Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

recording without saving

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 11:57:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly to a
hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).

The reason for my question is that I record live concerts, ie, multiple
sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16 one-hour
tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a short time
between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard disk---I want to
be ready to record again, quickly.

Aside from Kristal Engine, is there any other software that has this
feature? It won't do the trick for me, as I use the Onyx mixer, whose
18 firewire outputs appear as stereo pairs 1 to 9; Krystal can't seem to
decode that.....

thanks for any suggestions on this.

More about : recording saving

Anonymous
May 22, 2005 11:57:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Richardson" wrote ...
> I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly to
> a hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).
>
> The reason for my question is that I record live concerts, ie,
> multiple sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16
> one-hour tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a short
> time between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard disk---I
> want to be ready to record again, quickly.

Huh? Using what? When I record using Cool Edit Pro (aka Audition)
it records directly to WAV files (or whatever you specified). Closing
a recording and opening a new one takes only as long as it takes the
user interface to paint the new windows on the screen.

Still, I wouldn't record a live concert using a computer because
there are too many other things to go wrong. At least run a backup
DAT or something.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 1:27:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi.
SCSI drives... (Removable) are a must...
I can do hour hour and a half live concerts to protools 24 tracks
upwards, are you looking for somthing that records straight onto a
removable media?
Radar is my fave for live and on location gigs. You can switch the
power off mid recording and all the audio up till the power down will
remain...
The Mackie aint great, apparently it splits the files cause it's only
an IDE drive. Pretty scary.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:54:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, in Audition, when I stop the recording and "save as" (in other
words, the first time I save the multitrack session) I get a save dialog
box which then prompts me to save each and every wave file.....all 16 in
total. I understand from the Audition forum that it does indeed write a
temp file for each track, which then must be named and saved.
Subsequent saves (Crtl-s) are fast; just a quick update.

Try recording a session and then attempt to close it and see what dialog
box comes up....

Yes, I run a Mackie MDR2496 multitrack recorder as a backup.

------------------



Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Don Richardson" wrote ...
>
>> I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly to
>> a hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).
>>
>> The reason for my question is that I record live concerts, ie,
>> multiple sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16
>> one-hour tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a short
>> time between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard disk---I
>> want to be ready to record again, quickly.
>
>
> Huh? Using what? When I record using Cool Edit Pro (aka Audition)
> it records directly to WAV files (or whatever you specified). Closing
> a recording and opening a new one takes only as long as it takes the
> user interface to paint the new windows on the screen.
>
> Still, I wouldn't record a live concert using a computer because
> there are too many other things to go wrong. At least run a backup
> DAT or something.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 3:54:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Richardson" wrote ...
> Well, in Audition, when I stop the recording and "save as" (in other
> words, the first time I save the multitrack session) I get a save
> dialog box which then prompts me to save each and every wave
> file.....all 16 in total. I understand from the Audition forum that
> it does indeed write a temp file for each track, which then must be
> named and saved. Subsequent saves (Crtl-s) are fast; just a quick
> update.
>
> Try recording a session and then attempt to close it and see what
> dialog box comes up....

Yes, I see what you mean. I was basing my statement on just using it
for stereo. OTOH, you could always "start" several empty sessions
and just use the prefabricated sessions while recording live. I believe
you can preset several other things (like channel sources, etc.) that
way.

> Yes, I run a Mackie MDR2496 multitrack recorder as a backup.

And I run my Alesis HD24 as the primary machine and just dump
the WAV files into CE/Audition. Much more reliable, especially
when I am one of the performers and can't oversee the recording
process directly.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 4:21:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don Richardson wrote:
> Well, in Audition, when I stop the recording and "save as" (in other
> words, the first time I save the multitrack session) I get a save dialog
> box which then prompts me to save each and every wave file.....all 16 in
> total. I understand from the Audition forum that it does indeed write a
> temp file for each track, which then must be named and saved.
> Subsequent saves (Crtl-s) are fast; just a quick update.

*snip*

I'm no longer an Audition/Cool Edit user so my memory's a little foggy,
but i know with Cubase SX when you open a new session, the first thing
it does is prompt the user for a directory where the project should run
from. This way, as soon as the song/set is complete you just whack one
more Ctrl-S and you're done. Close the session, open a new session for
the next song/set and specify a new directory and away you go. So
basically, in Cubase, the whole Save As... function is done at the
beginning of the session before there are any big files to write.

