# 64bit new DAW questions



## Dan Selby (Jan 30, 2008)

Hi,

I'm going to be putting together a new DAW (PC) soon(ish), relegating my current machine to slave status and this'll be the first time time I've gone to a 64bit OS (XP32 at the moment). I'm thinking I'll most likely go for a quad core Intel machine with 8gig ram. I'll be running Cubase 4.1, the 32bit version initially.

I'm thinking I'll run XP64 (or should I go straight to Vista64?). Long term, I would imagine I'll move to Vista64

Have I got this right:

1. With XP64/Vista64, Cubase (32bit) and any plugins/VSTis running within Cubase will be able to access up to 4gig of RAM, i.e. the Cubase.exe process will be able to access up to 4gig of RAM. Right?

2. Alongside that, if I run an external instance of Kontakt2 (also 32 bit, of course) that will also be able to access *another* 4gig of RAM. Right?

Obviously if I've only got 8gig installed then I'm not going to be able to have Cubase load 4gig and Kontakt2 load 4gig... but I should be able to load 4 gig in Cubase and 3gig in Kontakt (or the other way round)... right?

3. And if I were to put 16gig of RAM in the machine, I could have Cubase using 4gig, a first instance of Kontakt2 using another 4gig and a second instance of Kontakt2 using another 4gig. Yes?

Next bit, are there any plugins or instruments or software that don't work under XP64? I really don't want to have to give up any stuff to go 64bit, or at least I'd rather go in with my eyes open! 

Last, am I right thinking that XP64 is still the way to go right now and that Vista64 isn't ready for primetime?

Many thanks!


----------



## bluejay (Jan 30, 2008)

Hi Dan,

Your assumptions all appear to be correct.

I'm currently using Cubase 4.1 (32-bit) on XP64. I only have 4GB of RAM but generally that's ok for me.

What I've noticed is that some plugins give me problems when the RAM for Cubase.exe exceeds 2GB. 

There are certainly many plugins that are not supported on this platform. For instance AudioEase do not support Altiverb for XP64 (and I suspect this is one of the problem plugins).

I've also had issues with the Sonnox plugins. I can load and use the plugin no problem but I can't save the project when the plugin is loaded.

However Cubase, Kontakt (2.2.4 and 3.01), WIVI, ArtVista VGP, Atmosphere, Stylus RMX and Trilogy all seem to work without a problem.

Hope that's useful for you!


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 30, 2008)

Many thanks, James. Can you elaborate at all? What sort of problems do you get when Cubase goes above 2gig - what happens?

Does Altiverb work at all under xp64 or do you just get problems?

Other than Altiverb and sonnox, are there any other plugins or instruments that don't work.

Are you able to run Cubase stablely at greater than 2gig if you avoid particular plugins or do you always run into difficulties once you hit 2gig?

I've got 4gig in my XP32 machine so I can get Cubase to load to about 2gig as it is now (using the 3gig switch) so if you cannot get above 2gig then under xp64, well, moving to xp64 doesn't look so appealing after all.

Thanks again.


----------



## bluejay (Jan 30, 2008)

Having looked on another forum, it seems that Altiverb shouldn't be a problem provided it is loaded within a 32-bit host.

Anyway, I'm also using Waves S1 (not supported on XP64) and PSP Neon (not sure... nothing explicitly mentioned on their site). Perhaps these are the culprits?

Ah, casting reckless aspersions on the Internet... what freedom.

Anyway, I wouldn't be using these plugins if they weren't great but I have definitely found some instabilities above the 2GB mark.

cheers

James


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 30, 2008)

Thanks, James - I appreciate it.


----------



## bluejay (Jan 30, 2008)

Hi Dan,

Normally I don't have much of a problem at all and can use all of the plugins I mentioned. I still use Sonnox Inflator but I have to load it, export the audio and then unload it again. Anyway, I use Altiverb in every track I write so don't worry about that. Oh, the Voxengo plugins all seem to work without a problem as well.

I have used projects in the 3 - 3.5GB range without much of a problem but I did have one project where I was getting all manner of problems and couldn't export the audio. I bounced it down a track at a time and then used the 'all audio' version of the project for final mixing. Looking back, it may have simply been the CPU being overloaded but I think there were other problems as well... Sorry I can't be more specific.

Nowadays, using WIVI for both woodwind and brass, most of my projects are only in the 1.7GB range anyway so I haven't hit this problem for the last couple of months.

Long term, Vista 64 will be the way to go but at the moment I think I'd still stick with XP 64.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 30, 2008)

I would go as far as to say that unless you have a very, very clear path on hardware and selected software, that 64-bit in general is going to be a treacherous path for the coming months.

It's just not catching on in the non-production world, which is to say, 99+% of the overall user base. There is no compelling argument for 64-bit computing outside of the narrowest niches, and every argument against it.

So, until the greater population is moving forward with 64-bit hardware, we are going to be on the very bleeding edge.

I don't mean to discourage, and we are certainly in a position to benefit from 64-bit single-purpose installations. It's just that you should assume compatibility issues will be absolute nightmares when "mixing up" your system, and that this assumption will be valid for quite some time to come.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 30, 2008)

Check out how loud the machine is and consider an iso box or machine room. Some multicore chassis can get too loud for a studio.

BTW re Vista, I've seen a study somewhere on the Internet whereby XP ran MS OFfice benchmarks at in the range of 80-110% faster than Vista (approximate numbers). If the study was valid, then Vista appears to be a step backwards in performance.

Anyway if you want XP, you have until June 30 or so. After that, it's Hasta La XP.

-Peter


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 30, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Jan 30 said:


> I would go as far as to say that unless you have a very, very clear path on hardware and selected software, that 64-bit in general is going to be a treacherous path for the coming months.



I'm hoping that a 64-bit GS4 machine won't be so problematic. All we need is a good 64-bit machine (no problem there), a mobo that supports oodles of RAM (suggestions anybody?), a 64-bit compatible audio card (GSIF-64?) and GS4. Hopefully GS4's critical path will bypass Vista's audio, so the only penalty for using Vista will be a bit more RAM for the OS. No big deal if you have, say, 8GB or more memory.

Now, maybe Sonar will load as well. It's 64-bits. If most of the work is in Giga, it might not be important that Sonar isn't full speed on Vista.

The problems arise with plugins, 32-bit VSTis and so on. Don't quit your day job, and don't dump your 32-bit machine - at least not right away.

So, is my 64-bit GS4 path on target? I sure hope so...


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 30, 2008)

I think all of that is true Jon.

I would just say that if you are absolutely dependent upon your studio installation to make money, then do not under any circumstances paint yourself into a corner...meaning, make your 64-bit rig a totally separate entity, with totally separate hardware, installations, audio i/o, the entire package.

I have lived through every "upgrade cycle" since DOS. They are never smooth. This is a huge one, the most complicated one ever. DOS to Windows, and Windows 3.x to 95, and 95/98/Mil to XP were all big transitions, but they were also big technology transitions, and the installed base of "must haves" was never that big of a legacy issue. You didn't need the previous stuff to work, because the stuff replacing it was such a new breed in each case.

That's not true of THIS transition. This transition finds us working along with a lot of professionally viable 32-bit product. So, people's livelihoods are going to be at stake if they jump off the bridge without a parachute.

Wear the parachute...that's all I'm saying. Mark my words, there will be people absolutely freaking out because they tore up their 32-bit rigs, and jumped into a 64-bit environment by cannibalizing their working rig. That will be a path to absolute failure.

Again, all that said, there is every reason to set up dedicated Sonar/Giga environments in 64-bit, along with any 64-bit product and hardware that is compatible. Just don't do it without the ability to leave that machine on the shelf until it is a known-working system for you. Otherwise, you're going to find yourself reaching for tools that aren't there, and screaming bloody murder at companies that won't have the bandwidth to help you on your timetable.

And of course, me, saying, "Told you so." o/~


----------



## synthetic (Jan 30, 2008)

I recommend XP64 over Vista 64. Not only are there performance and driver problems in Vista, but there are so many things that get in your way like User Access Control. (Are you sure you want to do that? Super sure?) I think all of those paranoid checks may be getting in the way of performance. 

I think there are motherboards that support 32GB of RAM now. Whoo hoo.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 30, 2008)

I say make a DAW that's 64bit ready but run it at 32bit. Unless you want to limit yourself to a very few apps that are 64bit ready you'll run into some problems. Personally I don't think it's going to work itself out in even one years time. And, for musicians I seriously doubt if Vista will ever be a viable OS. It seems they aren't planning on fixing Vista but just moving on to a new OS in about 2 years time.

