Jim Roseberry

Of course it depends on the software (and scenario)... but we've got numerous professional composer clients running the i9-9980xe... and those 18 cores are getting used. 😉 These users are running massive scoring templates... which can be significantly more demanding than more traditional recording/mixing scenarios. The perfect scenario is to have highest clock-speed , maximum number of cores available, and Hyper-Threading (Simultaneous Multi-Threading in AMD speak). BTW, Nice guitar in the avatar!

To elaborate a bit more... CPU core performance gain doesn't scale 1:1. IOW, Doubling the number of CPU cores doesn't double performance. Having more cores is certainly beneficial... but not at the expense of significant clock-speed. This is why Xeon CPUs are typically a significant performance hit (due to their significantly slower clock-speed). If the 3950x can run all 16 cores at max boost speed, that's when it gets exciting. At $500, Intel has a great performer in the i9-9900k. Since its release, I don't recommend socket 2066 i9... unless you're going for the 9940x or better. The exception would be hard-core composers who specifically need 128GB RAM.

1. Clock-speed 2. Cores Your disk speed will determine the number of simultaneous tracks you can run. If you're working at 44.1k or 48k, a conventional HD can sustain over 100 solid/contiguous tracks. IOW, It's probably not much of a limitation. 😉 If you're working at 192k, you'll want the extra speed of SSD. As a point of reference: Conventional HD sustains ~200MB/Sec SATA SSD sustains ~540MB/Sec M.2 Ultra SSD sustains ~3500MB/Sec With SATA SSD and M.2 Ultra SSD, we don't configure many RAID setups these days. Last RAID setup we did was for a client who was using EWSO (allowed only a single drive location for the entire library). This client needed heavy disk-streaming polyphony... so we put a pair of SATA SSDs in RAID-0. Net result was a single drive location... that sustained ~1000MB/Sec. Keep in mind that M.2 Ultra SSDs (using four PCIe lanes) weren't available at that time.

Hi Todd, I believe most of the presentations are ~1 hour long. There are so many great seminars (many simultaneous), you won't be able to catch them all. Craig Anderton's seminars are always great. You'll definitely walk out having gained some new insights. The all-star concerts are a great time.

😂 I can relate. Last year, I splurged on a Private Stock PRS. The single best guitar I've ever touched. It was quite an experience. Had them pull three of the best... and put me in a private room where I could actually hear them (impossible on the floor with all the kids banging on guitars/amps). Don Carr walked in while I was playing. I should have stopped and had him play (exceptional guitar player). 😉 Checkout on Saturday was actually quite stressful (even with heavy discount from GearFest, it was a substantial chunk). Told the wife I wouldn't be repeating that scenario this year.

Keep in mind that the $500 i9-9900k (socket 1151) also beats the i9-9980xe (socket 2066) in single-core performance. The i9-9900k can be run with all 8-cores locked at 5GHz (highest boost frequency). At that point, the 9900k is an extremely formidable DAW CPU. CPUs with higher numbers of cores (16+) typically can't run all cores locked at the highest boost frequency (AMD and Intel). The base clock-speed of the 3950x is 3.5GHz. the base clock-speed of the 9900k is 3.6GHz. The base clock-speed of the 9980xe is 3GHz. If the 3950x can't run more than one core at 4.7GHz, we'll pretty much see similar DAW performance (scaled up a bit) to that of the original Ryzen. IOW, It'll be particularly good for heavily multi-threaded applications (video rendering)... but won't best the 9900k for most DAW applications. Not all processes in a DAW can be multi-threaded. This is why highest clock-speed is still the single most important factor. Things like playing/monitoring in realtime thru an AmpSim plugin using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size (extremely low round-trip latency) don't lend themselves to being heavily multi-threaded. It's great to see some real competition from AMD. We'll certainly test the 3950x. If all 16 cores can run rock-solid stable at 4.7GHz (and do so quietly), AMD has a contender. If it's essentially one or two cores at 4.7GHz... then it's much less exciting (for DAW purposes). If you're running a Thunderbolt audio interface, Thunderbolt-3 is new for X590 motherboards.

Do you have everything in the studio powered from a single outlet? If not, I'd start there... to try and avoid ground-loops.

August Zadra is a really talented singer and guitar player. Sounds great as Tommy!

The wife and I are going. It's a great time (especially the all-star concerts)... and it's pretty cool to talk to folks like Roger Linn, Craig Anderton, Paul Reed Smith, etc. Last year, Paul Reed Smith thought I was Tommy Shaw (that was awkward for a moment). 😉 My wife told Neal Schon that story... and he laughed and told her he's been telling Paul he needs new glasses.

I started DAW life with a pair of Turtle Beach Tahiti audio interfaces. Originally planed to run Quad Studio... which turned out to be awful (in every way/shape/form). Moved to using S.A.W. and Cakewalk Pro Audio...

I'd give it a whirl... I'd only been using the Portico-II to record tracks. Just recently started using it to mix... and it's a really nice option (in addition to plugins).

Try a higher quality USB cable. I've seen poor quality USB cables cause "digital hash" or noise issues.

When it's time for your next CPU, keep mind that many operations in a DAW can't be multi-threaded. ie: Playing thru an AmpSim plugin at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded. Highest clock-speed is still the most important factor for DAW purposes. There's good competition from AMD... and that's pushing Intel to release faster/less-expensive CPUs. The i9-9900k (~$500) is a great example. 8 cores (can all be locked at 5GHz) 16 processing threads With quality air-cooler, it runs near dead-silent For most purposes, it takes about a $1400 CPU to best the 9900k. My long-winded point is that (whenever the time is right), I'd examine what's available from both companies. Just make sure you don't sacrifice significant clock-speed to gain more CPU cores. We run into many folks who've mistakenly assumed the Xeon CPUs (because more expensive and used in corporate servers) are a better choice for a DAW. With significantly slower clock-speed, a Xeon CPU results in a significant performance hit (for DAW purposes). Glad to hear performance is smoother with the Ryzen 1800. I built an 1800 based machine (for test purposes) a good while back. Noticed small issues from software not being fully optimized for AMD. ie: Boost 11 (in one of the Cakewalk demo projects) was causing a clicking noise that almost sounded like digital-clipping. Same exact project... played off the same hardware (using Intel CPU/motherboard) had no issue with clicks/etc.

Currently mixing a project for a client. Most of the more "surgical" EQ I've done in-the-box. I've got the Portico-II wired to both send/receive audio (to/from my audio interface). With TotalMix, I can use the Portico-II almost like a plugin (albeit I have to ultimately record the result as an audio track).

The new SSL SiX is about half the cost of the Neve... and it's fantastic (albeit a different flavor than Neve). Warm Audio makes the WA-73 (Neve 1073 clone with pre-amp and three-band EQ)... which is ~$800. The GAP Pre-73 is a 1073 pre-amp clone (no EQ/dynamics) I wouldn't recommend lower-end channel-strips... as they're not much better than a typical Mackie channel. The GAP Pre-73 is a pretty decent pre-amp... but there's no EQ/dynamics.

Sounds pretty good to me... Still wish you could create your own Rig Profiles.

If you don't have the full version of Melodyne, Cubase's "Vari-Audio" is great for tightening intonation.

I use numerous DAW applications (depending on what needs to be done). CbB Samplitude Pro X ProTools Ultimate Studio One Cubase Pro Reaper Digital Performer Currently mixing a client's project using CbB. Though the bulk has been done in CbB, I've exported a few tracks to Samplitude Pro X to fix clipping/etc. IMO, It's good to have something like Samplitude or Reaper as a secondary DAW. Both offer advanced (per Clip) editing features, batch-processing, etc; features that compliment your primary DAW.

Tried a bunch of different picks... Dunlop Jazz III works best for me.

If you do wind up needing/getting a new video card: GTX-1050ti is a good recommendation (no problems with DPC Latency) Any of the GTX series are fine Avoid RTX video cards (for the moment) as they're causing particularly high DPC Latency.

When recording direct, the DI input can make a massive difference (positive or negative) in the sound. Many folks think all you need is a "Hi-Z" input. While it's true you need an input with high impedance, there's a world of difference between various Hi-Z DIs. If you're recording passive Fender electric bass thru a cheap Hi-Z DI and it sounds anemic, the issue isn't the bass. That same bass thru a Neve DI will sound amazing. I used to really struggle to get nice DI bass recordings. Tried 1001 different DI solutions (SansAmp - numerous boxes, Reddi, Avalon U5, Solo-610, etc). Finally invested in a Neve Portico-II... and suddenly... good DI electric bass tone was easy to achieve (plug-in and set levels). A nice DI/preamp isn't the most exciting musical purchase, but it's one of the best gear investments you can make.

If you're frustrated, sometimes the best thing you can do is get away from music (for a while). You'll come back re-energized, recharged, and with more tempered perspective. You're never too old to improve! I'm 52 and working with world-class vocal coach Jaime Vendera (Myth Busters, works with rock-stars, going on tour with I Prevail July 14th). While I'll never be a rock-star, my voice sounds significantly better today than twenty years ago. I'll be singing with the band tonight (four hour show) at Buckeye Lake. The vocal exercises I'm doing (to improve range/stamina) take about an hour a day. Many days, it's hard to find (make) the time. It would be easy to just give up... and accept failure. We're given but one go at this life. Live yours the way you chose. Back in school, the choir teacher didn't think I could sing. All these years later, I front a rock-band with some of the best rock players in Central Ohio. My father never thought my musical aspirations would amount to anything. On one level, he was right (I'm not a rock-star)... but I've managed to eek out a 25+ year career working around music and musicians (some of who are rock-stars). My career path wasn't conventional... nor was it planned, but I absolutely love what I do. I had to let the ultimate dream go (compromise), but the sum of my life experience (technical and musical) led to a career that's a perfect fit (for me). Follow the beat of your own drummer!

FWIW, I've built high-end Audio/Video workstations professionally for the past 25+ years. 😉 Even with a i9-9980xe (18 cores), 64GB RAM, RTX-2080Ti, and M.2 Ultra SSDs as both work/cache drives... After-Effects is still slow. 😁 FWIW, For apps to import advanced edits perfectly, they'd have to support ALL the features of the other software (identical). Even for something as simple as fade-in/out, the fade types and contours have to be 100% identical... or the conversion isn't 100% accurate. If you're familiar with Samplitude Pro X, you're aware of its Object based editing/processing. BTW, I wrote the English user's manual for Samplitude 2496 (v5 I believe). Reaper offers similar features with its Item-based processing (cherry-picked from Samplitude - myself and numerous others lobbied to get that into Reaper) Pro Tools 2019 (Standard) doesn't support processing per-Object (Clip). Pro Tools 2019 Ultimate does offer processing per-Object, but it's limited to their Channel-Strip and Dynamics (no 3rd-party processing per Object/Clip). Most DAW applications have no similar feature. With advanced edits/mixing, there's no way I'd trust OMF or AAF to get 100% of the details 100% correct. Far too much room for error... Far too many variations between applications...

Faster drives (SSD) will net you more tracks and more disk-streaming polyphony from sample-libraries... but faster drives *will not* increase processing power (meaning realtime processing/EFX).

If you're after maximum performance, you're better off with a desktop. With a desktop, you can run the new i9-9900k with all 8 cores locked at 5GHz... and with the right air-cooler, it runs near dead-silent. If you absolutely need portability, then you have to live with the performance trade-off of a laptop. You can get custom laptops that run a desktop CPU. These are as close as you'll get to desktop performance. They're large and expensive... and battery life is relatively short (when set to maximum performance). Basically, everything you setup in a DAW for maximum performance works against long battery life. Put another way, the tweaks that enable long battery life will rob the machine of DAW performance.