DarkDjinn Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I did some searching around the forum this morning and I don't see exactly what I'm looking for, or maybe I just don't understand enough about computers to know it if I see it. That being said, if anyone can redirect me to a thread that might help, please feel free. I just want to make sure my questions are answered in a way that I can understand So I really like the East West Hollywood (insert orchestral section here) series, and some of the other products by East West. However, I'm currently using an iMac mid 2011 that can only be upgraded to 16GB of RAM, and everything I read says that 16GB is not going to be enough for the best operation of that software. Therefore, I'm looking at buying a PC. Can't go with the Mac Pro, it's just too expensive for me. I feel like I can get similar power from a PC for a lot less and I'm not loyal enough to either to care. I guess as a starting point, I want it to have 32GB of RAM or have the capacity for it, and that's about all I've got so far. I would like suggestions for where to start - whether that's buying something off the shelf, or buying a custom PC. I just want it to be able to run this software well and handle the recording that I would do (guitar, voice, horns). Thanks in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexstyle Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 FWIW, I'm running a PC that was built back in 2011 with 8 GB of RAM, and ever since I stuck all my EastWest samples on an SSD, I've had no trouble. You really don't need more than 8 GB of RAM for 99% of music production. 16GB if you're feeling skittish, but that's honestly still overkill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 FWIW, I'm running a PC that was built back in 2011 with 8 GB of RAM, and ever since I stuck all my EastWest samples on an SSD, I've had no trouble. You really don't need more than 8 GB of RAM for 99% of music production. 16GB if you're feeling skittish, but that's honestly still overkill. Thanks a lot for that! Of course I love hearing that I might NOT have to spend 1-2K on a new computer I've only got 4GB right now but it wouldn't cost too much to upgrade all the way to 16GB so I might just do that anyway. So you have no problem with load times, anything like that? I'm just super paranoid that I'm going to buy this software and then my iMac is going to be like "NOPE!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexstyle Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Well, like I said, I stuck everything big-sample-related (Kontakt libraries, EastWest libraries, etc.) on a 500 GB SSD. Load times aren't determined by RAM, but rather by the storage medium. Your iMac probably has a 7200 RPM hard drive in it, so load times will be pretty slow for EastWest patches. Honestly at this point, it won't hurt you to buy a new PC, since your current rig is at the 3-year-old mark. If you're not looking forward to building your own, there's a guy on this forum who's done a lot of PC builds for various OCR folks. That said, if you would like to try and squeeze a bit of life out of your current iMac, the first thing I'd do would be buy the biggest SSD I could afford (I recommend the Samsung Evo) and upgrade the RAM to as big as it'll hold. It's cheaper than buying a new PC, and you can always use the new SSD in your next PC build once that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Williamson Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I'm using a 2009 iMac model with 12 GB of 1067 MHz RAM and having no issues with Logic Pro 9... so this East West Hollywood thing is like "nope" even on 16 GB of RAM? Seems a bit ridiculous, honestly... 7200 RPM is not killer slow... that's decent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) so this East West Hollywood thing is like "nope" even on 16 GB of RAM? Seems a bit ridiculous, honestly... I haven't bought it yet so I don't know. I just looked around on forums to find info from people that use it and that seems to be the consensus. My knowledge of computer hardware is relatively limited so that doesn't help either. I'll probably look into doing what Flexstyle said and getting that SSD, since I'm gonna want that even if I get a new computer. Edited January 22, 2014 by DarkDjinn fixing quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argle Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 FWIW, I'm running a PC that was built back in 2011 with 8 GB of RAM, and ever since I stuck all my EastWest samples on an SSD, I've had no trouble. You really don't need more than 8 GB of RAM for 99% of music production. 16GB if you're feeling skittish, but that's honestly still overkill. I disagree. My Kirk Hunter brass and string libraries alone forced me to upgrade from 8 to 16gb. And KH is hardly the largest one. So 16gb for orchestral work is not out of the common sense realm at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteo Xavier Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 No bridging options, Argle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanthos Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Load times really refer to two different things. When you load in a sampled instrument, your sampler won't load all the samples by default. There'll be an initial load, and then, as the samples are used, the remaining parts are streamed from disk on demand. Keeping initial load times low is nice, but won't really affect your work that much other than when you first load new samples or open the project. I wouldn't consider a hard drive based on disk speed alone. Beyond that, there's a tradeoff between amount of RAM and disk speed. The faster your disk is, the more you can stream on demand, and thus the less you need to load into RAM to begin with (which of course shortens load times as a secondary benefit). If you have slower drives, they'll be able to stream less and you'll need more preloaded into RAM. There are other tricks too, like only having a few sampled instruments loaded into memory and bouncing your other tracks to audio (which also helps reduce CPU load; it's much easier to play back an audio track than it is to trigger a virtual instrument and the effects assigned to it). The bottom line is this: if you have enough RAM and a fast enough CPU to work with a small number of virtual instruments plus the remaining audio tracks for your project, any upgrades are more for convenience or to improve your workflow; this is why big-name orchestral composers have many networked machines, all playing back various orchestral samples at the highest quality. There are two important questions though that I haven't seen you answer