I'll be doing a new Windows pc build, and trying to spend from $400 to $600 on CPU/mobo/Ram - what will give me the best bang for a music recording workstation that includes simultaneous use of:
a.) Band in a Box b.) Presonus Firepod c.) Native Instruments virtual instruments.
For the processor - is money better spent on more cores, or less cores with higher clock speeds ?
I'm not sure how to find out whether, when the apps for each of these are running at the same time - whether they will take advantage of multiple cores and/or hyperthreading.
For the processor - is money better spent on more cores, or less cores with higher clock speeds?
More cores as more processing can be handled at the same time. Multiple cores usually do not have that much smaller of clock speed.
Originally Posted By: Joe V
I'm not sure how to find out whether, when the apps for each of these are running at the same time - whether they will take advantage of multiple cores and/or hyperthreading.
Your machine will normally have it's own method to decide but you can right-click on a process in Task Manager and direct it to which processors are being used. I've got 8 cores and only split the cores manually one time. Windows manages it pretty well.
Thanks for your feedback Steve, and in general what you're saying is absolutely correct. But I thought my very narrow question with these particular types of apps may not conform to the generalization.
My understanding was that the applications have to specifically be coded to use more than one core, otherwise they can ONLY use one.
Now, I named 3 different pieces of software - and generally, one would think that SEPARATE applications that run simultaneously would naturally use different cores...but with add-ins and virtual instruments, and software that works in an integrated way, I wasn't so sure this is possible....I think the only way to know would be to be the developer - or - as you very well may have - to watch how many cores are working at the same time as you simultaneously run BB, digital recording, and loaded VI's at the same time.
I don't know - maybe I have overcomplicated it - but I think it's possible the multiple cores are not used as much as you would hope given these 3 music apps.
My understanding was that the applications have to specifically be coded to use more than one core, otherwise they can ONLY use one.
I would think most apps out there are set to do that. Since PG software is a 32 bit app it may be just use one core.
As far as the Windows 10 side, by default, all apps are allowed to jump on any of the available processors as indicated in my screenshot. I just haven't seen an easy way to identify which processors your current apps running are using. There are 3rd party apps you can pick up that can assist in defining those processors but you may have indeed overcomplicated this.
As far as if this is just trying to help you in deciding more cores.... More cores, more betta.... Both my laptop and PC are 8 cores. I've rarely had a time when the whole machines lock up since apps kind of split their time among processors.
The best thing for me was switching to DDR4 RAM ... amazing the difference in speed! I got a new computer for Christmas with 8GB of DDR4 RAM and an I5-6th generation processor. Talk about fast!
I went from an I6-2nd generation CPU and 8GB of DDR3 to what I described above and the difference is unbelievable. It now takes BIAB less than 10 seconds to fully load. Once I compose a song using all 6 basic tracks (approximately 4-minute song - including Brent Mason lead guitar tracks) it generates in 20 seconds or less. None of that is exaggerated.
Just thought I'd throw that out there as an extra thing to consider. But .......... DDR4 RAM is ridiculously expensive right now. Glad mine was already included with the computer. Good luck with your build!
Thanks for sharing AI-David...are you an Artificial Intelligence enthusiast, or are those just initials ? BTW - how do you know it's mostly the ram vs. the faster CPU due to newer CPU architecture and faster clock speeds ? Likely both contribute - but do they do so equally or does one contribute more than the other ? I know a lot about simple basics things and generalizations with PC's - but when it comes to a complicated use scenario - like DAWs with virtual instruments and BB running, I really am clueless as to the extent each component plays in raising the overall performance bar....Even the articles I've read rarely explain things at that level. You kind of have to read lots of articles and infer....perhaps one of our low level BB coding engineers can explain better ?
Bottom line - faster, newer generation (more efficient) CPUs and multiple cores will result in better performance - I get that. I just find it interesting to know which components are limiting performance in a fully-loaded DAW.
