Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

I´m going to second ( third actually) Gregory and Mauritius in this : 
I don´t know about cubase , but I do know about SCSI . If money is 
not a problem I´ll go Scsi hands down . IDE is cheap and it works , 
but just that . with scsi you can have lots of disk ( or whatever you 
want...)with ide you´re very limited on this.
I´ll tell you a recent story :
I´ve mounted a third computer on a third studio I have( Businness, 
home , and second business) I did it mainly because I liked the 
reverbs on the Lexicon core32 card . So I mounted an Asus P2b with a 
PII550 384mb and a video card... I discovered the hard way that the 
P2B only liked IDE HDs with less than 20gb, and I hadn´t one at hand 
but I had a 9gb scsi disk and a scsi card so I mounted  that for the 
moment. To be short : I love that machine , boots really fast and my 
logic project load in a snap ( Ok , there simplified versions of my 
projects , but even my simpler projects took three times longer to 
load on my PIV ). Also the number of 24bit tracks it reads and writes 
is incredible for such a machine with that memory ( I get 12 writing  
while reading 8... it´s a scsi3 card with a scsi3 hd, and it´s not 
the limit, that´s what I did last sunday )
Also I can have portable drives on that machine . 
Put a good scsi and you´ll never regret . It´s simply better.... more 
expensive but better.
kind regards


 --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Maurits van de Kamp 
<maurits@b...> wrote:
> 
> > Sure I can speak about a bottleneck.
> 
> "A" but not "the". :o) The drive speed will always influence your 
performance.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That still depends on the efficiency of the Disk IO as well as the 
drive 
> itself.
> 
> > 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
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > 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".
> 
> It's because disk IO also envolves the processor (and less so for 
SCSI than 
> SATA/IDE), and Cubase has more processor power available for this 
than Logic. 
> Probably because Logic has a more powerful and flexible internal 
engine which 
> comes at a cost. You misinterpret the meters, they both partially 
depend on 
> the CPU. Just one indicates how much more it could do on audio, and 
one 
> indicates how much more it could do on disk I/O.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I do, and in fact many have already reported about it to this list. 
That's the 
> whole point you miss when you think in single bottlenecks: You seem 
to think 
> when Cubase outperforms Logic, the harddisk speed can't make a 
difference 
> anymore. Well it can, and on top of that, if you switch to SCSI 
you'll need 
> less CPU to deal with the disk IO so not only wil both Cubase and 
Logic be 
> faster, the difference will also be smaller.
> 
> > But hey I would love to be proven wrong.
> 
> You wouldn't be the first one to have tried (and found out) but go 
ahead. :o)
> 
> Maurits.