Rarely do I ask anymore, but when I do see a vague question related to audio hardware, I will ask that the user fill out their system spec.I stand corrected as to why the post was made. However, since your statement gets to the heart of my main issue with system specs, I must ask you this: why in the world would you ever ask someone to "fill out their system specs" rather than instead ask them a specific question about their audio hardware??

If you ask the "system spec" question, the person might simply put down "SoundBlaster." In fact, that is almost certainly all they'd provide! You'd then have no idea which model or driver they have; whether it was a discrete card, or on the motherboard; or whether -- if it was a card -- the person had disabled the on-board "sound card."

You'd then have to ask another question.

I need to make a key point to SCS about the nature of your customer base, how that affects how this forum should be run, and why the current culture around "system specs" is so counter-productive.

The video editing software market divides into the Broadcast, Professional, and Consumer markets. Avid controls the Broadcast market. The Consumer market is for people who want to edit and upload their iPhone or camcorder videos to YouTube for their own personal enjoyment. By contrast, the Professional market (where Vegas Pro competes) is for people who prepare videos for sale. This is their livelihood. More to the point, they have deadlines. When something doesn't work, they get frantic, angry, upset, and edgy. We've all been there.

It therefore galls me to see any encouragement of a practice which delays an answer and which doesn't immediately help the person: Please fill out your system specs before we will answer your question. is not the way to provide rapid, targeted help.

As a fellow engineer, would you ever ask a colleague to provide ten pieces of code, when all you really needed was one of them? No, you would ask them for the one code segment you needed, and what's more, you'd give them very specific directions as to what you needed. Therefore, why would you ask a person for nine pieces of information that are not relevant to the issue at hand (i.e., the "system spec"), when all you needed was the sound card specs?

I do understand, however, that in asking that the system specs be filled out before any question is ever asked in the first place, there is an implicit assumption (which I am challenging) that the information in that list will be sufficient to answer any particular issue which involves a question about hardware. This will therefore make it quicker to answer that question.

That is the unstated argument in favor of insisting on system specs in the first place.

Fine, have people fill out the system specs. Upgrade and enhance the list if you like. In fact, if you think it is so important to the operation of this forum make it a requirement so that people cannot post until they've filled them out.

I have no objection to any of that.

But please, please please, be a good engineer and when you are dealing with a customer who is under deadline, ask specifically and directly for any missing information, rather than this tangential, indirect method of asking for "system specs." And don't be so naïve as to expect that this "system spec" information, even if enhanced in the future, will be sufficient to answer the majority of hardware questions. Most hardware issues are far more complex and involve interactions between components, rather than the components themselves.

Finally, as I've pointed out in the other post I started, asking people for "system specs" is most definitely often used to intimidate and haze newbies. People keep saying that I haven't provided examples, but as I stated in my initial post in that other thread, I didn't do this because I didn't want to "call out" individual people. I did, however, try to provide an indirect answer to those calls for examples by providing a Google search of "system spec" posts in this forum so people could read them themselves, if they chose to do so. I recommend that people go back and review that list themselves. You won't need to read far before you see examples of what I am talking about.

But, if you really want examples, I'll provide them, but then I will no longer post here because I will have violated rule #1 in this forum, which asks me not to: "Harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress or discomfort upon another Services participant, user or other individual or entity."

In fact, my whole goal is to do just the opposite: I want to help people, and my long posts are aimed at providing complete, accurate, thoughtful replies to people's problems, and to help them complete their project on time so they can make some money.

Here is a photo of a motherboard I retired last year. Still ran, but would occasionally hang. Bunch of failing caps, bulging outward on top. Compare with the good cap in the upper-left corner.Hey, that looks identical to the mobo I'm working on now!

As for the capacitor discussion, I don't understand what underlying point anyone is trying to make. Everyone keeps coming back and saying that different manufacturers use different components, and some of them are even selected based on measured specifications ("binning"). That is true. However, at the risk of repeating what I've already stated twice, "binning" and component quality have nothing to do with performance. Yes, "binning" is how CPU speeds are determined (the 2.6 GHz and 2.8 GHz chips are the same die, but are selected based on the speed they test), but no vendor puts the 2.8 GHz version of the same chip into their machine and then markets it as a 2.6 GHz computer!

Therefore, you are not going to get some secret, better performance from a computer that has been built with these better parts. I think that is the argument some people are trying to make in some tangential argument about why system specifications are so important, although I'm no longer clear on why this subject has been brought up.

