DSP cards

[Jim of Seattle]

What is a DSP card for? Why would someone need one? Are they virtual instruments, or are they accelerators, or both, or neither? I do a lot of stuff on a plain old PC - what might I do that would require me to have an accelerator card installed?

[roymond]

DSPs take processing tasks off your CPU and are often specifically designed to solve challenges like hi-end graphics rendering, audio processing, etc. As machines got stronger they started to catch up to the processing needs of what are now standard tasks like graphics rendering and audio processing. At any given time we tend to get used to what our machines can do, but who wouldn't want things to happen EVEN FASTER than what we currently tollerate?

But years ago, this was not the case, especially in the Windows world where most machines were worried about summing a row of numbers in a spreadsheet. Macs were concieved and designed to process graphics and audio from day one, and therefore were the overwhelmingly favored platform from 1984 into the mid 90s for most of these things. This has obviously changed.

[stueym]

What is a DSP card for? Why would someone need one? Are they virtual instruments, or are they accelerators, or both, or neither? I do a lot of stuff on a plain old PC - what might I do that would require me to have an accelerator card installed?

Most folks add a DSP card to provide additional specific processing power for a particular audio processing task. There are a number out there but the two most well known for the PC are the UAD-1 from Universal Audio and the Powercore from TC Electronics. Each then has specific software plug-ins to perform a specific task. This takes the load of the plug-ins that would run on your PC DAW software like cubase, Pro-tools etc.

For example I have a pretty beefy PC with 2GB of Ram but when I load up with a lot of plug-ins I can get pops and crackles and processing delays. I added a UAD-1 card and now run all my compression, EQ and reverb etc using it and it frees up VST processing for cubase to do other cool stuff.

I also briefly had a Firewire Powercore but as I use a firewire interface for my Audio (Yamaha 01X) I was getting some conflicts squeezing everything through the 1394 card in my PC. Now I have a much more balanced envirnment and would love to add a second UAD-1 sometime.

Personally speaking the compression/limiting and reverb I get from the Universal Audio plug-ins is awesome and really improved the quality of several things I have been doing in cubase (well I think they do LOL)

There are other cards/DSP processors out there but these two are the two best known/widely used for PC's.

Check out http://www.uaudio.com/products/software ... index.html Beautiful digital recreations of their classic analog kit

and http://www.tcelectronic.com/PowerCoreConcept If you can afford them the Sony/Oxford plug-ins are supposed to be amazing.

[Me$$iah]

I swear by my DSP cards

Best investment ever

SuperFat synths and Pro reverbs and compressors to die for. Plus all the other effects you can imagine..all without touching my computers RAM. I just got the best sounding Hammond organ Ive ever heard, next to the real thing, and then theres the samplers complete with formant time stretching and some glorious mastering tools, not to metion the routing abilities
With my cards I can side chain effects, with duckers and limiters etc. double filters, rout audio through my synths and back out again......In fact I can move signals anywhere from/to/through anywhere. And can even act as the actual hard disk recorder if I want.
My DSP cards represent a real studio, with all the hardware are leads and desks I could ever need. But in a virtual form. Ant this combined with my cubase and VSTs just makes for an incredible pallette from which to draw

Id recommend DSP cards to anyone who is serious about making music, and want more than a computer can do.

the UAD an TC cards both sound really nice as do the cards I use.


Me$$iah


clik my sig

[blue]

1) samplers don't need DSPs
2) you still use RAM w/outboard DSPs.. it is CPU use that is reduced.

[stueym]

2) you still use RAM w/outboard DSPs.. it is CPU use that is reduced.

True, but the onboard memory used on the UAD-1 (for example)significantly reduces the memory load compared to running the equivalent (lesser) software only plug-in on the system RAM

I also love the fact that within cubase SX I can edit and control a number of the system parameters within the track, for example pumping up the compression for particularly wild vocals in just the spot needed rather than running the compression high across the entire track.

[Me$$iah]

1) samplers don't need DSPs
2) you still use RAM w/outboard DSPs.. it is CPU use that is reduced.

1. true, samplers dont need DSPs.....but the STS is a great sampler and unless you have a hardware version, why waste more comp resourses on a sampler when there one on the soundcard.
2 Also true, but as well as the reduction in CPU, by using efects of a soundcard then you dont have to use a generally inferior VST version, which obviously uses more computer resourses than onr coming from a dedicated machine. Also not all effects that are on my DSPs use the RAM, some do but some dont

But even more importantly than that, is that with my DSP cards (I currently have 2 with a total of 9 DSPs, but Im looking for more) I have Routing abilities that are impossible in any other way, other than hardware.
My DSP cards represent a multi-million dollar studio in my room, tho not all the peices of equipment fit in to that room at the same time , I can move in and out anything at anytime.
And within my studio I can wire any device to any other device, in any way I want.
It allows so many more options than just within the computer, PLUS also has all the exact same funtions cos it also has all the same computer stuff going on.
Ive just started mixing everything out of cubase and through an 'external' mixer (its actually on my DSPs) and the sound is so much better.
The CW mixers sound much better than the internal cubase mixer(which I can also use along side my CWmixer). I might do most of the mixing within cubase and just use the CW mixers to sum the groups tracks. Even that sounds better. Plus its just like an SSL desk with all the outboard you could want. I can feed wires anywhere. So its just like being in a hardware, 'big'studio. I can also automate all the fx and mixers and synths within cubase, even tho they are running from DSP. An also intergrate all my external hardwre that I have, as if it was 'within' the same room as the rest of the studio
Or
I can use all the same effects and synths as VST inserts (I lose the routing abilities mostly then tho) Just like with any other DSP card or VST effect/synth. But with a DSP card obviously the computer resourses are increased, and it becomes a better music making machine.

DSP cards can only make things better.


Me$$iah

[Adam!]

The CW mixers sound much better than the internal cubase mixer(which I can also use along side my CWmixer). I might do most of the mixing within cubase and just use the CW mixers to sum the groups tracks. Even that sounds better.

Really? Unless your sending data around at a bitdepth as high as Cubase's internal floating point computations I'd be surprised if it didn't sound worse. But, hey, the jury is still out on math. Do you have a couple short comparison wavs to demonstrate this?

With Moore's Law still in full effect, a DSP card sounds about half as awesome to me every 18 months. I personally would not want to spend money on something that gives me a sub-ghz CPU boost (no matter how dedicated) and some fancy reverbs, when I can double the performance of my existing PC for a similar amount of cash.

Caveat: There might, however, be something magical about DSP that I'm not aware of.

[roymond]

With Moore's Law still in full effect, a DSP card sounds about half as awesome to me every 18 months. I personally would not want to spend money on something that gives me a sub-ghz CPU boost (no matter how dedicated) and some fancy reverbs, when I can double the performance of my existing PC for a similar amount of cash.

Caveat: There might, however, be something magical about DSP that I'm not aware of.

ghz, schmigahurtz. It's not how fast the CPU is. It's what it does. How it is designed. The specific built-in functions it supports. Natively. Without software. DSPs generally have specific components designed to perform specific jobs very very well. And they're not that interested in general purpose things. They want to handle the complex equations necessary for hardcore reverb emulation, or piano sounds that layer multiple high quality samples for each note with varrying attacks, or ... or ...

To do this stuff on a general purpose PC is simply overwhelming. Doubling the performance of your existing PC is great if you're doing stuff your PC was designed to do. That's why it's silly to compare computer platforms based on cpu speeds and such. Putting a bigger engine in a car is just fine if you want to accelerate quickly on a highway. But if you want to fly you need wings.

[Adam!]

To do this stuff on a general purpose PC is simply overwhelming. Doubling the performance of your existing PC is great if you're doing stuff your PC was designed to do. That's why it's silly to compare computer platforms based on cpu speeds and such.

Well, I trust your judgment, Roy. Maybe I've gotten some slanted info on DSP in general, or maybe I'm biased by sub-conscious jealousy, but even after heading to the websites of several DSP card companies I can't find any examples of processing that PCs, with their not-specially designed CPUs, can't do. I'm also spooked when I read things like "Add up to 4 instances of so-and-so multiband compressor". Will four extra multiband compressors or 6 extra reverbs or 16 extra EQs matter to me in a year? Should they even matter to me now? And I'm a self-admitted ultra-high-fidelity crapsmith, but the thought of extra compressors just ain't doin' much for me. Is anyone with a reasonably new DAW really maxing out their CPU when they mix? Will a DSP-based hardware-emulating EQ sound necessarily better than a PC-based one?