Thanks for sharing AI-David...are you an Artificial Intelligence enthusiast, or are those just initials ? BTW - how do you know it's mostly the ram vs. the faster CPU due to newer CPU architecture and faster clock speeds ? Likely both contribute - but do they do so equally or does one contribute more than the other ? I know a lot about simple basics things and generalizations with PC's - but when it comes to a complicated use scenario - like DAWs with virtual instruments and BB running, I really am clueless as to the extent each component plays in raising the overall performance bar....Even the articles I've read rarely explain things at that level. You kind of have to read lots of articles and infer....perhaps one of our low level BB coding engineers can explain better ?
Bottom line - faster, newer generation (more efficient) CPUs and multiple cores will result in better performance - I get that. I just find it interesting to know which components are limiting performance in a fully-loaded DAW.
Hi!
My full name is Alan David (yes, David is my last name), but in the music biz, I'm more well-known as Al David. I threw in the hyphen because most sites don't allow spaces in usernames. That's not the case here at PG Music Forums but I didn't know that when I opened my account.
I'm not an expert at anything other than saying "Yes ma'am" to my wife. My brother and I owned a computer store back in Missouri. I now live in Northern Alabama.
The 2 reasons I attribute most of the difference to the DDR4 RAM are:
1. My older computer had an I5 - 2nd generation CPU. Statistically, it's almost (not quite) as fast as the 6th generation. There is, indeed, a difference but it's not a huge difference. But that does, in fact, account for some of the difference, perhaps 15 - 20 percent of the difference.
In more technical terms, here is the compelling difference. The an important factor is a huge difference in capacity. DDR4 is able to accomodate a much higher RAM capacity per Gigabyte compared to DDR3. DDR3 RAM can theoretically use about 128 GB while while DDR4 RAM can go up to 512 GB. That's a very significant difference. Now, bandwidth in numbers - The frequency speed of DDR3 ranges from 800 MHz on the low end and tops out at 2133 MHz. DDR4 memory ranges from a low of 1600 MHz and tops out at 3200 MHz. Thus, DDR4 has a much higher rate (speed) of data handling than DDR3. I have 2666 MHz in my computer. There are other differences (better error detection and correction, for example) favoring the DDR4 but the two I mentioned are the major differences.
This also helps to reduce the load on the processor when using demanding software. Although that doesn't make operations any faster, it might extend the life of your CPU, allowing it to run somewhat cooler. Just a couple of extra benefits besides speed.
For simpler, more ordinary tasks, a significant speed difference isn't usually apparent. But for more intensive, memory-hungry programs, the difference is more obvious.
Right now, DDR4 memory is more than twice the price of DDR3. Also, you have to have a different motherboard for DDR4. The cost to upgrade, therefore, is substantial.
I probably told you more than you were anticipating, but it might be helpful to know.
I can understand DDR4 RAM making a serious improvement in BIAB. But if you want the program to load faster and act snappier, running it on an SSD will help the most. The RealTracks and RealDrums can be elsewhere. Regeneration depends mostly on the speed of one CPU core. Or so it has been said here.
BIAB 2024 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 6.5 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6; Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus Studio 192, Presonus Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors
For what it's worth to those also in the market - after doing a bunch of reading and listening to the great advice from local friends and PG friends, I went with:
User Video: Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box®
The Bob Doyle Media YouTube channel is known for demonstrating how you can creatively incorporate AI into your projects - from your song projects to avatar building to face swapping, and more!
His latest video, Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box, he explains in detail how you can use the Melodist feature in Band-in-a-Box with ACE Studio. Follow along as he goes from "nothing" to "something" with his Band-in-a-Box MIDI Melodist track, using ACE Studio to turn it into a vocal track (or tracks, you'll see) by adding lyrics for those notes that will trigger some amazing AI vocals!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 und mehr!
Add updated printing options, enhanced tracks settings, smoother use of MGU and SGU (BB files) within PowerTracks, and more with the latest PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 update!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Both my laptop and PC are 8 cores. I've rarely had a time when the whole machines lock up since apps kind of split their time among processors.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean