since I have been using Cubase since it
was Cubit I am reasonably willing to adopt the SX motif changes.

Secondarily to application compatibility with the processors and
data disruption from PCI-E versus AGP I have storage considerations
to address. The chassis I am favoring at this time permits 12 HDDs
to be installed internally. I would like to use the available
space. This suggests some PCI-based peripheral HBA - probably a
RAID. I realize the popularity of SATA at the moment stemming
largely from economics, though I would like to dive in at the edge
of the technology curve offering to push the next major system
upgrade out as far as possible. Enter SAS and iSCSI.

Even though I can throw a fair amount of resources at this build, I
don't think the SCSI-320 is going to be an economic reality - based
largely upon available drive sizes for the $$$. I want to have hot-
swapability for off-line back-ups / archives. (I'll have a
secondary "utility" system.)

Also, OS selection. I have WIN98SE and WINXPpro. I will probably
add Vista when available, but am wondering if something like WIN2K
or ??? might offer some interesting support/options? Not
considering any Linux derivative.

Well, that should invite some commentary. *heh heh* Useful
experiences with any or all of these and considerations or cautions
are welcome. Thank you very much in advance.

Post by **garyb** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:06 am

forget scsi drives, there's no need or advantage, just use ide or sata. oyu'll gert plenty of performance. as to the motherboard/cpu, if you go all intel, you probably can't fail. amd w/ nforce3 chipsets are a slam dunk as well. i've used both agp and pci-e successfully. the real question is just how new of a system do you want? if you want to save money and get something rock solid stable, then i'm still suggesting the intel d865perl and a 3.2g or faster northwood or prescott. this setup is really all you need. if you go with newer tech, avoid nforce4 motherboards. the newer versions seem to be ok, but there have been lots of problems with nforce4 in the past and i don't see any reason to tempt fate.

it's not really nessessary to chase the latest technology unless you find it fun. the real point is to build a machine that'll do the work. i value stability over raw power. there's nothing that'll ruin your creative flow like flaky hardware.

as to the 865 chipset, there are motherboards with this chipset that have isa slots(if you google)......there are also motherboards with this chipset that support core2(conroe)...

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:42 pm

jdwhite,
Vegas 'eh. Me too. Contact me 4 live demonstrations of Scope kicking the butts in live performance, and studio work. I've been here since '82. Finally settling down this year. No More Tours thanks to SFP.

_________________
Jimmy V.

BTW, GaryB is the SFP designer Guru 4 the west coast. His word is gold when it comes to SFP DAW building.

[ This Message was edited by: scope4live on 2006-08-03 15:44 ]

ARCADIOS · Post by **ARCADIOS** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:06 pm

zx spectrum

jdwhite01 · Post by **jdwhite01** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:35 pm

Hi Gary,

Thanks for some feedback. Pardon my seeming ignorance but there was some clarification I'd like - if you don't mind.

The first question I raised had to do with processor types. I'm not sure if you addressed that with the chipset recommendations as I only start exploring chipsets once I've identified the primary configuration objective (mobo and taskset.) I amy be backwards in that approach, but I guess I just never learned the "right way". Do you have or know of any experience(s) involving SMP-style machines and Creamw@re products? The last I recall Creamw@re didn't play well in those environments. As it is something I would LIKE to use for other tasks, I'm wondering if a machine thus configured can be "dumbed down" for use with Creamw@re - on a whim?

The second question involved PCI-E and I believe you addressed that.
gb>. i've used both agp and pci-e successfully.

So do I interpret that to mean there is no performance interruptions of any significance in using PCI-E video products in a DAW system, (bus/data flow dissuption, clock hogging, etc...?)

As to storage...
gb> forget scsi drives, there's no need or advantage, just use ide or sata. oyu'll gert plenty of performance

Well, I am not going to "forget" SCSI drives as I do not really agree with your postion - as stated - on this. Whether I actually use them in THIS build remains questionable. I am not seeking a debate on the topic, I was hoping perhaps someone had experience with a drive array(s) of the size I described and what solutions/performance they had obtained. I will most likely use this sytem not only as a DAW but for other graphic-related NLE as well. The graphics will most likely be secondary to the DAW, but it seems that community has embraced newer technolgies more readily than our audio brethren.

