Do I need 10,000 rpm or is 7200 enough?

Infernal Device · 7th September 2005, 02:26 PM

For running Nuendo 3.0 on a PC? Now I have heard both will work but do I need it?

10,000 is a SCSI, but the EZQuest drives brag about the ATA performance through firewire on 7,200.

De chromium cob · 7th September 2005, 02:28 PM

Without you saying how many tracks, what sample rate and how much editing, ect you're doing, any response to your question would just be a guess.

Infernal Device · 7th September 2005, 02:32 PM

oh god, sorry.

I am running nuendo 3.0, wanting to record onto a external hard drive and run projects with about 50 tracks or so. As much editing and the highest sample rate I can afford is the goal.

wilcofan · 7th September 2005, 04:36 PM

I use Cubase SX 3 which will run hard drives the same as Nuendo 3, AFAIK.

Single 7200 drives will give you 80-100 tracks at 48k/24bit.

Single 15,000 drives will give you 40-50 tracks at 88k/24bit.

That's been my experience. RAID doesn't offer much gain, at least in the way I've ever been able to set it up. I had a dual 10k raid setup and was barely able to outperform a single 10k drive, no matter which way I striped it.

I use 15k 74gb drives for my 88k/24bit sessions. I'm never thinking about drives at all, as long as I stay in a reasonable "old school" track count! Just kidding, even 45 tracks is obscene...

faeflora · 7th September 2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilcofan

I use Cubase SX 3 which will run hard drives the same as Nuendo 3, AFAIK.

Single 7200 drives will give you 80-100 tracks at 48k/24bit.

Single 15,000 drives will give you 40-50 tracks at 88k/24bit.

That's been my experience. RAID doesn't offer much gain, at least in the way I've ever been able to set it up. I had a dual 10k raid setup and was barely able to outperform a single 10k drive, no matter which way I striped it.

I use 15k 74gb drives for my 88k/24bit sessions. I'm never thinking about drives at all, as long as I stay in a reasonable "old school" track count! Just kidding, even 45 tracks is obscene...

Whoa there was some problem with your RAID controller or software then. With 1 10K seagate drive I can do 80MB/s. With 2 10K seagate drives I can do 155MB/s.

That's fast enough for 68 mono tracks of 96Khz/24 bit. Of course, if you chop up the audio regions noncontiguously, your track count can drop dramatically.

faeflora · 7th September 2005, 06:49 PM

Basically, if you're doing a lot of edits at a high bit and sample rate, you'll end up needing more than one drive. If you're using big long audio regions, you can run a lot of tracks.

I recommend calling up steinberg or looking in the nuendo forums for this info.

A lot of pros use nuendo and will have good tested configurations that they can reccomend.

wilcofan · 7th September 2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Whoa there was some problem with your RAID controller or software then. With 1 10K seagate drive I can do 80MB/s. With 2 10K seagate drives I can do 155MB/s.

I meant there was no improvment more than 5-10% on my actual drive count, 155mbs is great but throughput didn't seem to improve my real-world playback and editing.

wilcofan · 7th September 2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Basically, if you're doing a lot of edits at a high bit and sample rate, you'll end up needing more than one drive. If you're using big long audio regions, you can run a lot of tracks.

Again, I'm doing high sample rates with lots of edits (I don't render) and I'm only using one drive. It's 15k but that's the point I'm trying to make. One drive is fine if it's fast.

Dog_Chao_Chao · 8th September 2005, 03:46 PM

How about for an internal? I´m using protools, 32 tracks, plenty plugins, editing, 24 bit 44.1 or 88.2 ( if it´s going to be a heavy session i prefer 44.1, also because of the pluginsand buffer size). I am using 7200 but i would like to record more at 88,2. Will it make a reasonable diference? Thanks
Ed

faeflora · 8th September 2005, 05:13 PM

You should have been able to get a hgiher track count.

Maybe you accidentally mirrored insted of striped?

If you're doing lots of edits - like edits every second

then higher RPM is definetly better as you get lower head latency time.

seriousfun · 8th September 2005, 05:32 PM

The gamers seem to like the new 16MB-Cache 7200 drives (WD DiamondMax 10).

PCI still is the fastest bus. IMO SCSI's day has come and gone, as has the need for RAID (to make bigger drives, not necessarily for backup/mirroring).

wilcofan · 8th September 2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

IMO SCSI's day has come and gone

Why? A drive that doesn't use CPU cycles, offers the fastest rotation speed, and is quite affordable now...

I used to think I didn't need SCSI but since I moved to 88k recording and broke down and bought a setup, I've never looked back. Drive performance is just something I don't need to think about. 3ms seek time is a spec I don't think should be overlooked.

I'm not saying a non-SCSI system with large cache won't do, but I can testify personally how great it is to work at 256 buffers and edit without ever seeing stress on the drive, using 15k SCSI. I've yet to see too many guys jumping in forums saying they regularly work at high sample rates with non-SCSI.

SCSI may be dead where you live buy alive where I do.

seriousfun · 8th September 2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilcofan

Why? A drive that doesn't use CPU cycles, offers the fastest rotation speed, and is quite affordable now...

I used to think I didn't need SCSI but since I moved to 88k recording and broke down and bought a setup, I've never looked back. Drive performance is just something I don't need to think about. 3ms seek time is a spec I don't think should be overlooked.

I'm not saying a non-SCSI system with large cache won't do, but I can testify personally how great it is to work at 256 buffers and edit without ever seeing stress on the drive, using 15k SCSI. I've yet to see too many guys jumping in forums saying they regularly work at high sample rates with non-SCSI.

SCSI may be dead where you live buy alive where I do.

Yes, SCSI can still work great, but today, there are alternatives.

In its day, SCSI was the only way to use fast drives, could be used internally or externally, and was cross-platform. Today, there are fast and large ATA/EIDE drives, external solutions, and MACs and PCs both use some flavor of PCI.

We should be happy that we live in times of plentiful, fast, and cheap hard drive space!

s.d.finley · 9th September 2005, 04:30 AM

SCSI is still the fastest i/o

rock

sdf

entropy · 9th September 2005, 07:25 AM

I've read a few comments (not here) about 16mb cache with a 7200rpm drive working really well, has anyone here had any real experience with these? I'd like to hear some feedback on how track count/edit density is improved (if at all) with a 16mb cache.

faeflora · 9th September 2005, 04:45 PM

With a slow drive and high buffer, you'll be able to get higher track counts.

Edit playback performance won't change very much if at all.

The buffer works for contiguous reads/writes meaning no edits.

respirator · 9th September 2005, 05:32 PM

SCSI is old tech. Look into SATA!

klaukholm · 10th September 2005, 02:20 AM

If stability, performance and uptime is your goal - SCSI is still the way to go.
Mission critical = scsi.

kjetil

seriousfun · 10th September 2005, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klaukholm

If stability, performance and uptime is your goal - SCSI is still the way to go.
Mission critical = scsi.
The day you get 5 year warranties on sata drives and the focus on stability that scsi has right now, I will be the first to switch.

kjetil

All the Seagates I buy have five year warranties, and are stable and reliable. Might be a Swedish thing

wilcofan · 10th September 2005, 07:14 AM

Well, the original poster did jump in early on and say he wanted as much editing as possible. I don't think he intended a SCSI vs SATA thread. To answer his original question, if he wants high sample rates (88k or 96k) and lots of editing, 7200 rpm is not going to cut it, IMO. SCSI or not.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
High end gear ($3,000-$4,000)?	Velocitybmg	High end	3	10th November 2006 01:16 AM
Macook with 5400 or 7200 hd?	midiman123	Music computers	6	7th August 2006 07:15 PM
10,000 rpm WD Raptors cheap at the moment	Jax	So much gear, so little time!	0	8th January 2006 12:41 AM
Maxtor x Seagate 120 GB 7200 RPM	Alécio Costa	Music computers	21	14th July 2004 02:06 AM

7th September 2005, 02:26 PM	#1
Infernal Device Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: USA Posts: 684	Do I need 10,000 rpm or is 7200 enough? For running Nuendo 3.0 on a PC? Now I have heard both will work but do I need it? 10,000 is a SCSI, but the EZQuest drives brag about the ATA performance through firewire on 7,200.

