Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best Hard drive for digital audio recording???????????????

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:36:23 PM

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

Hello everyone,

i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for recording with
samplitude 8.0.

I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm, serial ATA 150.

is this a good choice or are there other's that are better. don't
want to have unforseen problems...

thanks
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:36:24 PM

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

"The Realm" wrote ...
> i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for
> recording with samplitude 8.0.
>
> I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm,
> serial ATA 150.

It is pretty unlikely you can even buy a hard drive that
is NOT suitable for recording audio. Even for video,
practically anything for sale today is fully suitable.

> is this a good choice or are there other's that are better.
> don't want to have unforseen problems...

You'd have to reveal the rest of your computer details
if you want any comments on avoiding unforseen problems.
It has very litle to do with the hard drive.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:37:24 PM

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

Anything fast and reliable.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 1:47:01 PM

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

"The Realm" <bluesky@knology.net> wrote in message
news:D aioh1tc4k2na8dqqhieufqogrvim5kgn5@4ax.com
> Hello everyone,
>
> i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for
> recording with samplitude 8.0.

> I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm,
> serial ATA 150.

Anything reliable and fast.

With some software, two medium-fast hard drives are better
than one really fast one.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:48:19 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0400, The Realm <bluesky@knology.net>
wrote:

>Hello everyone,
>
>i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for recording with
>samplitude 8.0.
>
>I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm, serial ATA 150.
>
>is this a good choice or are there other's that are better. don't
>want to have unforseen problems...
>
>thanks

As long as we're talking SATA, any drive will do, really.

Maxtor usually build reliable drives, Seagate has wery fast drives but
can be a bit fragile.

Stay away from Fujitsu.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:24:00 PM

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

Agent_C wrote:

> I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
> back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
> Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.

This is a benchmark? How long does it take to load from a 7200 RPM
garden variety IDE drive? Will I be able to load Photoshop in 3 seconds
if I put a 15,000 RPM SCSI drive into my 800 MHz Pentium with 256 MB
RAM? I doubt it.

Next question - how loud is it?
September 5, 2005 3:57:33 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0400, The Realm <bluesky@knology.net>
wrote:

>Hello everyone,
>
>i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for recording with
>samplitude 8.0.
>
>I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm, serial ATA 150.
>
>is this a good choice or are there other's that are better. don't
>want to have unforseen problems...

Consider RAID... Consider the new 10,000 RPM SATA drives... Both
approaches should be quite adequate for audio recording.

If you're in the mood to spend some real bucks, the fastest drive on
the planet right now is a 15,000 RPM Ultra320 SCSI.

A_C
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:57:34 PM

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

"Agent_C" wrote ...
> Consider RAID... Consider the new 10,000 RPM SATA
> drives... Both approaches should be quite adequate for audio
> recording.
>
> If you're in the mood to spend some real bucks, the fastest
> drive on the planet right now is a 15,000 RPM Ultra320 SCSI.

WHY? If he was recording 24 tracks @ 196K, 24-bit
perhaps he would need such high-power storage.
OTOH we don't even need that kind of storage anymore
even for video.
September 5, 2005 5:19:50 PM

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:49:06 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote:

>WHY? If he was recording 24 tracks @ 196K, 24-bit
>perhaps he would need such high-power storage.
>OTOH we don't even need that kind of storage anymore
>even for video.

I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.

A_C
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 6:21:21 PM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kgvoh158e8p40ib869qrve310p3e1jo9f1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:49:06 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote:
>
> >WHY? If he was recording 24 tracks @ 196K, 24-bit
> >perhaps he would need such high-power storage.
> >OTOH we don't even need that kind of storage anymore
> >even for video.
>
> I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
> back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
> Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.

15krpm SCSI is the best money-no-object, but money is an object. For the
same price as one 74GB 15krpm SCSI drive + controller you can get a TB
(1,000GB) in Maxtor 250GB 7200rpm 16MB cache drives with change to spare,
and the audio performance will be as good or better if you share the load
between the drives. Photoshop will take more like 6 seconds to load, but we
can't all be winners.
September 5, 2005 8:46:48 PM

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:21:21 -0400, "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:

> Photoshop will take more like 6 seconds to load, [...]

How embarrassing...

A_C
September 5, 2005 8:49:25 PM

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

On 5 Sep 2005 11:24:00 -0700, "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com>
wrote:

>
>Agent_C wrote:
>
>> I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
>> back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
>> Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.
>
>This is a benchmark? How long does it take to load from a 7200 RPM
>garden variety IDE drive?

Probably about 10 seconds.

> Will I be able to load Photoshop in 3 seconds
>if I put a 15,000 RPM SCSI drive into my 800 MHz Pentium with 256 MB
>RAM? I doubt it.

Why would you want to do some horrendous like that?

>Next question - how loud is it?

It has 11!

