I ccurrently have a systm that performs well for me in just about all areas. Moboard ABIT BE6II, PIII 600E, 18 Gig WD EXPERT 7200 RPM ATA66 (Programs & Cakewalk 9.03 wavedata), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 40 7200 RPM ATA 66 drive (GIGs only). 256 megs of PC100 Ram. M Audio Delta 1010 sound card etc. I would like to add a third drive to my system in order to dedicate a drive for Cakewalk wavefiles. I start to run into problems when I use too many non-destructive plug-ins and will eventually get a dropout. I would prefer to use non-destructive plug-ins when tweaking my songs as much as possible. Should I go SCSSI for this third drive or should I go IDE? I know that SCSSI drives are supposed to be faster but is processing \"live\" plug-ins more a function of the CPU speed. In short will I see a significant improvement in audio processing power by ging SCSSI as opposed to IDE with this third drive. Peace.
Thanks for the reply John. I knew that SCSI was faster and more efficient in retrieving data but I wasn\'t aware of the latest types of SCSI. I have a friend with a U2 wide Adaptec controller with a 9 gig 10,000 SCSI drive. Although he is only running on a PIII450 he is getting far better performance in terms of the amount of live effects that he can process. I was just wondering if this was due to the type of drive that he uses since I have a faster CPU than he does.
I definetly want to get a third drive for my system and I know that SCSI is superior to IDE in terms of data access but it is significantly more expensive and I am not sure if it is worth the additional cost. If my memory serves me correctly, my friend of whom I spoke has a Lexicon studio card with DSP. This is probably how he can run as many effects at one time as he does now that I think about it. Perhaps I\'ll go with a hardware effects unit. Anyone have any recommendations. Peace.
You\'re right about the dsp cards - both of my sound cards (Yammi SW1000 XG and Mixtreme) have it on-board so I can apply the Deep Space Reverb without disturbing my CPU.
As far as I know, SCSI will have an indirect theoretical impact only in regards to your dsp plug-ins. The reason for this is the higher level of SCSI host autonomy, which will hog your CPU less than ATA.
You\'re right also about your cost-benefit trade-offs: a third ATA drive has better price performance (for audio wave files in particular), unless you change your mind and go SCSI later on.
I chose SCSI for two main reasons:
1: My recording projects include video files, wave files and gig files - each one on a separate drive (Windows swap on the fourth drive), and all four HD LEDs are flashing like crazy.
2: The low access time, which is good for GSt - I think.
Maybe, the Delta 1010 manufacturer can recommend an external dsp?
I think I will go with ATA on my third drive.
Maybe another Diamondmax plus 40. I also may reconfigure the way that I have my drives set up. I read somewhere that it it very important where you place your swap file. Is this the same thing as virtual memory? If so where should it be located to maximize performance. Maybe I\'ll upgrade to Gigastudio since the effects are supposed to be very efficient. I\'ll have to think about that one. It seems like there are a lot of people having problems getting Gigastudio to work in their system. I finally have Gigasampler working and don\'t want to go through that nightmare again.