7th September 2005, 02:28 PM	#2
De chromium cob Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Western North Carolina Posts: 3,362	Without you saying how many tracks, what sample rate and how much editing, ect you're doing, any response to your question would just be a guess. __________________ "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Tolstoy Scott Benson www.syborgstudios.com

8th September 2005, 05:32 PM	#11
seriousfun Gear addict Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 430	The gamers seem to like the new 16MB-Cache 7200 drives (WD DiamondMax 10). PCI still is the fastest bus. IMO SCSI's day has come and gone, as has the need for RAID (to make bigger drives, not necessarily for backup/mirroring). __________________ doug osborne \| my day job \| my music, and more

9th September 2005, 07:25 AM	#15
entropy Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: QLD. Australia Posts: 1,023	I've read a few comments (not here) about 16mb cache with a 7200rpm drive working really well, has anyone here had any real experience with these? I'd like to hear some feedback on how track count/edit density is improved (if at all) with a 16mb cache. __________________ Pro Audio Pimp at www.brisound.com.au The Australian home of A Designs Audio products.

7th September 2005, 02:32 PM	#3
Infernal Device Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: USA Posts: 684	oh god, sorry. I am running nuendo 3.0, wanting to record onto a external hard drive and run projects with about 50 tracks or so. As much editing and the highest sample rate I can afford is the goal.

7th September 2005, 04:36 PM	#4
wilcofan Gear addict Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 387	I use Cubase SX 3 which will run hard drives the same as Nuendo 3, AFAIK. Single 7200 drives will give you 80-100 tracks at 48k/24bit. Single 15,000 drives will give you 40-50 tracks at 88k/24bit. That's been my experience. RAID doesn't offer much gain, at least in the way I've ever been able to set it up. I had a dual 10k raid setup and was barely able to outperform a single 10k drive, no matter which way I striped it. I use 15k 74gb drives for my 88k/24bit sessions. I'm never thinking about drives at all, as long as I stay in a reasonable "old school" track count! Just kidding, even 45 tracks is obscene...

7th September 2005, 06:49 PM	#6
faeflora Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: washington dc Posts: 2,010	Basically, if you're doing a lot of edits at a high bit and sample rate, you'll end up needing more than one drive. If you're using big long audio regions, you can run a lot of tracks. I recommend calling up steinberg or looking in the nuendo forums for this info. A lot of pros use nuendo and will have good tested configurations that they can reccomend.

8th September 2005, 03:46 PM	#9
Dog_Chao_Chao Lives for gear Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lisbon Posts: 737	How about for an internal? I´m using protools, 32 tracks, plenty plugins, editing, 24 bit 44.1 or 88.2 ( if it´s going to be a heavy session i prefer 44.1, also because of the pluginsand buffer size). I am using 7200 but i would like to record more at 88,2. Will it make a reasonable diference? Thanks Ed

8th September 2005, 05:13 PM	#10
faeflora Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: washington dc Posts: 2,010	You should have been able to get a hgiher track count. Maybe you accidentally mirrored insted of striped? If you're doing lots of edits - like edits every second then higher RPM is definetly better as you get lower head latency time.

9th September 2005, 04:30 AM	#14
s.d.finley Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,018	SCSI is still the fastest i/o rock sdf

9th September 2005, 04:45 PM	#16
faeflora Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: washington dc Posts: 2,010	With a slow drive and high buffer, you'll be able to get higher track counts. Edit playback performance won't change very much if at all. The buffer works for contiguous reads/writes meaning no edits.

9th September 2005, 05:32 PM	#17
respirator Gear nut Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Denmark Posts: 113	SCSI is old tech. Look into SATA!

10th September 2005, 02:20 AM	#18
klaukholm Lives for gear Join Date: May 2005 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 1,248	If stability, performance and uptime is your goal - SCSI is still the way to go. Mission critical = scsi. kjetil __________________ Kjetil Laukholm European Classical Records CK Recording

10th September 2005, 07:14 AM	#20
wilcofan Gear addict Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 387	Well, the original poster did jump in early on and say he wanted as much editing as possible. I don't think he intended a SCSI vs SATA thread. To answer his original question, if he wants high sample rates (88k or 96k) and lots of editing, 7200 rpm is not going to cut it, IMO. SCSI or not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: