Optimability chugging at $25 for studio processing

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Flasherly, Dec 8, 2014.

  1. Flasherly

    Flasherly Guest

    That's the aim. Everybody, virtually, can now be an "home" recording
    artiste, if not podcaster. Since the last couple years, anyway, in
    case you've been sleeping.

    Interesting modules, nonetheless: Exciters for narrowing into freq. Qs
    and messing with harmonics, so-styled retro/vintage, tape, tube, and
    what all;- all kinds of (usually) parametric EQs, some with and
    variously combined to compression/limitation override controls;- all
    being software, of course, where would we be without including
    bit-level "dithering," which I won't even pretend to psycho
    acoustically bond with.

    Combinations thereof for further splitting distinctions between cross
    hairs, I should suspect would enhance a total gestalt especially when
    printing out pretty boxes for bundling up a CD inside;- if not for
    reverse-engineering standalone modules, among VST inclusions to be had
    for "chaining" into a better front end sound-processing program with
    DSP options (even with some video players being up to par in that

    So, it's now to a point of sophistication: German psycho acoustics,
    the invention of MP3, has been officially augmented for studio-grade
    "tools," (approximations thereof), both readily accessible and within
    such means that simply anyone can't afford not to notice;- Given
    they're free for a modicum of aural appreciation.

    Up to a point and for some of the plug-ins. Others, however,
    dedicated packages containing interlinked processing modules exact
    some overhead notably on CPU-usage when generously overextended.

    Probably due specious bloat code for my relatively new dual-core 3Ghz
    Intel I managed to squeeze off Ebay for $15. Therefore, I really
    should further indulge and purchase a quad core, already, albeit four
    2.33Ghz cores. It's my best course of rationalization for tearing
    down two computers, to their bare cases, and rebuilding them for all
    components diametrically opposite, to include OS migrations and one
    very careful installation of W7, so to natively utilize the quad core
    at its best vantage as a multimedia platform centre.

    That's a lot for another Ebay $25 processor, the quad core now en
    route and shipped. If I were a technician, I'd be charging over $500
    for the labor involved, alone. But I'm not and, try as I might, it'll
    be likely another insatiably deferred project (I have only pop that
    quad into this computer initially - the multimedia "target," btw, is a
    2.2Ghz dual Athlon). All on a hunch some software will perform with
    all its oars in the waters;- I presently can only eke out two modules
    of processing, from a studio suite-oriented platform, that is not
    without overloading the processor, e.g., inducing artifacts.

    Then, again, I'm running two pairs of studio-grade monitors in a
    wet/dry looped arrangement through a mixer for a two-amp feed with one
    pre amp providing the DSP-processed wet/dry reference signals. Sucks,
    I know, but at that level do I have any choice? It's not like,
    really, you can tell me I'll derive benefit or how many modules will
    take on a $25 2.33Ghz platform dispersed four-ways by Win7 (and,
    whether by advantage from 32- or 64-bit code). Not offhand, I think.
    Best just to "do it" -;) eh.
    Flasherly, Dec 8, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.