![]() | All Advertisers |
| Member Services Directory | Classifieds | Reviews | Jobs | Deal Zone | Merchandise | Marketplace | Facebook App | Books, DVDs & Gadgets | Video Vault | Tips & Techniques |
| |||||||
New Reply | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| | #61 |
| Gear Head Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
|
Are you talking 48TB of usable, arrayed disk space or just the total raw capacity of the drives? I'm wondering now about a couple of things: i) Throughput: Is this server dedicated to audio or will it handle video, as well? If so how many simultaneous HD streams can it manage whilst still running dozens of audio tracks? ii) Backup: In your usage scenario projections do you envision any one project making use of the bulk of your capacity? A band could easily walk out with an album or two's worth of sessions on a single hard drive, but wow will you secure 48TB of data if need be? fH |
| | |
| | #62 | |||
| Lives for gear | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ Manifold Recording / The Miraverse My blog My gearslutz Studio Construction thread and Studio Tech thread | |||
| | |
| | #63 | ||
| Gear Head Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
| Quote:
Bandwidth, too. I mean, like you said, any old drive can do 20Mb/s without breaking a sweat, and most any single one of today's 'performance' drives can handle big sessions with tons of edits and fades and so forth. So an array with throughput like yours seems a bit, well... fast— for just audio. I can't (yet) conceive of how I'd use that kind of capacity and bandwidth in a music studio. That's why I wondered out loud about your projected session size and bandwidth requirements. Quote:
My gosh, I wasn't talking about larceny! The notion hadn't even crossed my mind. What I meant was that, from a backup perspective, several albums' worth of sessions can easily be contained on a single hard drive, so backing up something like that is easy, whereas backing up 48TB might prove more difficult if ever the need arose. Sorry for the confusion! fH | ||
| | |
| | #64 | |
| Lives for gear | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #65 |
| Lives for gear | Nothing to see this week...
I was hoping to post the caterpillar->butterfly transformation of either the Pergola or the Annex control room this week, but alas the scale of the work again exceeded estimates. The Pergola team spent the entire week just making the common rafters and the acoustic team spent the entire week making the cloud. The photos of the exciting transformation will have to wait until next week...
|
| | |
| | #66 |
| Gear addict |
And I was worried that I was going to have to "come down" from the construction thread! Love this geek stuff, keep it coming!
__________________ |
| | |
| | #67 |
| Gear Head Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
|
Micahel, I've been contemplating data security lately, and methods by which studios, especially studios working on major-label projects might keep releases from leaking early. How do you manage network access to the media SAN server? Is it controlled by some form of machine- or user-authentication? Piyono |
| | |
| | #68 | |
| Lives for gear | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #69 | |
| Gear Head Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
| Quote:
Sure, well that's the classic refrain in the security world, right? There's no 'perfect' security, just what's acceptable in a given context. What I always find amazing is how many studio operators (nay, people in general) have not the foggiest notions of security or data integrity. That said, I can't imagine you'll have too many ill-intentioned, security-guru 1337 hackers running about the place, so your measures will probably suffice. ![]() Piyono | |
| | |
| | #70 | |
| Gear Head | Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #71 |
| Lives for gear | ProTools and Voices
Good morning, all! We have some tech news to report... We've been using ProTools HD Native at 96K in both rooms for a few months now, and we are getting a pretty good handle on its capabilities (or lack thereof). A recent session with 55 tracks on a single socket MacPro (4 cores / 8 virtual cores) with only half the cores assigned to ProTools used less than 5% of the CPU, less than 20% of disk I/O capabilities, but 90 of the 96 available voices. In other words, the voice limit set by ProTools is about four times too low for a half of a half of a modern day Mac. As I understand it, playing back 55 tracks uses 55 voices, which by itself is no biggie. But if we want to bus, on average, one aux send and one stereo send per track, that would add another 165 voices! If we want those various aux sends going to 8 different aux busses and the stereo sends to 4 stereo group busses, that adds another 16 voices. Suddenly we're way past 200 voices, easily within the range of what the Mac could handle by itself, but well beyond the artificial limit of HD Native at 96K. Thankfully, we have consoles. In the API room, our 64 channels have two inputs and our aux, group, stereo, and surround busses all have inserts, for a total of 128 + 32-ish input voices. Each channel can feed a direct out, 10 aux busess, 24 track busses, 3 stereo busses, and a surround bus, for a total of nearly 50 output voices, so a total of 3200 output voices. And then these aux busses and stereo busses have their own folddown matricies, for an additional set of voices. So in ProTools terms, the API console is about 35 times more powerful than ProTools HD Native when it comes to I/O. In the Harrison room, we our 96 channels have two inputs, for a total of 192 input voices. (We can source from more than 500 distinct digital patch points, but those sources must be routed into the console before they represent a "voice".) Once inside the console, we have a direct out, 16 aux busses, 48 track busses, 8 group busses, and four stereo busses for a total of 80 * 96 minus the 8 busses that cannot route to themselves = 7672 output voices. So in ProTools terms, the Harrison console is about 80 times more powerful than ProTools HD Native. In both rooms we have an Xdubber stem recorder (or two), which can record and play back 64 tracks in floating point. Thus, we can make a drum stem, a background vocal stem, a wall-of-guitars stem, etc., thereby actually *recovering* voices for ProTools as the mix gets bigger and deeper. When we mix in the API room, we can source ProTools from one fader and the Xdubber from the other: 64 + 64 inputs all day. In the Harrison room, we can have fader-per-channel on 48+48 inputs or do more creative things to use the B inputs for natural summing (such as source + efx return and controlling efx level based on efx send rather than fader return), allowing us to use more of the 64 channels of ProTools or more of the 64 channels of stems, whichever way the session goes. |
| | |
| | #73 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 694
|
Nice list! I think there is a typo - you have listed josephson e42s - should be e22s |
| | |
| | #74 |
| Lives for gear | |
| | |
New Reply
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Manifold Recording - Studio Construction Thread | Clueless | Photo diaries of recording studio construction projects | 1701 | 20th April 2012 07:16 AM |
| Another bedroom studio thread - Mixing + Recording Vocals/Acoustic Guitars | jossesphere | Studio building / acoustics | 3 | 3rd September 2009 06:39 PM |
| The child proofing your studio or protecting your studio from the kids thread | fross | So much gear, so little time! | 17 | 9th February 2008 06:07 PM |
| Allan Waugh appreciation thread (tech) | hurricaneE | The Good News Channel | 0 | 31st July 2007 09:54 PM |
| HELP WANTED - Studio Tech for Large Manhattan Studio | cookiekixx | Geekslutz forum | 0 | 30th December 2004 06:26 PM |
| |