Finally, the statement "If what you say would actually be true, computer companies like Dell and others would be out of business a long time ago because everyone would just buy their PC from the cheapest manufacturer" is especially hard to fathom because that is precisely what has been happening for the past twenty years!! What do you think happened to Compaq, Gateway, & Micron? They are all shells of what they were, or were bought out because they could no longer stand on their own because their profit margins got squeezed to absolutely nothing. AST is gone, as is Northgate.

I refer you to this article: How the 'value trap' squeezes Windows PC makers' revenues and profits. Articles like this have been run since the early 1990s, and the computer industry keeps consolidating, and the current, remaining four or five major players keep reporting marginal results. In case you missed it, just a little over a year ago, Dell went private in a very complex financial deal in an attempt to save the company from almost certain ruin, caused by the commodity nature of their business:

Slumping Dell bows out of stock market in $24.4 billion buyout; Microsoft investing in deal with a $2 billion loan -- February 5, 2013

to johnmeyer, I am sorry to say you are confusing some very broad market changes with the issue of "commodity" computers and their deriviiatives.

Companies like DELL, Compaq and HP were once great suppliers of the workstation (several iterations also note aka terminals) for business users desktops. That is entirely a different kind of dynamic from the suppliers of components for NLE class workstations.

As a rule NLE environs were always ruled by the custom build market and while the sheer number of suppliers may be shrinking for components , there is strong variability in this arena of custom desktops.

So maybe commodity issues in the terminal class of computing, but far from it for those kinds of components supporting customs.

@johnmeyer
Take a CPU like i7-3930K and put that same cpu into two different motherboards from different manufactures and you will get two different computers not even talking about over clocking. It is not so much that manufactures use a part of a higher bin and sell it a lower one but rather the other way around. You can buy a clock chip like a NE555 from different manufactures, one with a higher temperature range and one with a lower one but both have the same functionality. Similar for RAM chips, just the chip itself not the final module. Now depending on which bin a manufacturer like Corsair, GSkill and who ever else is out their purchases for their own RAM module, you get same speed on spec but different quality for the same RAM module model. RAM Module makers may further cut corners by specifying their module on the "edge" of what is possible, a PC17000 module may actually just be inside that spec because it performs at that level 95% of the time. Good enough because the 5% you may have to replace because a customer complains are costing less then buying the RAM chip of a higher bin (the threshold varies depending on the cost of replacing the part under warranty). Did you get it so far? Many in this forum have asked my for advice on RAM module and my answer is always the same, buy them one or two speed classes higher then you intend to run them and use them one level lower then the motherboard supports; that all relates to Non ECC modules and motherboards. Server boards that can accept ECC modules are less picky but such modules are also always slower then Non ECC and will cost almost 2x.
Now you may not even get a blue screen and Windows completely dies but you will get the occasional error or software that just doesn't play well on a machine with parts of lesser quality. Yes it will still run at the speed set in the bios but that is just a number and only a good test program will show what the system as a whole can produce.

As I said before, capacitors are just one example and the recent example above is again not limited to ram modules. North and South bridge controllers are binned too and so are Intel chip sets like X79, Z68 and so on are binned too and there are manufactures that have better access to top bins then others.

A major component on a motherboard is actually passive one, the PCB itself. The design of the PCB and who makes the final product play a vital role in the performance of a motherboard too. If for example memory lanes are made to close to each other you get cross talk which can lead to either a complete loss in communication or slow it down because you have to send the same information twice of more to get it across components.

I do over clocking, not extreme and always up to a safe level, over the years I could see and still can see which brands are the ones with the better components. Remember before when I said you can put the same CPU in two different PC/motherboards and you will get two different computers; that is even more true when over clocking a system. You can also over clock a GPU and you will find exactly the same.

Companies like Gateway are gone because their products just didn't work, I had laptops and PCs from Gateway in my company back in Malaysia and we bought them because they where cheap and had good spec at that time. One year later we had almost all replaced, especially the laptops where really bad. Those that survived had to step up and make better products to stay alive. Others died off because of over expansion, one the market didn't support, Escom comes to my mind. Others died because of the growing tablet market and the increasing DYI market, which seems to be shrinking again.

There are plenty of stories I can tell you, the LED bulb market is another such mysterious product market where binning and quality go hand in hand. Hard disks, especially controller boards for mechanical disks are another example. Most mechanical drives die because of a controller board issue and not because the platter inside are defect. If you are lucky and a controller failure didn't cause a head to run across the platter or get other mechanical damage you can actually replace the board, reformat the disk and it is good to go; Newegg sells those as manufacturer refurbished.

Try to understand, there is price and there is quality and quality means performance in terms of stability and speed.

Hackintoshes? What a great word!

As for building your own, that is definitely the way to get what you want. I have considered doing it many times, but in the end did not. Why? Because I have too much experience to do it.