A_C
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 9:12:53 PM

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

"Agent_C" wrote...
> "Mike Rivers" wrote:
>>Next question - how loud is it?
>
> It has 11!

The defense rests, your honor.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 9:47:51 PM

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

Agent_C wrote:

> > Will I be able to load Photoshop in 3 seconds
> >if I put a 15,000 RPM SCSI drive into my 800 MHz Pentium with 256 MB
> >RAM? I doubt it.
>
> Why would you want to do some horrendous like that?

Because it's the computer that I own and use every day. It would be a
shame to buy an expensive disk drive only to have to spend more money
upgrading (probably entirely replacing) the computer so I can load a
program faster. 'tain't worth it unless you get some other benefit from
it.

> >Next question - how loud is it?
>
> It has 11!

That's not good for a recording or mixing environment. The reason I
asked is that that often faster drives make more mechanical noise than
slower ones.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:08:25 AM

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

Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:21:21 -0400, "Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote:
>
>> Photoshop will take more like 6 seconds to load, [...]
>
>How embarrassing...

Sounds like a reason to go back to Photoshop 3 if you ask me. I never much
use layers anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 2:09:58 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1125944640.146960.141170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> Agent_C wrote:
>
>> I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise,
>> you'll never go back to IDE or SATA if you experience
>> the performance of one of these. Photoshop 8 loads in
>> (3) seconds.
>
> This is a benchmark?

No, its bragging.

> How long does it take to load from a 7200 RPM garden
> variety IDE drive?

Depends on the size of the 7200 rpm drive. Loading programs
is all about data transfer rate. For a given rotational
speed, data transfer is largely dependent on the number of
bytes on the track, which in turn depends on bit packing
density.

All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive would
have about the same data transfer speed as a 350 GB 7,200
rpm drive.

IOW you should be able to approximate the kick of a 74 GB
15,000 rpm drive with a common 250 GB 7200 rpm drive, and
have the benefit of an extra 176 GB for storing data.
September 6, 2005 10:49:02 AM

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

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:09:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive would
>have about the same data transfer speed as a 350 GB 7,200
>rpm drive.
>
>IOW you should be able to approximate the kick of a 74 GB
>15,000 rpm drive with a common 250 GB 7200 rpm drive, and
>have the benefit of an extra 176 GB for storing data.

I've never seen any such comparison is all the time I've been reading
performance benchmarks. Can you point to anything credible supporting
this?

It strikes me as so off-base, it's absurd.

A_C
September 6, 2005 12:53:12 PM

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Depends on the size of the 7200 rpm drive. Loading programs
> is all about data transfer rate. For a given rotational
> speed, data transfer is largely dependent on the number of
> bytes on the track, which in turn depends on bit packing
> density.
>
> All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive would
> have about the same data transfer speed as a 350 GB 7,200
> rpm drive.
>
> IOW you should be able to approximate the kick of a 74 GB
> 15,000 rpm drive with a common 250 GB 7200 rpm drive, and
> have the benefit of an extra 176 GB for storing data.

This whole explanation really had me scratching my head, as it seemed
so completely off-base. Well, it is. According to the published
specifications:

SCSI: FUJITSU 73GB 15K U320 68PIN 8MB
----- Maximum data transfer rate = 147 MB/s

IDE: MAXTOR 250GB 7200RPM ULTRA 133 8MB (7Y250P0)
----- Maximum data transfer rate = 54 MB/s

IDE: Western Digital 250 GB, 7200RPM ATA100 Hard Drive 8 MB (WD2500SB)
----- Maximum data transfer rate = 61 MB/s

You don't have to take my word for any of this. I've provided the model
numbers, you can look this up. When doing so, you must understand the
difference between the External and Internal data rates. The external
is the theoretical maximum of the controller and does not necessarily
(and in most cases doesn't) influence actual drive performance. (Note
the ATA100 drive actually has better throughput than the ATA ('Ultra')
133. All these specs ATA66, ATA100, ATA133, ULTRA133, U320(SCSI) all
represent the theoretical maximum throughput of the controller, not
drive capabilities.

Each drive model has its individual capabilities, plain and simple.

Fact is, SCSI is faster in every respect - Particularly when it comes
to multithreading. In real world use this is very significant, as
you're almost never simply writing a single stream of data to the disk.
There's application and system overhead, as well as any number of
concurrent tasks that you may or may not have control over. All of
which impact performance.

.... and yes, I know, this departs significantly from the OP's original
question.

A_C
September 6, 2005 3:37:06 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Sounds like a reason to go back to Photoshop 3 if you ask me. I never much
> use layers anyway.

Interesting... If it weren't for layers, I'd have little use for
Photoshop at all.