This is true for Cubase SX, Pro Tools, Nuendo, and Logic as well.

Roach
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:20:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> thanks for any suggestions on this.

Nuendo should do the trick. Not cheap though :( 
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 6:57:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <11910chd6elp3e5@corp.supernews.com> rcrowley7@xprt.net writes:

> Huh? Using what? When I record using Cool Edit Pro (aka Audition)
> it records directly to WAV files (or whatever you specified). Closing
> a recording and opening a new one takes only as long as it takes the
> user interface to paint the new windows on the screen.

Have you tried this with a long recording? For your typical 5-minute
take, the time before it's reloaded and ready to record again is
usually trivial, but some programs (and I don't know if Cool Edit is
one) have to do some housekeeping. On my Mackie HDR24/96, while audio
is written directly to the heard drive on the fly, when recording 24
tracks continuously for an hour (it actually closes a file if it
records for more than 15 mintues, and starts a new one) it can take
upwards of a minute to update the "project" file that keeps track of
what's to be played back when and on which channel.

> Still, I wouldn't record a live concert using a computer because
> there are too many other things to go wrong. At least run a backup
> DAT or something.

I'll second that, but I'm starting to weaken.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:21:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Don Richardson" wrote ...
> > I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly
to
> > a hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).
> >
> > The reason for my question is that I record live concerts, ie,
> > multiple sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16

> > one-hour tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a
short
> > time between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard
disk---I
> > want to be ready to record again, quickly.
>
> Huh? Using what? When I record using Cool Edit Pro (aka Audition)
> it records directly to WAV files (or whatever you specified). Closing
> a recording and opening a new one takes only as long as it takes the
> user interface to paint the new windows on the screen.

This is only true if you are saving as the
CoolEdit native file format: 32bit.
If you want to save as 24bit integer the file
needs to be converted in the save process,
and this is one of the aspects of
Cool/Audition that I have struggled with.
I would be much happier if I could specify
24bit (typeI) as the native file format.

rd
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:23:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Richardson" <donr39ca@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1190stu2pocrm24@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records
directly to a
> hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).
>
> The reason for my question is that I record live concerts,
ie, multiple
> sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16
one-hour
> tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a
short time
> between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard
disk---I want to
> be ready to record again, quickly.

You might want to work on your hardware configuration. I
believe that you've mentioned that you've been using
Audition/CE to do your recording work, as do I. Yesterday I
checked the time it takes to save a half-hour 20 track
session, and came up with an average of 18 seconds per track
or six minutes for all 20.

IME audio file save times expand roughly linearly with
recording time.

Therefore I would project about 10 minutes (about half what
you mention) for your task, were you do it on a system that
was more comparable to mine.

My system is hardly SOTA - being composed of an 512k Athlon
2000+ with 2 120 GB 7200 rpm hard drives. I think that if I
pulled a few more tricks out of my bag (RAID, anybody) I
might cut my save times in half.

Plan B might be to have two computer systems (not a bad idea
for a job the size of yours for the sake of reliability) and
swap them between sessions throughout the day. If the
recording interfaces were on Firewire or USB ports, you
could use the same interfaces and just switch the ports.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 10:41:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don Richardson wrote:

> I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly to a
> hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).

> The reason for my question is that I record live concerts, ie, multiple
> sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16 one-hour
> tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a short time
> between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard disk---I want to
> be ready to record again, quickly.

> Aside from Kristal Engine, is there any other software that has this
> feature? It won't do the trick for me, as I use the Onyx mixer, whose
> 18 firewire outputs appear as stereo pairs 1 to 9; Krystal can't seem to
> decode that.....

> thanks for any suggestions on this.

On a Mac running OSX 10.3.something or other, the Metric Halo Mobile
IO's Console app can stream SDII files straight to hard disk without
intermediation by a DAW application. There is no <save> function or
command. You specifiy a folder into which the files are to be written.
It writes the files directly, and thereafter one may import them into
one's DAW app of choice.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:38:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote in message
news:1116779236.730651.17670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> SCSI drives... (Removable) are a must...

10 years ago, maybe.

> Radar is my fave for live and on location gigs. You can
switch the
> power off mid recording and all the audio up till the
power down will
> remain...

Ditto for Audition/CEP. It's pretty uncanny. I tell my
unskilled operators to, if in doubt, just turn the plug
strip off. I come back later, power up and let Audition
recover the work file(s), and do the file save then.

