[Liverpool] Silent PCs

[Dan Lynch]

Yeah if you're doing serious multi-track studio work it needs a decent
processor. I find it's the VST plugins, software synths and such like that
use most of the CPU though. Not necessarily the audio itself.

I don't know how it compares to video processing but imagine a fairly
typical audio project with 16 tracks of high quality audio. Which isn't a
lot if you're recording live drums, that's in mono as well. Then there's all
the plugins you use on each channel. Compression, noise gates, any effects
you might want. Each of these uses CPU obviously and they run in real time.
It can be pretty intensive.

These days one PC can do what a room full of outboard equipment, a mixer, a
patch bay and plenty of cables did for you years ago. But if you're doing
anything serious you need a pretty decent machine.

Dan


On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Andrew Bates <oscillik at gmail.com> wrote:

> yeah you're a way back in time there, modern audio production work usually
> involves multiple streams of stereo audio at 24bit / 48KHz (as a minimum, if
> you're serious) as well as a multitude of audio effects plugins, virtual
> instruments and MIDI tools. of course it depends on what you're doing, but
> for the kind of music I make, a 486 certainly wouldn't be adequate. neither
> would a Intel Core Duo!
> On Jun 17, 2011 9:13 PM, "Sebastian Arcus" <shop at open-t.co.uk> wrote:
> > Damn! I thought I was helping here :-)
> >
> > On the other hand, I remember managing to process sound with a lowly 486
> > DX4. I was under the impression that compared to video work, sound
> > doesn't require that much CPU. Am I that far off the mark in my
> > estimates ? (not that I suggest a 486 DX4 - but at least one of the
> > slower current processors, which can be run fanless without special
> parts).
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > On 17/06/11 20:59, Andrew Bates wrote:
> >> that would introduce too much latency for audio production work ;)
> >>
> >> On Jun 17, 2011 8:57 PM, "Sebastian Arcus" <shop at open-t.co.uk
> >> <mailto:shop at open-t.co.uk>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 17/06/11 20:47, Bob Ham wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 20:28 +0100, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On the other hand, there is another way to get pretty much unlimited
> >> >>> power in a totally silent way. Just have all your super-powerful
> >> >>> hardware (a whole datacentre if you want) in a different room, and
> use
> >> >>> some form of remote access
> >> >>
> >> >> Aye, I've considered that. However, the reason I want silence is
> >> >> largely for audio work. In this context, the computer must
> necessarily
> >> >> be within short range of the user because of the need to get sound in
> >> >> and out with as low latency as possible.
> >> >
> >> > I know where you can get some 12M (~36feet) USB extensions ;-)
> >> >
> >> > There seem to be plenty USB audio mixers out there.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Liverpool mailing list
> >> > Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk <mailto:Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk>
> >> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Liverpool mailing list
> >> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> >> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Liverpool mailing list
> > Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liverpool mailing list
> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20110617/86b23e4d/attachment-0001.htm>