Jump to content

Jim Roseberry

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jim Roseberry

  1. 1 hour ago, HIBI said:

    Can you control RPM of that fan on the BIOS?

    and just wondering... Which is better choice 9th i9-9900K or 10th i7-10700K?

    Depends on the motherboard.

    On the mentioned Gigabyte board, there's zero control over the chipset fan.


    If the motherboard allows, you can set a "silent" profile.

    But... when you put the machine under substantial load, that tiny fan is going to ramp-up.

    It'll be quiet when idle... but loud when working.

    As a test, I loaded a Premier Pro project with a video noise-reduction plugin.

    CPU use was ~70%.

    Tiny fan was busy/loud/annoying   😉


    I'd opt for the 9900k vs the 10700k.

    Performance wise, it's a toss-up.

    9900k has TDP of 95w

    10700k has TDP of 125w

    • Thanks 1

  2. Yep.

    Be aware that some Z490 motherboards are active cooled (meaning small high-RPM fan).  

    ie: Gigabyte Z490 Vision D (quality board) looks passive-cooled... but there's a fan under the heatsink.

    You can hear that tiny fan ramping up with CPU usage.  It's high-pitched and annoying.


    TDP is 125w (about the edge of large/quality air-cooling).


    Performance of the 10900k is exactly what you'd expect.

    Take the 9900k, add two more cores (four more processing threads) and increase the clock-speed to 5.3GHz.

    Fantastic performer.

    It'll be extremely popular with many DAW users... (super high clock-speed and 20 processing threads).




  3. FWIW, There's no way you're going to want to run a 3970x with a Noctua NH-U14S.

    Even in push/pull (two fans), it's just not enough to dissipate 280w of heat (and especially not under any type of heavy load).

    In fact, you don't want to run a NH-U14S with socket 2066 i9 CPUs (much lower TDP of 165w)... for the same reason.

    Under load, you'd have thermal-throttling of the CPU... which kind of kills the whole point.


    For the 3970x, I wouldn't consider anything less than a top-quality 360mm AIC.


    When you're dealing with an active-cooled chipset (small high-RPM fan), to me that doesn't equate to "Whisper Quiet".


    BTW, the 3950x (Ryzen 9) has much lower TDP of 105w.

    It'll run just fine with the NH-U14S.

  4. 5 hours ago, Matthew Sorrels said:

    I can't drag audio from a track in Cubase into EzBass.  I can drag MIDI though.  If I drag the audio from a Windows Explorer into Cubase I can drop it.  But I can't take a Cubase audio blob and drop that.   Both kinds of dragging from a track work in Cakewalk By Bandlab the current early access release.  I only have EzBass 1.0.2, nothing newer is shown in the Toontrack manager for me.

    In Cubase, I think that's an issue (no drag/drop) when you're running as an Administrator.

    Setup a test account (non Admin)... and see if you can then drag/drop.

    I know this doesn't make a lot of logical sense, but I'm pretty sure it'll work.

  5. 13 hours ago, Digital AudionetworX said:

    Have you been able to get hold of a 10980XE CPU

    I haven't seen a single 10980xe actually in-stock anywhere in the US/Canada.

    Distributors are saying it won't be available in 2020.


    In heavily multi-threaded scenarios (and at higher ASIO buffer sizes), the 3970x will smoke the 10980xe.

    When working at super small ASIO buffer sizes (or situations that aren't heavily multi-threaded), the 10980xe will best the 3970x.


    AMD is winning IPC (instructions per clock).

    Intel is winning "all core" clock-speed.


    TDP for the 3970x is 280w.

    There's no way to build a quiet Threadripper machine.  (Requires large AIC and the chipset is active-cooled via small high-RPM fan)

    This is also partly why there virtually no OC headroom with Threadripper.

    All core ratio is ~4GHz.  If you're hoping for anywhere close to 4.5GHz, you'll be disappointed.

    • Like 1

  6. I think the two included basses sound OK (not amazing).

    It's pretty much the same as EZ Drummer.  😉

    EZ Bass allows you to quickly put together a decent sounding (fairly authentic) bass track.


    I'm no bass player, but I enjoy tracking a real bass.

    Just have to keep the parts within my... uhh... "ability".   LOL

    Even so, I think EZ Bass is good for sketching out part/song ideas.


