Building Own Computer

[godchuanz]

l0u5y,

You don't necessarily have to get Q6600. You can get the Q9300 or Q9450 as well, which are newer and faster processors. You may also want to check out Gigabyte's offerings for mainboards.

For PSU, I doubt you'll need 850W. Even 700W is already quite an overkill. But if it makes you feel better, just go ahead and get a 700W.

Yes, a dedicated HDD for sampling ought to be faster than 1 big messy HDD. Not sure why you need 3, but I don't think it'll be a big problem as long as you use some common sense to manage your data.

For 8GB RAM, if you intend to utilise all 8GB of it you need to get 64-bit Vista and a 64-bit Cubase 4. The main disadvantage of 64-bit is that it is not as "established" as 32-bit computing.

 

[Cheez]

Q9300 is faster than Q6600 and about the same price. Being 45nm, it also takes up less power, which is also why I agree with godchuanz that 850W or 700W is an overkill.

3 HD is makes sense if arrange it this way:

1 drive for programs and storage
1 drive for dedicated streaming of samples
1 drive dedicated for recording

Remember, more HD means more heat and more noise. Your tower casing must be larger to allow for air-flow. I've done 3 HD and 2 HD combinations. If you are not into heavy multi-tracking recording, 2 HDs should be enough. I find recording into the programs/storage drive OK - the recording is not affected. For sample streaming, it's still highly recommended to have a dedicated HD.

 

[l0u5y]

hi sorry godchuanz. but i feel more comfortable with the q6600 coz i read in the cubase forums and sonar forums and most ppl recommend the q6600 as it is more compatible with most hardware. i have cubase studio 4. but i dun tink its 64 bit. i googled cubase 64-bit and they said that 64-bit is up for preview. so i dun tink the 64-bit is out yet.

thkz cheez. does organising ur files in more partition also allows faster streaming? like, loops, masters, in different partition etc. how shud i place my libraries etc in the hdds? im thinking application in C:\, libraries in D:\, E:\ for others and i partition the drive to group loops etc in the same partition.

 

[Cheez]

l0u5y, there should be no compatibility issues between Q6600 and Q9300. It makes no sense going for the slower Q6600 at 65nm when you can get the faster Q9300 at 45nm at about the same price. The only major difference is that the Q9300 won't do as well as Q6600 for over-clocking. But in a DAW situation, we seldom over-clock. Those are for gamers and enthusiasts. I myself went for the Q9300 instead of the Q6600.

I think you're right about Cubase isn't entirely 64-bit yet. It's still preview, but you should be able to download that version. If you are not using the 64-bit version in a 64-bit Windows environment, you won't be able to utilise more than 4GB under Vista.

As for partitioning, it doesn't make streaming any faster. I would partition your first HD, splitting windows and applications from storage etc. In the second HD, just keep it for your samples. Partioning the second HD or not wouldn't make much difference. You seem to be confusing separate HDs with partitioning. For organisation for samples, just put them into different folders in your second HD. I organise my sample HD into folders like "strings", "brass", "woodwinds", "piano and keyboards", "drums and percussions", "loops", "special efx", "vocals" etc. I find categorising them like this is easier rather than categorising according to the sample library's name.

 

[Shredaholic]

hmm i m looking to get a diy com at the end of this wk. like its decent enough for me to do light recordings on it as well as games (mainly dota and cs) and work (like sch stuffs) any idea what are the parts i should get? my budget is like 1k and i already have a spare XpertVision 8600GT so i can save on that. Also, with my budget, i dunno if i should get a laptop or a desktop cos i think with my budget getting a laptop would prolly compromise the quality and performance that i would expect to get from a desktop right? thanks! =)