Newest Ryzen processor with windows 7 and sawstudio?

[PaulH]

Hi,

I am getting another computer and avoiding windows 10, as I read here it doesn't work well with SAW. Someone can make me one (specs below) and put windows 7 on it. he said the only issue between the newest AMD RYZEN is a popup from Microsoft that one can disable. I also found an older music machine at B&H that already has windows 7 on it, and is slightly faster than my old machine. the new Ryzen build is much faster, at i7 speed.

I am looking to get this in a few days. Just wanted to check that the new Ryzen with windows 7 would be okay with SAW.

Details below.

Thanks

NEW BUILD:

AMD RYZEN 5 2400G Quad-Core 3.6 GHz (3.9 GHz Turbo) Socket AM4 65W YD2400C5FBBOX Desktop Processor with RX VEGA

LINK TO NEW BUILD: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Protools-Ready-Ryzen-5-2400G-Quad-Core-PC-Computer-500GB-SSD-Firewire-16GB-HDMI-/173264555715?hash=item28575f4ec3

WHAT BUILDER ADVISED: "One more thing I do need to mention. AMD, Intel, and Microsoft no longer provide support for Windows 7 on their Ryzen or newer 6th, 7th, or 8th Gen Intel CPUs. They claim Microsoft doesn't support it, but I have been installing Windows 7 on them for the past year and customers haven't had issues other than an annoying popup from MicroSoft that says CPU is no longer supported but you can manually uninstall that warning. The last CPUs supported would be the older AMD FM2 APUs, Am3 CPUS or 5th Gen Intels which would be drastic reduction in performance. I can switch to one of those older systems if you prefer to avoid this, but wanted to give you the heads up before we do this. I honestly don't believe you'll run across any compatibility issues with the Ryzen running Windows 7."

LINK TO OLDER MUSICXPC machine at B&H:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801622984-USE/musicxpc_24_51026_c20i_compact_music_production.ht ml

[Cary B. Cornett]

I just went through a new pc build myself, with a Ryzen 6 core processor. i was going to install Win7 and learned the hard way that I could not, because 7 no longer supports the newest hardware (lack of proper drivers). You either have to go with older hardware or give in and go with Win10. I did the latter, since I had already assembled the new machine. Yes, Win10 is a PITA to set up properly for SawStudio (or real-time processing in general), but my new build does work fine with SawStudio so far. I still have some kinks to iron out with the new system, but the facts are there now.

Again, either you go with older hardware to work with Win7 or you put up with Windows10 if you have to have the new stuff, such as the Ryzen processor.

I believe some others here are also now using SawStudio with Windows10, and at least one user has reported acceptable performance with that combination on either this or the SAC forum.

[Dale B]

God news about Windows 10. I don't see much on here about Windows 8.1. I have two 8.1 machines that run SAC/SAW very well. It did take some tweaking but hey are solid and one runs SAC/SAW at 2x32 with no issues.

[Bruce Callaway]

FWIW, I have been using Windows 10 with SAC and Sawstudio since Windows 10 appeared and have had no problems. I applied the Windows tweaks that were applicable. Not sure why people think it wont work.

Cheers

[Richard Rupert]

FWIW, I have been using Windows 10 with SAC and Sawstudio since Windows 10 appeared and have had no problems. I applied the Windows tweaks that were applicable. Not sure why people think it wont work.

CheersSame experience here. My remote recording machine and SAC are running on Win 10, but I still have trusty old Win XP on the studio machine. All are working beautifully.

[Dave Labrecque]

Same experience here. My remote recording machine and SAC are running on Win 10, but I still have trusty old Win XP on the studio machine. All are working beautifully.

I'm with Richard and Bruce. Windows 10 x64 working fine here with one caveat: UAD plug-ins in a session cause edit wait time (i.e., the time it takes for the edit to execute after hitting the relevant key -- say, K for a region split) to increase over time starting from when SAW was opened. The more UAD plug-ins in the session, the more pronounced this effect. Example: with lots of UAD plug-ins instantiated in a session, after about ten minutes of editing, I'm waiting well over a second for each edit operation to execute. Work-around: close and re-open SAW. Wash and repeat.

