Paul's Music Box

Paul,

One thing would really help a LOT, and Carl alluded to it (well, he pretty much said it out loud): make a list of each and every music task you want your new computer to accomplish, and be as detailed as possible.

Differing kind of audio/music applications have differing needs. Some, like samplers, want to see a lot of RAM memory; softsynths, OTOH, want as fast a CPU as possible. If you wanted to use it as a DAW and do audio multitrack recording, you would want a lot of HD space.

If we go on a basic assumption that the sky is _not_ the limit, then taking a moment to read up on stuff, and to think carefully about your needs ahead of time. Once it is bought, a laptop is harder and more expensive to upgrade.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> One thing would really help a LOT, and Carl alluded to it (well, he
pretty
> much said it out loud): make a list of each and every music task
you want
> your new computer to accomplish, and be as detailed as possible.

Hmm . . .

In order of priority . . .

1. Recording/editing
2. Sequencing/relaying
3. Synthesis/sampling
4. Transcription/scoring

I'm sure I'm forgetting something . . .

> Once it is bought, a laptop is harder and more expensive to upgrade.

Thanks -- I didn't think of that.

> > Once it is bought, a laptop is harder and more
> > expensive to upgrade.
>
> Thanks -- I didn't think of that.

Of course, upgrades are sort of a misnomer these
days. Unless you're a gamer who has to have the
latest 3-D graphics card, or you didn't buy
enough RAM to start with, upgrades aren't really
cost-effective.

Except for hard drives, which you can do just as
easily on a laptop or desktop.

-Carl

C,

{you wrote...}
>Except for hard drives, which you can do just as easily on a laptop or >desktop.

I don't thiiink so. For one thing, most of the HDs for laptops are more expensive, being smaller (physical) format [I've pricing them online recently, and I have frequent flyer miles at Fry's]. Also, virtually every laptop's warranty is voided if you open up the case (other than an easily-accessible door to change RAM), but that isn't the case with desktops.

I guess the main point is there isn't any reason to not get the thing as close to right to start with.

I hope we don't have to start MAH - "Microtonal Audio Hardware". :)

Cheers,
Jon

>>Except for hard drives, which you can do just as easily on a
>>laptop or desktop.
>
>I don't thiiink so. For one thing, most of the HDs for laptops
>are more expensive, being smaller (physical) format [I've
>pricing them online recently, and I have frequent flyer miles
>at Fry's].

Yes, but not much more expensive. A 40gig notebook drive cost
me $100 flat, including shipping, over a year ago.

>Also, virtually
>every laptop's warranty is voided if you open up the case (other
>than an easily-accessible door to change RAM), but that isn't
>the case with desktops.

I can't imagine any laptop maker voiding the warranty for
swapping a hard drive -- IBM didn't. 99.9% of laptops have
easily-accessible hard drive compartments. On my thinkpad
it was about 8,000 times easier than on any desktop machine
I've worked on. In fact, I sometimes swap my old drive in
to boot Win2K. Takes about twenty seconds.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > Once it is bought, a laptop is harder and more
> > > expensive to upgrade.
> >
> > Thanks -- I didn't think of that.
>
> Of course, upgrades are sort of a misnomer these
> days. Unless you're a gamer who has to have the
> latest 3-D graphics card, or you didn't buy
> enough RAM to start with, upgrades aren't really
> cost-effective.

Which is why buying a cheap computer makes sense to me. The cheap
computer will be junk in a few years, but so will the expensive
computer. With the money you saved, you buy another cheap computer.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...>
wrote:
> > > > Once it is bought, a laptop is harder and more
> > > > expensive to upgrade.
> > >
> > > Thanks -- I didn't think of that.
> >
> > Of course, upgrades are sort of a misnomer these
> > days. Unless you're a gamer who has to have the
> > latest 3-D graphics card, or you didn't buy
> > enough RAM to start with, upgrades aren't really
> > cost-effective.
>
> Which is why buying a cheap computer makes sense to me. The cheap
> computer will be junk in a few years, but so will the expensive
> computer. With the money you saved, you buy another cheap computer.

I'll ask for a cheap computer as long as I know it won't give me
cheap results :)

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >
>>>>Once it is bought, a laptop is harder and more
>>>>expensive to upgrade.
>>>> >>>>
>>>Thanks -- I didn't think of that.
>>> >>>
>>Of course, upgrades are sort of a misnomer these
>>days. Unless you're a gamer who has to have the
>>latest 3-D graphics card, or you didn't buy
>>enough RAM to start with, upgrades aren't really
>>cost-effective.
>> >>
>
>Which is why buying a cheap computer makes sense to me. The cheap >computer will be junk in a few years, but so will the expensive >computer. With the money you saved, you buy another cheap computer.
>

That will be obsolete as soon as you buy it.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

C,

{you wrote...}
>Yes, but not much more expensive. A 40gig notebook drive cost me $100 >flat, including shipping, over a year ago.

Today's ad: 120gb, $59.99.

>I can't imagine any laptop maker voiding the warranty for swapping a hard >drive -- IBM didn't.

Let your imagination run free.

>99.9% of laptops have easily-accessible hard drive compartments.

Are you *sure* of that percentage? Including all the very popular Sony VAIO line?

>On my thinkpad it was about 8,000 times easier than on any desktop machine >I've worked on.

Even allowing for a bit of hyperbole, you must have had a very awkward desktop. On my current mini PC for music, I can do it without tools. Even.

But no matter what, something like this is best if Paul just starts well. One other thought: since 'recording' came up number one on his list, it gives one pause to consider a desktop, as good HD recordings is done with 2 separate HDs. OTOH, I have a hunch Paul may be wanting to record gigs (as in performance, not disk size...).

Cheers,
Jon

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>Which is why buying a cheap computer makes sense to me.

To do good audio, and especially to utilize real-time and recording software, cheaping out will hamper you. For the way you are currently doing your work, Gene, I agree completely, especially if you have a fast CPU. Other than that, you just sit back and let it churn.

Cheers,
Jon

P,

{you wrote...}
>I'll ask for a cheap computer as long as I know it won't give me cheap >results :)

I wrote to Gene, and you'll see I think it is a bad idea. You don't have to get the most expensive thing in the world, but if you low-ball it, your needs (as stated so far) will not be met.

I'll look, because I've got a few links stored away on building a good music computer, and I'll send them if they are appropriate.

Cheers,
Jon

>>99.9% of laptops have easily-accessible hard drive compartments.
>
>Are you *sure* of that percentage? Including all the very popular
>Sony VAIO line?

99.9% sure. :)

>>On my thinkpad it was about 8,000 times easier than on any
>>desktop machine
>>I've worked on.
>
>Even allowing for a bit of hyperbole, you must have had a very
>awkward desktop. On my current mini PC for music, I can do it
>without tools. Even.

My thinkpad doesn't require any tools, and I don't have to open
anything. I just grab the hard drive and pull it out of its
socket. Not even a cable to fuss with.

-Carl

C,

{you wrote...}
>99.9% sure. :)

Just like the soap. But I don't think you're old enough to remember (and I'm old enough to have forgotten the exact percentage, though I think it was 99.7%)

>My thinkpad doesn't require any tools, and I don't have to open >anything. I just grab the hard drive and pull it out of its socket. Not >even a cable to fuss with.

That is very very swell. I don't think it is standard (and probably not ever common).

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Which is why buying a cheap computer makes sense to me.
>
> To do good audio, and especially to utilize real-time and recording
> software, cheaping out will hamper you. For the way you are
currently doing
> your work, Gene, I agree completely, especially if you have a fast
CPU.
> Other than that, you just sit back and let it churn.

My $150 computer netted me an AMD K7 running at 1.5 GHz, more than
sufficient for my requirements. Despite what David thinks, it is not
obsolete. If you insist on getting the very latest and very fastest,
you will always pay a huge premium for something which will rapidly
decrease in value, so asking yourself if it is worth it is a good
practice. Do you need 3 GHz, or would 1.5 GHz suffice?

