New system - comments

Hi All,
 
I'm going to be purchasing a new DAW and have the following system spec'ed out for me.  Any comments?
 
Intel 2600K
Intel DP67BGB3 ATX 10x USB [2 x USB 3]
ENGT520 SILENT/DI/1GD3(LP ) NVIDIA GF GT520, 1G-DDR3
16GB PC1600 DDR3 [4X4GB]
120GB OCZ AGILITY 3 SSD
2 X 1TB WD BLK SATA 6 ENTERPRISE
1 X 2TB WD BLUE SATA 6 [BACKUP]
LG DVDRW +/- RAM DL SATA
ANTEC SONATA ELITE
700w COOLMAX ATX 2.0 PSU
WINDOWS 7 PROFESSIONAL 64-BIT
Two year Parts and Labour.
 
The quote I'm getting is $2,180 Canadian and the builder is a local DAW builder.  I'm using X1 with the VS-700 and have Komplete, Maschine and a UAD Quad.
 
Cheers,
 
jayson
 

"jcschild"
SSD is pointless

Why would you think so?

Yeah, I've been using an SSD drive for my OS drive for 2 1/2 years now on my DAW machines.  They are fantastic.  I really appreciate that the performance SSD continues to provided on a machine that has been booted and used hundreds and thousands of times compared to having to make sure to defrag every now and again.  And even after defraging a non-SSD system it eventually fells sluggish.

I respect Scott, but I'm going to have to disagree with his statement on SSD.

Tom

Why would you question the wisdom of a man who builds DAWs for a living?

Ya but Scott is known for taking parts and really running them through their paces, testing and retesting to see which are best for his builds. He always makes sure his computers have the best of the best in them.    

Tyacko,
I did not mean to be contentious, I hope you will accept my apologies.

There seems to be a rush toward SSD (we all "lust" for gear or we wouldn't be here).
Many have gushed on and on about how "fast" Win 7 boots from an SSD, Scott disputes that.
Many evidently gush on and on about how well they (SSD) work for samples, Scott appears to dispute that as well.
He has saved me BIG $$, I no longer am in lust...

What some don't realize is that ssd's are better for stuff where you don't write as often (or never - like sample drives) as read. Once written to for sample libs you don't run into the trim problem.

As to speed differences and not supposed gain from running an ssd Scott - do you have any hard numbers that you've run showing there's no gain? No fair quoting numbers from some web source - what has your testing shown (and how have you done it)? If you can't quote numbers then you have no standing to say what you're saying (it's just opinion then).

If you can't quote numbers then you have no standing to say what you're saying (it's just opinion then).

 
Working with numerous machines literally every day, you rack up a lot of experience.
I completely agree with Scott about SSD.  It's a niche' product... and will be until the size/cost ratio changes dramatically.  Once that happens, we'll all be running SSD.
ie:  Typical SSD read speed is ~250MB/Sec (for the more affordable units).
You can match that speed with a pair of 1TB F3 HDs in RAID-0 (with 2TB of storage space).
Even if you "short-stroke" the RAID (to maintain fastest performance), you've still got the same performance as typical SSD... with a heck of a lot more space... for about $120.
That's hard to beat.
For streaming audio tracks, a single/fast conventional HD can sustain 100 solid tracks of 24Bit/44.1k or 48k audio.
 
Right now, because of the size/cost ratio, SSD shines in small form factor applications.
If you need 250MB/Sec reads in small form factor, SSD is the solution.
If you're dealing with a typical tower based DAW, convention HDs (still) offer much better bang-for-the-buck. 
 
Like Scott, I have a machine that boots from SSD.  It's my live rig...
It does boot slightly faster than from conventional HD... but it's not a night vs. day difference.
It's slightly faster.  One doesn't need to run a test or break out a stopwatch to make this observation. 
It's quite easy to see/compare with numerous other machines.
The only reason I used SSD in this case...
Because it's a mini-ITX machine (small form factor).

Thanks for all the news on SSd's. I was about to order one for my laptop as well but this totally tuned me off of it.    

jackn2mpu

Jim Roseberry

If you can't quote numbers then you have no standing to say what you're saying (it's just opinion then).