64bit just isn't a reality right now. Too many limitations and too many hoops to jump through. Some plugs work and some don't some are stable and some aren't. Why give yourself a headache? Stay a year behind the times.

Jose


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 30, 2008)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 30 said:


> I say make a DAW that's 64bit ready but run it at 32bit.Jose



That's what I did. I'm going to do another, as well. At present, though, I need to stay in XP32 on both systems. Once a few more critical synths are 64-bit ready, I'll be able to move the Giga-assigned machine to a 64-bit OS, and then the DAW will be the last step.

I agree with your timetable, too. I think we'll be having this exact same discussion a year from now. The only thing that will really change the situation is discontinuation of 32-bit OS choices. That has been proven over and over. Extinction is a powerful motivator. >8o


----------



## synthetic (Jan 30, 2008)

Me three. Actually, I have a removable drive for my startup disk so that I can boot up in either 32-bit or 64-bit XP for beta testing. I'm doing most of my work in the 32-bit disk because of plug-in compatibility (VI, etc.) but hopefully soon GS4 will be updated to support 32-bit plugs in 64-bit mode. That's really the only thing stopping me from going 64-bit. 

Well, that plus if the machine crashes I can still pay my rent.


----------



## madbulk (Jan 30, 2008)

Are you married to making the 64-bit your DAW? Why wouldn't more be gained by having a 32-bit DAW and a 64-bit slave running gobs of Kontakt or Giga?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 30, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Jan 30 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Jan 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I say make a DAW that's 64bit ready but run it at 32bit.Jose
> ...



That's when we'll know it's time to switch over. It's inevitable in my opinion. But we're not there yet.

Also, I agree with Madbulk on this one. Start building 64 bit dedicated farm machines as more of the samplers and players go 64bit.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 30, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed Jan 30 said:


> ...make your 64-bit rig a totally separate entity, with totally separate hardware, installations, audio i/o, the entire package...


That's exactly my plan.

A key reason is that my Athlon64 system is getting long in the tooth. I've been putting off my next upgrade until I build a 64-bit GS4 machine. I'll probably cannibalize the old machine to some small degree and eventually hand it down, but I'll keep it 100% viable in the near term.

My top draw to GS4 and 64-bits is workflow. I often get into the flow, until I can't load more instruments, and then my productivity drops by 90% as I get that "painted into a corner" feeling. Sure, I can layer a choir on top in a separate pass, but if I can't finish the fundamental arrangement with a single template, I'm screwed.

Anyway, an experimental, 64-bit crash machine won't be a workflow improvement. I've got to get the kinks out before I'm ready to snip the ropes to my 32-bit safety net.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 30, 2008)

In case anyone finds this helpful, an article on downgrading from Vista to XP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080130/tc_cmp/205101355


----------



## synthetic (Jan 30, 2008)

Do me a favor. Before you decide to switch to Vista, use Vista for an hour. I did for the first time this week and I was horrified. They tried to out-Apple Apple and just embarrassed themselves. Plus it has this user access control crap that stops you every time you want to do something. Are you sure you want to install that driver? Open that program? Open that control panel? Microsoft was always good at getting in your way ("it looks like you're writing a list...") but they outdid themselves with Vista.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 30, 2008)

IMO access control could be WHY Vista appears to be half the speed of XP.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 30, 2008)

*The Perfect Motherboard*

I was looking around for motherboards that support LOTS of RAM. Most high-end desktop boards claim 8GB support, but if you're willing to go for an Intel Server board, you can get 64 GB to go along with a couple of quad core XEON processors.

Only $7k and change for the bare mobo...
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/specs. ... _-Main+Tab

And note that you need registered ECC RAM. No cheap stuff here.

Is there anything better out there?

And is there anything that is FULLY QUALIFIED at 8GB or better? Asus lists 8GB, but when you look at their qualified RAM vendors, it doesn't seem that you can populate the boards with four 2GB sticks and still get qualified stuff.

This is a common problem for mobos. They're spec'd with much less than a full boat of RAM. Once you fill the slots and use larger sizes, you need to detune the things to get them to work - if you can get them to work.

Anyway, this 64-bit thing will be a fun journey all the way from the mobo to the drivers. Hopefully there will be some GSIF 64-bit announcements from soundcard makers soon...


