Jim Roseberry

Sound like a ground issue. In over 30 years building/supporting DAWs professionally, ground related noise has *never* been due to the PC itself. It's either been a poor quality USB cable... or an electrical ground-loop. To minimize the odds of ground issues, power the studio from a single outlet. Use balanced cables when possible. If you're using multiple outlets... and unbalanced cables, your odds of ground related noise goes up considerably. Another potential source of noise (sounds like "digital hash") can be a poor quality USB cable. Years back, I had a Yamaha Motif ES7. One day, I noticed a substantial amount of noise coming thru my studio monitors. Traced the issue to the Motif ES7. (Disconnected the USB cable... and the noise was gone. ) Replaced the USB cable... and the problem was resolved. I'd start with just the computer and audio interface: Only keyboard, mouse, and video connected to the computer. Nothing at all connected to the audio interface (no cables other than its power cable). Connect a pair of headphones to the audio interface... and slowly/carefully turn up the headphone volume. You should no longer hear noise (other than the normal noise-floor of the audio interface) . That tells you it's not the PC or the audio interface. Once this has been established, connect one piece of gear at a time. When the noise returns, you'll know the source. Balanced cables (if supported) might solve the issue. Replacing a USB cable might solve the issue. If you need to lift the ground of a connected device (to eliminate a ground-loop), a direct box is a safe way to do this. This process can be tedious, but you'll definitely find the culprit. It's also enlightening to get a handle on the noise-floor of each piece of connected gear.

Many "mini" PCs use laptop components (CPU, motherboard, RAM). Essentially... a laptop without display and glide-point Thus, you're subject to the limitations of a laptop. A mini-ITX machine can be built with a Core Ultra 9 285k or R9 9950x. It won't be the size of a Mac Mini... but it's a LOT faster and you can add/upgrade components.

I've built countless machines using liquid-cooling. Modern AIO's are closed-loop. There is no maintenance. There's no way to perform maintenance (unless you have an "open-loop" setup). Open-loop cooling is what I'd consider a "hard-core enthusiast build". You typically have to form the tubing (bends/angles) that carries the liquid. I'd never use that for a client. I don't use open-loop for my personal machines. Yes, I've had a few water-pumps die... but it hasn't been that many (no different than an automobile's water-pump going out). FWIW, There's no way I'd build a 14900k based machine for a client... and use a D15 air-cooler. YouTube videos can be helpful... but like AI, they can spout fact and BS with equal authority. ie: You can find YouTube videos showing a Threadripper build using a D15. That's like putting skateboard wheels on a dragster. Can you bolt it together, yes. Will it operate, yes. Will it be anywhere close to optimal performance, no.

Top-tier air-cooler... but not what you want for a 14900k (as discussed above).

If you don't need the performance of a Core Ultra 9 285k or i9-14900k, I can understand that. To me, it doesn't make sense to buy a high-end "workstation" type CPU (~$500-$600)... and limit its performance with under-spec'd cooling. Difference in cost between a D15 and large/quality AIO is minimal (especially considered over the lifespan of the machine). If you want an air-cooled machine, the i7-12700k (~$200) is a better choice. Clients who come to me are always wanting more performance. Higher performance means they can run heavier loads... at lower latency. Recently, a composer who's running a i9-13900k (built a couple years back) hit me up about upgrading. Had to tell him to wait another generation (performance difference vs the 13900k isn't yet enough to justify the cost/hassle of upgrading). Point being, he's always looking for more speed (the ability to run more... and at lower latency). Speaking strictly for myself: I've run my favorite piano sample library (The Grandeur) at a 256-sample ASIO buffer size... and at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size. There's absolutely no doubt that I prefer the immediacy of running The Grandeur at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size. Timing/response feels amazing... (lower latency than my favorite hardware keyboard - Nord Stage 4).