yet: 1) What are your needs in terms of sampled instruments? Are you wanting to add strings to a rock track? Are you wanting to get into orchestral writing where you need a full orchestra's worth of instruments in one song? If you're a hobbyist, you don't need to spend a ton of cash to try and meet the optimal specs for your sample libraries; you can often make do with less. 2) Have you run into any actual problems with your current rig so far? If you're spending money to fix a definite problem, especially if that problem hampers your creativity (eg. if you are being forced to bounce a lot of tracks and the inconvenience of doing so is hurting your musicianship), by all means upgrade, but if you're mostly just concerned about wanting a better rig or being worried about minimum and recommended specs for sample libraries without seeing how those stack up with how you'll actually use the libraries, it might be better to wait. Even waiting 6 months on an upgrade will mean you can spend the same money and get something better than you would if you upgraded now. About minimum and recommended specs: I'd check around for any libraries you're thinking of purchasing and try and get an idea of how your specs will measure up, the way you'd actually use the library. If you're using a few articulations for a solo flute, for example, you can definitely get away with less than the recommended specs. Worst case, if you have the money for both your desired library and a computer upgrade, is you can always buy the library, see how it performs, and if it's not where you want it to be, upgrade then, and if it performs well enough, hold off. There's all kinds of tradeoffs here; make the choice that's right for you based on your needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 About minimum and recommended specs: I'd check around for any libraries you're thinking of purchasing and try and get an idea of how your specs will measure up, the way you'd actually use the library. If you're using a few articulations for a solo flute, for example, you can definitely get away with less than the recommended specs. Worst case, if you have the money for both your desired library and a computer upgrade, is you can always buy the library, see how it performs, and if it's not where you want it to be, upgrade then, and if it performs well enough, hold off. There's all kinds of tradeoffs here; make the choice that's right for you based on your needs. Reiterating this. I actually only have 5 GB RAM, and I've never needed more than that. Of course, I generally write electronic music, but I did write an FFCC track recently that used the most RAM I've ever used (2.8GB unbridged just because), and even then it wasn't too much. I've never reached above 3GB RAM used, with or without bridging. So obviously, YMMV, and just figure out how you want to use libraries you want to get, and make your judgments based on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 My goal is to be able to do orchestral pieces, which I realize would be more demanding that just using some instruments here and there in my rock pieces. And the only problem I've run into with my current is that Garageband sometimes tells me I have too many instruments going on at once (only using Miroslav Philharmonik, SampleTank, and EZDrummer) and won't play the song. Usually fixed by trying once or twice more until it decides to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) My goal is to be able to do orchestral pieces, which I realize would be more demanding that just using some instruments here and there in my rock pieces.And the only problem I've run into with my current is that Garageband sometimes tells me I have too many instruments going on at once (only using Miroslav Philharmonik, SampleTank, and EZDrummer) and won't play the song. Usually fixed by trying once or twice more until it decides to work. From this, it seems like your polyphony is limited by your settings on Garageband? Or a VST? Edited January 22, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshaggyfreak Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I have an iMac with 16gb of RAM and haven't run into any issues doing full orchestral pieces (mostly with Vienna Symphonic). Right now, I don't personally know that many producers users more than 16gb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Williamson Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) My goal is to be able to do orchestral pieces, which I realize would be more demanding that just using some instruments here and there in my rock pieces.And the only problem I've run into with my current is that Garageband sometimes tells me I have too many instruments going on at once (only using Miroslav Philharmonik, SampleTank, and EZDrummer) and won't play the song. Usually fixed by trying once or twice more until it decides to work. Ooohhh, are you using GarageBand? GarageBand can support a few things, but that may be your issue. It's a great place to start, but it ends up being pretty dang limited. If you want to be creative and work around it, that's always cool, though. Do you have Logic Pro? That's whatchya need to be using, or my other recommendation would be Pro Tools, though that's more expensive and Pro Tools is meant more for engineering and session recordings and mixing/mastering than more programmed, one-man-band stuff, like Logic Pro. Right now, I don't personally know that many producers users more than 16gb. My father is a professional producer and mixer and he uses a Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. In fact, it's one of the oldest Intel-based Mac Pro's, being either a 2005 or 2006 model. Edited January 23, 2014 by Garrett Williamson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yeah Garageband is not as bad as I thought when I first started using it, but not as good as I'd like it to be. Logic seems to be the (dare I say logical? nope, not saying it) best choice for a move from Garageband. I told myself when I finish the couple of WIPs I have, I'll upgrade. I guess what I'm going to do at this point is: 1. Upgrade the RAM 2. See about getting an SSD on which to store samples 3. Buy the EastWest libraries I wanted 4. Be happy with or cry about the results Thanks everyone for the tips. If anyone else has anything useful I'm definitely glad to listen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moseph Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Are you looking at the Silver/Gold version of the Hollywood series, or the Diamond version? The system load with the Diamond version is potentially far, far higher than with Silver/Gold because Diamond is 24-bit, has more articulations (than Silver, anyway), and