• Blogs
• Forums
• Tradeshows
• Partners
• White Papers
• Events

 

DAW vs. DAW

Jul 1, 2005 12:00 PM, By Gary Eskow

Can today’s workstations deliver enough power for audio postproduction? One editor puts two systems to the test.

As a video professional, you may be adding a digital audio workstation to your facility soon. With the advances in computer hardware and the glut of powerful audio software solutions on the market, audio post might be a viable new business opportunity for your company. It may also provide a way to better control the quality and costs of your projects.

Although standalone recording platforms continue to be favored by some audio engineers, the industry's overall migration to the digital audio workstation is an established fact. However, the state of host-based applications and their viability for post suites remain murky. How much power can a top-of-the-line computer deliver today? Is it enough to compete with the Pro Tools approach, which combines an off-the-shelf computer with add-on hardware? There is another, perhaps even more important question: If standalone workstations and off-the-shelf computers with add-ons work well, why consider a DAW built solely around a host application?

The answer is simple: money. If the day arrives when standard issue chip sets have the power to record and play back lots of audio tracks (with CPU-demanding effects inserted), while simultaneously letting the user call up multiple soft samplers and soft synthesizers — without resorting to any external devices except for analog to digital and digital to analog converters — look for substantially lowered investment costs. The question is, has that day arrived?

I originally intended to tackle this question by building two audio workstations: one on a top-of-the-line Macintosh G5, the other on the fastest PC I could get my hands on. I wanted to compare the efficiency of the two platforms. Securing a loaner Mac proved impossible, and so I changed my plan.

Working with ADK Pro Audio (adkproaudio.com), a Kentucky-based company that builds computers for musicians, I instead took delivery of two PCs, a single-processor AMD 64 939 Athlon and a dual-processor AMD Opteron. Both of these Windows XP machines have 64-bit processors. For testing purposes, I created two projects. One of them was intensive in its use of software synthesizers, sample playback applications, and effects processors. The other had a high audio track count. How did the two computers hold up? And is either worth considering if you are planning to expand your personal studio or build your first one?

Before sharing the results of my tests, I'd like to back up and consider a more fundamental question. Do you need to work with a vendor that builds audio computers? Or should you save some money by doing the research and putting together a DAW on your own? Compare for yourself, but in my view the cash you'll spend on a company like ADK is well worth the additional investment.

During the weeks I spent working on this article, I threw tons of questions at owner Scott Chichelli and his staff regarding processors, software applications, video integration, and audio hardware, and I kept learning from them throughout the process. ADK's standard warranty includes one year parts and labor with express pick up and lifetime tech support, and I guarantee that you'll have lots of questions about the system you purchase. Unless you're extremely confident about your understanding of the computer, peripheral hardware, and the software you plan on using, I'd strongly recommend that you research the field and pick a company like ADK to work with.

Dual-processor AMD Opteron (ADK-24/96-100PRO, $3,845)

I initially built my audio projects on this dual AMD Opteron computer. The 100PRO, which ships without a mouse or monitor, sports a pair of AMD Opteron 246 2GHz processors with 1MB cache, a Zalman Heatsink fan, a RAID array with five hard drives, and a Pioneer DVR-A08 16X DVD reader/writer.

Loading software is a lengthy process, particularly when you take into account the need to authorize these applications on the Internet, and in some cases by phone. Like many musicians who use lots of soft synths, I have my favorites, and some of them make extreme demands on a computer's CPU.

I created these projects using Steinberg's Cubase SX3, the latest version of the flagship sequencer, and I also loaded them into Nuendo 2. Why? As we will see, although SX3 is a gorgeous program, it is reported to be less efficient than SX2 (which uses the same audio engine as Nuendo 2), and I wanted to see for myself how the two engines handled identical projects.

The suite of Spectrasonics plug-ins — Atmosphere; Trilogy; and Stylus RMX, the new, radically improved version of the original drum module — are must-haves for many composers. In addition to these three applications, my projects also relied heavily on the suite of Native Instruments plug-ins bundled in a package called NI Komplete. I also incorporated many of Steinberg's own VST instruments, including Xphraze and The Grand, and of course, a number of different effects plug-ins from Waves. Several plug-ins from Applied Acoustics were also used.

My intent was not to create the ultimate test project; given the number of plug-ins on the market and the diversity of tastes in the audio community that would not be possible. However, creating several audio projects that reasonably reflected the demands of a typical audio post professional on a DAW did seem like an attainable goal, and I believe I was able to do just that.

Handling PC Phobia

Are you a Mac operator who has simultaneously looked down your nose at the PC and been frightened of it? Although I have owned one PC for several years, which I use as a GigaStudio platform, prior to this time I never dug into the architecture of this beast. After spending a month working intimately with PCs (including, as you will see, getting inside the single-processor computer, replacing drives, and reseating components), I've come to the conclusion that the PC has an undeserved bad rap from us Mac-oids.

Once I learned how to partition the RAID, and made logical decisions about what material should reside on the C drive (applications) and which stuff should be sent to the RAID (samples and audio), I had no problems learning how to manage the rest of my files.

Project One

Since I'm a composer rather than an audio post engineer, I gave myself a comfortable postproduction assignment to start out with. Although most of my hardware synths have long been retired, I have held onto several of them, including my trusty old Roland JV1080. Any computer you purchase will require analog-to-digital convertors of some sort. I followed the recommendations of the ADK staff and had them send up an RME Fireface 800 ($1,499).

RME products are outstanding. I own an ADI-8 AE converter box, and I was not disappointed by the sound of the converters on the Fireface 800. The unit features eight balanced line level inputs and outputs, 16 channels of ADAT lightpipe connectivity, word clock in and out, four mic-pre's, and, of course, FireWire connectivity to the host computer.

I created several MIDI tracks and then recorded each of them twice, using different patches on the JV1080. I was very pleased with the A/B comparison between the source and recorded audio, as played back on my Mackie HR824 monitors. By the way, I was pleased to find out that my MIDI patch bay, a MOTU MIDI Timepiece AV, which I have used on my Mac for years, is compatible with Windows XP. I simply went to the MOTU website and downloaded the XP software for this device. So far it has run without a glitch.

Next I began loading up VST applications to the VST instrument rack within Cubase SX3 and creating more parts. How far was I able to go before the intrusion of those unpleasant pops and clicks that let you know (more than any performance meter) that you've hit the wall and need to freeze some tracks?

For starters, I used some extremely processor-intensive plug-ins for this project. In addition to the two JV1080 tracks (left playing in the background after I'd recorded them as audio tracks), I loaded the following software before I hit the wall:

• Spectrasonics' Atmosphere, with Cubase SX3 Doubler 4 plug-in as an insert.
• Steinberg's The Grand, with two bands of SX3 equalization applied.
• Steinberg's Xphraze, with no inserts or equalization.
• NI's Absynth 2, with no inserts or equalization.
• NI's Kompakt, loaded with an ensemble string patch, with no inserts or equalization.

In addition to all of this software, I set up a pair of sends using Waves L1 and Enigma plug-ins. Finally, I played back four audio tracks.

At this point I began experiencing some serious problems. Besides the pops and clicks you'd expect, both Xphraze and Absynth held notes after I stopped the application, and the mixer would not load a saved console setting. When I froze the Atmosphere track these problems were eliminated, and as I froze more of the tracks, CPU bandwidth became available for still more VST plug-ins.

Still, maxing out at five (admittedly heavy) plug-ins was something of a disappointment. The word on the street is that SX3's increased ability to handle audio at low latencies comes at a price — more of a hit on the processors. I decided to load this project up in Nuendo 2 to find out for myself if the rumors were true.

Wow, there was quite a difference! In addition to the plug-ins listed above, I was able to load in two instances of Steinberg's Hypersonic plug-in, and one each of NI's B4, FM7, and Pro-53 when running the identical project in Nuendo 2. Before running into any problems I was also able to use Steinberg's Virtual Guitarist Electric Edition, and create a bass line using Spectrasonic's very cool Trilogy plug-in.

As a constant, I had a relatively low latency setting of 128 samples (approximately 3ms) when running both SX3 and Nuendo 2. Increasing the latency would decrease the load on the CPU and allow for an additional plug-in or two, but since the same setting was used in both applications, the test is valid. It points to the fact that Steinberg has some work to do if it expects the newest version of Cubase to match the efficiency of earlier ones.

The final results: about a dozen plug-ins inline, including some very demanding ones, with channel equalization; some inserts and a pair of Waves effects as sends before we maxed out the dual Opteron within Nuendo 2; and only five plug-ins (plus effects) in SX3 before the computer spiked.

Project Two

For you audio post engineers out there, this project is the more appropriate one to consider. I decided to build it first in Nuendo 2, for several reasons. For one thing, the demo project that ships with this application has some cool music and a video clip. Nuendo, with its enhanced surround sound functionality, is also favored more by straight-ahead engineers.

Using the demo song as a starting point, I added two Waves plug-ins as sends. Waves recently released the IR, a very processor- intensive convolution reverb. The IR can be loaded in a reduced stress mode, but I decided to go for the gusto and use the full version. I also loaded a Waves C1, and one of Nuendo's internal reverbs as a third send. Next I began adding audio tracks.

Playing back audio tracks places far less demand on a computer than samples, and the dual Opteron was clearly at home with this project. Before I knew it I had 75 audio tracks running, with EQ on most of them and the three sends available to all, and I had not reached the 25% mark in the performance window. Clearly, exceeding 100 tracks would not be a problem for this computer if I stayed inside Nuendo 2.

What happened when I opened the same project with SX3? The results were about what you would expect. By the time I had 65 tracks running, the performance meter had topped 50% and the computer was producing clicks and pops. As with project one, the latency setting on audio interface card was set to 128 samples.

Single-processor AMD 64 939 Athlon ($2,302)

The single-processor computer I tested featured a 7200RPM C drive, a pair of 200GB Western Digital SATA 150 drives, a removable hard drive rack, and a Pioneer DVR-A06 DVD reader/writer. The AMD processor runs at a speed of 2.2GHz. This computer also came with a full version of Windows XP.

I set up the RAID array on this computer as I had with the dual Opteron, placing applications on the C drive and samples on a partition of another drive, which I divided into bins for samples and audio. Some applications are a bit finicky about letting you place samples outside of the application itself, and so it's not always possible to stick with this way of organizing your drives, but it's the cleanest way to work whenever possible.

Interestingly, I couldn't get two of the Steinberg VST instruments, Groove Agent and Xphraze, to load on this computer. Fadi Hayek, Steinberg's eastern area sales manager, told me that a chunk of bad data is deliberately written into these disks as part of the copy-protection scheme. He said that some of the new CD/DVD drives have too much error correction built into them; in essence they are unable to skip over this data and let the disk load. Steinberg does provide new disks to authorized plug-in owners who are having problems loading software onto their newer DAWs.

Unfortunately, this copy-protection scheme problem was not the only one I encountered with this DAW. Shortly after setting up this device it became clear that the computer had been mishandled. When I was unable to see anything on my monitor, I informed the ADK staff. They asked if I was prepared to do a little tech work, which I was actually eager to do. The staff would have been willing to take back the computer and either fix or replace it, but I wanted to get inside the box and see how it worked. After reseating the video card and several cables, it seemed the unit was back in business, and I began the lengthy process of loading in the same software that I had used to test the dual Opteron.

However, I began to get error messages that indicated there was a problem with one or more of the drives in the RAID array, and so ADK shipped me a new pair, which I used to replace the original ones. I was then able to access and partition this drive, and load in all my software (with the exception of the Steinberg plug-ins listed above). I called up the two projects (which I'd saved onto a DVD) and began testing. Unfortunately, before I was able to complete my tests, I began to experience problems. This led the ADK staff to believe the motherboard had been damaged in transit as well. At this point we decided to send this computer back for a complete overhaul, and I would report the results obtained thus far.

In short, this DAW underperformed compared to the dual Opteron by about 35% to 40% across the board. I didn't find this surprising, but I still had one question: Given the fact that most applications outside of the video realm don't take full advantage of dual processing, why buy a dual-processor machine at this time? Since I used Nuendo 2 and Cubase SX3 as my host platforms, I decided to check in with Fadi Hayek.

“The VST engine word-clocks different applications together extremely efficiently,” says Hayek. “The Opterons in particular have such good RAM bussing that the sum is a very fast machine. The Opteron chip is a leap, though not a substantial one, from those being used in the Mac G5. But they talk to their RAM so quickly that CPU-intensive plug-ins like those from Spectrasonics experience a great leap in the number of voices that are obtainable on the dual Opteron machines.”

Whether you decide to purchase a single-processor machine for around $2,300, or a dual Opteron computer for around $3,800, it's important to understand you aren't done spending at this point. An audio interface like the Fireface 800 has to be thrown into the mix, along with at least one monitor (dual monitors are strongly recommended).

Still, it is important to keep things in perspective. For my money, a computer that can handle up to a dozen soft synths and sample playback devices along with a couple of highly demanding effects processors, with video, is intriguing. Especially when you consider how easy it is to freeze plug-in tracks and unfreeze them at a later time if you need to make changes in a track.

Lastly, I would like to again thank the helpful staff at ADK. I'd like to thank Chris Ludwig in particular, who I know from his days at the East Coast Music Mall, and now works at ADK. His knowledge of hardware and software cuts a wide path, and having that kind of expertise on hand is important when you're putting together a DAW.

---

Gary Eskow is a composer and journalist. He is currently finishing a four-piece musical work entitled “Not a Sonata.” Eskow can be reached via his website at www.garyeskow.com.

---

feedback

To comment on this article, email the Video Systems editorial staff at vsfeedback@primediabusiness.com.

© 2008 Penton Media, Inc.