HELP: Advice new hardware for u-he Synths

[luqsuasa]

Hello,

I am planning to buy a HP Mobile Z Workstation to basically make electronic music using Cubase 9 with several instances of u-he Diva & Repro-1.

I would appreciate any help or advice regarding the following issues:

Which could be better an Intel Core i7 7th Generation or an Intel Xeon?

Windows 10 Pro 64 recommended over Windows 7 Pro 64?

These HP machines have available USB 3.0 ports but also Thunderbolt 3 ports. There is currently any audio interface available with Thunderbolt 3 that could be used with Cubase 9 (in order to minimize latency)?

Finally despite the audio interface used I have heard that of u-he Diva & Repro-1 should be better running using VST2 as well as ASIO drivers, is that true?

Thanks in advance for your kind help.

Regards.

[smoothny]

Hello,

I am planning to buy a HP Mobile Z Workstation to basically make electronic music using Cubase 9 with several instances of u-he Diva & Repro-1.

I would appreciate any help or advice regarding the following issues:

Which could be better an Intel Core i7 7th Generation or an Intel Xeon?

Windows 10 Pro 64 recommended over Windows 7 Pro 64?

Regards.

The CPU question is not that easy to answer, because there are so many other factors influencing audio dsp performance. First of all you should choose your mainboard wisely, because its the center of everything. Afaik the most used mainboard for audio PCs a the Asus workstation line ones.

If it comes to CPU most of the U-he plugins are able to make use of multicore, so more cores might be better. But the more cores you got the lower the frequency per core will be. So plugins using only one core profit of a 4 core CPU with higher frequency and multicore plugins will run better with more cores.

So best price/performance ratio might be the i7-7700k (4cores) atm or i7-8700k (6cores), if you want to spend some more money go with an i7-7820x (8core).

And for Windows you should definitly choose Windows 10 in my opinion, because it gives you the best performance from your hardware. I'm running Windows 10 for myself for a while now without any issues.

Greetings,
smoothny

[#rob]

I have heard that of u-he Diva & Repro-1 should be better running using VST2

The recommendation to use VST2 versions of our software comes from the problems our older VST3 implementations had in certain hosts. There's a fairly recent beta version of Diva available that already contains our new VST3 implementation, you can find it here. I'm not 100% sure if Repro-1 comes with the new VST3 implementation already, but by the time Repro-5 is released, there's no way around Repro-1 and Repro-5 having it.

In general, there's not really anything to gain from using Diva or Repro-1 in VST3 instead of VST2.

as well as ASIO drivers

That depends. If an interface manufacturer issues a driver, 10 out of 10 times (that I know of) it'll be an ASIO driver (on Windows). The interface manufacturer usually knows what's best for their interface, so using use their ASIO driver should give you the best overall performance and stability.

If you don't have a dedicated interface, or you're planning to use an on-board sound chip (or similar) that doesn't come with a native ASIO driver, then you have the option of using ASIO4All, a free generic ASIO driver that will "translate" between most soundcard models and ASIO. However, ASIO4All is optimized for compatibility, not performance, so you will probably still run into clicks and stuttering and drop-outs fairly quickly on most non-optimized sound chips.

I don't know of any dedicated Thunderbolt 3 interfaces, most of them are Thunderbolt 2 since it's fast enough and currently the most widely used Thunderbolt standard (to my knowledge; because it also includes older Macs). You can get a Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter from your local Apple Store or teh Interwebz, I myself have a Thunderbolt 2 interface running on a USB-C type Thunderbolt 3 port like that without any issues.

There are only few interfaces that actually have USB3 versions, and even fewer of them that REALLY support USB3 and don't just wrap the USB2 protocol over the USB3 port or something. USB3 is usually downward compatible, meaning it's absolutely fine to use USB 1.1 or USB2 interfaces on such ports, and for low track counts USB2 should be more than sufficient.

Even if the interface really uses the full USB3, it will usually have little effect on response/latency timing, the main advantage would be higher track counts when recording or slightly lower buffer settings (at the cost of more CPU munch).

If you're only going to use stereo inputs and stereo monitoring, maybe the occasional external hardware loop, then I would recommend to not insist on USB3 "or nothing else".

The actual response/latency timing depends on many more factors than just the connection. The specific USB chipsets and drivers, internal routing via DSP or hardware, AD/DA converter speeds, for example. There are some manufacturers of USB interfaces (like RME or SPL) who have certain drivers that don't use the regular USB protocol, but instead communicate with the interface in some other way. Doing that, the timings can go somewhat lower than those of regular USB interface drivers, but not necessarily in all cases.

There are so many things to watch out for, it's pretty hard to give good advice.

[lunardigs]

Which could be better an Intel Core i7 7th Generation or an Intel Xeon?

A word about Xeon. These procs are an excellent for a number of reasons. Although, unless you're very serious about stability, it may be overkill. That said, I run a 10 core Xeon (my daily driver and audio workstation) and I'm very satisfied with it.

Invoking what others have said here about the other hardware constituents, like the importance of the mainboard, etc., by taking the Xeon route, you will be compelled to buy upper tier hardware. Thereby accomplishing, almost by accident, speed and stability you might otherwise not realize with, say, a gaming rig--you will of course pay considerably more as well! Although, smart shopping can go a long way here.

Also, I should mention there are some technical challenges with putting together a Xeon workstation. If you choose this route, read up, pay close attention to specs and hardware compatibility. Moreover, understand that the BIOS on this ilk of mainboard (server boards for the most part) can be much more complicated than a typical gaming board, etc.

If I could draw an analogy between gaming rigs and server-ish rigs it might be a sports car vs an eighteen wheeler. Both have their advantages.

[luqsuasa]

Thanks very much to all for your advices.

Based on what you said to me I have been doing some research and it is clear that I have to look for an Intel with many cores as I can, so the i7-7820x seems to be a good investment.

Regarding OS, Windows 10 Pro 64 should be the best option.

Regarding the audio interface, I am willing to make a good invest on this. Currently I have an Intel Core i5 with an USB 2.0 audio interface and I would like to invest in a significant leap from this. My goal would be to work with High-quality audio (ASIO) with very low latency.

I have found that Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface could be a good option, however, The Thunderbolt 3 standard (according to the own Focusrite page) is still no supported by Windows (although is planned to be supported in a “near future”) so I understand I would need an (Apple) Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) to Thunderbolt 2 Adapter to connect the Windows 64 Pro HP machine to the Focusrite Clarett 2Pre Thunderbolt audio interface.

Anyway, I have seen the bandwidth (Gbps) difference between Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3.0 (no mention UBB 2) is really huge! And in a (hopefully) near future when Thunderbolt would be implemented for Windows will be greater, so I believe, based on my research, that if I going to make a good invest on a new machine Thunderbolt would be a best option. What do you think about this?

Best regards.

[#rob]

I have seen the bandwidth (Gbps) difference between Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3.0 (no mention UBB 2) is really huge!

More bandwidth does not necessarily mean faster response/lower latency times. Just like having more lanes in a road doesn't necessarily mean that the cars can go any faster.

And as I already pointed out, you only need the additional bandwidth if you're actually playing back and/or recording high track counts all at once. Just like you don't need 12 lanes in a road if it's only used by 2 cars.

[clangorous]

Thanks very much to all for your advices.
Anyway, I have seen the bandwidth (Gbps) difference between Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3.0 (no mention UBB 2) is really huge! And in a (hopefully) near future when Thunderbolt would be implemented for Windows will be greater, so I believe, based on my research, that if I going to make a good invest on a new machine Thunderbolt would be a best option. What do you think about this?

Best regards.

The only reason I can imagine you would need such low latency is for recording. If you buy an interface with hardware monitoring then you can record with zero latency. USB 2.0. Focusrite USB interfaces should do it. Presonus USB interfaces should do it. No need even for USB 3.0. Definitely no need for an expensive Thunderbolt interface for this purpose. I'm using an old Presonus Audiobox 44VSL and it it uses a knob to blend in as much zero latency monitoring as you want.

[lunardigs]

The only reason I can imagine you would need such low latency is for recording. If you buy an interface with hardware monitoring then you can record with zero latency ... No need even for USB 3.0. Definitely no need for an expensive Thunderbolt interface for this purpose.

This is true.

Even if you can't get a good interface with low latency and hardware monitoring, you could rely on an analog mixing board for your monitoring. This is in fact a very good route to go.

A simple scenario would be: Send the direct outs on the board to your digital interface. This way, the audio is unaffected going to your computer. Meanwhile, you can reach out to real knobs to tune-in what you're most comfortable hearing (perceptually); you can EQ your voice, use aggressive compression with inserts, etc.--whatever you like to get the best take. Meanwhile, the recorded counterpart is clean and ready to mix within your DAW.

Voila, latency then doesn't matter as much.

Moreover, quality analog gear generally has a long lifetime. If you invested in a good analog console you'd likely have this for years; there's little in the way of trends that would invalidate having an analog board.

Furthermore, there are inherit benefits to monitoring in the analog world. Firstly is the infinite response. Secondly is the absence of latency. Your brain will be most grateful.

[diaper@ky]

All great advice, every participant.

All I could add is I have Zebra2 HZ.
It’s Core locked atm.
I happen to love Diva’s Filters, as many as possible.
4.4GHz is enough.
3.6GHz Limits Instances.

I have the best FAT synth lead wah-wah. Better than my DSP Based synths, and discrete Audio ones too.
It needs 4 Osc and Dual Diva’s.

By ganging 2 sync’d Oscillators range/Pitch, following Cutoffs on an Expression Pedal I can thump some Torsos at gigs.

I’m an ASRock Rack WS Mono kind of guy for i7s.
Supermicro is King for Xeon Based rigs.

Being able to play music WHERE you want makes mobility an important factor.

[luqsuasa]

Thanks very much for your advices.

You are right, I have been researching and it’s true that the more bandwidth (or “velocity”) does not necessarily mean lower latency or better audio quality.

That is why, for instance, the reason because, although USB 3.0 is 10 times faster than 2.0, there is no so much real USB 3.0 audio interfaces on the market.

The only advantage I found of using Thunderbolt instead of USB 2.0 is if you wanted for instance to record in 24 bits a live band playing all the instruments at the same time.

Personally this is not my case; I will work basically on Cubase and VST and maybe record on or two tracks of real vocals and using 24 bits / 192 kHz of audio quality for the “VST mixing” Therefore, If I not mistaken, The money I save choosing a USB 2.0 interface over a Thunderbolt one could be better invested on, let’s say a eight cores i7 processor over a six cores i7 processor Am I right?

Regards.