Am i crazy? do i need two computers?

[sabianq]

I am building a new mobile workstation from existing equipment to keep costs down.
I just want to banter ideas off the folks here to see if i really need what i think i need:
i think i need 2 computers for what i want to accomplish.
and I want it to all fit in a 10U flight case.

here is the Pre-amp and AD/DA equipment list
1 MOTU 2408 MK3 with the PCI 424 card (1U)
1 Aardvark LX6 with the PCI (small break out box)
1 Ashly MX-508 mixer (3U)

other outboard gear
1 wireless microphone by shure (1U)
Lexicon processor (1U)
2 DBX 160 compressors (2U)
thinking i don't need the lexicon or the compressors and should sell them (maybe)
or
keyboard tray with dual monitors (1U-2U)
(the monitors ironically fit nicely in the Case covers
and can be set up on top of the case to provide a dual monitor/system GUI)

now for the computer
I have an old (2U) AMX AXF-BP i stripped for the case to rack the PC in.

here is my train of thought

this is what i am trying to accomplish:
a mobile recording studio with 8 channels of audio:
the Ashly MX-508 will send direct outs to the 8 inputs of the MOTU 2408.
The MOTU will return its 8 outs to the ashly for DSP effects

there will be a 24 channel rack panel punch out with:
8 XLR female, for microphone inputs
8 TRS inputs for line level,
2 RCA in for IPOD or other external source,
4 XLR male 2 for aux send and 2 for main out for audio reinforcement,
1 firewire in for Digital Video to the PC.
there will also be a patch bay with connections to the Ashly,
Aardvark and Motu for independent routing.

both the MOTU and the Aardvark have PCI cards for connections

why do i want to run dual audio interfaces?
I like to have the ability to record what one interface is outputing,
and redundancy (this set up will be used to record meetings and live events.

I know that the MOTU has issues related to IRQ and i have tried to plug them into the
same computer with unacceptable results, so needless to say, I have always used
multiple computers with my set up. all of my past computers have been of the single core variety (cause i am old)
(except for my most recent addition of my dual CPU ebay find a year ago, but that thing is a monster and i should sell it too)

I am thinking that with the advent of small form factor motherboards and multi core processors,
i have to wonder if it is possible to run dual PCI interfaces from different manufactures together in harmony.

or if i still need to think about stuffing two MINI-ITX motherboards in one 2U rack case.
after doing some research, it looks like i can fit 2 MINI-ITX motherboards in the case quite easily,
however the cost goes up substantially when you add two power supplies, double memory and CPU's to the system.

so here is what i want the architecture specifications of the PC to be.

either dual motherboards, cpu and memory in a MINI-ITX form factor for independent operation,
(or) multi core processor(s) on an ATX form factor with plenty of PCIe, PCIx and PCI slots,
serial ATA connections and maxed out memory (4gig~8gig windows XP or XP 64 bit edition.)
wireless LAN and gigabit wired lan connections
the Operating system shall reside on a solid state ATA/ide SLC hard drive,
while the Serial ATA will raid 0+1 4 Solid State hard drives.
2 samsung DVD burners
and a USB2.0 multi card reader in front.
the system should be completely solid state (sans the Optical burners)
with no moving parts
I would even like to eliminate cooling fans as well and go with a passive set up.

the software being used is Cakewalk Sonar 5 Producer edition, Adobe audition, Adobe premier and Adobe Photoshop,


I guess what i am trying to figure out is if there is any benefit in a system with two independent motherboards,
CPU's and memory linked by a gigabit LAN over one motherboard with a multi-core processor

holler at me with your thoughts,
Thanks!

[swellis01]

Wow! that's gonna be a long think. Hmmm.

To answer your last question, I believe one computer with a quad core and at least 8 gigs of ram would probably be better than 2 comps linked via a gigabit lan. This would help with any latency issues between the two computers. Sure the bandwidth on the GB lan is awesome, but the latency in the controllers might slow you down. However, your slot (not slut) requierements might be a bit extreme for one board. I would have to write it out and look at server solutions.

Okay, disreguard last thought. looking over your routing design, I get the idea of the MX508 into the MOTU. I am at a loss about your current setup from there. Here's what I am thinking.

Mics/lines into 8 channels of MX 508. Mix and mains out for live. Direct outs (PreFL obviously) into MOTU 1/4" analog ins. Digitize and use the channels from the MOTU's PCI card as audio inputs into each channel of your DAW. Easy. Go crazy with your outboard panel patch bay.

I am not sure why you want to include the Ardvark. My only guess is that you want it for DSP effects in the Ashley's effect loop for the mains. Is it just delay/verb you are using? How about patching back in the Lexicon for your live effects. If it's for the recording side, I think the Ardvark could safely be substituted with sofware effects, either VST or built-in to any of the DAWs you mentioned. That would open up 1 more PCI Slot and IRQ, and might be worth selling.

As for a computer to stick in your case (I would seriously check out a differnt case, one that is 2U-3U but made for the ATX form with proper expantion slots) a Core2Duo quad core with 8 gigs of Ram would be just the thing.
I like your idea about no moving parts, but the solid state drives don't (yet) measure upto the fastest 7200 and 10000 RPM drives. They are close, and theoretically better, but still suffer from latency issues. Great burst throughput, but no longevity. Hmmm, sounds familiar...Anyway, The 2 DVD burners would be necessary for software installation and updates. Also, yours would not be the first mobile recording studio in a flight case. People have been doing this for some time with great results using standard hard drives. I think the typical hard drive can withstand 200Gs of force. It's in their specs.