I would also mention that I did the relevant OS tweaks per Bob and chased down a few background processes that were hassling "the ride." More and more I'm liking the idea of a dedicated DAW machine, which I've not yet enjoyed in this lifetime. :p

[Bob L]

Dave,

My guess is the UAD plugs take time to save their settings... and the more of them, the more time to save... each time you do an edit command, SAW creates an undo file and all the plugs have to save their settings by passing the info to SAW... I would bet if you turn off the auto-edl undo option in SAWs Options menu, the delay goes away... of course you are no longer creating automatic undo files... but you could work that way and then force undo snapshots along the way whenever you want.

Bob L

[MMP]

My guess is that you are pushing into virtual memory. I use tons of UAD without these issues, but I am using 64bit versions with jBridge.

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave,

My guess is the UAD plugs take time to save their settings... and the more of them, the more time to save... each time you do an edit command, SAW creates an undo file and all the plugs have to save their settings by passing the info to SAW... I would bet if you turn off the auto-edl undo option in SAWs Options menu, the delay goes away... of course you are no longer creating automatic undo files... but you could work that way and then force undo snapshots along the way whenever you want.

Bob L

Bob -- interesting theory. I believe when I've tried that trick in the past (per your suggestion), it worked. But I'll have to verify that.

Still, though, that wouldn't explain the fact that the wait time increases over time, would it? Same number of UAD plug-ins allow for near-instantaneous edit operations when SAW is first opened, but after ten minutes of editing, the wait is over a second for each edit. I would add, for what it's worth, that this happens even when I'm only editing a single track of the many tracks that have the plug-ins, and making no changes to any plug-in settings. I suppose you're saying that they all have to save their settings, regardless. Just adding some info.

My for-now fix as been to not open a mix template with a zillion UAD plugs on various tracks if I'm doing a simple voice-over (one or two tracks), which is the bulk of my work these days. The issue is way, way, way less pronounced that way.

[Dave Labrecque]

My guess is that you are pushing into virtual memory. I use tons of UAD without these issues, but I am using 64bit versions with jBridge.

Do you mean a system swap file, Michael? I have virtual memory turned off on my machine, FWIW. 8 GB RAM.

Good guess, though, I'd think.

JBridge, huh? Maybe I'll look into that approach. Thanks.

Curious -- are you using JBrige with UAD plugs specifically for the 64-bit capability? What benefits (aside from my issue) do you see? I ask because it seems it would be much simpler to just use the 32-bit versions.

[MMP]

The advantage is that it opens up system memory. I just found my system to be more stabie when not hitting the limits of 32bit memory. It*s a little tweaky, but runs better on my computer.

[Bob L]

Dave... the UAD plugins may be leaking memory and as time goes on... more and more memory is locked out slowing everything down to a crawl until the programs are shutdown and memory is freed again.

Bob L

[Microstudio]

Just a thought here guys, I bought a 2010 Mac Pro quad core 2.8 and 7gb ram for $597 shipped in awesome condition. I then upgraded to 32gb ram for $89 free shipping. I installed win7 on it and it is a absolute rock solid screamer. It's all about the hardware and the drivers. I have the latest MacOS and Win7 for very little investment and I can still upgrade it to a 6 core cpu. Love my WinMac!

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16106008_970062143127521_6974433581052518682_n.png ?_nc_cat=0&oh=bbc095089cc2c1a3cd90f81a7ddc0d17&oe=5B608D98

[Bruce Callaway]

More and more I'm liking the idea of a dedicated DAW machine, which I've not yet enjoyed in this lifetime. :p Thats what I've tried to do Dave. No typical desktop apps installed at all, just other applications used in the recording/mastering/CD burning process. I should add video production apps as well.

Cheers

[Dave Labrecque]

Thats what I've tried to do Dave. No typical desktop apps installed at all, just other applications used in the recording/mastering/CD burning process. I should add video production apps as well.