I didn't really raise the processor origin question, but I'm somewhat glad you introduced it.
gb>as to the motherboard/cpu, if you go all intel, you probably can't fail. amd w/ nforce3 chipsets are a slam dunk as well.

I have historically built all of my systems based upon Intel foundations. They just seemed to work. I am by no means opposed to an AMD system, particularly with all of the raves people give them these days. Earlier in Creamw@re's history they didn't play so well with AMD products. I'm guessing that has changed.

gb>the real question is just how new of a system do you want?

No, actually I thought I raised the "real" questions I had. The last DAW I built for -me- was built the day Intel "announced" the 1GHz processors were about to start shipping. That P2-400 machine served me well and faithfully until last year. I'm STILL not sure but what a simple CMOS battery wouldn't have brought it right back up.

I fully expect this build to serve my needs for another "years to come" - unlike what some of the sores would suggest that every 18 months new systems are needed in NLE use areas. Since I am not a commercial facility I am pretty sure I can eek enough performance out for my satisfaction for a while yet.

I realize "the latest" isn't necessary, nor do I plan on ponying up for the privilege of being a lab rat. That's why I am asking about "experiences". I want my "stable, productive" system to ALSO be "fun". Music and audio and all the other creatrive outlets I employ are my "fun". What I do NOT like is bumping my head on the ceiling, that is why I want to push the "performance" ceiling as far away as possible - practically.

I had also brought up Operating Systems. I plan to make this system multi-boot. That's the plan. It may change. We'll see.

Thanks in advance for any more feedbackl.

Post by **garyb** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:11 pm

i'm not sure that making your audio machine also a video machine is a great idea, both have different needs, one will suffer for the other, but do as you see fit. scsi arrays certainly seem more fit for video.

agp is better in my opinion(for the reasons you mentioned), but the newest mobos all have pci-e and it DOES work just fine, with the proper chipsets(955 or later intel and nforce3, maybe the later nforce4 as well).

multiprocessor machines DO work with scope, but single processor machines are always more stable for audio apps.

i asked how new of a system, because a d865perl and 478 p4 is stable, stable, stable and cheap, but not cutting edge....

for processors, it depends on the motherboard. i don't think any 3ghz or faster cpu will be too slow to do decent work. choose a chipset and mobo and you'll know what to do next, most hardware will work, the non-reccomended will just do so poorly.....

emzee · Post by **emzee** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:33 pm

If the last machine you had built was a P2-400 then anything almost current will give you whiplash. A P4 is a lovely thing....but once you have one, consider spending the excess money on Creamware cards.

I have an Intel 865 mobo and a 2.6g processor with a gig of ram. A newer 3.4g processor and 2 or 4 gig of ram would be better, but even better would be more DSP's. In my case, the computer handles my sampler and sequencer, but my Creamware studio does the serious recording and processing. I could have bought another Pulsar card instead of this machine.....doh

[ This Message was edited by: emzee on 2006-08-04 23:09 ]

jdwhite01 · Post by **jdwhite01** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:32 am

Actually, the "last" machine I built was for my girlfriend - so she could play Mah-Jongh, surf and email. It consists of:
Koolance
PC2-650BU Case PSU-EG651A 550w PSU CPU-300-H06 CPU Cooler HD-40-H06 Hard Drive Cooler (x3) GPU-180-H06 Video Card Cooler GPU-180-L06 Chipset Cooler (x2) COM-M37 Cold Cathode, Blue Dual
Supermicro MBD-P8SGA-O ATX 915G LGA775 MAX-4GB DDR 3 PCIE 3 PCI SATA GBE 800MHZ
Intel JM80547PG0961M P4-550 3.4 GHz 1MB L2 800MHz LGA775
Kingston Technology Co. KVR400X64C3AK2/2G 2048MB 400MHz DDR Non-ECC CL3 (3-3-3) DIMM (1GB x 2)
Seagate Technologies Inc. ST3200822AS Barracuda (x4) SATA 200GB 7200 RPM 8MB 8.5 ms AST
Highpoint PCI SATA 4-port RAID controller
Teac FD-235HF-C429 Floppy Drive 3.5" 1/3H 1.44MB
Plextor PX-708A 8X DVD-RW/+RW Drive
ATI 100-435105 All-in-Wonder Radeon 9800 Pro AGP 256MB DDR 2D/3D/DVD w/TV Support
Gyration Pro RF Wireless keyboard / Mouse.

It's "not bad", but though I built it in part to test the efficacy of Creamware cards in such a system I haven't done so as within the first two months one of the Seagate drives failed. Fortunately is was part of the RAID-5. I haven't bothered swapping it out with the replacement Maxtor I picked up to do so as it involves extracting from and reinstalling to the HDD cooler. I have a lot of pokers in the fire at the moment and it is not a burning priority with me. It's there, I'll get to it within the warranty period.

To restate, my primary questions center around Creamware multicard systems living in a system - and getting along well - with PCI-E, multi-boot OSs, and somewhere in the likely neighborhood of 3TB of in-system drives. If there is good history to reflect on and give strong consideration to AMD, I am eager to listen - not because I am anti-Intel, just like to keep my options open.

Thank you very much for all the feedback.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:38 am

Not sure why you'd want some evil 3TB raid in a Scope box... I don't think this is a good idea. That's going to be a lot of drives kicking out a lot of heat.

Be practical - Gary is right... it's not good to have a Scope box also being expected to do video duties. Better to have dedicated boxes - video is extremely demanding and makes audio look like a walk in the park.

For what it's worth, I've had amazing results with Nforce3 and single-core Athlon64. PCI bandwidth is excellent, and it uses tried and tested AGP.

jdwhite01 · Post by **jdwhite01** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:32 am

DR>Not sure why you'd want some evil 3TB
DR>raid in a Scope box... I don't think
DR>this is a good idea. That's going to be
DR>a lot of drives kicking out a lot of
DR>heat.

To be sure that many drives are going to generate heat. Too much heat in an enclosure designed for them... with proper ventilation? I would think that the addition of whatever accessory card - even 15 SHARC SCOPE cards - to the unit would be
akin to the displacement a jockey means to a thoroughbred. It is, of course, just a thought.

WHY would I want enough a)workspace for multiple ongoing projects of theatrical and/or orchestral scope (sorry)...
b) sufficient performance enhancement and throughput so that there is no chance of bottlenecking...
c)on-line D2D for backup, archive, restore that can be...
d)swapped out to an "off-line" system for optical media creation, archive, restore without compromising availability of the production system. Shucks, I don't know. It was just a thought. It seemed - as you're putting it - "practical".

DR>Be practical - Gary is right... it's
DR>not good to have a Scope box also
DR>being expected to do video duties.

????

DR>Better to have dedicated boxes - video
DR>is extremely demanding and makes audio
DR>look like a walk in the park.

"Typical" video editorial consists of a few extremely large files -> datastreams. A classic and most common example is an "A/B Roll" here machine [file] "C" receives data alternatingly and sometimes composited from machines [files] "A" and "B". In compositing it _may_ get more involved than that, but the editorial fundamentals are pretty consistent. Two sources and a destination.

As I am also sure you are aware a multitrack audio production tends to be quite the opposite: many smaller files (datastreams) being accessed and manipulated simultaneously. A substantial amount of read/write operations as well as the RT processing incurred when any, some, or all of those datastreams ["channels"] is effeectively multiplied through auxes and sends and whatnot. In that respect the DAW is more akin to an enterprise level transactional database - and THOSE tend to be QUITE demanding.

DR>For what it's worth, I've had amazing
DR>results with Nforce3 and single-core
DR>Athlon64. PCI bandwidth is excellent,
DR>and it uses tried and tested AGP.

And I like tried and true AGP as much as the next guy - except the trend is toward PCI-E/X with the intent of replacing AGP - for all the right reasons. Sure, I can be quite content building a system with AGP video. The Matrox multi-monitor extender I am considering is available in PCI, AGP, AND PCI-E. That provides many options. Thinking ahead to the NEXT system build - hopefully in another five+ years - the likelihood is that PCI-E will be the dominant protocol at the time and getting in now just makes THAT transition that much more economical.

IF however there are bus or other dispuptive issues that would compromise Creamware - or ANY DAW - performance, than I am more than willing to hold off.

And, thank you for reminding me of the other issue I am trying to get my head around: multi-processors. Or, more specifically, does Creamware play well in environments other than single core CPUs?

I have other apps - and again the trend should be toward - taking advantage of SMP environments... even to the extent of making use of available clock cycles over a network [LAN]. Now, my understanding is current SCOPE products aren't too keen on the idea. So, my lack of personal experience with those systems leads me to ask: can a multi-processor system be built, and then through boot configurations be made to behave or make available only a single processor that SCOPE CAN make friendly with? Those processors, if I am not mistaken, also tend to have more cache and that too is a performance boost. I like boosts. I am not fond of anchors.

And, while there will likely be some video I dabble with, more than likely it would be CG 3D graphics and maybe Flash or something equivalent. My dad is the video guy in the family - but he's now retired from 30 years of news editorial and I still prefer audio. ;o)

Thank you very much for raising or reiterating those points. They are good things to consider. I know this discussion/thread will bear fruit at some point and I appreciate all those willing to chime in.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:40 am

My only experience with PCI-E was NForce4, and it was BAD. So for now I am steering clear of all new-skool shit... the NF3 box I built was intended to last me a few years, it's so fast I can't think why I'd want anything better right now (I'm moving towards hardware anyway).

But I guess I am looking forward to hearing any success stories with the Core2Duo boards. Although I have to be honest and admit that my next machine is most likely to be a Mac (Scope will stay on Windows).

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:52 am

Mac w/ Intels? Wow!!! I bet that DAW will rock, especially since the O.S. is not bloated up like XP or Vista.

_________________
Jimmy V.

The Supermicro P965 mobo can be had at Aberdeen Inc. La Puenta,CA.

[ This Message was edited by: scope4live on 2006-08-06 13:16 ]

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:17 pm

Multiprocessing issues:

Windows can be booted easily into single processing mode if you get a multiprocessing CPU, so you can always go back if you experience problems (more below on that one). You just need to modify boot.ini. The line containing the Windows path and the "/" boot options should be copied to a new line, so that there are two different boot configurations. One should be named Windows XP SingleCore and the other named Windows XP DualCore (or whatever). The single processing one should have /onecpu added to the line, which will flip Windows into single processing mode. The other line should be left alone. Of course, you first need to make sure you have Windows configured to use the ACPI Multiprocessing HAL.

I didn't have very good results with multiprocessing for a long time, but I think I finally figured out that the STS was the one giving me problems (clicks and pops in my audio streams). Also, I was probably pushing the CPU too hard at low latency. Without the STS, and at a medium latency (5.8ms), it seems to work pretty well. I'm not sure how much more load I can put on it compared to singleprocessing, I'll have to do more testing. I think others have had excellent results.

Also: CreamWare's 3.1c/4.0/4.5 ASIO drivers are going to crash on you after a few minutes when you're in multiprocessing mode. You need to get hold of the 3.1b drivers (just the drivers, not the software). I can put them up for you on the net if you like (Ali already approved it, I just haven't done it). The drivers have the same date for some reason, but they work fine. I can't explain it, and no one at CWA has been able to either.

You may run into other issues, but that's all I know about. If you're using the STS extensively, you may be better off getting the fastest singlecore CPU you can find than going with multiprocessing. It's up to you.

Good luck,

Shayne

dawman · Post by **dawman** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:54 pm

Brotha'Man Shayne,
I am building right now and think that I will only use Single Core unless I use VST along with it. This sounds like an option that would be streamlined better 4 me when I only use SFP. But will have the ability to boot to Dual Core. Also, I think I messed up by buying Windows XP, should I have purchased XP Pro 4 use with the Conroe?

Post by **garyb** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:12 pm

On 2006-08-06 12:52, scope4live wrote:
Mac w/ Intels? Wow!!! I bet that DAW will rock, especially since the O.S. is not bloated up like XP or Vista.

what this thing? http://www.apple.com/macpro/?cid=CDM-NA-3252A

i don't know Jimmy, it looks like a pc running a super bloated version of unix to me...i don't see the advantage over anything else anymore. a mac used to be a different sort of machine. i don't think that's so anymore. i don't think you should be jealous..

someone correct me if i'm wrong(with something other than sales hype). it looks like a real high quality machine of course, and that counts for something...

ARCADIOS · Post by **ARCADIOS** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:30 am

boot.in can also be configured to run xp in one half of cpu for prescotts in acpi as well?

what about irqs in new mobos?

is everything ok with auto irq assighning?

also new motherboards have 2 or three pci slots, which i doubt that are all free of irq sharing with on board divices.

for example my ic7g 875p with 5 pci slots has the pci 2,3, and 4 not sharing at all with other devices.