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2008)

synthetic @ Thu Jan 31 said:


> Do me a favor. Before you decide to switch to Vista, use Vista for an hour. I did for the first time this week and I was horrified. They tried to out-Apple Apple and just embarrassed themselves. Plus it has this user access control crap that stops you every time you want to do something. Are you sure you want to install that driver? Open that program? Open that control panel? Microsoft was always good at getting in your way ("it looks like you're writing a list...") but they outdid themselves with Vista.


That's very true. One of the first reasons that I found I didn't like Vista, was that it was too much like OSX. When setting up a new PC for a friend, the first thing that I did was turn off all that cr*p. Funnily enough, OSX is getting more and more like Windows, even including BSOD these days. :shock: 

D


----------



## redleicester (Jan 31, 2008)

synthetic @ Thu Jan 31 said:


> Do me a favor. Before you decide to switch to Vista, use Vista for an hour. I did for the first time this week and I was horrified. They tried to out-Apple Apple and just embarrassed themselves. Plus it has this user access control crap that stops you every time you want to do something. Are you sure you want to install that driver? Open that program? Open that control panel? Microsoft was always good at getting in your way ("it looks like you're writing a list...") but they outdid themselves with Vista.




You can turn it off you know...... just like the old securit centre in XP it's easy enough to disable entirely.


----------



## bluejay (Jan 31, 2008)

Following up from my scurrilous rumour-mongering yesterday, I actually emailed a couple of the firms involved.

PSP assure me that their plugins should work on a 64-bit OS in a 32-bit host.


----------



## Dan Selby (Jan 31, 2008)

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

I was really hoping that moving to a new machine and running XP64 with Cubase ***32bit*** that it would be a painless way effectively double my RAM available to Cubase from 2gig to 4gig. Running out of CPU and running out of memory within Cubase are my two big headaches right now. The last job I've just finished visibly aged me with all the arsing around I had to do freezing, purging, increasing latency etc just to get everything I needed loaded and playing without the crackling audio and my aging p4 3.0 weeping.

I want to use my current machine as a slave because... well, I might as well, but I'd prefer to keep as much as I can in the DAW mainly because of the issue of getting audio from a slave back into the DAW. I've got a FireFace 800 so I can bring in 8 stereo streams over ADAT but that runs out quickly and I really don't want to be limited too much by having to do a lot of submixing in Kontakt. [aside - has an uglier, more unfriendly gui *ever* been invented? I mean really? It's powerful and works (mostly) but I don't think I'm ever going to really *like* it].

The alternative is FX-teleport which I've never found to be consistently reliable enough (at sensible latencies) for me to feel very comfortable really relying on it. Plus the lack of development doesn't inspire confidence that it's a product with a future.

Ho hum.

Destination 64bit... (chorus from the composers in the back seat: "Are we there yet?")


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Jan 31, 2008)

*Re: The Perfect Motherboard*



JonFairhurst @ 31st January 2008 said:


> And is there anything that is FULLY QUALIFIED at 8GB or better? Asus lists 8GB, but when you look at their qualified RAM vendors, it doesn't seem that you can populate the boards with four 2GB sticks and still get qualified stuff.


You don't have to stick to the QV list. I installed a couple of Kingston 2GB sticks, that aren't on the QV list for my motherboard and they work just fine. But, of course, it's a lottery and if you happen to buy something, that really doesn't work, you're on your own.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 31, 2008)

"One of the first reasons that I found I didn't like Vista, was that it was too much like OSX"

I love OS X.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 31 said:


> "One of the first reasons that I found I didn't like Vista, was that it was too much like OSX"
> 
> I love OS X.


Good for you. I hope that you'll be very happy together. :roll: 

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 31, 2008)

Well, do you have any rational reason for making that comment? OS X works very well for what we're doing. We've been able to load multiple programs in it and access lots of RAM for a long time.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 31 said:


> Well, do you have any rational reason for making that comment? OS X works very well for what we're doing. We've been able to load multiple programs in it and access lots of RAM for a long time.


What comment would that be? The irrational "love" for software, hardware or some other comment?

Don't include me in the "we're". :lol: 

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 31, 2008)

"One of the first reasons that I found I didn't like Vista, was that it was too much like OSX"

That comment, and obviously the reason I say "we" is that most people on this forum have faced the problem of large sample libraries needing more memory than you can access on a single machine. Right? And if you work on computers from morning to night every day of your life, somehow this stuff becomes important.

Darryl, did someone piss in your Wheaties this morning?


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 31 said:


> "One of the first reasons that I found I didn't like Vista, was that it was too much like OSX"
> 
> That comment, and obviously the reason I say "we" is that most people on this forum have faced the problem of large sample libraries needing more memory than you can access on a single machine. Right? And if you work on computers from morning to night every day of your life, somehow this stuff becomes important.
> 
> Darryl, did someone piss in your Wheaties this morning?


Nick, why are you so defensive? I find OSX slow, inadequate and ugly. You don't. Your choice.

D


----------



## synthetic (Jan 31, 2008)

Oh yay, a Mac versus PC debate. 








[edit: did I nail that smiley or what?]


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 31, 2008)

Nah, it's a Nick vs. Daryl grudge match. We hate each others' guts because he doesn't like OS X and I do.

It's pistols at dawn!


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 31, 2008)

Or at least you hate each others' computers' guts.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 1, 2008)

Back on thread...

Is anybody here successfully running 8GB on their mobo? If so, what parts? What settings?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 1, 2008)

I'm looking at the same issue. But here's a link worth referring to from the VSL forum where Chris Marin discusses the new 32GB of RAM (yipes!) 64bit system he built for Herb, along with a parts list.

http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/t/17934.aspx

To build this system with 32GB of RAM is a mere $7K...(or there abouts)


Chris also discusses briefly the results he achieved running Vienna Ensemble on a Mac with BootCamp.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 1, 2008)

"I just hate OSX and couldn't give a rats arse about you"

Charming.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 1, 2008)

synthetic @ Thu Jan 31 said:


> Oh yay, a Mac versus PC debate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Obama vs. Clinton - but who will shake hands first?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 1, 2008)

It would be nice to avoid destroying good threads with non-content, right?

Thanks for that link, Peter. I would agree that bleeding-edgers had better go with the idea of a known-working parts list, else be stuck with a non-working parts list.

My latest machine is a solid Intel quad-core, so it's capable, but RAM limited. So, I'll probably switch to 64-bit over time, but it won't be the Giga workhorse. I'm curious if anyone has picked up one of these monster-RAM mobos...I'd like to build another machine in the next few months, but want to get one with the mostest slots...

B.


----------



## redleicester (Feb 1, 2008)

I'll let you know how I get on then Bruce :D


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 1, 2008)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Feb 01 said:


> To build this system with 32GB of RAM is a mere $7K...(or there abouts)


Of course, for that money, I could build a farm of at least six headless PCs. Hopefully, we will be able to get some more affordable big RAM solutions soon...


----------



## redleicester (Feb 1, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Feb 01 said:


> Back on thread...
> 
> Is anybody here successfully running 8GB on their mobo? If so, what parts? What settings?



Have been running 8gb on two PC slaves for three months without a hitch.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 1, 2008)

I think the trick is use 600 rather than 800 RAM (whatever it's called). That'll save quite a lot and probably perform 99.9999999999999999999999999999% as well.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 1, 2008)

Take 4

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... =436&num=1


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 1, 2008)

Maybe Bruce/Mark/synthetic can answer the quad core question with respect to a GS4 machine where you intend to run multiple GigaPulse instances.

In theory one core would be used for sampling and the other three could be GigaPulsing. Will this be the reality?

And, yes, Bruce is correct about splitting the voices between drives. If you wanted to get crazy, once could split an instrument like piano by tritones (C, Eb, Gb, A one one drive, etc...) or some even less musical arrangement and then stack the three instruments to make the full piano.

Bruce, with your nutty-deep sampled percussion, maybe you could create a variety of art/gsi/gsp configurations that could divide the instrument velocities across multiple drives. Manually stack the interleaving instruments and go poly mad!

With lots of RAM, smart use of multiple drives and multiple cores (if supported by GigaPulse), a single machine can be a real monster.

That said, I was doing a simple After Effects rendering job the other day at work on a four core machine with a 4-drive RAID. The render would haul @ss, but if the file was large, it would suddenly bog. I figured it was paging, but I unloaded other apps to free some RAM, and it didn't change.

The problem was that the job started jumping from processor to processor. When fast, processor 1 handled everything. Overall load was 25%. After a while, the processors started fighting over the job and it bogged, but the load remained at 25%. I figure that the processors were spending all their time moving data, and little time actually processing data.

So, maybe multiple cores with one doing the samples and the others doing GigaPulse wouldn't work well since all the data has to move from the sampler CPU to the effects CPUs. Audio isn't as data intensive as HD video, but still...