Cheers

Nice. How's the ride so far?

[Bruce Callaway]

Nice. How's the ride so far?Its been very good Dave. For recording, I use 1 x 32 buffers with RME using SAC/Sawstudio and that has been very stable. For mixing and mastering, I increase the buffers to 1024 using Sawstudio only. The only gliches are caused by adding too many plugins at the same time. I bought a powerful Intel CPU (dont have the model in specs in front of me) a few years ago and it still works like a dream. In the case of too many plugins causing problems (Drumagog is a good example), I render separate files for channels that have CPU hungry plugins, add the rendered file to the channel and remove the plugins. Pretty simple stuff that I am sure everyone else does as well.

[Dave Labrecque]

Its been very good Dave. For recording, I use 1 x 32 buffers with RME using SAC/Sawstudio and that has been very stable. For mixing and mastering, I increase the buffers to 1024 using Sawstudio only. The only gliches are caused by adding too many plugins at the same time. I bought a powerful Intel CPU (dont have the model in specs in front of me) a few years ago and it still works like a dream. In the case of too many plugins causing problems (Drumagog is a good example), I render separate files for channels that have CPU hungry plugins, add the rendered file to the channel and remove the plugins. Pretty simple stuff that I am sure everyone else does as well.

Cool. Yeah, I need to do that dedicated machine thing.

Why do you up the buffers in post-production? Do all the plug-ins require that kind of latency?

[Bruce Callaway]

Why do you up the buffers in post-production? Do all the plug-ins require that kind of latency? Once I enter the mixing stage, I add a lot more plugins than during recording. I try to keep Sawstudio as "uncluttered" as possible when recording. From experience, the more plugins I use, the more buffers I need. Some of these plugins do tend to use a lot more CPU and buffers than others. If I don't increase the buffers, I will get an error message or Sawstudio will freeze. Again Drumagog is a culprit in that regard. The Sonoris mastering plugins are other examples of plugins requiring a lot more buffers.

During mixing, I also use Melodyne (usually standalone) for editing vocal and instruments pitching. I find that Melodyne is best used with a increased buffers as well. So increasing the buffer size generally means that Sawstudio with all the plugins works fine. The increase in latency is not an issue is no recording is taking place.

Cheers

[cgrafx]

Once I enter the mixing stage, I add a lot more plugins than during recording. I try to keep Sawstudio as "uncluttered" as possible when recording. From experience, the more plugins I use, the more buffers I need. Some of these plugins do tend to use a lot more CPU and buffers than others. If I don't increase the buffers, I will get an error message or Sawstudio will freeze. Again Drumagog is a culprit in that regard. The Sonoris mastering plugins are other examples of plugins requiring a lot more buffers.

During mixing, I also use Melodyne (usually standalone) for editing vocal and instruments pitching. I find that Melodyne is best used with a increased buffers as well. So increasing the buffer size generally means that Sawstudio with all the plugins works fine. The increase in latency is not an issue is no recording is taking place.

Cheers


If you use SAC as your front end for SAW Studio, you don't have to swap configurations / make buffer size changes.

Leave SAW Studio at the default buffer size (which I believe is 4x1024) and let SAC do the low latency heavy lifting at 1x32.

You get the benefit of low latency monitoring and playback and the relaxed buffer settings to allow SAW studio to run more plugins or plugins that required higher buffer settings.

[Bruce Callaway]

If you use SAC as your front end for SAW Studio, you don't have to swap configurations / make buffer size changes.

Leave SAW Studio at the default buffer size (which I believe is 4x1024) and let SAC do the low latency heavy lifting at 1x32.

You get the benefit of low latency monitoring and playback and the relaxed buffer settings to allow SAW studio to run more plugins or plugins that required higher buffer settings.I tried using that setup and Sonoris mastering plugins among others cause problems. FWIW, I also found that getting midi connections to Sawstudio for MWS wont work when SAC is loaded. So to record MWS files, I only have Sawstudio running.