Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is NTFS OK for Audio?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:21:33 PM

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

I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file system rather
than a NTFS file system because I read that large files streamed faster
using FAT32. I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation of
FAT32. I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is there
any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio? The system is dual Pentium
processor, with a RAID 0 hard drive array.

Thanks!

Tim Sprout

More about : ntfs audio

Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:07:03 PM

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

>Is there
>any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio?

No.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:15:23 PM

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

"Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:11gc59i36dt131e@corp.supernews.com

> I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file
> system rather
> than a NTFS file system because I read that large files
> streamed faster using FAT32.

Next time try reading elsewhere! ;-)

>I am running up against the
> 4 gigabyte file size limitation of FAT32.

If your files are .wav files, the problem is deeper than
just FAT32.

> I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is
> there
> any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio?

None that thousands of happy audio users of NTFS make much
out of.

> The system is dual Pentium processor, with a RAID 0 hard
> drive array.

Should work very well.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:15:24 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@pop3free.com> wrote in message
news:6-2dnaYasOYyvJveRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> "Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
> news:11gc59i36dt131e@corp.supernews.com
>
> > I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file
> > system rather
> > than a NTFS file system because I read that large files
> > streamed faster using FAT32.
>
> Next time try reading elsewhere! ;-)


Yeah. I think it was rec.video.production. :-)


>
> >I am running up against the
> > 4 gigabyte file size limitation of FAT32.
>
> If your files are .wav files, the problem is deeper than
> just FAT32.


Mmm. Thanks for that! (This project has video.)


> > I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is
> > there
> > any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio?
>
> None that thousands of happy audio users of NTFS make much
> out of.
>
> > The system is dual Pentium processor, with a RAID 0 hard
> > drive array.
>
> Should work very well.


Thanks, as always. I will fearlessly convert to NTFS.

Respectfully,

Tim Sprout
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 7:58:27 PM

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

"Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:11gcecb5vg0s242@corp.supernews.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@pop3free.com> wrote in message
> news:6-2dnaYasOYyvJveRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>> "Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
>> news:11gc59i36dt131e@corp.supernews.com
>>
>> > I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file
>> > system rather
>> > than a NTFS file system because I read that large files
>> > streamed faster using FAT32.
>>
>> Next time try reading elsewhere! ;-)
>
>
> Yeah. I think it was rec.video.production. :-)

Doesn't make any more sense over there.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:07:51 PM

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

"Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:11gcecb5vg0s242@corp.supernews.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@pop3free.com> wrote in message
> news:6-2dnaYasOYyvJveRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>> "Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
>> news:11gc59i36dt131e@corp.supernews.com
>>
>>> I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file
>>> system rather
>>> than a NTFS file system because I read that large files
>>> streamed faster using FAT32.
>>
>> Next time try reading elsewhere! ;-)
>
>
> Yeah. I think it was rec.video.production. :-)

What may be revealed truth for video, might not be
appropriate for audio, and vice-versa.

As a rule, audio is generally easier on the hard drives
than some hi-res flavors of video.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:41:46 PM

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

the biggest decision point is this:
Fat32 can be read/run on a Windows98 machine. NTFS requires Windows
2000 or XP (I can't remember what Windows ME runs on).

Windows 2000 can run on Fat32 or NTFS.

I'm using Fat32, but I'll be migrating to NTFS over time.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:24:20 PM

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

In article <11gc59i36dt131e@corp.supernews.com> tman@ptialaska.net writes:

> I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file system rather
> than a NTFS file system because I read that large files streamed faster
> using FAT32.

I don't know why they should, but I have a laptop with XP set up for
NTFS that seems like it works as well as can be expected. However, if
you're thinking in terms of removable disk drives and moving projects
to other comptuers, particularly Macs, FAT32 is likely to be more
interchangeable. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, FAT32 is part of the
AES recommended standard (unless it's part of the SPARS
recommendations) for interchange of digital audio projects.

> I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation of
> FAT32.

In reality, you're probalby running into a WAV file limitation, but
why do you need files that large anyway? That's about 4 track-hours at
24-bit 48 kHz. Planning to do a lot of 192 kHz concert recordings?


--
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
August 19, 2005 10:24:21 PM

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

Mike Rivers:

>In reality, you're probalby running into a WAV file limitation

-verbose

I cannot see the problem.
And I programmed a wave-reader myself in c++.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:39:50 PM

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

In article <6-2dnaYasOYyvJveRVn-vg@comcast.com>, arnyk@pop3free.com
says...
> > I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file
> > system rather
> > than a NTFS file system because I read that large files
> > streamed faster using FAT32.
>
> Next time try reading elsewhere! ;-)

Actually, someone once did some tests of NTFS and FAT32 in Nuendo, using
the same hard drive, and they did find that FAT32 was measurably, though
not significantly, faster - I want to say it was in the 10% range. But
that was about track counts, not the speed of streaming a single file;
that's pretty much limited by spindle speed these days.

And in any case, the other advantages of NTFS - stability,
recoverability, settable cluster sizes, etc. - far outweigh any speed
advantage of FAT32.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | I feel calm. I feel ready. I can only
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that's because I don't have a
http://www.jay.fm | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:27:53 AM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> In article <11gc59i36dt131e@corp.supernews.com> tman@ptialaska.net writes:
>
>> I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation of
>> FAT32.
>
> In reality, you're probalby running into a WAV file limitation, but
> why do you need files that large anyway? That's about 4 track-hours at
> 24-bit 48 kHz. Planning to do a lot of 192 kHz concert recordings?

I think you may be right. WAV uses 32-bit lengths in the chunk headers.
Since they appear to be signed, you'll have a 2 gigabyte limit per chunk
unless the software in question is treating the lengths as being unsigned,
in which case you get the full 4GB.
In theory this could be overcome by stitching multiple chunks together, but
that would depend on the cooperation of the software.

>
> --
> 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

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 5:27:07 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:21:33 -0800, "Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net>
wrote:

>I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file system rather
>than a NTFS file system because I read that large files streamed faster
>using FAT32. I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation of
>FAT32. I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is there
>any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio? The system is dual Pentium
>processor, with a RAID 0 hard drive array.

Use NTFS. Any disadvantages are minimal.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 5:53:23 AM

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

>I'm using Fat32, but I'll be migrating to NTFS over time.

I suggest you don't attempt it gradually. A half-FAT32, half-NTFS
partition may be difficult to manage :-)
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 10:47:43 AM

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

Mike Rivers:

>Then why don't you answer his question instead of not recognizing that
>he has a problem?

Because I cannot answer the question if ntfs has a better or worser
performance for audio. I never worked with nfts until now.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 10:52:31 AM

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

In article <43066971$0$97126$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net> jpm@it-he.org writes:

> WAV uses 32-bit lengths in the chunk headers.
> Since they appear to be signed, you'll have a 2 gigabyte limit per chunk
> unless the software in question is treating the lengths as being unsigned,
> in which case you get the full 4GB.
> In theory this could be overcome by stitching multiple chunks together, but
> that would depend on the cooperation of the software.

There are some programs that do this. I just ASSumed that since this
was an audio newsgroup he was talking about audio files, but in a
follow-up he mentioned video. I don't know anything about video file
formats.


--
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
August 20, 2005 10:52:32 AM

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

In article <1124495874.619619.196460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> jana.luetz@gmx.de writes:

> >In reality, you're probalby running into a WAV file limitation
>
> -verbose
>
> I cannot see the problem.
> And I programmed a wave-reader myself in c++.

Then why don't you answer his question instead of not recognizing that
he has a problem?

--
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
August 23, 2005 10:08:03 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:21:33 -0800, "Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net>
wrote:

>I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file system rather
>than a NTFS file system because I read that large files streamed faster
>using FAT32. I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation of
>FAT32. I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is there
>any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio? The system is dual Pentium
>processor, with a RAID 0 hard drive array.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Tim Sprout
>

When the XP chkdisk utility scrambled my Fat32 hard drive I recovered
most of it from an ME boot disk. With an NTFS drive you would need an
expert ($$$) or special wizbang software and a lot of study. I don't
have a security concern so I never saw any advantage to NTFS.
I don't know if the 2gig file size limitation is due to the drive
formatting, the wav file extension or the OS but WaveLab has chunked
the files perfectly for years; you can record audio until you run out
of drive space. I don't know about other apps or how that applies to
video but at least we know it's possible. Let us know what you find
out and good luck.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:08:04 AM

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

"spud" <itsfake@fcourse.com> wrote in message
news:mqelg1l87s3odglsir2cmi0qi6u3g6fikn@4ax.com
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:21:33 -0800, "Tim Sprout"
> <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>
>> I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file
>> system rather
>> than a NTFS file system because I read that large files
>> streamed faster using FAT32. I am running up against the
>> 4 gigabyte file size limitation of FAT32. I am
>> considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is there
>> any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio? The system is
>> dual Pentium processor, with a RAID 0 hard drive array.

> When the XP chkdisk utility scrambled my Fat32 hard drive
> I recovered most of it from an ME boot disk.

Ironic, because my SOP for messed-up FAT32 drives these days
is to plug it into an XP bench system and chkdsk and defrag
it there.

What probably happened is that the drive had hardware
problems, which no software can do much more than help, not
ever totally fix.

> With an NTFS
> drive you would need an expert ($$$) or special wizbang
> software and a lot of study.

Not at all.

> I don't have a security
> concern so I never saw any advantage to NTFS.

One big one: Rarely if ever do you have to wait out a CHKDSK
at boot. If it does happen its almost a rule that the drive
is failing from a hardware standpoint. I routinely just pull
the plug on idle XP systems.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:54:14 PM

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 06:08:03 GMT, spud <itsfake@fcourse.com> wrote:

>When the XP chkdisk utility scrambled my Fat32 hard drive I recovered
>most of it from an ME boot disk. With an NTFS drive you would need an
>expert ($$$) or special wizbang software and a lot of study.

There's a lot of attitude in that paragraph :-)

Yes, you need different tools to recover a NTFS partition. And you
need to know how to use them.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:33:25 PM

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

Tim Sprout wrote:
> I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file system rather
> than a NTFS file system because I read that large files streamed faster
> using FAT32. I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation of
> FAT32. I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is there
> any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio? The system is dual Pentium
> processor, with a RAID 0 hard drive array.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim Sprout
>
>
My DAW is a Pentium III @ 500 Mhz with a 120 GB EIDE drive and 384 MB
RAM. It's running CoolEdit 2K 1.1 on Win XP Pro SP2 OS. All drive
partitions are formatted NTFS. I frequently record 3 to 4 gig sound
files with no issues.

Your hardware looks to be quite a bit more powerful than mine, and I
have no issues with NTFS.

FAT32 is dead.

CD
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 9:37:08 PM

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

"Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote:

> I set up my Widows2000 workstation with a FAT32 file system rather
> than a NTFS file system because I read that large files streamed faster
> using FAT32. I am running up against the 4 gigabyte file size limitation
of
> FAT32. I am considering converting my data drive to NTFS. Is there
> any disadvantage to using NTFS for audio? The system is dual Pentium
> processor, with a RAID 0 hard drive array.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tim Sprout


I read some posts on microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup. Apparently,
the best course to go from FAT32 to NTFS, is to back up my data drive,
reformat,
and restore. Converting an existing partition from the command line
automatically uses
the smallest available cluster size of 512 bytes, which leads to a slow down
in
performance due to increased fragmentation because there are more clusters
per file.
Also the Master File Table created during conversion will be fragmented.
Reformating
to NTFS usually results in a cluster size of 4K, a compromise between space
efficiency
and fragmentation. I haven't tried Partition Magic. I think it allows one to
chose cluster
size when converting. (I just thought of this). I have an old version
somewhere, and
Drive Image 7, that I got at one of those weekend covention center computer
sales
galas. It seems Symnatec's Ghost has replaced Drive Image.

I chose FAT32 originally to network better with my Windows98 machine
(probably
an error in thinking), and to allow my Windows2000 machine to boot up from a
Win98
boot disk floppy so I could delete bad drivers, etc. during Blue Screen of
Death times.
The Windows2000 Recovery Console takes forever to load, about ten minutes or
so,
maybe longer, and I never seem to have the third party drivers handy it
needs to read
my striped hard drives.

In the meantime I'll use an external NTFS drive for those big files.

Thanks for the responses.

Regards,

TS
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 10:40:27 AM

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

"Tim Sprout" <tman@ptialaska.net> wrote in message
news:11h25a4o96c20cd@corp.supernews.com

> I read some posts on microsoft.public.win2000.general
> newsgroup. Apparently, the best course to go from FAT32
> to NTFS, is to back up my data drive, reformat,
> and restore. Converting an existing partition from the
> command line automatically uses
> the smallest available cluster size of 512 bytes, which
> leads to a slow down in
> performance due to increased fragmentation because there
> are more clusters per file.

NTFS at 512 byte clusters isn't all that bad.

But you're right, the NTFS Convert command is sorta brain
dead in the cluster-sizing department.
!