A_C
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:28:54 PM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1126021992.033316.166680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Depends on the size of the 7200 rpm drive. Loading
>> programs is all about data transfer rate. For a given
>> rotational speed, data transfer is largely dependent on
>> the number of bytes on the track, which in turn depends
>> on bit packing density.
>>
>> All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive
>> would have about the same data transfer speed as a 350
>> GB 7,200 rpm drive.
>>
>> IOW you should be able to approximate the kick of a 74
>> GB 15,000 rpm drive with a common 250 GB 7200 rpm drive,
>> and have the benefit of an extra 176 GB for storing data.
>
> This whole explanation really had me scratching my head,
> as it seemed so completely off-base. Well, it is.
> According to the published specifications:
>
> SCSI: FUJITSU 73GB 15K U320 68PIN 8MB
> ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 147 MB/s


Note that both of the following drives have obsolete
exterior interfaces (PATA):

> IDE: MAXTOR 250GB 7200RPM ULTRA 133 8MB (7Y250P0)
> ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 54 MB/s

Here's the current product:

http://www.maxtor.com/_files/maxtor/en_us/documentation...

It tells a different story, which agrees with the
definition, below.


> > IDE: Western Digital 250 GB, 7200RPM ATA100 Hard Drive 8
> MB (WD2500SB) ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 61 MB/s

> You don't have to take my word for any of this.

I didn't, and I found a story that did not disagree with my
claim. IOW, they omitted the spec that I mentioned, which
among other things almost has to be capacity-dependent.

In this case, it's a matter of knowing what the words mean.

Usually, "Maximum data transfer rate" is a measurement of
interface speed, and is *not* a measurement of actual data
transfer rate for sequential data, which is most of what
matters for loading programs.

Looking at:

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/scsi/...

They say:

"Transfer Rate: This refers to the number of times per
second that data is transferred across the interface. This
is only the same as the clock speed of the bus if single
transition (conventional) clocking is used. Faster SCSI
implementations now use double transition clocking, and this
means the transfer rate (in millions of transfers per
second) will be double the clock speed in MHz."

The key words here are "transferred across the interface"
and "clock speed of the bus".

IOW, this is a measurement of interface speed, not the
actual real-world DTR of the device while transferring
sequential data.

Just for reference:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/data_transfer_rate.html

Data Transfer Rate

"The speed with which data can be transmitted from one
device to another. Data rates are often measured in megabits
(million bits) or megabytes (million bytes) per second.
These are usually abbreviated as Mbps and MBps,
respectively. "
"Another term for data transfer rate is throughput."



IME, it is darn hard to come up with real-world DTR numbers
for hard drives, particularly hard drives in different
families and with different interfaces.



OTOH, if you have a couple of drives in a machine, and do
some intelligent copying, loading and storing of files, you
can see some relevant indications.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:47:00 PM

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

In article <7gqoh1t5hn1i43if81nnj2cr8cbfo1h8go@4ax.com>, Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0400, The Realm <bluesky@knology.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello everyone,
> >
> >i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for recording with
> >samplitude 8.0.
> >
> >I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm, serial ATA 150.
> >
> >is this a good choice or are there other's that are better. don't
> >want to have unforseen problems...
>
> Consider RAID... Consider the new 10,000 RPM SATA drives... Both
> approaches should be quite adequate for audio recording.
>
> If you're in the mood to spend some real bucks, the fastest drive on
> the planet right now is a 15,000 RPM Ultra320 SCSI.
>
> A_C
>
>
Pro Tools doesn't support Raid.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:04:01 PM

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

"Guitarboy" <Guitarboy@stringalong.com> wrote in message
news:060920051547001022%Guitarboy@stringalong.com
> In article <7gqoh1t5hn1i43if81nnj2cr8cbfo1h8go@4ax.com>,
> Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0400, The Realm
>> <bluesky@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for
>>> recording with samplitude 8.0.
>>>
>>> I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm,
>>> serial ATA 150.
>>>
>>> is this a good choice or are there other's that are
>>> better. don't want to have unforseen problems...
>>
>> Consider RAID... Consider the new 10,000 RPM SATA
>> drives... Both approaches should be quite adequate for
>> audio recording.
>>
>> If you're in the mood to spend some real bucks, the
>> fastest drive on the planet right now is a 15,000 RPM
>> Ultra320 SCSI.
>>
>> A_C

> Pro Tools doesn't support Raid.

Properly-implemented RAID is transparent to the application.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:12:10 PM

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

> >> Photoshop will take more like 6 seconds to load, [...]
> >
> >How embarrassing...
>
> Sounds like a reason to go back to Photoshop 3 if you ask me. I never
much
> use layers anyway.
> --scott

I was still using PS 2.5 until I switched to PC from Mac. It fit on a
floppy!

But once you get used to layers you can't go back.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:25:40 PM

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

> IDE: MAXTOR 250GB 7200RPM ULTRA 133 8MB (7Y250P0)
> ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 54 MB/s

Gee, I'd hate to be limited to only ~425 tracks at 24/44.1!

