Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Computer for recording

  1. #1

    Computer for recording

    I'm looking at buying a refurb computer to use as a dedicated recording setup...can anybody help me with what kind of specs I need to look for. I intend on using just a basic program ala Audacity/Reaper etc...
    my buget is around 200.00

  2. #2
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by kayfabe58 View Post
    I'm looking at buying a refurb computer to use as a dedicated recording setup...can anybody help me with what kind of specs I need to look for. I intend on using just a basic program ala Audacity/Reaper etc...
    my buget is around 200.00
    Get the biggest hard drive, the most RAM and the fastest processor you can afford. No much is too much.

    $200 isn't enough for a DAW. Add at least one zero.

  3. #3
    what do i look for as a reference for processor speed

  4. #4
    Member Yodelgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    1,065
    Just about any machine that's less than say 4 years old should be able to handle basic recording. I started with a Windows 98 with 500mb RAM to do my first recordings. It was a bit touch and go, but just about any machine that's still running today is adequate, especially anything that has a multi-processor should be OK. You can add RAM as your budget expands, and you don't need HUGE amounts on your hard drive. My first drive was 2 gb. If you are doing basic multitracking, get the best you can for your $200 just don't be too surprised when you cant produce a symphony on it.

  5. #5
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Yodelgoat View Post
    Just about any machine that's less than say 4 years old should be able to handle basic recording. I started with a Windows 98 with 500mb RAM to do my first recordings. It was a bit touch and go, but just about any machine that's still running today is adequate, especially anything that has a multi-processor should be OK. You can add RAM as your budget expands, and you don't need HUGE amounts on your hard drive. My first drive was 2 gb. If you are doing basic multitracking, get the best you can for your $200 just don't be too surprised when you cant produce a symphony on it.
    Agreed -- I can make the argument that most modern store-bought Christmas Special laptops are over-qualified for basic DAW recording (especially coupled with older programs).....Drawbacks these days is that modern software is designed to run on faster machines but older programs, like older versions of Sony ACID* or Sonic Foundry ACID*, are actually great DAW Software if one takes the time to learn the nuances of what it can do and require way less processing speed........





    * before the know-it-alls chime in, ACID is an excellent DAW - if you have never taken the time to fully explore its capabilities, then dont dispute my claim

  6. #6
    what specs for multi processor are adequate?
    And how do I know it has a multi processor...is that what dual core means?

  7. #7
    For basic recording-emphasis on basic- you don't need much. The problems start when you begin to add virtual processing, the VST effects. Those take RAM and CPU power. Other than that if you read up on the web about optimizing your machine for audio use just about anything from the last few years will get you by, as stated. But you will never come in under your budget, and here's why: You need a pro grade audio interface and that will cost at least $150-$200 on its own. Also, if you don't already own monitors you'll need a pair of those too. Don't think you're going to mix on headphones and get anything listenable. But if you have those things a basic used circa-2010 $200 desktop could work for you- out of the gate, anyway.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    That's a very tough price point to work with - - -

    My son built himself a (gaming) PC over these summer months. During our research - we found several "PC Build" sites that offer various projects in ascending price points - from $400 on up.

    That being said - your sound card and drivers should be robust (ASIO) to avoid latency issues - top priority. A 64-bit OS architecture can leverage RAM above 4GB - and provide serious muscle . . .

    My son spent about a $1k on the case, motherboard, i5 Intel quad-core processor, 120GB SSD, average sound card and a HEAVYWEIGHT video card (which was about $300 after my university discount) - I threw in a 1TB hard-drive, 16GB of RAM, and Windows 7 Pro 64-bit OS - - - so for about $1,300 he has a screaming machine that plays most modern titles (Steam) on Ultra settings without a hiccup.

  9. #9
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by WHORG View Post

    That being said - your sound card and drivers should be robust (ASIO) to avoid latency issues - top priority.

    Steinberg Media released a (free) driver called ASIO4ALL that fixes that problem for older computers with Win32 driven hardware.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Get the biggest hard drive, the most RAM and the fastest processor you can afford. No much is too much.
    That sounds like overkill. Recording is not a very intensive process for a *modern* computer. And you'll get more bang for your buck buying a PC than a Mac.
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  11. #11
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberrybrick View Post
    And you'll get more bang for your buck buying a PC than a Mac.
    True. Which is fine if you're the type who likes endless tweaking.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    True. Which is fine if you're the type who likes endless tweaking.
    There's some optimizing that should get done, but once you get past that as long as the machine is dedicated and not being used for net surfing (really, for best results don't allow a Net connection at all) it will be set and forget. I have two studio Win7 machines that haven't needed an update or tweak in four years. One's running XP still.

    And to the o/p- WIN7 is what you want. Do not get WIN8, at least from what I've heard.

  13. #13
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    One's running XP still.
    ...which is no longer supported.

  14. #14
    Member Plasmatopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Plague Sanctuary, Vermont
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    ...which is no longer supported.
    Which is why I keep my old XP recording machine off the 'net as of last April.

    My issues with XP and recording involved an Edirol FA-101 recording interface - I could never get that set up right (although it worked perfectly with my iMac). I eventually got a PCIe interface (E-MU 0404 for under $150 at the time) and my timing issues went away. Recently I got a PreSonus 16.0.2 which I now use as a recording interface and it seems to work really well.

    As others have said, you don't really need anything super powerful unless you are doing huge projects with tons of tracks, effects plug-ins going on in real time, etc.
    <sig out of order>

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    ...which is no longer supported.
    Doesn't need to be, that's my point. Runs like a charm. Of course, we're not running new software on it either, I wouldn't tell anyone to go get an XP machine.

  16. #16
    Reaper would be able to run on a machine you could get for $200, but don't even think about using any plug-ins on it. You'd have to have a mountain of outboard gear to make a setup like that work, since the signal processing would have to be done outside the box, and if that's your setup you'd be better off getting an inexpensive dedicated recorder by Roland or TASCAM.

    You DON'T need a $2,000 PC to put together a good Reaper studio. $1,000 gets you pretty much the top-shelf (standard-spec) Dell these days. That's what I have, and it's worked well for me so far. I will probably need to add some RAM, but I've got a song going right now with Kontakt, Jamstix, Superior Drummer, Massive, and multiple instances of Guitar Rig all running at the same time, and my PC hasn't melted down yet.

  17. #17
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    Doesn't need to be, that's my point. Runs like a charm.
    I loved my old Win95 supercharged DAW, it kicked ass. But eventually it became impossible to maintain, replacement parts disappeared, standards changed, things died and couldn't be replaced.

    I was forced into the arms of Apple by planned obsolesence.

    Apple still obsoletes regularly of course. Everybody wants you to run the newest & greatest. I've never been able to afford any decent Apple DAW software (read: ProTools) that is as capable as my old CoolEdit Pro workstation. Audacity has gotten a lot better (since they bought CoolEdit and promptly buried it) but it's still a wonky interface. Apple's Garage Band is actually a lot of fun though.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •