If you want HDD speed, setup a SATA RAID 1 array
It basically uses two harddrives as one, writing/reading half the data on one disk and the other half on the other which (theoretically) doubles performance. It's the only way to use the capacity Serial ATA provides!

For processors: I've heard Intels Core 2 Duo is a beast (and of course I bought an AMD Athlon64 a couple of months before I found that out).
More RAM might help you out if you're having trouble handling lots of data, it might also give your harddrive some peace. Remember: RAM is (relatively) cheap!

Yeah the core 2 duo, all I could think of was conroe... too many computer magazines. I forgot about the raid array. I've never set one up, although I'd love to with a pair of raptors. SPEED!!!

i'm gonna read the previous big posts in a bit
but my guts say this: if you're planning on investing big money on a good processor, wait a few months before that and check the news regularly
aparently there might be something dethroning dual core itself, by some stuff that i've heard around (all gossip though)

[JuZ]

Damnable gossip... there's always something bigger and badder around the corner.

Good news is I won't have any cash to splash for AT LEAST 6 months, so I figure after christmas I'm going to really start reading up, soaking up as much information as I can before I even consider a purchase!

i'm gonna read the previous big posts in a bit
but my guts say this: if you're planning on investing big money on a good processor, wait a few months before that and check the news regularly
aparently there might be something dethroning dual core itself, by some stuff that i've heard around (all gossip though)

It's not gossip, it's Kentfield. It's a Quad Core processor from Intel that's already being benchmarked. Then next year another quad that has better communication between cores.

The thing is, how much is enough? The answer lies within what one plans on doing with it. As I said earlier I'm doing a 96 track 24 bit mixdown and my 2.4 pentium is just being slaughtered by the data. A dual core 2.93 ghz core duo should tear through that data IF the program can do multi threading. If one is just planning on doing small projects, like 24-32 tracks at mixdown you don't need that extra power. My computer can do those in it's sleep with mass REPLACEs and fx on. Hell it could have "probably" handled The New Black or say A.E. for all intents and purposes. But then again I do things kind of oddly in comparison to commercial studios, and I only record 4 or 5 bands a year.
If you want to start out cheap, Start with a plan of what you want to be able to do tomorrow, in 6 months and in 2 years. If what you want to do is drums-guitar-bass-vocals and maybe some keys, you should never have to go above the 32 track threshold. For that, anything released in the last year should more then suffice. If you want to be an over-zealous ass like me, maybe you go for the more power.

Cheap setup for 24-48 tracks (max)
Pentium D 2.93 ghz or better
200 gig 7200 rpm hdd or better
At least a gig of ram

A system like this should run no more then $1000. After that, I/O, cubase and whatever else floats yer boat.
Uh... yeah


Or maybe I should just fuck off...

the gossip part actually said that it was going to be CHEAPER than the regular dual cores, since it's something that's hard to believe and i heard it from someone else and not read it somewhere trusty, i just called it gossip right away

[JuZ]

A system like this should run no more then $1000. After that, I/O, cubase and whatever else floats yer boat.
Uh... yeah


Or maybe I should just fuck off...

Fuck no! All this advice is genuinely appreciated it'll all be put to use. Eventually.

I want a mac. My pc sucks pidgeons from Palermo! Why you little ..stupid computer

tboatbprod, you have some amazing tunes there!

I think it's important to note Dev's specific compression techniques. The way compression has basically been presented in the topic is like "compress most things and it sounds good," which is absolutely untrue. In fact, I'd say compression is a terrible thing on the whole, and only good when used correctly.

With that said, it also depends on the release in question. For something like Physicist, where the focus 24/7 is hard hitting metal, part of shaping that kind of desired sound is to compress basically everything so that everything is as loud as possible as often as possible. You can really tell in a song like "Namaste" - while the volume is slightly lower when it's just Dev playing the intro guitar (again, smart of him not to compress the whole track so it's as loud when he just plays his guitar as when the whole band plays at the same time), when the band goes full-on, the volume is maxed constantly. However, prime examples of selective, well-done compression techniques are present on Ocean Machine and Terria. Consider "Mountain" - boy that song comes in hard, every piston firing, but when it calms down after the final power chord, you've got a billion distant voices and guitar harmonics flowing like streams, and you have to crank the speakers just to grab any nuance (which you shouldn't do, since "Earth Day" will then crush the shit out of your poor speakers!). That's because the heavy-as-shit parts are compressed, but those distant guitars, they were left as is, and shoved way down in the mix. The dynamic range covered by both Terria and Ocean Machine is incredible - real headphone records, those two.

Dynamics are incredibly important. They're one of the easiest and most skillful ways of controlling the intended emotion; just grab a Mono (the Japanese post-rock band, not monaural ) record and you'll get a first-rate lesson in the intense importance of dynamics in relation to expression. The song "Yearning" has a quiet, sorrowful dual-clean guitar exposition, then builds and explodes into a brutal sludge assault, but I don't even think those heavy parts are compressed (at least not in post production), because they sound very raw and don't form a giant square wave.

Speaking of square waves, if anyone here is a Porcupine Tree fan, I highly recommend getting the non-remastered releases. While Steven Wilson is a fantastic producer and mixer, his remasters he's been releasing since 2003-ish have consistently been top contenders in the loudness war, and it ruins his records. Search Wikipedia for "loudness war" to get more on this sorry state of mastering affairs.

Static2: Are you a fellow producer, by chance? Well, maybe that's not the right word... Are you a fellow 'mixing enthusiast?' I completely agree with just about everything you've said regarding compression; the 'loudness war' is definately ruining a lot of potentially good mixes nowadays, but at the same time that level of compression can sometimes be necessary for some kinds of music... Though perhaps not to such a ridiculous extent as, say, Vader's latest EP and subsequent album.

I try to keep my mixes well away from the red, with the exception of some demo mixes I've posted and if someone I'm mixing really, really wants it to be louder. I've received some complaints on my music because it's "too quiet", so maybe I'll just link people to that wiki article in the future instead of trying to explain why that's a good thing to me.

I think even "mixing enthusiast" is too narrow! I'm basically a sonics connoisseur (wow that sounds pretentious). Any information on sound I get, I try to store, and just generally will read through, even if it's intense physics formulas. Since I began making my own music and taking music courses in university, I've been getting more and more into picking out specifics in music, so naturally an interest in mixing and mastering follows. With a guy like Dev and the back catalog he's got to look through, you could spend days talking about his mixing and mastering alone, which is a big draw for me besides how well he can write. Plus, with my band just releasing a demo record and with the master tracks on their way to my possession, I definitely want to be on top of mixing techniques and post-production (especially since the recording was decently amateurish ).

Anyway, I'm glad there are others interested in the production side of Dev's music, because he's very very good at what he does. So many people these days are only interested in catchy emo one-liner lyrics and 3-minute radio songs (even the other people in my band), and it's a giant relief to come into the Dev forums and see a topic like this with at least one person in it who can talk about post-production techniques with knowledge behind them.

Also, I recently "remastered" a Kyuss record, and was amazed to find that all I had to do was apply a limiter with a bit larger threshold to get their record up to a volume level on par with their later ones. What was so amazing was that it kept the dynamics EXACTLY as they were, but also compressed the one or two snare hits per song that were registering near-peaks (compared to the rest of the mix, which hit a max of like -30 dB). I'm very touchy about compression, but that limiter blew my friggin' mind!

Amen, Brother.
One thing I've always kept in mind as far as compression goes is that if it's used right you never hear it. I said earlier here that the general habit was to compress everything as hard as you can. That is very true, and keeping in mind with what you just said, I never said it was right, just the common practice. The problem is you can hear the compression nowadays.
I think one misconception happens when a novice engineer looks at the final product of a recording which has already been limited (and therefore everything in the wave form visually as loud as everything else), that is that it is all compression. A limiter does retain ALOT of dynamics in full music, and just as you observed in namaste the single parts remain constant to the fuller parts, and I know that first guitar part was limited right along with the rest of the track.
My point is if you want things to not get lost, you compress properly. Biggest reason for it is to not have to fight the thing every step in the mix. And while you're right about dynamics in music, sadly dynamics rarely exist in anything remotely pop. That's the nature of the beast, and we can control it.

HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

There's a nasty habit of using compression / limiting when mastering to make it SUPER loud,.. which is fine if people are gonna listen to your CDs in the car or whatever.

The loundess war is something which i ain't a fan of, since you loose all the dynamics of music. Unless it's black metal, which it probably doesn't have much of anyway.

But yeah, Devin just seems to sit things in the logical place - and use compression on stuff that needs it (drum groups, bass).

A lot of the stuff that's been said is good stuff, and most of it is accurate imo.

The problem is you can hear the compression nowadays.
I think one misconception happens when a novice engineer looks at the final product of a recording which has already been limited (and therefore everything in the wave form visually as loud as everything else), that is that it is all compression.

Plus there's a lot of "multi" function software too,.. Stuff like T-racks etc, that are "EQs" but really have eqs, compression, limiting and all sorts within them.

So, it's not really a surprise that a lot of people just think that they'll add an effect and it'll sound like what they want, without having to think and use their ears.