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 2, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sat Feb 02 said:


> You get far better performance with more drives. Not RAID, you don't get a bounce there. But, say, if you had EWQLSO, and you split the strings, brass, woodwinds, and percussion library files each on a drive, you'll get tremendously more polyphony performance before the disk system tanks.



This is true, but it pays to chose your motherboard carefully. If the mobo doesnt have an adequate buss to handle all the data, there'll be a bottleneck.

This is where server boards are usually the best choice; they'll handle more RAM and are designed to accomodate multiple drives.


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Feb 2, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ 2nd February 2008 said:


> If you wanted to get crazy, once could split an instrument like piano by tritones (C, Eb, Gb, A one one drive, etc...) or some even less musical arrangement and then stack the three instruments to make the full piano.


Then why not let a raid do the splitting for you and get half the instrument streaming off one of the raid drives and the other half off the second drive? That would be easier for you and still raise (double?) the available polyphony, or...? Or is this just theori far from reality? Sorry if this is rubbish - I don't know much about raid, but have been considering it for my Raptors.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 2, 2008)

Generally, the problem with sample streaming and RAID is that there is not enough continous large(ish) size data to keep all of the RAID drives engaged. By the time they spin up and deliver the data, its over. THen they sit and wait to be called upon again.

RAID is advantageous is you're say; recording a live band and are comitting 3 or more minutes of audio to disk. Likewise with retrieving it. The drives stay constantly engaged.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Feb 2, 2008)

Oh, and I dont know if anyone has had a problem, but Ive never seen a hard drive dedicated to samples (and samples only) fall over and not be able to keep up.

RAM and CPU seem to fall way before hand.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Feb 2, 2008)

Regarding RAID:

Yes, what Scott said. Essentially, if you are editing video, doing high track-count live/studio recording, etc., RAID is good.

For streaming samples, RAID doesn't buy you anything, because it's all about seeks...how fast the drive arm can respond to all the polyphony it's being asked to juggle.

So, in that scenario, RAID is actually not as effective as separate drives. If you have the material split up intelligently on separate drives, each drive only has to seek a percentage of the total polyphony load, rather than all drives in a RAID needing to seek bits and pieces of the entire polyphony load.

Personally, I've bottlenecked lots of single sample-drive systems. Add a complex piano part to anything with a large sustaining load, and you're done. But certainly the CPU and RAM speeds, and the motherboard, have to be capable of passing the data.

The bottom line is no matter how cheap computers get, versus how fast, you'll always do a lot better with a great motherboard. Office/consumer oriented machines can process really fast, and give snappy screen response on simple multimedia, but the minute you throw four drives streaming at the top of their capacity at a cheap motherboard, that's the minute you realize why it's a cheap motherboard. Ditto with "gamer" systems...they're fast, but not "fat" in terms of their data processing abilities. Gamer systems are primarily tweaked for getting the most processor/video pipeline performance, not so much the fat pipe for disk data.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 2, 2008)

Regarding RAID:

Yes, what Scott and Bruce said. 

I've also been able to slam a dedicated sample drive. Each time it's been due to too much sustain pedal on a piano, or percussion parts with long-sustaining cymbals. Anything with ADSRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr............. is susceptible.


----------



## rgames (Feb 7, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Feb 01 said:


> Back on thread...
> 
> Is anybody here successfully running 8GB on their mobo? If so, what parts? What settings?



I'm doing just that - I have an ASUS P5W-DH Deluxe with an RME HDSP card and a Core2Duo processor at 3 GHz. I'm running VE with the Special Edition and I use about 5.3 GB of RAM for a full template less perc (run on another machine). XP64

I can load up gobs of samples but I can only actually use 35 or so tracks at a time - the VE hits a CPU bottleneck unless you're just playing half notes. So, of woodwinds, brass, and strings, I can usually get two of the sections to run before I have to start bouncing. I haven't seen any indication that the hard disk is having any difficulty.

I would look around to see who has done orchestrations similar to what you're doing and see if it can actually be done from a single machine. (I haven't seen it yet, and I've asked around!)

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 7, 2008)

Richard,

Great news about your RAM usage! The CPU news isn't as good.

However... From a workflow standpoint this isn't that bad. I can easily mute some tracks and continue to write. As long as I don't have to unload/reload stuff, I should be fine.

Of course, the final render will have to be done in stages, but that's just an extra few turns of the crank. It doesn't get in the way of the creative process, which is the real killer.

