More Ram Needed?

[jamusic]

16 Gigs is what I put into the rig I built, which is the maximum my MoBo will take, and should be enough for what I do, but papi61’s suggestions of 32 or even 64 are worth considering, especially if using intensive memory hogging libraries.

In my next rig, [whenever that may be], I’ll definitely being going up to 32 as a minimum, but most likely 64 for what it’s worth, but for now, 16 Gigs should be enough ‘snot’ for my needs.

I guess I also have the option of just buying a better MoBo, and more RAM which is getting cheaper & cheaper, but then I’ll need to re-register most if not all of my plugs & stuff. Too much hassle for now. Besides this rig is just 1 1/2 years old, and cruisin’ along for now.

Nice to have options though.

Good to see you bumped up though smikes77.

A noticeable difference already, it seems - 30% from 60%.

As far as going from 24 Bit to 16 Bit, that would most likely make a difference, but I would try it as-is first. There’s a long ongoing debate across many forums and other internet sites about whether 24 Bit is & sounds better than 16 Bit, with arguments going both ways, but most are just using 24 Bit now anyways, until or unless they want to mix down to a CD which must be 16 Bit.

I’m also a firm believer not to mess with those sound card & DAW settings, as I’ve seen troubles afterward from switching back & forth. Best to just leave it alone.

I’m betting you’ll be fine staying with 24 Bit with your nice new shiny 16 Gigs of RAM.

Have fun!

[papi61]

@jamusic

As far as going from 24 Bit to 16 Bit, that would most likely make a difference, but I would try it as-is first. There’s a long ongoing debate across many forums and other internet sites about whether 24 Bit is & sounds better than 16 Bit, with arguments going both ways, but most are just using 24 Bit now anyways, until or unless they want to mix down to a CD which must be 16 Bit.

Yes, but consider that when you convert to 16 bits down from 24 you get better quality than recording and processing everything at 16 bits, because there will be degradation, even if the path is entirely digital. It’s very similar to working with video at higher resolutions than needed and then scaling down to 720p, 480p or whatever. That’s what most video editors do nowadays, always use the highest quality (some already work with 4k, although it takes one hell of a CPU/GPU combo to handle that…) and then convert down to whatever format you need. If your system allows it (granted that 24-bit takes more ram, more cpu power, taxes your drives more etc.), you should do the same with audio.

[jamusic]

@papi61

@jamusic

As far as going from 24 Bit to 16 Bit, that would most likely make a difference, but I would try it as-is first. There’s a long ongoing debate across many forums and other internet sites about whether 24 Bit is & sounds better than 16 Bit, with arguments going both ways, but most are just using 24 Bit now anyways, until or unless they want to mix down to a CD which must be 16 Bit.

Yes, but consider that when you convert to 16 bits down from 24 you get better quality than recording and processing everything at 16 bits, because there will be degradation, even if the path is entirely digital. It’s very similar to working with video at higher resolutions than needed and then scaling down to 720p, 480p or whatever. That’s what most video editors do nowadays, always use the highest quality (some already work with 4k, although it takes one hell of a CPU/GPU combo to handle that…) and then convert down to whatever format you need. If your system allows it (granted that 24-bit takes more ram, more cpu power, taxes your drives more etc.), you should do the same with audio.

Yes, that’s precisely what I was suggesting as well - 24 bit and not 16 bit.

I’m thinking I didn’t make myself quite clear enough when I wrote about ‘trying it as-is’ meaning 24 bit as he is already used to, as opposed to going down to 16 bit.

Anyway, I’m sure he [OP] is even more informed now with the info in this thread.

[smikes77]

This has been MASSIVELY helpful. Thank you all for helping me out. As soon as I get a bigger paid project Im getting a 64gb Ram 8 core i7. That should do it (and Ill do what was suggested and use the i5 I have now with it).

[mroekalea]

Ok, maybe good to know an I7 can throughput more memory per second as an I5, that was for m the reason to go with an I7 instead of an I5.

[Plasuma]

@Wolfie2112

And as Papi mentioned, VEPro is a very good investment for any film composer.

It’s vital for anyone who uses large samples libraries.

Even if you don’t have a slave machine, running it locally and building templates outside of your DAW can save tons of time, especially when dealing with multiple sampled mic positions or even just different mixing arrangements.

[Jalcide]

@ipanema

@papi61

When you’re running serious orchestral mockups, you definitely need lots of RAM and a fast internal SATAIII drive to stream from (no way something like an Ivory II piano can run smoothly from an external USB drive.) I would say that 16gb is the bare minimum, but nowadays with the insane libraries we use, 32gb is the standard (and if I had to get a new master machine, I’d definitely go for 64.) Also, if you want a very detailed template with max realism, a single computer won’t do and you’ll need a VEP network.

+1

…and when you attempt to follow the footsteps of the likes of Hans Zimmer, you will have to expand your pocket box.

I would suggest that you keep your existing PC as a master, and get the most powerful PC you can as your slave machine–connected via VE Pro, putting all (or most of) the burden of VSTi’s on the new one. Also think of an array of SSD’s if you use speed-hungry libraries. That will be an excellent starting point, which can handle your needs for much longer than you can imagine.

Good luck.

Yeah, any SSD should handle samples that stream from hard-drive.

If you want overkill, you can get two fast SSDs, at half the size (to save cost if required) and stripe them in a RAID 0 config.

Just make sure your motherboard supports it. If not, external cards can be purchased.

Read speeds in that configuration are outrageous. Not quite linear (double), but almost. And, it can even be cheaper (as the largest capacity SSDs are often at a premium cost).

You can even get a 5.25" bay accessory (where like a DVD player sits) that has six 2.5", hot-swappable drive trays. “Icy Dock” makes a good, industrial metal one for around 80 bucks. A cheap plastic one is around 30 bucks.

This would give you great flexibility and expandability. As your library grows, just pop a new drive in, share between computers, etc. – all without opening the case. These SSDs are getting cheaper each week, too.

It’s a great time for DIY system builders, for sure.

[smikes77]

So what if I bought an ssd (maybe 480gb) and just plugged it into my current system would that help, only sticking my samples on there? You’re all making me think…

[papi61]

@smikes77

So what if I bought an ssd (maybe 480gb) and just plugged it into my current system would that help, only sticking my samples on there? You’re all making me think…

Yes and no. It would certainly help with streaming and loading times, but it would have to be on a really fast and stable protocol (like SATA III/6Gb, forget USB or FW), in order to take full advantage of the increased transfer rate. Or else you’re just wasting money.

Still, it would do nothing to quench some libraries’ thirst for RAM.