The early Beatles songs were tracked on 4 track tape which was revolutionary because before that everything was directly recorded to lathe.
War of the World Jeffe Wayne rendition was the worlds first 48 track recording. (Using two synced 24-track tape recorders)
Nowadays talking about over 100 channels is mentioned as restrictive?

I'll say I felt more limited in the mid 2000's where dual and quad core was state of the art. A new plugin might kill the system lol. I remember when slate fgx came out, we loved it, but it put the hurt on the Mac pro tower.

Simultaneously code has gotten better along with hardware and the current juncture really allows for mixing on the fly and late project overdubs.

A band I was in scrapped our studio ep, and instead used a tascam 34 in our drummers basement. The studio recording sounded good, but didn't sound like "us".

Thats the beauty of the art. From 2 spoons and a bucket to a massive symphony, music can be made creatively ������

Welcome back to the mid-2000s.

Go play some chords in Serum2 with the Pacific Rain preset.

Pretty sure there is something wrong with that preset.

Sounds like fun !!

What is the better option here? As you know, I am speccing a new pc based on an Intel Ultra 7 265K for mixing and mastering audio only projects in Cubase 14, using mostly Acustica Audio plugins.

Someone suggested that instead of 64 GB 6400 DDR5, I go for 96 GB 5600 DDR5. The price difference would be slight.

I'd welcome your thoughts on this.

Best,

Magnus

CUDIMM. I don't know if you still only can get 48GB and 96GB

I was actually referring to regular dimm, not cudimm.

Best,

Magnus

Are you using sample libraries?

Acustica Audio plugins. They are sample based.

Best,

Magnus

I'm an AA user myself. I'd personally opt for the faster 64gb kit, because its likely that they'll be another bottleneck aside from ram capacity.

How much ram are you using in your current system? Are you running out of ram or using nearly all of it?

okay but Cudimm was my suggestion

The faster memory will have a more positive influence on the performance than the percentage increase in memory speed.
Mind you that the conclusions of these tests are based on benchmarks and game performance. I haven't seen any DAW tests with different memory speeds.

Anyway 96Gb is not needed because 64Gb is more than enough. If you go for a longer term (+5 yr) where you don't want to upgrade memory later the 96Gb may be the best choice.

I’ve got 32 GB currently. 64 GB felt like a sensible upgrade from that, especially since I would like the new pc to last me approximately ten years, like my current one.

I am not running out of RAM in my current machine, so 64 GB should be fine.

Sorry, I didn’t quite understand. Why would you suggest cudimm?

Good points. I look for the longer term, say ten years. I will go for my original spec with 64 GB of 6400 RAM.

Nobody knows what different RAM speed does for sampler use. Nobody benchmarked yet. Personally my money is on minor or non-measurable difference.

A good way to test is to take your existing PC, underclock your RAM in the BIOS and just measure already.

All this speculation just leads to wrong buying decisions.

The ram test i saw was a while back when Pete from Scan tested ddr4 speeds in dawbench. I'm foggy on the exact numbers but faster ram was measurably better. That's a pretty abstract case.

AA posted this a while ago, about their plugins and ram/cache/cpu

Acustica audio acqua plugins general discussion

OK, but we were discussing samplers.

Oh ok my bad I was thinking about Magnus's setup/AA plugs. It seems to me speed may be a benefit there. For big sample libraries I can totally see a case for capacity over speed.

Have a look a few pages back on this thread, i recall Norbury Brooks posted about a recent test project re 64gb ram but this was more AA related thab sampler, however again sampler based plugins so may help you.

Question re ram. Looking at 2 x 48gb 5600mhz.However can see 6000mhz uowards in same 2 x 48gb format are available.
What's recommended or will work for the 870e mobo and 9950x3d.
Thanks

Last week, the 14700K was selling for $200 or so on Amazon, so I upgraded from a 12700K, but the performance only improved by about 10-15% in reality, lol. I think DAW bench test score is not realistic.

Just an info tidbit:

9950X on MSI X870E

I added a 3rd intake fan on my case (1 out, CPU air cooler has 2 fans) and the CPU package temps dropped about 5C on average. Should've added that awhile ago... like when I built the PC.

So my active idle temp (while Web browsing, using Slack, etc.) is now about 53C.

Idling in Studio One activates all cores (none parked) bumps that to 61C.

it's completely realistic , it's a bench mark test, how can it not be?

10-15% is a really good upgrade, why are you unhappy?


M

Hello all. Long ago I was active, today I have a question. Hoping this is the right thread to post this.

I'm seeking suggestions for a Motherboard & CPU to upgrade my current situation. Budget is 500$ or less.

Currently using an 11 year old PC from Sweetwater. A creation station. System works ok, but desire to run at lower buffers. Currently I have to run at 256 buffers to be stable, looking to reduce that to 64. Few specifics: Cubase 14/96K

The reason I want to run buffers that low is E-drum use combined with the "all on" studio setup.

Here is the list of parts I desire to re-use on a new Motherboard. Ram being the most restrictive.
The current Motherboard is Z370 current CPU is 3.2 8600
RME MADI FX (A32/SSL AL/AX/RME QS8 B2in/out)
64 Gigs ram
7 port USB
2XUAD Octo cards

I recently took a 4 channel network card out and put in an older 1030 vid card. That helped a bit by moving the Vid ram away from shared.

Please suggest a Motherboard & CPU for me

TBH after 11 years you're not going to be able to just update your MOBO and CPU easily for $500.

You might get lucky and find something used but I'd say you'd be better off saving and just getting a new machine at this point. things have moved on in all areas , NVMe drives, DDR5 ram etc etc etc. your current machine has paid for itself many times after 11 years



M

I have and you are correct in terms of CUDIMM's right now.

DDR4 to DDR5 was a notable difference with Kontakt testing, but 6400MHz DDR5 to 8000MHz CUDIMM was a few percent, barely more than margin of error sort of territory.

You would possibly get a benefit from going to CU-DIMM. Search for my reverb count comparison in this thread. Isn't most of Acustica convolution-based - so logic would follow that it would benefit from memory throughput like reverbs (in my test both algo and convolution-based gained a massive boost with just memory performance changed, though the latter slightly less so). I wonder if someone has compared memory perf with Acustica...?

(As an aside, reading this thread the amount of Acustica love is still baffling, I remain deeply uninterested in the subject and refuse to install them on my new machine.)