dxi,s on c drive or d drive?
- Thread starter pattygram
- Start date
dachay2tnr
One Hit Wonder
I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as that. While the DXi itself may be application code, many of them (Edirol VSC for ex.) come with their own samples.
I started a thread a few days back questioning whether it would better to house samples on your audio drive - using the same logic behind keeping wave files on a separate drive. It appears many people do keep them on a separate drive, although no one seems to know for sure if there is any benefit to this.
For some DXi's, it's pretty easy. Live Synth Pro, for ex., is just a DXi application, and you can easily keep your sound fonts on a separate drive as they are separate from the program.
I have started trying to keep all my samples on my audio drive. However, since I did this at the same time I upgraded my computer, I can't tell if there has been any performance improvement resulting from the change.
I started a thread a few days back questioning whether it would better to house samples on your audio drive - using the same logic behind keeping wave files on a separate drive. It appears many people do keep them on a separate drive, although no one seems to know for sure if there is any benefit to this.
For some DXi's, it's pretty easy. Live Synth Pro, for ex., is just a DXi application, and you can easily keep your sound fonts on a separate drive as they are separate from the program.
I have started trying to keep all my samples on my audio drive. However, since I did this at the same time I upgraded my computer, I can't tell if there has been any performance improvement resulting from the change.
AlChuck
Well-known member
Dachay, I've been thinking about it since that thread and here's what I've kind of concluded:
The whole reason for recording to a separate drive is so that nothing else is accessing that drive while your precious bits of digitized audio are streaming en masse to the drive.
Wouldn't a DXi that was streaming samples off that same drive ala Gigasampler be something else that was accessing the drive while your precious bits of digitized audio are streaming en masse to the drive? In other words, keeping the Sound Fonts or other raw sound building blocks on the recording drive would be contrary to the main reason for having a dedicated audio drive.
Of course with drive speeds these days it's probably a moot point... but it seems to me that if you want the IDE channel of the dedicated drive to be as unclutterd as possible while tracking, then putting anything on there that might be used by the recording app -- its own DLLs, plug-ins, raw samples for DXi synths, Sound Fonts for VSampler, etc. -- would be counterproductive.
The whole reason for recording to a separate drive is so that nothing else is accessing that drive while your precious bits of digitized audio are streaming en masse to the drive.
Wouldn't a DXi that was streaming samples off that same drive ala Gigasampler be something else that was accessing the drive while your precious bits of digitized audio are streaming en masse to the drive? In other words, keeping the Sound Fonts or other raw sound building blocks on the recording drive would be contrary to the main reason for having a dedicated audio drive.
Of course with drive speeds these days it's probably a moot point... but it seems to me that if you want the IDE channel of the dedicated drive to be as unclutterd as possible while tracking, then putting anything on there that might be used by the recording app -- its own DLLs, plug-ins, raw samples for DXi synths, Sound Fonts for VSampler, etc. -- would be counterproductive.
Qwerty
New member
My take on it is that if you have a relatively modern PC with 7200rpm drives, then it is irrelevant.
I see no performance difference between my bog install which has ACPI enabled, all manner of shareware apps loading at startup, antivirus and firewall software etc and my pure, clean audio setup.
The "audio" setup has everything neatly portioned into apps and data drives, whereas the bog standard setup has everything lumped on the same partition.
No difference. Your CPU's ability to do floating point arithmetic is more important.
Toto - I don't think we're in 486-ville anymore
I see no performance difference between my bog install which has ACPI enabled, all manner of shareware apps loading at startup, antivirus and firewall software etc and my pure, clean audio setup.
The "audio" setup has everything neatly portioned into apps and data drives, whereas the bog standard setup has everything lumped on the same partition.
No difference. Your CPU's ability to do floating point arithmetic is more important.
Toto - I don't think we're in 486-ville anymore
dachay2tnr
One Hit Wonder
While you guys are right, that this is somewhat irrelevant given the proper computer, there still should be a right and wrong way to do this.
AlChuck, I understand your logic. I guess the question is whether samples should be treated like Waveform pictures - in which case they would go on the OS drive - or simply like additional wave files (which in many cases, that's exactly what they are), in which case they would go on the audio drive.
I wish the Cakewalk Reps would visit here more often than simply when they have a new product to sell.
AlChuck, I understand your logic. I guess the question is whether samples should be treated like Waveform pictures - in which case they would go on the OS drive - or simply like additional wave files (which in many cases, that's exactly what they are), in which case they would go on the audio drive.
I wish the Cakewalk Reps would visit here more often than simply when they have a new product to sell.