1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

What HD should I look at for Audio Editing?

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by M.J.S., Oct 23, 2007.

  1. M.J.S.

    M.J.S. Guest

    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.
     
    M.J.S., Oct 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. M.J.S.

    Rod Speed Guest

    Nope, there is bugger all in it between the available
    drives and it isnt important for your use anyway.
     
    Rod Speed, Oct 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. M.J.S.

    M.I.5¾ Guest

    Audio editing is hardly going to give the slowest of drives a work out.
    Just buy the fastest drive you can afford.
     
    M.I.5¾, Oct 23, 2007
    #3
  4. M.J.S.

    M.J.S. Guest

    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.
     
    M.J.S., Oct 23, 2007
    #4
  5. M.J.S. wrote in news:471dfd31$0$47144$
    Isn't that what editing is about?
    And now you know the quality of this group's participants.
    Nice troll, by the way.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, Oct 23, 2007
    #5
  6. M.J.S.

    Arno Wagner Guest

    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
     
    Arno Wagner, Oct 23, 2007
    #6
  7. M.J.S.

    CJT Guest

    I wouldn't call that huge.

    and
    That's not an especially taxing (or even necessary) task. Max out your
    RAM and don't worry about the disk.
     
    CJT, Oct 24, 2007
    #7
  8. M.J.S.

    CJT Guest

    If you're serious about speed, go with multiple spindles. Putting it
    all on one drive is what causes movement.
     
    CJT, Oct 24, 2007
    #8
  9. M.J.S.

    CJT Guest

    Frankly, I think trying to mix down 50 channels in one go is a recipe
    for mud anyway.
     
    CJT, Oct 24, 2007
    #9
  10. M.J.S.

    Arno Wagner Guest

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

    Arno
     
    Arno Wagner, Oct 24, 2007
    #10
  11. M.J.S.

    timeOday Guest

    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.
     
    timeOday, Oct 25, 2007
    #11
  12. M.J.S.

    Arno Wagner Guest

    Exactly.

    Arno
     
    Arno Wagner, Oct 25, 2007
    #12
  13. M.J.S.

    mjs Guest

    Uh.. no. Editing a single WAV clip via Cool Edit is considered audio
    editing, and it will not give your drive the slightest workout.
    I'm certainly getting to know the quality of its responders. ;-)
    Yeah, I could tell you were right away; but I admire your humility in
    admitting it.
     
    mjs, Oct 25, 2007
    #13
  14. M.J.S.

    mjs Guest

    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.
     
    mjs, Oct 25, 2007
    #14
  15. M.J.S.

    mjs Guest

    And I would. Is it really a subject worth getting into a debate over?
    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
     
    mjs, Oct 25, 2007
    #15
  16. M.J.S.

    mjs Guest

    mjs, Oct 25, 2007
    #16
  17. M.J.S.

    Rod Speed Guest

    Rod Speed, Oct 25, 2007
    #17
  18. mjs wrote in news:4720b4f1$0$47138$
    If you must insist.
    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.
    Yup, they all denied your experience.
    Your current drive must be a real dinosaur.
    Maybe it still has a steppermotor actuator?
    Thus confirms my suspicion, thanks.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, Oct 26, 2007
    #18
  19. timeOday wrote in news:
    Exactly if? What's that, an 'absolutely maybe'?
    Now apply that (question) to Cakewalk's Sonar.
    Copy lots of small files and 'only' suddenly becomes very relative.
    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.
    Assuming that all individual tracks are contiguous.
    Now apply that question to Cakewalk's Sonar.
    Which is not the same as access time. Add 4ms for 7200rpm.
    So more.
    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.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, Oct 26, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.