I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.

"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com

I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using
Sound Forge 8 on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be
worth the extra $140 or so (for a Dell 9100, for
example)? I know that RAID 0 improves performance on
some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any
experience here? Thanks.

Both striping and mirroring enhance the performance of hard
drives. When you stripe, you get a doubled probability that
a single device failure will take you down, but you also get
twice the space. When you mirror, you get zero probability
that a single device failure will take you down, but you
don't get the doubled space.

Hard drives are among the least reliable of PC components.
Therfore, mirroring is a pretty good idea, especially given
the low price of disk space.

Thank you for your response.

Actually, I'm more interested in speed rather than security as these
files are pretty much backed up already in their original format on
CD's and DAT's and could be easitly redone if there were a HD failure.


I was wondering if there is a real difference in performance between
the serial ATA hard drives that come standard with computers these days
and the optional RAID O configuration.

Since these audio programs are hard drive based, I would think that
faster HD performance would be a definate plus.
Or, the difference might be so minimal that it's not worth it.

(Incidently, I asked Sony Pictures (who market Sound Forge) this
question and they couldn't tell me. I don't think they know much
about what they're selling).

A few thoughts on RAID in context of audio editing software (Audition,
actually):
http://www.audiomastersforum.org/amf...pic.php?t=4223

"jixelub" wrote...
I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here?
Thanks.

Are you trying to solve (or prevent) some particular issue?
Like are you simultaneously recording/playing so many tracks
that you fear that conventional disc solutions will be a bottle-
neck?

Beware of RAID just because it sounds cool. Merely running Sound
Forge 8 isn't necessarily a valid reason for considering RAID.
More information about what you want to do would be in order
(particularly: how many channels you are recording/mixing, and
whether you are also doing video, the size of all the drives on
the PC, etc. etc.)

"jixelub" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thank you for your response.

Actually, I'm more interested in speed rather than security as these
files are pretty much backed up already in their original format on
CD's and DAT's and could be easitly redone if there were a HD failure.


I was wondering if there is a real difference in performance between
the serial ATA hard drives that come standard with computers these days
and the optional RAID O configuration.

Since these audio programs are hard drive based, I would think that
faster HD performance would be a definate plus.
Or, the difference might be so minimal that it's not worth it.

(Incidently, I asked Sony Pictures (who market Sound Forge) this
question and they couldn't tell me. I don't think they know much
about what they're selling).


I run a stripped set ( 3 10k scsi drives with software raid 0 ) but the
difference between the stripped set and a single 10k drive isn't huge. When
I tested it a while back I think I could simultaneously record 52 tracks at
24/96 on the single drive and 58 tracks on the stripped set. I think a hard
ware raid setup would be even a little more efficient but I don't know for
sure.

With my current setup and foreseeable project needs I don't think I'll be
recording more than 16 tracks at a time so the increased risk of running a
stripped set probably isn't worth it. What is really had on a system is to
play back a lot of tracks while recording a bunch at the same time.

If you go for a stripped set I'd recommend two or more fast small drives and
use that as your 'working' drive and then move project off to larger /
cheaper drives when done.

--
John L Rice

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com

I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using
Sound Forge 8 on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be
worth the extra $140 or so (for a Dell 9100, for
example)? I know that RAID 0 improves performance on
some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any
experience here? Thanks.

Both striping and mirroring enhance the performance of hard drives. When
you stripe, you get a doubled probability that a single device failure
will take you down, but you also get twice the space. When you mirror, you
get zero probability that a single device failure will take you down, but
you don't get the doubled space.


Maybe a technicality in perception but I'd say that with stripping you get
increased performance but with no increase of usable space ( 2 x 100 GB hard
drives gives you a 200 GB stripped set, same amount of space as if you ran
the two 100 GB drives individually ) but mirroring gives you half the amount
of usable drive space ( 2 x 100 GB hard drives gives you a 100 GB mirrored
set ). Also, I've read that write performance for a mirrored set can be a
little less than for a single non-raid drive.

