What HD should I look at for Audio Editing? - Storage

This is a discussion on What HD should I look at for Audio Editing? - Storage ; Looking for a new hard drive dedicated exclusively to Cakewalk Sonar's audio folder (where all the audio swapping will go down during playback). It will be the 3rd HD on the system, huge in size (500gb minimum) and probably SATA ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

  1. What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    Looking for a new hard drive dedicated exclusively to Cakewalk Sonar's audio
    folder (where all the audio swapping will go down during playback).

    It will be the 3rd HD on the system, huge in size (500gb minimum) and
    probably SATA (I've 2 SATA slots remaining).

    What do you recommend I get? Raptor? Barracuda? Something else? Fastest seek
    time should probably be #1 priority, right?

    Again, this will be almost ONLY for real-time audio file reading/swapping.



  2. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    M.J.S. wrote:

    > Looking for a new hard drive dedicated exclusively to Cakewalk Sonar's audio folder (where all the audio swapping will
    > go down during playback).


    > It will be the 3rd HD on the system, huge in size (500gb minimum) and probably SATA (I've 2 SATA slots remaining).


    > What do you recommend I get?


    Samsung.

    > Raptor? Barracuda? Something else?


    Samsung.

    > Fastest seek time should probably be #1 priority, right?


    Nope, there is bugger all in it between the available
    drives and it isnt important for your use anyway.

    > Again, this will be almost ONLY for real-time audio file reading/swapping.




  3. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?


    "M.J.S." wrote in message
    news:471d5e8f$0$47105$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
    > Looking for a new hard drive dedicated exclusively to Cakewalk Sonar's
    > audio folder (where all the audio swapping will go down during playback).
    >
    > It will be the 3rd HD on the system, huge in size (500gb minimum) and
    > probably SATA (I've 2 SATA slots remaining).
    >
    > What do you recommend I get? Raptor? Barracuda? Something else? Fastest
    > seek time should probably be #1 priority, right?
    >
    > Again, this will be almost ONLY for real-time audio file reading/swapping.


    Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.



  4. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    "M.I.5" wrote in message
    news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    >
    > Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    > Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.


    Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at the
    same time in a mix, there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.



  5. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?


    M.J.S. wrote in news:471dfd31$0$47144$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net
    > "M.I.5" wrote in message news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    > >
    > > Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    > > Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.


    > Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at the
    > same time in a mix,


    Isn't that what editing is about?

    > there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    > the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.


    And now you know the quality of this group's participants.
    Nice troll, by the way.


  6. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc M.J.S. wrote:
    > "M.I.5" wrote in message
    > news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    >>
    >> Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    >> Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.


    > Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at the
    > same time in a mix, there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    > the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.


    Hmm. Raptors will not really help a lot there. Their access time
    is barely half as high as that of a modern 7200 rpm disk.
    It is only a gradual improvement. I think you need something
    significantly faster.

    Lets look at the volumes we are talking here (I assume 48kHz
    sampling....):

    50 * 3 * 48kB = 7.2MB/sec. That is 500MB/min.

    Hmm. Maybe get a 16GB or 32GB FLASH drive? They do not
    have the seek-issue, since theur access times are 50-100
    times lower than that of a notmal disk. Even one or several
    8GB USB flash drives may solve your problem.

    Also, if your software supports read-ahead, maybe get more
    memory?

    The basic problem is of course, that the software makers screwed
    up. If you buffer sensibly, reading 50+ files in parelell
    is not an issue for these speeds.

    Arno

  7. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    M.J.S. wrote:

    > Looking for a new hard drive dedicated exclusively to Cakewalk Sonar's audio
    > folder (where all the audio swapping will go down during playback).
    >
    > It will be the 3rd HD on the system, huge in size (500gb minimum)


    I wouldn't call that huge.

    and
    > probably SATA (I've 2 SATA slots remaining).
    >
    > What do you recommend I get? Raptor? Barracuda? Something else? Fastest seek
    > time should probably be #1 priority, right?
    >
    > Again, this will be almost ONLY for real-time audio file reading/swapping.
    >
    >

    That's not an especially taxing (or even necessary) task. Max out your
    RAM and don't worry about the disk.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

  8. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    M.J.S. wrote:

    > "M.I.5" wrote in message
    > news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    >
    >>Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    >>Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.

    >
    >
    > Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at the
    > same time in a mix, there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    > the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.
    >
    >

    If you're serious about speed, go with multiple spindles. Putting it
    all on one drive is what causes movement.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

  9. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc M.J.S. wrote:
    >
    >>"M.I.5" wrote in message
    >>news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    >>
    >>>Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    >>>Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.

    >
    >
    >>Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at the
    >>same time in a mix, there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    >>the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.

    >
    >
    > Hmm. Raptors will not really help a lot there. Their access time
    > is barely half as high as that of a modern 7200 rpm disk.
    > It is only a gradual improvement. I think you need something
    > significantly faster.
    >
    > Lets look at the volumes we are talking here (I assume 48kHz
    > sampling....):
    >
    > 50 * 3 * 48kB = 7.2MB/sec. That is 500MB/min.
    >
    > Hmm. Maybe get a 16GB or 32GB FLASH drive? They do not
    > have the seek-issue, since theur access times are 50-100
    > times lower than that of a notmal disk. Even one or several
    > 8GB USB flash drives may solve your problem.
    >
    > Also, if your software supports read-ahead, maybe get more
    > memory?
    >
    > The basic problem is of course, that the software makers screwed
    > up. If you buffer sensibly, reading 50+ files in parelell
    > is not an issue for these speeds.
    >
    > Arno


    Frankly, I think trying to mix down 50 channels in one go is a recipe
    for mud anyway.

    --
    The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
    minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

  10. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc CJT wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:


    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc M.J.S. wrote:
    >>
    >>>"M.I.5" wrote in message
    >>>news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    >>>
    >>>>Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    >>>>Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.

    >>
    >>
    >>>Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at the
    >>>same time in a mix, there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    >>>the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.

    >>
    >>
    >> Hmm. Raptors will not really help a lot there. Their access time
    >> is barely half as high as that of a modern 7200 rpm disk.
    >> It is only a gradual improvement. I think you need something
    >> significantly faster.
    >>
    >> Lets look at the volumes we are talking here (I assume 48kHz
    >> sampling....):
    >>
    >> 50 * 3 * 48kB = 7.2MB/sec. That is 500MB/min.
    >>
    >> Hmm. Maybe get a 16GB or 32GB FLASH drive? They do not
    >> have the seek-issue, since theur access times are 50-100
    >> times lower than that of a notmal disk. Even one or several
    >> 8GB USB flash drives may solve your problem.
    >>
    >> Also, if your software supports read-ahead, maybe get more
    >> memory?
    >>
    >> The basic problem is of course, that the software makers screwed
    >> up. If you buffer sensibly, reading 50+ files in parelell
    >> is not an issue for these speeds.
    >>
    >> Arno


    > Frankly, I think trying to mix down 50 channels in one go is a recipe
    > for mud anyway.


    Hmm. Maybe put them into a combined stream first (i.e. a 50 track stream)
    and then mess around with mixing?

    Arno

  11. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > The basic problem is of course, that the software makers screwed
    > up. If you buffer sensibly, reading 50+ files in parelell
    > is not an issue for these speeds.
    >
    > Arno


    Exactly. If it's really only 10 MB/sec total, the software could cache,
    say, 10s of each track at a time, thus seeking only once every 0.2s.
    Assuming 10ms seek time, the drive would only be seeking about 5% of the
    time, so it should hit very near its peak sustained transfer rate.

  12. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc timeOday wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> The basic problem is of course, that the software makers screwed
    >> up. If you buffer sensibly, reading 50+ files in parelell
    >> is not an issue for these speeds.
    >>
    >> Arno


    > Exactly. If it's really only 10 MB/sec total, the software could cache,
    > say, 10s of each track at a time, thus seeking only once every 0.2s.
    > Assuming 10ms seek time, the drive would only be seeking about 5% of the
    > time, so it should hit very near its peak sustained transfer rate.


    Exactly.

    Arno

  13. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    "Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message
    news:471eddf1$0$47141$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
    > M.J.S. wrote in
    > news:471dfd31$0$47144$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net
    >> "M.I.5" wrote in message
    >> news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    >> >
    >> > Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    >> > Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.

    >
    >> Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at
    >> the
    >> same time in a mix,

    >
    > Isn't that what editing is about?


    Uh.. no. Editing a single WAV clip via Cool Edit is considered audio
    editing, and it will not give your drive the slightest workout.

    >> there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact,
    >> the disk activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.

    >
    > And now you know the quality of this group's participants.


    I'm certainly getting to know the quality of its responders. ;-)

    > Nice troll, by the way.


    Yeah, I could tell you were right away; but I admire your humility in
    admitting it.



  14. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    "CJT" wrote in message
    news:471EA461.4050906@prodigy.net...
    >
    > If you're serious about speed, go with multiple spindles. Putting it
    > all on one drive is what causes movement.


    You mean spread out the audio data across multiple drives? I'm not even sure
    the audio software would know what to do with this, given there's only one
    target folder for the audio files specified.

    I'm trying to keep it simple... ie, trying to decide which of the Raptor or
    Barracuda or insert-name-here I should get. But I get the sense that the
    brand names are all pretty much equivalent to one another.



  15. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    "CJT" wrote in message
    news:471EA3E8.5080601@prodigy.net...
    > M.J.S. wrote:
    >
    >> Looking for a new hard drive dedicated exclusively to Cakewalk Sonar's
    >> audio folder (where all the audio swapping will go down during playback).
    >>
    >> It will be the 3rd HD on the system, huge in size (500gb minimum)

    >
    > I wouldn't call that huge.


    And I would. Is it really a subject worth getting into a debate over?

    > That's not an especially taxing (or even necessary) task. Max out your
    > RAM and don't worry about the disk.


    The RAM is another bowl of fish altogether. Conflicting reports about just
    how much of it can be seen by WinXP x86, and what point there is adding a
    3rd or 4th stick in there. Ugh. :-S



  16. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    "Rod Speed" wrote in message
    news:5o5b29Fl4i4mU1@mid.individual.net...
    > M.J.S. wrote:
    >
    >> What do you recommend I get?

    >
    > Samsung.
    >
    >> Raptor? Barracuda? Something else?

    >
    > Samsung.
    >
    >> Fastest seek time should probably be #1 priority, right?

    >
    > Nope, there is bugger all in it between the available
    > drives and it isnt important for your use anyway.


    You mean like this one?
    http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...acture=Samsung



  17. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    mjs wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> M.J.S. wrote


    >>> What do you recommend I get?


    >> Samsung.


    >>> Raptor? Barracuda? Something else?


    >> Samsung.


    >>> Fastest seek time should probably be #1 priority, right?


    >> Nope, there is bugger all in it between the available
    >> drives and it isnt important for your use anyway.


    > You mean like this one?
    > http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...acture=Samsung


    Yep, or a bigger one.



  18. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    mjs wrote in news:4720b4f1$0$47138$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net
    > "Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message news:471eddf1$0$47141$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net...
    > > M.J.S. wrote in news:471dfd31$0$47144$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net
    > > > "M.I.5" wrote in message news:471da179_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
    > > > >
    > > > > Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    > > > > Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.

    > >
    > > > Not editing per se, but when you've got 50+ 24-bit wav files playing at
    > > > the
    > > > same time in a mix,

    > >
    > > Isn't that what editing is about?

    >
    > Uh.. no. Editing a single WAV clip via Cool Edit


    > is considered audio editing,


    If you must insist.

    > and it will not give your drive the slightest workout.


    That's not what I meant. No one keeps his music in 50+ tracks un-
    less he is currently editing the piece or storing it for later editing.

    > > > there's a whole lot of disk movement going on. In fact, the disk
    > > > activity often causes dropouts before the CPU usage does.

    > >
    > > And now you know the quality of this group's participants.


    > I'm certainly getting to know the quality of its responders. ;-)


    Yup, they all denied your experience.
    Your current drive must be a real dinosaur.
    Maybe it still has a steppermotor actuator?

    >
    > > Nice troll, by the way.


    > Yeah, I could tell you were right away; but I admire your humility in
    > admitting it.


    Thus confirms my suspicion, thanks.


  19. Re: What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

    timeOday wrote in news:KaOdnbkknciijr3anZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > > The basic problem is of course, that the software makers screwed
    > > up. If you buffer sensibly, reading 50+ files in parelell
    > > is not an issue for these speeds.
    > >
    > > Arno


    > Exactly. If


    Exactly if? What's that, an 'absolutely maybe'?
    Now apply that (question) to Cakewalk's Sonar.

    > it's really only 10 MB/sec total,


    Copy lots of small files and 'only' suddenly becomes very relative.

    > the software could cache, say, 10s of each track at a time,


    2MB = (a max of) 500 4kB clusters, not necessarily all end to end.
    500 possible IOs that the OS may well re-schedule/break-apart.

    > thus seeking only once every 0.2s.


    Assuming that all individual tracks are contiguous.
    Now apply that question to Cakewalk's Sonar.

    > Assuming 10ms seek time,


    Which is not the same as access time. Add 4ms for 7200rpm.

    > the drive would only be seeking about 5% of the time,


    So more.

    > so it should hit very near its peak sustained transfer rate.


    Probably still, yeah, assuming that tracks themselves are contiguous.

    Question,
    are tracks physicaly edited or are edits written as control information.
    If the first they have to be written back as well.




+ Reply to Thread