Without being 12 different people I may never know.

[blue]

uh... i do not generally disagree that offloading fx processing is pretty cool, but me$$y is mashing my bullshit button about as hard as it can be mashed. convolution matrices and additive sampling sure as heck don't require a DSP, and i'm 99.9% certain that all of the commercially available DSP offload systems are built with generic processors, not ASICs. if the processors were actually super-specialized they wouldn't support as many different types of effects as they do.

the creamware system, for instance, is based on the $10 AD 21065L DSP - a 66mhz, 32 bit chip. i'd also bet money that the internal plugin code, outside of the device wrapper layer, is identical between VST/DSP/whatever versions.

if you can find me a DSP card that does nothing but, say, reverb, i'll believe that it had specialized hardware.

as for the routing and mixing and all that crap... just shut up already. there's nothing at all special about it. i mean, try to speak without all the hyperbole. you don't have millions of dollars worth of shit - you have a decent computer DAW.

[blue]

i have an AMD2400 and max my shit out with every mix, but i'm a lazy bitch and can't be arsed to edit my tracks and make them nice, and our recording space is complete shit and most of our instruments sound pretty shitty as well - so i end up with like 60 or 70 effects running on an average 20 track sos suckfest.

the biggest sound improvement i've made in years is realizing that my fucking clocks weren't synched. if you've ever wondered what that awful crackly smear all over every sos song ever was, well, now you know.

[Adam!]

If I had an AMD2400 the next time I did an upgrade I'd throw the old CPU/Mobo in another case, put it on the network and try out some of those VST-over-LAN thingies. I think that could work very well for easy mixing/mastering: just run a few multibands and L2s and crap on the 2400, and do everything else on the new fancy PC.

Off Topic: I had resource troubles when I used to abuse the RVox and the L2. Since I started using the RAxx instead, which is like a light RVox for instruments (it lets you change the attack and it has a built-in limiter) I've never had any problems (and things sound punchier, if I do say so myself). Recommended if you ever find your CPU kissing 100% (assuming you use a lot of RVox, which if my memory serves me correctly I've heard you say).

[stueym]

Back to Jim's question...I hope some of the replies have explained a little, but as you can see there are as many opinions as ever on SF!.

Reality is like any other instrument/equipment, try and find friends & acquaintances who have lots of on board "native" VST's and others who use DSP cards/devices and see how it helps their workflow and provides them tricks to do to their tracking and mastering. Then if you see a combo that looks like fun or the way you work, try it out. The great thing about most of these devices is there is always plenty of people on Ebay who want them. Other than Ebay fee's I got my money back on turning around the Powercore when I decided I would just stick with the UAD-1.

"Marshall's theory of supply & demand" in this case works to your advantage

[roymond]

Stuey brings us back down to earth. Hey, I don't own any DSPs, I've just used them in the past in radio broadcasting and publishing where they were specialized (OK...optimized, but still) units that handled tasks with grace well beyond what desktop machines could manage, without causing crashes or conflicts because there wasn't the kind of tollerance available in those environments that we have in the comfy confines of our home studios.

I max out occassionally as well, usually with 20+ tracks, soft-synths/samplers and freely-assigned effects and mastering going on simultaneously. Even with Logic's "freeze" option (but I think that was because I had completely filled my HD and had other issues). That's why I upgraded my system rather than buy a new guitar last month (in this case 800hz was working against me). And I no longer apply any mastering effects on the output until after producing a final stereo mix which is sent through Ozone on its own (duh).

Becoming more logically in how you apply these tools helps the whole process. It's too easy to simply turn everything on without thinking about how it effects the process and more importantly the final product.

For example...DO NOT USE ANY COMPRESSION OR LIMITING ON YOUR MASTER OUTS during mixing. This will help you control your peaks and give you tremendous headroom within the mix where it belongs. Only apply this with other mastering effects on a final stereo mix after the fact. It also allows you to go back and remaster at a later date without unearthing the entire project (unless that's what's needed).

[Jim of Seattle]

Holy crap, you guys know your techo-talk.

So I'm reading all this (near the end I switched to skimming), and I keep thinking there's got to be something inadequate about my ears because I'm trying to think up things I wish I could do with my music that I can't do because the computer won't let me do it, and I honestly can't think of much that doesn't have some other non-technical solution.

Add to this the worry that my music has an amateur home recording sound but no one has told me what's wrong with it, and add to that the nagging sensation that if I took one of my projects and handed all the raw tracks over to someone with a multi-million dollar virtual studio that they could make it sound so much better than I ever could, and the only way I even know that is because I'm hearing you all talk about it, rather than being able to hear it in the music itself, and I become a bundle of anxieties.

So what's wrong with me that I can't hear that I need all this extra stuff?

[starfinger]

So what's wrong with me that I can't hear that I need all this extra stuff?

You have a severe gear lust deficiency.

-craig

[blue]

jim has no soul.

[Me$$iah]

I gotta say
I dont have a multi million dollar studio, but it feels like I do. In my subjective opinion. Having worked in a number of such studios and with many home studios, built around a computer, then IMO my home studio, with its DSP cards feels more like a 'big' studio.

Blue
Dude, hyperbole is my forte....its what I do best. That and rhetoric
but seriously, dont underestimate the power of the routing abilities.
I admit that yes, there are problems with my cards,it is quite old technology.
And I also admit that I act like an obsessive over these cards and 'fanboy' them whenever possible. However, honestly, I cant think of a better addition to any studio computer than a couple of DSP boards. And if the DSPs sound good today then theyll always sound good, right. I mean who wouldnt want a real MiniMoog, even tho they're older than a lot of songfighters. And with what I hear from my CW cards, well I just love it...


Jim
One thing I cant do within cubase is side chain fx. (for Example) I can put a ducker on the bass guitar, and have it turn on and off triggered by the the kik.
there are many other options like that.
Tho i suspect the next breed of VSTs with include side chaining as standard, some all ready have this option, Wave L3 and C3 limiter and compressors I think, I may be wrong

Just to finish by saying that it aint what you got it what you do with it.
I mean early Beatles and a 4-track. But it is interesting to note that most pro studios have either heaps of expensive outboard or a really big DSP based ProTools system, and usually both to some degree.

I stuggled initially to move from working with hardware and tape to didgtal, but CW cards seem to me to bridge the gap. Sort of a virtual hardware studio, which works in the way I am used to....

[Southwest_Statistic]

When I start maxing out real-time processing power, I just start rendering effects that I know I'm going to keep...

[fluffy]

Modern CPUs already have some DSP capability built-in, via 3DNow, SSE, and AltiVec. As time goes on, software VSTs will start using that DSP capability more and more.

If you have a reasonably recent Mac with Gigabit Ethernet, Logic Pro lets you use another Mac (such as an XServe rack) as an offboard DSP engine. This can be expanded much better than a DSP can, especially since DSP cards tend to go obsolete (you can't even buy a DSP card for a current G5, for example, because they've switched entirely to PCI-Express).

And there's always freeze tracks.

One thing I wish Logic supported was Final Cut's realtime quality thing; in Final Cut Pro with a single click you can basically turn off all effects processing, turn down the render quality, etc. if you've decided to edit some stuff for timing etc. and don't want to wait for a full render/freeze/[insert app-specific term here]. With Logic you can sorta do that using bus tricks but it's a pain and you need to plan for it from the beginning, as far as I can tell.

But that's beside the point. CPUs get faster quicker than DSPs, and can do anything a DSP can now only often better (and almost always more flexibly).

This is 2006. External DSP cards are so 10 years ago.

[thehipcola]

I just bought the UAD-1 Flexipak and it friggin' rocks. Old technology or not, it still sounds better to my ears than similar types of vst plug-ins that run natively. Probably due to the plug-in programming more than the card itself, but since you need the card to run the plugs....

Old technology doesn't mean bad technology. Some of the best compressors ever made are 20+ years old. (and it just so happens that some of them are modelled quite nicely by UAD)

UAD-1 is pci express compliant. at least that's what my manual says.