John L Rice

I want faster! Editing and processing audio.

SF 8 is a 2 channel program and I won't be doing video.

SCSI is expensive, while RAID 0 is not--but is it faster than plain old
SATA?

Thanks,
jixelub

On 9 Oct 2005 17:23:56 -0700, "jixelub" wrote:

I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.

Speaking as a computer tech : One drawback of the Dell machines is
that they usually don't have the drive expandability to do any more
than two hard drives. Out of necessity, I'm using a desktop box as a
server, and I had to purchase a drive cage to mount a hard drive in an
5 1/4" bay, where you'd usually mount a CD-ROM.

So, if you're looking to use 3 hard drives, one for the OS, and two in
a RAID for data, you'll need to get a drive mounting kit from NewEgg
or similar supplier to put a 3 1/2" drive in a 5 1/4" space.
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings

On 9 Oct 2005 19:03:22 -0700, "jixelub" wrote:

I want faster! Editing and processing audio.

SF 8 is a 2 channel program and I won't be doing video.

SCSI is expensive, while RAID 0 is not--but is it faster than plain old
SATA?

Let's be careful here, and remember that RAID is just a way to hook up
multiple drives. It doesn't matter if it's SCSI, EIDE, or SATA, they
can be hooked up in RAID. You just can't mix types, and it's best not
to mix sizes (except in a very special circumstance).

In other words, RAIDs work best when you've got multiple drives of the
same type and same size (and ideally speaking, the same model, though
that's hardly necessary).

But yes, SCSI drives are more expensive than EIDE or SATA. The
performance from SATA is better than EIDE, but the durability of SCSI
drives is generally better than SATA and EIDE.

I would highly suggest using a good RAID card instead of doing a
software RAID under Windows (assuming you're using Windows).
Downside, good RAID cards aren't cheap, but the performace returns are
worth it.
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings

jixelub wrote:
I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.

This link has some basic info on RAID types:

http://www.ebabble.net/html/types.html

Raid 0 stripes data across 2 drives, so you get faster IO, however you
may find RAID 1 is more useful as it mirrors the data. It is only
slightly slower than RAID 0 and gives you data protection too.

In IT circles, it is common to use RAID 1 (mirroring) for system drives
and RAID 5 for data drives. RAID 5 stripes the data across multiple
drives (minimum 3), so it gives greater protection against drive
failures. There is no real performance benefit though (no cost either),
so this might not transfer to a DAW quite so well.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com

I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using
Sound Forge 8 on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be
worth the extra $140 or so (for a Dell 9100, for
example)? I know that RAID 0 improves performance on
some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any
experience here? Thanks.

Both striping and mirroring enhance the performance of hard drives. When
you stripe, you get a doubled probability that a single device failure
will take you down, but you also get twice the space.

That can be achieved more cheaply with a larger hard drive. The real
advantage of stripe is that it writes sequentially across the drive(s), thus
substantially increasing write-speed. This is not as big an issue with
modern hard drives as it was for older drives. The disadvantage of stripe 1
mentioned by Arnie above (disk failure) doesn't count once you get to Raids
3, 4, or 5 which use additional disks but carry the capacity to rebuild on
the fly without interruption.

When you mirror, you get zero probability
that a single device failure will take you down, but you don't get the
doubled space.


Right, so this is the preferable use for a DAW. And if you are using
separate disk drives for program content and audio data both should be
mirrored.

Hard drives are among the least reliable of PC components. Therfore,
mirroring is a pretty good idea, especially given the low price of disk
space.

"jixelub" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thank you for your response.

Actually, I'm more interested in speed rather than security as these
files are pretty much backed up already in their original format on
CD's and DAT's and could be easitly redone if there were a HD failure.


I was wondering if there is a real difference in performance between
the serial ATA hard drives that come standard with computers these days
and the optional RAID O configuration.

Since these audio programs are hard drive based, I would think that
faster HD performance would be a definate plus.
Or, the difference might be so minimal that it's not worth it.