    Next we'll see Superior Bass 1.0    😁

    • Like 3

  7. Though not a cheap solution, check out both the Revv D-20 and G-20 lunchbox tube-heads.

    • D-20 - clean to crunch pedal platform
    • G-20 - mini Revv Generator (two channels mid to high gain)

    Both feature embedded Two Notes Torpedo (reactive load and Cab sim - no physical Cab necessary).

    Both are tiny and weigh 9 pounds.

    Both are 20w via a pair of 6V6 power tubes.  (I've not been much of a fan of EL84 powered lunchbox heads)

    You can use Torpedo's onboard Cabs... or load your own Cab IRs (IRs can be up to 100ms in length).

    • Onboard Cabs can mix a pair of mics.
    • You can load/mix two simultaneous Cab IRs.
    • Both amps have a 6 position switch where you can recall Cab/IR presets.  You can save/recall many more presets via MIDI or the Torpedo remote software.

    From reading about the Torpedo Live, I wasn't expecting to like the reactive load or Cab sim.

    Listened to some D-20 and G-20 demos (mostly Shawn Tubbs)... and decided to get the G-20.

    The G-20 is one of the best sounding/feeling direct recording solutions I've used (I've owned many).

    Liked the G-20 so much, I wanted to pick up the D-20... to use with drive pedals.  It too is fantastic.

    Pair the BE-OD Deluxe with the D-20 and you've got classic JCM-800 to higher-gain modded Marshall tones... in a tiny footprint.

    FWIW, I've owned all the top-tier modeling devices, the Kemper Profiler, and have been using an Axe-FX III.  All are capable of good/great sounds.

    A Friedman BE-100 Deluxe running into a Boss Waza Tube Amp Expander was one of the best direct guitar sounds I've achieved.

    I'd put the Revv G-20 and D-20 right up there with the BE-100/TAE combo.

    The size/weight are perfect for the home/office studio.


  8. FWIW, The Omni Channel is actually a very good tool for problem solving.

    ie: The De-Essers are amazing at reducing acoustic guitar squeaks.

    I don't even use it for the EQ/Dynamics...    😁

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1

  9. To be fair, Intel has their own issues.

    ie: Can't seem to actually get the new i9-10980 out to suppliers.

    Out of stock across the entire US and Canada... and probably not available thru the end of 2020.


    • Like 1

  10. 23 hours ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

    But outperformed by the 3900x which is cheaper

    Who runs the 9900k at 4.9GHz???  😉   It'll run all 8 cores locked at 5GHz... with air-cooling... and do so nearly dead-silent.

    The 3950x  (4.7 max turbo) doesn't out-perform the 9900k when working at ultra low latency settings.

    Using a Presonus Quantum, fire up an instance of Helix Native (patch using dual 2048-sample Cab IRs) running at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size.

    That's running Helix Native at ~2ms total round-trip latency.

    • With the 3950x... pops/ticks
    • With the 9900k... audio is glitch-free

    BTW, The 3700x is ~$90 less than the 9900k.

    • Active-Cooled chipsets
    • Small incompatibilities with AMD (not really AMD's fault)
    • Flaky motherboards (requiring BIOS resets)
    • Some motherboards have no option to disable onboard audio, WiFi, etc

    To save $90?  Not for me or our clients.  


    As I've mentioned 1001 times, Threadripper and Ryzen shine in heavily multi-threaded scenarios (video rendering and at larger buffer sizes).

    That's when they'll smoke the Intel i9s.

    In ultra low latency scenarios, Intel bests AMD (clock-speed is the single most important factor).


    AMD is winning IPC (instructions per clock).

    Intel is winning at all-core clock-speed.

    If AMD can get Threadripper's TDP down (currently 280w), that'll allow higher clock-speed.

    280w TDP is why AMD can't get Threadripper's all-core clock-speed higher than ~4GHz.

    Even with 105w TDP, the  3950x can't get all-core clock-speed much more than about 4GHz.

    If you're used to a super quiet machine, you're not going to like a 3970x build.  There's just too much heat to keep it quiet.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  11. I remember the first time I saw an SVT (Classic).

    I said... "there's no way that thing weighs 80 pounds."

