5600 vs. 7200 hard drive? anyone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EddieRice
  • Start date Start date
E

EddieRice

New member
Was wondering if anypne could answer this for me.

Im using Cubase 32/5 which is on my 5600 hard drive.

I understand a 7200 is the way to go.

Okay but heres the question:

Can i leave my Cubase on my 5600 and record and save to my 7200, or does the cubase program need to be on the 7200 hard drive in order to take advantage of the faster speed?

Confused in Tampa
 
Yes, you can leave the Cubase program on the 5400 rpm drive and save your recorded waves to the 7200 rpm drive. The speed is most needed in the ability to playback the wave files.
 
I am currently doing precisely that...

5400 rpm drive has apps
7200 rpm drive has audio...

Next rebuild, I'm dropping out the 5400 drive, cuz its old and small, and apps will load and start faster, and I already have another 7200 rpm drive....

Queue
 
I'd like to add a faster drive and save audio to it, just as you're describing. But... I use Pro Audio 9, which as you may know has this crazy system of filing.... is it as simple as saving the song the first time in the second hard drive? Then continuing to save it in the new drive? Or do I need to change something in Cakewalk's preferences to automate that?

Also.... a real computer doofus question here. If I add a second 7200 drive, do I need to format it? Put software on it?

I'm running Win 98SE on my primary hard drive now, if that helps. I use Cakewalk and Sound Forge for tweaking and "mastering."
 
Dunno 'bout Cakewalk, you set it in the preferences and/or project properties in Vegas.

You will need to format the second drive. Go read the "hard drive optimization" article at prorec.com, it will tell you how to format with a bigger block size.

No software necessary (or desired) on second drive.

Queue
 
I use Cakewalk 9 also. I don't have it in front of me now, so I don't remember exactly where you find this, but there IS a configuration screen where you tell it default file saving locations. This pops up when you install it, but you can change the settings later. Check for a Preferences or Options screen, its in there somewhere.
 
In CW PA9 go to Options | Audio | Advanced. You will find settings for your Data directory and Picture directory. Set the Data directory to point to the 7200 rpm HDD. Leave the Picture directory set to your system drive. You just want audio on the 7200 rpm drive.
 
I know the faster hard drive is recommended but I'm just curious as how big the difference would be. Like for instance if I were to stay with the slower hard drive could I still get a reasonable amount of tracks out of it? Give me an example of an average track count with a system using a slower hard drive vs a faster hard drive?? I may eventually get me a faster hard drive but I want to know if my current 5400 rpm hard drive can at least handle 10 tracks (might even be less than that anyways). Systems specs: PII 350 192MB RAM. I mean it's not like upgrading to a faster hard drive will increase track count by 40 or something is it? Maybe any websites on comparisons would be helpful to if you guys got any. Just curious. Thanks. :)
 
I have a Celeron 466, a 5400RPM hard drive, and 256MB RAM (in Windows '98, there's very little difference between 128, 192, and 256, though). The hard drive is 8 gigs, and I run Windows and applications on it as well as record.

I personally don't feel like that's enough, but you may think it's just fine. I can work comfortably with 8-12 tracks at a time. I find that with that limit, I'm forced to do a lot of bouncing.

It really depends on what kind of music you want to play.

You're almost definitely going to need to upgrade your CPU at some point, though. I run into loads of trouble with realtime effects on my computer (the power of your CPU determines how many realtime effects you can run simultaneously). A few tracks with reverb, a few tracks with compression, a few tracks with EQ, and I'm pretty much hosed. Although your CPU might have more cache memory, I'm guessing that you'll be able to run even less realtime effects than that.

And applying an effect destructively to a five minute track takes a LONG time, I think!
 
Er, to put it differently...

You can probably get by with what you already have. It's enough for you to lay some tracks down, and play around a bit. But you will also probably begin to feel limited rather quickly.

On the other hand, let's say you're a singer/songwriter. Maybe you only want your songs to have a couple of acoustic guitar tracks, one or two vocal tracks, and a little hand percussion. Your current computer might be perfectly cozy for that! It all depends on what you're going to do with it.
 
thanks Eurythmic...that was kind of the answer I was looking for (someone who uses a 5400 rpm hard drive). I'm just one of those people who isn't entirely too demanding when it comes to PC recording (you know, not those must record 8 tracks at a time, dumping 24 tracks at once type of people). I'm hoping my computer will be one of those cozy ones...even by today's standards it may seem slower but I swear this thing operates smoother than some of the other computers I've been on...some even in the gigahertz range! I hardly get frozen screens, blue screens of death, and all that stuff...*crosses fingers* And I'm running what many people claim to be one of the main unstable OS, Win 98. It's kind of like if my computer can possibly handle my needs why spend big bucks on something bigger where I won't even hardly utilize the computer's maximum capabilities. My grandma recently got a new Dell computer...and you can most certainly guess she's not going to use much of that thing's power, hard drive space, etc. I heard it took her 30 min to type 3 sentences. But I better hush, I love my granny. :) But you know what I mean. But I guess I'll see what my computer can handle when the soundcard arrives. Who knows I may need to get a faster hard drive after all.
 
Basslord1124 said:
thanks Eurythmic...that was kind of the answer I was looking for (someone who uses a 5400 rpm hard drive). I'm just one of those people who isn't entirely too demanding when it comes to PC recording (you know, not those must record 8 tracks at a time, dumping 24 tracks at once type of people). I'm hoping my computer will be one of those cozy ones...even by today's standards it may seem slower but I swear this thing operates smoother than some of the other computers I've been on...some even in the gigahertz range! I hardly get frozen screens, blue screens of death, and all that stuff...*crosses fingers* And I'm running what many people claim to be one of the main unstable OS, Win 98. It's kind of like if my computer can possibly handle my needs why spend big bucks on something bigger where I won't even hardly utilize the computer's maximum capabilities. My grandma recently got a new Dell computer...and you can most certainly guess she's not going to use much of that thing's power, hard drive space, etc. I heard it took her 30 min to type 3 sentences. But I better hush, I love my granny. :) But you know what I mean. But I guess I'll see what my computer can handle when the soundcard arrives. Who knows I may need to get a faster hard drive after all.
Click to expand...

I think that you have the right idea, Basslord. You may even have a faster hard drive than me. Mine was built in 1998, and the technology is constantly improving. My HDD is even pre-ATA33!

Anyway, this is highly subjective, but computer recording is SO much easier to get into than it's often painted out to be. A lot of people on this forum are working with some simply amazing equipment, as you'll find out - so they have highly developed tastes. When a new person comes on asking what he should buy, people often recommend that they buy the best. Then those newbies often come back wondering why their first recordings with the SuperDuperMegaUltraRecordingTool don't sound like the latest record by <insert band here>. I call this condition "geargasm". People spend loads of money expecting a professional result, but the law of dimishing returns works heavily with recording equipment.

I guess there's something to be said with buying the best and then growing into it, but I prefer the "begin with what you already have" approach. Once you start to learn when it takes to make a good recording, and once you discover how your beginning equipment limits what you can do, that's when I think it's time to start moving into some higher-level equipment.

But you're on the right track. Great recordings can be made with a good mic, a good preamp, and a Sound Blaster. Work at it for a while, and you'll see.
 
EddieRice said:
Was wondering if anypne could answer this for me.

Im using Cubase 32/5 which is on my 5600 hard drive.

I understand a 7200 is the way to go.

Okay but heres the question:

Can i leave my Cubase on my 5600 and record and save to my 7200, or does the cubase program need to be on the 7200 hard drive in order to take advantage of the faster speed?

Confused in Tampa
Click to expand...
Hey I read an article that suggested you need a 10,000 rpm drive. I don't know.
 
Re: Re: 5600 vs. 7200 hard drive? anyone?

Randall said:
Hey I read an article that suggested you need a 10,000 rpm drive. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Not bloody likely!

Unless you have an EXTREMELY complex project, 10,000RPM is overkill. Not only that, but it will kill your recordings unless you're in a perfect studio environment (one where your computer's case is sealed away in a different room). 10,000RPM drives are high noise, high vibration drives that are designed for file servers. They'll make a lot of noise on their own, but they also cause a lot of friction and must be cooled by extra fans (creating even more noise).

There will probably be a 10,000RPM consumer hard drive in the not too distant future, but I would NOT recommend one for any average home recordist as things currently stand. Especially not with the easy availability of IDE RAID arrays.
 
Basslord,
Mebbe you and Granny could trade PC's? :eek:

My mantra is this:

Use what you have until it limits you to the point where you can't stand not upgrading...

Queue

-You'll know when you are there
 
Re: Re: Re: 5600 vs. 7200 hard drive? anyone?

Eurythmic said:


Not bloody likely!

Unless you have an EXTREMELY complex project, 10,000RPM is overkill. Not only that, but it will kill your recordings unless you're in a perfect studio environment (one where your computer's case is sealed away in a different room). 10,000RPM drives are high noise, high vibration drives that are designed for file servers. They'll make a lot of noise on their own, but they also cause a lot of friction and must be cooled by extra fans (creating even more noise).

There will probably be a 10,000RPM consumer hard drive in the not too distant future, but I would NOT recommend one for any average home recordist as things currently stand. Especially not with the easy availability of IDE RAID arrays.
Click to expand...
Ha! That reminds me of my old English neighbors.Thanks fgor the info Euryth.
 
Queue said:
Basslord,
Mebbe you and Granny could trade PC's? :eek:

My mantra is this:

Use what you have until it limits you to the point where you can't stand not upgrading...

Queue

-You'll know when you are there
Click to expand...

LOL, that's what I was thinking actually (but didn't put it in my post as to contradict myself ya know?). Only bad part about granny's puter compared to mine is mine actually has a CD Burner...hers just has a CDrom. But not like installing a CD Burner would be difficult, I've done it before with ours. And I agree with your mantra, but those double negatives make it look bad, hehe. I think there has been talk around here to perhaps upgrade our processor though, that might be the next thing we'll upgrade...I'd probably just be happy with a 750 or something, rather than one of those gigahertz things. Only time will tell...
 
Guess I should rework that mantra (get rid of that double negative...)

Is there a PII @ 750? If not, you'll need a new MOBO....

Queue
 
Queue said:
Guess I should rework that mantra (get rid of that double negative...)

Is there a PII @ 750? If not, you'll need a new MOBO....

Queue
Click to expand...

Not if his motherboard can handle the bus speed that the 750 requires. I have a PII/Celeron motherboard, and if I wanted to I could drop in a new BIOS and move up to a PIII 850mhz. It's not an option that I personally would go with, but many motherboards are easily upgradeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top