>{you wrote...}
>>99.9% sure. :)
>
>Just like the soap. But I don't think you're old enough to
>remember (and I'm old enough to have forgotten the exact
>percentage, though I think it was 99.7%)

Ivory. Oh, I can sing the song. Actch, I feel like playing
it...

...that was fun. It's 99.44...

I want my clean as real as Ivory
It's gotta be ninety-nine point forty-four
I want my clean as real as Ivory
It's gotta be pure that's for sure
I want my clean as real as Ivory
Nothin' less, nothin' more
I want my clean as real as Ivory

Unless that was an updated version of the song. I only
ever heard it in the first half of 5th grade, which
would have been 1987. It's mostly pentatonic...

..........F
I want my clean as real as Ivory
...........Bb
It's gotta be ninety-nine point forty-four
..........F.............Dm
I want my clean as real as Ivory
...........A..................Bb
It's gotta be pure that's for sure
..........F
I want my clean as real as Ivory
Bdim..........Bb7
Nothin' less, nothin' more
..........F........Dm......F
I want my clean as real as Ivory

>>My thinkpad doesn't require any tools, and I don't have to open
>>anything. I just grab the hard drive and pull it out of its socket.
>>Not even a cable to fuss with.
>
>That is very very swell. I don't think it is standard (and probably
>not ever common).

The Toshibs, Dells, and Alienware machines I've worked on have a
single-screw holding down a cover.

-Carl

>My $150 computer netted me an AMD K7 running at 1.5 GHz, more than
>sufficient for my requirements. Despite what David thinks, it is not
>obsolete. If you insist on getting the very latest and very fastest,
>you will always pay a huge premium for something which will rapidly
>decrease in value, so asking yourself if it is worth it is a good
>practice. Do you need 3 GHz, or would 1.5 GHz suffice?

For realtime software synthesis, you really do need 3GHz., with
symmetric multithreading if your CPU happens to have a 20-stage
pipeline.

And that still ain't enough.

The neKo we have here at work is a dual Opteron system, and *still*
feels sluggish.

Muse seems to think that they can get away with much less by running
a streamlined linux kernel instead of a full-blown OS. I'll let
you know next week if that seems to be true.

-Carl

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>My $150 computer netted me an AMD K7 running at 1.5 GHz, more than >sufficient for my requirements.

Yep, a cool deal.

>Despite what David thinks, it is not obsolete.

Again, only depends on needs. Gamers would cringe, word processors would have more than they need.

>... so asking yourself if it is worth it is a good practice.

Absolutely.

>Do you need 3 GHz, or would 1.5 GHz suffice?

Yes, and no*. The requirements of multi-track sequencing with soft instruments, including the latency issues with current ASIO soundcards, is inextricably linked to the CPU. I've got a 3Ghz. I wish there was a 10Ghz.

Cheers,
Jon

* It is _theoretically_ possible to run some of this stuff, in some configuration, with lesser hardware. But every one of those scenarios is replete with compromises, most especially in the actual process of creating the music. I've gotten to the point in my life where when I've worked really, really hard, I see no reason to be so dear in my spending that I end up reducing the efficacy and pleasure of my creative time. And the grand scheme of having a current CPU, plenty of RAM, and killer sound card (audio: 4 in, 4 out, digital i/o, midi i/o), all in a mini-case that has it's only little padded carrying case so that I can use it as a stand-alone sampler or recorder in live performance - all that for only a couple hundred bucks more than you paid.

I hate to say it, but my time is worth it.

C,

{you wrote...}
>Ivory. Oh, I can sing the song.

And your skin is so soft... :)

>The Toshibs, Dells, and Alienware machines I've worked on have a >single-screw holding down a cover.

Well, then, I stand at least partially corrected. Let's hope Paul just gets the right stuff off the bat!

Cheers,
Jon

Jon wrote,

> You don't have to
> get the most expensive thing in the world, but if you low-ball it, your
> needs (as stated so far) will not be met.

This I think is true. Anytime I've "lowballed it", I ended up with a
machine that had sucky graphics card such that it seemed to chew a lot of
CPU pushing bits around on the screen. I think it pays to go middle-to-high
of the road, not too cheap, and have a decent graphics card even if you
aren't a graphics person. Then put a fancy sound card into it.