I'll put off my CPU buy until the last moment. Sounds like I'll want lots of bang for my bucks.


----------



## hv (Feb 7, 2008)

Set up a machine with XP64 specifically for Sonar64 about a year and a half ago. Figured I'd keep my older XP machine on hand for everything else. But now I find I only use the 32-bit machine once in a blue moon to edit a gs3 library. GVI runs all my GS3 libs fine on the XP64 machine. Granted I'm not heavy into plugins but all the ones that come with Sound Forge, CD Architect, DVD Architect, and Vegas work for me as does all the Voxengo stuff I use. My biggest fear was trouble with video capturing but it hasn't been a problem, even HD capture with Vegas 7. A few months ago I built a 2nd XP64 machine for multi-track recording on road trips and went with a Q6700 and 8-gigs of ram. Soon as I lay my hands on GS4, the old 32-bit machine is history. As long as you're solid on 64-bit audio drivers, you're most of the way there... and Tascam Fw1884 and RME FF400 have been good for me.

Howard


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 7, 2008)

Still waiting for announcements of 64-bit GSIF drivers. I would guess that Tascam's Fw1884 would be a reasonable bet though...


----------



## synthetic (Feb 7, 2008)

RME HDSP9652 and TASCAM FW-series are GSIF 2.1 compatible.


----------



## rgames (Feb 8, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> I'll put off my CPU buy until the last moment. Sounds like I'll want lots of bang for my bucks.



Why not just buy two sample machines with 4 GB each? It should be cheaper and better performing than a single monster machine. If you're using the SE, you'll have to factor in the cost of another license.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 8, 2008)

rgames @ Fri Feb 08 said:


> Why not just buy two sample machines with 4 GB each? It should be cheaper and better performing than a single monster machine. If you're using the SE, you'll have to factor in the cost of another license.


There's no doubt that two machines are faster than one. They wouldn't be cheaper though - at least not based on what I would spec. About the only difference will be the amount of RAM.

I'm not planning on buying a $1,200 processor (QX9650 3.0G 45NM). I think the sweet spot for a quad is about $300 these days (Q6600 2.4GHZ 65NM). And the longer I wait before I buy, the more I'll get for that $300 (Q6700 2.66GHZ 45NM maybe?).


----------



## synthetic (Feb 8, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Fri Feb 01 said:


> In the Tascam booth, we had a couple of aluminum rackmount cases that were SO LIGHT, and very cool running. I don't recall the manufacturer...they were some company's prebuilt systems, but I don't remember who.



Those were Vision DAW. They're a favorite in Hollywood right now and they're converting my machine right now. The two we used at NAMM are now in a rack at Remote Control.


----------



## woodywoodstock (Feb 8, 2008)

one thought from me regarding the Vista vs. XP discussion (on the first side of the threat): As far as I know the 64 bit version of Kontakt will only be running on Vista (XP 64 not supported)...and I thought I would not get in touch so soon with this baby :-(

woody


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 15, 2008)

Here's an excellent overview of the 64-bit PC world, including some tips on swap files and hibernation. The article focuses on normal applications and does not mention music software, but it's still useful...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/index.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/ ... index.html)


----------



## David A (Feb 15, 2008)

Our grandchildren will be using making sample libraries by the time Vista irons out its problems with 64 bit computing. XP64 all the way.

Dave A.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 15, 2008)

I'm using GS4 on Vista 64 and XP64 machines. While Vista 64 works, it is quirky. I have XP64 on my pò,9   oÅÒ,9   oÅÓ,9   oÅÔ,9   o


----------



## hv (Feb 15, 2008)

Same experience here regarding Sonar64. Which interestingly enough is also officially supported only on Vista64 but runs rock solid on XP64. So "not supported" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "won't run." Or even that it won't run as well and may actually run better. So as to Kontakt (K4?) we might have to wait and see. By the time its released it may all be moot if Vista is finally a stable OS... perhaps renamed Phoenix.

Howard


----------



## David A (Feb 16, 2008)

Will the 64 bit feature be an update to Kontakt 3/2? Or will the sluggishly implement this with the release of a new product somewhere down the line? In which case those of us needing bigger templates would be better off getting Giga 4...

Or at least using the 3GB switch.

Dave A.


----------



## Nickie Fønshauge (Feb 16, 2008)

Vista x64 support will be an update to K3 later this year.


----------