Those are my initial thoughts.
Steve

[TimOBrien]

ASIO (the low-latency way to communicate with audio hardware) only allows ONE driver to work at a time.

If you want multiple interfaces, you need to use the same company working on the same driver so they can communicate.

For example, I can add 2 more Motu boxes to my 828mkII and the same Motu driver will see all 3 boxes as one big unit with 60 i/o's.

[sabianq]

Tim and Steve,
Thanks for the response.

The reason reason i want multiple interfaces is not to expand the I/O's rather for redundancy (recording to seperate media simultaneously) and the option to "Track Sample" (my own term for a type of "digital to analog to digital" mastering technique)
when i was doing some work for my grandmother restoring some really old cassette tapes of my grandfather recounting his life, one of the tapes i transferred got destroyed after the first pass. while i had gotten a digital file out of the tape, the sample was pretty badly distorted.
While trying to digitally mess around with the sample to make it sound better using filters from Sonar and Audition, the only thing they did was make the sample worse.
so out of frustration i sent the signal to my mixer to have a listen. i discovered that by utilizing the PEQ in the channel strip, the sample could be made marginally better. out of shear curiosity in the spirit of experimentation, i split the mono signal and sent it to two channels and played with the PEQ and pan controls the sample could be made to sound even better, so i spit them again and sent the signal to 4 channels and summed the output to stereo. with 4 channels of the same signal running parallel, using channel PEQ's really allowed one to pinpoint frequencies for attenuation or boosting, and having 4 pan controls on a mono signal routed to a stereo out lets you have great control over frequency placement.
adjustments can be done in real time and since it is analogue, there is no digital destruction. the corrected analogue stereo output was then re digitized and sampled to my other computer through my Aardvark utilizing sonar.

i guess that what i want/need (desire) is two independent audio interfaces that do not communicate with each other.

and i am trying to figure out is if it is possible for one computer with a multicore processor to run two independent instances of Sonar 5 (or Sonar and Audition) with each one controlling their own AD/DA.

or if i should just build two independent computers housed in one enclosure.

I am thinking about utilizing the MINI-ITX form factor as 2 will easily fit in a 2U enclosure with room for optical drives power supplys, media card readers, etc....

right now i am researching low cost, high performance core 2 duo MINI-ITX system boards.

but if one system board and a multicore processor can do what i want then that would be a plus.

hmmm.........

[swellis01]

I get it. You want two seperate programs recording at the same time, from two seperate audio interfaces and want to know if one system can handle it via a multi-core processor. Sound like I'm on the right track?
The answer is yes. I have Sonar 7PE and Adobe Audition 3.1. My interfaces include a Tascam DM3200 over firewire (32 channels at once!) and an m-audio Delta 1010lt and 66. As long as one interface's ASIO drivers are not being used by both progams, I can record into both from different interfaces. ie-several channels from the Tascam into AA3 and several channels from the Delta 100lt into Sonar. It's just the ability to use two large programs at once that you need. Or, both interfaces into two instances of either program would work. Using one interface into two programs at the same time would be a problem.

Since your AD/DA conversion happens in your interfaces, (the MOTU and Ardvark in your case) and not in the software domain, (ie-within windows) you don't need to worry about the horsepower needed for this process. The devices are doing the work. The biggest hurtle is the memory size and bandwidth (for running two big programs at the same time) and Hard drive bandwidth (for the moving of long worded audio streams).

With this in mind, I am going to second my own recommendation for one computer. If you can update your Sonar to a higher version, multicore support is much better. Same for Audition.

S

[sabianq]

Hi Swellis,
I know you are correct.
the only problem with is with the PCI-424 by MOTU.
Apparently, the MOTU PCI-424 does not play well with dual core systems.
http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technotes/pci-424-compatibility
PC motherboards that utilize dual-processors, hyperthreading, or 64-bit processing will also not likely work with the original 424 card.

apparently, i need a single core processor to really take advantage of the 2408 mk3 or upgrade to the PCIe-424 card.

right now, it is way cheaper to dig out my old MSI mobo with the AMD Sempron 3500 cpu.

:(

but on a side note:
this is very interesting..
The PCI-424 card included with 2408mk3, 24I/O, and HD192 PCI Express Core Systems is compatible with all PCI Express form factors.
We refer to this card as the "PCIe-424".

so does this mean that the PCIe-424 card will work in a laptop with a PCI express slot (assuming that an adapter exists)?

I would love to have the 2408 mk3 be compatible with a notebook.

[sabianq]

so here is a PCI Express Mini to PCI Express X1 adapter
http://www.adexelec.com/pciexp.htm
(bobtom of the page, the PEMINI2X1)

i wonder if this will work
hmmm...........

[sabianq]

Yes, Apparently, i do need two computers to do what i want.
so i am planning on using two mini-ITX form factors shoehorned into a 2U rack mount chassis.

now i am trying to figgure out if the intel ATOM 330 on this motherboard will support the PCI-424 and the 2408 MKIII running Sonar 5 producer

the other computer will support my Aardvark LX running either Sonar or Audition.