Yeah, I know that sounds arrogant, but I said it that way just to be a PIA. What I really mean is that yes, I have the know-how, but having managed a few development projects over the years, one thing I learned is that the prototype never quite works. The first production models work, but usually they have flaws that you don't discover until a few of them have shipped. You then scramble madly, made a bunch of ECO (Engineering Change Orders), and eventually you have a good product.

The problem with building a computer myself, even with the help of Tom's Hardware and other forums like that, is that my computer is going to be a prototype. There is no way around it because it is, by definition, the first one I've ever built like that.

Your advice on RAM, for instance reminded me of why I get gun-shy about doing this myself. Over the years I've made many RAM mistakes buying memory that doesn't match (yes, I know, that was really dumb). Then, I also always have problems figuring out which BIOS settings to use for the various clocks.

So, what I do instead -- and what I recommend to people who are looking to get a great computer -- is to buy from a local custom shop. I use Polywell up in San Francisco, and have had great experience working with them. Prior to that I was doing custom configuration (different thing) with MIcron and before that (early 1990s) Gateway, before all the problems you mention.

However, custom building is the way to go. I generally get to talk to the guy doing the work.

With a custom builder, you can get most -- although not all -- of what you would get with a "roll your own," but with the experience and knowledge that only comes with building hundreds of computers, rather than just a handful.

However, I'll admit that I am still envious of those who have their water-cooled, over-clocked systems who report these amazing results on render tests. It is almost enough to make me want to do it too. Almost.

@johnmeyer

I don't recall ever leaving at fill out your system specs before I would help.

I always asked for much more information, but proceeded my questions with a "please fill out your system specs."

The net result was usually the same. Specific questions not answered and not able to help.

Like I said, I have found it useful when the poster had filled out the specs. Not always, but enough to justify me asking. Yes sometimes it lead to a sound blaster entry and further follow up was needed. Sometimes it was resolved, sometimes not. I disagree with your hazing or the information being of no value. Not my experience.

Before condemning me, review my efforts here wrt requests for system specs. I am sure you will find instances where I did repeatedly request info, but I also know that I tried my best to help, never intentionally putting users off.

I am and always have been a good engineer.

In the end you can believe what you want of me and my intentions. You are of course entitled to your opinion and any defense of it. I do my best to help the end users. I won't try to convince you that it has help me help others.

I am not asking you to defend anything. I don't completely disagree with what your point is. I leave it to you to decide how far you want to pursue this. You are a valuable contributor, and your opinions are always welcome. The healthy debate of ideas as well as technical information is part of this forum.

I will forward your suggestions and others here to those that "own" the forums. I would like to see a number of improvements here as well.

Peter
FWIW, a long time ago we tried forcing system specs. You'd be amazed at the clever ways users told us about it. There were types of hardware components that had very vulgar names<g>. It was never adopted or even released as I recall.

Peter, you still stuck of a 1GB, 2GHz, Dual- Xeon ?

I think some of us have good intentions, but drink too much coffee :-)

geoff

Geoff

I think I still have that box around here somewhere, so technically I am covered.


Peter

I don't recall ever leaving at fill out your system specs before I would help.I never made any comments at all about you!

Before condemning me, review my efforts here wrt requests for system specs. I am sure you will find instances where I did repeatedly request info, but I also know that I tried my best to help, never intentionally putting users off.Oh my gosh, I am mortified! I have not condemned you, or made any comment whatsoever that is directed at you. I am grateful for your help and am glad that you are posting here.

If I did say something that made you think I was saying anything negative about you, then I apologize. It was not my intent at all, in any way, to direct any comment towards you.

I am and always have been a good engineer. Me too (I hope)!

Since none of my suggestions, about system specs or GPU specs has been particularly well received, and now, with your post, my comments have been completely misunderstood, I think it will be better for everyone if I withdraw from these discussions.

I am very sorry for causing anyone to think I was singling them out. I tried very hard not to do that, and said as much in several of my posts.

All I have ever wanted to do is help people.

So, Peter, I apologize, and I hope that you continue to contribute.

The claim that mobo capacitors or that two 780's from different manufacturers will affect how Vegas Pro performs is absolute nonsense. Components are far more standardised now than ever before. There is no reason why VP shouldn't run on any components. It's much more likely that the problems VP users face are caused by driver conflicts or other software incompatibilities. Providing a list of components is at best following conventions of the past and at worst an exercise in futility.

What needs to happen is for Sony to update VP to keep it compatible with the latest drivers, OS and plugin updates. They also need to fix longstanding problems that have been reported time and time again. That obviously has nothing to do with our hardware and everything to do with their support.