(Incidently, I asked Sony Pictures (who market Sound Forge) this
question and they couldn't tell me. I don't think they know much
about what they're selling).
\

Well then, you might want to consider a RAID 4 or 5 array and dedicated
controller for your data disks. These have two advantages. The biggest is
speed, since the data is written and read sequentially across the disks.
The second is that they allow hot-swapping (assuming the hardware can handle
this) and rebuilding on the fly if there is a failure. So you get
protection during a recording session as well as speed.

However, as I noted in another post...speed is generally less of an issue
today than it was in the past. 7200 rpm drives are fast, and 10,000 rpm
drives are super-fast. The speed advantage of raid was a much greater
advantage when drives were slower.

jixelub wrote:

I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.



You've gotten some really good advice so far in this thread, and some
not so good too, I'd like to reinforce and/or clarify a few things:

While RAID 0 will typically improve read/write performance, it does
nothing for fault tolerance. (But you say speed is you concern, not
fault tolerance).

I agree with the poster that says that the RAID 0 Striped set alone
isn't going to make a *huge* difference. Noticeable, but not huge.

I also very much agree with the poster that suggests using a separate
hardware controller card if you want to take maximum advantage of
increased speed; because the bottleneck of using software control, will
probably negate much of the advantage of using multiple drives.

Mirroring actually slows write times, but may increase seek/read times,
and is mostly useful for fault tolerance not speed. I also agree with
the principal of mirroring system drives with fault tolerant striped
sets for DATA, at least in a heavy use general purpose server, but that
brings the minimum number of drives up to 5!

Another post I agree with; Using RAID just because it seems like a "pro"
thing to do, isn't necessarily a good reason.

Here is my recommendation that can give you a good advantage in drive
I/O speed, without the hassle of using RAID at all:

Use three drives. Two of them don't even have to be that large, but they
should be fast 7200rpm and ATA-100100 or such. Your third (data) drive
should be large and fast. The OS and your MIDI/Audio Sequencer software
go on drive #0. You don't allow widows to manage the virtual memory.
Manually set the swap file (virtual memory) at a very large size (2-3
times the amount of actual RAM installed in the computer, and put it
on drive #1. Set the default for 'track temp' files of your MIDI/Audio
sequencing software to drive #2.

Here are the advantages of this setup:

The OS and Applications being on the same drive reduces seek times
between them due to sharing the onboard cache of drive #0 (needless
to say, the bigger the cache, the better)

The constant hits on the virtual memory (and there are a lot in
audio recording) don't bog down the OS and/or DATA drives. All drives
are dedicated to performing operations most likely to happen within
their own little 'domain' and this reduces bottlenecking in the
disk control system!

Note: This system may be improved with the addition of a fourth
drive to separate the OS and Applications, and also by the use of
a controller card that avoids the connection of multiple drives on
the same buss in master/slave dependency. (And of course *never*
put a HDD that you want to perform well, on the same buss with
any kind of CD/R/RW.)

Big drawback: *no* fault tolerance whatsoever. Now, I haven't tested
my theoretical system against a RAID 0 striped set for speed comparison,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it were at least as fast, if not faster.
I would also expect it to be very reliable.

I have my system set up in a variation of this right now, using only
two drives and multiple partitions, and it has been working very well
for me.

John King

Hi,

The bottom line is that for your application, (SF8 recording two
tracks) any RAID system is completely unnecessary, and an unneeded
expense. Any decent existing drive will record and play back two tracks
with ease. Is it really worth the money for RAID to get a system that
is 60X as fast as needed instead of 50X? I think you'll agree that
there's no reason to go there.

On the other hand, RAID is fun to play with, and if the geek factor is
important to you, then consider it. It's an interesting thing to learn
about first-hand. But from a practical point of view it's overkill at a
very high level, for your application.

Good luck,

Dean


jixelub wrote:
I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.

"jixelub" wrote in message
ups.com
Thank you for your response.

Actually, I'm more interested in speed rather than
security as these files are pretty much backed up already
in their original format on CD's and DAT's and could be
easitly redone if there were a HD failure.


I was wondering if there is a real difference in
performance between the serial ATA hard drives that come
standard with computers these days and the optional RAID
O configuration.

Yes, it ranges from an approximate 50% average advantage for
mirroring to closer a doubling of average performance for
striping.

I say average, because in certain short term sitautions the
advantages may be less.

Since these audio programs are hard drive based, I would
think that faster HD performance would be a definate plus.


It is often a very obvious advantage. A PC with either
striping or mirroring just feels loser and quicker.

You will not have a problem with audio based applications with even a single
drive with the application you specified. Audio doesn't eat up that much
bandwidth in a stereo environment, so don't worry about it.

If you want a more specific answer with graphs and curves and datapoints,
then both Arny and I can provide such, but it's moot. Stereo is 172,000
bits per second, or thereabouts. Most drives can easily handle at least 40
MB/s, so you can see the negation of your concerns.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"jixelub" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thank you for your response.

Actually, I'm more interested in speed rather than security as these
files are pretty much backed up already in their original format on
CD's and DAT's and could be easitly redone if there were a HD failure.


I was wondering if there is a real difference in performance between
the serial ATA hard drives that come standard with computers these days
and the optional RAID O configuration.

Since these audio programs are hard drive based, I would think that
faster HD performance would be a definate plus.
Or, the difference might be so minimal that it's not worth it.

(Incidently, I asked Sony Pictures (who market Sound Forge) this
question and they couldn't tell me. I don't think they know much
about what they're selling).

The appearance of faster is somewhat disinformation. SCSI may be more
expensive, but IMHE the ability of SCSI to do the job reliably across the
disk surface far surpasses the ability of ATA. In terms of SATA, it depends
on more than just the SATA interface. ATA works of the PCI bus and does a
good job in that method, but SATA seems to work better as a hang off of the
Southbridge rather than the PCI bus, so a couple of 120 gig SATA drives I
have, which run off the PCI bus don't do any better than ATA and they do so
more sporadic than ATA. Not that either can't handle as much as the 24
simultaneous tracks of recording that I throw at it, but there it is.

Once you talk about a stereo editing program, who cares? Not to be snide,
but even a basic 7200 drive will handle the application.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com...
I want faster! Editing and processing audio.

SF 8 is a 2 channel program and I won't be doing video.

SCSI is expensive, while RAID 0 is not--but is it faster than plain old
SATA?

Thanks,
jixelub

Maybe a technicality in perception but I'd say that with stripping you get
increased performance but with no increase of usable space ( 2 x 100 GB
hard
drives gives you a 200 GB stripped set, same amount of space as if you ran
the two 100 GB drives individually ) but mirroring gives you half the
amount
of usable drive space ( 2 x 100 GB hard drives gives you a 100 GB mirrored
set ). Also, I've read that write performance for a mirrored set can be a
little less than for a single non-raid drive.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I may have written that in terms of today's drives.
And perhaps it's the drivers, or the bus they run off of. When my A64 runs
it's SATA drives/drivers off the PCI bus, obviously it cannot achieve the
throughput specs since they are 150 MB/s for SATA and 130 MB/s for PCI.
Plus there's a translation invovled. But a SATA striped set running
directly through a Southbridge chip should be more solid and quicker than
off the PCI bus.

In my A64 raids, I have both IDE on a Gigabyte chipset and a SATA raid ITE
chipset, both hanging off the PCI bus. The IDE is just only a slightly bit
better, not because it's faster at maximum throughput, but because the SATA
drive's transfer range looks like the Cascades in Washington State. I'd
rather have slower but more reliable transport of data than quicker and
eradict transfer, so to me the SATA drives weren't worth the expenditure.

To someone with an A64 that has SATA hanging off the Southbridge, I'd bet,
but can't confirm, that SATA would kick butt.

Unfortunately today I'd have to buy a new mobo, X2 processor, and different
memory (DDR2) in order to gain any advantages over my current system, and it
works just fine for 24 tracks of simultaneous recording. However, my Athlon
XP1600+ did so too.

Oops, and with striping you get somewhat more consistent data throughput
because one drive works from the outside and the other works from the
inside, thus averaging the data transfer over both drives.

Then again, one only has to remember that RAID means Redundant Array of
Inexpensive Disks to understand that we can't be talking about optimized
situations with RAID anyway. That RAID works better is just enough. One
cannot expect it to be a significant improvement, but in some cases any
improvement is a significant improvement.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"John L Rice" wrote in message
...

John King wrote:

jixelub wrote:

I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.



You've gotten some really good advice so far in this thread, and some
not so good too, I'd like to reinforce and/or clarify a few things:

While RAID 0 will typically improve read/write performance, it does
nothing for fault tolerance. (But you say speed is you concern, not
fault tolerance).

I agree with the poster that says that the RAID 0 Striped set alone
isn't going to make a *huge* difference. Noticeable, but not huge.

I also very much agree with the poster that suggests using a separate
hardware controller card if you want to take maximum advantage of
increased speed; because the bottleneck of using software control, will
probably negate much of the advantage of using multiple drives.

Mirroring actually slows write times, but may increase seek/read times,
and is mostly useful for fault tolerance not speed. I also agree with
the principal of mirroring system drives with fault tolerant striped
sets for DATA, at least in a heavy use general purpose server, but that
brings the minimum number of drives up to 5!

Another post I agree with; Using RAID just because it seems like a "pro"
thing to do, isn't necessarily a good reason.

Here is my recommendation that can give you a good advantage in drive
I/O speed, without the hassle of using RAID at all:

Use three drives. Two of them don't even have to be that large, but they
should be fast 7200rpm and ATA-100100 or such. Your third (data) drive
should be large and fast. The OS and your MIDI/Audio Sequencer software
go on drive #0. You don't allow widows to manage the virtual memory.
Manually set the swap file (virtual memory) at a very large size (2-3
times the amount of actual RAM installed in the computer, and put it
on drive #1. Set the default for 'track temp' files of your MIDI/Audio
sequencing software to drive #2.

Here are the advantages of this setup:

The OS and Applications being on the same drive reduces seek times
between them due to sharing the onboard cache of drive #0 (needless
to say, the bigger the cache, the better)

The constant hits on the virtual memory (and there are a lot in
audio recording) don't bog down the OS and/or DATA drives. All drives
are dedicated to performing operations most likely to happen within
their own little 'domain' and this reduces bottlenecking in the
disk control system!

Note: This system may be improved with the addition of a fourth
drive to separate the OS and Applications, and also by the use of
a controller card that avoids the connection of multiple drives on
the same buss in master/slave dependency. (And of course *never*
put a HDD that you want to perform well, on the same buss with
any kind of CD/R/RW.)

Big drawback: *no* fault tolerance whatsoever. Now, I haven't tested
my theoretical system against a RAID 0 striped set for speed comparison,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it were at least as fast, if not faster.
I would also expect it to be very reliable.

I have my system set up in a variation of this right now, using only
two drives and multiple partitions, and it has been working very well
for me.

John King




Classic mistake on my part of missing the important detail;
that faster speed was superfluous to the software you were
discussing.

However, just the same, anytime you have two or more fast
hard drives available, moving the Windows Swap File (virtual
memory) off of the (OS) drive will make a worthwhile
difference in both speed and smoother disk access / data flow.

Indeed, the benefit might be as much as gained by a striped
set w/o fault tolerance (RAID 0).

John King

raid will improve the performance off all applications. what it does
is split the audio across two drives. the most important aspect is
your average seek times get cut in half. it really helps when you are
trying to do multitrack work, especially at high sample rates.

remember, it used to cost $30,000 for a top-grade 24 track analog tape
deck, and a reel of 2 inch tape would set you back $200 or more.
computers are so dirt cheap comparitively that it's crazy not to spend
for something like this. you can always throw backup drives out on
the external firewire chain.

that being said, if all you are doing is strictly 2-track editing, raid
0 is completely unnecessary.

