Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: Weirdness on March 25, 2010, 11:47:54 AM
-
Hey guys!
OK, since I have jumped into 24/96 recording the time that it takes my current machine to open files and render them to 16.44.1 has gotten to be too much. I have been looking into getting a new machine but it would seem that the current software that I'm using-Vegas/Waves L2 are not fully compatible with the new Windows 7 64 bit OS.
I have been considering getting an older dual core PC with XP Pro pre-loaded but everyone is telling me that quad core is the way to go for this type of work.
So then, I guess the question would be would a dual core be good enough for rendering these types of files or not? And, is there software available that will do as good a job as Waves L2/L3 for dithering down to 16.44.1? If there is something else available that will do an equally good job then great. The Waves L2/L3 plugins are not compatible as it sits right now.
If anyone can shed some light on exactly how current/fast a machine you would need to work with 2gb 24/96 files and if there is equally good software or plugins as Waves for dithering I'm all ears. Thanks!!!
-
I'm running Vegas Pro 9 on Windows 7 x64 with no problems.
Waves/L2/L3 ..... alot of us are using the Izotope Ozone 3 package with the MBIT+ dither scheme
-
I'm using audition here on windows 7 64bit with ozone 3 package.
you don't need a quad core for this either.
Your limiting factor will be your disk i/o most likely.
Even so I'm not positive you would find any audio processing software that
would take full advantage of the quad core.
-
Thanks a lot for the info guys, this definitely helps. I didn't realize that the MBIT+ on the Ozone package was a newer version of Megabitmax Ultra, apparently it's the best diethering going so it should be a better option than waves. Guess I'll have to pony up and get something new so I can start plowing through the pile of masters. I was also concerned that my Audiophile 24/96 card wouldn't be compatible with a new machine but no biggie if that's the case as I can use my Marantz deck to do transfers anyhow and then just take the info off of the card from there.
Thanks again...
-
FWIW many of the newer quad core capable motherboards have digital IO native so the compatibility of the 2496 may not be an issue. I'm not sure how important that it is that the digital I/O is bit perfect, for me it is not an issue. I open a 24/96 file from SD card and all manipulation is through the DAW. The only time the audio is touched by the sound card is for playback and I'm willing to accept that playback might not be bit perfect.
I don;t see any reason not to have a quad core if you are getting a new PC anyway. They are very affordable these days so no reason no to spend the extra $100 or so to get the additional performance. All that said a slow machine will process the files, just not very fast.
-
I just upgraded from a 2.0 Ghz dual core proc to a 2.66 Ghz Quad core, and there is a HUGE difference in speed for rendering files.
At one point I got Wavelab to work with Windows 7, but it took some tinkering. I think there was a patch, and I had to run it in XP compatibility mode.
If you can get a computer with Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate on it, you can run Wavelab within Windows 7 via XP Mode (different than compatibility mode). Basically you are emulating XP to run legacy programs.
-
I just upgraded from a 2.0 Ghz dual core proc to a 2.66 Ghz Quad core, and there is a HUGE difference in speed for rendering files.
At one point I got Wavelab to work with Windows 7, but it took some tinkering. I think there was a patch, and I had to run it in XP compatibility mode.
If you can get a computer with Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate on it, you can run Wavelab within Windows 7 via XP Mode (different than compatibility mode). Basically you are emulating XP to run legacy programs.
wavelab 6 works perfect with 7.
-
I don;t see any reason not to have a quad core if you are getting a new PC anyway.
audio processing is heavily dependent on cpu power and disk i/o.
ram, not so much with regards to audio but you can never have too much ram anyways...
-
RAM can be problematic if you don't have enough of it, it will cache data to the drive to compensate. Which basically means Disk I/O bottleneck times more than 2. If it's an option, you might consider breaking the files up into smaller files before editing them. Takes less RAM, loads faster, and stuff, but not for everyone.
I tend to use sox, but mainly because I like to script my edits. Perfect recall, 100% repeatable. Maybe not the best tool in all cases, but useful. You can combine many edits in one pass and prevent needless wear on your hard drive and wasted time on hardware I/O. And when you're talking GB's and hours in length a lot of extra time.
Quad core is pretty much the standard now. A faster dual core can be beneficial if you have and continue to use old software. But not always.