    Then... I lifted it.  (Groan) Yep!  It weighs 80 pounds.


    Any classic electric bass into an SVT Classic is (IMO) the definition of rock-bass tone.


    Great to have... if you have the physical space.

    Not so great to move/transport...

    • Like 1

  12. This is almost identical to the embedded Torpedo on the Revv D20 and G20 lunch-box tube-amps.

    I just got a G20.  It's an amazing little amp (Torpedo sounds much better than I expected).


    Watch Shawn Tubbs demo videos of the D20 and G20. 

    He's using the Torpedo direct out in many of them.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  13. 14 hours ago, abacab said:

    I wonder what @Jim Roseberryhas to say on the topic? Last I heard he was testing Ryzen processors, but only using Intel for his Studiocat builds... https://studiocat.com/opencart2/index.php?route=common/home

    We've discussed this subject a lot over the past several months.  

    Ryzen and Threadripper excel at heavily multi-threaded scenarios (video rendering).

    The 3970x will smoke the 10980xe for rendering video.


    Where Ryzen and Threadripper are weak is scenarios that aren't heavily multi-threaded (do to lower clock-speed).

    ie: If you're running Helix Native at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size (1ms total round-trip latency), that's not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded.

    In this case, the "lowly" 9900k will out-perform CPUs from Intel and AMD that are double/quadruple the cost.


    Not every process in a DAW can be multi-threaded.

    Performance increase from adding cores doesn't scale 1:1.

    IOW, Doubling the number of cores doesn't double performance.

    This is why clock-speed is still the single most important factor.

    Having more cores is certainly beneficial, but not at the expense of significant clock-speed.


    For an "Audio" machine, the major problem with Threadripper is its 280w TDP.

    There's no way to build a quiet Threadripper machine.   Large water-cooler is absolutely necessary.

    The motherboard chipsets have to be actively cooled (meaning small high RPM fan).

    If you're used to a quiet machine, the high-pitched "whine" from the chipset fan is super annoying.

    By comparison, the 9900k has TDP of 95w.  With quality air-cooler, it'll run (all 8 cores locked at 5GHz) near dead-silent.

    The 3950x has a much more manageable TDP of 105w.  It'll also run near dead-silent with quality air-cooler.

    Side note:  We tested 3950x with 360mm water-cooler... and there was no appreciable performance increase compared to using quality air-cooling.

    Socket 2066 i9-10980xe has a TDP of 165w.  Water-cooler is necessary... but it'll run much quieter than Threadripper.  Chipset isn't active-cooled.


    I tested numerous Threadripper and Ryzen 9 builds... using multiple top-tier motherboards.

    Some of the motherboards don't allow turning off extraneous hardware in the BIOS (onboard audio, WiFi, etc).

    I've also seen flaky behavior from numerous motherboards:

    • RAM related issues (requiring an occasional BIOS reset)
    • Disabling onboard audio could cause the machine to no longer post/boot (requiring a BIOS reset)
    • Disabling SMT could cause the machine to no longer post/boot (requiring a BIOS reset)

    If you're fairly tech savvy, a BIOS reset isn't a big deal... but it is annoying.


    Ryzen and Threadripper have never had much OC headroom (the current generation is no different).

    The 3950x can do ~4GHz across all 16 cores... maybe 4.1GHz.

    By comparison, the 9900k can easily run 5GHz across all 8 cores.

    If you get a 3970x hoping to achieve anywhere near 4.5GHz across all cores, you'll be disappointed.

    The reason why is the 280w TDP.  There's just nowhere to go (already pushing the limits of cooling).


    AMD is winning IPC (instructions per clock).

    Intel is winning all-core clock-speed.


    If I'm spending $2000-$4000 for a CPU, I want top-performance in all scenarios.

    AMD needs to get Threadripper's TDP better under control... and that'll allow higher clock-speed.

    With higher clock-speed,  passive-cooled (no fan) chipset, and motherboards "sans flake"... AMD would have a clear winner.


    I always bring up the i9-9900k... because it's an amazing performer at ~$500.

    Super high clock-speed... 8 cores... and it runs near dead-silent.

    In scenarios that aren't heavily multi-threaded, it'll out-perform CPUs that are double/quadruple the cost (both Intel and AMD).