_________________
ELVIS LIVES

[ This Message was edited by: ARCADIOS on 2006-08-08 07:32 ]

[ This Message was edited by: ARCADIOS on 2006-08-08 07:33 ]

jdwhite01 · Post by **jdwhite01** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:52 pm

So Shayne,

The gist of it I am getting from you and Gary is that HT/MC processors CAN be used in a SCOPE system, (or, truly vice versa,) although there seems to be an issue with STS mixer(s)[??] If an "issue" persists then I can "dumb it down" to appear and perform like a single core processor. Butas yet there is no evidence to suggest that a ***multi-PROCESSOR*** system is going to be useable in a similar manner.

Gary, what about that. Have you any golden words to that effect? I am asking humbly as I genuinely do not know about configuration variable possiblities withan SMP machine. I mean, if it can't, it can't. Case closed. Move on, Jeff. If I don't have to build three machines right now I would prefer to avoid doing so. I will absolutely end up with at least three systems - perhaps four, not including my girlfriend's - at my disposal. While I also would prefer to have an external drive bay with StorCase removable components for VERY quick swapping, the case I am considering can house twelve drives internally and its easy access suggests it would not be that much more cumbersome to manage between another system with a similar chassis. Since I don't anticipate collaberation near-term the StorCase chassis' are not a compelling urgency and at approximately $250USD a copy represent a substantial economic savings. Maybe even another 15-DSP card.

Thanks again for the spins and perspectives, Gentlemen.

P.S. Shayne, how's NorCal? I miss it up there desperately - especially forays into your neck of the woods. Hvae you ever visited the S. Anderson cave when they have the tastings and quartets in the summer? Maybe that is a thing of the past, but it used to be quite cool!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:05 pm

On 2006-08-08 19:52, jdwhite01 wrote:
...although there seems to be an issue with STS mixer(s)[??] If an "issue" persists then I can "dumb it down" to appear and perform like a single core processor. Butas yet there is no evidence to suggest that a ***multi-PROCESSOR*** system is going to be useable in a similar manner...

it may not hit the latest hype, but here's my uninvited personal estimation for 'multiprocessing in the mass market'

once there was DOS, then the Fruit Company amused the world with a GUI (and a pretty sophisticated, yet compact operating system).
Unquestionably the more demanding task...

Later the makers of DOS began to like the idea and copied it, with the option of further improvements (as they had time to learn from Fruit's faults).

They didn't really succeed, let alone improve anything.
They were a lot, but actually not the brightest minds...

Now processors got multiple cores, or machines multiple processors, or any combination thereof - and again it's unquestioned that a nicely cooperating flock of CPUs is more demanding to program than a single one, isn't it ?

And the makers of DOS, not even able to properly copy an idea are supposed to succeed in a task that's multitudes more complex ?
Go figure yourself

There will be speed improvements - because the general architecture becomes faster and there will be specialized routines in some apps (hopefully DAW oriented, too) with significant improvements, but this will remain the minority of code.
Though the most hyped, probably

Keep in mind that it will never be possible to determine which part of an acceleration is due to software and which is due to hardware improvements as all will be released simultaneously.

Since it will be bloody cheap, it's probably not a big concern anyway, but definetly no 'new age' of consumer computing

(industry apps may be a different story, tho)

cheers, Tom

Post by **garyb** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:04 pm

yes, astro, that's my opinion.

i have run multiprocessor systems sucessfully with scope(dual p3 slot1, if that worked with scope, there's no reason for newer duals not to work) but the single processor systems ran better(smoother and more stable..a well set up single almost NEVER crashes..). newer machines might work better than the older ones did, but a single processor machine does plenty of work(for audio, using scope cards, anyway..).

i think sometimes people get more concerned with the computer than it's application. a scope pro costs as much as a pretty nice computer. i've never understood why making that card happy wouldn't be the first priority. people always underestimate the value of a scope card until they've used it for a little bit, then they see.....or not..

i think it's better to have as simple(errr, stable even if it's not the most extremely powerful) a setup as possible that does a job real well and then use the stink out of it for a long time, like an old minimoog or 2" studer or neve console, than to have the latest consumer doodad every six months. frankly, if you can't make a world class album with ANY good sequencer(cubase sx, sonor, etc) and scope in a 3ghz or faster machine, then you don't know how to make records or produce music, period, and that won't change almost forever(although there are sure to be new developements that one might want to take advantage of in the future). good sounding gear never goes out of style. it's not the computer itself that will be good sounding, however...

jdwhite01 · Post by **jdwhite01** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:41 pm

On 2006-08-08 23:04, garyb wrote:
yes, astro, that's my opinion.