> The Mackie aint great, apparently it splits the files
cause it's only
> an IDE drive. Pretty scary.

It's the Mackie part of the equation, not the IDE part.
Audition works fine on IDE drives. No sweat.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:24:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote in news:1116779236.730651.17670
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Hi.
> SCSI drives... (Removable) are a must...
> I can do hour hour and a half live concerts to protools 24 tracks
> upwards, are you looking for somthing that records straight onto a
> removable media?
> Radar is my fave for live and on location gigs. You can switch the
> power off mid recording and all the audio up till the power down will
> remain...
> The Mackie aint great, apparently it splits the files cause it's only
> an IDE drive. Pretty scary.
>
You appear to be basing this on some antiquated facts about SCSI vs IDE. If
the Mackie splits the files up, it's due to the way it formats the drive,
not the fact that it's an IDE drive.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 6:24:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" wrote :
> SCSI drives... (Removable) are a must...

Good luck. They're nearly extinct.

Perhaps because they no longer have any advantage over
todays less expensive, fast IDE (and now SATA), drives.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <9dudnZG7fI1pdwzfRVn-1A@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> > The Mackie aint great, apparently it splits the files
> cause it's only
> > an IDE drive. Pretty scary.
>
> It's the Mackie part of the equation, not the IDE part.
> Audition works fine on IDE drives. No sweat.

The Mackie work great, too. The file splitting isn't a problem, just
something you need to understand. And I'm sure it's saved someone's
butt (or at least saved project recovery time) at one time or another
when power's been lost.

When the Mackie HDR first came out, TASCAM made a big deal about the
superiority of the SCSI drives that they used in the MX-2424 as
opposed to the IDE drives that the Mackie used. Which product lasted
longer in the market? (Mackie) And what kind of drive does TASCAM's
new entry, the X-48 use? (IDE).

SCSI used to be what you had to buy in order to get a fast and large
capacity disk drive. No more.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:05:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Your comment is very intriguing----yesterday, a 50 minute set required
100 seconds to save each of 16 tracks. I'm running Athlon XP M2500+
(o/c to 3200+ with 200 MHz FSB) and 1 GB of PC3200 ram.

One issue at the moment; the same internal drive (not the OS hard drive)
is writing the temp file and the final save in its own project folder.
Maybe the hard drive is taking too much time to read then write..... I
will get an external firewire drive up for the same save function, and
see what time it takes then....

Thanks for giving me your experience with Audition. It's my preferred
recording option.

-------------

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Don Richardson" <donr39ca@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1190stu2pocrm24@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records
>
> directly to a
>
>>hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).
>>
>>The reason for my question is that I record live concerts,
>
> ie, multiple
>
>>sets in music festivals---and the time taken for saving 16
>
> one-hour
>
>>tracks is about 20 minutes, too long if there's only a
>
> short time
>
>>between sets. Hence the need to record directly to hard
>
> disk---I want to
>
>>be ready to record again, quickly.
>
>
> You might want to work on your hardware configuration. I
> believe that you've mentioned that you've been using
> Audition/CE to do your recording work, as do I. Yesterday I
> checked the time it takes to save a half-hour 20 track
> session, and came up with an average of 18 seconds per track
> or six minutes for all 20.
>
> IME audio file save times expand roughly linearly with
> recording time.
>
> Therefore I would project about 10 minutes (about half what
> you mention) for your task, were you do it on a system that
> was more comparable to mine.
>
> My system is hardly SOTA - being composed of an 512k Athlon
> 2000+ with 2 120 GB 7200 rpm hard drives. I think that if I
> pulled a few more tricks out of my bag (RAID, anybody) I
> might cut my save times in half.
>
> Plan B might be to have two computer systems (not a bad idea
> for a job the size of yours for the sake of reliability) and
> swap them between sessions throughout the day. If the
> recording interfaces were on Firewire or USB ports, you
> could use the same interfaces and just switch the ports.
>
>
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:09:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don Richardson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly to a
> hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).

Samplitude/Sequoia.

Even if the program crashes (happened to me because of some other
software that had gone berserk, not Samplitude's fault), the files will
be on you disk as recorded...

Daniel
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 6:39:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> Don Richardson wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm looking for multitrack recording software that records directly to a
>>hard drive (no temp files as an intermediary).
>
>

We use Vegas (Version 4 at this moment) -

it records .wav files directly to the selected destination -

when you stop recording, two things happen:

Closing the .wav file requires an instant to go to the head of the file
and write the file length into the first sector. A millisecond or so.
(side note: I found out about this the hard way when we had a power
failure during a recording session - thought everything was lost as
opening the file in an audio editor said there was "0 seconds" of audio
but checking the DOS file information said we had about 900 megs of data
in each channel's .wav file... Wrote a utility to insert the file length
into the first sector and voila' - back in business... woo hoo!)

After closing, Vegas then scans the entire file and builds the peak
display information for the visual display in the editor. This can take
a while - quite a while for several channels of hour or longer recorded
data. There's a progress bar in the lower left of the screen that shows
what's happening.

This scan process is OPTIONAL, and only useful if you're going to be
mixing immediately after recording.

Next to the progress bar is a 'Cancel' button that aborts the scan and
puts you back into "Record Ready" mode.

We can stop recording, close all files and be ready for the next take in
less than 10 seconds.

Carla
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 11:50:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Don Richardson" <donr39ca@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4292A80D.4010603@netscape.net...

> Your comment is very intriguing----yesterday, a 50 minute
set required
> 100 seconds to save each of 16 tracks. I'm running Athlon
XP M2500+
> (o/c to 3200+ with 200 MHz FSB) and 1 GB of PC3200 ram.

> One issue at the moment; the same internal drive (not the
OS hard drive)
> is writing the temp file and the final save in its own
project folder.

Yes, during the file save, Audition/CEP is copying masses of
data from the temp folder to the project folder.

Copying a large file from one part of a hard drive to
another part of the same hard drive is a well-known
performance bottleneck. OTOH, disk-disk copies can be far
faster.

> Maybe the hard drive is taking too much time to read then
write..... I
> will get an external firewire drive up for the same save
function, and
> see what time it takes then....

> Thanks for giving me your experience with Audition.

Glad to help someone who seems to be as enthusastic about
live multitrack recording as I am.

> It's my preferred recording option.

Obviously mine, as well.

Back on topic...

If you somehow manage to put the Audition/CE temp file on a
separate drive from the project folder drive, it's easy to
predict a performance gain during file saves on the order of
2:1 or more.

If you can swing it, an external "project" hard drive
connected a USB-2 or Firewire interface could be a big help.

If the external hard drive is home to the project folder,
you may have the option of carrying the external drive
around, or having redundant external hard drives, instead of
carrying around the computer or trying to have redundant
computers.

One nice thing about USB-2 and Firewire external hard drives
is that they hot swap very nicely, even under XP.

In contrast, splitting the Audition/CEP temp file folders
has a completely different set of performance advantages.
When there are two temp file folders, the I/O for writing is
split across two hard drives. But, when you save, the save
runs essentially from one temp file hard drive, and then the
other. Only one hard drive is active at a time during the
file save, so there is not much performance advantage.

All other things being equal, a larger, emptier hard drive
is faster than a smaller, fuller one.

I can foresee the day when it might be practical to save
large audio projects to USB flash drives, which are very
compact, robust, and fast.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 11:55:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carla Fong" <carla.xspamx.fong@verizon.net> wrote in
message news:T0Hke.13$qJ3.9@trnddc05...

> We use Vegas (Version 4 at this moment) -
>
> it records .wav files directly to the selected
destination -
>
> when you stop recording, two things happen:
>
> Closing the .wav file requires an instant to go to the
head of the file
> and write the file length into the first sector. A
millisecond or so.
> (side note: I found out about this the hard way when we
had a power
> failure during a recording session - thought everything
was lost as
> opening the file in an audio editor said there was "0
seconds" of audio
> but checking the DOS file information said we had about
900 megs of data
> in each channel's .wav file... Wrote a utility to insert
the file length
> into the first sector and voila' - back in business... woo
hoo!)
>
> After closing, Vegas then scans the entire file and builds
the peak
> display information for the visual display in the editor.
This can take
> a while - quite a while for several channels of hour or
longer recorded
> data. There's a progress bar in the lower left of the
screen that shows
> what's happening.
>
> This scan process is OPTIONAL, and only useful if you're
going to be
> mixing immediately after recording.
>
> Next to the progress bar is a 'Cancel' button that aborts
the scan and
> puts you back into "Record Ready" mode.
>
> We can stop recording, close all files and be ready for
the next take in
> less than 10 seconds.

This looks like an attractive option. How is Vegas 4 as
audio-only software? All the versions I find for sale online
seem to be mainly for video, and run about twice the price
of Audition/CE.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:27:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> When the Mackie HDR first came out, TASCAM made a big deal about the
> superiority of the SCSI drives that they used in the MX-2424 as
> opposed to the IDE drives that the Mackie used. Which product lasted
> longer in the market? (Mackie) And what kind of drive does TASCAM's
> new entry, the X-48 use? (IDE).

A marketing question I would imagine...

> SCSI used to be what you had to buy in order to get a fast and large
> capacity disk drive. No more.
>

Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be interested. I've
only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many more ide drives die.
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 11:42:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" wrote ...
> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be interested.

See Brendan's response.

> I've only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many more
> ide drives die.

Meaningless unless we know how many SCSI drives you have seen,
and how many IDE.

My recollection from back when we used to use SCSI drives was
that only the expensive server-class drives had any significantly
better reliability than current IDE products. Of course SCSI drives
are going the way of the Dodo bird, so this whole argument is
moot.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:33:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote in
news:1118975261.992444.118640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be interested.
> I've only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many more
> ide drives die.

Here you go!
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=65&...

And it's FASTER then just about any 10k RPM SCSI drive with similar
MTBF figures -- and they're only $200 a pop.

Have a read:
http://storagereview.com/articles/200401/20040126WD740G...



Brendan
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:31:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1118975261.992444.118640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> daveslevin@02.ie writes:

> > SCSI used to be what you had to buy in order to get a fast and large
> > capacity disk drive. No more.

> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be interested. I've
> only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many more ide drives die.

Show me a need in recording for a 10,000 RPM drive. If you really want
to record, play, and punch 100 simultaneouls tracks at 192 kHz then
maybe you have a requirement, but for 24 tracks at 48 kHz sample rate,
a 5400 RPM drive is adequate.

As to reliability, there's no reason why one should be more reliable
than the other. At one time, and perhaps still, SCSI drives, because
of their greater cost, used better components than IDE drives, but
these days you'd have to work hard (like you'd have to be director of
manufacturing of a major manufacturer who sold both types of drives)
to convince me that they aren't all assembled in China or Mexico using
the same automated equipment and techniques.

I haven't seen an IDE drive failure myself. That doesn't mean I'll
never have one, but diligent backups should reduce the possibility of
total project loss to near zero. You don't forego backing up because
you use SCSI drives, do you?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:46:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1119006584k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>In article <1118975261.992444.118640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> daveslevin@02.ie writes:
>
>> > SCSI used to be what you had to buy in order to get a fast and large
>> > capacity disk drive. No more.
>
>> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be interested. I've
>> only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many more ide drives die.
>
>Show me a need in recording for a 10,000 RPM drive. If you really want
>to record, play, and punch 100 simultaneouls tracks at 192 kHz then
>maybe you have a requirement, but for 24 tracks at 48 kHz sample rate,
>a 5400 RPM drive is adequate.

Faster backups.

>As to reliability, there's no reason why one should be more reliable
>than the other. At one time, and perhaps still, SCSI drives, because
>of their greater cost, used better components than IDE drives, but
>these days you'd have to work hard (like you'd have to be director of
>manufacturing of a major manufacturer who sold both types of drives)
>to convince me that they aren't all assembled in China or Mexico using
>the same automated equipment and techniques.
>
>I haven't seen an IDE drive failure myself. That doesn't mean I'll
>never have one, but diligent backups should reduce the possibility of
>total project loss to near zero. You don't forego backing up because
>you use SCSI drives, do you?

I see drive failures _all the time_. Don't trust _any_ disk drive.
Make constant backups.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:25:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

studiorat wrote:
>> When the Mackie HDR first came out, TASCAM made a big
deal about the
>> superiority of the SCSI drives that they used in the
MX-2424 as
>> opposed to the IDE drives that the Mackie used. Which
product lasted
>> longer in the market? (Mackie) And what kind of drive
does TASCAM's
>> new entry, the X-48 use? (IDE).
>
> A marketing question I would imagine...

>> SCSI used to be what you had to buy in order to get a
fast and large
>> capacity disk drive. No more.

Definately true.

> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be
interested.

I'll show you such a drive and then tell you why you might
not want it.

Here is a 10,000 rpm ata drive:

http://store.westerndigital.com/product.asp?sku=2325479

(there are larger models)

The reason why you might not want it is because you can
probably get as good or better performance with a lot more
space for about the same money or maybe a little more.


> I've only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many
more ide drives die.

Let's compare a number of relevant things:

(1) The total number of SCSI and IDE drives you've seen in
operation. If you see 100 times more IDE drives in operation
and you see 100 times more IDE drives fail, then both are
equally relaible, right?

(2) SCSI drives have been shoved into the high-performance,
high-reliability, high-cost end of the marketplace. If SCSI
drives cost more for a certain amount of space, and also are
more reliable due the fact that spending more on their
construction is justified by the price, then who is
surprised if they are more reliable?

IOW, good diesel truck engines go 500,000 miles without an
overhaul. If that's all that matters, why doesn't every car
have a diesel truck engine in it?

Bottom line, money matters. Zillions of people are getting
great performance for complex audio applications out of good
modern ATA drives or modest arrays of them.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:22:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d8uk8f$orn$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> >Show me a need in recording for a 10,000 RPM drive.

> Faster backups.

But is it, really, and significantly faster? And what else does your
computer have to do while you're sleeping or eating dinner?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:35:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1119025654k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <d8uk8f$orn$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:
>
>> >Show me a need in recording for a 10,000 RPM drive.
>
>> Faster backups.
>
>But is it, really, and significantly faster? And what else does your
>computer have to do while you're sleeping or eating dinner?

It can be, depending on what you're backing up to. If you're backing up
to a second bank of drives, it can be a major improvement in speed.
If you're backing up every couple hours in a production environment
that's a big deal. If you can wait until dinnertime, it probably isn't.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:27:42 +0200, studiorat wrote:

> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be interested.

I hope you are interested in storage speed. Besides the rotationspeed the
number of bits per rotation is equally important. I see modern IDE drives
do sustained writes at 25MByte/sec, I've seen 10,000 RPM SCSI drives do
less than half of that. Some FLASH drives get superb speed figures without
rotating at all. Normally high rotation speeds results in more noise, more
heat and shorter life.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 11:10:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <znr1119006584k@trad>, Mike Rivers
<mrivers@d-and-d.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> In article
<1118975261.992444.118640@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> daveslevin@02.ie writes:
>>
>>>> SCSI used to be what you had to buy in order to get a
fast and
>>>> large capacity disk drive. No more.
>>
>>> Show me a 10,000rpm ide (ata) drive and I might be
interested. I've
>>> only seen 2 scsi drives break down I have seen many more
ide drives
>>> die.
>>
>> Show me a need in recording for a 10,000 RPM drive. If
you really
>> want
>> to record, play, and punch 100 simultaneouls tracks at
192 kHz then
>> maybe you have a requirement, but for 24 tracks at 48 kHz
sample
>> rate,
>> a 5400 RPM drive is adequate.
>
> Faster backups.

What backup media's speed taxes a modern 5400 rpm drive?
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 11:11:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <znr1119025654k@trad>, Mike Rivers
<mrivers@d-and-d.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <d8uk8f$orn$1@panix2.panix.com>
kludge@panix.com writes:
>>
>>>> Show me a need in recording for a 10,000 RPM drive.
>>
>>> Faster backups.
>>
>> But is it, really, and significantly faster? And what
else does your
>> computer have to do while you're sleeping or eating
dinner?
>
> It can be, depending on what you're backing up to. If
you're backing
> up to a second bank of drives, it can be a major
improvement in speed.

This is the same guy who says (which I emphatically agree
with):

"I see drive failures all the time. Don't trust any disk
drive."
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 11:37:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>What backup media's speed taxes a modern 5400 rpm drive?

A 7200 rpm drive.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't seen an IDE drive failure myself.



You've just been lucky. I've had a few go south on me. Fortunately,
they don't usually quit abruptly. They become uncooperative and finicky
first, to warn you that death is imminent.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:47:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <VXFte.71519$on1.14900@clgrps13> Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca writes:

> You've just been lucky. I've had a few go south on me. Fortunately,
> they don't usually quit abruptly. They become uncooperative and finicky
> first, to warn you that death is imminent.

Well, I'll admit to having replaced drives when I became suspicious of
them, but the only time I had a drive fail before I could recover the
data from it (it wasn't a situation where I was willing to pay for a
high-priced data recovery service to work on it), it was an MFM drive,
pre IDE. I suspect that the failure was in the electronics rather than
the platters, so it probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal to
read it if that was the only recourse. Since this was on the BBS that
I was running at the time, I had a backup that was less than half a
day old. That was in the days when you could do an incremental backup
on a couple of floppy disks.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:47:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1119302181k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <VXFte.71519$on1.14900@clgrps13> Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca writes:
>
>> You've just been lucky. I've had a few go south on me. Fortunately,
>> they don't usually quit abruptly. They become uncooperative and finicky
>> first, to warn you that death is imminent.
>
>Well, I'll admit to having replaced drives when I became suspicious of
>them, but the only time I had a drive fail before I could recover the
>data from it (it wasn't a situation where I was willing to pay for a
>high-priced data recovery service to work on it), it was an MFM drive,
>pre IDE. I suspect that the failure was in the electronics rather than
>the platters, so it probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal to
>read it if that was the only recourse. Since this was on the BBS that
>I was running at the time, I had a backup that was less than half a
>day old. That was in the days when you could do an incremental backup
>on a couple of floppy disks.

For the most part, the operating system _should_ give you a way to watch
drive error rates. But if it doesn't, your major tool is to listen to
the drives.

Most of the drive failures I see are due to main bearings going bad.
When this happens, the whine from the drive stops being a pure tone
and turns into a fuzzy tone with sidebands around it. When you hear
that sound, the drive is failing.

Drives that regularly go into tcal all the time are also probably doomed
to failure soon, and that causes a particular sort of ticking pattern
as the voice coil zeroes the heads out and returns them several times.
That sound also is a sign of impending trouble.

Make good backups, constant backups. Make more backups and use your
ears.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:42:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <gPidnRe6A-Zr0SrfRVn-vg@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> What backup media's speed taxes a modern 5400 rpm drive?

I think Scott's talking about human impatience. You can back up a
10,000 RPM drive to another 10,000 RPM drive faster than if one of
them was a 5400 RPM drive.

If your backup medium was CD or DVD, I'm sure that would be the
bottleneck, not the hard drive. I don't know how fast today's tape
drives work so I don't know how they compare to disk-to-disk speed.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:03:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz <Lorin@damnspam!v5v.ca> wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen an IDE drive failure myself.
>
>
>
> You've just been lucky. I've had a few go south on me.

No doubt - I've personally had3 IDE drives fail on me and have at while
working computer lab maintenance jobs at least another 30-40 fail.

> Fortunately,
> they don't usually quit abruptly. They become uncooperative and finicky
> first, to warn you that death is imminent.

Usually this is true... and sometimes even after they die they can be
resurrected long enough to retrieve the data.

--
Aaron
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:15:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:07:57 +0200, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> For the most part, the operating system _should_ give you a way to watch
> drive error rates. But if it doesn't, your major tool is to listen to
> the drives.
>
> Most of the drive failures I see are due to main bearings going bad.
> When this happens, the whine from the drive stops being a pure tone and
> turns into a fuzzy tone with sidebands around it. When you hear that
> sound, the drive is failing.
>
> Drives that regularly go into tcal all the time are also probably doomed
> to failure soon, and that causes a particular sort of ticking pattern as
> the voice coil zeroes the heads out and returns them several times. That
> sound also is a sign of impending trouble.

Most drives do indeed make noise logn before they die. If they don't make
noise, still replace them after a few years. Keep in mind that drives can
fail instantly by EMP (thunderstorms etc.) BTW. It is a good habit to
invalidate the data on drives you throw away. I use a big hamer for this,
works fast.

> Make good backups, constant backups. Make more backups and use your
> ears.

Drive failure is just one source of data loss. In a windows environment
data loss by software failure and/or virusses is more propable than data
loss by hardware failure. I save completed projects on a Linux server and
I make this saved projecs read-only on the Linux server.
The files on the Linux server are backed-up daily on a different disk
with rsync, and I make backups on external volumes (firewire disks) that
I store in a safe.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:20:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:42:37 +0200, Mike Rivers wrote:
> I think Scott's talking about human impatience. You can back up a
> 10,000 RPM drive to another 10,000 RPM drive faster than if one of
> them was a 5400 RPM drive.

The rotational speed of a drive is only one factor, medium density
(bits/rotation) is equally important. The specification 10.000 RPM says
about as much as the specification 16 valves for an engine.

> If your backup medium was CD or DVD, I'm sure that would be the
> bottleneck, not the hard drive. I don't know how fast today's tape
> drives work so I don't know how they compare to disk-to-disk speed.

DVD witers are quite fast. 16 speed ia about 22MByte/sec

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
!