Re: SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- From: Romeo Rondeau <schmuck_deluxe@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:16:59 GMT
Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Sean Conolly" <sjconolly_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:BJwhi.16655$Fo1.12741@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHey guys, I've been considering upgrading the recording disk in my system, and I'm curious if there's any performance improvements by using SATA instead of EIDE, both for raw throughput and for CPU load.Sean, there is no practical difference between the interfaces. However, you should be using separate disks for system and audio, on separate busses. Put a second hard drive on IDE2, set as master. Turn off indexing on that drive.
My system is fairly old and somwhat sensitive to CPU load while tracking. I can record 12 tracks in CEP w/o problems but when I use Cubase I'll get occasional dropouts just because it needs that much more CPU. The money isn't in the budget yet to replace the platform, but I can afford a new disk and controller if it'll help any.
Just trolling for ideas - TIA
Sean
Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894
Here's another thing as well, ASIO drivers run as a background process, so you need to optimize the computer for background tasks, that in itself will bring a huge increase in respect to track count. Today's hard disks are so blazingly fast, they usually aren't the problem with low track counts. A good optimized PC running Cubase or Nuendo can do 24 tracks dead up easily. Keep in mind, too that recording at high sample rates reduces your track count as well. You have to decide whether or not your punk band REALLY needs 24/96 :-)
.
- References:
- SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- From: Sean Conolly
- Re: SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- From: Soundhaspriority
- SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- Prev by Date: Re: sound engineers - are Bose speakers really good ?.
- Next by Date: Re: SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- Previous by thread: Re: SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- Next by thread: Re: SATA .vs EIDE for DAW
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
