Jump to content

Jim Roseberry

Members
  • Content Count

    394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Jim Roseberry last won the day on August 7

Jim Roseberry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

305 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It depends on the motherboard/circumstances 😉 Some motherboards will disable a pair of SATA ports for each M.2 Ultra SSD installed. Some motherboards will allow you to run a single M.2 Ultra SSD (using four PCIe lanes) without disabling a pair of SATA ports. If you install a second M.2 Ultra SSD (using four PCIe lanes), the motherboard will typically disable a pair of SATA ports. Some motherboards have three M.2 slots... and one less PCIe slot. With these motherboards, you can typically install two M.2 Ultra SSDs without a pair of SATA ports being disabled. If you've got a full-length PCIe slot available, you can put a M.2 Ultra SSD on a PCIe host card (requires a full-length PCIe slot - needs four PCIe lanes). This provides a means of avoiding disabled SATA ports (when installing a second or third M.2 Ultra SSD). In short, you've got to read the fine print.
  2. 3950x is a step in the right direction... but it's not yielding clock-speeds equal to Intel's i9 series. If you've worked with Ryzen CPUs, you know they don't have much OC headroom. Prior to the release of the 3950x, I suspected the 3950x wouldn't be able to run all 16 cores anywhere near the max turbo frequency of 4.7GHz. That's been the case with every Ryzen release (thus far). The 9900k will easily run all 8 cores (16 processing threads) at 5GHz. Completely stable... and with quality cooler it'll do so while running near dead-silent Intel is releasing the i9-10980xe (18-cores, 36 processing threads, price will be ~$1000) and it can achieve 4.7GHz across all cores. This is the replacement for the 9980xe (same number of cores)... but it'll be half the cost and can achieve higher clock-speed. Something to keep in mind... CPU Core performance doesn't scale 1:1 IOW, Doubling the number of cores doesn't double performance. Having more cores is beneficial... but not at the expense of significant clock-speed. If AMD releases a 64-core CPU... and the clock-speed is ~3GHz (meaning across all cores), that's going to be a significant performance hit compared to something like the 9900k (which is about a quarter the cost). Where Ryzen shines is heavily multi-threaded applications like video rendering. If you've got a machine doing nothing but video rendering, the 3950x is a perfect choice. If you're working with audio, not all processes in a DAW can be multi-threaded. Playing/monitoring in realtime thru Helix Native at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size (1ms round-trip latency) is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded. Some plugins like UVI Falcon only use a single core. This is why clock-speed is (still) extremely important. From our perspective (building DAWs for clients), it's not enough for AMD to release a CPU that's about the same cost and almost the same speed. Aside from video, Intel takes most benchmarks Going AMD means giving up Thunderbolt If things are about equal, we'll stick with Intel. If/when Ryzen (or whatever future name) is clearly superior on all facets (especially as relates to DAWs), that's when we'll use AMD.
  3. If AMD really wants to compete, they have to get the clock-speed up... and not just on a single core. i9 is besting Ryzen significantly on clock-speed. Especially when you look at the speed across all cores. ie: The 9900k will comfortably run all 8 cores (16 processing threads) locked at 5GHz. Ryzen can't get anywhere near that clock-speed... and especially not across all cores. For the record, I have nothing against AMD. If/when they're the overall better CPU for DAW purposes, we'll be happy to use them.
  4. Read the fine print. 😉 "According to a leaked product slide shared to Chinese social media, the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is expected to be a 280 watt processor with 288MB of total cache. Interestingly, that’s the same TDP as AMD’s 24-core and 32-core Threadripper chips, despite having twice the core count. That probably means the individual CPU cores will run at lower clock speeds. But the sheer number of cores could help… VFX pros, I guess. Most users would probably be hard-pressed to find tasks that require more than 32-cores… but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before developers come up with applications that can leverage all the resources of AMD’s new high-end processors." Low clock-speed (regardless of the number of cores) makes this chip less desirable for DAW purposes.
  5. @OP: If you're going to be recording long-term, I'd suggest getting a dedicated audio interface... and using normal (not USB) microphones. A quality audio interface with proper ASIO drivers makes the whole process more rock-solid You can achieve far lower round-trip latency Using separate audio interfaces (each on separate digital clocks) can cause timing differences. USB mics are fine for PodCasts... or communication; they're not particularly good for traditional recording.
  6. Are you sure the project/settings are exactly the same? In particular, it doesn't make logical sense that RAM use is 50% less.
  7. Having the same CPU and Chipset (alone) does not mean equal performance. The issue with most off-the-shelf laptops (and desktops for that matter) is that they don't expose BIOS parameters necessary to achieve low/consistent DPC Latency. The lower the latency you want to run (smaller ASIO buffer size), the more critical it is to have low/consistent DPC Latency. I'd avoid a laptop... unless you absolutely need the portability for travel. A custom desktop has none of the limitations/issues... and is less expensive for significantly higher performance. You can get custom laptops that run a Desktop CPU, but they're expensive ($2500+).
  8. How well multi-client audio works is also down to your audio interface driver. You might want to see if there's a recent update for it...
  9. I opened the Fender to see if anything was loose (no fan in this chassis). I tightened all screws. I'm guessing it's the metal cage around the 6L6 power tubes (as the resonance sounds metallic). BTW, the Revival Drive sounds great when run directly into the Effects-Return (straight into the power-amp). Nice "Plexi" type sound/feel. Wish there was just a smidge more gain on tap. Running a boost pedal in front of it works ok. Haven't settled on that yet.
  10. Haven't tried the Mesa pedals. I'll check those out. I'm not bonding (yet) with the Revival Drive. I'm somewhat surprised by that. Also not caring much for the EP Booster and OCD. Like the Keeley Katana Mini (for clean boost). Like the (plain old) Tube Screamer in front of the JCM800 (makes things a little more "crunchy") Fender Blues Deluxe Reissue is going back. Something in the back of the chassis is resonating (almost sounds like a phone ring at times).
  11. I got the Email this morning. I was actually interested... until I saw the price.
  12. @ The OP If you're putting a full project together (multiple songs). I'd hold off on the fade-outs (until the "mastering" stage).
  13. That's a great tip to get a smooth Cosine (S Curve) fade in CbB!
  14. Rig Player in TH-U would be a whole lot more exciting (IMO) if you could create your own rigs (Profiles).
×
×
  • Create New...