On 10/10/2005 3:41 AM, Big Tim wrote:
jixelub wrote:
I am planning on getting a new computer and will be using Sound Forge 8
on it. Would getting RAID 0 hard drives be worth the extra $140 or so
(for a Dell 9100, for example)? I know that RAID 0 improves
performance on some applications, but not all. What about SF 8 and
other audio editing software? Anyone have any experience here? Thanks.

This link has some basic info on RAID types:

http://www.ebabble.net/html/types.html

Raid 0 stripes data across 2 drives, so you get faster IO, however you
may find RAID 1 is more useful as it mirrors the data. It is only
slightly slower than RAID 0 and gives you data protection too.

In IT circles, it is common to use RAID 1 (mirroring) for system drives
and RAID 5 for data drives. RAID 5 stripes the data across multiple
drives (minimum 3), so it gives greater protection against drive
failures. There is no real performance benefit though (no cost either),
so this might not transfer to a DAW quite so well.


Ah, I believe RAID 5 read performance with 3 drives is better than
mirrored setup, and increases the more drives you add.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:41:29 -0400, "Roger W. Norman"
wrote:

You will not have a problem with audio based applications with even a single
drive with the application you specified. Audio doesn't eat up that much
bandwidth in a stereo environment, so don't worry about it.

If you want a more specific answer with graphs and curves and datapoints,
then both Arny and I can provide such, but it's moot. Stereo is 172,000
bits per second, or thereabouts. Most drives can easily handle at least 40
MB/s, so you can see the negation of your concerns.

Right. With stereo recording it ain't the hard drive that slows
things down. I guess if a drive were twice as fast it would mean less
time saving files however.

Thank you all for your responses to my question. Twice as fast saving
files would definately be worth the $100 or so more for RAID.

I just finished changing the volume on a 50 minute wav file (525,740KB)
and it took 4 minutes, 20 secs. Adding reverb could take over 6
minutes. This is on an OLD computer with Ultra ATA 33/7200rpm HD.

Of course a new SATA would be better, but would RAID be even better
than that?

It would seem that most people are using their computers for recording
multitrack recording and you would need mirroring for that, but for
processing, moving and saving those huge files, don't you need speed?

jixelub

On 13 Oct 2005 06:03:00 -0700, "jixelub" wrote:

Thank you all for your responses to my question. Twice as fast saving
files would definately be worth the $100 or so more for RAID.

I just finished changing the volume on a 50 minute wav file (525,740KB)
and it took 4 minutes, 20 secs. Adding reverb could take over 6
minutes. This is on an OLD computer with Ultra ATA 33/7200rpm HD.

What kind of specs are we talking about here?

jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings

On 13 Oct 2005 06:03:00 -0700, "jixelub" wrote:

I just finished changing the volume on a 50 minute wav file (525,740KB)
and it took 4 minutes, 20 secs. Adding reverb could take over 6
minutes. This is on an OLD computer with Ultra ATA 33/7200rpm HD.

Doesn't that have more to do with how fast your CPU and RAM are rather
than how fast your hard drive is? Data is being written to the
drives, but is that the bottleneck or is it?

Julian

In article .com,
says...
Thank you all for your responses to my question. Twice as fast saving
files would definately be worth the $100 or so more for RAID.

Not for multitrack recording, most raid controllers both onboard and
cards are PCI based.
They compete with the soundcard on the PCI-buss.
Ordinary onboard HD controllers do not have the same buss binding as the
PCI-soundcard.
Kind of like water running down pipes, more pipes more water, IOW
bandwidth.

I just finished changing the volume on a 50 minute wav file (525,740KB)
and it took 4 minutes, 20 secs. Adding reverb could take over 6
minutes. This is on an OLD computer with Ultra ATA 33/7200rpm HD.

So ? you got a slow CPU.


Of course a new SATA would be better, but would RAID be even better
than that?

SATA is not faster ?
It's only the tiny cache on the HD that can deliver a speed where SATA
can benefit, but on large audio files the speed of the drive is the
bottleneck.


It would seem that most people are using their computers for recording
multitrack recording and you would need mirroring for that, but for
processing, moving and saving those huge files, don't you need speed?

On a new standard 7200rpm HD in a not so new AMD XP3000 based computer
you are good for at least 80-100 tracks audio file playback, how many
tracks do you need ?



--
/ Peter Kærsaa

"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com...
I want faster! Editing and processing audio.

SF 8 is a 2 channel program and I won't be doing video.

SCSI is expensive, while RAID 0 is not--but is it faster than plain old
SATA?

Thanks,
jixelub


CPU and RAM speed/capacity are what you need to look at for processing and
editing speed. Hard drive speed/capacity mainly affects the number of
tracks you can record and play back at the same time. If you are only doing
2 track work, spending money on a faster hard drive setup would be a waste
in my opinion. My old Amiga 3000 with 25MHz 68030 CPU and 12 Meg RAM and 4
gig SCSI-2 drive handled stereo recording/playback beautifully.
--
John L Rice
www.DeliriumFix.com

John L Rice wrote:
"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com...

I want faster! Editing and processing audio.

SF 8 is a 2 channel program and I won't be doing video.

SCSI is expensive, while RAID 0 is not--but is it faster than plain old
SATA?

Thanks,
jixelub



CPU and RAM speed/capacity are what you need to look at for processing and
editing speed. Hard drive speed/capacity mainly affects the number of
tracks you can record and play back at the same time. If you are only doing
2 track work, spending money on a faster hard drive setup would be a waste
in my opinion. My old Amiga 3000 with 25MHz 68030 CPU and 12 Meg RAM and 4
gig SCSI-2 drive handled stereo recording/playback beautifully.

Probably the best buy is getting a couple of Gig of RAM so you don't have to use
the disk so much.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

What about iSCSI?

Discuss.

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Many of you miss the point. Sound Forge, like most audio editing
software, is hard drive based. That means that it does all of its work
on the hard drive, not with the RAM. This is necessary because the
size of the files are potentially so big that it is impractical to do
it with RAM.

This is also the reason why it is a good idea to defrag the hard drive
frequently to improve performance, as these programs suggest.

I am not talking about performance merely for playback or recording.
That is easy. I am talking about editing, processing and mastering
stereo tracks that are sometimes quite long. They have to be written
and rewritten every time you do something. A fast hard drive is the
best way to improve the speed of doing these things.

Thus, my question was, is RAID worth the extra money to increase the
speed of using Sound Forge 8?

jixelub

I get some 80-90 tracs out of a sata drive, well beoynd my needs most
of the time.
(With Nuendo and pretty average computer)
Matti

On 18 Oct 2005 20:17:05 -0700, "jixelub" wrote:

Many of you miss the point. Sound Forge, like most audio editing
software, is hard drive based. That means that it does all of its work
on the hard drive, not with the RAM. This is necessary because the
size of the files are potentially so big that it is impractical to do
it with RAM.

I think you might be missing the point too. I may no be the best
person to explain how it works, but every function you do is not
limited to the hard drive speed. I open a 3 hour long file and delete
2 hours of it in Audition or Sound Forge 8 and it is done instantly.
The whole file doesn't need to be re-written, only pointers. Most of
the work I do is cutting and pasting which goes quickly. Say you add
reverb or eq or some other DSP to a long file. Yes, this does have to
be written to the hard drive, but is that the limiting factor or is it
the speed of your CPU? I'm sure both are factors. I can't
quantitatively which is the bottleneck for any given dsp, but others
here possibly can.

Julian

"Julian" wrote in message

On 18 Oct 2005 20:17:05 -0700, "jixelub"
wrote:

Many of you miss the point. Sound Forge, like most
audio editing software, is hard drive based. That means
that it does all of its work on the hard drive, not with
the RAM. This is necessary because the size of the
files are potentially so big that it is impractical to
do it with RAM.

I think you might be missing the point too. I may no be
the best person to explain how it works, but every
function you do is not limited to the hard drive speed.

No, not every function, but OTOH its hard to go through a
project where hard drive speed isn't an issue.


I open a 3 hour long file and delete 2 hours of it in
Audition or Sound Forge 8 and it is done instantly.

Since you said Audition and I use it, I'll speak in that
context.

If you delete part of a file in Audition, you'll still be
bound by disk drive speed if your deletions are much more
than simple, or if you want to render the file in MT view.

The whole file doesn't need to be re-written, only
pointers.

IME editing in EV mode in Audition almost always involves a
lot of disk activity.

Most of the work I do is cutting and pasting which goes
quickly. Say you add reverb or eq or some other DSP to a
long file. Yes, this does have to be written to the hard
drive, but is that the limiting factor or is it the speed
of your CPU?

Depends on the speed of the drives and the CPU. I edit on an
Athlon 64 3000, and that tends to lead to sitautions that
are drive-speed bound, even with lots of large 7200 rpm SATA
drives.

I'm sure both are factors. I can't
quantitatively which is the bottleneck for any given dsp,
but others here possibly can.

I work on different machines, and that helps one get an
impression about what matters, hardware config wise.

Over time improvements in hard drive speed has generally
lagged improvements in CPU speed.

"Julian" wrote ...
I think you might be missing the point too. I may no be the best
person to explain how it works, but every function you do is not
limited to the hard drive speed. I open a 3 hour long file and delete
2 hours of it in Audition or Sound Forge 8 and it is done instantly.
The whole file doesn't need to be re-written, only pointers.

In that case, if you use 10 minutes out of a 3 hour file, you
are still storing 3 hours worth of file space. Many users would
not find that particularly admirable or beneficial.

When you cut the 2 hours out of the 3 hour file as you describe, you
actually didn't change the file on the hard drive at all (that's why it
happens almost instantaneously) To make the change really happen, you
have to save the new 1 hour file.

Surely there is someone out there using RAID O configured hard drives.
Are they faster or not?

On 19 Oct 2005 20:55:41 -0700, "jixelub" wrote:

When you cut the 2 hours out of the 3 hour file as you describe, you
actually didn't change the file on the hard drive at all (that's why it
happens almost instantaneously) To make the change really happen, you
have to save the new 1 hour file.

I know. That's what I meant by it "only changes the pointers". I'm
saying I can take a long live 2 track recording cut it down to a
single 80 minute CD, do short fade ins and outs between tracks add
splits etc. without having to wait on the hard drive hardly at all
until I go to save the finished recording or if I need to do some dsp.
I don't mind waiting 5 minutes at that point. I'm usually ready to go
to the fridge for a cold beverage about then.

But I would also like to hear some hard facts about how much faster
RAID 0 is.

"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com


Surely there is someone out there using RAID O configured
hard drives. Are they faster or not?

Been there, done that.

I pretty well scrapped striping for any purpose when 7200
rpm drives got cheap and common.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"jixelub" wrote in message
oups.com


Surely there is someone out there using RAID O configured
hard drives. Are they faster or not?

Been there, done that.

I pretty well scrapped striping for any purpose when 7200 rpm drives got
cheap and common.

I agree with Arny on this. Raid 0 is faster, but this was more important
when disks were slower. If speed is your primarily concern, consider moving
to a 10,000 rpm Raptor drive and mirroring it for safety and then archiving
it offline onto a more conventional 7200 disk or transferring it via
network to a storage server. 74GB is still a lot of space for individual
project files.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news
74GB is still a lot of space for individual project
files.

In my case, just 12.

My current editing machine has a max capacity of just under
half a terrabyte on 4 drives. The field recorder has about
half that.