Comparing USB Audio Interface Latency on Windows 10

I may never fully understand my love for audio interfaces. At the end of the day they're just devices that do a better job of recording and playing back music than the built-in audio of most computers, but I almost spend more time experimenting with and writing about them than I do using them to make music. I have done interface performance tests several times before, but that was all on Windows 7 (and mostly on a now-10-year-old DAW PC), so I was recently curious how well some of today's USB audio interfaces perform on a newer computer with the latest version of Windows.

About Audio Interface Latency

Audio interfaces are audio streaming devices, and on modern operating systems all streaming is "buffered" or "packeted." Rather than truly sending a constant binary stream of audio data, your computer bundles up tiny chunks of audio into separate data buffers that are reassembled at the destination end of the stream. This buffering introduces some amount of latency; that is, the fact that the audio data is buffered means that there is a small amount of built-in delay between when the audio data is first transmitted by one device (an audio interface) and received by another (your computer).

There is some amount of latency in both an interface's input and output audio path, and round-trip latency (RTL) is the combination of both of those times. RTL is the metric I tested for: What is the total amount of time an interface takes to send and receive audio given certain settings?

A latency measurement is only meaningful if you know two other values: Sample Rate and Buffer Size. The sample rate is the number of samples per second the audio stream is encoded at, and the buffer size is the number of individual samples included in each streaming buffer.

When you record at high sample rates, your computer processes more audio data, which usually requires larger sample buffers in order to handle audio as reliably as at lower sample rates. The buffer provides protection against glitches (pops and drop-outs in the audio stream), and the harder your computer is working, generally the bigger the buffer you need for glitch-free audio.

The trade-off (and the reason we're studying this at all) is that too big of a buffer at a given sample rate can result in such a great delay that it can become difficult or impossible for a musician to keep in time with the rest of the music while attempting to sing or record. When shopping for audio interfaces, it's good to know which devices offer you the lowest reliable round-trip latencies at given sample rates and buffer sizes.

Not all interfaces perform alike. There are many factors that contribute to interface performance, but the most important appears to be driver quality. A driver written for a specific device with efficiency and optimization in mind can significantly outperform a less optimized driver on similar hardware.

For my tests, I used a free tool called RTL Utility, by Oblique Audio. With this tool, you patch your audio interface's outputs to its own inputs, forming an audio loop, and measure the time it takes for a full output->input round trip at a given sample rate/buffer size.

The Devices Under Test

I have bought and sold many interfaces over the years. These are the ones that I still own and used for these tests.

Behringer U-Control UCA222

The U-Control UCA222 is a very low-cost interface with unbalanced RCA-style analog connectors that's designed more for consumer audio applications than for music production. I bought one so my wife could create digital recordings of her old cassette tapes.

• Like most Behringer interfaces, the UCA222 does not require any special drivers or software; all modern versions of Windows recognize it as an audio recording/playback device. This also means, however, that there is no native ASIO driver for the interface, so I conducted my tests in "Windows Audio" mode for this device only.
• The default Windows audio drivers also didn't export all of the traditional "powers of two" sample buffer sizes, so for some tests I had to pick the closest available buffer size for comparison.
• Despite its low cost, this little interface includes a couple nice features like a physical direct monitor switch and an optical S/PDIF port for digital output.

Focusrite Clarett 2Pre USB

The Clarett 2Pre USB is a desktop interface with high-quality preamps and sophisticated routing/mixing technology. Mine serves as an external DAC for a computer I mostly use for multimedia purposes.

• While the original Clarett 2Pre was a Thunderbolt-only device. The Clarett 2Pre USB is USB 2.0-only, although its connector is the small USB-C type, normally associated with newer standards. It includes the required USB cables, which is good, considering I did not already own any USB-C cables.
• From what I've read, this device's USB implementation is the same as what's used in Focusrite's "2nd Generation" Scarlett line of interfaces.
• While most ASIO Windows drivers offer sample buffer sizes in powers of 2 (64 samples, 128 samples, 256 samples, etc), the Focusrite drivers strangely offer dozens and dozens of selectable sample buffers. Luckily, the common power-of-2 values are among the offered values.

MOTU Track16

The Track16 is a small desktop interface that pushes most of its I/O connections out to a giant proprietary octopus of a breakout cable. On hot summer days, I choose to use this device with headphones rather than powering up my full production rig, which generates a ton of heat.

• With ADAT, MIDI, and complex mixing/routing software, this device is a strong competitor with the Clarett 2Pre in terms of flexibility and feature set.

Novation Audio Hub 2x4

The Audio Hub 2x4 is a 3-port powered USB hub with Focusrite Scarlett audio interface technology inside. I frequently use this device for recording/sampling audio sound sources, and I use its USB ports to host eLicenser/iLok dongles.

• The audio interface portion of this device is based on Focusrite's "1st Generation" USB interface technology, which gives us a chance to compare the improvements Focusrite has made with the 2nd generation drivers.
• While the Audio Hub sports a pair of balanced main outputs, it only has unbalanced RCA-style inputs, so I had to use different audio cables when testing it from the ones I used with the other interfaces.
• This device is also a little unusual in that it only offers a low/high-gain toggle switch on the inputs rather than adjustable gain pots. 

RME Fireface UFX (1st generation)

The Fireface UFX is a prosumer legend, offering tons of analog and digital I/O with top-tier performance, reliability, and flexibility in a single rack space form factor. This is my primary interface for writing and recording.

• I own the first generation UFX, which has both USB 2 and Firewire support. I typically use it as a Firewire device, just to avoid possible USB contention in my studio.
• In recent years, RME has released an updated model, called the Fireface UFX+, which includes USB 3 and Thunderbolt support, and the Fireface UFX II, which is USB 2 only.
• RME's drivers are a little bit odd in that they don't appear to advertise more than one sample buffer size at a time like most others do. In order to perform the latency tests at different buffer sizes I had to use the RME control panel to choose the new buffer size then "reload" the driver in the test tool before performing each round of tests.
• Since this is the only interface I currently own that supports two different data buses, I tested it both as a Firewire and as a USB device. 

Roland Duo-Capture EX

The Duo-Capture EX is one of my favorite entry-level interfaces, just because it packs a lot of features into a small, reliable and affordable package. I don't actively use my Duo-Capture these days, but I keep it around for testing and ad-hoc stuff.

• The Roland drivers are kind of weird in that they do not use powers-of-two buffer sizes, and their configuration control panel also has a number of non-standard options and metrics. I had to choose the nearest approximate buffer size for the comparative tests. Also, for all control panel settings other than buffer size, I just left them at their factory defaults.
• On Windows 10, the Duo-Capture driver installs automatically (no separate discs or downloads from Roland required), however I experienced a lot of driver instability on my first round of latency tests with this interface after the drivers installed (some tests straight-up failed while others took significantly longer or shorter to complete than expected). I rebooted my computer and re-tested the interface and didn't experience any instability at all, so that appeared to be a temporary issue.

Roland Tri-Capture

The Tri-Capture is an odd little device with an interesting combination of features at a low price. I have used this for recording/sampling from consumer audio devices.

• Like with the Duo-Capture EX, the Tri-Capture's driver has some unusual options and non-standard sample buffer sizes. I note the differences in the test results.
 

Test Setup and Method

For this round of tests I used my current DAW PC on the most recent build of 64-bit Windows 10. The current specs of this system:

• CPU: Intel Core i7-5930K @ 3.5GHz
• Motherboard: ASUS X99-A/USB 3.1 ATX
• RAM: 32GB of DDR4 2133 MT/s

In order to keep the playing field level, I used the same USB and audio cables for all tests, where possible. (Some devices had special I/O connectors that required different cables.) I ran multiple tests at each sample buffer size for each device and selected the best/lowest test results from each device/buffer size combination.

In cases where the test results seemed surprising or unexpected, I re-ran all tests on the device in question to ensure results were consistent and reproducible.