Concerning building your own computer. I've built five over the last 10 years using various off the shelf components. All of them have run Vegas fine apart from when there have been driver or other software conflicts. Building your own PC is not rocket science (excuse the cliche). There is so much advice available and manufacturers guides that with a bit of research it's difficult to go wrong. But if a component is not compatible send it back and seek advice from where you bought it. Most sales techs are only too eager to give you their advice. Sometimes it's difficult to shut them up.

To give you an example, I wanted to use 4 x Nvidia GTX 760 4GB for my Octane 3D renders. NVidia drivers only support 4 x Titans SLI but Octane Render supports 4 x 760's because it doesn't need SLI (at the time I built this system 4 x 760's rendered 3D faster than 2 x 780's, had more memory and were cheaper.) A little research and advice on the OTOY forums availed me of this knowledge. Could I imagine that level of support happening here - probably if I was lucky enough to have an experienced VP user answer my questions. It has sometimes happened and I was very grateful when it did but there are some problems that only Sony can resolve by fixing their software. BTW, VP 12 works fine on this system which has 1 x EVGA and 3 x GB 760's installed. Even when all four cards are rendering it's barely audible, CPU is 35 degrees and GPU's reach 70 degrees. The EVGA PSU, Noctua CPU cooler and exhaust fan, CM Storm Trooper case and sheets of soundproofing probably help though...

Overclocking - don't do it! Why introduce potential stress and instability just to get 10% more juice? Buy a faster CPU/GPU instead. The latest processors and GPU's use less power and need less cooling so noise is seldom a significant factor so unless you're building an OC'd monster (don't do it!) water cooling is unnecessary. Win 8 installs incredibly quickly so it's a lot quicker and more simple to install an OS than it was 10 years ago. That's why it's hard to see why the components of a new build or even a build in the last five years could have a bearing on VP running correctly or not.

Apparently some people had a problem with NVidia's 6xx chips but that's Sonys' problem not the hardwares. I use OTOY's Octane Render for my 3D work. They fix any incompatibilities. They're on the ball and respond to user feedback very quickly. If Sony did that a lot more quickly and thoroughly than they do now then we would not be having a fruitless discussion about components.

BTW, I just tried to update my specs and couldn't fit them in the boxes. Sony doesn't even have Win 8 in their drop down OS menu. Another case of Sony failing to update I assume? No wonder Adobe still lead the way.

P.S. If I were buying GPU's for 3D rendering now I'd go with 2 x 780 rather than the 4 x 760 since the NVidia price drops. I have a 780 on my Win 7 PC and the 4 x 760 4GB render exactly the same 3D scene at twice the speed as the 780, are quieter, hold larger scenes in memory but use more power than 2 x 780 would do. The reason I'd buy 2 x 780 now is due to the possibility of further GPU expansion and the lower combined price compared to 4 x 760 since the price drops. But I'd really miss that extra 1GB of memory...

@johnmeyer

No worries here. I did not take it personally.

I am always open to a good debate, and many of your points are well put.

Peter

Agree completely. There are cheap caps (ceramic) and then there are the more expensive ones (tantalum). As for electrolytic, you can tell a cheap one from a more expensive one. The more expensive ones have scoring on the top as sort of a 'relief valve' if and when they should blow.

That's complete confusion. Ceramic caps can be more or less expensive than Tantalum, depending on their specific dielectric and where they're used. They're also quite often a much better capacitor to choose (I do digital electronics design for a living, folks)... they have much lower ESR (effective series resistance), which is critical for building cleaner power supplies and other things... they're closer to being "ideal" capacitors.

The mark on top of a Tantalum capacitor isn't a safety valve, it's a polarization indicator. Ceramic caps are non-polarized (eg, they don't explode when connected one way versus another). Tantalum and, in general, the class of capacitor called "electrolytic" are polarized.

The advantage of a Tantalum is that it can deliver a much larger capacitance for either a smaller package or a lower cost, particularly when you're discussing much larger valued caps. They do de-rate with heat much faster and at much lower temperatures than all but the worst types of ceramic caps (Y5V or F dielectrics, neither of which is used much anymore by reputable companies).

As far as variations, sure, not every card with the same AMD or nVidia chip on it is identical. If that card uses the company logos, it has been certified by the company in question. The differences have nothing to do with regular performance... but of course, different companies may also overclock. That is somewhat related, since cheaper components will de-rate with heat as mentioned, and higher clock speeds deliver more heat (CMOS chips increase power consumption with the square of the voltage, they need to run higher voltages to go faster, higher power/voltage creates more heat).

Particularly for more expensive GPUs, I don't imagine any company lasts long in the market selling substandard boards. This is, after all, the age of perfect and instant communications.