Forgive me if I have offended your sensibilities, Gary.

i have run multiprocessor systems sucessfully with scope(dual p3 slot1, if that worked with scope, there's no reason for newer duals not to work)

In my - perhaps comparably limited - experience there's never "no" reason. Hence, the questions.

but the single processor systems ran better(smoother and more stable..a well set up single almost NEVER crashes..).

Kinda like my P2-400 running for six + years? "Runnin' the stink out of it..." I think is the phrase you used.

newer machines might work better than the older ones did, but a single processor machine does plenty of work(for audio, using scope cards, anyway..).

In all likelihood you are overwhelmingly correct in that evaluation. That said, I still recall Frank Hund commenting that regardless of how advanced processors becamse, accelerator cards would find homes as the environments and applications developers chose to write more code rather than more efficient code. Parallel to that I think it is safe to acknowledge that developers have done that many times with SCOPE devices, as well. More DSPs? Heck, now we don't HAVE to be frugal!

I remember John Bowen pointing out more DSP-lean ways of configuring a modular and achieving the same results. Back then we, (most of us,)only had 4 DSPs available so being clever was important. Certainly a lot has changed since we introduced Pulsar to North America. Then again, not everything....

i think sometimes people get more concerned with the computer than it's application.

One might perceive it that way, but one would be inaccurate.

a scope pro costs as much as a pretty nice computer.

Some. Then again, "pretty nice" is relative.

i've never understood why making that card happy wouldn't be the first priority.

Actually, if you're referring to my persistance of inquiry from a focused group of users, I should think you would be able to see that in fact it is my HIGHEST priority. Therefore I came seeking the most solid, reliable, and current information available. I didn't go to Steinberg, (whom I used to rep,)or Bob Lentini, (whom I used to rep and whom I could drive over to see,) or Microsoft or Intel - or for that matter Frank and Wolf and all the boys over in Germany. I came looking for real world answers from real world users that - I had thought - had developed a strong support community and addressed many of these things already. It seemed a practical approach....

people always underestimate the value of a scope card until they've used it for a little bit, then they see.....or not..

Funny, that's almost the same thing we used to tell people - except for Digidesign execs when they would stop by the booth and wonder what on earth we were going to do with all of those DSPs.... ;o)

i think it's better to have as simple(errr, stable even if it's not the most extremely powerful) a setup as possible that does a job real well and then use the stink out of it for a long time, like an old minimoog or 2" studer or neve console,

I miss my Moog collection... sometimes. Less and less as time goes by, mind you. I miss the Leslie more than anything, actually.

than to have the latest consumer doodad every six months.

As I've alluded to earlier, my upgrade intervals are FAR greater than six months. I can only believe that is because I build a monster at the time and then comfortably use it while the rest of the world muddles and searches vainly for their panacea.

frankly, if you can't make a world class album with ANY good sequencer(cubase sx, sonor, etc) and scope in a 3ghz or faster machine, then you don't know how to make records or produce music, period,

Or running a P2-400 into the ground with a 4-DSP Pulsar and Cubase v5... happily co-existing with the myriad other applications.

and that won't change almost forever(although there are sure to be new developements that one might want to take advantage of in the future). good sounding gear never goes out of style. it's not the computer itself that will be good sounding, however...

There's the really exceptional classical guitarist that lives on the other side of town from me. I got him into tripleDAT. I never bothered trying to get him into a Pulsar as he makes world class music with a nylon stringed guitat and some AKGs and Neumanns.... I wonder how he's doing?

Thanks once more for the illumination and sharing of perspectives. It is genuinely appreciated that you would take time out of your day to help.

_________________
"I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven" Pete Townshend (Baba O'Reilly)

Jeff White
White Noise Media
jdwhite@whitenoisemedia.net

[ This Message was edited by: jdwhite01 on 2006-08-09 00:42 ]