The purpose of these tests was only to determine the measurable RTL of each device at each sample buffer size; not to establish the most reliable low-latency sample rate/buffer size combo under heavy DSP loads. (See the official DAW Bench tests for that sort of thing.)

Test Results 

I ran latency tests at four of the most common buffer sizes, all at a sample rate of 44.1kHz. Some quick notes before we get to the raw data:

• Not all interface drivers support powers-of-two sample buffer scaling. In those cases I've added a * by the name of the device in the tables and graphs. Here are the exceptions:
• For the Duo-Capture EX I had to use 144, 288, and 576 samples in the 128, 256, and 512 samples tests, respectively. This put that interface at a slight disadvantage for each test.
• For the Tri-Capture I had to use 288 and 576 samples in the 256 and 512 samples tests, respectively. This also put that interface at a slight disadvantage for each test.
• For the U-Control UCA222, I had to pick 132 samples for the 128 samples test. (The other common sample rates were available.)
• The drivers of some of the devices did not offer as many buffer size options as others. This is why the 64-samples and 128-samples tests don't include scores for all eight interfaces. The interfaces that didn't support all testable sample rates were the Duo Capture EX, the Tri-Capture, and the UCA222.
• Each test lists two scores for the RME Fireface UFX: One as a USB device, and one as a Firewire device.
• The U-Control UCA222 was the only interface that didn't have ASIO drivers, so I tested it as a Windows Audio device.
• All test results are reported as round-trip time in milliseconds. Lower scores/shorter bars are better.

64 Samples @ 44.1kHz

128 Samples @ 44.1kHz

256 Samples @ 44.1kHz

512 Samples @ 44.1kHz

Observations/Summary

• True to its reputation, the Fireface UFX performed the best in all tests, with its USB mode slightly scoring better than its FW mode every time. (The USB and FW scores were always within 1ms of each other.)
• Even though its larger-than-average sample buffer sizes put it at a slight disadvantage in every test, the Roland Duo-Capture EX fared rather well, capturing the third-best score in every round of tests where it competed.
• Despite having very similar-seeming driver and control panel to the Duo-Capture EX, the Tri-Capture lagged behind the other Roland interface in both tests where it competed.
• Considering that the Audio Hub 2x4 is really a Focusrite Scarlett interface in a Novation-branded box, its scores clearly demonstrate the poor performance of that generation of Scarlett interfaces on Windows. It scored significantly worse than most other interfaces on all tests but the last- and that one was a surprise...
• ...which was the odd performance results of the Clarett 2Pre USB. In the 64-samples and 128-samples tests the Clarett performs reasonably well, at least when compared to the Audio Hub. (In the 64-sample test the Clarett's round-trip latency is almost one third of the Audio Hub's score.) However as the sample buffer sizes increased, so did the Clarett's relative latency, gradually closing- AND THEN PASSING- the gap with the Audio Hub, making the Clarett the worst-performing interface in the 512-samples tests.
• When I was reviewing the test results before I began writing this article, I was so surprised by the Clarett's scores that I re-connected it to my test system and ran all of the tests on the Clarett again- only to find that they were the same. In both rounds of tests on this device, its round-trip latency grew progressively worse (relative to other interfaces) as the sample buffer size increased. This may point to some inefficient code in the current driver that is exacerbated as sample buffers grow.

Comparing DAW Performance of Recent Cubase Versions on Windows

I recently had to increase the buffer size setting on my audio interface to eliminate audio glitches in a music project on Cubase Pro 9. Since I almost never have to adjust my interface settings while producing a track, I wondered if perhaps Cubase 9 wasn't performing as well as previous Cubase versions I'd worked with. I searched around for some performance information, but I couldn't find any detailed, up-to-date comparisons of recent Cubase versions- so I decided to do my own.

Cubase versions under test

I decided to test the most recent available 64-bit versions of the last four major Cubase releases:

• Cubase 6.5 - Originally released February 2012, the latest version is 6.5.5 from June 24, 2013.
• Cubase 7.5 - Originally released December 2013, the latest version is 7.5.40 from Jan 19, 2015.
• Cubase Pro 8.5 - Originally released December 2015, the latest version is 8.5.30 from Feb 22, 2017.
• Cubase Pro 9.0 - Originally released December 2016, the latest version is 9.0.30 from July 20, 2017.

In addition to comparing basic performance of individual Cubase releases, I also wanted to examine the effects of ASIO-Guard, a feature Steinberg introduced with Cubase 7. By using smart management of CPU time and audio buffers, ASIO-Guard claims to increase the amount of plugins you can run without encountering audio glitches. Steinberg claims to have made improvements to ASIO-Guard over time, so I wanted to see how the feature had changed.

DAW Bench and Test Preparation

I installed each version side-by-side on my PC, patched them with the latest updates, and then downloaded the 2017 versions of the DAW Bench test projects. In case you're not familiar with DAW Bench, it's a collection of DAW projects assembled by audio professional Vin Curigliano to assess a digital audio workstation's ability to reliably produce audio while operating under heavy DSP workloads. When a computer's DSP resources are exhausted, audio suffers, with pops, drop-outs, and strange digital artifacts. Many factors contribute to a DAW system's ability to perform well: CPU, chipsets, drivers, operating system, DAW software, and audio interfaces all play a role.

The current iteration of DAW Bench includes five different Cubase test projects, broken into two categories.

• The DSP projects contain some basic audio tracks with literally hundreds of instances of a specific effect loaded up on various tracks. These push your computer's computational digital signal processing capabilities to its limits. The "score" for a DSP test is the number of plugin instances that can be activated without glitching the audio.
• The VI projects use instances of Native Instruments Kontakt to test your computer's virtual instrument oscillation/voice generation abilities by playing from hundreds to thousands of simultaneous notes of polyphony. The "score" for a VI test is the number of musical notes that can play simultaneously without glitching the audio.

Each of the DSP projects uses a different freely-available effects plugin:

• DSP-1566 uses Shattered Glass Audio's SGA1566, which is a CPU-intensive emulation of a vintage tube amplifier.
• DSP-MJUC uses Klanghelm's MJUC jr., a "variable-mu" compressor plugin.
• DSP-REAX uses a specially-compiled version of Cockos ReaXcomp, a multi-band compressor. (Note: The correct version is included in the DAW Bench download, don't use the one from the Reaper site.)

There are also two flavors of the VI tests: The "VI-CV" tests use Kontakt's internal convolution reverb effect (using more DSP power), while the "VI-NCV" tests have no reverb enabled.

I performed the tests on my primary DAW PC. The full specs of the system are published elsewhere, but here's the pertinent information:

• Processor: Intel i7 5930K @ 3.50GHz (6 physical cores)
• RAM: 32GB
• Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
• Operating System: Windows 7 Professional SP-1, 64-bit
• Audio Interface: RME FireFace UFX, in FireWire mode
• Interface Settings: 44.1kHz, 256 samples.
• Windows Optimization: The only Windows performance tweak I made was to select the High Performance power scheme in the Power Options control panel and to disable some unneeded startup processes and services. I have not adjusted any of the more arcane Windows settings such as the MMCSS options.
• Cubase Optimization: In all of my tests I use the default Cubase performance settings, with the obvious exception of disabling/enabling ASIO-Guard for a specific round of tests. So this means I'm leaving Audio Priority to Normal, Activate Multi Processing is checked, Activate Steinberg Audio Power Scheme is unchecked (I'm using the built-in Windows High Performance scheme), and on versions of Cubase that offer various "ASIO-Guard Level" settings, I'm using the normal level.

DSP Test Results

The results of the DSP tests are below. For versions of Cubase with the ASIO-Guard features, separate scores are shown with the feature disabled ("no AG") or enabled ("AG"). Cubase 6.5 is the only tested version which lacks that feature.