Rick

Jon wrote,

> * It is _theoretically_ possible to run some of this stuff, in some
> configuration, with lesser hardware.

As I've mentioned before, I can get 8-9 instances of Rhino going together
before my 1.8GHz CPU (Sony Vaio) starts to lose it. And these days, it may
be difficult to *find* a 1.5GHz machine. Middle-of-the-road is pushing 3+.

Rick

>> You don't have to
>> get the most expensive thing in the world, but if you low-ball it,
>> your needs (as stated so far) will not be met.
>
>This I think is true. Anytime I've "lowballed it", I ended up with a
>machine that had sucky graphics card such that it seemed to chew a lot
>of CPU pushing bits around on the screen. I think it pays to go
>middle-to-high of the road, not too cheap, and have a decent graphics
>card even if you aren't a graphics person. Then put a fancy sound card
>into it.

This used to be true, but it isn't any more. Even the cheapest,
lowliest video card has all the 2-D and 3-D power musicians will
need many times over. Even if they're doing Tonalsoft lattice
diagrams. :)

-Carl

Hi Rick,

{you wrote...}
>As I've mentioned before, I can get 8-9 instances of Rhino going together >before my 1.8GHz CPU (Sony Vaio) starts to lose it.

Yeah, I kind of had you in mind. I've heard the VAZ stuff is pretty easy on CPU cycles. But try out a number of VST instruments, and you see that some are efficient, and others are hogs. Besides, while on can always dump to audio, it sure is nice on a big orchestration to keep all your instruments happening.

Cheers,
Jon

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" ><JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> >
>>Gene,
>>
>>{you wrote...}
>> >>
>>>Which is why buying a cheap computer makes sense to me.
>>> >>>
>>To do good audio, and especially to utilize real-time and recording >>software, cheaping out will hamper you. For the way you are >> >>
>currently doing > >
>>your work, Gene, I agree completely, especially if you have a fast >> >>
>CPU. > >
>>Other than that, you just sit back and let it churn.
>> >>
>
>My $150 computer netted me an AMD K7 running at 1.5 GHz, more than >sufficient for my requirements. Despite what David thinks, it is not >obsolete. If you insist on getting the very latest and very fastest, >you will always pay a huge premium for something which will rapidly >decrease in value, so asking yourself if it is worth it is a good >practice. Do you need 3 GHz, or would 1.5 GHz suffice? >
I'm a "power user", I regularly search databases here of 200,000 names+. I need the speed.
And...if you're not doing anymore than MIDI or wordprocessing, you're not
going to need a fast machine.

recording - you don't want it to stop because the CPU can't deal with
the amount of data coming into the machine.

soft synths - latency, the faster the better.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7065.html#7084

> I hope we don't have to start MAH - "Microtonal Audio Hardware". :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***I'm glad this kind of stuff is "on topic" here, since it's always
been one of the most important things I've found at this forum...

JP

Hi there,

>My $150 computer netted me an AMD K7 running at 1.5 GHz, more than
>sufficient for my requirements.

Wish we had prices like that here in the UK.
You pay $1000 for the cheapest model
of laptop here, unless you get it second
hand. Similar prices for a decent desktop
computer.

Example - the people I bought my desktop computer
from are selling a low range laptop for �675.62
which is 1,253.61 dollars and that would be considered
cheap for a laptop here - you wouldn't expect
anything fancy at that price. If you have special
requirements it might well be over $2000
and that wouldn't be considered expensive,
only middle range. Expensive would be more
like $3000 to $4000.

Lucky you :-).

Robert

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker"
<robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> >My $150 computer netted me an AMD K7 running at 1.5 GHz, more than
> >sufficient for my requirements.
>
> Wish we had prices like that here in the UK.
> You pay $1000 for the cheapest model
> of laptop here, unless you get it second
> hand. Similar prices for a decent desktop
> computer.

Living in Silicon Valley no doubt helps, but Paul is in another
electronics zone and who knows what prices he could find.

In Europe prices are high enough that hacking an Xbox and installing
Linux has been popular.