Most of us are talking about the CPU achieving maximum rated Turbo Boost Frequency. That's not the same as trying to over-clock and push the CPU beyond its rated capability. The 13th and 14th Gen 13900k and 14900k run hot. They need a large AIO cooler to both reach maximum performance... and to keep things reasonably quiet. As far as RAM and how it relates to performance: You need enough RAM for your largest projects... so that the machine doesn't hit the VM swapfile (which kills performance). Additional unused RAM doesn't buy ANY additional performance. ie: If your largest project uses 16GB RAM... and you're trying to choose between keeping your existing 32GB or updating to 128GB; the 128GB option will result in zero performance gain. Another performance consideration: Current memory controllers will run two sticks of RAM at much higher frequency than four sticks. IOW, You'll take a performance hit for using four sticks of RAM. ie: A Z890 motherboard can easily run two sticks of quality RAM at 6000MHz. Try installing four sticks and running that XMP 6000MHz clock-speed. 😉 The machine won't even post.

If you're building a 14900k, you don't want ANY air-cooler... including the D15. Too much heat for it to dissipate. If you use the D15, you're going to limit max turbo on the 14900k (which kind of defeats the purpose in choosing it).

You're assuming all DAW users would embrace this concept. Many folks are running Windows based DAWs just fine. Many of my clients are using PC DAWs professionally to make records and compose music for TV/Film. They're productive each and every working day. Why would these folks willingly take a 30-year step back in time, going to a closed OS that lacks 3rd-party plugin support, etc... and be limited to what is essentially a closed-end hardware recorder? Look at the Linux DAW market. It's miniscule... and (also) a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There's zero profit in Linux DAW development. That's an economic reality any fringe OS developer faces.

There are other builders who assemble custom laptops. Some specialize doing so for DAW applications.

Not at all practical. The niche market would be so minute... there'd be no profit in the man-hours to create/produce/maintain it. Same goes for Linux based DAWs. That OS would have to support 3rd-party plugins... or you'd be taking a 30-year step backward in time. One benefit of Windows is the massive economy of scale. Remember back in the early days of PCs... where an IBM machine was literally $10k. Adjusted for today's economy, the cost would be almost $29k. If you want the equivalent of a dedicated hardware recorder, Tascam makes a 24-track recording box. It's a completely "closed" system. FWIW, The machines I'm running are in no way unstable, unpredictable, or poor-performers. One can build a fast, robust Windows PC DAW. That has been my career for the past 30+ years.

I've got a pair of WA273-EQ units. Had to replace one of them (had a noise issue)... but I've not had a problem since. They're not quite as nice as a real 1073, but they're certainly in that territory (fat/thick without sounding muddy/tubby).

I was just going to chime-in... 😉 Here's my response from the other thread... and I've added a bit more. The 14900k is a fine performer. You need large top-tier AIO cooling (forget air coolers). I'd recommend top-tier AIO cooling for all three of the CPUs mentioned below. The Core Ultra 9 285k is slightly faster... and at lower TDP (heat). Using Cinebench R23 Multi-Core test for comparison: 14900k scores ~38712 Core Ultra 9 285k scores ~42620 9950x scores ~42871 The AMD 9950x slightly outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285k. 14900k is a bit over $400 9950x is a bit over $500 Core Ultra 9 285k is ~$600 The Core Ultra 9 has a couple of advantages: Lower TDP (lower temps) Some reasonably priced Z890 motherboards come stock with a single Thunderbolt port. That's enough for most users... and it's considerably less expensive than a high-end board with TB (typically $600-$1000)... or having to use an AIC. If you don't need the power of the Core Ultra 9 CPU, the Core Ultra 7 265k is about the same price as the 14700k.

I've got the 1273 and the 369 Compressor. Both are very good for the cost.

The 14900k is a fine performer. You need large top-tier AIO cooling (forget air coolers). The Core Ultra 9 285k is slightly faster... and at lower TDP (heat). Using Cinebench R23 Multi-Core test for comparison: 14900k scores ~38712 Core Ultra 9 285k scores ~42620 9950x scores ~42871 The AMD 9950x slightly outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285k.

That sounds like USB related noise (from a poor quality USB cable). Another potential source of noise... is a WiFi Router. If you've ever played live using wireless mic or wireless in-ear-monitors, you've almost surely encountered Router noise. It's very rhythmic/consistent. I've had unshielded guitars (even from the likes of Gibson Custom) that picked up Router noise (my Router is close to my studio desk). I now have a metal shield in front of my Router (half-baked Faraday Cage). It cuts down greatly on devices picking up the noise.