DSP Test Raw Data (44.1kHz, 256 samples)

DSP Test Chart

The results weren't very dramatic, however they did show modest gains for the ASIO-Guard feature- particularly for versions 7.5 and 9.0. Cubase 8.5 with ASIO-Guard enabled scored the best for 2 out of 3 tests while Cubase 9.0 with ASIO-Guard disabled scored lowest in all three tests.

VI Test Results

The virtual instrument tests were a little more interesting. In the tests below, "VI-CV" are with Kontakt's convolution reverb effect enabled, while reverb is disabled in the "VI-NCV" tests.

VI Test Raw Data (44.1kHz, 256 samples)

VI Test chart

A few things stand out in these tests:

• First, ASIO-Guard made dramatic improvements in both Cubase 8.5 and Cubase 9.0, while their ASIO-Guard gains weren't quite as impressive in the DSP tests. The feature shows a clear and demonstrable benefit, at least for some plugin duties.
• The improvement ASIO-Guard made on Cubase 7.5 was much less impressive, and I am guessing it's because the Cubase 7.x implementation of ASIO-Guard did not fully support multi-timbral plugins such as Kontakt.
• It was also interesting that while Cubase 9.0-with-ASIO-Guard gained the second-highest score in the test, without ASIO-Guard, Cubase 9.0 scored the lowest on these tests. Cubase 8.5 scored significantly higher, in both the ASIO-Guard enabled and disabled tests.

Final scores

I wanted to be able to rank individual Cubase versions in terms of performance, but I didn't want the VI tests to skew the numbers (since the VI scores reach up to the thousands while the DSP scores are all down in the low hundreds). In order to give each test equal weight, I divided the VI test scores by 10, and then I summed all 5 test scores for each DAW and ASIO-Guard setting.

Final Scores (raw)

Final Scores (chart)

With these adjusted performance scores, it appears that Cubase 8.5 with ASIO-Guard is the best-performing version of Cubase in recent years, although Cubase 9.0 still performs very well in second place so long as ASIO-Guard is enabled. However with ASIO-Guard disabled, Cubase 9.0 is the worst-performing version of Cubase of the versions tested.

Conclusions

• Cubase 9 performs slightly worse than Cubase 8.5, given the same content and settings on the same system. Without ASIO-Guard, Cubase 9 performed about 4 percent worse than 8.5. With ASIO-Guard there was only around a 2 percent difference.
  
• Core Cubase performance (without ASIO-Guard) has not changed significantly over time. With Cubase 7.5 and 8.5 performing around 1 percent better than Cubase 6.5 and Cubase 9.0 performing nearly 3% worse, Cubase has delivered more or less consistent performance across major releases.
• ASIO-Guard can make a big difference, but it depends on the specific plugins and workload. Both Cubase 8.x and 9.x saw huge gains in the VI tests with ASIO-Guard enabled, but the gains were less impressive in the DSP tests.
• Cubase makes very good use of multi-core processors and hyper-threading (*). Not all Windows DAWs handle modern CPUs the same, but Cubase has, for some time, been quite good at making use of both physical and logical CPU resources to deliver reliable audio under heavy DSP loads. Here's a screenshot of Windows Task Manager while Cubase is performing one of the DSP tests covered earlier. Every logical core of my i7 5930K is working at the maximum allowed by the Windows MMCSS settings (which reserve 20% of CPU power for background tasks). I plan to explore this stuff a little more in future posts.
  
  

(*) As of the time of this writing there is a known issue with Cubase on Windows 10 where Windows imposes a thread limit that can result in audio instability on CPUs with more than 14 logical cores (or more than 7 physical cores). For now, Steinberg recommends using Windows 8.1 or earlier for top Cubase performance on CPUs that exceed 14 logical cores, or using workarounds on Windows 10 which are documented at the above link to at least avoid the audio glitches resulting from this limitation.

Using the Roland FA-06 and FA-08 as DAW Controllers

After several weeks of research, I decided on one of the Roland FA series music workstations to serve as my main MIDI keyboard controller. In this post I talk about why I picked the FA-06 over other keyboard options, what accommodations I had to make in order to fit it into my rig, and how the keyboard integrates with Steinberg Cubase and Ableton Live.

IT WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE

After putting up with minimalistic 49-key and 25-key MIDI controllers for the past few years due to limited desk space in my small studio, I finally decided it was time to move on to a bigger keyboard controller with more features. Until the beginning of Summer 2015, the desk where I did all my music work looked like this:

The old, cramped setup.

My desktop monitors and clunky computer speakers left me so little room that not only could I not fit a very wide (or deep) keyboard controller on the desk to begin with, but when I actually needed to use the desk for writing, I had to disconnect my Roland A-49 controller and rest it against the wall until I needed it again. Since getting a bigger desk (or room) wasn't really an option for me, I developed a game plan for transforming my desk into a workspace that could accommodate a bigger controller and hopefully even leave me a little more surface area than I had before.

Here's what I did:

• I bought a couple of these Cheetah monitor wall mounts to float my two side monitors over my desk.
• I bought a Dell S2415H 24-inch monitor to replace my Dell S2440L 24-inch monitor, because my S2440L unfortunately wasn't wall-mountable. Another advantage of the S2415H is that it has built-in speakers, which helped me eliminate the need for desktop speakers.
• I also got a different Cheetah wall mount for the new monitor, since it was in a corner and needed to extend further than the other two. (A note on both models of Cheetah wall mounts: In order to fasten these to my three Dell monitors, I had to pick up some 20mm-long M4 machine screws and matching washers at a local hardware store. My monitors all have recessed mounting slots that required longer screws than were included with these mounts, and I used the washers as spacers to result in a tight fit.)
• I also got some mounting hardware to hang my 7-port USB hub to the wall, hidden behind my right-most monitor, leaving my desk completely empty, except for my MOTU Track 16 audio interface.
• Of course I immediately filled the new-found space on my desk with a luxurious Roland FA-06 Music Workstation.

Here's what it looks like now:

The new, spacious setup.

But, you might ask, why did I choose a full-on workstation instead of just a nice MIDI Controller with Cubase integration, like the Nektar Panorama or Roland A-800PRO? Well, that's what the rest of this post hopes to answer.

WHY I CHOSE THE FA-06

My primary reason for wanting to expand from a 49-key to a 61-key controller was to avoid the frequent octave transposing that I had to do on smaller keyboard controllers whenever I used Kontakt instruments or drum samplers that have a GM drum layout. But the more I looked into existing keyboard controllers, the more I realized there were a number of other things I was looking for as well:

• Requirement: Something that could make sounds of its own. I wanted to be able to work out melodies or chords quickly without having to fire up Cubase and open a DAW project. Straight-up MIDI controllers don't have on-board sound, so I started to look at synthesizers, stage pianos, and workstation keyboards.
• Requirement: Something that provided some level of DAW control- especially transport controls. When I recorded vocals, I used to put my Steinberg CC121 controller on a TV tray and scoot it next to my microphone stand so I could toggle cycle mode and re-record takes without knocking over the microphone or getting tangled in headphone and mic cables. Transport controls on a MIDI keyboard would put these necessary buttons within much easier reach when I'm set up for tracking vocals. Many hardware synths and stage pianos have some knobs and faders that you can map to different DAW or plugin functions when you're working with a computer, but very few bespoke synths have transport controls. This narrowed my search again to mostly workstation keyboards.
• Requirement: Something with a reasonable pitch and mod solution. Ideally I'd prefer something with good-feeling independent mod and pitch wheels, but a solid and reliable joystick solution was acceptable. The Yamaha MOXF6, Yamaha MX61, and Kurzweil PC3K6 keyboards have independent wheel controls, so they were under serious consideration. The current KORG offerings have very flimsy looking little joysticks, so I had to scratch them off the list. Also, as nice as the keybed and Komplete integration of the Komplete Kontrol S61 was, I am no fan of those weirdo ribbon controllers it has, so that was out of the running as well. Roland has their own solution, a combo pitch/mod joystick, where both pitch and mod return to the center position when you let go of the stick. While I'm not the biggest fan of the stick, the Roland sticks are much more durable than I've seen in Arturia products, or what I fear the KORG sticks are like, so Roland was still a contender.
• Nice-to-have: General MIDI support. Often when I'm laying down the initial MIDI tracks for a new project, I use General MIDI patches just because I know the GM sound set so well. It's super easy for me to dial up an acoustic piano here, fretless bass there, and just get my notes and chords down before I start trying to pick the best possible sounds for the job. All the Yamaha, Roland, and Kurzweil keyboards I was considering offered some level of GM support, in that they responded to the typical program changes with appropriate patches.
• Nice-to-have: Aftertouch support. Of all the keyboards I've owned, I think only one ever actually supported aftertouch- and it was the CME Xkey 25- something just too small and physically shallow for me to do serious work on. I was curious to get a board with aftertouch support just to see what it might add to my work- but this was far from a must-have, since I'd gotten by for so long without it. Neither the FA-06 nor the Yamahas featured aftertouch; only the Kurzweils.
• Nice-to-have: USB streaming/audio interface support. While this started out as a nice-to-have, now that I've got it, I don't know how I lived without it. Both the Yamahas and the Roland FA series have the ability to serve as an audio interface, meaning you can make them the primary audio device in your DAW. You can plug your headphones into the keyboard and hear both the internal sound and all your other instruments. This is great for me on hot summer days when I don't want to power up my entire rig, which generates a lot of heat. I can just pop a pair of headphones into the FA-06 and do everything I normally do (except record vocals), and the only things I need powered on are the keyboard and my DAW PC. This also means that I can record audio from the keyboard directly into the DAW without any audio cables. Everything can go over USB. The Kurzweil workstations have varying levels of USB connectivity, but they lack anything as sophisticated as the Roland and Yamaha offerings, so Kurzweil was kind of out by this point.
• Nice-to-have: I'd like to have some actual "desk space" on my desk. Even though I'd freed up a lot of room, my actual working area was still kind of tight. The Yamaha MOXF6 (40.5"x14"x5") was basically the largest possible keyboard I could fit on my desk, so anything smaller with a comparable feature set was desirable. This tipped the scale in favor of the slightly shorter, slightly shallower FA-06 (40"x12"x4").

THE ROLAND FA WORKSTATIONS IN PRACTICE

There are plenty of good reviews already that cover the sounds and the sequencing/sampling capabilities of the FA-06 and FA-08, but I haven't seen anyone talk in much depth about what it's really like to use them as DAW controllers, or how well they integrate with specific DAWs like Cubase or Ableton Live- so that's what I'm going to focus on here.

There are some basic instructions for configuring the FA-06 and FA-08 for DAW control in both the Reference Manual and the Application Guide (available here), but they omit some important steps (and they don't cover Ableton Live setup at all), so first let's go over the steps required for Cubase and Live. From here on out, I'm just going to say "FA-0X" since the steps are the same for both the 06 and 08 models.

SETTING UP DAW CONTROL IN CUBASE

The following steps assume you've already installed the FA-0X driver for your operating system.

1. Exit Cubase if it is already running.
2. From the STUDIO SET PLAY screen of your FA-0X, press MENU, then select System and press ENTER.
3. On the General tab of System Setup, make sure that the USB Driver option is set to VENDOR (MIDI+AUDIO).
   
   Note
   If you have to change it, you will be prompted to restart your keyboard after you select WRITE. (Please do that before continuing to the next step.)
    
4. Press the DAW CONTROL button to bring up the DAW Control screen.
5. On the DAW tab of DAW Control, navigate to the CONTROL MAP line and use the wheel to select CUBASE.
   
   Important
   Press WRITE and then select OK to store your selection. If you don't do this, the FA-0X will forget its DAW Control settings the next time you power up.
    
6. If you want to use the FA-0X like a true MIDI controller, select the Controller tab in DAW CONTROL mode, navigate to the Local Switch option and set it to OFF. Now when you play notes on the keyboard, you will only hear the FA-06's internal synth engine in DAW Control mode if it is selected as an output device in your DAW.
   
   Note
   Don't forget to press WRITE to save your settings.
    
7. Launch Cubase and go to Devices > Device Setup.
8. Click the + button and select Mackie Control from the list. This adds a "Mackie Control" entry to the Remote Devices list.
   
9. Select the new Mackie Control entry under Remote Devices and set both MIDI Input and MIDI Output to FA-06 08 DAW CTRL.
   
10. In the User Commands section of the dialog, you can set custom commands for pads 1-8 of the FA-0X's Sampler section (F1-F8). I do not believe there's a way to make the FA-0X use the "Shift+F1-8" or "User A/B" user commands, so I just leave those blank.
    
    There are many dozens of commands to choose from.
    
    Note
    To customize what your FA-0X's knobs and S1/S2 buttons do, go to the Controller tab of the FA-0X while it's in DAW CONTROL mode, and specify which CC value each physical control should use. The S1/S2 buttons can work in Momentary or Latch mode. In Momentary mode, the button fires a single event of the selected CC with a value of 127 when you first press it, and then fires another event of the same CC with a value of 0 when you release the button. In Latch mode, the button toggles between sending a 127-value or 0-value CC event each time you press it, and only fires the event upon pressing the button- not when releasing.
    
    
11. Super Important: Select MIDI Port Setup in the Device Setup dialog and uncheck the "In 'All MIDI'" boxes for FA-06 08 DAW CTRL and FA-06 08.
    
    
    
    
    None of the documentation I've seen so far explains the difference between the three kinds of ports the FA-0X keyboards present, but unchecking In 'All MIDI' for the DAW CTRL port prevents the assignable sampler pads from transmitting MIDI notes when you're trying to use the pads to issue DAW control commands, and unchecking the box for FA-06 08 prevents Cubase from recording duplicate notes, as described below.
    
    When your MIDI ports aren't set up right, Cubase will record duplicate notes for anything you play. This has different results depending on which synths or plugins you're using as a sound source, so you may not even realize it's a problem right away. Some plugins will cut notes short when this happens, others will actually leave notes stuck on, just like keys on an old fashioned typewriter get stuck when you press a bunch of them at once.
    
    
    If you record a MIDI clip without disabling the extra In 'All MIDI' ports and then open that clip in Cubase's List Editor, you'll see the extra notes quite clearly.

    

    The problem with duplicate MIDI notes is most obvious in the MIDI List Editor.

12. Even in DAW Control mode with Local Switch disabled, your FA-0X keyboard still functions as a 16-part multi-timbral synth when it receives incoming MIDI messages from your DAW. You can choose a default studio set to use for whenever you enter DAW Control mode on the Studio Set tab of the DAW CONTROL screen of the FA-0X. On the same screen you can pick which presets to use on each channel of the studio set. Again, remember to press WRITE to save any changes you make here.

SETTING UP DAW CONTROL IN ABLETON LIVE

The following steps assume you've already installed the FA-0X driver for your operating system.

1. Exit Live if it is already running.
2. From the STUDIO SET PLAY screen of your FA-0X, press MENU, then select System and press ENTER.
3. On the General tab of System Setup, make sure that the USB Driver option is set to VENDOR (MIDI+AUDIO).
   
   Note
   If you have to change it, you will be prompted to restart your keyboard after you select WRITE. (Please do that before continuing to the next step.)
    
4. Press the DAW CONTROL button to bring up the DAW Control screen.
5. On the DAW tab of DAW Control, navigate to the CONTROL MAP line and use the wheel to select USER.
   
   Important
   Press WRITE and then select OK to store your selection. If you don't do this, the FA-0X will forget its DAW Control settings the next time you power up.
    
6. If you want to use the FA-0X like a true MIDI controller, select the Controller tab in DAW CONTROL mode, navigate to the Local Switch option and set it to OFF. Now when you play notes on the keyboard, you will only hear the FA-06's internal synth engine in DAW Control mode if it is selected as an output device in your DAW.
   
   Note
   Don't forget to press WRITE to save your settings.
    
7. Launch Live and go to Options > Preferences.
8. On the MIDI Sync tab of Preferences, choose MackieControl as one of the options under Control Surface, and then pick FA-06 08 DAW CTRL for both Input and Output on the same row. You might notice that when you do this, the "DAW CTRL" ports disappear from the MIDI Ports list in the lower part of this dialog.
   
   
9. In the MIDI Ports section of the MIDI Sync tab, Make sure that the Input port labeled only FA-06 08 is turned Off, but all the other FA-06 ports are turned On.
   
   
   If you don't disable the FA-06 08 Input port, you will encounter a problem where Live accidentally records duplicate notes when you play parts on the FA-0X keyboard. This can result in strange behavior, such as musical notes "sticking" on the FA-0X (or in virtual instruments you're triggering from MIDI parts you recorded with the FA), or notes being cut short unexpectedly. Unfortunately, Live doesn't provide any way for you to actually see evidence of the problem in the user interface. However, if you export MIDI clips recorded in Live to another DAW or MIDI editor, you can see the duplicated notes that happen as a result of leaving the FA-06 08 Input port enabled. In the below screenshot you can see that Live occasionally created extremely short duplicate notes in two parts of this simple sequence.

   

   Duplicate notes in MIDI recorded inside Ableton Live when the "FA-06 08" Input port was left enabled.

10. To customize what your FA-0X's knobs and S1/S2 buttons do, go to the Controller tab of the FA-0X while it's in DAW CONTROL mode, and specify which CC value each physical control should use. The S1/S2 buttons can work in Momentary or Latch mode. In Momentary mode, the button fires a single event of the selected CC with a value of 127 when you first press it, and then fires another event of the same CC with a value of 0 when you release the button. In Latch mode, the button toggles between sending a 127-value or 0-value CC event each time you press it, and only fires the event upon pressing the button- not when releasing.
11. To customize what the Sampler pads do, go to the DAW tab of DAW Control mode and choose CC values and button modes for the User Pad 1-8 settings. These options only appear in the USER DAW profile of the FA-0X. (In Logic, Sonar, and Cubase, you configure the pad functions inside the respective DAW.) Unlike the Logic, Sonar, and Cubase profiles, where you can actually assign DAW-specific commands to the pads, in the USER profile you are limited to only assigning CCs. You also have the option to configure individual pads to operate in Momentary or Latch mode, like the S1/S2 buttons. And as always, don't forget to WRITE.

THE FA-06/08 AS AN AUDIO INTERFACE

If you put the USB Driver setting of the FA-0X into VENDOR (MIDI+AUDIO) mode, the keyboard will appear to your DAW as a 2-in/2-out audio interface.

But the FA-0X is no ordinary audio interface! Here are some things you should know about the interface functionality:

• By default, audio from internal FA-0X instruments and effects, as well as incoming audio from the analog inputs and the USB audio connection all go to the FA-0X's MAIN outputs, and this output signal goes both to the keyboard's physical MAIN OUTPUT jacks as well as the input channels of your DAW. So, unless you change the default input and output routings, any sound your FA-06 generates, or any sound coming into its inputs can be monitored and recorded inside your DAW without anything connected to the analog outputs of the FA-06. To record the FA-06's output over USB, you simply create a stereo audio track in your DAW and set it to record the FA-06 08 IN and IN(R) I/O ports as a stereo pair.
• The FA-06 has two kinds of analog inputs: The LINE jack is a 1/8" stereo constant-level input, and the GUITAR/MIC jack is a 1/4" mono input with adjustable gain. (All inputs are unbalanced.) There's also a GUITAR/MIC switch that boosts the GUITAR/MIC signal by an additional 25-30db when placed in the MIC position (this doesn't affect the LINE input). The signals from these two inputs are automatically mixed, and by default these input signals are further mixed with the FA-06's internal sounds, so despite only appearing as a 2-channel interface to your DAW, you can actually record three different sound sources simultaneously into those two channels, similar to recording the output of a small outboard analog mixer.
• You can change how the various inputs and outputs are routed in various tabs of the System Effects settings.
• You can avoid experiencing phasing effects in Cubase when working with audio tracks that have track monitoring enabled by enabling the Direct Monitoring feature in Device Setup > VST Audio System > FA-06 08.
• On Windows, audio applications generally only let you select one audio device (interface) at a time, so if you're using the FA-0X as your audio interface, you won't have access to any of your other audio interfaces while inside your DAW. If you prefer to use a separate audio interface, just use the FA-0X's analog outputs and use it like a regular hardware synth; there is no native way to route its USB audio to another interface. 
• Also, while the FA-0X keyboards are 16-part multi-timbral, they only have two analog output buses (MAIN and SUB), and only one of those buses is available to the audio interface mode at a time, which means that you can't use the USB mode to record separately mixable parts from the FA-06 into your DAW. (If you had a 4-input external interface, you could record two different stereo parts out of the FA-0X's MAIN and SUB outputs if you assigned them appropriately in your performance settings.) The Roland Integra-7 has twice as many analog outs (and even a digital output connector), so that's where to look if you need lots of separate output channels.
• When I'm finished using my computer for the day, I turn off my FA-06 and put the computer to sleep. The only times I ever fully shut down or reboot my PC are when I'm making hardware changes or when I install software or updates that require a restart. I have found that sometimes my FA-06 stops functioning as an interface (Cubase and Live can't access it when I select it as an audio device), and the only way to make it work again is to reboot the PC. (Cycling power on the FA-06 doesn't fix it, and attempting to disable/re-enable the driver in Device Manager causes Device Manager to lock up... it appears to be a driver problem rather than a hardware one.) I don't have this issue with any of my other interfaces (including other Roland units), so I really hope Roland fixes this in a future driver update.

In my day-to-day work, I'm finding myself turning on only my FA-06 and using it as my interface while I compose or do audio editing. I usually only power up the rest of the rig if I need to record vocals or hardware instruments (my RME Fireface UFX has balanced mic and line inputs), and my poor MOTU Track 16 has hardly been getting any use at all. (I might retire it at some point, but am still hanging onto it for its digital I/O, which I sometimes use when sampling virtual instruments.)

Also, the way I have my patch bays wired, the FA-06 analog outs default to going into the UFX's analog inputs 1 & 2, and the UFX's main outs default to going to my studio monitors. So I can actually turn everything on and hear the FA-06 through my studio monitors without switching which interface my DAW is using or plugging in any additional cables.

Input from the FA-06 passes directly through the Fireface UFX's main outs, leading to the studio monitors.

I now only have to power up the minimum amount of gear in order to get a given job done, with a minimum of cord patching and audio device switching.

FA-0X INTERFACE LOW LATENCY PERFORMANCE

In terms of low-latency performance, the FA-06 interface is average. It's much better than the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 or the interface mode of the Access Virus TI2 (both of which I used to own), but not as good as my MOTU and RME interfaces. Like all Roland interfaces I've used, the FA-06's drivers don't use the powers-of-two method for selecting buffer sizes, so in my tests I had to use the closest buffer size I could get: 288 samples.

I tested four different interfaces on my new DAW PC, running 64-bit Windows 7 at 44.1kHz and 256 samples (or 288 samples in the case of the Rolands). Here are the round-trip latency results, as reported by the Oblique Audio RTL Utility (lower numbers are better):

• RME Fireface UFX (USB mode): 14.386 ms
• MOTU Track 16 (USB mode): 20.984 ms
• Roland FA-06: 22.611 ms
• Roland DUO-CAPTURE EX: 24.059 ms

SOUND BANKS AND EXPANSION LIBRARIES

The FA-0X keyboards are much more than simple ROMplers. They support a variety of synthesis methods, and are, in some ways, deeply programmable. But with this power comes a fair amount of complexity. It actually took several weeks of actively using my FA-06 before I fully understood the different classes of sounds it supports, and how those sounds are managed.

There are five top-level categories of "tones" (patches) on the FA-0X keyboards, most of which come from the libraries of other Roland instruments, including the Integra and Fantom lines:

• SuperNATURAL acoustic tones (SN-A): These are realistic, expressive acoustic instruments that can be customized in the Tone Edit menu.
• SuperNATURAL synth tones (SN-S): These are more more traditional synthesizer patches that can also be deeply customized in the Tone Edit screen. These tones can comprise up to three oscillators, which can be either PCMs (samples) or traditional synthesizer waveforms.
• SuperNATURAL drum kits (SN-A): These are high-quality, multi-sampled drum kits with a GM layout. These are fully customizable as well.
• PCM Synth Tones (PCMS): This bank contains PCM/sample-based sounds. These tones comprise up to 4 layers of PCM sounds. There are several subcategories of PCM Synth Tones:
  
  1. Presets (PRST): Built-in PCM tones, apparently imported from the Roland XV series of synthesizers. These are user-editable.
  2. General MIDI (GM2): This is a full bank of small-footprint General MIDI patches. To my understanding, this is different from the Integra-7's HQ GM sound set. The FA-series GM2 set sounds very similar to that of my Roland SC-88 Sound Canvas. None of these tones are editable.
  3. Expansion slots 1 & 2 (SLOT1, SLOT2): These are virtual expansion slots where you can install special expansion sets made specifically for the FA-06 and FA-08, which are available at the Axial site. These patches are also freely editable.
• PCM Drum Kits (PCMD): Drum kits from any of the aforementioned PCM subcategories show up here, and conform to the General MIDI drum layout. Any kits specifically associated with the FA-0X GM2 set are not editable, but non-GM2 presets and downloaded PCMD kits are editable.

Aside from the five types of tones, you can also record or import samples for use on the FA-0X Sampler pads. These samples are stored in a different part of memory from the PCM waveforms used in the various tone categories, and are thus ONLY available for use when triggered by the pads or the built-in sequencer. (As a disappointing side note, the pads do not transmit MIDI note data, so they can't be used to trigger external synths or drum samplers.)

The FA-0X keyboards offer a number of ways to import samples and patches:

• For samples to use as loops or one-shots on the FA-0X pads, you can either record your own samples or import them from an SD card. 
• You can download sounds for the Roland Integra-7 from the Roland Axial site, and import them as user presets via a complicated process that uses the included SD card. Sounds you import from downloaded Integra-7 libraries are imported as user presets in the SuperNATURAL synth tones (SN-S) bank.
• You can download third-party sample packs for the Roland FA series at the FA-06 / FA-08 section of the Axial site. Importing these is an unusually complicated procedure which involves the SD card.
• Also available at the Axial site are expansion sets designed explicitly for the FA-06 and FA-08 workstations. Instead of installing these via SD Card, you actually import these via USB thumb drive (using the special "FOR UPDATE" USB slot on the back of the unit). In order to import these sounds, you boot the FA-0X into a special mode, and then indicate which expansions to install in which of the two of the keyboard's virtual expansion slots. Sounds imported this way will appear in the PCMS category of sounds, grouped by expansion.

  

  FA-series libraries labeled "EXP-xx" are real expansion sets that go into the virtual expansion slots.
  The others are just mini sample packs.

  The process for importing expansion packs is very similar to the steps for applying system updates for the FA-0X keyboards.

FINAL THOUGHTS

After a couple of months of using my FA-06 on a pretty regular basis, I am still happy with my decision. The only other keyboard I know of that's really in the same league as the FA-06 in terms of features I was looking for is the Yamaha MOXF6, and while I'm sure it's a fine workstation, I doubt I would be more pleased with it than I am with the Roland. I'll wrap this up with a quick list of pros and cons.

WHAT I LIKE

• Large and broad selection of high-quality usable sounds.
• Much more programmable and customizable than I expected. This is no simple ROMpler.
• Nice-feeling keybed.
• Lovely, informative display.
• Good set of physical controls.
• DAW integration gives me quick access to transport controls and up to eight frequently-used Cubase features at a time.
• Built-in audio interface enables me to compose and mix without having to power on my whole rig.
• Axial library provides me access to a surprisingly large number of free new sounds.
• General MIDI support. (I actually use GM when sketching out ideas!)

WHAT I DON'T CARE FOR

• Keyboard doesn't support aftertouch (but neither did the competing Yamaha models). 
• Disappointing implementation of the sampler/pads. I don't care too much about not being able to use my own samples in patches, but I wish I could at least assign MIDI note values to the pads so I could trigger an external drum sampler.
• Need to use USB thumb drives and SD cards to import different kinds of material, when the keyboard has a USB connection to your PC already. Why not use the connection we already have?
• Interface mode performs well when it works, but does not seem stable across multiple sleep/wake cycles. Sometimes have to reboot PC in order for DAWs to use the interface again.
• I wish it had the Integra-7's "HQ GM2" General MIDI bank!

Building a New Computer for Music Production (June 2015 Edition) Part 2

This is the second article about my new Haswell-E-based Digital Audio Workstation PC. In part 1, I covered the part list, hardware assembly, and BIOS settings. In this post, I'll talk about my choice of operating system, which drivers I used (and where to find the right ones), OS and BIOS tweaks, and the performance of this computer, as compared to my previous DAW PC.

CHOOSING AN OPERATING SYSTEM

I chose to install the 64-bit version of Windows 7 Professional on this system. I prefer the Professional SKU of Windows 7 because unlike the Home versions, it includes the ability to operate as a Remote Desktop server, but it also doesn't include all the extra bloat that the Ultimate SKU brings with it. (The Pro versions and above also allow access to more than 16GB of RAM.)

As a professional software developer, I've programmed for every version of Windows since 3.1. I'm intimately familiar with Windows system internals, and I normally start programming for new Windows versions even before public tech preview editions of them are released (we get early builds directly from Microsoft). Even though my job requires that I use Windows 8 and Windows 10 on a daily basis, I still usually prefer Windows 7 for home use. Here's why:

• There's not a single new feature in Windows 8 (or 10) that I need in order to make music or perform my day-to-day computing tasks. Not only do I have no use for touch controls on a desktop, the Modern UI, or Microsoft's anemic Windows Store, even with Start button replacements like ClassicShell, Windows 8 made some tasks that used to be really trivial on Windows 7 (like restarting Windows in Advanced mode- something that I have to do quite frequently as a developer) much more onerous and complicated. Also, many elements of the user interface provide less information than in previous operating systems; they've streamlined the UI to the point of opacity.
• Windows 7 provides better compatibility with the software and devices I already own. Since Windows 8's official release, I've purchased six different off-the-shelf computers for home use. In each case I initially tried to use their preloaded Windows 8 installs, but I encountered incompatibility problems with several games, utilities, and devices that forced me to reformat four of those computers and install Windows 7 instead. (Two of those six computers are still running Windows 8 with no problems.) I have experimented a fair amount with Windows 8 for music use, and while I did encounter some driver-related issues with audio interfaces when it was first released, I have never had any showstopping problems with Windows 8 when it came to my music applications or devices (so long as the drivers were Windows 8-ready).
• Windows 8 does not improve music production performance. I have conducted numerous benchmarks between Windows 7 and Windows 8 on the same hardware and found that on average, Windows 8 performs about the same as Windows 7. (You can see the results of my most recent test in my article about the Intel NUC, under "Windows 7 versus Windows 8.1.") In some cases it's a tiny bit worse, in some cases it's a tiny bit better. But there is definitely not an across-the-board improvement in any measure of computer performance that I have seen. Yes, Windows 8 can boot faster and launch applications faster than Windows 7 on the same hardware, but it simply does not improve DAW performance in any measurable way. I do not expect that to change with Windows 10.

This is a personal choice that's based on my own real experiences with software and hardware on both Windows 7 and Windows 8. I use Windows 7 because I know it works, and I know I'm not missing anything by avoiding the newer operating systems.

SO, WHICH OPERATING SYSTEM SHOULD YOU USE?

This is entirely up to you. Most modern music apps that I'm aware of work properly on Windows 8, and most newer devices have drivers that should work in that environment well. If you know your apps and drivers are compatible and you like the new features Windows 8 includes, go ahead and use it. It's fine.

OPTIMIZING WINDOWS 7

I've seen a lot of guides on how to optimize Windows for music production, and many of the tips these things provide are outdated, irrelevant to music production, or sometimes just plain wrong. For Windows 7 and later, there's actually very little you have to do in order to make your DAW PC production-ready. Here are the only performance tweaks I ever make:

USE THE HIGH PERFORMANCE POWER SCHEME

Select the High performance power plan in the Power Options control panel of Windows. (It might be hidden when you first open the control panel. Click the arrow next to Show additional plans to reveal it.) This power scheme includes a number of hidden performance tweaks that aren't exposed in the Windows UI. In other words, you can't, for example, take the Balanced plan and edit it so that it exactly reproduces the behavior of the High performance scheme. This is the single most important Windows setting you can change to ensure stable music-making performance.

DISABLE UNNECESSARY WINDOWS STARTUP ITEMS

After you've installed all your required drivers and applications, you'll probably have a number of unnecessary task tray programs and background processes starting up. The fewer of these things running at any time, the more juice your system has to devote to delivering reliable audio.

Windows 7 has a built-in System Configuration tool (just run msconfig from the Start menu) where you can uncheck undesired programs from the Startup tab. You can see below that among other things I disabled the Intel(R) USB 3.0 Monitor (iusb3mon.exe). That process doesn't do anything essential.

DISABLE UNNECESSARY WINDOWS SERVICES

I usually leave all the default Microsoft/OS services alone, but lots of applications and devices install Windows services that you don't necessarily need. You can use msconfig to disable these, too. What I like to do is open msconfig to the Services tab and check Hide all Microsoft services, so only the third-party ones are showing. Then I sort the list by the Status column and uncheck any services with the status of Running that don't seem to serve any essential purpose. If you see "Stopped" services that you haven't explicitly disabled, that usually means they're not set to load automatically when Windows starts, and instead will only be used as needed by their associated applications. I generally just leave these be.

USE A LOW-IMPACT ANTI-VIRUS

If your computer has an Internet connection or you ever plug in USB drives that have had contact with other Internet-connected computers, you MUST have some kind of anti-virus installed. It is no longer true that simply being a tech-savvy computer user is enough to protect your computer from infection. There are just way too many attack vectors these days.

So which package to choose? For Windows 7, I use Microsoft Security Essentials. It's free, it's updated regularly, and it is nowhere near as obtrusive or bloated as many consumer alternatives. For a commercial solution, many music producers swear by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. It's not very well-known in the United States, but it is well-regarded both for providing solid anti-virus protection, and also for having a small system footprint.

Do NOT install consumer versions of any Symantec/Norton or McAfee products. They do their jobs, but they are much more intrusive, usually trigger a lot more needless warnings and notifications than other products, and simply don't allow your PC to perform as well as it would with other solutions. Both of these companies make enterprise solutions that are much better behaved.

Note: Windows 8 and beyond don't really need a third-party Antivirus. Windows 8 has Microsoft Security Essentials built-in, although it goes under the name of Windows Defender in that operating system. Windows 7 also has a "Windows Defender" feature, but it is not as comprehensive as Microsoft Security Essentials or the Windows 8 version of Defender.

DRIVES AND FOLDERS

All of my drives are configured with just a single data partition, and all SATA drives are configured to run in AHCI mode (so no RAID), and the Intel 750 series drive is NVMe. I do not split my drives up into multiple data partitions, since doing that doesn't provide any performance or data safety benefits.

I had a three-drive setup in my previous DAW PC (all using traditional SATA hard disks) that looked like this:

• Drive 1 (2TB): OS, Data, and Applications. Unlike some music folks, I did choose to use my system drive for all personal files, including music projects. It worked fine.
• Drive 2 (2TB): Samples and Downloads. This is where all sample libraries and things like Reaktor and Kontakt instruments went. Additionally, my Downloads folder is where I keep all purchased software and patches, so it is enormous.
• Drive 3 (2TB): Backups. I have wasted a LOT of time and effort evaluating different backup packages and approaches, and I have yet to find a commercial backup product that works to my liking (if it works at all). I ended up writing custom backup batch files that run every day via the Windows Task Scheduler, and I set this drive up as a compressed Windows drive (with the "Compress this drive to save disk space" option) to increase its backup potential.

This layout worked fine, but I had a couple of complaints about it that I wanted to fix when I set up the new computer. I also had some physical constraints, due to the small storage capacity of my SSD drives. So here's how I decided to set up the new system:

• Drive 1 (400GB PCIe SSD): OS and Data. This drive only contains Windows, my personal files/projects/etc, and any applications with crappy installers that don't let you pick a custom install location.
• Drive 2 (480GB SATA SSD): Programs and Plugins. I never disable Windows User Account Control, because I like being notified when processes are requesting admin access to my machine. A drawback to leaving UAC enabled, however, is that it causes poorly-written software that doesn't follow Microsoft's design guidelines (which they have recommended ever since Windows XP) tries to save preferences or other data under the Program Files folders it fails (sometimes silently, or with misleading errors). This goes for plugins as well, since the default install location for many VST plugins is C:\Program Files\VstPlugins. By sandboxing all my programs and plugins to their own drive, I'm working around the limitation of their bad design by placing them into folders that won't trigger UAC alerts, but I'm still getting the general system protection that User Account Control offers.

  

  Here's what the root of my Programs and Plugins drive looks like now.

• Drive 3 (2TB SATA HD): Samples and Downloads. (Same purpose as on my other DAW PC.)
• Drive 4 (3TB SATA HD): Backups. Compressed drive, same as before. Since this drive exceeds 2TB in size I had to use GUID Partition Table (GPT) layout instead of Master Boot Record (MBR) when setting the drive up. More on this in the note below.
• Drive 5 (500GB SATA HD): This is just an extra drive I was using as an alternate boot drive when troubleshooting some problems with my setup. It is a 2010 model WD Caviar Black versus my other two WD Black drives, which are brand new. I don't have any immediate plans for this drive.

A NOTE ABOUT VERY LARGE DRIVES (OVER 2TB)

The default partitioning scheme for Windows 7 is MBR, which effectively has a 2TB limit for any individual partition. Because I wanted my 3TB WD Black drive to have only a single data partition, I chose to use the GPT scheme when setting up the drive. All editions of Windows 7 and later support using GPT for data drives, but in order to boot from a GPT drive, you need a 64-bit edition of Windows and a computer with UEFI support.

Note that the partitioning scheme is different from the file system; all my drives are formatted with the NTFS file system, regardless of whether they use MBR or GPT partition types.

DRIVERS

Locating the right versions of the right drivers for this system took quite a bit of time. Here are some notes I collected during the process.

Please note: The following information is accurate as of June 21, 2015. You may have to double-check the versions and driver locations as time progresses.

DRIVERS: INTEL CHIPSET DEVICE SOFTWARE (INF UPDATE UTILITY)

Like with any fresh Windows installation, the Intel Chipset installer should be the very first thing you install. The version at the Intel Download Center is newer than what's currently at the ASUS site or on the ASUS X99 Series disc. I got version 10.0.27 of the chipset installer (SetupChipset.exe) from here. Reboot after installing this one.

DRIVERS: UNRECOGNIZED DEVICES IN DEVICE MANAGER

After running the Intel Chipset installer, you will probably still see a number of unrecognized devices in the Device Manager control panel. Here are the ones I found, along with which drivers fixed them:

• Corsair Dongle. This is the USB Dongle for the Corsair AX860i power supply. Install the latest Corsair Link software to get the correct driver. You may have to restart Windows before this device shows up correctly in Device Manager.
• Ethernet Controller. This is the Intel(R) Ethernet Connection I218-V device on the ASUS X99-A USB 3.1 motherboard. The latest installer packages for Windows 7 are at the Intel Download Center. I installed version 20.1 of the PROWinx64 package from here. Note: Whenever I install Intel network drivers, I always uncheck everything except the driver itself. Windows generally has all the network management tools I need.
• C610 series/X99 chipset xHCI Host Controller (8D31). For this you need to install the Intel USB 3.0 eXtensible Host Controller Driver for Intel 8/9 Series and C220/C610 Chipset Family. I used version 3.0.5.69 from here.
• PCI Simple Communications Controller. This is the Intel Management Engine Interface. Strangely enough, I couldn't find something that looked like an appropriate match for my board at the Intel Download Center, so instead I installed the Management Engine Interface entry from the Drivers tab of the ASUS X99-series disc. Windows Update can install a newer version of this driver once you install the ASUS one.
• USB Controller. This might only show up for the USB 3.1 version of ASUS boards. It's the ASMedia USB 3.1/3.0 controller. NOTE: As of this writing, the version of this driver on the ASUS disc is actually newer than the one available at the ASUS downloads page for this motherboard. I installed the one from the disc. "Asmedia USB3.1/3.0 Driver" from the Drivers tab.
• Unknown device. If you see something just listed as "Unknown device" it could be lots of things, but if you look at its properties and see that its Hardware ID is ACPI\PNP0A0A, then that's the "AMDA00 Interface" device that ASUS uses for some of their software. You can install this driver by picking ASUS Probe II Sense Driver from the Drivers tab of the ASUS X99 series disc. I think I had to reboot Windows after installing this in order for the driver to take effect.

OTHER DRIVERS

•  The Intel Download Center had a more recent version of the driver for the SSD 750 Series drives than the one included on the mini disc that shipped with the drive. You need the disc for installing Windows 7, but once Windows is fully installed, you'll probably want to get the most recent version of the Intel Solid-State Drive Data Center Family for PCIe drivers from here.
• For my GTX 960 graphics card I had to download the GeForce 900 Series driver from NVIDIA's downloads page.

STORAGE BENCHMARKS

Although I've had a couple of laptops and a mini computer with SSD drives, my new DAW PC is my first-ever desktop with SSD storage, and I was eager to see how much of an improvement my new drives delivered compared to traditional SATA hard disks in the same PC. I used the 64-bit version of CrystalDiskMark 3.0 (latest official version is 4, but you can still get version 3 here) to test each drive installed in my system.

CrystalDiskMark performs both read and write tests of four different types:

• Seq: Sequential read/write with 1024KB blocks.
• 512K: Random read/write with 512KB blocks.
• 4K: Random read/write with 4KB blocks.
• 4K QD32: Random read/write with 4KB blocks and a queue depth of 32. (This uses Native Command Queuing to test how well optimized the drive is.)

Here are the compiled results for all drives installed in my system:

It does appear that I picked the right drive for my boot device! My 400GB Intel 750 Series PCIe SSD drive scored from 10 to 831 times faster than my slowest traditional hard drive, depending on the test, and it scored from 1.4 to 14 times higher than my 480GB Intel 535 Series SATA SSD drive. This thing is fast.

SYSTEM BENCHMARKS

To assess my new computer's performance, I looked at three different things:

• Windows Experience Index: This is the built-in computer rating system in Windows 7. The idea was to judge a computer's suitability for running Windows 7, and it performs tests on CPU, RAM, graphics, and storage. The Experience Index has an artificial cap of 7.9; no single metric measured on a computer can receive a score higher than 7.9. (Microsoft raised the cap in Windows 8, but they also decided to hide the Experience Index from the Windows 8 user interface, for some reason.)
• DAW Bench (Cubase tests): DAW Bench is a suite of DAW projects designed to push a DAW PC to its DSP limits. There are two projects that use Native Instruments Kontakt to detemine a computer's maximum polyphony, and there are also a series of DSP tests which load huge numbers of specific plugins to see how many simultaneous instances you can run. I ran two Kontakt tests, one using Kontakt's convolution reverb (with CV) and one without reverb (no CV). The DSP test I ran uses the Cockos ReaXcomp compressor plugin.
• Passmark PerformanceTest: PassMark PerformanceTest 8.0 is a large suite of performance tests that test many aspects of PC performance, from CPU and RAM to graphics and even UI speed. While it produces very detailed test results, for simplicity's sake, I just recorded the overall "PassMark Rating," which is a combined total of all test results.

The two systems under test were:

• Antec P183 - My original 2010 DAW desktop.
• Antec P280 - My new DAW PC.

On the old computer (Antec P183), SpeedStep/EIST, C-States, and Turbo Boost were all disabled. On the new computer (Antec P280), all features were enabled. I didn't make any explicit overclocking tweaks to either computer, so the following just represents baseline performance.

DAW PC comparison. Higher scores are better.

As you can see, once you reach a certain point the Windows Experience Index isn't very useful for measuring a computer's performance. It does its job of indicating Windows 7 suitability, but doesn't give any hint to the true scope of the performance differences between these two machines. My 2010 DAW PC was a very fast computer when I first built it, and the GTX 570 graphics card was a top performer the year it was manufactured.

The true differences become much more clear when we look at the DAW Bench scores. On average, the new computer was able to support nearly three times as many simultaneous plugins or notes of polyphony as the older PC.

The results of the PassMark tests were similar, with the new computer's overall performance rating 2.4 times that of the older system.

Note: The DAW Bench tests were all done with 64-bit Cubase 7.5.2 and a Roland Duo Capture EX USB audio interface, at 44.1kHz/288 samples. I have also used my MOTU Track 16 (USB) and RME FireFace UFX (FireWire) on this computer with excellent results.

OPTIMIZING CPU PERFORMANCE

Back in the Bloomfield days (i7-920, i7-950, etc.), there were a number of common processor tweaks that usually led to better, more reliable audio performance on DAW PCs. Disabling the EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology) and "C-States" power management features led to the biggest gains, while disabling Turbo Mode could stabilize performance, improving the reliability of audio streams. Some folks even disabled Hyperthreading since it can sacrifice a little bit of a core's performance, which isn't necessarily desirable if you're working with software that doesn't utilize multiple threads.

Well, those days are over.

As CPUs have evolved, so have their supporting technologies, and all of the things we used to automatically turn off now either don't harm audio performance, or, in some cases, even improve it. I performed the ReaXcomp/RXC DAW Bench DSP test on my new DAW PC, first at the BIOS defaults (with all of the aforementioned features enabled), and then with each individual feature disabled. I did not do any tests with combinations of the features disables; I only tested them one-at-a-time. This test measures the number of live instances of the Cockos ReaXcomp compressor plugin could be enabled before the audio stream broke down.

Note: All tests were performed with the High Performance power plan selected.

Higher scores are better.

As you can see, disabling EIST and Turbo Mode had no effect on the results (indicating that both of these features allow your computer to reach its full potential when needed), and disabling the C-States had a very slight negative effect. Disabling Hyperthreading, however, had a huge negative impact. Don't do that!

So, at least with the Haswell-E processor family, it looks like this is the current recommendation:

• EIST/SpeedStep: Enabled
• Turbo Mode: Enabled
• C-States: Enabled
• Hyperthreading: Enabled

CONCLUSION

I don't want to admit how much time I put into building this computer. I'm very pleased with the results, though, and confident that this thing will last me another five years like my first DAW PC did. I sincerely hope that some of the information I've provided in these two posts is useful to someone. Goodness knows it took a lot of research and trial-and-error to figure out.

I haven't looked into any hands-on overclocking procedures, but I imagine a skilled and patient person could wring even more performance of a computer composed of the same parts with the right tweaks. If you're brave enough to try it, I'd love to hear what you did, and how things turned out.

But for now, enjoy and rock on!