Throughput is a moot point for audio, it's all about access speed. That's
where the rotational speed is a big factor. That 15krpm drive has a 3.3ms
average access time, where 7200rpm drives don't get better than 9ms. But
like I said, for the same price as a 74GB 15k drive you can get four 250GB
7200 SATA drives, and with each on its own controller they will in effect
offer the same or better access speed when audio files are spread across
them, as well as a shitload more storage space. With 16MB cache per drive,
there's also in effect 64MB of drive cache to smooth things over.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:31:56 PM

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

Pro Tools can use Round Robin disk allocation for multiple drives, like
a raid system for instance?
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:51:16 PM

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

"Zigakly" <no@no.no> wrote in message
news:D fktum$5mk$1@domitilla.aioe.org
>> IDE: MAXTOR 250GB 7200RPM ULTRA 133 8MB (7Y250P0)
>> ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 54 MB/s
>
> Gee, I'd hate to be limited to only ~425 tracks at
> 24/44.1!
>
> Throughput is a moot point for audio, it's all about
> access speed.

huh?

Audio is all about sequential I/O, not random access.

> That's where the rotational speed is a big
> factor. That 15krpm drive has a 3.3ms average access
> time, where 7200rpm drives don't get better than 9ms.

The higher rotational speed pays off here.

> But like I said, for the same price as a 74GB 15k drive
> you can get four 250GB 7200 SATA drives, and with each on
> its own controller they will in effect offer the same or
> better access speed when audio files are spread across
> them, as well as a shitload more storage space.

The best random access is no random access. The canonical
audio editing operation is a file-to-file copy. If you do a
file-to-file copy on one disk then there are constant seeks
all over the drive. If you do it on two disks, then the
seeks typically have minimum length.

> With 16MB cache per drive, there's also in effect 64MB of
> drive cache to smooth things over.

The OS disk cache can make 64 meg seem a lot less
impressive.
September 6, 2005 9:16:12 PM

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:28:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:1126021992.033316.166680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Depends on the size of the 7200 rpm drive. Loading
>>> programs is all about data transfer rate. For a given
>>> rotational speed, data transfer is largely dependent on
>>> the number of bytes on the track, which in turn depends
>>> on bit packing density.
>>>
>>> All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive
>>> would have about the same data transfer speed as a 350
>>> GB 7,200 rpm drive.
>>>
>>> IOW you should be able to approximate the kick of a 74
>>> GB 15,000 rpm drive with a common 250 GB 7200 rpm drive,
>>> and have the benefit of an extra 176 GB for storing data.
>>
>> This whole explanation really had me scratching my head,
>> as it seemed so completely off-base. Well, it is.
>> According to the published specifications:
>>
>> SCSI: FUJITSU 73GB 15K U320 68PIN 8MB
>> ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 147 MB/s
>
>
>Note that both of the following drives have obsolete
>exterior interfaces (PATA):
>
>> IDE: MAXTOR 250GB 7200RPM ULTRA 133 8MB (7Y250P0)
>> ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 54 MB/s
>
>Here's the current product:
>
>http://www.maxtor.com/_files/maxtor/en_us/documentation...
>
>It tells a different story, which agrees with the
>definition, below.
>
>
>> > IDE: Western Digital 250 GB, 7200RPM ATA100 Hard Drive 8
>> MB (WD2500SB) ----- Maximum data transfer rate = 61 MB/s
>
>> You don't have to take my word for any of this.
>
>I didn't, and I found a story that did not disagree with my
>claim. IOW, they omitted the spec that I mentioned, which
>among other things almost has to be capacity-dependent.
>
>In this case, it's a matter of knowing what the words mean.
>
>Usually, "Maximum data transfer rate" is a measurement of
>interface speed, and is *not* a measurement of actual data
>transfer rate for sequential data, which is most of what
>matters for loading programs.
>
>Looking at:
>
>http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/scsi/...
>
>They say:
>
>"Transfer Rate: This refers to the number of times per
>second that data is transferred across the interface. This
>is only the same as the clock speed of the bus if single
>transition (conventional) clocking is used. Faster SCSI
>implementations now use double transition clocking, and this
>means the transfer rate (in millions of transfers per
>second) will be double the clock speed in MHz."
>
>The key words here are "transferred across the interface"
>and "clock speed of the bus".
>
>IOW, this is a measurement of interface speed, not the
>actual real-world DTR of the device while transferring
>sequential data.
>
>Just for reference:
>
>http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/data_transfer_rate.html
>
>Data Transfer Rate
>
>"The speed with which data can be transmitted from one
>device to another. Data rates are often measured in megabits
>(million bits) or megabytes (million bytes) per second.
>These are usually abbreviated as Mbps and MBps,
>respectively. "
>"Another term for data transfer rate is throughput."
>
>
>
>IME, it is darn hard to come up with real-world DTR numbers
>for hard drives, particularly hard drives in different
>families and with different interfaces.
>
>
>
>OTOH, if you have a couple of drives in a machine, and do
>some intelligent copying, loading and storing of files, you
>can see some relevant indications.