Working with numerous machines literally every day, you rack up a lot of experience.
I completely agree with Scott about SSD.  It's a niche' product... and will be until the size/cost ratio changes dramatically.  Once that happens, we'll all be running SSD.
ie:  Typical SSD read speed is ~250MB/Sec (for the more affordable units).
You can match that speed with a pair of 1TB F3 HDs in RAID-0 (with 2TB of storage space).
Even if you "short-stroke" the RAID (to maintain fastest performance), you've still got the same performance as typical SSD... with a heck of a lot more space... for about $120.
That's hard to beat.
For streaming audio tracks, a single/fast conventional HD can sustain 100 solid tracks of 24Bit/44.1k or 48k audio.

Right now, because of the size/cost ratio, SSD shines in small form factor applications.
If you need 250MB/Sec reads in small form factor, SSD is the solution.
If you're dealing with a typical tower based DAW, convention HDs (still) offer much better bang-for-the-buck. 

Like Scott, I have a machine that boots from SSD.  It's my live rig...
It does boot slightly faster than from conventional HD... but it's not a night vs. day difference.
It's slightly faster.  One doesn't need to run a test or break out a stopwatch to make this observation. 
It's quite easy to see/compare with numerous other machines.
The only reason I used SSD in this case...
Because it's a mini-ITX machine (small form factor).

Like I said: if you can't quote numbers then it means nothing just saying there's no real difference.

And form factor has nothing to do with suitably of using a ssd. Hell, Apple has been doing it for some time now in their MacPro desktops. For a live rig I'd rather have an ssd - less to worry about with transporting the computer and having to shock-mount the thing to lessen the real possibility of damage to the drive. Doesn't matter if you handle your computer yourself - sooner or later it's going to take a massive bump or drop and then you're hosed with a mechanical drive.

But then again you and Scott know it all when it comes to computers and no one else knows anything.

who pissed in your oatmeal?
1) feel free to ignore my and Jims comments, others are glad to have them. but just becasue we dont have benchmarks numbers (i usually have for everything else) and i did have for SSD. just was not worth the effort to publish does not mean we dont know what we are talking about
and yes when it comes to computers for audio/video we do know everything..
 
2) i have sold thousands of Live rigs all over the world, several of them bumped very badly when trucks turned over. yes i said trucks (semi) turned over.
several have been thru hell (think sand in Eu-asia, bitter cold as well and very bad roads) Mark Noffler for one
if you have ever been on a real tour i wont drop names you would know how rough roadies are on gear.
 
funny they still worked!
 
a live rig for samples playback is about the only time i recommend an SSD and not due to being dropped.
simply due to instant loads of patches.
 
Scott
ADK

For those that are not aware of how much valuable information both Scott and Jim have given away absolutely FREE on this forum.
Both are experts in their field; building computers to run professional DAW's.
So I am forced to repeat myself:

    Why would you question the wisdom of a man who builds DAWs for a living?

I should think that enough has been said...

DeeringAmps


For those that are not aware of how much valuable information both Scott and Jim have given away absolutely FREE on this forum.
Both are experts in their field; building computers to run professional DAW's.
So I am forced to repeat myself:

    Why would you question the wisdom of a man who builds DAWs for a living?

I should think that enough has been said...

Who would question the 'wisdom' of someone who builds daws for a living?
I would for one. I trust nothing anyone says unless they can back it up with cold, hard facts. Perhaps it's the EE in me, perhaps it's the cynic in me. I've been in the electronics design realm for far too long (since the 70's) to do otherwise.
And it's not for you to say whether enough has been said on anything.

DeeringAmps said...

Tyacko,
I did not mean to be contentious, I hope you will accept my apologies.

No offense taken.  Just responding to your question.  Just stating facts from someone who owns and uses these SSD drives in their DAW.  As an OS drive, response of all applications is noticably quicker compared to my old IDE or SATA II drives as the OS.

Tom

DeeringAmps


Jack,
Here's the deal.
YOU question the "opinions" offered by two respected builders on the forum. FINE!
As I said earlier in the thread, many forum regulars suffer from a bit of GAS (the lust for gear).
MAYBE, at this point, their money will be better spent on something other than SSD.
I just wanted to point out to those "casual" forumites that MANY of us consider the stated "opinions" of Jim and Scott to be enough.
I don't NEED the hard numbers.
Tyacko reports that "response of all applications is noticeably quicker", no hard numbers, but I appreciate him sharing his experience; and I don't question his experience!
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
I am trying to remain uncontentious, you on the other hand...

I'm NOT being contentious, but as Jack Friday said: "Just the facts, mam (or man)" is all I want. If you think asking for that is being contentious then you've got some problems.
 
While you seem to think that the 'stated opinions of Jim and Scott' are enough, I don't. Like I said, I'm an engineer and numbers actually mean something to me and others like me.