On Jan 17, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote: > Op Monday 17 January 2005 09:01, schreef dennis gunn: > > This would certainly be true if the drives were the bottle necks > > It is true just BECAUSE of what you're saying. SCSI and IDE operate at > comparable transfer rates, but (SATA) IDE requires more processing > power than SCSI. So especially when you notice the following..: > > > but > > from the experience people are documenting it appears more and more > > that that is not the case. Witness the fact that cubase for example > > can play back so many more tracks than Logic can. > > ..in other words, Logic has less processing power available for the > actual > recording than Cubase, this only makes SCSI more favourable. For the sake of clarity the problem is not in the recording tracks but the play back tracks. After all it is not unusual to be playing back dozens of tracks at once but recording dozens at once is a comparatively rare situation, and what would be an even more rare situation would be recording dozens of tracks at once while monitoring dozens of recorded tracks usually if you are recording on a whole bunch of tracks it is an orchestral situation where you are doing basics also In the real world most people don't even have more than about 18-24 inputs anyway and I have recorded that many inputs without problems. > Besides, you can't really speak about "the bottleneck"; every element > in the > chain can slow things down. Especially in the case of IDE where the > processor has to do all the work. > Sure I can speak about a bottleneck. The processor meter can be hovering at not much over zero while the disk meter is pegged. That means that the CPU has overhead to spare but the data path to the disk is maxed. That is a bottleneck. I don't know the details of where or why that bottleneck is since it does not seem to be in the disc itself since cubase can do better on the same disk and it also does not seem to be that the CPU is overtaxed according to the meters, it just seems to be one of "those things". Anyway by all means go spend your hard earned pesos on SCSI drives and PCI cards but I don't think you are going to get any performance gain. But hey I would love to be proven wrong.
Message
Re: [Logic_Cafe] SATA versus SCSI
2005-01-17 by dennis gunn
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.