too much harddisk space can be dangerous (audio recording)

M

mildtwist

New member
hey..i don't know much bout computers hardware..so i like to ask for opinions..i have a Amd Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ 2.0 ghz with 512 of ram and 80 gb of hardisk space..so i like to ask i wanna upgrade to 2 gigs of ram and 500mb of harddisk space but i search thru the forums and some say that too much of harddisk space can be dangerous and not very useful at the same time..so how much do i need exactly? my plan is to get m-audio 2496 soundcard and also m-audio 88keys..and will be having loads of sounds and samples..cause i be playing the midi controller thru my soundfonts and also vst instruments :)

hope yall can roughly get what im tryna say..hehe..thankx a million..

peace :)
 
get a few harddisks, i reccomend 320gb seagate barrrucada 7200rpm. leave the 80gb for ur OS solely, 1 hdd for audio files, another hdd for vst insturments (if ure using powerful insturment libraries assuming). and another one for more libraries . if ure using ewql plat.xp orchestra and many other heavy instument libraries, spread out the load on different HDDs.
 
When a HD is too large, the plate is thin. When you use it for storage, it's fine. But if you run samples (which you seem to be intending to be doing), you have to watch out. When samples are being streamed off the HD, the HD works overtime. Your HD wears out faster.

In the past, many would suggest not using anything larger than 120GB for sample streaming. But HD are getting better nowadays. I still wouldn't go for anything too large, and definitely not larger than 300GB. Also, to maximise HD streaming of samples, it's better to use multiple HDs rather than streaming all your samples off one HD. You can better performance. The only thing you have to deal with is the noise of the multiple HD.
 
sh*t..i thought its easy as abc..lol..i tot that just buying one 320gb size harddisk drive that cost $200 plus can solve the laggin or latency problems and stuff..i thought and guess wrong..i appreciate and understand what u guys wrote but im really a dummy when it comes to computers..really..hmm..so how ey?..what do u guys suggest?
 
When purchasing, look for lowest seek time. For sampling, that's the crucial bit. The rpm can be misleading. 2 HD with 7200rpm can perform quite differently.
 
If your HDD is big, the system would have to search for data in a big space as well. If your HDD is small, then the search is going to be shorter. Simple theory. This is the computing part, the above explanations are on the physical part.

Take note of partitions. The above situation is rectified once you have small partitions inside your big HDD. The search then is confined to a smaller space which continues on to the next available partition. So make a 120GB partition. You don't really have to get another HDD. The performance difference is negligible.

For consumer HDDs, you don't really have much choice for seek time. The lowest now is Seagate, and you can't go wrong. Nearly all of the brands are identical because the competition is good when it comes to mainstream HDD sales. You could go for WD Raptor, but it will set u back a few hundred dollars for 120GB. SCSI disks are out of the question.
 
SATA is the way to go of course. But note that the HD-motherboard bridge is NOT the bottleneck for speed in DAW apps. Faster is always better. However, the bottleneck still lies in the seek time of the HD, esp in sample streaming. With a fast HD, my old Ultra ATA 100Mhz runs at no noticeable delay (although I was running SCSI drives at 10,000rpm with less than 5 sec seek time). My current notebook replacement is running Ultra ATA 133MHz - no delay (7200rpm - Seagate). Get a slow HD and doesn't matter if you're using SATA or PATA, you'll get into problems.
 
Hi, gutturalpiss. Do you mean that using a 120 GB partition into 3 x 40GB the performance will be more or less same as 3 separate 40 GB Harddisk?
 
No, not the same. When there are 3 physical drives, the spinners on each will work less than it would have to if one drive had 3 partitions. In one HDD, the system would still need to search the 3rd partition if the required data was not present in the first 2. So then it beats the whole idea.

I'm just saying the money you would spend on one extra drive wouldn't justify what u intend to get from it as with a partition the first one always gets priority.

Say if u were to have one big 320GB. Ur system needs to search the entire disk algorithmically from sector 0, meaning the start of the cluster(s) until it reaches the data. What if ur data is not near to the first few cluster groups? The search takes longer.

But if u make a partition of 120 GB from the first sector onwards, u are assured that ur data would be confined to that area.

It won't work for any partitions after that because it would then still take longer. So it only matters when ur talking about having just one extra drive, not more. Take note, if the OS comes pre-installed on the system, this idea won't make sense because for Windows the C partition already is the first partition. I normally partition first before installing any OS. In TS's case though, he already has one disk hosting the OS, and are concerned only about a large capacity (in which case he can apply this theory).
 
Depends on the HDD how it was built.

WIth 2 same capacity HDD, one can have a single platter ( 1 spinning disk inside ) or double platter or more.

Everything else the same, a faster rpm HDD will yield faster seek / read / write.

Everything else the same, double platter records data less densely as a single platter.

Most HDD ranging from 7200 to 15,000 rpm. I think at one point of time, you should get an external drive for backup via USB ports.. to save all your hard work.

Now there is new technology - a new recording technology ( not sure if I can say that word yet cos it might be violation some regulations ) which will record a data using 50% less space on a platter, alll else being equal.

8)

As usual, buy the best the technology can offer. :)
 
I take back my words .. maybe its still rumours.. :lol:

use a technology called heat-assisted magnetic recording (HAMR). These isn’t much detail on exactly how this works, but a single square inch of hard disk space will be able to store 50 terabits of data
Click to expand...

PMR is older technology already
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aurallion
WTS Korg M3 Expanded 61 Key
Replies
0
Views
890
aurallion
aurallion
C
WTS - Mint condition NI Maschine Studio (SGD $850)
Replies
0
Views
641
chilliorketchup
C
J
  • Locked
SOLD WTS M-Audio MobilePre USB Interface with Microphone Preamp @S$120
Replies
0
Views
1K
JabSTAR
J
Simon's Band Services
Recording, Photography, Graphic Design - STARTUP RATES!
Replies
0
Views
971
Simon's Band Services
Simon's Band Services
S
Wts keyboards & audio gear
Replies
1
Views
2K
Shaaban
S

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top