    We've got professional composer clients who work under stressful deadlines (TV/Film).

    There's absolutely no way I'd build a Threadripper or Ryzen machine for these clients.

    • Thanks 4

  14. On 4/22/2020 at 9:19 AM, Soundwise said:

    The only benefit was getting the suite with full Independence and SpectraLayers Pro.

    For someone making commercial records, the Suite version also has DDP Export.

    • Like 1

  15. At GearFest a couple years back, I got to meet Roger Linn... and he personally demonstrated the LinnStrument.

    Out of all the gear, (IMO) it was one of the coolest things we saw.

    Meeting Roger Linn... and getting to thank him for all his contributions to music/technology was also a highlight.





    • Like 6

  16. 37 minutes ago, Patrick Derbidge said:

    280w!!! Wow, that's hot, although we are talking 32  cores vs 18. I wonder if Intel will find a way to do better when they get there.

    Intel is having a hard enough time getting the new 10980xe to distributors/vendors.   😉


    Intel Xeon 8180 is 28 cores with super low clock-speed of 2.5GHz.

    TDP is 205w

    Terrible DAW performer... at a cost of ~$11k.   😃

    You can project TDP at significantly higher clock-speed would be thru the roof.


    • Like 1

  17. 11 hours ago, Patrick Derbidge said:

    I can definitely believe that.  One of the main reasons I didn't consider AMD over Intel for many years was due to how hot they ran,. Having said that, wouldn't an Intel 9980xe be more of a comparison to the Thread ripper? I'm pretty sure a 9980xe would be a beast to try and cool as well.

    • Threadripper - TDP = 280w
    • i9-10980xe - TDP = 165w
    • i9-9980xe - TDP = 165w

    Socket 2066-i9 requires water-cooling, but because the TDP is significantly lower, it can run quieter.  Also, the chipset is passive-cooled (no fan).

  18. 2 hours ago, Patrick Derbidge said:

    Personally, I think think this is an apples to oranges debate. I get it though. For years we are used to focusing on overclocking capabilities of Intel vs AMD and making those head to head comparisons but I just think that the AMD architecture is just so different now that you have to look at AMD and Intel from their individual stand points. AMD's Performance Boost (not be confused with PBO) works in such a unique way that it gives the user the best "overall" performance one can possible get out of the cpu, along with the ability to maximize memory performance through the infinity fabric. The point being that there is no reason to overclock a Ryzen chip, and if you do the performance gains are negligible considering the loss of warranty that comes with it. Intel's 9th and 10th gen is not wired this way and is more "traditional" one might say and the speed of memory has very little impact on performance (which can also be a good thing). I'm not saying that higher clock speeds don't help Ryzen, but rather that it is only one component of the Performance Boost system that they've come up with.

    The problem with Threadripper is the TDP is too high.

    An ultra quiet 3970x build simply can't be done.  I know for sure (I've done everything possible to make it work). 

    Way too noisy for myself and clients!

    This is why Threadripper has little to no OC potential (why the clock-speed can't be ramped up); heat quickly gets out of control.


    I've mentioned this many times... but I'll repeat (yet again).

    Not every process in a DAW can be heavily multi-threaded.

    In those processes, 3.5GHz clock-speed is a significant performance hit.

    Highest clock-speed and more cores is the key to dominant performance in all DAW scenarios.

    This is why I rail on about clock-speed.

    If you're talking ultra low latency audio settings, any type of performance throttling is not desirable.



    • Like 1

  19. 4 hours ago, RSMcGuitar said:

    Jim, since you seem to be the resident computer building expert, I was wondering if you have any advice on sound dampening a computer case?

    Is this something people even do or is it more common to buy a case that is made for that already? I would be concerned that any dampening material might act as heat insulation and trap more heat in the case. Thanks!

    Sound damping material in a case won't cause thermal issues.

    Keep in mind that a "Silent" computer case isn't air-tight.

    You've got intake and exhaust fans that keep air moving thru the case.


    The sound-damping material in a case is really more for vibration and resonance type noise.

    If you use noisy components in a "Silent" type case, it'll still be noisy.

    A silent DAW is the sum of all components.  All components need to be quiet.


    If you have proper intake/exhaust fans, acoustic damping material isn't a problem.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...