OK, you get the award... That's the most long-winded backpeddle I've
ever seen!

A_C
September 7, 2005 3:47:50 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0400, The Realm <bluesky@knology.net>
wrote:

>Hello everyone,
>
>i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for recording with
>samplitude 8.0.
>
>I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm, serial ATA 150.
>
>is this a good choice or are there other's that are better. don't
>want to have unforseen problems...
>
>thanks

Wait till Toms hardware does the review on the sonic preformance of
them. Seriously look at quiet pc dot com. I like the older seagates
becase they were built to be quiet.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:16:22 PM

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

In article <PKydnZTLgLXYnIPeRVn-2A@comcast.com>, arnyk@hotpop.com
says...
> Audio is all about sequential I/O, not random access.
[snip]
> The best random access is no random access. The canonical
> audio editing operation is a file-to-file copy.

Umm... what?

Dunno if you've heard, but we're all doing non-destructive editing and
mixing these days... loading samples from multiple tracks and playing
them simultaneously is, indeed, a random access, as is jumping between
portions of a file to pull edits from different takes.


--
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
September 7, 2005 6:03:56 PM

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

"Jay Levitt" <jay+news@jay.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d88dc5f37fc3209989903@news-east.giganews.com

> In article <PKydnZTLgLXYnIPeRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
> arnyk@hotpop.com says...
>> Audio is all about sequential I/O, not random access.
> [snip]
>> The best random access is no random access. The canonical
>> audio editing operation is a file-to-file copy.
>
> Umm... what?
>
> Dunno if you've heard, but we're all doing
> non-destructive editing and mixing these days...

Where did I put that snot rag? I've got a face full of it
here. ;-)

But agreed about non-destructive editing being the usual
rule.

> loading samples from multiple tracks and playing them
> simultaneously is, indeed, a random access, as is jumping
> between portions of a file to pull edits from different
> takes.

The normal dividing line between sequential access and
random access gets down to acessing a lot smaller pieces of
data than sample files, or the normal divisions of audio
files that we work with.

Think of accessing 100,000 1,24 byte blocks from within a
100 GB file in totally random order. That's random access!
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:54:07 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:57:33 -0400, Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>Consider RAID... Consider the new 10,000 RPM SATA drives... Both
>approaches should be quite adequate for audio recording.

You can consider it. But I doubt you'll find it necessary.

The 10,000rpm drives can be rather noisy.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:56:14 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:19:50 -0400, Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
>back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
>Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.

That's cute. But what advantage do you get inside an application?
Was disk speed a bottleneck for what you do?
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:56:15 PM

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

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> Agent-C-hates-spam wrote:
>> I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise,
>> you'll never go back to IDE or SATA if you experience
>> the performance of one of these. Photoshop 8 loads in
>> (3) seconds.
>
> That's cute. But what advantage do you get inside an
> application?

Significant bragging rights, apparently.
September 10, 2005 4:56:15 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:56:14 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:19:50 -0400, Agent_C
><Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
>>back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
>>Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.
>
>That's cute. But what advantage do you get inside an application?
>Was disk speed a bottleneck for what you do?

More responsive, particularly when working with multiple or large
images. Less time waiting for the computer; more time editing. It's
just generally faster.

A_C
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:56:16 PM

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

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11i5s6a47eudof5@corp.supernews.com
> "Laurence Payne" wrote ...
>> Agent-C-hates-spam wrote:
>>> I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise,
>>> you'll never go back to IDE or SATA if you experience
>>> the performance of one of these. Photoshop 8 loads in
>>> (3) seconds.
>>
>> That's cute. But what advantage do you get inside an
>> application?
>
> Significant bragging rights, apparently.

Bragging rights for the the technically shallow.

Old-timers know that of the basics of computer performance
management is that all other things being equal, maximum
sustainable drive DTR is based on rotational speed and track
data capacity in bytes.

Track data capacity in bytes depends on track linear length,
times linear data density.

It turns out that high rotational speeds tend to reduce
linear data density. I'm not sure why.

Predicting DTR is complexified by the fact that the track
linear length varies across a disk, and this fact is widely
exploited. Another complexifying factor relates to track
density and linear data density improving at different rates
that are not always synchronized.
September 10, 2005 4:56:17 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:06:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>Bragging rights for the the technically shallow.
>
>Old-timers know that of the basics of computer performance
>management is that all other things being equal, maximum
>sustainable drive DTR is based on rotational speed and track
>data capacity in bytes.

Problem is, things aren't equal when comparing SCSI, IDE and SATA. My
previous post comparing 2 IDE drives with the 15K Fujitsu clearly
illustrated this.

Your response, containing a barrage of spurious facts, apparently
intended to confuse the issue and cover up your mistake, failed to
illustrate otherwise.


A_C
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 4:56:18 PM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tm06i1hog9ag0v41u6b77tcicjj74h5ck5@4ax.com
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:06:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Bragging rights for the the technically shallow.
>>
>> Old-timers know that of the basics of computer
>> performance management is that all other things being
>> equal, maximum sustainable drive DTR is based on
>> rotational speed and track data capacity in bytes.
>
> Problem is, things aren't equal when comparing SCSI, IDE
> and SATA. My previous post comparing 2 IDE drives with
> the 15K Fujitsu clearly illustrated this.

You now say, things aren't equal. You're arguing against
yourself.

I said:

"All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive
would
have about the same data transfer speed as a 350 GB 7,200
rpm drive."

You still haven't found or provided a real-world benchmark
that supports or denies my claim.

> Your response, containing a barrage of spurious facts,
> apparently intended to confuse the issue and cover up
> your mistake, failed to illustrate otherwise.

Sorry that my recital of the relevant facts was over your
head.

See, I said that trying to explain hard drive performance to
you was a waste of my time! ;-)
September 10, 2005 11:47:51 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:47:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>See, I said that trying to explain hard drive performance to
>you was a waste of my time! ;-)

Indeed, because you simply don't know what you're talking about. I
carried your original post over to the experts in COMP.PERIPHS.SCSI,
where I have often sought advice on storage. Guess what? Not a single
respondent concurs with you.

I suppose if we were still using IBM 3350's your theories might be
applicable, but they're not, grandpa.

A_C
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 8:49:14 AM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3qr6i1dau591a6gusquisgjt9er08avuf3@4ax.com
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:47:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> See, I said that trying to explain hard drive
>> performance to you was a waste of my time! ;-)
>
> Indeed, because you simply don't know what you're talking
> about. I carried your original post over to the experts
> in COMP.PERIPHS.SCSI, where I have often sought advice on
> storage. Guess what? Not a single respondent concurs with
> you.

I just visited the same group, and basically Agent Orange,
you're either massively reading comprehension-impaired, or
you're lying.

For example J. Clarke writes:

"Depends on your usage patterns. All else being equal the
sequential
transfer rate under ideal conditions should be about the
same."

Another poster Arno Wagner pointed out that 15,000 rpm
drives are usually 2.5 inch drives, the tracks on standard
3.5 inch drives automagically have about 1.4 times more
data per track, all other things being equal. I didn't know
that!

> I suppose if we were still using IBM 3350's your theories
> might be applicable, but they're not, grandpa.

Yes, everything has changed since 3350s. Disks don't spin,
r/w heads are no longer used, there aren't radial tracks any
more, there are no longer any access arms, there's no
channel interface, etc...
September 11, 2005 12:17:15 PM

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

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:49:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>I just visited the same group, and basically Agent Orange,
>you're either massively reading comprehension-impaired, or
>you're lying.

OK, I guess I should have said of the 7 respondents, only 1 posted an
opinion as ill informed as yours. Are you happy now?

Everyone else shot it down from multiple points of view. You
conveniently didn't mention that I see.

A_C
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 6:36:25 PM

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

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:57:33 +0200, Agent_C wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 09:36:23 -0400, The Realm <bluesky@knology.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Hello everyone,
>>
>>i'm thinking of adding a bigger hard drive to my pc for recording with
>>samplitude 8.0.
>>
>>I was looking at the Maxtor Maxline 250 GB; 7200 rpm, serial ATA 150.
>>
>>is this a good choice or are there other's that are better. don't want
>>to have unforseen problems...
>
> Consider RAID... Consider the new 10,000 RPM SATA drives... Both
> approaches should be quite adequate for audio recording.
>
> If you're in the mood to spend some real bucks, the fastest drive on the
> planet right now is a 15,000 RPM Ultra320 SCSI.

Ignoring the sub-thread.

Please ignore this advice, it is wrong. For audio recording you want a
drive with sufficient throughput. Besides that you want to avoid noise and
heat (as this will result in noise and wear). SATA has excelent thoughput,
7200RPM at 250GB will give you sufficent throughput without noise and
heat. Maxtor makes good drives. If you have bucks to spend, save it now
and buy a faster and bigger drive in a year or 2. No drive on the market
now is real competition for new models from the coming years.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 6:36:26 PM

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

"Chel van Gennip" wrote ...
> If you have bucks to spend, save it now
> and buy a faster and bigger drive in a year or 2. No drive on the
> market
> now is real competition for new models from the coming years.

But that statement has been true every month for the last
30 years.

And it is true of many other components as well. I earn a
living making CPUs that are better-faster-cheaper than the
ones we made last year.
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 7:12:58 PM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9188i1ludeojf9ia0hd3phlg26voimr879@4ax.com

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 04:49:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

>> "Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:3qr6i1dau591a6gusquisgjt9er08avuf3@4ax.com

>>> Indeed, because you simply don't know what you're
>>> talking
>>> about. I carried your original post over to the experts
>>> in COMP.PERIPHS.SCSI, where I have often sought advice
>>> on
>>> storage. Guess what? Not a single respondent concurs
>>> with
>>> you.

>> I just visited the same group, and basically Agent
>> Orange, you're either massively reading
>> comprehension-impaired, or you're lying.

> OK, I guess I should have said of the 7 respondents, only
> 1 posted an opinion as ill informed as yours. Are you
> happy now?

Thanks Agent Orange for admitting that you knew about that
post when you lied through your teeth and wrote:

>>>Not a single respondent concurs with you.

> Everyone else shot it down from multiple points of view.

That's your biased view. I found a number of compatible
posts, one other of which I've posted once, and you
deceptively deleted. Some listed other factors that could
be considered. However I had blanketed them with the
qualifier "all other things being equal".

> You conveniently didn't mention that I see.

All I'm trying to show Agent Orange is that your report of
the activities over in COMP.PERIPHS.SCSI were appreciably
different from what you knew, not to mention substantiallhy
different from what you reported here.

<It takes a real maroon to lie about something that was
posted on another newsgroup, but even a bigger maroon to
tacitly admit his lie and then continue his attack along
lines that he's already admitted that he lied about.>
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 7:14:31 PM

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

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11i8cf069o7hb61@corp.supernews.com
> "Chel van Gennip" wrote ...
>> If you have bucks to spend, save it now
>> and buy a faster and bigger drive in a year or 2. No
>> drive on the market
>> now is real competition for new models from the coming
>> years.
>
> But that statement has been true every month for the last
> 30 years.

That's another strike against the drive that Agent C has
been hyping. I've been able to buy it or something very much
like it for at least 18 months. IOW, its ancient technology.
September 12, 2005 11:50:49 AM

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

Edi Zubovic wrote:
>
> I accidentaly knocked the PC case, not really hard but sharp enough
> for running hard drives. A few days later my Cheetah X15 presented me
> with a "Start Unit Command Failed" and I lost it with all the programs
> etc. Luckily, I have a few months old backup so I'm now setting things
> up again. Sh?*#t happens.
> I'm going to order a Cheetah K15.4 instead -- not that I love Seagate
> but I like to have identical drives -- and all I can say, if you've
> got to work professionally, either fast or a lot given the schedule,
> these drives _will_ reduce your times. OK, it's SCSI, it costs more
> but -- if we're speaking about $$$ microphones I see no reason to stay
> away from SCSI just because "it costs more". OK, SATA and Raptors are
> fine, but I'm talking about real-life 55+ MB/sec transfer drive to
> drive (partition to partition is a different story, obviously). "HD
> Tach" benchmarking program reports 80.6 MB/sec average transfer rate
> at 0,0 (yes) percent processor load (if it is lying, OK). And
> alltogether it means that you can work smoother with long files.

What I like about HD Tach is it also gives you an honest, sustained
data transfer rate. You look at the specs for most SATA dives you get
this busllshit 'maximum burst' number. Side by side there's just no
comparison.
I don't think some of the respondents in this thread have actually ever
used a 15k drive as a point of comparison.

It's sort of like buying a Corvette, when an econo-box will get you to
your destination just as efficiently. You're willing to pay extra for
increased performance, that's it. It's visceral!

> And these Cheetachs are way quieter compared to say, IBMs (and Fujitsu
> drives I presume) which are loud as if you were working in a jet
> cabin. But the IBMs seem to be more robust, though. The third sort I
> like is Maxtor Atlas 15 K. It may be a tad better from the other two
> brands but they are all in the same yard.
>
> All these drives run hot -- a forced cooling and an UPS are very
> recommended and don't even think to work open case if you're cooling
> the drives passively by air stream like me. They might get hot and
> will be in danger to fail. But with a proper cooling, you have a
> constant 40 to 43 degrees C dissipation which is OK.

I learned the hard way that these 15K drives need active cooling. I
fried my first drive, now I keep a fan directly in the drive cage.

A_C
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 1:54:03 PM

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:55:54 -0400, Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:56:14 +0100, Laurence Payne
><lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:19:50 -0400, Agent_C
>><Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I own a Fujitsu 15,000 RPM SCSI drive and I promise, you'll never go
>>>back to IDE or SATA if you experience the performance of one of these.
>>>Photoshop 8 loads in (3) seconds.
>>
>>That's cute. But what advantage do you get inside an application?
>>Was disk speed a bottleneck for what you do?
>
>More responsive, particularly when working with multiple or large
>images. Less time waiting for the computer; more time editing. It's
>just generally faster.
>
>A_C

I accidentaly knocked the PC case, not really hard but sharp enough
for running hard drives. A few days later my Cheetah X15 presented me
with a "Start Unit Command Failed" and I lost it with all the programs
etc. Luckily, I have a few months old backup so I'm now setting things
up again. Sh?*#t happens.

I'm going to order a Cheetah K15.4 instead -- not that I love Seagate
but I like to have identical drives -- and all I can say, if you've
got to work professionally, either fast or a lot given the schedule,
these drives _will_ reduce your times. OK, it's SCSI, it costs more
but -- if we're speaking about $$$ microphones I see no reason to stay
away from SCSI just because "it costs more". OK, SATA and Raptors are
fine, but I'm talking about real-life 55+ MB/sec transfer drive to
drive (partition to partition is a different story, obviously). "HD
Tach" benchmarking program reports 80.6 MB/sec average transfer rate
at 0,0 (yes) percent processor load (if it is lying, OK). And
alltogether it means that you can work smoother with long files.

And these Cheetachs are way quieter compared to say, IBMs (and Fujitsu
drives I presume) which are loud as if you were working in a jet
cabin. But the IBMs seem to be more robust, though. The third sort I
like is Maxtor Atlas 15 K. It may be a tad better from the other two
brands but they are all in the same yard.

All these drives run hot -- a forced cooling and an UPS are very
recommended and don't even think to work open case if you're cooling
the drives passively by air stream like me. They might get hot and
will be in danger to fail. But with a proper cooling, you have a
constant 40 to 43 degrees C dissipation which is OK.


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 3:38:17 PM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rrsqh190os7l1n258h1or50boo3m8duauk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:09:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All other things being equal, a 74 GB 15,000 rpm drive would
> >have about the same data transfer speed as a 350 GB 7,200
> >rpm drive.
> >
> >IOW you should be able to approximate the kick of a 74 GB
> >15,000 rpm drive with a common 250 GB 7200 rpm drive, and
> >have the benefit of an extra 176 GB for storing data.
>
> I've never seen any such comparison is all the time I've been reading
> performance benchmarks. Can you point to anything credible supporting
> this?

It's based on recording density. To quadruple the storage on a given size
disk, you need to double the linear recording density, thus doubling track
length, thus doubling the information transferred per rotation.

Tim
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 9:07:03 PM

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:50:49 +0200, Agent_C wrote:
> I don't think some of the respondents in this thread have actually ever
> used a 15k drive as a point of comparison.

I've used many, but not for a DAW. I've used fast scsi drives for years, so
I know that current 7200rpm 250GB sata drives easily outperform e.g. 18GB
10K scsi drives from a few years back, as the current fast drives will be
outperformed soon by cheap, silent and cool drives. For a DAW you can use
silent drives that do not generate too much heat.

> I learned the hard way that these 15K drives need active cooling. I
> fried my first drive, now I keep a fan directly in the drive cage.

Noise and heat are known problems.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:28:19 PM

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

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vl1sh11aovlrfs3to29t2eugh88pgnpqtq@4ax.com...

> OK, you get the award... That's the most long-winded backpeddle I've
> ever seen!

You fail to understand. Disk speed for large data transfers (eg audio
applications) is determined by the slowest transfer rate in the chain. That
would usually be the rate at which data is transferred to and from the
surface of the disk, not how fast data is transferred to and from the disk's
buffer. The first will usually depend on the disk size and rotation speed,
the second will depend on the I/O interface used.

Tim
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 5:15:37 PM

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:28:19 +0200, Tim Martin wrote:


> "Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:vl1sh11aovlrfs3to29t2eugh88pgnpqtq@4ax.com...
>
>> OK, you get the award... That's the most long-winded backpeddle I've
>> ever seen!
>
> You fail to understand. Disk speed for large data transfers (eg audio
> applications) is determined by the slowest transfer rate in the chain.
> That would usually be the rate at which data is transferred to and from
> the surface of the disk, not how fast data is transferred to and from
> the disk's buffer. The first will usually depend on the disk size and
> rotation speed, the second will depend on the I/O interface used.

When comparing datarates it is important to understand that fujitsu
specifies interface rates, and Maxtor often specifies "Sustained Transfer
Rate" or media speed. The datarate of 60MByte/sec of the 7200RPM 250GB Maxtor
sata drive will do for 150 channels at 96khz/32 bit floats. I think that will
do for most digital audio recordings! The 250GB maxtor 7200 sata drive uses
about half the power of the 73GB fujitsu 15K scsi drive.

At 60Mbyte/sec a 73GB is filled in 20 minutes, 250GB will do for 70
minutes, that might be an advantage for the users that need these 150
channels.

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