has more mic positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 23, 2014 Author Share Posted January 23, 2014 Are you looking at the Silver/Gold version of the Hollywood series, or the Diamond version? The system load with the Diamond version is potentially far, far higher than with Silver/Gold because Diamond is 24-bit, has more articulations (than Silver, anyway), and has more mic positions. I'm probably going to go for the Gold version, mostly because of the cost difference. I don't think at this point it will make that much of a difference for me with the mic positions. They have that Composers' bundle that looks pretty sweet and definitely a better deal than buying them individually. That would be another good thing if it would be easier on my computer to get the Gold version as opposed to Diamond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Williamson Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yeah Garageband is not as bad as I thought when I first started using it, but not as good as I'd like it to be. Logic seems to be the (dare I say logical? nope, not saying it) best choice for a move from Garageband. I told myself when I finish the couple of WIPs I have, I'll upgrade.I guess what I'm going to do at this point is: 1. Upgrade the RAM 2. See about getting an SSD on which to store samples 3. Buy the EastWest libraries I wanted 4. Be happy with or cry about the results Thanks everyone for the tips. If anyone else has anything useful I'm definitely glad to listen Yes, if you've been working with GarageBand and know it really well, my best recommendation for an upgrade would by far, hands-down be Logic Pro. It's basically a ginormous professional upgrade from GarageBand, since they're both made by the same people. So Logic is easier to figure out and learn if you've been working with GarageBand. Upgrading to something like Pro Tools or anything else may be really hard because they are SO different than GarageBand and Logic's layout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 So for an update, I've started looking around and kinda decided which direction I'm going. I was wondering though, does anyone have experience using a Thunderbolt hard drive? I found one in the Apple online store that is a 1TB hard drive with Thunderbolt connectivity and it's like $200. I just want to know if this would be comparable to an SSD or a 7200 RPM hard drive. I really don't know what I'm looking at/for and searching online doesn't seem to help much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 And by comparable, I meant as far as speed/load times for samples goes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. (Edit 3: Oops, mixed up bytes and bits here. Converted to bytes for consistency.) Thunderbolt is a connection type. For an internal drive, you're comparing Thunderbolt (1 GB/s) to SATA III (600 MB/s), USB 3.0 (500 MB/s), or SATA II (300 MB/s). SSD vs. traditional magnetic platters is an issue of storage medium. It's hard to compare one to the other without getting into a thousand data points, but the important thing is this: Thunderbolt drives are also SSD's, or 7200RPM hard drives (probably not slower, that would be silly), or flash memory. As near as I can tell, access speed is likely to be your bottleneck here. I found one, perhaps not reliable source that said, "SSDs are around 200MB/s read, and 100-150MB/s write. Modern hard drives are around 120MB/s for both." So most likely you'll barely notice a difference between Thunderbolt and SATA III for your purposes, whereas an SSD will be remarkably better. Edit 2: The Intel X25-M has a read speed of 250MB/s, but 70-100 MB/s write speed. Tom's Hardware places traditional hard drives at about 40-100MB/s read speed--lots of variability here! My answer is unchanged, though. Edited January 31, 2014 by MindWanderer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 Thanks for kind of clearing that up. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is...so the Complete Composer's Collection 2 by EastWest comes on a 1TB hard drive with USB 3.0. My iMac doesn't have USB 3.0, and according to EastWest 2.0 is too slow to have good performance with the samples from that hard drive. Their suggestion is to get a 7200 RPM hard drive with Firewire 800 and transfer all the samples to there, and then run the samples off of that one. (Please keep in mind that I'm pretty much just quoting things, and have little to zero idea what I'm even saying). I'm just trying to find something that is equivalent to that. At least a 500GB storage medium of some sort, whether it is a really fast hard drive or an SSD, and external, and some kind of connection that I can use with my iMac - which would only be Thunderbolt or USB 2.0. I'm sure I'm being confusing. I'm kinda confusing myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkDjinn Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 Yep after that edit I think I am definitely more confused. So an SSD with a Thunderbolt connection would be about the best I could do in my circumstances, right? Since I can only use Thunderbolt or USB 2.0? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arglactable Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I probably wouldn't use an SSD for file storage in general, since their performance is generally geared towards Reading and not writing (and they have a theoretically limited number of writes) nd the cost to storage space ratio is pretty poor. The performance gains from putting your OS on a nice SSD can be huge, the advantage of putting samples on one less so (especially given that they will be in RAM when in use). I mostly use mine for the OS and really important software As for the Read/Write speed differences listed below. SSDs can be substantially more impressive than that. I have a 128gb Samsung 840 Pro Series and those things are rated at 520mbps/320mbps read/write. The 256gb and 512gb have even better write speed. On a SATA III or Thunderbolt connection, you should be able to get optimum performance out of an SSD like that, for a pretty reasonable price. If you want to store samples, you might be better of getting a high speed HDD, because higher capacity SSDs can be REALLY expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 USB2 is 35 MB/s throughput, which is garbage for your purposes. If you can't go internal, then Thunderbolt is your only real option. Someone with more experience loading large samples can probably provide you with better advice as to whether an SSD is worth the cost in this situation. I suspect a 7200RPM would be perfectly adequate, but look for one with good read access speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.