Graphics Card for Music Computer?

[[email protected]]

Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
guys recommend?

many thanks

Owen

[Daniel Mandic]

Hi!



Matrox (fast 2D)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Dan]

2nd vote for Matrox. Have used their products exclusively for 10 years
now. Drivers are solid as a rock!

On 30 Jan 2007 08:50:50 -0800, wrote:

>Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
>integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
>many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
>and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
>nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
>guys recommend?
>
>many thanks
>
>Owen

[jwvm]

On Jan 30, 11:50 am, wrote:
> Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
> integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
> many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
> and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
> nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
> guys recommend?
>
> many thanks
>
> Owen

Are you sure that its the graphics card? You might want to optimize
your operating system. Windoze right out of the box leaves much to be
desired as far as real-time audio recording and processing is
concerned. You might want to do a Google search using terms like
"audio recording" and winxp and follow the suggestions regarding
various settings.

[DeeAa]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
> integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
> many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
> and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
> nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
> guys recommend?
>
I'm having hard time beliving it is due to the graphics card.
Besides, NVidia cards, even low end ones, are pretty good for multimedia.
You don't need over 16mb display mem even in 2d 1600x1200 so memory is no
problem, 128mb is downright overkill for desktop use, a tenth of that would
do fine.

I used to have a Matrox G450 and I swapped it for a low-end NVidia (5200?)
AGP 128 and now all the video and even HD video is a breeze.

On my other machine I used to run 30-40 tracks in Cubase when it had a GTS2
32mb card and it was no problem. My current setup has a Nvidia 6800lite
128mb AGP card and 3.0GHz pentium and Cubase can handle dozens of tracks no
problem, running a 2560x1024 pixel wide desktop.

I'd suggest looking at your harddisk system for problems...have u got
correct settings, UDMA etc....and get a decent RAID array and I'm sure it
will work fine.

[Mogens V.]

wrote:
> Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
> integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
> many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
> and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
> nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
> guys recommend?

You did install the right drivers? Didn't just install XP using it's
default driver...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[YourHomeStudioDotCom]

>
> Are you sure that its the graphics card? You might want to optimize
> your operating system. Windoze right out of the box leaves much to be
> desired as far as real-time audio recording and processing is
> concerned. You might want to do a Google search using terms like
> "audio recording" and winxp and follow the suggestions regarding
> various settings.

I agree. The load on the graphics card from any audio software
shouldn't be anywhere close to being a problem. Check out digifreq.com
for some tips on optimizing XP for music production.

Thomas
www.yourhomestudio.com

Free Home Studio Newsletter -

[[email protected]]

Hi Guys, thanks for all the replies. I've bought an NVidea 7600GS,
simply because I need two monitor outputs. I've already done the usual
tweaks for running sequencing software but I'm going to re-format
anyway because it's about time I did it!

cheers!

[Laurence Payne]

On 1 Feb 2007 09:11:43 -0800, "YourHomeStudioDotCom"
> wrote:

>I agree. The load on the graphics card from any audio software
>shouldn't be anywhere close to being a problem. Check out digifreq.com
>for some tips on optimizing XP for music production.

Yeah. But note the previous answer about shared-memory onboard
graphics. You don't need a super-duper video card. But it needs to
BE a separate card (or an onboard system with it's own resources).

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg]

Dual screens is pretty essential for a DAW.

peace
dawg

[Daniel Mandic]

Dan wrote:

> 2nd vote for Matrox. Have used their products exclusively for 10 years
> now. Drivers are solid as a rock!


Hi Dan!



hmmmm, solid!? There have been some troubles with correct 2D Vision in
Windows. Foreground, background window etc....
Now with my Parhelia they came again, but nothing that crashes the
computer, I have to say!

Before I had the G450. The upgrade to the Parhelia brought me a
Workstation feeling (fast), even I have just 1GHz. But a nice 64bit
Chipset and ROCK SOLID AGP Slot/DigitalCircuit, invented in California,
Silicon Valley.
Also Quasi 3D (DX, OpenGL) got a decent boost, far away of the G400MAX
or G450. (near GF4ti performance, and faster here and there...)


DOS Performance???
What can I say.... even the Parhelia plays (had Mil2MB, Mil4MB [faster
a bit, in DOS!], Mil-II 16MB [WinNT, but weaker picture quality than
the Mil4MB], G450 [decent Picture Quality]) any software-titles, from
~1979 - 2007, indeed, and SOUND all. And not to forget.... always the
fastest in VGA and S-VGA. My main reason was fast DOS GfX.... so Matrox
:-)

Windows? I am still wondering.... they made a strong way, IMHO.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: 10bit color! THE GfX-Card for decent Analog CRT's (Plasma?)!!!!
(Parhelia 512)

[jtougas]

On 30 Jan 2007 20:49:50 -0800, "jwvm" > trained 100
monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write:

>On Jan 30, 11:50 am, wrote:
>> Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
>> integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
>> many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
>> and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
>> nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
>> guys recommend?
>>
>> many thanks
>>
>> Owen
>
>Are you sure that its the graphics card?

If it's integrated into the motherboard, there's a very good chance
it's using system RAM (dynamically allocated) instead of it's own
dedicated RAM chips (OP, feel free to correct me or post the
motherboard manufacturer and model). If it is, it's killing system
performance.

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings

[Dan]

I have not experienced any of the troubles you are describing. I do
not go for speed, because this is for a music computer, not playing
games. All I want is trouble-free, and that is exactly what I get with
Matrox. Great company!

On 02 Feb 2007 06:04:03 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" >
wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>
>> 2nd vote for Matrox. Have used their products exclusively for 10 years
>> now. Drivers are solid as a rock!
>
>
>Hi Dan!
>
>
>
>hmmmm, solid!? There have been some troubles with correct 2D Vision in
>Windows. Foreground, background window etc....
>Now with my Parhelia they came again, but nothing that crashes the
>computer, I have to say!
>
>Before I had the G450. The upgrade to the Parhelia brought me a
>Workstation feeling (fast), even I have just 1GHz. But a nice 64bit
>Chipset and ROCK SOLID AGP Slot/DigitalCircuit, invented in California,
>Silicon Valley.
>Also Quasi 3D (DX, OpenGL) got a decent boost, far away of the G400MAX
>or G450. (near GF4ti performance, and faster here and there...)
>
>
>DOS Performance???
>What can I say.... even the Parhelia plays (had Mil2MB, Mil4MB [faster
>a bit, in DOS!], Mil-II 16MB [WinNT, but weaker picture quality than
>the Mil4MB], G450 [decent Picture Quality]) any software-titles, from
>~1979 - 2007, indeed, and SOUND all. And not to forget.... always the
>fastest in VGA and S-VGA. My main reason was fast DOS GfX.... so Matrox
>:-)
>
>Windows? I am still wondering.... they made a strong way, IMHO.
>
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Daniel Mandic
>
>P.S.: 10bit color! THE GfX-Card for decent Analog CRT's (Plasma?)!!!!
>(Parhelia 512)

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 11:50 am, wrote:
> Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
> integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
> many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
> and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
> nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
> guys recommend?
>
> many thanks
>
> Owen

Are you running a separate hard disk with the audio on it? If the
audio is on the same disk as the OS and software this might happen.

[[email protected]]

> Are you running a separate hard disk with theaudioon it? If theaudiois on the same disk as the OS and software this might happen.

Disk 1 is partioned into two disks, one for windows another for audio#

Disk 2 is used for other data like samples AND the program files like
cubase.

should a partition make any difference?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 10:16 am, wrote:
> > Are you running a separate hard disk with theaudioon it? If theaudiois on the same disk as the OS and software this might happen.
>
> Disk 1 is partioned into two disks, one for windows another for audio#
>
> Disk 2 is used for other data like samples AND the program files like
> cubase.
>
> should a partition make any difference?

No it's still the same hard disk trying to read the data with the same
heads. You should put audio data on separate dedicated disk drive.

[jtougas]

On 7 Feb 2007 09:30:54 -0800, trained 100 monkeys
to jump on the keyboard and write:

>On Feb 7, 10:16 am, wrote:
>> > Are you running a separate hard disk with theaudioon it? If theaudiois on the same disk as the OS and software this might happen.
>>
>> Disk 1 is partioned into two disks, one for windows another for audio#
>>
>> Disk 2 is used for other data like samples AND the program files like
>> cubase.
>>
>> should a partition make any difference?
>
>No it's still the same hard disk trying to read the data with the same
>heads. You should put audio data on separate dedicated disk drive.

In other words, Disk 1 should have Windows, program files, and samples
(if they'll fit), and Disk 2 should be nothing but the destination for
audio.

Ideally speaking.

I've actually got 1 drive for windows and programs, 1 drive for audio,
1 drive for samples, and another drive for misc stuff. But I have a
RAID card, sooooo... ;-)
--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:54:52 -0500, jtougas
> wrote:

>In other words, Disk 1 should have Windows, program files, and samples
>(if they'll fit), and Disk 2 should be nothing but the destination for
>audio.
>
>Ideally speaking.

There's more chance you'll need simultaneous access of audio tracks
and sample data than there is of any appreciable rearrangement of
system files being required during an audio session.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
>> Are you running a separate hard disk with theaudioon it?
>> If theaudiois on the same disk as the OS and software
>> this might happen.
>
> Disk 1 is partioned into two disks, one for windows
> another for audio#
>
> Disk 2 is used for other data like samples AND the
> program files like cubase.

> should a partition make any difference?

Depends on how your software uses disk space.

Partitioning is one of those things I struggle with, because it is a
problematical resource management strategy.

Generally, its easier to manage a resource if you put it all into a pool,
and manage that one pool. Partitioning is the exact opposite - you end up
making smaller subpools. If you need a chunk of storage that can't be cut
out of any of the subpools, you won't be able to allocate that storage, even
there is that much free storage split up among the subpools, because it is
chopped up by the subpool boundaries.

OTOH, partioning is a way to break storage up into high performance and low
performance regions. There is an approximate 5:1 speed difference in hard
drive performance, depending on whether the space is on the outer tracks
(high performance) or innner tracks (low performance) part of the drive. If
you can tolerate using slow storage, such as for archival storage of data,
then putting it into a partition that is composed of the inner tracks of a
drive makes some sense. Likewise, if you need high performance storage, such
as for working storage, particularly storage used for recording or
frequently-referenced data, then allocating that storage in a partition
composed of the outer tracks of a drive makes sense.

The slowest storage is storage in two different data sets on the same drive
that are being read and written at about the same time. An example of this
is copying a file from and to the same disk. File save and load time is can
be source of frustration, when files are really large.

[Daniel Mandic]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> OTOH, partioning is a way to break storage up into high performance
> and low performance regions. There is an approximate 5:1 speed
> difference in hard drive performance, depending on whether the space
> is on the outer tracks (high performance) or innner tracks (low
> performance) part of the drive. If you can tolerate using slow


Newer Harddisks, not all, compensate that behaviour with logic circuits.

You get a nearly linear performance through the whole data-region, with
slightly falling peaks (highest speed available) and rising shortly
afterwards back to the highest peak, in a periodical manner. The
writing looks like a ripple, but linear (+- some MB/s, maybe 5%) though.

Only the first 500-1000MB fast... that is history.


Lookout for 'AV Harddisks'. I think they support "linear performance"
and are mainly outfitted with big Caches (8MB and more).

Even better are SCSI drives and a PCI Cachecontroller. But it stays
parted :)..... (digital)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Arny Krueger]

"Daniel Mandic" > wrote in message
y.telekom.at
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> OTOH, partioning is a way to break storage up into high
>> performance and low performance regions. There is an
>> approximate 5:1 speed difference in hard drive
>> performance, depending on whether the space is on the
>> outer tracks (high performance) or innner tracks (low
>> performance) part of the drive. If you can tolerate
>> using slow
>
>
> Newer Harddisks, not all, compensate that behaviour with
> logic circuits.

Only way I know to do that involves RAID.

> You get a nearly linear performance through the whole
> data-region, with slightly falling peaks (highest speed
> available) and rising shortly afterwards back to the
> highest peak, in a periodical manner. The writing looks
> like a ripple, but linear (+- some MB/s, maybe 5%)
> though.
>
> Only the first 500-1000MB fast... that is history.
>
>
> Lookout for 'AV Harddisks'. I think they support "linear
> performance" and are mainly outfitted with big Caches
> (8MB and more).

My sources say that 'AV Harddisks' differed in how they handled thermal
recalibration, and that virtually all hard drives are now made that way, and
have been for years.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 05:51:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>OTOH, partioning is a way to break storage up into high performance and low
>performance regions. There is an approximate 5:1 speed difference in hard
>drive performance, depending on whether the space is on the outer tracks
>(high performance) or innner tracks (low performance) part of the drive.

That is doubtless true for the raw disk performance, straight off the
platters. Is it true for a modern hard drive considered as a system?
I don't see it on the graph in my disk performance utility.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Daniel Mandic" > wrote in message
y.telekom.at
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> OTOH, partioning is a way to break storage up into high
>>> performance and low performance regions. There is an
>>> approximate 5:1 speed difference in hard drive
>>> performance, depending on whether the space is on the
>>> outer tracks (high performance) or innner tracks (low
>>> performance) part of the drive. If you can tolerate
>>> using slow
>>
>> Newer Harddisks, not all, compensate that behaviour with
>> logic circuits.
>
>Only way I know to do that involves RAID.

What they do today is alter the bit density so that a word takes a fixed
amount of distance on the disk rather than a fixed angle on the disk.
This means outer tracks have more data per track and inner tracks have
less data per track. This allows them to pack more data on the disc.

The data rate, therefore, is independant of the track number. BUT,
the rotational latency is higher on the outer tracks than on the inner
tracks because it takes longer for a given byte to pass by the head.

The way newer disks get around this is by using outrageous amounts of
cache. Since most applications do consecutive reads, the drive will
read an entire track at a time and drop it into cache. The application
can then read anything on that track it wants, with zero latency, until
the cache is flushed and some other data is brought in.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Daniel Mandic]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > Newer Harddisks, not all, compensate that behaviour with
> > logic circuits.
>
> Only way I know to do that involves RAID.

hmmm, I have read that several Years before. Somewhere 1997.... C't
Computermagazin. The yearly 'Festplatten Karussell' (50 and more HD's
testing, SCSI, IDE, IDE2.5")

I do not have the article near.... (I am pretty sure about the
test-writing, graphic, which shows a ripple but an almost linear
performance through the whole disc)

> My sources say that 'AV Harddisks' differed in how they handled
> thermal recalibration, and that virtually all hard drives are now
> made that way, and have been for years.

One of the features, of course.


Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Daniel Mandic" > wrote in message
>> y.telekom.at
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:

> What they do today is alter the bit density so that a
> word takes a fixed amount of distance on the disk rather
> than a fixed angle on the disk. This means outer tracks
> have more data per track and inner tracks have less data
> per track. This allows them to pack more data on the
> disc.

What you describe means that the linear bit density is constant. A word
therefore takes a fixed amount of distance on a track, rather than a fixed
angle, as you say. The outer tracks measuring longer, contain more data.
Since the disc turns at a constant speed, the data rate is higher for the
outer tracks. Since DTR is higher, data transfers faster, and the disk
performs better.

> The data rate, therefore, is independant of the track
> number. BUT,
> the rotational latency is higher on the outer tracks than
> on the inner tracks because it takes longer for a given
> byte to pass by the head.

Rotational latency is measured in units of time, and remains the same when
the disk's rotation is constant.

[[email protected]]

On 30 Jan, 16:50, wrote:
> Hi, I've currently got an NVidia single output card which is
> integrated into my motherboard. Cubase runs fine but when there are
> many channels running and the graphis are beig pushed I get glitches
> and pops. basically, I'm going to upgrade my cardand disable the
> nvidia, which is only 128mb. Which PCI Express graphics card would you
> guys recommend?
>
> many thanks
>
> Owen


I agree with all posted to date, but would add that on board equipment
is often a source of headaches. You need bugger all processing power
on your card- my 128mb 9250 ati by asus is currently doing a very fine
job running dual monitors on my DAW and if that ain't puny i don't
know what is! I would strongly advise to go for the most solid, tried
and tested kit WITHOUT fan cooling (some with nice big heatsinks may
need some airflow over the heatsinks to stay cool, but if your tower
gets some cool air ie. isn't in a corner by a radiator, it should be
fine). Check that the mainboard chipset and the GPU you are combining
are nice and compatable then fit and forget. It is highly unlikely
that your graphics processing is deficient in computer audio terms,
but making the system rock solid and quiet is a damn good idea. Which
mobo, hd, processor soundcard and ram are you using btw?

[Daniel Mandic]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
> >Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >>"Daniel Mandic" > wrote in message
> > > y.telekom.at
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > What they do today is alter the bit density so that a
> > word takes a fixed amount of distance on the disk rather
> > than a fixed angle on the disk. This means outer tracks
> > have more data per track and inner tracks have less data
> > per track. This allows them to pack more data on the
> > disc.
>
> What you describe means that the linear bit density is constant. A
> word therefore takes a fixed amount of distance on a track, rather
> than a fixed angle, as you say. The outer tracks measuring longer,
> contain more data. Since the disc turns at a constant speed, the data
> rate is higher for the outer tracks. Since DTR is higher, data
> transfers faster, and the disk performs better.
>
> > The data rate, therefore, is independant of the track
> > number. BUT,
> > the rotational latency is higher on the outer tracks than
> > on the inner tracks because it takes longer for a given
> > byte to pass by the head.
>
> Rotational latency is measured in units of time, and remains the same
> when the disk's rotation is constant.



Yeah, but more for Internet applications. Server for example...

I see no use for, let's say, a NT Workstation in Home-use. NT5 caching
strategies and a bit more RAM than minimun (<512MB) gives a good PC,
also with 5400upm silent drives fast enough.


Yes, it's blushing to see a P3/933 installing XP in 15min and less :).
Or formatting 27GB (3x9GB UW on cache controller, raid0) in some
seconds (full format).
Again, I see no use for me.
Maybe it's good for Graphic and possibly for Audio Recording, but it
stays parted and must come somehow out to some analog circuits, then we
have three obstacles, two side digital and one side for analog. Better
the three denominator, called Volt, Siemens or Ohm and Ampere at once.

:)



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic